EPPHATA to F. T. OR, THE DEFENCE of the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of ELIE, Lord High-Almoner and Privy Counsellor to the KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. CONCERNING HIS ANSWER to Cardinal BELLARMINE'S Apology: Against the slanderous cavils of a nameless Adjoiner; entitling his Book in every page of it, A Discovery of many fowl absurdities, falsities, lies, etc. Wherein THESE THINGS CHIEFLY are discussed, (besides many other incident.) 

1. The Pope's false Primacy, claiming by Peter.  
2. Invocation of Saints, with Worship of creatures, and Faith in them.  
3. The Supremacy of Kings both in Temporal and Ecclesiastical matters and causes, over all states and persons, etc. within their Realms and Dominions.    
By Dr. Collins, chaplain to HIS MAJESTY.  Apoc. 18. 7. 
Give her Torture.  
PRINTED BY CANTRELL LEG, Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1629   

TO HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY, JAMES By the grace of GOD King of Great Britain, France, & Ireland, defender of the Faith, our most Sovereign Lord, of God beloved, etc.  
MOST GRACIOUS and DREAD SOVEREIGN,  
MAY it please Your MAJESTY, out of your Princely Clemency, which exceeding all things, yet enclaspes the least, to vouchsafe to these poor labours (true Benoni-es, the sons of my sorrow, so many disasters have annoyed them from the womb, and some with the peril of their parent's life) the skirt of your royal clothing, or but the shadow of your skirt, Acceptance with Patronage: Undertaken at first by your majesties commandment, for the repulsing of the lewd slanders of a nameless Papist, and to redeem the credit of a renowned Bishop; but continued to the confirmation of Your majesties liege people, in their Reiligion to GOD, and their Obedience to your MAJESTY, with all subjection. In quibus duobus, universa Lex pendet, & Prophetae, (to speak it in his words, whose doctrine it was most, yea whose only errand it was, as Hegesippus testifies) I mean, in seeking the face of GOD, and his JACOB, as some even Papists have noted upon that Psalm, that they are distinguished there not without cause, and the one is consequent, or to be consequent, to the other.  
But not so the Cardinal (the more too blame he) a main stickler in these Controversies (after the Pope and the pioneers) that encumber the world; and I know not by what luck, though Ceruini generis animal, yet Your majesties audacious concurrent in the cause. Who if he were younger, perhaps he might be borne with, either fancying his superstitions, or fostering his seditions: As the Stoic Philosopher was wont to say, that a young man at Sea, if he abandon the Ship to walk ashore a while, and either dig some root, or gather some shell which the Sea casts forth, there is no danger in it; but in an old man it is dangerous, whom death, and sickness, and sundry casualties may prevent, from ever recovering ship again. Yet he in his devoutest meditations of all other, his book last set forth the Aeterna felicitate, will not excuse Kings from being murdered de iure, (not only de facto) only he passes it over as a casus omissus, happily because anouched in his other Volumes more peremptorily.  
Of another mind was his Uncle, of whom he brags in one place, contesting with your MAJESTY, (though S. chrysostom note, that S. Paul's sister's son, of whom there is mention in the Acts, was never a whit the blesseder for his uncles virtue, and as it may seem never any good came of him; save only that he revealed the jews conspiracy against Paul, which this man would rather defend the concealing of) but Marcellus secundus, of whom I was saying, (witness the Historian that alleges friendship (for more faith) and some intimitie wit●d●im) In animo habuerat omnem militiam à se prorsus abigere, ipsos etiam corporis custodes exauctorare (whereas Bellarmine lately urged this Pope to draw the sword, if fame say true; his Uncle not admitting of necessary Defence, if it were forcible;) cum illud saepe repeteret, multos principes viros, non tam armis defensos, quam signo Crucis, etc. (himself having been lately Cardinal Sanctae Crucis.) And in particular of the Pope, Pontificem maximum neutiquam indigere, aut scutis, aut gladijs (indeed Athanasius removes all iron from the Apostles, and S. Austen will not have them strike, though they may carry weapons, far ferrum, but not ferire) satiusque esse ipsum si res ferat occîdi, quam tam indecorum exemplum praeberi Ecclesiae, namely as for the Pope either to handle a sword, or give allowance to others, at his direction, so to do.  
So as no marvel, if the same man, considering the practices of such as were Popes in his time, clapped his hand once upon the table, protesting in great earnestness, that it seemed impossible for a Pope (as things than went) to be saved. And another says, it was the voice of almost all men in those days, that a Pope could not be saved, when this Marcellus came to it. I know not what contentment the Cardinal may take in his new skarlet-additions, which they would make us believe he accepted of so loathly; but for my part, I should think one day of his Uncles, (as Tully says of Antony, compared with his grandfather) were more to be desired, than a whole age of the Cardinals, lending his pen and bending his wit to the defence of such trumperies, and, which is worse, of such treacheries, as are now in ure with them; the dislike whereof, and only intended Reformation, cost his Uncle his life, and that in very short space, after he came to the Popedom.  
Of whom, because I have said so much, almost before I was aware, I will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, trouble Your Royal ear (as that Council speaks, which forbids Clerks to disturb Kings, not only in their states, or lives, (as now the fashion is,) but so much as in their leisures:) only this it may please Your MAJESTY give me leave to add, That the Pope whom I speak of (as Onu●…us testifies) OMNEM ECCLESIASTICAM JURISDICTIONEM, viris profanis, & nullis sacris initiatis, demandare cogitaverat; had a purpose to translate all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to mere Laymen: he calls them profane; but the more vehemently he expresses it, the more it makes for us, and against themselves: the Papists all so storming at the thing this day, and the Adjoinder by name (with whom therefore I have a dealing about this point somewhat at large) in Your majesties high Prerogative, and justest Title; allowing You, by no means, Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: (if happily You should ever fulfil their suspicion of owning it:) Though KINGS were so far from being counted profane, by the ancient Synods of CHRIST'S Church, that their letters were holy to them, their syllables holy, their palace holy, their very bedchamber holy, and all that was about them, or belonged to them, sacred and holy, in the style of those godly times, and Fathers.  
Where I cannot but observe, the providence of GOD, that requites human actions, and how even a course it keeps with our courses. For as the intents were good, which Marcellus fostered, but no effects followed, nay rather his Nephew draws now back most of all, and mainly opposes his uncles determinations: So we read, that the Cardinals in favour of his person (because reputed honest, and well be loved amongst them) decreed to have his charges of the direption of his house and household stuff, (a grave custom no doubt, and worthy of Christ's Vicar, to have all rifled, and ransacked, that the people can but lay hands of, when he is chosen Pope) to be repaid him of the public; but it was never done (saith the Historian) till this day.  
But to leave the Uncle (sith our question is not whether the Popes may keep guards about their persons, but whether King's crowns, or (if that be more dear) their lives are to be wholly at the Pope's disposing) and to return to the Nephew; He is peremptory, as I said, in his most mortified Treatise, and the forerunner of his end (as he would have it thought at least) that Kings are subject to murder, at best: First, de facto; though the Scripture as it flatters not, nor no where diverts us from the consideration of our mortality, so it leads us to speak of KINGS and Princes in another strain; as if they that ought not to be violated by any mortal hand, could not die at all, or at least not die, till God himself assoiled them of the bands of this body. How was he slain (says David of Saul) as if he had not been anointed with oil? And, O King, live for ever, says the Prophet Daniel, not any courtly flatterer. The King's soul is bound up with God in the bundle of life, as it were Gero in sinu, nec discingor; fast bound, and not to shed out. The period of their government, is cum Sole & Luna, as long as the Sun and Moon endureth. And though they die like men, (that is, quatenus homines, non quatenus Reges) yet we are to remember, that they fall like one of the PRINCIPES, that is, one of the Angels (says the Cardinal himself, among others, upon that Psalm) who we know are not judged, till GOD judges them: though, no doubt but that aggravates their judgement so much the forer.  
And whereas the Scripture so often, entitles the constitution of Kings to GOD, it may be it is to show, that their authority is inabrogable; as the Platoniques hold opinion, that whatsoever is mortal, was produced by some mediation of the vile creature, as man of the dust, most things of the materia prima, etc. but that which immediately proceeds of God himself, as the souls of men, and the Angels, and the heavens, they are immortal. So of Princes.  
Yet the Cardinal not content with a death de facto, implies that they may be slain de iure too, though he affirm upon the other only, which belike was enough to serve his turn in that place. No more Ceruinus now, nor of the mother's breed (which was the better of the two) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— as Constantine bespoke Arius in the Nicene Council, somewhat merrily; for the one hath Mars, the other war, and weapons, and threats in his name; and as the one opposed the natural, so the other the mystical Christ, he in his person, this in his offices and principal officers; but each of them to the most lamentable embroiling of Chrsts Church. And as the one of them was quelled by the Imperial Constantine, judicially proceeding, and Synodically sentencing him, with his band of three hundred and eighteen Bishops; So against the other, God hath excited Your most excellent MAJESTY, but without the trouble or labour of an Ecclesiastic Synod, to overthrow him by YOUR pen, and the pen of one only Bishop of Your many; yet worth many, where all most worthy.  
And albeit Your MAJESTY needs no Defender, abounding with so many continually about Your Person, guarding the bed, and girding to them the sword (as the Spouse speaks) (besides Your own inherent puissance invincible) yet because what I have now uttered concerning the Cardinal and his mortified propositions (crossing with Your MAJESTIES both State and Honour, as much as may be) I have uttered it with the privity of many of Your liege people, (whom I confess, as before, that my especial care hath been to confirm, and whereof some perhaps will not disdain to cast their eyes upon these papers, if at least they may pass with Your majesties approbation) it were worth the considering, what correspondence such grounds have with the ancient doctrine, which the Cardinal and his followers would seem so close to follow. Of chrysostom, for one, That a Sovereign King is accountable to none (not only to his Subjects, but) not so much as to his Successor, (as David said even now, that he is to be judged like the Angels, that is, by God, and by God only, and neither living nor dead by any other:) The same chrysostom again noting in another place, that where as the Psalmist passes over other miracles of the wilderness in deep silence, he insists only upon the death of Og and Sehon, two mighty monarchs; because King's lives are so wholly in God's hands, and the disposition of them is always miraculous, reserved and appropriated to God himself. Of Basil, That a King is subject to no judge: Of Ambrose, that nullis tenetur legibus, not only the King of Israel, but not the King of Egypt: Or (because the Papists make his case the worse of the two, that should be the better in all reason,) not only the King of Egypt, but not the King of Israel; for he says it of both of them, & in two several places. Of that Pope in Theodoret (Anastasius I take it) who persecuting Flavian (as his Predecessors had done for a long time before) Theodosius that was their arbiter, bid the Pope let go Flavian (because he saw there was malice) and argue against himself, as if he were Flavian, giving him good leave to say what he could. To whom that Pope most submissly; We may not do so, if please your Majesty, it is not lawful for us to implead a King; not only in his person, but not personating another, not fictione juris, as the Lawyers say. Yea the very heathen Poet, and one of the wretchedest, yet he had so much grace in him, as to make servants themselves safe under a Crown (though worn not for Sovereignty, but for Solemnity only, as was the fashion in their festivals) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for that which follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. it is right the doctrine of our modern Jesuits concerning Kings, that if first they be decrowned, than they may be used, no longer as Kings, but as private men, that is, abused at pleasure. Even the Cardinal himself opens his eyes at last, (the case is so clear) and acknowledges as much. The STEWARD of a house (says he) may be deposed by none, but only by the grand-master of the Family: which is God in the world, as the Steward in the State is the King, by analogy. Not but that his meaning is as traitorous as ever (for he understands it of his Pope) but I suppose Your majesties name was partly fatal to give him light (which is the character of Supremacy engraven in you by God) and partly it confirms my opinion of him, that if Your MAIESTES' Books and rare travails in this cause (out of which we all take, that now write any thing) had been but read of him when he was young, and afore he was embondaged in this damnable prejudice, he would have yielded to the spirit and power which they are fraught with, acknowledged your proofs, submitted to your reasons, admired Your MAJESTIES & cor & linguam; and finally thanked God for him his converter, whom now he is feign to endure his confuter. But, longa dies quid non captivat? making us, as S. chrysostom says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to prefer even garlic before Ambrosia.  
But although not he (froward as he is) yet there are others infinite both foreigners & domestics, that profit by Your majesties peerless writings daily; not only to the enlarging of their skill and knowledge (whereof your Works may seem to be an Universal Seminary) but to their redeeming from ruin (which Vn-subiection draws to) and building them up to everlasting salvation in the world to come, with quiet minds and content in this present, which before they wanted. And truly our hope is, that the Rights which Your MAJESTY shall transmitt to your posterity, as nobly cleared by Your pen, as ever they were won by your Ancestors swords, will both breed much peace to the Land in general, and great security to Your royal offspring the inheritors, confusion to the adversaries, and barkers against Sovereignty; even as long as either learning shall be held in price, or a man shall be left alive to revolve books.  
Whereof because this work pursues the remainders, and treads the same way, though in a most improportionable distance, once again imploring Your majesties sacred Patronage, worthy to be a Sanctuary to a greater trespasser) both out of Your love to the cause, and out of Your love to the coat, (which is so great and so gracious, as no fame will be so niggard, but to record it to the furthest ensuing ages,) I beseech the GOD of ALL things, even for his dear sons sake, (which is our hope, and our glory, defending Your MAJESTY, and by Your MAJESTY defended) to accomplish his rare Graces upon Your majesties Royal Head: Or, in stead of augmenting them, to add but this one more blessing, to the many that he hath multiplied, super virum dextrae suae, super Regem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eundemque Phil-ecclesiasticum, (in whom no body could ever discern any cause of doubt, save only whether Your zeal to the Church, or to the Clergy, were greater) even PERPETVITIE and ETERNITY, the Imperial style, and patrimony of Kingdoms, in the most Orthodox language.  
Your majesties most humbly-bounden, and devoted servant, in all dutiful and grateful subjection, S. COLLINS.   

TO THE READER.  
BEfore I come to the main matter, I think it not unfit (Courteous Reader) to acquaint thee a little with the conditions of the man, against whom this is intended, for intending against one so much better than himself, to use no more than David's 
1. King. 2.  phrase, about the murdering of Abner, by unmanly violence, and butcherly force; which base circumstances, no doubt, increased the tragedy of that worthy Champion, in the opinion of David. And surely so it is. A noble hand eases much a grievous stroke, insomuch 
Hoc etiam turpiùs a●… ctatur Respub. quòd ne ab co quidè vexatur, ut tanquam fortis in pugna vir, acceptis à forti adversario vulneribus, etc. Lament. 5. 〈◊〉.  as Tully bemoanes the Commonwealth of Rome in one place, that she was not so happy as to be borne down by valiant adversaries, but cowards gored her, and sots insulted over her, and foxes, and recreants, ran upon the battlements of her, as the Prophet complains; servi dominati sunt nostri, says jeremy, Slaves have ridden over our heads. Not that I would have the glorious Faith of our LORD JESUS CHRIST to be held in the partial respect of persons, which 
* jam. 2. 1. Baron. tom. 1. ad annum 34. num. 79. Et tamen alibi, multus est in co, ut aureas bracteas quasdam, sive bullas, & jacobo ipsi, & Apostolis ommibus; ad colla circundet. Ex Eu●●b. Clem Epiph. & aliis. Satin' ut sibi conste●● Eodem Tom num.: 93.  S. james forbids, (where Baronius says Kings are secretly nipped at, and why forsooth? but for the description of the man with the gold ring, whereas now we may find pearls upon the Pope's shoes: S. james being so far from nipping Kings in that Epistle, that as if he had foreseen that one of his own name should lead the field in time to come, against the impugners of Sovereignty, he gives the onset so well, as to call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Kingly, or the royal Law, understanding 
ubi suprà. v. 8.  the Divine; not so then.) Nor that I would not have all to open their mouths, of what sort soever, in the cause of God, and his holy truth: it is not we that exclude Eldad from prophecy, or Medad from consultation, but Bellarmine that blesses them, with, Populus qui extra est. non 
De verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 15.  novit legem, and therefore maledictus; The people which is without, they are accursed. But yet me thinks some decorum would be observed in these conflicts, and though all cannot be coped with by their matches in worth, as Kings by Kings, as Alexander said, (for the sword devours now one, now another) and so Bishops by Bishops, which the ancient Canons have a special care of, that every rakeshame should not challenge a Bishop, no not a Priest, says S. Paul, under 
1. Tim. 5. 19  some store of witnesses: yet modesty might be kept, and fair dealing maintained, and respective war of both sides nourished, that which wants in other points, to make even the encounters, being supplied by humility, and courtesy, and moderation (as the Masters of the prizes are wont to equal the weapons of the combatants, afore they begin.) From which this man is so far, that like the Orators in Tully, who the worse they spoke, the louder they cried, & whom therefore he compares to lame riders, that not able to go on foot, would needs be prancing on horseback; so he mends his stature by a false shoe, as it were, and as another Publican after Matthaeus Tortus, climbs the sycomore of his own wild fancies, to overlook the croudes: or like the painter's boy, that being to paint Helen, cum pulchram pingere non posset, pinxit divitem; so what he lacks in learning, he lays on load in lies, in taunts, in terms, and in abominable railings. Which for my part, I cannot see what effect it is like to have, with the judicious Readers, if at least any such cast their eyes upon these pamphlets, (for we are not ignorant to what kind of people they are consecrated) then to strip them quite of all credit, and even pitch them over the bar, like forlorn lawyers, for not caring what they say, nor of whom they affirm: as the Scripture prophecies of such like fellows in one place, that their own tongue shall make them fall. So as henceforth it will be no shame for others, to be miscalled by them, and thundered upon with all the vile terms that may be, after such a Reverence could not escape their bad usage, and a person besides exception, was depraved and disgraced by them beyond all reason, as Hamans' gallows was the last that ever he set up, because erected for Mordecai, a virtuous man, and the wasp (says Athanasius) 
Citatur à Dadraeo.  shooting his sting but once against a rock, loses his power of annoying for ever after.  
But to do as I promised, gentle Reader, to give thee a taste of this fellows conditions, not 
a Etenim si unum hominem deterrimun poeta praestanti aliquis ingenio fictis conquisitisque vicijs deformatum vellet inducere, etc. de Arusp. Resp.  by feigning a man in the forge of Poetry, compounded of all vices, (as the Orator says,) which perhaps if I would do, I could lack no matter, nor yet following the sent of every light report, though a 
b johannes 21. apud Papyr. Masson.  Pope of theirs was so addicted to news, as he cared not what it were, so it tickled his ear, and digested false, as well as true, (whom the Cardinal it seems, imitates, for all the world, believing whatsoever our runagates bring him concerning English affairs, having quite lost his common sense, and not able to distinguish between several objects, if any whit semblable;) I say, to give thee a taste of this man's spirit, we will go no further than his own writings, and among them, than this book, that we presently deal with, shall afford instruction. Whereby his Vanity, his Virulency, his Ignorance, and his Circumstance, being sufficiently discovered, though we leave no part of the whole unexamined, (even contrary to injunction, as our saviours example was not to answer Pilate to every 
Contra Celsum in initio. 2. King. 18.  question, as Origen well notes, and so Ezechias to say nothing to Rabsace, but to let him go as he came with a flea in his ear, for all his flaunting) yet perhaps this Preface might either satisfy the cause without thy farther labour, or at least so settle thy judgement in reading, as to conceive hereby the better, of that which is answered in due place, to his barbarous imputations.  
And first, for his Vanity: it is worth the considering, how every where he couples himself with the Cardinal, and sometimes jets before him, sometimes behind him, like the fantastic wooer that Ovid describes, Et modò praecedit, sequitur modò— Places (says he) alleged by the Cardinal and myself. p. 68 The Law inter Claras alleged both by the Cardinal and by me. p. 38. Twelve Fathers alleged by the Cardinal and me. p. 356. The like you may see, p. 112. p. 245. and diverse more, for I spare. Another time, as dividing the praise between them two, partly by the Cardinal, and partly by me, says he, p. 304. But most ridiculous, where he goes before him, nothing ashamed, yea and enters into comparison with him too, very deftly. First, for action. Objected (says he) as well by me, as by 
Pag. 1. And in the very front and title-page of his book, Pl●… & authorities alleged as well by him, as by the Cardinal, etc.  the Cardinal, as if he could follow an argument, as well as the Cardinal. Again a passive. 
* Pag. 39  The Bishop's answer to S. Cyprian (says he) makes as much against me, as against the Cardinal. And many such like feathers of his frantic ambition, every where scattered throughout the work. Which had been uncouth in any, to have associated himself with another writer of fame, especially the Cardinal, where no need was, and in a treatise no way depending on his, though happily falling 
The Cardinal himself, hath taken as much into his Controversies, out of other men's writings, as any: and yet is wiser than to appeal them, or to make words of them. But no doubt the Adjoinder would have us think that good wits jumped, the Cardinal, and his, about the invention of the same argument.  into divers the same points, which he had handled before, (as what is there in Divinity, which some author or other hath not forestalled? and yet we do not name them, nor rank ourselves with them, when we prosecute the same argument:) but more strange in F. T. a man no way known, no way heard of, much less bearing any such reputation, patched up (as they say) lately out of father Parsons his relics, his leaden standish, and his wooden cansticke, (another Pseud-Epictetus) and perhaps some old notes of his musty paper-book, otherwise among a thousand the unlikeliest that could be guest at, to bear a head with the Cardinal, or to succeed him, as his 
Yet F. Parsons bought scarlet in hope to be a Cardinal, as the Seculars write of him. And this man would be known to succeed F. Parsons.  former flourishes import to be his own conceit of himself. I might add hereto his craking every where of his Supplement, whereof this is but a rib, an Eve taken out of the others side, as our Prometheus intimates, As I have noted in my Supplement, says he, p. 15. and, As I have showed in my Supplement, p. 36. I have produced in my Supplement, p. 39 Having occasion in my Supplement, p. 98. So 139. 415. 417. So in many other places we are told of the Supplement, that is, by himself of his own work, (another quality somewhat unusual among writers, that are not stark mad, to beat upon their own, especially so often) which you may think how good a Supplement, or how answerable to the title, when we should not have known it to be at all, but for this frequent supply of his own mouth. And yet for my part I never saw it, I confess, neither know I any that look after it. If it be like this, no force: here is enough to make Catullus sick, or his horse either, and once again to bethink him, how he may recure his surfeit with purgative herbs, ocymoque & urticâ: in the mean time crying out, O librum horribilem, atque pestilentem. Et haec hactenus. I speak of his Vanity, as you may remember, which appears by these two points, his marching with the Cardinal in such 
1 2  wanton equipage, as hath been showed, and his calling out upon his Supplement, though this also be a fruit of his most hateful Tediousness to come in it with so often; of which anon.  
The second is his Virulency, which you may take up by handfuls. I will not drain the fen, or stand casting the pond, I mean ransack his book by quoting the pages; but his Table of principal matters shall declare what I say, which himself hath adjoined to the end of his Adjoinder; the fourth principal in the table. I omit how he strips the Bishop of his title; And (not to say how due in all other men's judgements, the most judicious themselves thinking that they honour their judgements most, when they express the honour that they bear to him) it was not denied to Dioscorus (I forbear the rest, how unsuitable a man) yet drawing near, (as he best knows that cities the Council 
Adjoind. cap. 2. toto. Act 3. Concil. Calched.  at large) upon the point of degradation, to be termed Reverendissimus, & Deo charissimus, Episcopus, the most Reverend Bishop, and most beloved of God, at every word. But what style doth he give him, in lieu of the other, which he takes from him? Let it be viewed, where I now quoted, (like Tertullia's Ononychites, that he tells us of in his Apologeticus, set up by the Heathen, in despite of the Christians, or if ever any imagination crossed the original more foully.) His vain brags, His cogging the dice, his inclining to judaism, A man prodigal of his Rhetoric, etc. Yea, a wronger of his MAJESTY, turned plains Puritan, no friend to the Supremacy. And then over again with the same notes, not only in the book, but in the Index twice, so well they please him. fools bolts, Shuttlecocks, dull head, etc. Finally, will you hear an heinous crime? He tries how near he can corn to Popery, and yet miss it: that is, grants to the Papists as much as may be granted, though by no means betraying the Palladium of God's cause, multiplies not controversies, where no need is, abstains from brabbles, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as should the servant of God (if S. Paul 
2. Tim. 2. 23.  say true) that is, the Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keeps the depositum in precise terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, breaks not the rope with unreasonable stretching, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Basile forewarns; but joining Charity with Piety, discretion with resolution, imitates the drivers at the Olympian games, whose praise was to come near, and yet not to touch.  
Now truly having described to you, his description of the Bishop, wherein, besides his Virulency, (of which I now entreat,) both his Vanity and Tautology, and almost all appears, that before I charged him with, even Ignorance itself in the highest degree (for what more gross ignorance, then to be ignorant of the person (not only of the general, or of the cause) whom the farthest parts know, far other then so? unless purposely he would decipher him like Arbos inversa, as the Philosophers say of man, or by negagations and abstractions, as we do the Genij in Metaphysics) me thinks he hath given you a description of a jesuit, such as a better could not be wished, that shows you the world clean turned in a glass, and presumes he can alter the very nature of things, with his poisonous breath, and partial censure: not unlike to their late scholar, the parricide of France, that conceited the king to be an Aethiop 
Peter Mathieu. in the life of Henry 4. Reg. Gall.  in a Triangle, whom all the water in the sea could not wash clean, and so detesting him by degrees, at last intoxicated, slew him.  
The third is his Ignorance, and I mean only in the Latin tongue; for I will not search now his more hidden scholarship; I am content to be judged by his knowledge in the entry, in the very portal (for so is that to learning, prima de dòtibus, or, prima de cotibus.) (And as for the Greek, we were not best say much of that, though his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a great argument of it, p. 234. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accepit genua, (for, he took her by the kneees,) in the same place: Also, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for aequalis, p. 44. the very same stone that his Reverend Father 
Hudaem. Parall. p. 151.  had tripped at before: It will go well with the Bishop, if he can scape his chastisements, for spending any part of his younger days, in the study of that, which helps him to discover the Cardinal's fallacies, or false quotations.) First, pag. 40. id est, cap. 2. num. 3. because the Bishop had said, Legate canon inustum, ne maiora, sed aequalia, sint privilegia, etc. he thus; Whereas he says, that the Council of Calchedon, did by that Canon give to the Bishop of Constantinople, ne maiora, sed aequalia privilegia, etc. Which though it be the preserving of the word ne in both places, yet every mean Latinist easily sees, that ne should have been turned into none in the latter place, if he meant any sense should be in his sentence, as he began it. And therefore, I can impure it to nothing, but his lack of skill in the rudiments. But let this go for nothing, if I make it not appear yet plainer, that he is minus habens, and all too light, as he speaks of the Bishop in an other place, (for such reverence he bears him.) Pag. 42. that is, cap. 2. num. 6. thus we have. It is said expressly of the Church of Constantinople, that it should be magnified and extolled as old Rome was, secundam post illam existentem. Which is the letter, I grant, in the Council of Calchedon, but almost killing Priscian, as he sets it down, for secunda post illam existens; the Church of Constantinople (to which that refers) being ecclesia, not ecclesiam, in his period, and so to be translated, if it were to be put into Latin, I say nothing of his construing S. Austin's words, simply God knows, p. 149. Componit salutem membrorum in capite, which he englishes by compounded; compounding of healths, being a phrase scarce fit to be used by Apothecaries, or their boys, much less by Physicians, but least of all by him, that would seem to know the Latin, and to english S. Austen. Neither only can he not skill of the language himself, but mars the Bishop's Latin with his addle corruptions, Concludit testas suos cum Augustine, says he, p. 145. as quoting his words, which in the book is some what otherwise, Concludit testes suos Augustino. And so again, cap. 9 num. 53. Scrutabitur 
pag. 404. Adjoind.  Jerusalem cum lucernis, etc. Zeph. 1. (for, in lucernis;) either adding to the Scripture, or correcting his old Translators Latin, or both. Though the one be impious, the other very ridiculous, in him especially, to confront the Translator, whose Latin is not afraid of a far nicer teste. Chap. 7. numb. 33. representare Th●●dosium in liberis, is to give the children grace that they may be like their father. So as here Repraesentare stands for Likeness only, at another time for Government, for Monarchy, and for Rule. But, repraesentare defunctum, is to supply the loss of the dead Theodosius, by yielding another in his room; which S. Austen wishes may be of the posterity. Does not this also argue him a solid Latinist? Semblable is that, cap. 1. num. 11. where thus he 〈◊〉 the Bishop's words, 〈◊〉 id loquuntur Ambrose & Augustinus quam ut obstrepere possint novitij nostri: They speak it louder, or clearer, then that our novices can contradict it. Whereas it should be, then that our novices can drown it. For a man may contradict that which is never so clearly spoken, drown it or suppress it he cannot. But because he knew not the other sense of the word obstrepo, (as in Tully pro Marcello, obstrepi videntur militum clamore & tubarum sono) therefore he commits this solecism in translating. And novitij with him, be none but newly upstart; for which cause he maruells that the Papists should be so called, though neither is their petegre● so very ancient (Gibeonites rather) and rawness in ones faculty makes the oldest man to go for a novice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But by this you see the cause why he answers the Latin book with his English, because he thinks the Bishop is not his craft's master in the Latin, and so he will take no advantage against him, but deals with him in English, as one Englishman should with another, the unknown tongue being better for devotion, not for disputation.  
Lastly, whereas the Bishop speaks of Peter's disease, which S. Austen had first touched upon, namely of confidence in himself, and too much overweening, so as he stuck not to say, Et si omnes non ego; to which the Bishop adds for explication sake, id est, plus ego quam omnes, (which is the very thing that they attribute to S. Peter at this day, to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles, and worth them all: as also it follows out of his own words, for, if though all not he, than he is of more worth or force than they all) this lither fellow, this exos asinus, not so good as Issachar, an ass without bones, without proof, without metal, construes it thus, out of the fullness of his Latin, That, though all other Divines 
Vbi suprà.  would give over attempting the Pope's cure, yet so would not the Bishop; et si omnes non ego. A likely speech to be uttered by that grave Prelate, concerning himself, especially with the disparagement of the rest of our Divines, for so is his disposition, as they know that know him. But how do you think he falls upon this sense? what pucke lead him out of the way? Because the Bishop had said a little before, Praesertim cum eundem morbum in capite vestro notârint diu iam medicorum filii; Medicorum filii; says he, are Beza, and Calvin; for the old heretics were the medici, as the Donatists, etc. (whom the Papists nothing resemble, neither restraining Kings from meddling with Church-matters, nor shutting up the Church within a corner of the world, etc.) and these their sons. Then followeth, Etsi omnes, non ego, ●1. plus ego quam omnes: which in the Bishop's book refers to the morbum before spoken of, S. Peter's disease consisting in these words, a disease of pride. But what does our Gentleman? He divides etsi into two words, & and si, and then makes an interrogative at ego, construing it thus, Et si omnes, non ego? And if all do, shall not I? if all physic the Pope, shall not I? To which you may think now how handsomely that suits which follows, id est, plus ego quam omnes: as if the Bishop when he had asked that question by way of challenge, should express himself, for more perspicuity sake, by an id est, that is to say, I am more worth than they all. These are the fopperies of this great gull. And you see how profound an understander of the Latin, that is feign to point the Bishop's words anew, with his senseless interrogatives, before he can construe them, or misconstrue them rather; as likewise to divide them, and to clip them, by turning etsi into et si; but lastly, to devise a difference, between medici, and medicorum filii, a most palpable demonstration of his unmatchable dunserie, and not unlike the boys in the Grammar school, that construed pullus equinus, a horsechicken. Now cry for Elleboron Sir, now prescribe Catholicon, 
The Adjoinders prescript of Receipts to the Bishop.  like a Doctor in your faculty; which if it be the name of a Dictionary, or of a Grammar, or some such like, may stand you in good stead, for aught I know. As for the drug Catholicon, that intoxicate the brain, and pricks on to murder, and to combustion in States, it is a drug for yourself, and for your fellows, if they have not too much already. For I pass by that, that he so construes the Bishop's words (referring to S. Peter) plus ego quam omnes, as if S. Peter had been more scandalised than they all, cap. 4. num. 33. Yet this is his Latin, plus scandalizatus, for more scandalised. Which though by the rules of his Caetholicon, may pass for currant, not so by the touchstone of the more accurate Grammarians, who happily would no more say plus scandalizatus, for more scandalised, then plus illiteratus, for more unlearned.  
And though this be not all that he might be shamed with in this kind, yet come we now to the fourth, which is his Tediousness and his Talkativenes, in very truth unsupportable. 
Cruditando ortygometram, usque ad nauscam. Tertull.  I mean his lazy, and heavy, and dull repetitions of the same thing often; (the very Mathematicians do not resume their grounds, I think, oftener than he) and yet all with such a confidence, or Thrasonical boldness, as makes it much more odious. Thou mayest remember good Reader (says 
Vide cap. 10. numb. 30. item Numb. 47. & 43. maxin 〈◊〉 per totum libium.  he,) And, I have done this good Reader. Then, In such a chapter this; And, In another chapter this; As if all were so impregnable and impossible to be reversed forsooth, that he had once dealt in. Is there no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Demades said of Photion? No Sponge to wipe out a malicious crimination, as one tear of Olympias was able to deface, whatsoever lying tell-tales had conveyed into Alexander's ears, against her? But especially he triumphs in that, which above all others should not only die his cheeks in grain, but make him call for his hood, or rather his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Homer calls it, to protect him from rebuke; yea almost wish the mountains to cover him, but at least not to endure ever to look a man in the face again; as the Poet says of the like,  Et contra magnum potes hos attollere solemn: 
He accuses the Bishop, for corrupting the Fathers, by name S. Ambrose, and reiterates this crime again and again. Yea he hath never done with it. But what crime think you? or how likely to be true? The Bishop to turn corrupter of the Fathers? S. chrysostom being accused (as himself reports 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. inter Sau●….  in his Epistle ad Cyriacum) of a detestable crime, and such a one as his manners abhorred from most, offered to clear himself without speaking a word, by showing of his body. The case in hand is as clear as there, and nothing so ready as the Bishop's integrity to be viewed of all men, while the Adjoinder is guilty even of his own imputations. See Chap. 1. p. 44. where of fifteen editions that we have perused of S. Ambrose, partly printed, and partly manuscript, (all of them of the ancientest, and farthest from suspect) there is not one but citeth those controverted words, as the Bishop doth, Sixtus quintus being the first (than a private 
Also joh. Viguerius (a notable Papist) rehearses them for S. Ambroses. Vide Tabul.  man, after Pope) that presumed to cut them out, and to corrupt the Copies; which this good fellow would feign charge now upon the Bishop of Ely, for retaining them.  
And as they that tell lies, till they believe them for true themselves, though at first they knew them to be clean otherwise; or hoping to prevail 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the fashion of the heathen, or as 
a Cap. 9 num. 30. p. 384. Adjoind.  himself speaks (the flower of Eloquence) 
Matth. 6.  after the gentilical fashion, thus he furbushes it over and over. 
b Adjoin. p 418. & similia 419. id est, cap. 9 num. 71. 72. 73. etc.  Thou mayest remember good Reader, (says he) what poor stuff he produced (so he speaks of the Bishop) to prove that S. Peter had nothing peculiar to himself, by his pastoral commission, etc. when nevertheless to make good his idle conceit, he was feign to use great fraud and corruption, in the allegation of those two Fathers (Austen and Ambrose) corrupting the text of S. Ambrose, as I have amply declared in the first chapter of this Adjoinder, Numb. 3. & sequent. ad 12. etc. Whereas no such corrupter on the otherside as himself. And indeed what marvel if he corrupt the Fathers, and wring their noses, till he fetch out blood, as Solomon says (such bloody positions as they foster now in their schools, with the danger of whole states) when he abuses the Bishop's words so before his face, as I even now declared, cutting Etsi into Et and Si, and to show you how punctual he is in his reciting, marring and monstrifying another's directest meaning, with his own most prodigious interpunctions. You would say he were a Procrustes, with his bed of tyrannies (worse than Ogs iron bed) to crucify his strangers. But is this all? doth he not corrupt the Fathers also most grossly himself? Augustine, when he alleges him upon the 108. Psal. Cuius ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam, pag. 6. of the Adjoinder, which in S. Austen is not so, but thus rather, Cuius ecclesiae ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestâsse personam: gestâsse being of less force to serve his turn then gessisse by much, and in figura being left out, which serves to turn all clean another away. Again S. Cyprian, de unitate ecclesiae: out of whom he thus cities, p. 101. To show an unity, he ordained one chair. As if that were the chair of the universal Bishop, that is, the Pope. But in S. Cyprians words there is no mention of chairs, either one or more. The words are only these, Vt unitatem 
Morel. edit Paris. 1564. sed & aliae editiones Pontificiae non dissentiunt, praeter Pamel.  manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem, ab uno incipientem, suâ auctoritate disposuit. And yet professing to english them, he couches very handsomely into the heart of them, I know not what about the appointing of one chair, belike for the Pope to sit down in, and rest himself, whom S. 
* Vide Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 3. & Ep. 4. Nisi pancis desperatis & perditis, minor videtur esse authoritas Episco porum Africa [quam Romae.] Item ad Pomp. contra Epist. Stephani. Stephanus (saith he) maintains the cause of heretics against the Church of God. Haeresin contrà Ecclesiam vindicat etc.  Cyprian had not the manners to entertain so kindly, as his sundry scufflings with him may testify. Is not this to crave leave, once again, to build a tabernacle more than Christ allows? unum mihi, one for Peter, etc. As for the Cambron copy, and Pamelius the finder, they are too light of credit, to outface so many, so ancient, and so uncontrollable. Shall the Bishop be censured, for alleging that which all have save one, and it so justly suspected, as savouring of Sixtus Quintus his poisonous salad, and shall not this be called forgery, to cleave to one so abortive and newfangle, & forsake the rest? Neither doubt I, but if the Bishop had quoted Austin's Epistle to Pope Coelestinus, about fusty Antony, or Antony of Fussula, his deposing from his Bishopric, which in none of the old editions is extant, it would have been counted coggery, or what worse may be in the language of our F. T. and his fellow-Criticks: yet he may vouch it, and ask no pardon. Eudaemon-Iohannes that Reverend Father, as the Adjoinder styles him (mulus mulum, cap. 2.) had the Bishop in jealousy, when time was, for counterfeiting an Epistle of the first Council of Constantinople to the Emperor Theodosius, which but that he was stark beetle-blind at broad noon day, he might have found and groped in more than one edition. And shall these ware go for currant now, which never saw the light till yesterday, to speak of? But as for Eudoemon (howsoever he esteem of him,) we will say no worse for this once, then with the holy Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Act. 27. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He should have kept him at Crete, and not imbrued his hands in so uncivil piece of service. More thanks would have been shared him, with less loss to his reputation; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both avoided. Yet it seems that the Adjoinder, pricked on with his example, makes haste to follow him. Of whom because we are speaking now of his corrupting the Fathers, I see not but that also may be reckoned among his corruptions, that he defends the Cardinals adoremus for adornemus, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea orare for currere, and invocare Martyrem for festinare ad basilicam; with many such like errors, not only against the original Greek or Latin, but against any reason that can be devised in the world. Would it not follow by this means that angulos for angelos is good reading? As in the Council of Laodicea, Ne angelos nominemus, 
Can. 35. in summâ Concil. per Garanzam Mirand.  which they read angulos for many years together, and thought they had the perfect meaning of the Canon; so little they feared to be encumbered with idolatry. But to draw to a conclusion.  
These things thus considered, may we not say to the Adjoinder, rudely replying upon so reverend a Prelate, as Chrysippus did to one that pestered Cleanthes (and though unmannerly enough, yet I think not so rustically as our Adiumbler in many points) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,. 1. Leave troubling the grave and 
Apud Diog. La●●●. lib. 7.  ancient Father, and bestow these thy qualicums (thou mouthy Sophister) upon some younger ears, or greener heads, that neither have weightier studies to detain them, and are less able to espy through the shallowness of thy drifts or the preposterousness of thine endeavours.  
Though who so blind, but sees that of himself, & sine monitore? The Jesuits scope being only this in general, to steal away hearts (with Absalon) from the KING, which is the damnable Plagium inveighed against by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 1. 9 and justly coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the one side (their native mark) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the other (their equivocating new character) like the sorcerers of Babylon, (right so they of Rome, the grand mother of enchantments) of whom we read in jeremy, 27. 9 that they persuaded the people with all their Rhetoric, not to adhere to the King, but to relinquish their fidelity, though Almighty God had expressly charged them to the contrary. And so here. It is not the double, nor the treble bond, of oft-sworne ALLEGIANCE, that can bate their fury, or bridle their force. For in all Vows, the Pope's relaxation is excepted, says 
a juxta saniorem sententiam, subijcimus vota nostra summo ecclesi. e pastori, ut soluat votis quae quis vel absolutissimè praestitit, etc. Medina de cont. 〈◊〉. hom. l. 4. cont. 6. c. 2. pag. (Edit. Venet.) 310. B.  Medina, (and he speaks it of Ecclesiastical vows, how much more than of this, which goes but for Civil?) so as perhaps he will not excuse our very vow in Baptism. 
b Chap. 14. v. 16.  Thou knowest Lord that I hate this diadem, and these robes of honour (says Queen Ester of her own, in humility of spirit.) But they of the Regal, wheresoever they find them, out of the peevishness of their sect, and the pride of their heart. Especially in his MAJESTY, since he hath entered the lists, and undertaken in his own person, the defence of his own right (which these impugn) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting his subjects in mind of their duty by writing, as Athanasius saith every worthy Prince 
De Incannat. verbi. Idem habet & Dionys. Epist. ad Demophilum. Sed Athan. incurrit & in Pauli verba (quanquam de Regibus cum maximè loquens) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Tit. 3. Certè, si alij: illis, quidni ipsi sibi hanc operam locent?  is to do, when he doubts a defection. And he adds most elegantly (as if he had aimed at the courses lately held by his MAJESTY) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,. 1. least projects without prosecution be despised and derided; suppose the penning of the oath, without that noble justification of it against the cardinals countermine, which soon followed.  
As for the Adjoinder in particular, (a calo of that camp, but the meanest of many,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) it is not to be dissembled neither, what his ends are, or the ends of them that advance him for their champion. (We hear he is a married man (though most decently he rail against our Ministers for marrying, and carp the Bishop 
Adjoind. cap. 3. & iterum cap. 10.  that defends their doing so.) And they have fitted him to the full; not only with 
a Haeresis est mala mulier.  heresy the woman (as Epiphanius calls her, and a shrewd one too) but the 
b Totum hoc ●●●lieris opinio est, etc. De adorantibus Virg.  woman's heresy. For Idolatry & Disloyalty being the woman's heresies (as Epiphanius also calls the one, and 
* In Epist. ad Ludovicum Comitem Imperij. Quidam inter MYLIERCULAS & vulgum suum mussitant, quòd non oporteat nos subijci superioribus potestatibus, etc.  Waltramus of Naumberge the other, in particular) his book is composed of these two elements only, and out of them amounts his whole sum. Also his carriage is answerable, (that you may know what he hath been used to, and what school he hath passed through) as partly may appear by that which hath been said for the Survey of the whole) partly is to be discerned out of the Title and Superscription of every page of his book; viz. Conviciare audactèr, aliquid haerebit; Turning the speech, which the noble captain sometime used to his soldier, into the clean contrary, Non alo te ut pugnes, sed ut latres modò atque incestes; Only give thy book a broad and a bitter title, Call it, A Discovery of lies and leasings, of frauds and falsehoods, used by the Bishop; say somewhat, that so worthy a monument, and prevailing with the world, may not seem to go clear away without some contradiction; Dart disgraces, vent thy virulences, fling reproaches boldly, though thou canst fasten none.  
And the rather, because some Priests are said to stagger here in England, after their reading the Bishops Answer to the cardinals Apology, and considering how he satisfies the very choicest proofs, that the Cardinal could bring, etiam totis contra veritatem viribus utens, (besides his 
* Accipiam intercessionem sanctorum, etc. c. 1. p. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xen. Cyropaed.  own choosing what points he would speak to) the Adjoind. task must be, vincta venari, (as Cyrus was wont to say of his hunt in a garden, after the Median fashion) to hunt bound beasts; namely to keep them Popish that are already Papists, to divert old soakers from admitting the light shining in through the loopholes of their double captivity (more prejudiced consciences, then imprisoned bodies) for this I say the Adjoinder must throw dust, and cast smoke, and rail with him that bears a head, to confound brains only, to disjoint judgements, and to disturb proceedings.  
And herein I report me to the consciences of those very Priests, that have but read his book, whether this be meet dealing for one that writes against a Bishop, or likely to persuade with Christian people.  
But neither could jannes' and jambres resist Moses in his 
Exod. 7. 11. 11.  miracles, neither may the Truth of God now be outfaced with the calumnies of lewd and shameless persons, as S. Paul promises us by Moses his example; (for that which Miracles were then, the Truth is now, by the tenure of S. Paul's sentence, 2. Tim. 3. 8.) And as for the Bishop's reputation, whereof none that I have observed less solicitous than himself, it may well be; For his glory accrues from hence most of all. Semper adventantis fuit omen dignitatis, bruta & praeter modum iniuria. As (to persist in the story even now touched upon) when the people murmured, than Aaron 
Exod. c. 16. v. 41. etc. 17.  prospered, when the assembly blustered, than his rod flourished, than God gave testimony of his worthiness from heaven, and not before, as S. chrysostom also notes. alway when a man is most trampled here upon earth, than God is nearest hand to lift up his scale.   

An Abstract of the chiefer points treated in the Defence; either purposely, as drawn thither by the Adjoinders method, or by incidence. And it may serve for a summary resutation of the whole.  
The Contents of the first Part.  

CHAP. 1.  
1. IN what sense S. Austen says, that Peter represented the Church's person; Not as Supreme Magistrate (which savours not of Scripture, neither for words, nor sense, of Tully's Offices rather;) but as a pattern purposely picked out by our Saviour, to instance unity in, and to speak to one, what he meant of all, even such as otherwise were clean out of hearing. This is debated by collation of divers places out of S. Austen, from pag. 3. to pag. 31. [Insomuch as Sylvester himself, V. Clavis. §. 5. Omnes Sacerdotes habent claves. Nec obstat quod dictum est Petro, Tibi dabo; Nam hoc factum est ad ostendendum unitatem ECCLESIAE. Yea Bellarm, acknowledges it to be the exposition of some Divines of Paris, quòd Dominus oravit pro Petro, ut TOTIUS Ecclesiae figuram gerebat. Meaning thereby, that Christ prayed not for his person; but for the Church, which he resembled. Or else Bellarm, need not reject this exposition, (as he doth) if they said only, that our Saviour Christ prayed for Peter as chief Magistrate. For than it would descend fitly enough upon the Pope; which is Bellarmine's drift there. But he rejecteth it as I said; Therefore gerere personam Ecclesiae, is not to be chief Magistrate, in his or their opinion. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. in initio.]  
2. How Peter arrived to the glory of Christ's sufferings, and yet suffered not for us, though fond he once presumed to suffer for Christ himself, pro liberatore liberandus, as S. Aust. says. Against the bartering of Satisfactions between one man & an other, an usual and againfull trade in Popery. p. 32. 33. 34.  
3. Peter the fitter to paragon the Church, because a great sinner, and so apt to show mercy. The Church likewise, in the dispensation of the Keys. p. 35.  
4. Peter's faults expressed by S. Austen, but omitted by the Adjoinder, where he complains of omissions. Five in all, to the prejudice of their Primacy, not to the proof of it, as Bellarmine would. p. 35. 36. etc.  
5. The peace of the Church stands in the graciousness of Princes, and their wishing well to Religion, not in jesuitical resistance and arms. p. 38. 39 etc.  
6. The Papists pride is the same with the Luciferians, in that they will not understand Petrum in petra, that is, the Church in Christ, as S. Austen construes it. p. 40.  
7. The Luciferians forbid marriages, as the Papists do: but not the Fathers, nor the councils, though it be after vow, as is most probable. p. 41.  
8. The words of S. Ambrose, which the Adjoinder impudently charges the Bishop to be of his devising, and utterly beside the truth of all copies, are manifestly showed first to be in eleven printed copies very ancient, then in four manuscripts beyond exception. One of the KING'S majesties Library, a copy very fair written, and withal so ancient as before the Conquest, given by a Monk called Os-Ketel, to the Monastery of Rochester. Another of Merton College in Oxford. Two out of the University of Cambridge. Lastly, in an other edition of Paris, that retains those words, after the late Rome Copy had presumed to leave them out, by the partial direction of Felice Peretto, afterwards Sixtus Quintus. pag. 44. etc. (Whereunto may be added (because the Adjoinder makes this his capital imputation of untruths to the Bishop) that johannes Viguerius a Papist of chief note for learning and judgement, reads them just as the Bishop quoteth them. Institut, ad Theolog. Christianam, c. 16. § 6. v. 5. De Sacramento Ordinis.)  
9 How the Friars use the Fathers, when they are not for their turn, but especially S. Ambrose above all others, out of junius his report of his own experience of their Presses, when he was at Lions in France. p. 45. & 46.  
10. Peter the prime, but more primes than Peter. p. 47.  
11. The Vicars of Christ, are all Ministers in their degree, but specially the Bishops. p. 49.  
12. Peter feeds all, and yet others feed him, as Paul and james, so as no superiority follows from thence. p. 51.  
13. The frivolous distinction, between sheep and lambs, hissed out by Maldonate; prejudicial to the Pope though it were received, by Tolet and Turrian their expositions. p. 50. 51. etc.  
14. The Levites were subject to the Temporal Prince, and a part of Israel, even in that sense. The Adjoinders proofs to the contrary are answered. Arguments for the other side, which he hath not answered. p. 52. 53. etc. (Rabanus Maurus in locum, (praeter alios citatos in corpore Defence.) sic. Quòd recensiti quidem & Levitae fuerint (inventusque numerus ad 22000.) sed seorsim. Non ob exemptionem ab obedientia, sed eximietatem virtutis quam prae se ferre debent. Denique. 3. Reg. 11. 38. (secundum 70) dantur Salomoni. i. Regi saeculari. Nihil ergò iuvabit ad exemptionem, quòd aliàs Levitae dati sunt Aaroni; ut pertendit F. T.)  
15. The Adjoinders blasphemy confuted, That Christ by his coming abridged the sovereignty of temporal Princes. That it remains as ample still, as in the old Law. p. 59 etc. largè.  
16. King's are to feed the Church of God, and Peter himself but to feed it. Cyrus' head and pastor of the Church, with some likelihood that he was saved. p. 63. etc.  
17. The Papists ascribe temporal primacy to the Pope, for all the Adjoinders dissembling. The KING'S MAJESTY is not so forward to challenge spiritual primacy, as the Papists impute to him; whatsoever he might. p. 67.  
18. English Bishops, and among them the Bishop of Elie, no dealer in Coactions. p. 68  
19 The Swords are two, and divided in their bearers, though linked in use; according to Gelasius his judgement of that matter. p. 69.  
20. Princeps, & Caput, common to others with Peter, and therefore enforce not. p. 70. 71.  
21. The Papists, not we, are ready to depose Magistrates, upon conceit of their misbehaviour. Their slandering of Wickliff, upon no ground, that they show. (So, in another matter, Wickliff is censured by Petrus Lutzemburg: to hold that which none else ever imputed to him, though they had sifted him narrowly. Witness Alphonsus, lib. 12. contrahaerese. V. Purgatorium, in initio. Lex quaedam accusatoria, &, Consuetudo maledicendi, pricking them on, without any further evidence, to carp at Wickliff.) NONE but CHRIST from heaven may deprive his STEWARD; by BELLARMINE'S own confession. p. 74. 75.  
22. The Bishop said right, that Peter was restored to his Apostleship. p. 77. etc. (Add & de Magist. in 4. Sent. dist. 19 §) Qualem autem etc. ex August. Saepè lapsis Sacerdotibus reddita est dignitatis potestas, Et, Petrus post lapsum restitutus fuit, etc.)  
23. S. Cyrill gives the pre-eminence over all, to Kings. p. 81. (To which that might be added, ex eodem Cyrill. Comment. in locum Micheae citat. (which he speaks of Kings) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Crowned and dignified with the MOST SUPREME EXCELLENCIES.)  
24. S. chrysostom no favourer of Peter's singular Primacy, but against it directly. p. 82.  
25. Peter the mouth of the Apostles. And what though? p. 83.  
26. Peter gains the check, by ask Christ the question, which the Adjoinder would draw to prove his Monarchy by. p. 84.  
27. Leoes authorities of Peter's primacy are discussed. p. 86.  
28. The Law Inter claras, not glossed by sundry Lawyers; and for that, and other reasons, justly to be suspected, if not rejected. p. 88 etc.  
29. The not erring of the Church of Rome for a certain season, was no security for her perseverance in aftertimes. The titles given to her by justinian, are common to other Churches; and some greater than they. p. 91.  
30. justinian's facts of more force to prove, then Patarensis his words. And the Adjoinders instance against this, is answered. p. 93.  
31. Unjust assaults proceeding from authority, are not to be resisted, but from others they may. Syluerius a traitor to justiniau. p. 94  
32. justinian slandered by the Adjoinder of unlearnedness, without ground. His salvation likewise questioned by him, very uncharitably. p. 95  
33. Patarensis his words imply not Syluerius his right to universal jurisdiction, and much less to the temporal, which the Pope challengeth. p. 96  
34. Every Minister is a Minister over the Church of the whole world: in what sense. p. 97  
35. Liberatus his story which the Adjoinder quoteth, hath more for the pre-eminence of the Emperor above the Pope, than the Pope above him. p. 98   

CHAP. 2.  
36. AThanasius flees to julius for aid, not for judgement. As any Bishop in distress might to him that were able to rescue. p. 103  
37. It was more than Pope Leo could do, to quash the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, concerning the equalling of Constantinople with Rome. The Adjoinders four reasons to the contrary are answered. p. 105  
38. The Pope's censures derided by godly Bishops, and himself censured as fast when there was occasion. p. 107  
39 Other objections dissolved against the Canon of Chalcedon, viz. 1. the Emperor justinus, and john Bishop of Constantinople, their seeking for union with the See of Rome. 2. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, applied to Pope Symmachus by the Eastern Bishops. 3. Vigilius his presidentship in the Council of Constantinople, with Eutychius his good leave. 4. The Pope's deposing of Bishops, etc. p. 108. etc.  
40. Pope Leos humble and yet bootless intercession to the Emperor Martian, to disannul the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. The Adjoinders childish aucupium at the word intercedere. p. 110. etc.  
41. Four reasons brought by the Adjoinder, why Pope Leo had good cause to except against the said Canon, (though it be clean beside the Text of the Bishop's book, which he professeth to refute, and a mere itching after occasion to be doing) are answered in their order. As first, that Anatolius his aspiring humour was not the cause of enacting this Canon, as the Adjoinder slanders him. Secondly, that the Canon was neither made in the absence of the Pope's Legates, nor yet by constraint or surreption of the Fathers, but with general willingness and gratulation of all sides, save only the partial Agents of Pope Leo, etc. p. 112. 113. 114. etc.  
42. The styles of poor suitors, and the backesides of letters, not to be drawn into argument, as the Bishop answered. The Adjoinders replies to the contrary confuted. p. 116. 117  
43. Titles given to Leo by the Council, are no more than have been given to other Bishops, and some of them to Noble Laymen. The Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople are called Bishops of the Catholic Church. p. 118  
44. Idle distinction of the Adjoinder, between the privileges of Rome, granted in respect of the seat of the Empire (as the Council specifies) and others issuing from S. Peter, (which the Fathers take no knowledge of.) p. 121  
45. Leoes excommunicating of Dioscorus; but by the Synod, per praesentem sanctam Synodum, the very words of his Legates in the Council. Which the Adjoinder most wretchedly sticks not to construe, as if the Synod had been Leoes instrument in the Excommunication. 
The Jesuits would make a general Council the Pope's instrument. Yet at an other time, the Pope was as much instrument to the Italian Bishops, and to the Synod of Rome; for so much as they wrote by julius Bishop of Rome, saith Ath●…. Apol 2. Per julium scripsere.  Whereas Peter himself might be his instrument by the same means, it following immediately, unà cum beato Petro, etc. p. 122  
46. Leo the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter. A sorry elogium, yet much stood upon by the Adjoinder, to prove the Monarchy. ibid. & 123  
47. Leoes presidentship in the Council of Chalcedon, so much urged by the Adjoinder, nothing to the purpose. No wonder if he were suffered to appoint his own Legates, after they had made choice of him to be their precedent. p. 124  
48. Priests admitted to Counsels, and sometime they that were no Priests. p. 125.   

CHAP. 3.  
49. THe Cardinal driven to say Mother Peter, or else to 
Pamelius his own Annotation there is, Est insignis hic locut contra eos qui ECCLESIAM contemnunt.  let go S. Cyprians authority; which belongs to the Church, not to Peter, nor the Pope. p. 126. etc.  
50. In the great equality of the Apostles between themselves, yet one was singled out from the choir in general, to recommend unity to the followers of Christ (which may serve to stop Mr. Saunders his fowl mouth, that cries 
De clave David. l. 3. c. 1. Neither had S. Cyprian, and S. Austen, (that observe this mystery most) any such ONE. And how far are they from it (for all their crying out upon us) that would turn their one into twelve? Though S. Austen say, Multi 〈◊〉, & vn● dicitur, (wherein he supposes it belonged to all, or else he says nothing) Pasce o●es 〈◊〉. Therefore no Monarchy in those words. But the jesuits calling for Twelve to sway the Popedom, do they not proclaim that it was intended to be the Commission of all Twelve, though for unity sake it was confined to ONE? The place of S. Austen is, De Pastor. c. 13.  shame upon us for not having such a one at least, though we admit no Pope, saith he. But neither have we such authority to frame mysteries, or mystical significations to ourselves, and unity is most unity, when it is instanced but once; often, were to break it.) p. 128.  
51. Caput in S. Cyprian, is not the Pope's person, nor any man's whatsoever; but Christ's Original Truth which he brought into the world for our direction. p. 129.  
52. The Adjoinders gross corrupting of S. Cyprians text: (though he cry out every where against the Bishop for corruptions.) p. 130.  
53. His ignorance no less gross in his rudiments of Grammar, and of the Latin tongue, (the usual Cacoëthes that visits him every where.) p. 131.  
54. How the Church is built upon Peter. p. 132.  
55. The Bishop's conjecture remains probable, that the Cardinal left out those words out of Cyprian deceitfully, wherein he says, That it had been an arrogant and an insolent part in Peter, to have answered Paul when he rebuked him, by saying, That the Primacy was his, and therefore he ought not to be controlled. ibid.  
56. The Adjoinder nevertheless says, that Peter might have said so in his full right; giving Cyprian the lie, so. ibid.  
57 Peter's primacy opposed to Paul's novellitie and iunioritie in the words of S. Cyprian. Ergò not a primacy of authority. p. 33.  
58. The Adjoinder is content to charge S. Peter with error, dummodò imperet. Takes away verity, to give him primacy, very unadvisedly. ibid.  
59 The Bishops denying the sequel, à fundamento ad caput, is maintained against the trifling sophistries of the Adjoinder. p. 134.  
60. The testimonies out of S. Hierome for Peter's primacy, are answered: for one word of eminency, three of equality are found in the first of them. p. 135.  
61. A head against schism, is a head of order only; sufficient if it prevent disorder. p. 136.  
62. The Apostles though confirmed, might need such a head; or though not they, yet the multitudes that might have reference to them. And to the Adjoinder, telling us that we need such a head as much as the Apostles, we grant what he says, and we admit no less, or rather far more, though we acknowledge no Pope. p. 137.  
63. The proudest Priest of them all, may not force a King: and, That external coaction is denied to the Minister against whomsoever of the faithful. Latè à p. 137. ad p. 144.  
64. The Bishops style not subject to reproof: they that reprehend it, offend more grossly in the same kind themselves: and namely Cardinal Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— p. 146.  
65. jovinians heresies touch not us, (if they were heresies) but the Papists rather. And of the honourablenes of holy Matrimony, which the Adjoinder a married man (perhaps repenting) depraves, the Reverend Bishop in his single life defends. p. 147.  
66. A most ridiculous distinction, between three kinds of Foundations, magnified by the Adjoinder, but confuted. p. 149.  
67. Bellarmine and Baronius playing blindman-buff, about Peter's primacy. That which is ordinary to the one, is extraordinary to the other, and that extraordinary which is ordinary. The same Andabata is between Bellarmine and himself, as if he loved the sport. Moses the greater Magistrate (says he) because extraordinary: And yet, Peter because ordinary, therefore the greater. p. 150  
68 S. Hierome racked to say, Peter's chair is the rock upon which the Church is built; he says it not. p. 151.  
69. Magister orbis, is not Monarcha orbis, with S. chrysostom. p. 152.  
70. Columna & firmamentum both veritatis and Ecclesiae, was their title that were no Popes. ibid.  
71. S. james his province as large as Peter's. p. 153.  
72. What manner of Princes the Apostles of Christ were in all Lands. p. 154.  
73. The Pope's tyranny is not abated by the multitudes of people that he usurps upon, (as the Adjoinder would) but rather creased, and made more odious. p. 155.  
74. Rome no Sanctuary, Succession no shield, against corruption and error. p. 156.   

CHAP. 4.  
75. Spiritual men's Monarchy pleaded for by the Adjoinder, in ipsis terminis. p. 158  
76. To be pronounced Blessed, is not to be preferred to the government of the whole Church. p. 159  
77. Basil is not for the Pope to be a Monarch. He finds footsteps of reverence towards secular Princes, even in reasonless creatures; and interprets the Word of God to be our King. p. 160.  
78. Others as well as Peter, have prelation (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) among the Apostles, out of Nazianzen. And therefore that implies no sovereignty. p. 161. 162. etc. (Vide & Procop. in Esa. 17. 6. duos tresue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, elicientem Apostolos; idque ex verbis Prophetae ut sibi videtur. Nominatque (ut Nazianzenus) Petrum, jacobum, johannem.)  
79. Pastor a word of baseness, with S. Basil. And yet alleged out of chrysostom, to prove Peter's supremacy, by the Adjoinder. 
Item Aristot. pol. 1.  p. 164  
80. The Pope alone is not entrusted with the care of converting infidel countries to the Faith. ibid.  
81. Both the Cardinal, and the Adjoinder corrupt S. chrysostom, foisting the word caput into his Text, where there is none in the Greek. And then being caught, he carps at our men for taking upon them (as he calls it) to set out the Greek Fathers. A thief displeased with candlelight. p. 165. etc.  
82. The comparison that S. chrysostom makes, between Peter and jeremy, in respect of the latitude of their jurisdictions, it advantageth not the Pope. p. 168  
83. Whether Peter might create an Apostle of his own head in the place of judas, without consulting the community. It seems not, both by S. chrysostom, and otherways; though the Adjoinder from thence would prove the Popedom. p. 169.  
84. More proofs of the Adjoinders good skill in Latin. The Bishop's book bushes him away, with the very style and penning of it (tanquam cornibus) whiles he offers to refute it. 
Musae surcillis praecipitem cijci 〈◊〉. Cat.  p. 170.  
85. Sermons de Tempore, never so entitled by S. Austen. A doubtful work, and carrying small validity in it. Full of fowl Latin, and fonder sense, is the Sermon quoted by the Cardinal. p. 172  
86. Miserable shifts of the Adjoinder to defend them. ibid.  
87. As just as Germans lips, nine miles asunder. The Eve falls out three days before the holy day; and at another time, fourteen years before the Feast; the Adjoinders raving computations. p. 173  
88 Peter's fall was to assuage his fierceness, being a choleric man; And though it were also to incline him to pity, yet without any inference of the Popedom from thence, pity being a general virtue for all Ministers, and dealers in Soule-matters, (besides that Paul was touched with as deep a sense of his infirmities, and remorse for bad courses formerly used, as any of them all, Tit. 3. 1. Tim. 1. 15. Eph. 2. 3. & 4.) And yet both Bellarmine and the Adjoinder are not ashamed to raise such an unlikely consequence, from the fall of Peter, (for want of better proof) to conclude his Supremacy. p. 174  
89. Praeferri cunctae Ecclesiae, is far short of the Primacy, that they contend for. Common also not to the Apostles only, but to all Bishops in general, by origen's judgement. p. 174  
90. The Reverend Bishop not to be taught by the Adjoinder, how to censure the falls and infirmities of God's Saints. p. 175  
91. Appeals to the Pope out of Africa, for bidden under pain of Excommunication, in a lawful Synod, whereof S. Austen was one. p. 176. 177  
92. The Father's words are not supplicatory but peremptory against Appeals, though preserving their reverence as to a worthy Sea, and the parties that sat in it, otherwise godly men, and like enough to be advised by them. p. 178  
93. The Bishop forgeth not, but the Adjoinder slavereth and slandereth as he is wont. All Appeals out of Africa are interdicted. Not only Priests but Bishops too, and the Bishops most of all. p. 180  
94. The Adjoinders slight exceptions against this are answered. p. 181. & 182  
95. His monstrous sliding away from the state of the question, to fight with an imaginary shadow of his own. And yet therein also he is not only unsound, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he contradicts himself, in his second instance, most apparently. p. 182. & 183.  
96. Pope Zozimus his drawing of S. Austen to Caesarea, to dispatch Churchbusinesses, is no argument of the ones universal authority, but rather of the others rare sufficiency. Traxit, compulit, coegit, is for equals, as well as for Superiors. p. 184. & 185. (Add ex S. Prospero Praef. lib. ad Excerpta Genuens. de Camillo & Theodoro Presbyteris; quibus obsequium deferens, simplicitatem obedientiae sibi tribuit, [tantus Episcopus.])  
97. Liberius his letters in behalf of certain false dissembling Arrians, to the Council of Tyana, for their restitution, to which also the Council yielded, prove not that the Bishop of Rome is of such authority as he must needs be obeyed, but that he is not so discerning, but he may be gulled and cheated, as he was by those hypocrites. Reason's out of S. Basil, why the Bishops of that Council had respect to Liberius, nothing to the Supremacy. First, because the abuse springing from those parts (in receiving Eustathius to grace, undeserving) reason it was that from thence also should come the reformation. Secondly, to avoid the suspicion of emulation, and homebred quarrels; which is incidenter between Bishops of the same Country, then between foreigners. Thirdly, to fortify the proceedings in the cause by the concurrence of many Bishops, etc. p. 186. & 187 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrysost, At Ecclesiast. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quod referunt & huc.)  
98. The Bishops that the Adjoinder says julius restored, Sozomen says plainly, they were restored by the Emperor. Yet happily julius was 
Loco quidem ibi citato, de Constantio satis clarè. Sed longè clarius de constant, circa Athanasium, cum julij literae nibil proficerent● Verba ciusdem Sozom. Quem vide l. 3. c. 10.  not slack in the cause to do his best endeavours; as becometh every godly Bishop of Christendom, according to the abilities that his place affoardeth him. And so may we construe, Omnium curam gerens. Quis scandalizatur & ego non uror? as it came not from Peter, so it belongs to all that are zealous in their rank. The greeks think much that they should come behind the Romans because of the amplitude of that Church, 
Their own Genebrard in Psal. 67. r. 37. expounding that prophecy there of the vocation of the Gentiles, and what degree of honour they shall hold under Christ, says plainly, that the holy Ghost Aequat Orientales Occidentalsbus, prefers neither before the other. Which is a most true word; save only as inward worth shall commend them to God.  where as they presume for certain, that they excel them in piety, and virtuous life. Lastly, they are so hardy, as to threaten julius for transgressing of the Canons, p. 188. & 189.  
99 Damasus his titles, the Adjoinders tattles, frothy stuff to conclude for Monarchy. p. 189. & 190  
100 Damasus his governing the house of God: His letters for Peter of Alexandria. ibid.  
101. Damasus takes in hand, Vitalis an Antiochian heretic, to examine him; but by the permission of Paulinus his own Bishop. So may any body. Prescribe, a proud word of the Adjoinders weaving in, clean besides the truth of the text. Damasus confesseth that Paulinus could do as much as himself in the matter, but only to show consent between Bishops, etc. p. 191.  
102. The Adjoinders buskin terms are opened: Flavianus his pretended restoring by Damasus, was nothing but their mutual returning to agreement after a priche; the manner being in those times, for two dissenting Bishops, to forbear the communion of one another, till reconciliation and clearing of matters, etc. p. 192  
103. Of Pope Siricius; That the Council of Capua committing to him the small hearing of acause, makes for the Counsels authority, rather than for his; the Council deputing, he being deputed. And yet not with any power to control former judgements, but because (says S. Ambrose) they presumed that what Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) should define, the same would Siricius (the Pope of Rome) allow. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— p. 193  
104. Siricius rescript to Himerius questions, nothing to our question. ibid.  
105. Anastasius and Innocentius their special aid implored by the Fathers against the heretics: but no universal jurisdiction of theirs acknowledged. p. 194.  
106. Universal jurisdiction goes not with sedes Apostolica. Of which kind there are more than the Roman Sea. Pastoral diligence to prevent the danger of Christ's weak members, is made power and authority over ALL the members of Christ's body, as the Adjoinder metamorphoses it, to claw the Pope. p. 195.  
107. Innocentius either a badpen-man, or his Epistles counterfeit. Yet Rescripsit ad omnia prout fas erat etc. is of the matters then in hand, not of the buy: which notwithstanding are not so prowdas the Adjoinder would frame them, paring away words to pervert the sentence: which he imputes to the Bishop, while he practiseth himself. p. 196.   

CHAP. 5.  
108. Peters' Summitie, or Summa potestas, excludes not the other Apostles from their fellowship in it, no not in Bellarmine's mouth; and much less in origen's. Therefore it infers no Monarchy. p. 198.  
109. The Papists fleet from sense to sense, in expounding of Scriptures, and at last they say, that the literal sense is not so plain as the allegorical. A fine fancy. p. 199.  
110. Not we, but the Papists, confound Clergy and Laity. The Pope gives leave to laymen to dispense spiritual matters, and some to take the Sacrament out of their own hands. p. 200. (women's Baptism usual in Popery: yet S. chrysostom as astonished cries out upon it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; What sayest thou? Does a woman baptise? Tom. 5. Savilian. p. 480. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉)  
111. Origen tastes it not, that the Church should be built upon Peter alone, and not upon other Apostles as well. p. 201.  
112. But upon john rather; whom he prefers wonderfully. p. 203. & 205.  
113. As one, so the other, of things spoken to Peter, (in origen's judgement) are to be construed. Pasce oves, like A dificabo super hanc, & è contra. Therefore the Bishop satisfies all most directly, answering one by the other, of the places concerning Peter produced out of Origen, notwithstanding the Adjoinders absurd cavillation. p. 202.  
114. Paul equal with Peter at least. p. 204.  
115. Peter could not merit to be the rock of the Church, as the Adjoinder dreams out of S. Hilary misunderstood. And much less by only rowing in a boat at sea, (as out of Maximus) could he achieve such preferment, so incomparably distant. S. Hilary assigns the prerogative to his faith, fivefold to nothing, above his person. p. 206. 207. 208. 209.  
116. Maximus his Sermons, of what authority. p. 210.  
117. The Adjoinder as all Papists, would feign be at his Carters-logicke, and professes cruelties. p. 213  
118. The Papists to blame (as the Bishop most acutely told them, answering Maximus testimony,) to assign Peter the charge of a particular Church (viz. Rome) after he was Chief and Governor in their opinion of the Universal. p. 211.  
119. This reply of the Bishops, is defended against the Adjoinders witty follies. p. 213. & 214.  
120. Continual succssion of Bishops, one after another, in the same Sea, doth not prove that none of them ever erred. p. 212.  
121. And much less that Peter was at Rome, because the Succession in the Sea of Rome never failed. ibid.  
122. Maximus his elogia of Paul and Peter so tempered, as he rather inclines to yield Paul the pre-eminence. p. 214. & 215  
123. The old Papists were not so violent in their conclusions against Princes, as the modern jesuits. p. 217. (jesuini in eo sapientes, quòd put ant se coelo ipsi quandoque imperaturos. Pap. Mass. in Paulo 4. [Hem.])  
125. The Adjoinder like a man deadly sick, that does not feel his grief; so refuses to see wherein the Bishop hath hurt them, and says that his arguments trouble the Bishop out of all measure. p. 217. etc.  
126. The temporal and earthly Primacy disclaimed by the Papists, though they practise the thing itself; which is utterly forbidden them. p. 220. & 221.    

Faults escaped in the Printing, whereof some are already mended in some Copies.  
Pag. lin.   20 26 cupiditate charitate. 116 ult. these those 119 23 emprison surprise 27 surely sure 120 11 humour his humour is 129 17 called culled 131 21 primùm primum [& emenda sic, toties quoties. Vicium fuit correctoris corrigendi] 135 24 What then? [What then?] 138 8 these those 141 8 truly Read freely 12 speaks upon speaks it upon 152 1 none but none first but 164 24 took Capsur to Capsur 187 33 * julius julius 34 Marcellus * Marcellus 218 2 [post] Ambrose hath told you, and Origen hath told you, 235 11 Num. 49. Num. 20. 242 15 Thessalonians for him Thessalonians to pray for him. 262 20 our your 275 14 Baronius writ it Baron. writing it 275 15 The Apostle S. john Timothy S. Paul's scholar. [estque locus apud Bar. T. 1. An. 60. num. 41.] 277 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 279 4 flumenta fluenta 281 5 opposeth apposeth (or paralleleth) 286 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 307 34 1. Cor. 15. 1. Cor. 11. 315 25 1. Cor. 15. 1. Cor. 13. 321 1 300. years certain 100 year 24 well evict will evict. 354 8 6 7 357 25 deal also  417 6 [post] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Read that which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or, that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) may be, etc. 426 29 were where 430 8 deal this  9 urging it urging for the promise 433 2 in jovinian, in iovinianum, 462 25 Virgin Nun 463 6 [post] the Pope (remaining Pope) cannot 511 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 516 25 Clergy Church 520 11 Martion Marcian 
Marg.  73 5. & 6 & Heracleota Mopsuestenus, Heracleota, & Mopsuestenus, 213 8 Vrbis Orbis 232 5 HE HE 257 16 with them by them 263 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 278 2 in Epist. 5. Cant. in cap. 5. Cant. 279 6 cap. 8. Read cap. 9 307 7 himself said to S. john? said to S. john himself? 486  deal, Com. in Epist, etc.  489 7 Homo nihili Testis nihili 506 1 Luc. 2. 2. Luc. 3. 2. 549 lin. 2. unwilling unwitting. notae quartae     


CHAP. I  
Of the Defence of the Bishop of ELIE his Answer to CARD. BELLARMINE'S Apology, against the slanderous Adjoinder of one F. T.  
Wherein besides certain other occurrents of lesser importance, two things especially are recleered: viz.  
The BISHOP'S understanding of S. Austin's exposition of Pasce oves meas in the right sense; and his most upright quoting of S. Ambrose his words to the same purpose.  
§ 1. AS 
a Lib. 10. hist. apud Gelasium Cyzicenu●, de a●… Concil. Nicaen. l. 2. c. 1.  Eusebius describing the reign of Constantine the Great, after the Nicene Council, calls it a blessed time, when all things being established both for Religion and Government, nothing was in mention but the Trinity in heaven, and the Emperor upon earth, with his Royal issue; that prayed to, these prayed for, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Paul couples them, 2. Thess. 2. 4) even twice a day prayed for, in the public service, without any flattery: witness 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 5.  S. chrysostom, Com. in 1. Tim. 2. So the Adjoinder spends itself in the defacing of them both, the KING'S Supremacy, and the Invocation of the one and only true GOD, by his Son jesus Christ. And first the Supremacy, than the other; because King's being as ramparts to fortify Religion, when they go down, God's worship consequently goes to wrack. For Kings do not mind matters of war so much, or of the State (says the same chrysostom elsewhere, and Leo 
c Leo epist. 78. ad Le●●. Aug. O●ta●●um ●st ut in ●●nnem gloria 〈◊〉 vestrum c●t●ndatur imp●r●um, qui SUPRA CURAM RE●●M TEMPORALIUM Religiolae prouiden●… famulatun divinis & aeternis dispositionibus impe●●itis Also long after his time, Eulb. Carn. Epist. 13. ut vetus m. s. habet: Henticus Imper & Rob. Rex Franciae super Cha●um ●luv ū convenerunt de statu Ecclesiae amicabiliter tractaturi.  subscribes) by virtue of their calling which they have from God, as of Religion, and Piety, and of the Church. 
d Georg. Alexandrin. vitae Chrysost. in extremo.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore many other particulars occurring in the Bishops Answer to Card. Bellarmine (as indeed each of his books for their admirable variety, is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather an artificial embroidery, than a single monument) this man singles out only these two in effect, not ignorant of the relation, or the connexion that they have between themselves, That it is fatal in a manner (as the 
e 2. Philippie.  Orator said of himself) nec vinci sine Republica posse, nec vincere; so, that 
f Ne veniat anima mea in consilium co●um qui dicunt vel imperio pacem & libertatem ecclesiarum, vel ecclesijs prosperitatem & exaltationem Imperij nocituram. Non enim utriusque institutor Deus in destructionem ea connexuit, sed in aedificationem. Bernard. ad Conradum Regem Romanor. Epist. 24●.  Christ should be dishonoured without the King were impeached, nor the King disparaged, unless Christ were dishonoured. And again, Nemo alteri bellum indicit, qui non eodem etiam tempore & alteri: no man assaults the one, but he oppugnes the other, for the most part, at the same time.  
§ 2. Five Chapters he spends about the first of these two points, five more about the second, and certain other driblets which he 
g There f●re (though he fall to other matter) ye he calls his 9 and 10. Chap. the Conclusion of the Adjoinder, as if he had spent his spite with the former. See cap. 9 in Titulo.  interlaces to the end of his book. In the first, is first quarreled S. Austin's exposition of Pasce oves meas, feed my sheep; which the Bishop alleged out of his book de agone Christiano, c. 30. cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves. meas: when it is said to Peter, it is said to all, Feed my sheep. And therefore he is not made, by virtue of those words at least, Universal Governor of Christ's Church. The strength of F. T. his reply to this authority (sparing the more ample quotation of the place, which in the end I shall quote perhaps more amply than he, though he pretend to quote it somewhat more amply than the Bishop) lies in this; That whereas S. Austen says, the commission given to Peter, Feed my sheep, was given to all (ad omnes dicitur,) it was because S. Peter bore the person of the Church, which with him imports as much, as to be endued with Supreme authority over the Church. And to this end Tully's Offices are quoted very freshly, Est proprium munus magistratûs, etc. It is the proper office or duty of a Magistrate, to understand, that he beareth the person of the city. And so, says he, Peter loses no authority by this authority, but gains rather.  
§ 3. Where first when S. Austen says, that Peter bore the person of the Church, and by that expounds his ad omnes dicitur, as this man fancyeth; I should think under correction, that he means the Church only representative, consisting of the Apostles and Pastors, and no more; for they only feed: which will hardly amount to so great a sum, as the Papists would make S. Peter chief Magistrate of: viz. to bear authority over the whole Church militant, and every member thereof. Yea, and in some cases of extension, not only over them which are without holy orders, and so no Feeders, but over them also which are clean fallen away from the Church: and which is yet more, over them which never set foot within it. For thither also reacheth their jerk, as they call it, of indirect power. And though this should be granted in S. Austin's sense, that S. Peter bore the person of all the members of the Church, (as no question but he figured the community in many things, as may be afterward not only yielded to, but declared at large,) yet who would ever believe, that when the 
h Feeders of themselves, is put in the evil sense, by S. Jude v. 12. taking many things from S. Peter himself. 2. Pet. 2.  precept is of Feeding the flock of Christ, this precept is given to the flock itself? which nevertheless must needs be I say, if it be given to S. Peter, bearing the person of the flock; as he must needs bear that, if he bear the person of the whole Church, even in that, that he was bid to feed the flock. Do you see then what a confusion you have brought us in already? how you have pulled down the partition wall between the Laity and the Clergy, so as now 
i Theodor. hist. 5. 1●.  Theodosius may sit him down where he will, though it be at Milan itself, without any scrupulosity? how you have utterly removed the enclosures about the mountain, and made way for M. Saunders his 
k Lib. de clave David.  Aclerus, as he calls him, while you would seem to set up a Nauclerus in Christ's Church, and to be the only true friend to the beauty of God's house? Yet you are wont to 
l Adjoind. c. 2. n. 19 & sequen. Item c. 5. n. 6.  say, that this is our fault, to take away distinction between the sheep and the shepherd, between the people and the Pastors, and to lay all open to the wild boar out of the wood. Nay, not only you confound the Laity and the Clergy, but you make as many Popes by this means as there be Christians. For placing the Popedom in Pasce oves meas, in feeding Christ's sheep, you grant that this commission was given to Peter representing their persons, etc. Which is as much to say, as, they are all made Feeders of the whole flock, by virtue of these words, no less than he.  
§ 4. As for that you expound the bearing of the person by Tully's Offices, to be no other than to be made Supreme Magistrate, though it be first uncouth to expound Austen by Tully, whose phrase for the most part is not so suitable; yet let S. Austen deliver his own mind for this point, lib. de pastor. (for we speak of pasce, and he handles this argument in the very place that I quote) cap. 12. Quemadmodum loquantur authores mundi, quid ad nos? As much to say, as, What care we how Tully speaks? Besides, that if S. Austen had meant to decipher Peter by those words to be chief magistrate of the Church under Christ, (for so you conceive) perhaps he would rather have said that he bore Christi personam, then Ecclesiae; the person of Christ, then of the Church. As the deputy Regent of a kingdom or territory under an absolute Prince, may rather be said to bear the Prince's person, than the commonwealths that he governs in his right. So here. And so speaks your Andradius, lib. 1. de Concil. Papa Christi personam gerit, the Pope bears the person of Christ: so diverse more of the same strain. Neither lastly, does it seem likely in reason, that a Prince should represent for his Commonwealth, the head for the body, which are rather distinguished still one against the other, as membra dividentia, and two parties; but either certain of the Commons for the whole multitude; or as in other cases, some one man for the King. But compare we more narrowly S. Austen with Tully, since you will needs urge us to it.  
§ 5. In Tully it is gerere, in S. Austen gestare personam Ecclesiae. Is there no difference think you between these two? What if one be of things figurative, another of things essential? will you blame me as too critical for distinguishing between gerere and gestare? Gerimus magistratum, gestamus vestem, either scenicam, or some other. Gestamus & personam; I mean not now personam in S. Austin's sense, lest S. Peter be farther off from his supremacy than you are aware. And though Austen in some place may say, gerere personam, even of Peter in this case, yet neither in that place that you now allege, the Agone Christiano, cap. 30. and for one gerebat, you shall have 5. gestabats in S. Austen, I believe. Gestare, portare, sustinere, sigurare, all these I may remember; gerere, though I deny not, yet it comes so sieldom, as I may truly say, I scarce remember.  
§ 6. Touching what you insert here, That whatsoever is given to the King as King, the same is given to the Commonwealth, whereof he beareth and representeth the person: and so in like manner, what was given to S. Peter as head of the Church, the same belongs to the Church herself: I will not follow you too close about your State-positions, so favourable to Kings as we know of old, so enlarging their sway as you now profess, that what power the one hath, the other hath the like, King and people, (though 1. Sam. 8. 11. we read of judicium Regis erga populum, but none populi erga Regem, the King might judge the people, but not the people the King) & therefore this secret might have rotten in your breast; to omit this I say, It will follow out of your doctrine, that what our Saviour may do as Head of his Church, the same may his Church do of her own head. The instances are diverse, in your practice specially, I need not feign. As to mangle the communion, to dismiss subjects from their allegiance, to restrain marriages, to dispense with vows, with oaths, etc. In all which you set your wit against his, your authority against his, and namely in the question of assoiling from Obedience, how often do we hear from you in plain 
Thom. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 12. art. 2. Valentian, in illum locum, & alij.  terms, that Ecclesia habet authoritatem Dei in terris? No doubt, because whatsoever is given to the head, the same is given to the body, as here you tell us. Though again you are as rude with your own Doctors, as before you were rash with Prince's Crowns, when you say in your application, that in like sort whatsoever is given to Saint Peter as Head of the Church, the same is given to the Church herself: which you would never have said, I suppose, but to defend your grammar-paradoxe about gerere personam, with a far more desperate paradox in divinity. Discern you no better between Popes and Counsels, which are the Church in effect? or shall these play quartermasters with the Pope? Do you so understand the Council of Basile, or the Council of Constance, which your fellows would help you to construe more mildly; or will you revive that charm of our King Henry the 4. of famous memory, who writing to the Pope to persuade 
Stow annal. Angl. ann. 10. Hen. 4. p. 546.  him to conformity, alleged thus (if Stow say true:) Si non audierit Ecclesiam, etc. If he hear not the church, that is, obey not, let him be unto thee as an heathen & a Publican? As for S. Cyprians authority, which you botch into your text here, impertinent enough, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the Church is in the Bishop, because the Bishop, as you say, is Head of the Church; do you not consider why that was spoken by S. Cyprian, even to curb the insolency of your Romish Hierarche, and to show that Bishops are rather absolute in themselves, (he of Carthage at least, Rome's ancient pew-fellow) 
Ecclesia Carthag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 52. alias 55. ad Cor. & ad Steph. l. 2. Ep. 1. In Ecclesiae administratione unusquisque praepositus liberum habet voluntatis suae arbitrium. Quae verba repetit & in Ep. ad Magnum. l. 4. Ep. 7. Nemini praescribamus quò minus statuat quod putat unusquisque Praepositus, etc. De Pastor, c. 13.  and no way depending on foreign Tribunals? Rationem actûs sui Christo reddituri, as the same Father says elsewhere, to give account of their doings to Christ [only.] But I come to S. Austen. In whose words I affirm, that gerere personam, is to resemble the Church, or to stand for the Church; not to be made the chief magistrate of the Church, as you would face us. And that our Saviour directing his charge to them all, instanced the willinger, as I may say, in one, which was S. Peter, and spoke to him for all, to commend the love of unity to them. Imò verò & in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit: yea, and in Peter himself he commended [this] unity: Multi erant Apostoli, & uni dicitur, Pasceoves meas: There were many Apostles, and it is said [but] to one, Feed my sheep: Why that, but only to commend unity to them? In hoc cognoscent 
joh. 13. 35.  omnes vos esse meos: By this shall all men know you to be my disciples, if you love one another. And, Look you fall not out by the way: Joseph's precept that he gave to 
Gen. 45. 24.  his brethren. This was the care that our Saviour had of unity. Again, S. Austen in the same chapter, cap. 13. de pastorib. (that you may believe that book the rather in the explication of pasce,) Nam & ipsum Petrum 
Quasi alter alteri.  cui commendavit oves suas, quasi alter alteri, unum secum facere volebat. He sought not to make him a diverse regent, as you imagine, a deputy in his absence, but in all his speech, he drove after unity, that intending the unity of the Church with himself, even as he and his father are all one, (as he says,) which shall not be perfected 
joh. 17. 22.  till after this life, yet in the mean time one man might stand for his Church, and represent his Church, the better to knit up this knot between them. Vt sic ei oves commendaret, says S. Austen, ut esset ille caput, ille figuram corporis portaret, id est, Ecclesiae, & tanquam sponsus & sponsa essent duo in carne unâ: that is, That so he might commend his sheep unto him, that himself might be the head, the other might bear the figure of his body, that is the Church, and as bride and bridegroom they might be twain in one flesh. Here, I trow, you have Peter, not the head, but the body, plainly so distinguished by S. Austen, ut esset ille caput, that Christ might be the head; Peter, shall I say, the body? nay, not so much as the body, but figuram corporis portaret, says S. Austen, that he might carry the figure or resemblance of the body. And is gerere personam now, and gestare figuram all one, think you, because of Tully's Offices? Yet you cry out against the Bishop for fraudulent dealing, and superscribe your box, A Discovery of his absurdities, falsities, lies: you blame him for lame quotation of places. Indeed he is as compendious in quoting the Fathers, as you are ambitious in citing your own Supplement, and as talkative and full of circumstance as any pies-nest. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
But for quoting of places against the light of conscience, was there ever any wretch so taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so in the very manner, as you are in the construction of gerere personam, which S. Austen expounds by gestare figuram, or portare figuram, you would feign extend to boundless jurisdiction? And if gerere and gestare were granted you to be all one, is there no difference between figure and persona, as persona is put for maiestas reip.? will you put figura in that sense too? You imagine the Church to carry S. Peter; no doubt, as a beast carrieth the rider: and some of you have allegorized it so, from Balaam and his ass, to the Pope and your Church. Here you see the Church doth not bear S. Peter, but S. Peter bears the figure of the body, that is, of the Church. And where you think the Supremacy that you attribute to your Pope was grounded upon the infallibility of his judgement in faith, and from thence proceeded that same Pasce oves meas, S. Austen tells you farther, to correct that opinion, that the ground of his commission was the strength of his love, in these words, Proinde ut oves commendaret, quid illi prius dicit, ne illi tanquam alteri commendaret? 
Ne illi tanquam alteri.  Petre amas me? Et respondet; Amo, etc. Confirmat trinitatem, ut consolidet unitatem: that is, Therefore that he might commend his sheep unto him, what first does he say unto him, that he might not commend them to him as to another man? Peter lovest thou me? And he answereth, I love thee, etc. He confirms trinity, to establish unity. So as every where, unity and love is aimed at, which is the bond that couples Christ and his Church; which Church as I tell you, Peter representeth here, no otherwise then a proxy doth him that he stands to be admitted for. But you doting upon the privileges of your earthly God, blot out love to bring in power, and for that which S. Austen said a little before, ut essent duo in carne unâ, your Canonists have not shamed to turn it thus; ut essent duo in sede unâ: as if Christ and the Pope had one Consistoire. This is the agreement between you and S. Austen here.  
§ 7. You again cite S. Austen in his commentary upon the 108. Psalm. Were you disposed, trow you, to do yourself a shrewd turn? For from whence could you receive a greater blow? Yet here again I must tell you, that your citation is wrong. Cuius ecclesiae (say you, as quoting S. Austen) ille agnoscitur gessisse personam, meaning of Peter. But S. Austen says not so. First, not gessisse but gestasse, is S. Austin's. See you now that I distinguished these two, not without cause before? For neither did you, I am sure, without cause here change them. You know that gerere is of far more force, then gestare in these matters: so as gerere remp. is as much as regere remp., gestare not. And if S. Austen had said gessisse personam; yet see, I pray you, with what qualification. Not simply gessisse, but in figurâ gessisse personam ecclesiae: which you cut out: as if in figurâ were no words, or words of no sense, or sense, but not to your tooth. This is your honest dealing, that cry out against falsehood. Call you this arguing in figurâ against your betters? And would you read that to the Corinthians, or suffer to be read, (suppose in your College hall at Rome, where as we in our Colleges here read the Bible at our ordinary meals, so Father Parsons made the scholars to read the book of Titles, and of claims to Kingdoms, if your Seculars have said true, and men say that you boast of Father Parsons his spirit;) would you suffer I say to be read, Omnia contingebant illis, and no more, for omnia in figurâ 
1. Cor. 10.  contingebant illis? specially if the controversy were how omnia contingebant illis, as here the controversy was about gerere personam, and in what sense. But let us hear S. Austen: Sicut quaedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum propriè pertinere videantur, nec tamen habent illustrem intellectum, nisi cum referuntur ad ecclesiam, cuius ille agnoscitur in sigurâ gestâsse personam, propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, sicut est, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, & siqua huiusmodi: ita Iudas personam quodam modo sustinet inimicorum Christi judaeorum; qui & tunc oderant Christum, etc. As some things are said which may seem properly to belong to the Apostle Peter, and yet make no clear sense, but when they are referred to the Church, whereof he is known to have represented the person figuratively, for the cheifedome which he had among the disciples, as that is for one, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and if there be any like: so judas sustains after a manner the person of the jews Christ's enemies, who both then hated Christ, etc. Here is somewhat that you catch at, but more that we may retort upon you. You catch very greedily at propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit, which we never doubt but S. Peter had, a place of some priority in the choir Apostolic. And it may be for that, our Saviour the rather chose him, to represent his Church. More zealous than the rest, more ancient than the rest; whether to figure the faith, or the eternity of the Church, the one in this world, the other in the next, or for what endowment else of his you can devise. For some no doubt. And if it be secret, is it therefore none? will you call Christ to account for every thing? and unless we can answer for him, will you condemn him? Why not some other as well as Peter, say you, if it were only a matter of representation? As if I might not say the like, Why not some other as well as Peter preferred to be the chief magistrate? It was free, you will say, to our saviours choice, and but one could be to sway a monarchy: he chose Peter. And may not I say the same? But one could be to figure unity: for, for that cause he chose one: and as in diverse other things Peter had the pre-eminence, but yet with others, as james and john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
Gal. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (more primi then Peter, where more might be used) so here where but one could be employed in the business, the rest being slipped over, Peter was thought the meetest to be the model of unity, because in some prerogative he might pass those primos; or perhaps it was the secret of our saviours breast. Are you so little acquainted with the liberty of God's actions? or reserve you nothing for our knowledge in the world to come? This to your objection.  
§ 8. Now mark what we gather out of S. Austin's text. First, Some things there are seeming to belong to Peter, which can make no clear sense, but when they are construed of the Church. This is flat against you, that would have Peter such a figure of the Church forsooth, as yet to occupy a certain place of his own, and what is given to Peter should be given to the Church, and what to the Church, the same to Peter. But some things, says S. Austen, are said to Peter which can have no pregnant construction but of the Church.  
Secondly, amidst those some things, is, Tibi dabo claves. S. Austen useth this very example; which you would fain have to be engrossed by Peter, as if the keys had personally been delivered to him, and in his own right: which S. Austen denies.  
Thirdly, Si qua alia, if there be any more. There may be more then, as, Pasce oves. No doubt this must be one; by his own exposition before, de Agone Christiano, c. 30.  
Fourthly, that he bore indeed personam ecclesiae, but in figurâ, which you had pared off. Not by power of his place, or authority permanent; but culled out before the rest by our Lord for that end, to signify unity.  
Fiftly, that primatus was not the primacy of magistracy, even that declares; that he says, the keys were promised to him propter primatum. So that first the primacy, than the keys. And his primacy among the Apostles was a motive-cause to promise him the keys in the name of the Church: whereas else primatus and the keys had gone together, and as soon as primatus, so soon the keys. But now they are promised him for some specialty in him. Not for office then, as you would have it.  
Sixtly, as judas sustained the person of the wicked, (sustinuit, a more powerful word then gestavit, and much more than significavit, which is said here of Peter, and yet but quodam modo, so shy is S. Austen, so far from the jurisdiction that you build upon Tully's Offices) so Peter of the Church. As judas of the one, so Peter of the other, saith S. Austen: which is no authoritative primacy, you may be sure, unless judas shall have a generation of Successors now, as well as Peter, and (which is more damnable) of holy Scriptures institution. If any such were, who more likely than the Pope, that holds by the purse which judas carried, and troubles all the world for Supremacy in temporals? But neither judas then, nor the Pope now. Else Peter should have been head, under judas, his head, (do you like this?) when he went so far as to scandalise our Saviour, and deserved the name of Satan at his hands. Was Peter then under judas his jurisdiction? yet, no doubt far gone in that part, which judas bore the person of, by S. Austin's saying. For so we read in his Alia expositio of the same Psalm: Cuius populi diximus judam in figurâ gessisse personam, sicut ecclesiae gessit Apostolus Petrus. Your gravity perhaps will say, that this is reproach: for so chap. 4. num. 33. But we do but argue, and I pray who gives the cause? Quacunque scripta sunt, propter nos scripta sunt. Rom. 15.  
§ 9 To omit that Prosper upon the same Psalm (Prosper Leo's secretary, and S. Austin's scholar) tunes it yet in a higher key, making judas not only bear the person of the wicked, which you construe so imperiously as we have now heard; but he says in plain terms, judas primatum gessit inimicorum Christi, judas bore the primacy of Christ's enemies: which I trust you will not expound, how impudent soever, that judas was made chief magistrate over Christ's enemies: no more than was Peter over Christ's friends.  
§ 10. YOU quote farther S. Austen in his 13. serm. de verbis Domini secundum Matth. out of which you have these words, Petrus à Petrâ cognominatus, etc. which moreover you thus english: Peter taking his name from a rock, was happy, bearing the figure of the Church, having the principality of the Apostleship. Of which anon as it serves your turn. In the mean time you may see what variety of words S. Austen hath, to set out the meaning of his gerere personam, both here and elsewhere. Though here he doth not use so much as the word personam, but figuram only, which is a great deal less, or rather makes all beside to be just nothing. But as I began to say, see a little I pray you, his store of words, to give you his right sense about gerere personam, that you dream not always of Magistrates in Tully's Offices. Admonet nos intelligere mare praesens saeculum esse, Petrum verò Apostolum ecclesiae unicae typum: He gives us to understand, that the sea is this present world, and Peter the Apostle a type or instance of the only Church. The same again, de baptismo contra Donatist. l. 3. c. 17. In type unitatis (as afore of the Church, so now of charity, but it is all one in effect) Dominus Petro potestatem dedit, etc. In the type of unity, our Lord gave Peter power, (says S. Austen.) or in the type of charity. And will you say that all that were types in the old Testament, were 
Cypr● de bono Patient. Inuenim●● insto● omnes qui figuram Christi imagine prae●unte portabant.  so many magistrates? where some were of Christ, yea very many: were there so many governors of Christ, I pray you? or the types of the Church that went before in the old Testament, were they all Church-governors? And yet thus, you see, S. Austen declares his meaning about genere personam, by sigura, by typus, and such like. But you will say, it follows in S. Austin's words, Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus. And what then? As if we denied the primacy in the order of the Apostles, which are ready to grant even more than so, if need be. The Bishop 
Or●… 〈◊〉, loci, 〈◊〉▪ p. 15  yields a triple primacy to Peter, in the book that you confute before you understand. Out of which you in time may prove the triple crown. And had S. Auston been so favourable, you had done it ere this. In whom it follows, Saepe respondet pro omnibus, spoken of Peter. And will you know, quo mysterio? Let himself show. unus pro multis, unus in multis: once again to endear this unity to them. Proceed yet: Simon anteà vocabatur: women autem Petrus à Domino ei impositum est, & hoc, ut eâ figurâ significaret ecclesiam. Do you hear figura? do you hear significaret? How will this agree with gerere personam in your majestical sense? Yea the name of Peter he says, was given him to that end, rather to signify for the Church, holding the wholesome confession, Tues filius Dei vivi, then for his own pre-eminence of place over others. And yet more pregnantly, Quia enim Christus petram, Petrus populus Christianus. Are you aware what the people have gotten by this shift, whom you are wont to cut short? So many people, so many Peter. Unless you are content that Peter do no more then represent the Church, that is, the people of God, as S. Austin's meaning is.  
§ 11. I might tell you of that between, because I would give you good measure for complaining of lamo quotations. Petrus à petrâ, non petra à Petro, and that, as à Christo Christianus vocatur, non Christus à Christiano. Yet you would not refuse to be called of Peter: and Bellarmine says, chrysostom 
De notis eccls lib. 4. c. 4.  prophesied almost as much, Hom. 33. in Act. that you might not be ashamed if in time to come you were called of the Popes, among whom was Peter. Where you may do well to think how this agrees with Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. where he is so far from being called of Peter, or any other, I love not (says he) to be called after the name of men, being borne of God) that unless our Saviour Christ were God, he would think it no honour to be called by him, though as a man never so excellent. But we are now in S. Austen, More plainly then against them that would be built upon Peter, which (as I said) you blush not, but boast of at this day as your secondary foundation, 
See Adjoind. num. 18. c. 3.  Homines volenter adificari super homines, men that have a longing to be built upon men, (we upon their doctrine, Apoc. 21. 14. and Ephes. 2. 20. you hardly upon his person, or as shall seem good) [What say they?] Ego sum Cephae, ipse est Petrus. Quomodo enim non in Pauli, sic nec in Petri, etc. Vt Petrus super petram, non petra super Petrum: 1. I am Cephas his, now Cephas and Peter are all one. For as we are not [baptised in the name of Paul, so are we not of Peter neither, etc. that Peter may [be known to be built] upon the rock, and not the rock upon Peter. But close to our purpose. Illum videre Petrum, qui tunc erat figura nostra: that is, Consider that Peter who was then our figure; not bare our person, that is, bare rule over us, we never living in Peter's time, and his regency being expired before we were born, but (as I have often said) standing for the Church by way of type or figure, and so he represented for us, and for the Church to the world's end, whereas he could govern no more than lived in his own days. Petrus TUNC erat sigura nostra. Again, to urge significat against this man's magnificat, which he sings to S. Peter, but afore he know well what it means, In eo quòd dixit Petrus, Tues filius Dei vivi, firmos significat, says S. Austen, in eo quòd trepidat, etc. infirmos ecclesiae significat. Is this also to be construed by Tully's Offices, of government? or doth S. Austen not speak yet significantly enough, without we turn the Jesuits dictionary? Doth a magistrate signify the city that he governs? or was S. Peter at one time the governor of the strong, namely, when he confessed and believed Christ, an other time of the weak, namely, when he staggered? How then was he ever an universal governor? For when he doubted, he confessed not; when he confessed, he doubted not. So never was he governor of the body altogether, never did he gerere personam in that sense. I think you see cause to repent your construction, unless you be weary of universal dominion. And yet once again S. Austen, to give you more light. In illo ergò uno figurabatur ecclesia, & utrumque genus significandum fuit, id est, firmi & infirmi, quia sine utroque non est ecclesia. In him therefore alone, or in that one man therefore, the Church was figured, and each kind of men was to be signified, that is both the strong and the weak, because without both of these, the Church is not. Do you perceive how this fits with that which went before? For either S. Peter was a ruler but by halves, or gerere personam must be otherwise construed, even as S. Austen does here, by figurare, and significare, not as you by regere, a word not once used by S. Austen in all this matter, nor any like it. For, as for primus & praecipuus in ordine Apostolorum, we have cleared it before, and it is too weak a foundation to bear such stress. Save that as Peter of the Church, so these words of Peter, a semblable supportance and worthy your choosing.  
§ 12. We are long upon this place, but the reason is, discover one of our Discoverers tricks, and discredit all. Ambulavit Petrus super aquas jussu Domeni. Hi sunt firmi ecclesiae: Peter walked upon the waters at our Lord's commandment. These are the strong in the Church, says S. Austen. It puts me in mind of your argument for the primacy. Aquae multae, populi multi: Peter walking on the sea, was his regiment of the world: yet not all waters, I hope, were in the sea of Tiberias. Or shall we say, that this prefigured your Tiber? though so doubtful is as yet Peter's resiance at Rome, that he hath not been seen sitting, and much less walking there, upon your Sea. Onesiphorus with much seeking found Paul at Rome, 2. Tim. 1. 17. we Peter not yet. Our Lord indeed entered Peter's ship. But what then? I should think if Peter had entered his, it had been more pregnant. So might Peter have been thought to have succeeded in his charge; this allegory makes Christ succeed into Peter's. No doubt Peter had a boat, as a fisherman should have; our Saviour none, sanctifying another trade, as we are taught by justine Martyr, during the time of his minority, until it pleased him to reveal himself unto the world. But Bernard says it; will you be judged by Bernard? Do but tell the Pope, as he did Eugenius, he will say you speak inconsiderately to him. I wisse an easy matter for S. Bernard's wit, with a flourish or so, to establish the Popedom already established. Besides that, he will tell you, S. james raised seed to his brother deceased, 
De consid l. 2  that is, succeeded into our Lord's province. Unless our Lord himself had not the world for his scope. And Eusebius as much, quoting Clemens for his author, l. 6. Hypotyp. that the chief Apostles themselves, whereof Peter 
Lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  was one, did not once contest with james for that priority. But return we to S. Austen.  
§ 13. There are yet two more places behind in S. Austen. One, Tract. in johannem 124. an other de Agone Christiano cap. 30. With that we began, and with the same we will conclude. But the first we will fetch from his Tractat. in joh. 123. somewhat higher. Speaking there of our saviours repast after his resurrection with fish & honeycomb, he ponders the very number of the disciples then present, and thus gathers: Vt omnes qui hanc spem gerimus, per illum septenarium numerum discipulorum, per quem potest hoc loco nostra universitas intelligi figurata, tanto sacramento nos communicare nossemus, & eidem beatitudini sociari. That is, That all we which are endued with this hope, may know that by that sevenfold number of disciples (by which our whole company may here seem to be figured) we are both partakers of that mystery, and fellows in that bliss. Neither doubteth he but S. john ending his Gospel with this narration, having many things else to report of Christ: he ends it, magnâ & magnarum rerum contemplatione, as he says: making it as important, so mystical, you see, by that word of contemplation. Where first we have figurari in the sense before confirmed, not theirs, but ours. As erewhile Peter figured the Church, so now those seven disciples figured the universality of God's people, that is, the Church. And yet I hope they are not made thereby regents of the Church, though the Jesuits have a project, we hear, to bring in more than one, to manage at one time the Sea Apostolic. I remember Occam in his Dialogues hath a question to that purpose, whether the Popedom may be swayed by many at once? And inclining to think it lawful, it may be the Jesuits drew it from him, and would put it in practice. In truth our Saviour choosing 12. Apostles, showed he never meant, that one should govern all after they were dead, as these now would have the Pope to do in Peter's stead. But as I was saying, the 7. figurers here are not 7. governors: no more than is Peter figuring the Church, or bearing the figure of the Church, or whatsoever else soundeth that way, invested in the authority that this man here dreams of, as if gerere figuram, were gerere personam; and gerere personam, were potiri rerum.  
§ 14. HEre also that is answered that F. T. in his wisdom asked a little before, why only Peter should bear the person of the Church? or, whether none was meet for that part but he? We have answered it before; and the like might be asked of judas, was there none wicked in those days but he? not Herod? not the pharisees? not any other? or could none but an Apostle stand for the pattern of bale and condemnation? But S. Austen here answers it a great deal more roundly; that seven men at another time, and not only Peter, figuraverunt universitatem nostram, represented our whole company, the company of the faithful, that is, the Church of God, whom yet, I suppose, he will not allow for Popes.  
§ 15. Again in the same tractat, that you may see how far Pasce oves meas surmounts the Pope, or the Pope's commission, which they squeeze to the uttermost to give him advancement, S. Austen insists first upon that consideration, oves meas, not, oves tuas, which is worth the poizing, not only in the sense that the jesuits urge it, as if all Christ's sheep were thereby recommended to Peter's charge, Apostles, Prophets, Kings and Emperors: whereas our Saviour nevertheless hath sheep in heaven, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both Saints and Angels, which I trust are not liable to Popish jurisdiction; no, though pasce were impera, and sarculum sceptrum, contrary to S. Bernard. Not only thus then I say, but he adds further, and gives other cautions, 
a 1. Feed my sheep, not, feed thy sheep. Seek my glory in [feeding] them, not thine own glory; my sovereignty not thine; yea my advantage, not thine own gains.  pasce meas, not pasce tuas, therefore non te pascere cogita, gloriam meam in iis quaere, non gloriam tuam, dominium meum (that was not ex hoc mundo) non tuum, yea lucra mea (let the Venetians hear this) not lucra tua: and to conclude, 
b 1. Be not of their company that belong to the dangerous times: Alluding no doubt to that of 2. Tim. 3. where it is said, men shall be covetous, and proud, and lo●e●● of pleasures, more thē●…ers of God.  Ne this in eorum societate qui pertinent ad tempora periculosa, perilous times: indeed times the more perilous, because all the strife is de temporalibus.  
§ 16. Neither doubts he to extend the force of that pasce which was given to Peter, to the censure not of Pope's only, though of them too, but of all bad ministers through out the world. Contra hos vigilat toties inculcata ista vox Christi (Pasce oves meas) quos Apostolus gemit sua quaerere, non quae jesu Christi. Against those stands up this saying of Christ, so often repeated, [Feed my sheep,] whom the Apostle laments for seeking their own, not the things that are jesus Christ's: [whosoever they are, or of what rank soever.] And a little before that, Qui hoc animo pascunt oves Christi, ut suas esse velint non Christi, se convincuntur amare non Christum, vel gloriandi, vel dominandi, vel acquirendi cupiditate, non obediends, & subveniendi, & deo placendi cupiditate. Which because our Adjoinder understands Latin so well, we will leave to him for this once to English.  
§ 17. Come we now to the 124 Tractat, out of which he urgeth this: Hoc agit ecclesia spe beata, in hac vitâ aerumnosa, cuius Ecclesiae. Petrus, propter Apostolatûs sui primatum, gerebat figuratâ generalitate personam. Which the easier to clear, we may sort out by parcels that which makes for them. First gerebat personam, which this man thinks to be as much as tenebat regimen; but of that before. To omit how it is qualified with figuratâ generalitate, his bearing the person, being but figuring, and signifying, and representing still, with S. Austen, which is short of Magistracy. Secondly, propter Apostolatús sui primatum. Which the better to conceive, hear we further S. Austen, hear you too good Sir, that accuse the Bishop for laming places, as if no body were such a legal reciter of them as yourself. Quod enim adipsum propriè pertinet, (speaking of Peter) naturâ onus homo erat, gratiâ unus Christianus, abundantiore gratiâ unus idemque primus Apostolus. Sed etc. that is, For as concerning himself, Peter was by nature [but] one man, by grace one Christian man, by a greater measure of the same grace, one and a prime Apostle. But etc. You will say perhaps that this is a third kind of advantage, an authority more than ever you were aware of, for Peter, unus idemque primus Apostolus. But there is more in it then so. S. Austen knows but three steps of condition here in Peter. A man, which he was by nature, a Christian, which by grace, but by height of grace, by excess of grace, an Apostle. Yet unus Apostolus, but one Apostle, not virtually as you would have it, the whole choir or College of them. Our Saviour was not so poor as to have but one Apostle, says Irenaeus, l. 3. against them that thought Paul was the only man. So far off was Peter then, that scarce he was thought to be one of the number. Indeed twelve, as I showed you before, for great cause. But concerning Peter, unus Apostolus, says S. Austen, but one Apostle. As for the prime, we grant you, as you have been often told, and to content you the more, more than in one regard of primacy. An excellent flower he was in that garland; what would you else? But that this primacy was distinct from your supposed magistracy or majesty Ecclesiastical, as you would infer out of gerere personam, hear what follows. S. Austen having recounted the three former degrees of Peter's condition, he proceeds to a fourth, neither coincident with the rest, nor yet containing any such principality as you talk of, but merely afforded him of our saviours free bounty, in regard to his excellent worth among his fellows. Sed quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, &, Quodcunque ligaveris super 
1. But when it was said unto him, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, & whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, & whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, he represented the Universal Church.  terram, erit ligatum & in coelis, & quodcunque solves super terram, erit solutum & in coelis, universam significabat ecclesiam, says S. Austen: he stood for the Church, it was said to him in the person of the Church, not as chief Magistrate, not as primus Apostolus, the first wheel in the clock, but in a sense distinct from the former three degrees (therefore he says, Sed quando) yet happily the rather for his aforesaid worthiness, our Saviour put this part upon him, honoured him with representation of his Catholic Church, made him to signify Ecclesiam universam, (S. Austin's words) but only to signify it, & that not as an Apostle, but in a fourth consideration, which helps you nothing, rather spoils you of all.  
§ 18. That which follows is pregnant, but I must be sparing; though you may think we are afraid to enlarge quotations. Besides, it hath been brought totidem verbis before out of his 13. serm. de verb. Dom secundum Matth. the Father having recorded it in two several places, so far he was from retracting it; That, Petrus à petrâ, sicut Christianus à Christo, and not è contrà, that our boast should not be in men, but in the living God. And yet in truth more plainly in this place, which may serve, if any thing, to open their eyes, that dare build upon a man as the foundation of their Church, though it were Peter himself, that I say not how unworthy creatures now in his Room. Ideo quip ait Dominus, Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, quia dixerat Petrus, Tu es Christus filius dei vivi. Super hanc ergo inquit petram quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum ipse etiam aedificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum quip aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus jesus. That is: For therefore saith our Lord, Upon this rock I will build my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. I will therefore build, says he, my Church upon this rock which thou hast confessed. For the rock was Christ, upon which foundation even Peter himself was feign to be built. For another foundation can no man lay, besides that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. Then, Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro, id est, potestatem ligandi soluendique peccata. How so? Quod enim est per proprietatem in Christo ecclesia, hoc est per significationem Petrus in petrâ, qua significatione intelligitur Christus petra, Petrus ecclesia. Haec igitur ecclesia quam significabat Petrus, etc. that is to say, The Church which is founded in Christ, received of him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Peter, that is, the power of binding and losing sins. For that which properly the Church is in Christ, the very same by signification is Peter in the rock. By which signification Christ is understood to be the rock, Peter to be the Church. This Church therefore which Peter signified, etc. I say nothing of signification, whereof enough before, and every line in S. Austen is fraught with it. But is not this strange, that Peter whom they every where advance for the head, S. Austen should still take for the body? In the person of the body, of the multitude of the faithful, did our Saviour heap those privileges upon Peter. And whereas some of you are not ashamed to urge Sequere me, for a document of his primacy, as if it were, Sequere me in gubernatione ecclesiae (a strange problem of desperate pleaders,) even there Peter differs not from the community, but still stands for a figure of the body. Hear S. Austen: Vniversitati dicitur, Sequere me, pro quâ universitate passus est Christus. It is said to the whole multitude, Follow me, for which whole multitude Christ suffered. For to construe, Follow me, in so ambitious a sense, that is, be Lord as I am Lord, be Regent as I am Regent, Christian people will soon abhor, though meanly instructed, who know we are to follow our Saviour Christ by imitation of his virtues, not by affectation of his place, and Peter to follow him no otherwise then we Peter: even as Paul for the agreement of his spirit with them both, is not nice to call us to the imitation of himself, but yet subordinately to Christ, Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ, 1. Cor. 11. 1. And so absurd is this argument for Peter's Monarchy from Sequere me, that S. Austen in his commentary upon the 62. Psalm, construes Sequere me, by vade post me: follow me, by get thee behind me. His words are, Redi post me Satanas, non enim sapis quae Dei sunt, sed quae hominum. Then, Quia antecedere me vis, redi post me, ut sequaris me, ut iam sequens Christum diceret, Agglutinata est anima mea post te: Because thou wilt needs go before me, get thee rather behind me, that so thou mayest follow me. Though it be true also, that Sequere me, was a common word with our Saviour, and spoken both to S. Matthew, when he called him to the Apostleship from the receipt of custom, Matth. 9 and to him that preferred to go and bury his father, before the following of his Master, 
Euseb. Emes. in Hom. de johan. evang. Quod Petro dicitur, omnibus dicitur, Sequere ●nc.  Matth. 8. And if Peter obeyed the Sequere with the first of these two, in performing his ministery, his successors with the second, while they leave Christ to snatch at a mortuary.  
§ 19 I am afraid of giving the Reader a surfeit in a case so evident: but yet I must not omit this one passage, that follows in the forenamed Tractate of the Father upon S. john, because our adversary hath quoted it.  
§ 20. He says then, That as there is a two fold state of the Church, one in misery and in exile, another in glory, in royalty, and in bliss; so Peter was made a figure of the former, john of the latter, by our Saviour Christ. So as not only johannes anteponitur Petro, john in the one of these is preferred before Peter, (as S. Austin's words are) but simply john surpasseth Peter, as much as the life that we shall lead in bliss, excels this miserable that here we live. For thereafter as the lives are, so are the figures of them both, which are here said to be these two Apostles, Peter of the militant Church, john of the triumphaut, as hath been showed. But shall we say, trow you, that john is a monarch in the triumphant, or bears any rule or regiment among the blessed, where the Son himself resigns his Kingdom, or submits it at least to God the Father, 1. Cor. 15.? Or if john have no such monarchy by virtue of his figuring and representing that state, why then should Peter claim any in earth, because he stands for a figure of the militant? The words are somewhat long, but I will only set down as many as shall serve to give the Reader light, the rest may be viewed and dwelled on by leisure. Duas vitas sibi divinitùs praedicatas & commendat as novit ecclesia: quarum est una in fide, altera in specie: una in tempore peregrinationis, altera in aeternitate mansionis: una in labour, altera in requie una in viâ, altera in patriâ: una in opere actionis, altera in mercede contemplationis: una declinat à malo & facit bonum, altera nullum habet, à quo declinet, malum, & magnum habet quo fruatur bonum: una cum hoste pugnat, altera sine hoste regnat: una fortis est in adversis, altera nihil sentit adversi: una carnales libidines fraenat, altera spiritalibus delectationibus vacat: una est vincendi curâ sollicita, altera victoriae pace secura: una in tentationibus adiwatur, altera sine ullâ tentatione in ipso adiutore laetatur: una subvenit indigenti, altera ibi est ubi nullum invenit indigentem: una aliena peccata ut sua sibi ignoscantur, ignoscit, altera nec patitur quod ignoscat, nec facit quod sibi poscat ignosci: unaflagellatur malis, ne extollatur in bonis, altera tantâ plenitudine gratiae caret omni malo, ut sine ullâ tentatione superbiae cohaereat summo bono: una bona & mala discernit, altera quae sola bona sunt cernit. Ergo una bona est, sed adhuc misera, altera melior & beata. That is, Two sorts of lives doth the Church of Christ know, intimated and recommended to her from God: whereof the one consists in faith, the other in sight: one in toil and pilgrimage temporal, the other in rest and ease eternal: one is of the way, the other of the country: one hath the task of tedious action, the other the reward of blissful contemplation: one flees from evil and does only good, the other hath no evil to shun at all, but enjoys a good past all expressing. One continually copes with her enemies, the other triumphs without any enemy: one maintains courage in the midst of tribulation, the other is past sense of any more trouble: one restrains carnal lusts and pleasures, the other attends delights spiritual: one is careful out of the desire it hath to conquer, the other is at peace & secure like a conqueress: one finds help of God in temptation, the other rejoices in her helper God, scorning the tempter: one relieves the poor with her charity, the other is there where there is no poverty: one forgives other men's sins, that her own may be pardoned, the other neither commits what she should wish to be forgiven her, nor suffers aught of that which we pardon in another: one is chastened with ovils, lest she be proud of the good, the other is so freed from all kind of evil by the fullness of grace, that she adheres to the chief good without any danger of pride: one discerns the good from the evil, but the other sees nothing but that which is good. So as the one is good, but as yet in miseries, the other is better and in most perfect joys. Then follows. Ista significata est per Apostolum Petrum, illa per johannem. Ideo dicitur huic, Sequere me; de illo autem, si eum volo manore donec veniam, quid ad te? Tu me sequere. Quid enim est hoc? Quantum sapio, quantum capio, quid est hoc, nisi, Tu me sequere per imitationem perferendi temporalia mala, ille maneat donec sempiterna venio redditurus bona? That is, That life was signified by the Apostle Peter, this by john. Therefore it was said to him, Follow me. But of him thus, If I will have him rarrie till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. For what means that? As much as I conceive, as much as I understand, what is it but even this, Follow thou me by conformity of suffering evils temporatie, & let him tarry till I come, to repay the everlasting good. Do you see what a Sequere Peter is called to? Even as much as S. Austen either capit or sapit, only to the toleration of temporal injuries, out of which you would frame temporal Monarchies. To which purpose he had also said a little before, setting a mark upon it, Ecce propter quod ei dictum est, Sequere me. Namely because Christ having suffered for mankind, left us an example that we might follow his steps, S. Peter so expounding Sequere me, by, Vt sequamur vestigia eius, 1. Pet. 2. 21. But go we forward as we began, in comparing the contemplative life with the active, john with Peter, this world with the next. Amet ergo cum Petrus, ut ab istà mortalitate liberemur, and, ametur ab eo johannes, ut in illà immortalitate seruemur. That is, Let Peter therefore love him, to the end we may be delivered from this present mortality, and let john be loved of him, that we may be saved by him in the immortal glory. Again, Hoc per Petrum significatum est, plus amantem, sed minùs amatum, quia minùs nos amat Christus miseros quam beatos. Veritatis autem contemplationem qualis tunc futura est minùs amamus, quia nondum novimus, nec habemus. Haec ergo per johannem significata est minùs amantem, atque ideo & ad ipsam, & ad eius in nobis amorem, qualis ei debetur, implendum, donec veniat Dominus, expectantem: sed plus amatum, quia id quod per illum figuratum est, hoc efficit beatum. That is, That was signified by Peter who loved Christ more, but was loved of him less: because Christ loves us less in the state of misery, than he will do us one day in the kingdom of glory. We also less love the view of truth [and of the face of God] while we are as we are, because we neither have it yet, nor know it, as we shall do. This life therefore of ours is signified by john, who loved Christ less, and therefore waits for his coming, till the other life may be revealed, and the love of it perfited as it should be in us: but the same john was more loved of Christ, because that [life] makes us blessed, which in him was instanced; [or, figured.] Then, Nemo tamen istos insignes Apostolos separet. Yet let no man sever these two excellent Apostles. So then, as one figures, so the other figures: as the one represents, so the other represents, and represents only. john was not hereby installed Monarch of heaven, no nor yet free denizen thereof by actual possession. (It was long after that, that S. john went to heaven.) No more was Peter, then, of earth, or any earthly prerogative: for they must not be separated, but as one, so the other. Nemo separet, saith S. Austen. Et in eo (saith the same Father) quod significabat Petrus, ambo erant, & in eo quod significabat johannes, ambo futuri erant: significando sequebatur iste, manebat ille etc. That is, Both in that [life] which Peter signified, they were both of them, and in that which john signified, they were both of them to be. He followed, this stayed, for signification sake, etc. Do you see that if Peter be a Monarch of the Church, john must needs be too, which is a thing impossible? For, in eo quod significabat Petrus, ambo erant, saith S. Austen. That is, In that which Peter signified they were both of them. In whom yet it follows plainer, Nec ipsi soli, (Peter and john forenamed) sed universa hoc facit sancta Ecclesia sponsa Christi: ab istis tentationibus eruenda, in illa felicitate servanda. Neither Peter only & john, that is, two of the Apostles, but the whole Church of God, the spouse of Christ, doth the very same: avoiding the tentation, which is here present, creeping on to the salvation, which is laid up for us in heaven. Quas duas vitas Petrus & johannes figuraverunt (as before significabant, so now figuraverunt) singuli singulas etc. That is, Which two lives Peter and john figured, the one the one, the other the other, etc. Lastly, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabiliter pertinentibus, propter huius vitae procellosissimae gubernaculum, ad liganda & soluenda peccata, claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit: ijsdemque omnibus sanctis propter vitae illius secretissimae quietissimum sinum, super pectus Christi johannes evangelista discubuit. Quoniam nec iste solus, sed universa Ecclesia, nec ille in principio, etc. That is, In am therefore of all the Saints of Christ, which are inseparably grafted into his mystical body, as concerning their steerage, & the direction of their course, in this most troublesome and tempestuous world, the prime Apostle Peter received the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, for the binding and losing of their offences. And again in am of all the same Saints, with respect to that most quiet either bosom of secrecy, or harbour of bliss, the Evangelist john leaned upon the breast of our blessed Saviour. Because neither he alone, but the whole Church, nor the other in the beginning, etc.  
§ 20. Against this I know what Mr. F. T. will say (for 
Bell, l. 1. de pontiff. Rom. c. 12.  he says no more than out of the mouth of his best masters) As john really, so Peter really: as the one lay upon our saviours breast, and it was no fiction, so the other received the keys of heavens kingdom, and it was more than a bare representation. Who doubts but S. Peter received the keys, as well as john leaned on Christ's bosom? But Peter received the keys in the person of the Church militant, because our Lord would honour unity: & john rested and repasted himself on his sacred bosom as a figure of the triumphant, to shadow out unto us the estate of glory and blissful immortality. Each did as we read they did, but with a drift to intimate some farther thing unto us. Non tibi sed unitati, may we say to S. Peter: and, Non tibi sed aeteruitati, may we say to S. john. Omnibus 
a In lieu of all the Saints belonging to the body of Christ.  Sanctis ad Christi corpus pertinentibus, says S. Austen. And, 
b Neither Peter alone, nor john alone, but the whole Church.  Quoniam nec iste solus, nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia. In this stands the answer, that both Peter received, and received for himself, (for he had a part in the keys as well as others, we deny it not) but 
c Beda in Contion, hyemal. in 16. Matth. Potestas ligandi & soluendi [per claves] quamvis soli Petro videatur à Domino data, absque ullá tamen dubietate noscendum est, quia & caeteris Apostolis datur, ipso teste, etc. Et, Nunc etiam in Episcopis & Presbyteris omni Ecclesie essicium idem committitur. Et, Omni igitur electorum ecclesie ligandi ac soluendi datur áuctoritas, juxta modum culparum vel poenitentiae. Et paulò antè, Meritò tamen prae caeteris ei qiu maiori devotione confessus erat Christum, ut constaret omnibus, quiae absque eà confession, & fide, regnum coelorum nullus posset intrare. An other manner of reason why the keys are given to Peter, than the Jesuits fancy.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, portionally and particularly, not wholly and entirely, save only as he stood in the Church's room, to grace unity. And this proves no universal authority. As not john in the triumphant, as not judas in the malignant, so neither Peter in the militant. But so much may suffice to have spoken hereof.  
§ 21. THE last place of S. Austen that is cited for this purpose, is that which I first began with, de Agone Christ. c. 30. which because this hobby-horse cries out upon the Bishop so, for alleging fraudulently and lamely, as hath been said, I will keep my promise to report it even at large. Though in the 20. chapter of that book, before we come to the place that is now to be scanned, S. Austen sufficiently shows what he means, by his wont phrase of gerere personam. Where he doubts not to say, speaking of the head in a man's body, wherein all the senses are lodged and recollected, that Caput ipsius animae quodam modo personam sustinet: not as if the head did rule the soul, which were very unreasonable (as they would make Peter to be governor of the Church, they care not how) but happily for 
Oculos quasi ipsam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrus. in 4. ad Col. Ethico fe●è extremo.  resembling the invisible soul in visible form most lively, and most apparently, even as Peter did the Church, one for many. And so it follows in S. Austen, Ibi enim omnes sensus apparent. But speak we to the 30. chapter, which is the thing in question. Entreating there how the Church ought to show compassion to her children, converting by repentance, he thus says: Non enim sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos, huius ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus. That is, For not without cause doth Peter among all the Apostles sustain the person of this Catholic Church. Huic enim ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt: For to this Church, the keys of the Kingdom of heaven were given. Which latter FOR, is not to show that Peter was chosen to bear the person of the Church, non sine causâ, not without cause, as he had said before, but to prove what he had supposed, that Peter did bear the Church's person; since the keys are too great a depositum for Peter, to be received in his own name, but in the Churches. And so much he had delivered before upon the 108. Psalm. I will not now trouble the Reader to repeat it. Only this may be remembered, that there he says, Tibi dabo claves, is among those sayings, which howsoever videntur pertinere ad Petrum, non tamen habent illustrem intellectum, nisi cum referuntur ad ecclesiam, etc. which howsoever they may seem to belong to Peter, yet cannot clearly be construed, but when they are referred to the Church. This there. But now in this place he adds another example, to show that Peter did bear the Church's person, and not his own: As when, Pasce oves, is said to him. Et cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Amas me? Pasce oves meas. Where I cannot demand without some passion, what can be said more pregnantly to the Bishop's purpose, that, Pasce oves, was not said to Peter only, when S. Austen makes it common to all (all of the rank at least) and vouches it as an instance, that Peter did bear the person of the Church, and not his own only, in divers things that passed upon him? Me thinks upon the alleging but of thus much out of S. Aust. if truly, if in his sense, the question should be at an end. Yet because this man cries out against maimed allegations, I will keep promise, as I said, to set down so much of S. Austin's text, as no man coming after shall need more: and that by the way it may be seen, whether this fellow can clip a text or no, for his advantage, & leave out that which is too hot for him to meddle with; practising that impudently at the very same time, which he traduces the Bishop for most wrongfully. Thus then S. Austen: Debet ergò Ecclesia Catholica correctis & pietate firmatis filijs libenter ignoscere, cum ipsi Petro personam eius gestanti, & cum in mari titubâsset, & cum Dominum carnaliter à passione revocâsset, & cum aurem servi gladio praecidisset, & cum ipsum Dominum ter negâsset, & cum in simulationem posteà superstitiosam lapsus esset, videamus veniam esse concessam, eumque correctum atque firmatum, usque ad dominicae passionis gloriam pervenisse. That is to say: The Church Catholic therefore aught to pardon her children amending their faults, and established in godliness, sith we see pardon afforded to Peter himself, sustaining the person of the church, both after that he had wavered in the sea, & carnally dehorted our Saviour from suffering, and with a sword cut off the high Priests servants ear, and finally fallen into his superstitious hypocrisy; [yet pardon I say afforded him, notwithstanding all these faults,] in so much as amended now and confirmed, he came in the end to partake of the glory of our saviours suffering. Here is nothing against us, for aught I can perceive, unless Peter to have come to the glory of our Lords suffering, may seem to any to make against us. Which yet I hope they will not construe, as if Peter had died for the sins of the world, and so equalled our saviours glory. Wicked though they are, yet not so wicked, as to divide that praise between Christ and Peter. Howsoever S. Austen in his tractat upon S. john 123. makes this to be one of S. Peter's errors, to have offered to die for Christ in all haste, pro liberatore liberandus etc. Wherein he might seem to have aspired to a glory more than our saviours, that he dying to save the world, Peter should die for him that died for the world, which is a point above the other. But howsoever they magnify Peter's authority, I hope they will attribute to him no such virtue as this, although he may seem, I say, to have said as much himself when time was, by S. Austin's collection; but rather repent with him repenting, as afterwards we know he changed his mind, and no doubt cried out as job doth, his eyes being opened, and his weakness discovered, I bewail my 
job 42.  self in dust and ashes, I have said once, but I will say it no more. As for the words of S. Austen, that Peter attained to the honour of our Lords suffering, it is a story in Eusebius worth the considering, how for the exceeding honour that 
hist. 3. 1.  he bore to his Master, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bernard. epist. 25●. Petrus & Paulus, alter amisso, alter submisso in cruse canite etc.  though he were nailed to a cross of wood like his, yet he refused to dic with his head upward. Which we may believe the rather, because we read even in heathen stories of that time, of divers that were crucified with their heads downward. And as Peter for humility, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hegesip. etiam lib. 3. c. 2. Indulgebat persecutor non invitus incrementa poenarum.  begged that boon of the tormentors, so it is like they were not nice to grant it to him, as the more disgraceful. This was the reverence that our saviours conversation begat in his Disciples. In figure where of job, whom I named even now, to show the authority that he bore in his house, with semblable love of all sides, My servants, said he, thought 
job 29. 24.  themselves happy in my presence; if I smiled upon them they did not believe me, yea they cried, Who will give us to 
job 31. 31.  eat of his flesh? for the unspeakable sweetness they found by me. See S. Chrysost. in his 2. Epist. to Olympias. Who can write of these things without melting passion? To consider the strange conflict between our Saviour and S. Peter: a conflict of humility, not of pride, of love, not of anger, like that between our Lord and the Baptist erst, refusing to think himself worthy to baptise him. Which yet in Peter is more, to think himself not worthy to die like him. Besides, that john was feign to yield in the end, but herein Peter had his desire. And which is more singular, not only the kind of strife, to strive for love, but against the nature of love, which delights in likeness, that he should choose a contrary positure of body, to testify his love to his Lord and master. Indeed we have those now a days in the Popedom, that love to bear themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Euseb. ubi su prà.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contrary to Christ, both living and dying, true Torti as the Bishop hath proved them: but S. Peter affected this of mere modesty, which is able to make impression into a marble heart: These whither not climbing and soaring in the mean time, with the wings of such ambition, as not I, but F. T. even now described, (where it is thought T should stand before F, but for crookedness sake,) not only to control Kings and Countries with their Universal dominion, but to challenge as much power as Christ himself, the 
Adjoind. c. 1. num. 4.  Head of the Church? And yet they make as if it were doubtful, whether Antichrist be come yea or no, whether he sit in the Church of God, showing himself for God, or no. But we have strayed out of the way, by occasion of this mention, that S. Peter was exalted to the likeness or fellowship of our saviours martyrdom. Which the Bishop having abated them in his citation of S. Austen, I confess also they should never have heard from me, but that this man complained of lame allegations. As for the force it might seem to carry, against our saviours single and sovereign sacrifice, I shall need to say no more than in the Apostles words, If one member suffers, all suffer with it; even the head and all, but 
1. Cor. 12. 26.  then especially I trow, when they suffer for the head, as S. Peter did suffer for the honour of his Master, in some likeness with his Master, and yet not daring to die too like his Master. And our Saviour though in glory, yet he cried from heaven, (that you may know he is the true David, whom Saul annoyeth,) Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou me? Which words, as if they had taught S. Paul what to think 
Act 9 4.  of the fellowship of sufferings of the body mystical, he is bold to say afterwards in his own case, Adimpleo in corpore meo relliquias. passionum Christi, pro corpore eius quod est Ecclesia: 
Coloss. 1.  I fulfil in my body the remainder of Christ's sufferings, for his body which is the Church. Where pro is exemplary, not satisfactory, against the Rhemists that dream of a mass of passions, upon that place. So doth the Mass forsooth run in their minds. But we speak of his calling them passiones Christi, for sympathy, and for proportion; of which enough.  
§ 22. To return to S. Austen, and to conclude this whole matter with relating his text as largely as you can desire. The sum is, that the Church must be gracious toward her children, converting and returning by repentance, as our Saviour was to Peter, the image of the Church, or the proxy of the Church (for I fear not to vouch that name by him, which hath every where so good grounds in S. Austen, as you have heard) and bearing her person not without cause. For even Peter (quoth he) found favour after many defaults. Let her show herself like Peter then, whom Peter figured, and the rather figured, because himself was a sinner, yea a great sinner, as the Church contains many offenders in her. That here also you may see another reason, Sir, though you have been twice answered to this question before, why Peter rather than another figured the Church, namely, because Peter being a great sinner, and yet after his sins finding greater grace, was so much the apt to represent her, which in both these kinds is very notorious, both abundantis peccati, and super-abundantis gratiae, of surpassing grace after exceeding guiltiness, Rom. 5. Our saviours Parable is not unknown to this purpose, Luk. 7. (propounded to a Simon, though not this Simon) which of the two debtor ought more? The case was Peter's own, both a great debtor, and released of much, and perhaps our Saviour delivered it as in his hearing, so not without some reference to him standing by. But at least for this cause he bore the person of the Church. And so Petri lapsus potius 
De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 28. The Adjoindet also cap. 〈◊〉.  confirmat primatum Pap●, as Bellarmine says; Peter fall rather confirms the primacy of the Pope. But you see what primatum, what kind of primacy, not to be universal Lord or rector, but the Church's type, or the Church's figure, to teach the Church as you would say, by way of lively instance, to show grace, as he had found grace, and she both in her own, and his person. This was his mastery that he had over the Church, to be master of mildness, and we deny not but above the rest of the Apostles. Dost thou love me more than these? Alas, how could he choose, to whom so much was forgiven? then show compassion.  
§ 23. Now the faults of S. Peter, that S. Aust. had set down, but not so F. T. no more than he durst set down his own name aright, nay which purposely he leaps over, though they were incident to his allegation, as you may see in his first chap. num. 3. and yet blames the Bishop for maimed quotations, they are these ensuing. First, his doubting upon the sea. And if the sea be his seat, or the whole Church, as they imagine, you see in what danger the Church is to have a staggering governor, I say staggering even in faith. Secondly, his dissuading our Lord from death: You will say, that was no great matter: of which nevertheless you may be pleased to remember what our saviours censure was, heavy no doubt. He called him Satan. Thirdly, the snipping off of Malchus his care with a sword, wherein his pretended Successors imitate him but too truly. What though they strike no blow themselves? Executio (says Bellarmine) ad alios spectat. Let Seneca be heard. It is thou, 
Contr. Barcl.  saith Seneca, speaking to Alexander, (who transported by anger, commanded Lysimachus to be cast to a lion, and so 
De Clem. lib. 1. cap. 25.  torn in pieces, and devoured) it is thou that openest thy jaws upon him, it is thou that tearest him in pieces with thy teeth: Tuum illud os est, tua illa feritas. O quam cuperes, etc. The like may be said of Daniel and his enemies. But this, F. T. durst not so much as once to mention, he knows it makes so harsh a sound. And therefore he fetches a leap from Peter's doubting, to his denying, and pares away three of his errors with an & caetera, which S. Austen had comprehended, and set down in specie. I have heard of some, that think for Peter to draw his sword at Malchus, because Malchus in Hebrew signifies a King, as we are taught by S. Jerome, de vitâ Malchi, was either a presage, or a justification of the Pope's practices at this day. A presage it might well be. But as for justification, they may call to mind how our Saviour approved it, threatening the sword to them that took the sword, though it were Peter himself: 
Matth. 26. 52.  for even to Peter were those words directed. Not to them that bear the sword, as committed to them by God, which is the right and the duty of the civil magistrate, but to them that 
a Rom. 13. 2. Accipient iudiciun (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ●cilicet qu●a accipiunt gladium non sibi commissum.  take it, that is, manage it without commission either by themselves or others, as the Popes at this day. Therefore 
b lib. de Patient.  Tertull. most wittily, Patientia Domini in Malcho vulnerata est: Our Lord's patience was wounded in Malchus: or, That which Malchus felt in his care, our Lord felt at his very heart. It displeased him so much, that a Churchman should strike. Therefore also he healed the wound by miracle, and restored his care unto him again. Which was not ordinary, to do miracles, for the cure of unbelievers, specially oppressors and impugners of his person; but that the importance of the cause so required it, and to show how injurious he accounted such courtesy, when those which are Churchmen will draw the sword, though it be in defence of his truth or person.  
§ 24. The fourth error there named, was his ter negâsse Dominu, triple denial of his Lord and Saviour. To which answers, as you have been told, his triple confession, which makes way to the mandate of Pasce oves meas, exciting care, and study, and diligence, but importing nothing less than Monarchical jurisdiction. Though S. Austen also find an other mystery there, namely of Trinity in unity, in the threefold confession exhibited by one man, in the name of the Church, as we heard before out of his Tractate upon S. john: Confirmat Trinitatem, ut consolidet unitatem.  
§ 25. The fifth & last, is his superstitious simulation, as S. Aust. calls it, that at Antioch, no doubt, of which Gal. 2. This also the Adjoiner thought good to leave out, celans peccata sicut Adam, either because it draws so near an error in faith, or at least for subjecting the Monarch of the whole world, to the open resistance and reproof of an abortive; 
Tom. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Epist. ad Desyder.  though S. chrysostom be so far from undervaluing Paul therefore, that he doubts not to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him that of last was made first: (where is primus Apostolus now?) and Petrus Damiani, that he was antepositus omnibus fratribus, preferred before all his brethren, like little Benjamin (saith he) of whose tribe he came. And again S. Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no body comes near Paul, no not any thing near. Upon the first to the Coloss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ethico. And Aquinas in his commentary on the first to the Galatians, says Paul is wont to be painted on the right hand, and Peter on the left, (for even your Schoolmen are miserably troubled with arguments drawn from pictures) because Christ from heaven called the one to the Apostleship, from earth the other. But so much of these. I might add more.  
§ 26. For so it follows in S. Austen, Pax in Domino reddita Ecclesiae à Principibus saeculi: peace in the Lord was afforded to the Church by the secular Princes. Which is as pleasant to a jesuits ear to hear, as vinegar to the teeth, or smoke to the eyes, as Solomon says, to think that the outward welfare of the Church should depend on the Prince's gracious aspect, who if they be averse, they know a means worth two of S. Paul's, to reduce them to order, not by prayer or supplication to God for them, 1. Tim. 2. 1. for either they will enforce them, or make them rue it, either bow or break, as the proverb is. But S. Austen every where acknowledges Kings to be those kind nursing fathers, from whose government flows the Church's peace. And it is well known how he derives it out of the second Psalm, Et nunc Reges intelligite, ver. 10. as if the means to order well the Church, and to promote the kingdom, of which it is said a little before, in the same Psalm, Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion, were the right persuasion of Princes concerning the faith. So as against Faustus the Manichee, lib. 12. cap. 32. he says, the emperors raging were the lions devouring, (S. Paul himself calls Nero the lion, not for nothing, but because king of beasts:) but again when they converted and embraced the faith, and gave succour and supportance to such as professed religion, than was Sampsons' riddle verified, then was honey found in the lions mouth, then exforti exivit dulce, and the mouth that afore roared against God, and his truth, (Quare fremuerunt is the lions property in the Psalm aforesaid) then, munimenta latebrasque dabat dulcedini verbi Euangelici, became a refuge, or a covering to the honie-combe of the Gospel. And because we speak of lions, which are sovereign in their kind, kings of beasts, says Epiphan. haer. 77. it may not be forgotten how the same S. Austen, more than once or twice, compares the enemies of Christian religion, Kings and Emperors, to the lions that Daniel was cast unto, amongst whose hands nevertheless God preserved his Saints, for they that hurt the body could not hurt the soul, by our saviours saying; but when once they turned Christians, and enacted Laws, and decreed punishments, for the suppressing 
Epist. 50 & lib. 1. contr. Gaudent. c. 39  of Atheism, or heresy, or Paganism, or whatsoever is contrary to the glorious Gospel of our Lord jesus Christ, than they were like the lions, which devoured, not Deniel, but daniel's accusers, and revenged upon them the wrong that they had done to him before. I see I should be long, if I would bring, not all, but the least part of the store that is found here of in S. Austin's works. I will point only to that in another place of his of the like argument, where, as here he ascribes the temporal peace and prosperity of the Church, to the favourable countenance of Christian Kings; so, there to show what authority they have in the matters of God, he doubts not to set out their suppressing of heresies, and Atheism, and schisms, in such a peremptory sort, as to say 
* Post subversa idola, post flagellatum diabolum etc. Cuius simile habes apud S. Cypr. contra Demetrian. Torquentur spiritualibus flagris etc. Iten, de Idolot. van. Item, de bono Patient. Zabulus flagellatur cum Angelis suis.  that they have whipped & scourged the very devils (the authors of the aforesaid) both by sea and land, both out of town and country. It is well known, what enemies the jesuits are to the Kings intermeddling with matters of this nature, to his handling the whip to lash the devil, for his sowing of cockle amongst good corn; whom they perhaps would exempt, as a spiritual person, from the King's jurisdiction, besides that the cause is a cause of faith. But S. Austen, though he knew well that the devil is not only spiritual, but even one of the spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus, as S. Paul styles him, Eph. 6. 12. one of the spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places, and so in regard even of his place to be privileged, yet doubts not to put a whip into the emperors hand, I say, nor cares not though he cry out, or the jesuits for him, Who art thou that torments us thus without a calling? But we stray too far. Howsoever it be, as I promised our gentleman to give him good measure, so S. Austin's ending must by no means be passed over, for the elegancy of it.  
§ 27. Speaking then against the Heretics, descended of one Lucifer, that denied pardon to the converts of the Church, from which occasion sprang all this treaty about S. Peter, he thus says; Hanc illi matris charitatem superbè accipientes, & impièrepudiantes, quia Petro post galli cantum surgentinon gratulatisunt, cum Lucifero qui mane oriebatur, cadere meruerunt. That is: These men, either proudly and scornfully receiving, or wickedly rejecting the charity of their mother, because they rejoiced not with Peter rising after the cockcrow, they justly fell with Lucifer that earely-rising star.  
§ 28. We have gone through the Chapter, which the Adjoiner condemns the Bishop for lamely quoting. Yet I can hardly abstain from yielding him somewhat, out of the next Chapter too, to fulfil his measure, to mingle him double in the cup, whereofhe complains of the scantness. Itaque miseri (says S. Austen, speaking still of the Luciferians, but it fits but even too well with out stouthearted jesuits) dumb in Petro petram non intelligunt, & nolunt credere datas ecclesiae claves regni coelorum, ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt. They have lost the keys whilst they talk so much of them, and all because they understand not, or will not understand, Petrum in petrâ, that is, Ecclesiam in Christo, as S. Austen before expounded it in his 13. Serm. de verb. Dom. secundum Matth. that is, the Church in Christ. So neither Peter the petra, as they would feign make him, nor Peter at all, but Petrus in petra, that is, Ecclesia in Christo, or populus Christianus, and fidelis in Christo, the Church in Christ, or the number 
Vide Bedam, ut suptà.  of the faithful, as they are recollected in Christ, is it to whom the keys are here gives. But F. T. and his fellows, nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum, will not believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Church, and why, but quia Petrum in petrá non intelligunt, they will not understand the mystery of Peter, not in himself, but in the rock, that is, in Christ: S. Austin's prophesy, their property at this day.  
§ 29. It follows in him yet, against such as forbid second marriages. Qui 
* S. Hierome was of another mind, for the purity of Marriage; (though reputed somewhat partial) then either these heretics, or the Papists. Com. in Tit. 2. Credant coniugati se opera libirorum perpetrare ante oculos Dei & Angelorum. Therefore not reprehensible. S. chrysostom says, that young men go crowned to their marriage, in the places of Greece, where he lived, to show they have triumphed over the lusts of youth, and are now past danger of temptation. Com. in 1. Tim. 3. Serm. 9 in Ethico. And again, that our saviour turned water into wine, at a marriage, to show the power and the effect of marriage, which is to restrain the frailties of nature, as wine hath a binding quality over water, Ipso fine Com. in Epist. ad Coloss. Origen in 17. Gen. hom. 3 says that Abraham and his wife deserved to be called Pretbyteri, and were so indeed, that is to say Priests: for he construes himself to mean, not age, but ripeness of understanding. See you to what dignity married women may come, not only men? See lastly S. Ausien cont. Faust. l. 5. c. 9 where he justifies holy marriage against Faustus and his inpure litter, by those places of the Apostle, where in he gives rules to families; as husbands, wives, fathers, children, masters, servants, as carefully as Ignatius, or Frances, ever did to their Fraternities. Which is a sign of the reverent estimation that he had of them. Quid dicemus de illis, quorum domoi tam solerti & diligenti curá componit Apostolus? etc.  cum super Apostolicam doctrinam se mundiores praedicent, sinomen suum vellent agnoscere, mundanos se, potius quam mundos, vocarent. Who pretending themselves cleaner far than the Apostles doctrine, are found to be clean besides all praise of cleanness. If you ask, why so? the reason is rendered in the next words; Cogunt viduas suas uri, quas nubere non premittunt. Non enim prudentiores habendi sunt quam Apostolus Paulus, qui ait, Malo eas nubere quam uri. They compel, says he, their widows to burn, whom they forbid to marry, whereas they should not be counted wiser than the Apostle Paul, who says, I had rather they should marry then burn. But no doubt while they affect a purity above the Apostles doctrine, they might give themselves, if so it pleased them, a name more agreeable to their filthy sect. The world hath not yet forgotten, how roundly Bellarmine replies upon his MAJESTY, moderately censuring their restraint of marriages, which yet they would have to be so many Sacraments, that marriages before the vow indeed are Sacraments, but after that, sacrileges. S. Austen makes it free here for all to marry, that find themselves to be 
a They compel to burn: whom they forbid to marry, saith S. Austen, implying, continence is not so cheap or vulgar as the Papists give out. For then, what compulsion to burn, I pray you, though marriage were forbidden?  in danger of burning, windows and all, and who knows but vowed and professed widows? The rule is general, and he applies it generally, without any limitation, Malo eas nubere quam uri: I had rather they should marry then burn: from which it is not to be thought he would excuse any. S. Paul himself, 1. Tim. 5. 12. though he speak of widows, that had given their first faith, suppose, as you construe it, their faith and vow to remain widows, yet afterward in the 14, he gives them leave to marry, since they could keep it no better; I will have younger widows marry. Where it were hard to construe younger widows twice named, v. 12. and 14. and one time condemned for their wantonness after vow, desiring to marry, another time licenced to marry, as for remedy, (They will marry, v. 12. and S. Paul, I will have 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. in ad Tim. Volo quia volunt.  them marry, v. 14.) I say it were hard to construe these two, of two sundry kinds of widows, the one vowed, the other not vowed, whereas then the remedy were no remedy, if it be not a remedy against such as made default: and if Paul allowed the vowed widows to marry, though not without check for breaking their vow, than Bellarmine's sacrilege is no sacrilege, but rather his doctrine sacrilegious. 
Also Chrysost. hom. 〈◊〉. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not sparing belike the Vow and all) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, Run as much as thou please (the way of continence) but when thou art weary, and canst go no farther, take the remedy of marriage to thee. Whereto he adds the reason, Because the higher pitch, the greater fall.  I might show the same out of 
a Lib. 1. Ep. 11. ad Pompon. S. Cyprians words are these: Si se ex fide Christo dicaverunt, pudirè & castè perseverent: si perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant, etc. And Epiphanius himself may seem to say as much, where he is thought to say the contrary: viz haeresi 61. qua Apostolicorum est. Melius est lapsum à cursu, palàm sibi uxorem sumere secundum legen, etc. It is better for him that is stumbled in his course [of intended continence] to marry a wife in the sight of the world according to law, then etc. As for that, Peccatum est converti ad nuptias post virginitatem decretam: First, a light name, Peccatum, not Sacrilegium. Secondly, Peccatum, id est, non sine peccato, by reason of the rash vow. And Epiphanius allows soon after, that melius est unum peccatum habere quim plurae, which concerns this case very nearly. Besides that those councils which condemn this inconstancy, punish it but lightly, and command not the marriage to be dissolved, as in other cases. See Concil. Neocaesar. Can. 2. Matrimonio soluto admittatur ad p●nitentiam. Not so here.  Cyprian, 
b de S. Virg. cap. 34.  Austen, 
c ad Demetr.  Jerome: I might show it out of some of the ancientest 
d Concil. Calched. Can. 16. censures them very gently, though it reprove them. The like doth Con. Aneyr. Can. 19 And E●a●▪ Sa, verb. Ornatus, makes it venial for a Nun to deck & beautify herself, though it be with danger of pleasing a young man's fancy. Yet inducens in periculum contrahendi mortalis mortale est, saith the same Sa, verb. Curiositas Therefore Nun's marriages are not so damnable. How much less than are others▪ sigh these are counted among the most dangerous.  Counsels. I might allege Medina observing as much, though he overthrow it again, like a cow that hath given a good soup of milk, so with the dash of his heel: In contrarium est D. Thomas. What marvel if Thomas be of such authority, when 
e Baron. in Martyrolog. Rom. Martij 7.  some of you have recorded, that in conclusion of your famous Council of Trent, the Fathers cried out there, as if they had done a great act, upon the name of S. Thomas, ascribing the winning of the day to him. Just as Plato in his Timaeus, makes the maker of the world to congratulate his own pains in the assembly of his pettie-gods, after the creation. And yet some think that Thomas is not so firm for vows, but when they prove 
Seconda 〈◊〉. qu. 88 art. 10.  inconvenient, he gives leave to break them. But so much of S. Aust. and his authority, cited out of de Agon. Christ. c. 30. where F. T. complains the Bishop to have left out so much. Are these, trow you, the things that the Bishop left out?  
§ 30. ANOTHER testimony conform to that of S. Austin's, to show either the force, or the extent of the commission given to Peter in Pasce oves meas, the Bishop produced out of S. Ambrose, another of the four Doctors of the Church, of their own registering, that it may satisfy the more. In ore duorum, praesertim tanti, testium. De sacerdotali dignitate, as now the title runs, though it hath run otherwise in times past, cap. 2. not as F. T. wrongly cities, the first. Quas oves, & quem gregem, non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & nobiscum eas suscepit, & cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes. That is, Which sheep, and which flock, not only Blessed Peter then received, but both he received them with us, and with him we all have received them. As for the pregnancy of this testimony, and that it toucheth to the quick, what need we say more, when we have our adversary confessing, 
Cap. 1. num. 7. Adjoind.  that this manner of speech doth indeed enforce a greater equality betwixt S. Peter and other Pastors, than ever S. Ambrose did imagine, he means then can subsist with their supposed primacy or Papacy of Peter. But how does he answer it? Forsooth they are said not to be Ambrose his words, not those at least, & nobiscum eas suscepit, both he received them with us, etc. And why so? Because first they are contrary to Ambrose his judgement in other places, but specially because they are not extant in the printed copies, and in a word are merely of the Bishops forging. A great fault, if it can be proved; if not, a great slander, as all men may see, and sufficient to crack the Adjoiners' credit, through out the rest of his whole book. It may please the Reader then to understand; that of sundry editions of S. Ambrose which have been set forth, though we could not come by all to consult them; yet so many are found to have those words, which he quarrels to be foisted, as may easily show, on which side the corruption lieth, ours for adding, or theirs for defacing and withdrawing. Five editions at Basile, and all in several years are found to have them: Ann. 1506. 1516. 1527. the first of johannes Petri à Langendorfe his setting forth, the third is Erasmus first edition. Add another at Basile, ann. 1538. And yet a fifth of Costerius his edition, ann. 1567. all which have them. Of Paris likewise five: one, ann. 1529. another, 1539. a third, 1549. a fourth, 1569. a fifth, 1586. And so we might go over a great many more, but here is ten for any one that can be showed yet to have them not. Though as we daily seek, we find more daily: as a sixth edition at Basile, ann. 1492. ancienter than any that hath been cited yet, and further off from any likelihood to be corrupted by the Bishop. Add hither four manuscripts, which have them all. One which is now in his majesties library, sometimes belonging to the Monastery of Rochester, given by Os-Ketel a monk before the conquest, fair written, and without all exception. True it is that S. Ambrose his book is entitled there, Sermo de obseruantiâ Episcoporum; but it is the same word for word, with De dignitate sacerdotali, the book which we now treat of. An other is of Merton college in Oxford, which hath also those words; though the title of the book be changed, as in the former, yet utterly the same it is for substance. It is there entitled, De obseruantijs Episcoporum, qui inscribitur Pastoral; but the same, as I said. The third is of Peter-house library in Cambridge, which they that will consult may find the words in, and see the slander confuted with their eyes. A fourth in Sidney College library, of the same University, given by Mr. Mascall, which to this purpose hath been consulted, and is found to have them. We will never deny but Sixtus quintus his edition, which he set out at Rome, before he was Pope, and so the less irrefragable forsooth, hath them not. And accordingly an other edition of Paris, ann. 1603. which professes to go step by step with that of Rome, leaveth them out. But what is that to control so many ancient editions? Or does it not show, that those words are so effectual against your primacy (as yourself at a blush confessed erewhile, saying that S. Ambrose never meant to be so liberal) that because you could not wrest them with any forged interpretation, you had rather cut them out then abide the hazard? And yet it is found, that between the Rome edition, of which I spoke even now, and that of Paris, ann. 1603. professing to follow it in every point, there is an other of Paris, ann. 1586. which retains the said words in spite of Rome. Concerning the Lions, or rather the liars edition of ann. 1559. by Frellonius, you may please to read what junius reports of his own knowledge, in his preface to the Index expurgatorius; you will not only quit the Bishop from such blame, as now you cast upon him most unworthily, but acknowledge to your shame, that as you have used small conscience towards any of the Fathers, so lest to Ambrose, of all other, for abusing him. I will set down a little of the story that he tells there, and so pass on to your next argument. When I 
The felonious Edition of S. Ambrose at Lions.  was at Lions, saith he, in the year 1559. I was acquainted with a certain corrector of the Press, whose name was Ludovicus Saurius. And coming one day to visit him, I found him by chance, or rather by the special providence of God, revising S. Ambrose's works, which then Frellonius was in printing. And after much talk on both sides, when I had told him I would not hinder his work, he reading afresh a page of that work, Do you see (quoth he) the fashion of this our edition of Ambrose, how neat, how accurate, and if you regard the sight, to be preferred before all that have been yet printed? Afterward as I considered and applauded the goodness of it; Well, for all that (quoth he) if I were to buy me a copy of Ambrose, I would buy any rather than this that you see. And demanding of him the reason of his so saying, he brought out certain pages out of the decks under his table, in which pages there were two rows one against the other, such as they call cancellatioperis, and thus added: Look you (quoth he) this is the first form of our pages, which within these few days we printed after a copy of very good credit. But two Franciscan Friars by their authority dashed all this good work, and in place of the first sheets, made us print these that you saw even now, clean besides all the direction of our copies, with no small hindrance and trouble to Frellonius, etc. This reports junius of his own experience, touching your corrupting of Saint Ambrose; And so much of that point.  
§ 31. Your other argument is drawn from certain places of that Father, which seem contrary to this, you say, and so this not to be admitted for his. The first is upon the 12. of the second to the Corinth. Primatum non accepit Andreas sed Petrus: Not Andrew, but Peter, received the primacy. The other, lib. 10. comment, in Luc. cap. 24. Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus Petrus, ideò omnibus antefertur. Because Peter only professes among them all, therefore he is honoured or preferred before all. Which the Bishop had assoiled even before they were alleged, acknowledging, as I have said, two such primacies in Peter, as no way crossing with S. Ambrose, no way advantage your cause. The first is ordinis, the second praestantiae. The one of order, the other of eminency. And the one in one, the other in the other testimony of S. Ambrose may be conceived. Accepit primatum, you say. A primacy of order being to be given to some, to avoid confusion, as we shall afterward show, the Lord that divideth inter flammas ignium, and much more between one brother and another, which comes saliens & transiliens, as it is in the Cant. and of two bedfellows, of two grinders at the mill, receives one, refuses the other, preferred Peter before Andrew his brother. What is this to the Popedom? what to a Monarchy? what, I say not to their stately, but even statary and ordinary supremacy in the Church? Was this to descend from S. Peter to his heirs? which we are told here is so alien from carnal prerogative, that therefore it was given to Peter before Andrew, to show it is merely of divine disposition. Though the more I consider S. Ambrose his words, the more me thinks they fall upon another answer of the Bishops, and that proper enough. He speaks in one word of primatus communis, 
Hieron. ad Pammach. de obitu Paulin. Primus erat, sed inter primos. So, Decem-primi apud Ci●er. And, Multiori●● (in evang.) multip postremi.  not primatus proprius. So Clemens in Eusebius before quoted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Gal. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so here in this very place that S. Ambrose comments upon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which was a primacy of many, and S. Paul himself had a place in it, though called after Peter was made a Monarch, if ever he was made, even as Ambrose here confesses; Hoc erant quod & Apostolus Paulus: They were the same that Paul, and Paul that they. The wonder than lies here. Andrew that followed first (that by the way you may see how little seniority prevails in God's school, which yet you so trust unto) received not the primacy that Peter did, that is, was none of those three primi whereof Peter was. Neither say ye, that because Peter only is mentioned here, only opposed to Andrew, therefore only Peter received the primacy in S. Ambroses meaning. For Peter is opposed to Andrew, as one brother to another, and the junior to him which is known to have resorted more carely to Christ, which comparison between him and others were not so clear. For even Andrew brought Peter to Christ, joh. 1. Now the other primatus, which is primatus praestantiae, as the Bishop had called it, and so foiled this fellows frivolous objections, even before they were hatched, belongs to the other place. Quia solus profitetur, solus antefertur. But anteferri is one thing, praeponi another. The latter may be of authority, the first of any excellency. Do I seem once again too grammatical to you? To you perhaps: but how do you gainsay me? Anteferri, I say, is one thing, as to be esteemed before another, to be graced before another, like anteire, antecellere, and if you have any more like. For it was not no grace for S. Peter here, to be bid to feed, as a common man, an universal man, as one in whose person the others were exhorted, and as S. Austen says, the Church represented. Thus, quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. And lastly, martyrij corona decernitur, as S. Ambrose here says, he is promised martyrdom in those words, Cum senueris etc. which is no small glory. In which place also by the way, you may see the liberty of Ecclesiastical men, that you so stand upon. When Peter was young, that is, before he was Apostle, he might go whither 
joh. 11.  he would. Afterward he was to follow against his will. Is this exemption? But because you confer place with place, to persuade us that we construe S. Ambrose amiss, I hope you will give us the like leave hereafter, to confer diverse places of the Fathers with themselves, before we assent to that which you produce out of them. And yet it follows in S. Ambrose, after, omnibus antefertur, as it were by way of reason, Maior enim omnibus charitas est: for charity is greater than all. So as Peter's anteferri, is neither grounded upon his privilege of retaining the faith, as you would make it, of his love rather, which you confess often to have failed in your Popes, (as if the aftername Peter had abolished Simon, qui interpretatur obediens, as Beda notes) and the priority, if he had any assigned him over others, 
Serm. In Cath. Petri.  is only like Charities among other virtues, which is to be principal indeed, but not to rule. The virtues of the prosecutive part rule not the intellectual, but are ruled rather. So Faith and love.  
§ 33. As for vicarium amoris, which is another thing that you urge out of his Comment upon Luke, that Christ left Peter the Vicar of his love, or the deputy of his love, as if therefore he were that Vicar of his power, or jurisdiction that you imagine, what so unlikely? Of the Vicar of our Saviour you may read in S. john, cap. 16. Alium paracletum 
& cap. 14. De praescrip.  dabit vobis: and Tertullian hath been told you to give that to the holy Ghost. He is the Paraclete. Though you have Cletus and Anacletus, yet never a Paracletus, the Vicar of our Lord, properly so called, in all the rank of your Popes. For we must desire you now, that we may have no Montanizing. Though, I suppose, you are not ignorant, what an ornament of yours had like to have been transported, with the enticing prophecies and Siren-songs of Mistress Maximilla, when time was. S. Austen also answerably in his sermon upon the epiphany, 185. Datur vicarius Redemptoris, meaning the holy Ghost: and yet he adds, Vt quod ille redemit, iste sanctificet, quod ille inchoavit, iste consummet. Is this Peter? Does he sanctify those whom Christ redeemed? or does he perfect that which Christ began? But Ambrose calls Peter vicarium amoris, the deputy of Christ's 
Heb. 7. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bellarm. calls it blasphemy, to say the holy Ghost is Christ's vicarius.  love. And who doubts, but as Christ hath no proper deputy in the course of his government, unless you will admit the holy Ghost before named, which Bellarmine denies to do, so, in a modified sense, the Vicars of his love were as many as loved her in his absence, whom he loved, and employed all their care to benefit his Church? which was not one man's charge, but all the Apostles, and not only the Apostles, but all ministers, to the end of the world. Alij pastores vicarij sunt illius pastoris, says Lyra upon joh. 10. 16. Yea Ambrose himself; Omni Episcopi (if not Presbyteri) sunt vicarij Christi, upon 1. Tim. 5. 19 And you may add the two Eusebij, one of Rome in his Epist. ad Episc. Tusciae & Campaniae, if it be not forged by you, Caput Ecclesiae Christus est, Christi autem vicarij sacerdotes sunt. The head of the Church is Christ, and Christ's Vicar's art the Priests. The other the Emesene, in his sermon upon joh. 20. Dominicâ primâ post pascha; making it common to the Disciples all to be Christ's deputies, Meos Vicarios vos constituo, meâ vice vos mando, I make you my Vicars, I appoint you in my stead. In 
a Tractatu de ordin. Epilogue. & investituta Laic. Edit. lat. Sirm. jesuita, p 418. Sed & Aquinas co●●n Heb. 13. Dicit a●tem Christum Pastorem magnum, quod omnes alq sunt ●…arij eius, etc. unde 1. Pet. 5. PRINCIPS PACTORUM vocatur.  Goffridus Vindocinensis thus we read: Episcopus [omnis] Dominus est & Imperat on Christianorum, qui etiam Christi vices agere creditur. And not only Bishops, or Ministers; but as Christ loved us, so for us to love one another, and in that sense to be the deputies of his love (in which only sense S. Ambrose meant it of S. Peter, saving that he was to do the works of love as an Apostle) is no more than is enjoined to every Christian. Though S. Ambrose say only velut vioarium amoris, not daring to say vicarium clean out, as the nature of his office, as you would make it, but showing that he speaks in a borrowed phrase, and as it is proper to none, so in that extent perhaps befitting many. Therefore Bellarmine leaves the velut clean out, citing this authority, de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 25.  
§ 34. THERE is yet behind another grave observation out of S. Ambrose, that Peter is not bid now to feed the lambs, or little sheep, but ones ipsas, 
M●…n job. 21. Qui disputat cui agnos potius quam ones Christus vocet suos [quasi distinguens inter haec duo] videat ne doctis hominibus risum praebeat. Nihil discriminis est in re, sed in voce tantùm.  that is, the more perfect. I might send this noddy to M. Casaubones' late monument, or rather mirror of 
* Exercit. 16. c. 133. ad Annal. Baron.  Exercitations to Baronius his Annals, to be informed of S. Ambrose his reading this text, and the uprightness of it. Woe is me for that divine man M. Casaubone, that speaking of his monument, I should speak ambiguously, of his tomb, or of his writings. But what that hath devoured, these shall eternize, and now is no time to bewail our loss. Because Peter had lambkins, and lambs, and sheep, committed to his charge, to be fed by him, suppose incipientes, prosicientes, & perfectos, the leaf, the blossom, and the ripe almond in Aaron's rod, suppose all the steps in Jacob's ladder, at least as it signifies the Church here militant, suppose Prophets and Apostles, Kings and Emperors, the boundless latitude of the Church Christian, Ergò quid? who can reply with patience to such empty stuff? Do we look it should have been said, Feed all save the Apostles? or, all save Princes? why should Princes and Apostles not profit by Peter? why should they be denied the benefit of his feeding? why should not all the Apostles feed all the world? why should not one Apostle feed another, Peter his fellows, and they Peter? As I think Paul fed him, and that with his staff too, tipped with iron, (I have heard some construe virgam ferream so, Apoc. 2. and Psal. 2. as alluding to the sheephooj) I mean with his reproof, and that at Antioch his own seat, not only with fodder, or with green bows. As again, james fed him with, viri fratres audite me, Act. 15. 14. you would think this were rather the successor of Christ, of whom that was said, Hear you him. And again ver. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To say nothing of, Simeon narravit, in the 14. ver. Not Peter now, but bare Simeon. Doth this prove a Monarchy over the Apostles? Or, if Kings be content to lend an ear to his pipe, and to graze upon such leaves as he shall cast before them, the word and the Sacraments, that refection of immortality, quorum vis 
August. contr. Faust. l. 19 c. 11.  inenarrabiliter valet plurimùm, what is this to your modern frighting omnipotency? Me thinks I hear Constantine ravished with his note, to yield thus much, Be you Bishops in the Church, and I without. Me thinks I hear Valentinian call for such a Prelate, as he may safely lay his head in his lap, 
Caesareum caput— quod caput orbis erat. Ovid. de Trist.  but safely, being the head, which is the head of the world, as even the heathen Poet could say. But doth this prove the terrible power that you strive for, which is neither of kin to Peter's feeding, and the daungerousest resort for a King's head that may be? Nay, how if the jesuit have so mistaken himself, in his curious distinction between lambs and sheep, that he hath clean exempted both Apostles and Kings from Peter's jurisdiction, to bring whom in, and to range them within the compass of that supreme power, the distinction only was at first devised? For if oves and agni only, be S. Peter's walk, and he the shepherd, where are arietes, where are the rams? The rams being the Apostles, by Turrian his exposition, or the successors of the Apostles, that is the Bishops. And again, the rams being meant by Kings, as Tolet will have it, upon the 15. of S. john, Annot. 3. Two jesuits you see I bring him, and the one a Cardinal made for his learning, which I think will never be his lot. But hath not he spun a fair thread I say, shutting them out, both Apostles and Kings, whom by that very trick he would have shut in?  
§ 35. And so much of his answer to the first exception, that the Bishop makes against their argument drawn from Pasce oves meas, consisting in the authorities of Austen and Ambrose.  
§ 36. IN his second (saith he) he seeks to retort the 
2 Adjoind. c. 1. num. 12. etc.  Cardinal's argument upon himself, & to prove the King's supremacy by the word Pasce, for so much as God said also to David, Tu pasces populum meum Israel, Thou shalt feed my people Israel. 
* In retortió to the cardinals words, Vbi nemo negare potest S. Petrum factum esse pastorem omnium fi lolium, & ipsorum etiam. Apostolorum, nisi 〈◊〉 has vtros●●…sse 〈◊〉 Christi. 〈◊〉  Where no man can deny (says the Bishop) but that a King was made the Pastor of all Israel, yea of the Priests themselves, except he will deny them to be part of Israel. But what says F. T. think you, to this? Thus argueth this learned and sharp Doctor; overthrowing his own argument sufficiently by his own conclusion, granting in effect, that if the Priests were not a part of the people Israel, the King was not their Pastor. These are his prefaces, if we had time to ponder them. And yet it is almost the modestest clause in the Book, of them wherein he bespeaks the Bishop, that the Reader may pardon me, if now and then I be moved, even more than he is aware, or pity me when I am compelled (as often I am for want of leisure) to swallow such courteous girds in silence. The sum is, that in answering to the Bishop's retortion, he would have the Priests to be no part of Israel. And once again you shall discern the spirit of the man, who thus sets forward. To this purpose than it is to be considered, what I have amply debated in the first Chapter of my Supplement, concerning the exemption and separation of the Priests and Levites from the temporal estate, by the express words of Almighty God, Numb. 8. who gave the Levites to Aaron, and his children, not to the temporal Prince: Tradidi eos dono Aaron, & filijs eius, de medio populi. And again, Num. 1. The tribe of Levi shall not be numbered, nor have any part with the rest of Israel, but the Lord must be their possession, portion, and inheritance. I must be short. And so shaking off the Supplement, with other idle compliments, though he is not ashamed to set a trumpet to his Pharisaical cheeks, and every where to display his own work, as if there were no other storehouse of learning in the world, no file but this Philistines to whet a wit upon, consider we as well as we can, what is to be said to this point, of the exemption of Levites from the state politic, that is, from their subjection to civil Magistrates: for else he says nothing, sith we know the Levites were not laymen, and the Priests Priests, not populars. Yet he implies such a thing, when having quoted the text, and not daring to utter that audacious proposition, that Priests were not subject to the civil Magistrate, he says only this, that God reserved them for his own service: which no doubt is the true meaning of the place, but how doth this overthrow civil obedience?  
§ 37. To speak particularly to the places. As for Num. 1. (to begin with that) Non numerabitur tribus Levi, I could send him to a place, as he does us, where he should find his answer, if Datin be no eie-fore to him, already shaped to a man of his coat; and as it seems very reverently esteemed by him; I mean john Eudoemon of Crete: but the sum is this. A view of the people was to be taken there, either as landed men, or sufficient for the wars. From both which the Levites being exempt by calling, what marvel if with the rest they are not to be levied? Therefore children are not numbered, nor yet women, but as it is in the second and third verses, though often repeated throughout the Chapter, the more to condemn the blindness of this beetlehead: Quicquid sexús est masculini à vicesimo anno & suprà, omnium virorum fortium ex Israel: Whatsoever is of the male-sexe, from the twentieth year and upward, of all the valiant men of Israel. Are women and children therefore, nay all under twenty, exempt from authority? Also Origen hom. 1. in Num. finds no such mystery, but makes it a token of perfection, to be numbered cum populo Dei, as the Apostles and Disciples (saith he) whose very hairs of their head were numbered, etc. And so likewise in the resurrection, Alius (saith he) numerabitur in tribu Levi, credo qui benè praefuit sacerdotio, alius in aliâ tribu. So that he makes Levi to be numbered too. Lastly, Ruport in his Comment. upon the place, sees no other mystery in these words, save that Clergy men should by all means withdraw themselves from secular affairs, as the holy Canons (says he) have decreed.  
Now, that God is their portion, & that they may have no foot of land in the land, which is another thing that F. T. here amplifies the separation of the Levites by, though it is not unknown what cities the Levites enjoyed by assignment afterward, yet what is that to the purpose? Only I confess they are so much the fitter to be exempted from subjection, if, their lands being taken from them, they have the lesser means now to nourish sedition. But what says 
The Archbishop of Roan was of another mind for Bishop's castles. Chron. Angl nostrae sub Rege Stephano.  Mariana de Institit. Prino. l. 1? Ego volo Episcopis firmissimas arces tradi: I will have Bishops to be masters of the strongest or stateliest castles. There's a Levite of the jesuits, or a pretty levorite rather, to suck a King's heartblood in time. Concerning Num. 8. I have given them to Aaron and his sons for a gift, from the midsts of the people, they are given for service in the holy calling under Aaron, not for any such dependence and obligation towards him, as if thereby they were exempt from the authority of the Magistrate. Though the jesuit cry out here, as having attained a conquest, Not to the temporal Prince, but to Aaron. As if the temporal Prince had lost the Levite, after once God had given them to Aaron. Where first I might ask him, whether Aaron were exempt himself or no? If not, why the Levites, and he not? if so, by what gift, by what donation of God? For giving them to Aaron, he left Aaron as he was, for aught we read. He will say, Aaron was his before; which I grant, for service, but where by exemption from the civil Magistrate? What text, what evidence hath he for that? And will he hold that course in making free of apprentices, as to cancel the indenture, or get the Masters release afore he think them free, and not the same in disannulling subjection to a Prince? Now, we know how Aaron was taunted by Moses, for making 
Exod. 32. 21.  the calf. Which is a sign that this discharge from obedience is a fiction. Neither challenge we any other supremacy of Princes over the Clergy, save in the like case to punish the exorbitant. Besides, God here gives the Levite to Aaron, as given to him freely by the people. Quos dedistis mihi, dono Aaroni, v. 16. & 18. See you then what the people may do in the choice of their Minister? which Bellarmine by no means can be brought to digest at his majesties hands, alleging it out of Cyprian, as anciently practised: here you see allowed by God himself in a sort, that the people should offer and set apart to him their Priests. And if the people's giving of the Levite to God, did not set them free, why should Gods delivering them back to Aaron? Is Aaron's protection more sovereign than Gods, to privilege the Levite? Yea you enthrall the Priests to the people unaware, whiles you labour to exempt them from the Prince's authority. For you make the people the first author of their infranchizoment, as giving them to God, and God to Aaron, by which they hold. Lastly, the Levites 
v. 18.  were given to Aaron, as is manifest by this place, only in am of the first borne of the children of Israel, 
Opinio haec est Rabbi Moysis, & laudatur à Lyrano in locum.  because they by their default and odious idolatry, had made themselves unworthy to do God service. I demand then: were the first borne exempted before, or no? if so, by what charter? for you bring no evidence but this of the Levites, Num. 8. If not, how could the single putting of others in their room, to supply for them in divine offices, afford such privilege to the deputies, as the original ministers never enjoyed? But to persuade you yet more fully, that no more is implied in these words, then only to put in one for the other, the Levites for the first borne, that Aaron and his sons might not be destitute of some to serve them, in their religious performances, (besides that the 20. verse specifies so much, where the execution is described of all that is here commanded, and yet it reaches no further then only to the application of Aaron and his sons to divine service, together with the Levites, as Lyra well observes, without any speech of the least exemption from civil authority) please you to hear your own Doctors speak. First Tostatus as the more worthy. I have read that this Tostatus emulated Turrecremata, another prop of your primacy, both contending at one time who should do the Pope most service. Though he got the Cardinalship, yet you are not wont to despise the Bishop for his learning. Thus he says. [Tradidi eos dono Aaron & filijs eius. 
In 8. Num. quaest. 21.  I have given them for a gift to Aaron and his sons.] Id est, Levitas acceptos pro primogenitis Deus tradidit Aaron & filijs suis. That is, God hath delivered to Aaron and his sons, the Levites, whom he took in lieu of the first borne. And after more plainly: Et dicitur quòd tradidit iis dono, id est, donando, quia deus imposuerat onus totius ministerij super Aaron & filios eius. Cum enim dedit iis Levitas ut adiwarent ipsos, dicobatur dono dare. And it is said that he gave them for a gift, that is, by way of gift, because God laid the burden of the whole ministery upon Aaron and his sons. For when he gave them the Levites to help them, he is said to give them for a gift. So again, [De medio populi, from the midst of the people,] id est, dedit Levitas Aaroni, educendo eos de medio populi, quasi dicat; prius erant Levitae, sicut populares, non habentes aliquam specialem dei ministrationem. Posteà cum deus fecit illos esse suos ministros, dicitur separâsse illos de medio populi, id est, ab aliis popularibus distinguendo eos, in diversitate ministrationis iis traditae, quam non habebant alij Israelitae. That is, He gave the Levites to Aaron, by bringing them forth from the midst of the people. As who would say: Before the Levites were as the common people, not having any special service of God [enjoined them.] Afterward when God made them to be his ministers, he is said to have separated them from the midst of the people, that is, by distinguishing them from other of the popular sort, in the diversity of the ministration committed to them, which the other Israelites had not. Again, [Vt seruiant mihi pro Israel, that they may serve me for Israel] it est, ut seruiant loco primogenitorum Israel, etc. That is, That they may serve me in lieu of the first borne of Israel, etc. And indeed these words show as much as was said before, that, Tradidi dono, was only for service. Now hear Lyra. [Statues Levitas in conspectu Aaron, & filiorum eius, & consecrabis oblatos Domino, ac separabis de medio filiorum Israel, ut sint mei. Thou shalt set the Levites in the sight of Aaron, and of his sons, and shalt consecrate them, having offered them to the Lord, and shalt separate them from the midst of the children of Israel, that they may be mine.] Hic subditur ratio dicti mandati. Ad hoc enim de mandato Domini ordinabantur, ut seruirent sacerdotibus in cultu divino, quia cultus ante legem datam pertinebat ad primogenitos Israel. Sed quòd illi facti sunt inepti ad cultum dei, ideò Dominus loco illorum, voluit Levitas ordinari ad cultum suum. Et hoc est quod dicitur [Et tuli Levitas] deputando mihi pro cunctis primogenitis filiorum Israel. That is: Here the reason of the aforesaid commandment is set down. For to that end were they ordained according to God's commandment, that they might serve his Priests in divine worship, which worship before the giving of the Law belonged to the first borne of the children of Israel. But because they became unfit for God's worship, therefore the Lord would have the Levites to be ordained for his worship in stead of them. And this is that which is said [And I took the Levites] deputing them to me for all the first borne of the children of Israel. To conclude, the Chaldee Paraphrast thus expounds the text, of gift for service, not, for exemption, which men see none, in these words, that so bewitch you, except they are jesuited. Offeret Aaron Levitas munus in conspectu Domini à filijs Israel, VT SERVIANT IN MINISTERIO EIUS. That is: Aaron shall offer the Levites for a gift before the Lord from the children of Israel, THAT THEY MAY SERVE IN HIS ministery. But so much, and too much, hereof be said. Saving that not to F. T. this, whose argument deserves it not, but to others from whom he filched it, that stand much upon it.  
§ 38. ANOTHER of this wiseacres worthy exceptions to the Bishop's retortion upon Peter's pasce from David's pasce, 
a Hector Pintus comment. in cap. 3. Nalium, ad illa verba, Do●●it averunt pastores tui Rex Assur; exponit pastores per confiliarios, duces, judices, & omnes qui temp. gubernandam sui cipiunt. Citansque aliqunt loca in eam sententiam, ut Esa. 63. Esa. 44. Ier 10. item jer. 22. concludit, inquiens, Vides, principes, gubernatores, & consiliarios appellari PASTORES Videant hi.  which they vouchsafe not to regard; they are so swallowed up of Peter's, is this; That, suppose David had had supreme government over the Church in the old Law, yet no Prince temporal may now claim the like, no more than the ceremonies may be said to stand in force, as the keeping of the Sabbath day, as polygamy, abstinence from puddings, and the like meats, (says he that is afraid of losing his dish belike) and with such good stuff are his pages fraught. Yea because the Bishop insists more than once upon Moses law, and the precedents of the old: Testament, to show that primacy belongs to Kings, therefore he is a jew rather than a Christian, etc. So that now obedience is become among the ceremonies, and the honouring of our parents, that is, in truth of our Princes, Patres patriae by ancient style, (and so Ezechias called the Priests his children, filii mei, 2. Chron. 29. 11.) is as subject to alteration as the Sabbath day. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may the ceremonies say; insulting upon the morals, as the other Kings do upon Lucifer, the king of Tyrus, in Ezekiel. And because the ceremonies not only may be omitted, but may not be retained without heinous crime, therefore it shall be conscience to wax wanton against Princes, to shake off their yoke, yoa merit, virtue, and what not? Let us believe, that when Christ, witness S. Paul, Coloss. 2. nailed the ordinances which were against 
Hegesip. de ex●id. Hieros'. l. 2. c. 5. Pilatus Christum nihil aliud docentem, nisi quo primum deo, deinde Imperatoribus, populos faceret obedientes, cruci suffixit.  us to his cross, he nailed the law of our subjection to Magistrates, though he died upon that cross to establish the authority even of Pilate himself, as both S. Paul elsewhere, and the Gospel's witness. Though, when S. Paul says, such ordinances were nailed to the cross as were against us, he sufficiently shows that this was none, concerning Magistracy, than which nothing is more beneficial to mankind, as S. chrysostom often deduces out of his Epistles, namely Rom. 13. v. 4. & the 1. of Tim. 6. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says chrysostom, and so likewise Oecumenius, is conditio servitutis sub Domino, which is more beneficial to the servant, than the servant possibly can be to his master. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he takes care for all. But, if this be good Divinity, that the sovereignty of Princes is to be reckoned but a ceremony, and to be blown away among the shadows of the old Law, as if the precept of honouring Parents, which is primum in promissione, Eph. 6. were now secundum in omission, after that against images, which is usually canceled in the Popish Catechisms, let him tell me what he says to S. Austin's sicuts in his 
* Epist. 50.  Epistle ad Bonifacium, where he parallels the Christian Kings with the Hebrews, thus; Sicut seruivit josias, sicut Ezechias etc. How absurd is his sicut, if their authority were ceremonial, yea or judicial either, and to expire with the coming in of the new Testament? How does 
a His words are: For in the book of Kings we read, what pains godly josias took to bring the kingdom given him of God, to the true worship of God, etc. Not that we compare ourselves with his holiness, but that WE SHOULD ALWAYS IMITATE SUCH EXAMPLES OF THE GODLY. Always, says he, as if the force never expired.  Charles the great assume as much to himself from the example of the said Kings, praefat, in leges Galliae apud Ansegisum? Neither say as the Adjoinder does here, that David was a Prophet, and so josias, or Ezechias, and the like. 
b Vide Acta Concilij.  For the Council of Chalcedon finds as much in Constantine; Constantinus magnus, ut David, & Rex & Propheta. Which they would not have appropriated to Constantine neither, but have given, you may be sure, to any other Christian King, that should have carried himself with the like valiant resolution. And no marvel, when Solomon makes it common to them all, to have an oracle in 
Sozom. l. 7. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, God by aracle instructing the King. Of Theodosius choosing Nectarius to be Archbishop of Constantinople.  their lips, Prou. 16. and in an other place, their hearts so set in God's hands, as extraordinarily subject to his directions. Where because I have named Solomon, what think you of his Proverbs? are they replenished with ceremonials, or with judicials, or with what? yet he talks of a King, if you be remembered, one time as chase away all wickedness with his eye, suppose heresies and all: another time enacting and decreeing righteousness, sculpens justitiam, c. 8. which cannot be without the chief part of it, that is, religion: (as we read in Theodoret. l. 4. c. 5. that Valentinian taught all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all equity, as Solomon here says, beginning with piety:) another time as one against whom there is no rising up, and with many such 
Prov. 30. 31.  like eulogiums, he advances him as supreme in each kind. Neither Solomon only, but Aristotle himself, as if it were the law of nature, in the third of his politics. Assuerus, Cyrus 
d S Maximus Hom, in Litanijs, & de jejune. Ninivit. Mira res, dum se Regem hominum non meminit, incipit Rex es 〈◊〉 justiciae. Et, Sive ferro, sive iusticiâ, pro civium salute primus invigilat. Et, Non perdidit imperium, sed mutavit. Obtinet nunc coelestium disciplinarum principatum. , the King of Nineve, were they not all supreme ordainers in religion, who nevertheless were strangers to the law of Moses? This, 
e Parallel. part. 4. de Paradoxis.  Eudoemon might have told you, who twits the Bishop for joining those aforesaid with the kings of Israel. Belike than they are distinct. Therefore not only Israel, or they that were guided by the law of Moses, but mere Naturalists have acknowledged thus much, that supremacy is the kings by original right, and not of ceremony. So, as our Saviour said once about circumcision, Non ex Mose, sed ex Patribus, in like sort here. It is neither ceremony, nor judicial, neither from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 9 this authority of Kings in all causes, and over all persons, which you so carp. And if it be lawful as you tell us to argue from the old Testament to the new, by way of sign to the thing signified, we have enough in that kind to maintain our assertion, though we had no other argument. For who found a type in Nabuchodonosor even now, first fierce against Daniel, and daniel's God, afterward making laws as zealously in his behalf? The oven that was heated to consume the three children, consumed their adversaries. And so daniel's Lions prepared against him, devoured his accusers. These are types, if you believe S. Austen, of heathen Emperors turning Christian, and countenancing religion with all their might, as before they used the advantage of their place, only to suppress it and destroy it. I might tell you of other types, that have gone before in the old testament, touching the supremacy of Kings, appertaining to the new. As Abraham's harnessing 318. household servants against Kedar-Laomer for the redeeming of Lot; which is a type of Constantine (say the Fathers of a certain 
Chalcedon. in Acts.  Council) managing and mustering just so many Bishops in the Nicene Synod, to the confusion of Arius. The lion that slew the transgressing Prophet, is a figure of Leo the Christian Emperor suppressing heresies, etc. as Varadatus, 
Ibid. in Acts.  whom they call excellentissimus Monachus, in his Epistle to Leo aforesaid, construes it. In a word, though you be impudent, and your forehead full of blasphemies; yet me thinks you should be ashamed to bewray yourselves so much, as to affirm that Kings lost any part of their stroke, by our saviours appearing in the new Testament, as needs 
Herod's panic fear, Non eripit mortalia, qui regna dat coelestia. Sedul.  they must, if the authority was but ceremonial, or judicial either, which they exercised before. And therefore I spare from further confutation.  
§. 39 As for that the Emperors in the new Testament were heathen, and so neither by Christ, nor his Apostles obeyed, I hope, Sir, it is enough they were not resisted. And if they made no good laws, yet they might have made them, and the Church in such case had been bound to obey them. Neither do the Bishops, I trow, always preach the truth, in which case 
a Lib. de pastor. c. 10.  S. Austen, and 
b Lib. 1. epist. 4. S. Chrysost. Homil. de Pseudoproph. Ne mirere etsi Pastores transcant in lupos. Item Serm. apud Georg. Alexan. in vitâ Chrysost. Crucifigit Caiphas, & confitetur Latro. Denique, Occidêre Sacerdotes, adoravere Magi. See his Epistles, for it was his own case. He professes that the Bishops were his heaviest enemies in the cause of God and his truth.  S. Cyprian, give us leave to abandon them. So is it when Kings, transported by error, forsake their duty, & yet forfeit not their supremacy. Though our Saviour and his Apostles did no more turn away from the edicts of Princes concerning religion, then from the Scribe and the Pharisee, and the chair of Moses itself, which you perhaps would have heard and obeyed in all things. Will you say therefore that the chair was not supreme in those matters? To omit, that if Princes had been never so impious for the time present, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 3. the Scripture that foresees might have confirmed the type that went of their authority in spiritual matters, even in the old Testament, against such time as God should raise up better in the new. Yet you say that in the new Testament there is not the least syllable to that purpose. Not Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Minister, v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 6. which is rather more than the other, but still Gods, or to God belonging. And not in God's matters, trow you? In terrorem malis, that is, to heretics and all. In laudem bonis; yet no goodness without true religion, in S. Paul's estimation, who says soon after, that whatsoever is without faith is sin: the last verse of the next chapter. So, Coge intrare, Luk. 14. to the spiritual banquet, that is, Kings in special have this compelling power, says S. Austen often. So Gal. 5. where heresies are reckoned among the works of the flesh, which flesh at least the king's authority stretches to, according to the similitude that you are wont to quote out of Gregory Nazianzen, 
●…ues timore 〈◊〉.  of the flesh and the spirit, though Athanasius Orat. de incarnate. verbi, makes the King to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the understanding part, that sets all on work. Lastly, 1. Tim. 2. 1. where showing that God would have all men saved, the Apostle from thence argues to prayers for Kings, knowing Kings, if they 
So Psal. 2. Dabotibi gentes hare ditatem tuam, & possessionem tuim terminos terrae, is joined with, Et nunc reges intelligite etc. as the end with the means.  be Christian, are the notablest instruments to work the world's salvation. Can this be, if Kings be not supreme in religion, and the causes thereof, as well in the new, as in the old Testament? For lest you say, they are to do these things indeed, but at the Clergies beck, and subordinate to them, they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supreme Magistrates, in the places that assign them what to do: Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13. etc. But now if a man should ask you, where your Pontifical supremacy is established in the new (besides that you may fetch it, by authority, from Moses, which 
Deut. 17. Iste locus, vel à simili vel à maiori, debet etiam intelligi de PP. Christianis.  we may not, and so from Aaron & his sons, nay, à maiori says Bell. de Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 16. though Moses figured not the Pope, but Christ, Heb. 3. 2. and so likewise Aaron, Heb. 5. 4. yet) perhaps you would quote Luk. 22. Vos autem non sic, for that is more pregnant, then Duo gladij in the same chapter; or, Qui maior vestrum est, fiat sicut minimus, or, Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo, or for love to Peter, Non dominantes Cleris, 1. Pet. 5. 3. Do not these show the meaning of Pasce oves meas?  
§ 40 You say again the Bishop equivocates in this, that though David and Peter were both called to feeding, yet Peter to one kind of feeding, David to another, Peter to spiritual, David to temporal. As if the Bishop could not discern the difference of their feedings, unless you taught him. But, Sir, thus it is. For so much as you jesuits would pick a 
* Vrbanus 7. may seem to have been of another mind, whose chief care, after he came to be Pope, was to provide victuals good store: & his ground was, because he was called to Pas●e o●●s meas, as he said, Cicarella in vitâ Vib. 7.  feeding of state, that is, of regiment and Monarchy out of Peter's feeding, we demand whether it be not likely, that, if any government be implied in the word Pasce, it is rather in David's, whom you confess to have been a King, then in Peter's, whom we never acknowledged to be a Monarch? And therefore we say your argument for the Pope's supremacy follows not well from Pasce oves meas. Rather David's Pasce gives him some interest even in matters of religion, to which Pasce belongs after a special sort, as it is used in Scriptures, and Peter is bid to feed, rather than to rule, to show his authority is not temporal, nor coactive, but of a milder kind. That you say Cyrus was no head of God's Church, though styled Pastor, and Pastor meus, by Gods own mouth, how do you prove it? No member 
Head of the Church is said in a threefold respect. 1 2 3  you say, therefore no head. But this Eudoemon will help you to unriddle. Though neither he was engrafted into the body mystical, nor yet linked in the bond of outward profession, yet a head he might be of God's people by a certain deputation or assignment outward, that is, by bearing authority over the multitude of subjects, committed to his charge, of what religion soever, which is the only headshippe that we attribute to Kings. I have read 
Theodor. de eurand. Graec. affect. Chemnic. in locis come. part 2. de Paupert. Espenc in c. 3. Ep. ad Titum opponit eum impio. Quasi reputet pium. Et, Divinitùs seruatum discimus. Nisi referat hoc ad salutem modò corporis.  some both Fathers and modern writers, that think Cyrus was illuminate, and faithful, and perhaps saved. Who knows what the reading of that prophesy might prevail upon him, Esa. 44. (as josephus witnesses in the 11. of his Antiq. cap. 1. quoted by S. Hierome upon Esa. 45.) wherein he was called by his name 
* Multo antequam nascereris. Hieron. Annis 210. aunt impletam prophetiam. Espenc.  certain hundred of years before he was borne? If this be so, than he might be both member and head in your sense, but howsoever, a Pastor by office and vocation, as God entitles him. Shall we see what follows?  
§ 41. Whereas the Bishop in like sort had instanced from joshua, Numb. 27. whom God called to feed his people after Moses, one temporal magistrate after another, lest they should be as sheep which have no shepherd, he answers that josua was to be directed by the high Priest, not è contrà. As if direction were not one thing, and commandment another. For the Priest may direct, though the King command. And we speak of authority now, not of ability to counsel. Though David is so little affixed to the Priests, that he says, God's statutes are the men of his counsel, that is, his privy counsellors. The Commonwealth no doubt is happy, where Heman the King's Seer is admitted near unto him, ut exaltet cornu, 1. Chron. 25. or Benaiah placed ad auriculam David, 2. Chron. 11. I mean where Bishops are of the consultation of estate. In multitudine boum 
Prov. 14. 4.  implentur praesepia, and where such labourers are, all goes well. But yet Eleazar shall only run between josua and the Lord, while we neither deny the Lord to be supreme, nor yet suffer the messenger to turn the King's master. To the place quoted out of Theodoret. quaest. 48. in lib. Num. that Moses divided his double glory between josua and Eleazar, as giving his supremacy in spirituals to one, in temporals to another, as the Adjoinder would have it: we find no such thing in the Scripture itself, Num. 27. but only that God appointed Moses, to give josua of his glory, ver. 20. without naming Eleazar. And Theodoret means no more, but that Moses gave of his prophesy to Eleazar, which was aureola gloriae, as your Schoolmen would call it, or an additament to the main, not any branch of dignity, or of authority. His words are, Ex rationali judicij humeris Eleazari adiacente, discat Iosua quid sit agendum: Let josua learn what to do from the judgement plate that rests upon Eleazar's shoulders. A great prerogative, believe me, and to top Kings. Is it not rather to wait upon them, and to serve their uses? Lastly thus, Ex quo discimus quomodo qui à sacerdotibus ordinantur, gratiam consequuntur spiritualem: that is, Whereby we learn, how, they that are ordained of Priests, attain spiritual grace. We call not the King's primacy spiritual, howsoever it extends to spiritual matters: though you imputing such a thing unto us, as you do afterwards, you may see what a hint Theodoret gives us here, if we list to use it. And before, he had told us, that josua was consecrated by imposition of hands. Does not that savour of somewhat spiritual? And how does Moses pray here, when he prays for a man to be set over the Congregation, namely josua? Lord God of the spirits of all flesh. As if spirit and flesh, temporal and Ecclesiastical, were the governors charge. And strait after, ver. 18. God says to Moses, Take josua, in whom is the spirit. So Platina in the life of Clement the seventh, Corona & caeremoniae, per quas inauguratur Imperator, testimonium sunt divini spiritus accepti: The crown and the ceremonies, says he, whereby the Emperor is installed, are a token of the divine spirit received. And he adds, Qui animum Imperatoris iam augustum, augustiorem divinioremque reddat: Which makes the emperors mind, already royal of itself, more royal and more divine. Was not Saul changed into another man, upon his attaining the kingdom? And how, but by, the grace which he received in his inauguration? Salmeron your fellow-Iesuit, but too learned I fear to be your fellow throughout, 
Tom. 12. in Ep. Pauli. p. 251.  says, Kingdoms themselves turn spiritual, in a manner, under Christian Kings. The same says Rossaeus, with more store of words, Sacrum, Ecclesiasticum, spirituale, sacerdotale, pag. 
De iustam Ecclesiae author.  526. I might give you more, but this shall suffice in this place.  
§ 42. THE third exception (says he) that the Bishop 
3. Num 20. Adjoind.  takes to the argument, drawn from Pasce oves meas, is this: That albeit S. Austen, and S. Cyrill, have amply commented upon the Gospel of S. john, and upon those very words of our Saviour to S. Peter, Pasce oves meas, yet neither of them saw, illustrem hunc fidei articulum, de prematu Petri temporali, This notable (as he construes it) article of faith, concerning the temporal primacy of Peter, etc. What says Father Thomas to this? For some think F. T. to have that mystical signification, to note unto us his Fatherhood, which every hedge-priest and beardless boy usurps now a days among the jesuits, to beard Bishops with, and what Bishops? As if the Cardinal (says he) did teach that S. Peter's primucie is a temporal primacy, because in some cases it extends itself to temporal matters. As for the spiritual primacy (says he) the Bishop himself grants that sometimes, as far forth in effect as we demand. What the Bishop grants, we shall see hereafter, when we come to the place, which is Chap. 3. num. 36. as we are told by you. In the mean time, you reckon without your host, the Bishop grants nothing that he will not stand to. Be you but content with that which he pitches, and the controversy will soon be at an end. But did you ever hear such an impudent varlet, that plays upon the word temporal primacy, and denies they give any such to the Pope? What is their primacy, but a primacy of power? and if the power then be temporal, is not the primacy so? Now for that, let but Bellarmine declare his opinion, who entitles his 5. book de Pontif. Rom. De potestate Pontificis temporali: Of the temporal power of the Pope. This is plain, but in the argument of the sixth chapter of the same book, more plainly, Papam habere temporalem potestatem indirectè: That the Pope hath temporal power, [at least] indirectly. Whereas we neither ascribe to the King spiritual primacy overhastily, nor are wont to call his power spiritual. If the Bishop have so done, let the place be named, and the imputation verified, wherewith F. T. chargeth us, Num. 15. though very wrongfully, as if we nourished a doctrine of the King's spiritual primacy. Yet they say, Sixtus Quintus would have had those works of Bellarmine to be burnt, perhaps for giving him temporal power only, and not temporal primacy, totidem verbis. 
a Adjoin. Num. 21. If the Pope's primacy may be called a temporal primacy for this cause, etc. then may the Bishop or Pastor be justly called a corporal B shop, and a pecuniary Pastor, because he doth punish men sometimes in his spiritual court, not only in their bodies, but also in their purses, etc.  And here our lepus pulpamentum quaerit, a wretch and most obnoxious to all manner of scorn, flourishes and descants with his leaden wit, upon a corporal Bishop, as he calls him, Bonner I trow, who excused his corpulency, wherewith he was wont to be painted, with saying he had but one doublet too little for him, and the knave heretics always painted him in that. If you talk of a punisher of bodies, he was one. We do not know, God be thanked, that our Bishops have any such power in these days, by the examples we see, but that you tell us so. And there was a time, when your Popes themselves could inflict no punishments of this nature, says Papirius Massonius in the life of Leo the second. Now all their strength stands that way. And so I might say of the punishing of the purse, and the gains of the Bishop's court, which you so envy, whereas not only he is not forward to deal punishments, and much less to gain by the parties punished, but I have heard his Chancellor, whom certainly you meant when you taxed the Courts, utterly disanow, that their Courts condemn any body in money, howsoever offending. How beit if Kings, to whom all the power of the sword is committed, that is all kind of coactive punishment, should give the Bishops leave to mulct the purse, rather than their censures should be contemned, what is that to the Popes either exercising or challenging to himself, I know not what temporal power, by virtue of his Apostleship, and original calling, without donation or delegation from Princes? Though again if this be granted, which I believe not as yet, because I have been otherwise informed, as I said, that the Bishops are so licenced by authority from his MAJESTY here in England, yet the Bishop whom you shoot at, is so far from delighting in any such markets, that he had rather redeem offences with his loss, then raise profit to himself out of punishments. Imperatorem me peperit matter, said Scipio, non bellatorem, 
Ill Front. lib. 4. stratagem. c. 7.  when one chid him as too remiss and loath to fight. So he. S. Theodoret saith sweetly, that there are no punishments in heaven, in regione hyacinthina, of which farther you may hear in his due place. And the Bishop's calling is a kind 
Cap. 3. huius.  of heaven. How much more when it is joined with conscience and clemency? Which is so proper to the Prelate of whom we speak, as you may wonder: both his Office and Sea savouring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of mercy and compassion, rather than of rigour, but his nature much more. And if S. Chrysostom's 
Comm. in c 1. ad Philip. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ethico.  argument for Kings be good, that they are called to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because unnointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, called to mercy, because anointed with oil, it may guide you to conceive aright herein, of the Bishop, whose practice acquits him without hidden emblems, or forced hieroglyphics, Unless you think that because he handled Tortus somewhat roughly, or the Cardinal either, therefore he is more vindicative out of his disposition. But for that you may remember, that he was the King's Almoner, and dealt his liberalities as they had been best deserved.  
Now leaving the digression that this man's malapertness hath driven us unto, what says he for substance to the Bishop's third exception, as himself branches it?  
§ 43. IT is enough (says he) that Cyrill and Austen deny 
Num. 21.  not the temporal power of Peter, though they aver it not, in their commentaries. Forsooth they expound not Pasce half perfectly, wherein surely they are to blame, in so large a Commentary, as few have written upon that Scripture, to say nothing of a thing so material as that, or so principal rather, and yet so obvious, when the text lies naked before their eyes. For it is a necessary consequent, the temporal power (says our jesuit here) of the spiritual. Which yet Mr. 
* Epist. ad Cardinal. Bellarm.  Blackwell will never believe, nor those 
a Covar. part. 2. p. 504. Navar. & alibi, & citat. ibid. à Covar. Binsfield. Alan.  authors whom he quotes to the contrary, that make it a point like the newfound lands, or unfound rather, so wholly vndefined and unresolved, whether the Pope have any such piece of dominion yea or no. Besides, he should have showed the necessary consequence between the two powers, which because he does not, I think he either saw it not, or lacked ability to express his mind. Me thinks nothing easier than to conceive so of them, that though linked in use, yet divided in nature, and so likewise in subject, as Gelasius gave caution 
De vinc. Anathem.  long ago very well, of not confounding them, like the two arms in a man's body, or the two lights in the firmament, (so far I am content to go with Bonifacius) yea or the two swords themselves, ecce duo gladij, whereof one questionless depended not of another, though your exposition be so good, that Stella is ashamed of it, and diverse 
Comment. in Luc 22.  more of your own men.  
§ 44. That S. Austen acknowledged the Pope's temporal primacy, implied in those words, Pasce oves meas, you bring no other places than we have hitherto answered, and it might be thought too largely, but that you bring them again, as primus Apostolorum, and propter primatum Apostolatús, of which no more. Let them prevail as they can. So likewise I say of representare personam, which you enforce here again to be supreme governor over the Church. This is your riches, that run round in a ring, and choke the children of the Prophets with your cram, and yet cry out of the Bishop for his nakedness and poverty in proving the cause, Numb. 15. As for that you here add, that no other Apostle is said to represent the Church's person besides Peter, S. Austen hath made you to swallow it before; yet perusing your book, I find it to be no more than yourself attribute to Mr. Thomas Rogers, of whom you say in your ninth chapter, Num. 78. that he represents the authority of all the Clergy of England: not only the Clergy, but the authority of them all; and yet I think you never held him for our supreme governor. To that of S. Cyrill, Vt Princeps caputque caeterorum primus exclamavit: I wonder first, why you should construe it exclaimed, unless your argument stand in that, as if Peter should get the primacy by roaring. So he in Plutarch, when he saw a tall man come in to try masteries, but otherwise unwieldy, This were a likely man, says he, if the garland hung aloft, & he that could reach it with his hands, were to have it for his pains. You know that we Englishmen call that exclaiming, when a man cries out by discontent, or passion. Was Peter offended, when you make him to exclaim? As for princeps & caput, it is weighed in the balance, and found too light. S. Jerome, Dial. 1. contra Pelag. Vt Plato princeps Philosophorum, it a Petrus Apostolorum: as Plato was chief among the Philosophers, so Peter of the Apostles. Doth that please you? For Plato though he lived in Dionysius his Court, yet he was no Monarch. No more was Peter. And if you would but turn Tully's Offices again, or almost any other of his works, you should see Princeps, in quacunque facultate. In medicinâ, in re bellicâ, in scenâ itself, & where not? Illaerat vita, illa secunda fortuna, (says he) libertate parem 
Phil. 〈◊〉.  esse caeteris, principem dignitate. Therefore princeps is no word of sovereignty. And was no body ever called caput but Peter? For that is another thing which you stand upon. I could tell you a distichon out of Baronius, made neither by Peter, nor by any of his successors, as you interpret his successors, wherein nevertheless the man is called after other titles, — Pontificumque caput: 
Venantius F●…natus de Niceta Treverensi, apud Baron. tom 7. anno 529 XVII. Col. 181.  which is, the head of Bishops, and Popes, and all. And if a man should call Eudaemon-Iohannes justly deserving it, as it may be some have called him, caput furiarun, would you plead from thence, if need were, that he had any authority over the devils, or were a young Belzebub? Further, I believe, when all comes to all, it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, if we could see it. Of which we shall say more when we answer to the other cyril, namely he of jerusalem, a little after. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we are taught by S. chrysostom, where yet there is no authority of one actor over the other. Generally, this arguing from titles of commendation is very unsound. Who knows not that S. james was called Episcopus Episcoporum, as Nilus testifies? yet S. Ambrose serm. 83. gives that to Christ, to be Episcopus Episcoporun, as his privilege. Though Sidonius, an author not justly to be excepted against, affirms 
Lib 6. Ep. 1.  no less of one Lupus a particular Bishop, that he was Episcopus Episcoporun, & Pater Patrum, & alter saeculi sui jacobus: that is, a Bishop of Bishops, and a Father of Fathers, & another james [the Apostle] of his age. Which in the end will prove as much as caput caeterorum, though you bring that to magnify Peter by. As if caput caeterorun, might not be one set up by special proviso, to keep good order in the College, I mean the College of the Apostles, though without any commission to derive it to his successors, or extravagant power over the rest for the present. Lastly, I might ask you, how Peter could be caput caeterorum here, that is, Monarch installed in your sense, when you tell us a little after, Num. 31. out of S. chrysostom, that Peter durst not ask our Saviour the question, who should betray him, till such time as he had received the fullness of authority, and after that time he grew confident. Which time was not till after our saviours resurrection, and therefore far from this. So if you trust to chrysostom, you have lost Cyrill, if to Cyrill, chrysostom; you cannot possibly hold them both, if you urge caput in so rigorous sense. I might add out of S. Cyrill once again, to stop your mouth, crying out so mainly 
Hilat. can. 30. in Matth. Petrus pro fidei suae calore,— Quasi Christs dicta efficienda non essent. So ●●oate that he thought Christ might be in the wrong, himself in the right.  against lame quotations, that princeps as it may be taken, is expounded there by ferventissimus Apostolorum, so fervent saith S. Cyrill, that he leapt naked into the sea, out of the ship, for zeal. Where if the ship be the Church, than we have Peter leaping out of the Church. You will say perhaps, from Antioch to Rome. Then Antioch is the ship, and Rome the sea. What vantage have you now of all that is said of Peter's ship to countenance Rome? Do you see how one jump hath marred your allegory, and almost your Monarchy? Now S. Cyrill says farther in the place you quote, lib. 12. cap. 64. in joh. Petrus alios praeveniebat, how? Ardore namque 
Petrus alios praevenicbat.  Christi praecipuo feruens, & ad faciendum & ad respondendum paratissimus erat. That is: Peter prevented others. For boiling 
Petrus feruens ardore.  with an especial zeal to our Saviour Christ, he was most ready and forward, either to do, or say. This was the cause why he exclaimed first. Primus, says S. Cyrill, but not solus. Hic Malchi etiam aurem amputavit (that you cannot abide to hear of) putans hoc modo Magistro semper se inhaesurum. So little did he covet the primacy that you strive for, that he wished never to be absent from his Master, which if he had not been, he could never have ruled in his room. Then, in every confession that he made (says S. Cyrill) rationalium ovium curam sibi habendam esse audivit. Is cura nothing? which with you praefectura hath clean devoured. And if you but remembered, that they were oves rationales, you would tyrannize less, and stand less for tyranny. There There are other things between, which I pass over here, because you shall hear them anon. Take this for farewell. Doctores hinc Ecclesiae discunt (saith S. Cyrill) non aliter se Christo posse coniungi, nisi omni curâ & operâ studeant, ut rationales oves rectè pascantur, & rectè valeant. Talis erat Paulus ille, etc. That is: The Doctors of the Church learn from hence, that they can no otherwise be joined unto Christ, unless they endeavour with all their pain and diligence, that his reasonable sheep be well fed, and well liking. Such a one was Paul, etc. By which you see what a sense he gives us of Pasce, of feeding Christ's sheep, namely with labour and diligence, which the Pope cannot skill of, and Paul (not only Peter) a prime instance of it. Neither doubt I, but when Paul says of himself, I have laboured more than they all, S. Cyrill would construe it, according to this rule, I have fed more than they all.  
§ 45. You farther accuse the Bishop, as speaking evidently false, when he says of the holy Father's cyril and Austen before named, that concerning Peter's triple acknoweledgement, id tantum vident, nec praeterea quid, they see this only and nothing else, that he abolished his triple negation by triple confession, & was restored to the place 
Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 103. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem habent Cirillus, duo Theodori, & Hera● leota, Mopsuestenus, Leontius, Theophylactus, Maximus, August. Beda, Nic phoru●… Ambrose. So as Maldonat. in joh. 21. Vi● author ullus est qui non dicat, etc.  or degree of Apostleship, from the which he was fallen: for touching the primacy they are altogether silent. This you say is false in two respects. The one, for that they saw more than so, namely the primacy of Peter, As I have showed (say you) out of them both: and, I think, we have answered you, to them both. The other, because they saw not that, which he affirmeth in their behalf: I mean (say you) that S. Peter was, by those words of our Saviour, restored to his place in the Apostleship, which he had lost. For if they should have said so, they should seem to hold (or favour at least) the pernicious heresy of Wickliff, that Magistrates lose their dignity and authority by mortal sin; which pestiferous opinion, those holy Fathers, no doubt, would have abhorred, if it had been set abroach, or taught by any in their time: seeing that it shaketh the very foundation of all obedience, either to Civil, or Ecclesiastical Magistrates, because it does not only make all obedience uncertain (for no man knows who is in the state of grace) but also giveth occasion to subjects, upon every offence of their Prince, to call his authority into question. This is the circumstance of this tedious Thom. But that Wickliff was in this heresy, you must bring better proofs before we believe it, it is long since that your words are no slanders. The damnable enormities used in those times, your very hour and power of darkness, might drive some to opinion, that the office ceased when the Officer was incorrigible, because they saw no other remedy. But this, as I believe not to have been Wickliff's judgement, till you show better evidence, so whose-soever it was, you have rather followed him in your jesuitical principles, that, the mighty are to be pulled down from their seats by you, though Marie and Anna make it Gods proper work, Luk. 2. and 1. Sam. 2. one the pearl of the new, the other of the old Testament, then that we should fear to be enwrapped in his danger. Our doctrine you know, Reges in saeculum, as job says, &, Coronamentum in generationem & 
job. 36. 7. Prou. 27. 24.  generationem, with Solomon, though Caietane read it interrogatively, Nunquid coronamentum? Again, Deus perpetua regni sceptra donavit Principibus, says he in the Council of Chalcedon: and, Aeternum imperium, says another in the 
Edit. Concil. ●…ian p. 251.  same. Whether eternity then, or perpetuity, which Philosophy distinguishes, you see sound divinity gives them both to the Crown. Neither are we slack to subscribe to Optatus, lib. 2. cont. Parm. Deus defendit oleum suum, quia si peccatum est hominis, unctio tamen est divinitatis. God protects his oil, because though the sin be the man's, yet the anointing is his own. And not only Princes, but by just judgement of God, in am of your other error, you turn out your very Popes for heresy; Canus, and Bellarmine, and some other hold so, that he is gone ipso facto: we yielding to no such abdication of our King, no though his fault were heresy, remembering that Deus defendit oleum suum, as even now I told you out of Optatus: and, Caesar non desinit esse Caesar, even in alto gentilismo, as our Saviour acknowledged of him, Matth. 22. Insomuch as David seems to wonder, 2. Sam. 1. that Saul could die at all, because he was anointed with oil. He was slain (saith he) as if he had not been anointed. Qui propter ingenium videbatur omninò mori non debuisse, quoth Tully of Roscius. Nor he, propter imperij Maiestatem. Therefore the wickedness lies on your side, whatsoever Wickliff thought, whom you slander. But so heinous is the heresy of deposing Magistrates for moral misdemeanours, that they are justly scourged, even with your own whip. A bad head, I should think, which the body will be the better for the cutting off. So as 
* De auctor. Concil. l. 2. c. 17 V●des Dominum reseruare oeconomum, suo sol ●…dicio: ex Luc. 12. Idem etiam docet usu, omnium ●a●…rum. Et, Serut hoc nec sol● possunt, nec congregati. S●il. punire vel expell●re ●…conomum. Id enim ad solum Dominum 〈◊〉 ●tus familiae pertinet.  Bellarmine unawares betrays his cause in my opinion, taking pro concesso, that the Steward of a house, cannot be deposed from his office, but only by the grand master of the family, which he construes to be Christ, by analogy, in the state. What can be said more for his majesties security that now is, (setting aside his princely virtues, which might arm him against all trial) and that out of the mouth of the very old-one, his adversary? Though the holy Ghost in Esay calls all Kings by that name, designing them Stewards, not only of the state and weal public, but of the Church itself, Erunt Reges dispensatores tui. As even your own Forerius, 
Esa 49.  and he a learned Portugese, expounds it in his commentaries upon that place, deducing it from the Rabbins. (To say nothing of the claim that Kings might make to Dispensations henceforth, which now the Pope only engrosseth.) But his majesties cause is yet more pregnant than so, in whose name, not only in his person, God and nature have engraved this character, not only in femore, but in vestimento, as it were to mark him out for sacred, against your furious designs.  
§ 46. By the way I might ask you, what you mean by that, that no man knows who is in the state of grace? Does that confute Wicliffe, or them that hold Magistrates are no longer Magistrates, after mortal sins? As if a man could not be out of the state of grace, & yet not all his actions be mortal sins. Such a babe you are in your own doctrines.  
§ 47. And if the Bishop should hold this, which you impute unto him, hot judges of his holdings, that make him a Polygamist, a jew, as of late, and now a broacher forsooth of treasonable positions, yet with what face can you cry out against him as you do, num. 28. Why should Peter rather than any other loose his Apostleship? seeing yourselves are forwardest to censure your Pope with deprivation, ipso facto, whereas another Bishop, I suppose, may come to his trial. Is this that which the Pope gets by, A nemine iudicabitur? Unless the crime were small to deny Christ, whom he had seen and conversed with so familiarly, which Optatus so exaggerates against S. Peter, lib. 7. as if he had no fellow, Quisquis in persecutione negavit Christum, (imagine Marcellinus, or the like) leviùs Petro deliquisse videtur. The sin of denying Christ in persecution, seems less then. Peter: or as if any religion can be maintained there, where the son of God is abjured and cast off, and therefore once no heresy more pernicious than this.  
§ 48. But now what if the Bishop do not hold that Peter lost his Apostleship? or, what if he do? Shall it not be lawful for our Saviour Christ to put out his Apostle, (Abi Satan, that is, Get thee gone, saith the Arabian translator, 
Kirsten. Not. Matth. 16.  not, Recede, depart, or go aside a while) and yet take him in again, for so enormous a crime, but every varlet and rascal companion shall presume to do the same against his Sovereign, and saucily shake off his Superiors at pleasure? And yet these are the seeds of that good discipline which here you sow, and you think S. Peter's case is Turrian confirmation of treason, as if he could not lose his office by censure from our Saviour, but subjects may lay down their fealty to Magistrates, when they fall into offence. Or, do you think that no Apostle could lose his place? If you do, you may read S. Hierome ad Rusticum, affirming of judas, that he fell de fastigio Apostolatûs, etc. to a place unrecoverable. Wherein our Saviour dealt more mildly with Peter, whom he took in again. Curans verbis, quod verbis offensum erat, saith S. Cyrill: healing with words, his fault of words, that is, triple negation by proportionable confession. And remember you not what the holy Ghost saith of judas, Episcopatum cius accipiat alter? which was not practised against S. Peter, our Lord dealing graciously with him, as I said, as if he had suspended him, not deprived him. But for my part, I take not upon me to define this question; and the Bishop, as most able, so I dare say was farther of from meddling with it. He looks not to by-matters, but when dignus vindice nodus offers itself, than he lends a hand; whereas you patch, and pelt, and clout every thing into every place that you can, like a beggars coat, or a Sturbridge-faire booth, or a cypress tree in the midst of the sea. The Bishop's purpose was only to signify in S. Cyrils' words, that dignitas Apostolatûs renovata est S. Petro, that the honour of the Apostleship was renewed to S. Peter. Fatemur (says he) as assenting to S. Cyrill, not jangling nor determining, as you would have it. And I pray Sir, how does that differ from S. Cyrils' own words, which you traduce in the Bishop, ne propter negationem labefactata videretur? Concussa therefore it was, shaken and enfeebled, but not utterly dashed nor undermined. And where you prattle not a little, a little before, But perhaps some will say, that the Bishop does not plainly affirm this, but relateth the doctrine of S. Austen and S. Cyrill, which you infringe by those words, that you bring out of the Bishop, restitutus muneri, restored to his charge, as if therefore he had lost it in the Bishop's opinion: what more is in restitution, than was afore in renovation? And if the Apostleship be renovatus, how is not the Apostle restitutus? If S. Cyrill be right, how is the Bishop wrong? May I not truly ask, what does this dog lack but a bone? And yet soon after, he can give the Bishop that term, and another too with vantage. Verbum in cord stulti, sicut sagitta in femore canis. But the crown of reverence is thick set with such precious stones. Neither does only Cyrill say as much, but Euthymius useth the very word restitutus. conversus, (says he) id est, in pristinum locum denuò restitutus. See Chrysost. Hom. 2. in Psal. 50. where he says no less: that he lost his Apostleship by denying, and recovered it by repenting and confessing. Theophyl. in Luc. 22. Cum negaveris, iterumque receperis, viz. Apostolatum, of which before. He recovered his Apostleship, ergo he lost it. Arnobius also in Psal. 138. Maior gradus redditur ploranti, quam sublatus est deneganti. A greater degree is restored to him weeping, then was taken from him denying. Therefore doubtless his denial deprived him of some degree. Victor Antiochenus, Denuò assumptus, & inter caeteros Apostolos rursus numeratus, taken home again, and reckoned among the Apostles. And if S. Austen said by one, not of the best life, 
Anton. Fussul. quoted by F. T.  Aut assumat obedientiam, aut deponat praedicationem, you may think what was fit to be done by Peter here. Quare accipis verba mea in os tuum? said God to the ungodly. cum vidisti ancillam, eiurabas me apud eam: for even the falling of those drops, made a hole into our rock. What marvel if the Fathers put Peter beside the Apostleship for his grievous 
●p. 1. ad Sympt.  crime, when Pacianus says, such put quite out of the Church? May he be an Apostle, nay the Prince of the Apostles, in your opinion, that is no member of the Church? Indeed Bellarmine construes those words of heresy. But first fond, and without any ground, than Peter is no less, if it come to be weighed, as we have showed out of Optatus.  
§ 49. As for the proofs that you bring in defence of Peter, how easily might he lose his Apostleship for all them, if a man were disposed to enter into argument? Cyrill of jerusalem, Catech. Mystag. 2. is brought saying, Petrus dignitatem Apostolicam retinuit non ablatam: that is, finally, and retinuit ex intervallo, that is, recuperavit: non ablatam, and yet suspensam. In the Greek thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that he kept it without ever losing, but rather that the Apostleship, of it own nature, is such if nothing hinder. But of that I contend not, neither do you for modesty quote the Greek. The same to Optatus, lib. 7. He deserved not to be separated from the number of the Apostles. That is, not finally. Else we know, he went out, and wept bitterly. He went out in a mystery, and perhaps to show his deserved separation. As when Christ looked upon him, I grant sensibly, and yet in a mystery, to show the power of his grace, and irradiation upon his heart. That Optatus says, bono unitatis separari non meruit, it is not, lest the Disciples should want a head, and yet there may be a head, only to keep out confusion, as the Precedent of Counsels, and other ordinary assemblies, without any great authority over the congregation, I wisse; but in regard to his patience, which he 
Bono unitatis.  had learned by his own fall, to show to other offenders. This is bonum unitatis, this is pax publica, that keeps all in tune. Ne & tu tenteris, Gal. 2. how much more, post quam & tentatus, & elisus es? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hebr. 7. Howbeit besides the Father's aforenamed, Optatus me thinks is plain enough, that Peter's Apostleship was not a little endangered. Thus he says, Cui satis erat, si postquam negavit, solam veniam consequeretur. For whom it had been enough, if he had obtained pardon only, after his denial. Not the keeping of his place, but pardon only. Therefore at least he forfeited it. And by the way you see, what non meruit 
A foolish trick that the Papists have got, to raise English merit out of the Latin mereo and mereos, which sounds to a far other sense with the holy Fathers, God knows.  is, no more than assecutus est, I warrant you.  
§ 50. Now whereas you come upon us in your num. 27. and num. 29. with an overplus of valour, that the Fathers alleged do not only teach in express words, that S. Peter did not lose his Apostleship by his fall, but do withal acknowledge a certain increase thereof, and preheminent authority over the rest of the Apostles, what increase could there be, if he was made their Head and governor before, and not only theirs, but the whole worlds? Was it so, that more notice was taken thereof? For I see not what actual exaltation could accrue. Therefore, you do well to expound yourself, by saying that he was made more eminent, then before. Yet if you will go thus far, Arnobius would teach you to maintain that which you call increase, in a more literal sense. For that which before was promised Peter, was now given and exhibited, and so plus redditum quam sublatum, as Arnobius speaks. Yet no more to Peter, then to all the rest, as Matth. 28. 19 and joh. 20. 23. To all as much as to Peter was given. Save only, as the Bishop excellently distinguishes, the res or the substance to all, the solemnity to Peter, with demand of love, and triple acknowledgement, joh. 21. 15. As for the place out of Matthew, if you compare the coherence, you shall see if our Saviour made any Pope, he made more than one without all question. For who is the Pope, but he to whom the power of Christ is communicated? Now he says thus; All power is given me, both in heaven and in earth. And what then? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Go YOU therefore and teach: not, Go THOU therefore. This power therefore of Christ is communicated to them all, by virtue of this therefore, as much as he thought good to communicate it at all. Either many Popes then, that you must give us, or we you none. This by the way. That cyril of jerusalem calls Peter, princeps Apostolorum excellontissimus, I have answered you before to the word princeps, in cyril of Alexandria, a man of more authority, than he of jerusalem, (as one Sea exceeds the tother) who writ what he writ, when he was young, says S. Hierome. But the Greek is otherwise, than you quote. First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the most vertical. Therefore many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many vertices, that is, either heads, or crowns of heads, more eminent than heads. What if Peter among these excelled? Even the Sun is sometime more vertical than another, yet he acquires no authority among the stars, though more opportunity to work upon our bodies. So Peter to edify with the rest that excelled. But if you stand upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Basil says of Athanasius, 
Epist. Basil gr. Froben. p 304. Est aliis cp. 5●.  We run to thee, or to thy persection, (so he styles him) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to the vertex of the whole world. And Cyrill of Alexandria will tell you, that secular Princes are the heights of the earth, and so the Scripture Mich. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom God treads upon, not your Pope. Again, Amos 4. Calcans altitudines, God treads upon the altitudes of the earth: that is Kings, by Cyrills' interpretation. What is Peter's altitude to this altitude? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another word that S. Cyrill uses, (whom you allege) is no more than was given to S. Paul in the Acts, 
Act. 24 5.  and that by unpartial judges of primacy, (I mean such as went by mere observation) to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they call him, or the prime man, of the sect of the Nazarites, that is, of the Christian Church, not only of the twelve. To the place of Opratus: Solus accepit claves caeteris communicandas: Only Peter received the Keys to be imparted to others; What more to our purpose, what less to yours? Does not this confirm all that we have said before, and overthrow you? Only Peter took them, as an instance of unity, as a pledge of the body, as you have often heard out of S. Austen before, but neither in his own name, nor to be kept by him, or swayed by him, but communicandas caeteris, to be imparted to the rest, and made common to all. Eucherius wittily, 
Hom. in Natal. Apost. Petri, & Pauli.  Peter received the keys, but Paul was rapt to the third heaven. How could that be, if he had not the keys? And Clemens in Eusebius before quoted, lib. 2. cap. 1. says generally of the three, that they communicated it to others, what they had heard of Christ. These were Peter, james, and john. But that was doctrine that Clemens spoke of; yet the 
The Word and Keys, two the▪ positums of like nature.  like no doubt holds in the Keys after a sort, at least the possibili, without any disparagement to the community of the Apostles.  
§ 51. Chrysostom's authority moves less than any other, who in his Commentaries upon S. john, at that very place where of all the strife is, viz. Pasce oves meas, says that john as well as Peter, received the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that the reason why Christ so ●…bd Peter in his curiosities concerning john, Hic autem quid, was because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being joint-governours of the world, they were to be dispersed henceforth, & old amities to cease. For john & Peter had loved together more than ordinary. But most pregnantlv the same Chry. Hom 2. in c. 1. ad Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Apostles dividing the whole world between themselves, even as if it had been but one house, so discharged every thing, and took care for every thing, one taking this part, another that part to look unto. b Tom. 4. edit. D. Sau. p. 501.  government of the whole world from Christ, which is enough to overthrow Peter's monarchy, even when Chrysoft, shall say, that he was made governor of the whole world, by pasce oves meas. For how can that now be special to Peter? I could afford you better places out of chrysostom myself, as that Christ gave power to Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to carry all afore him, This, no doubt, would serve the Pope's turn right finely, to toss the ball whither he list, to reign and to ruffle in the Church at his pleasure. But is any so mad, as to think that chrysostom meant any such thing? And yet suppose he did, he says the same of Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epist. ad Coloss. id est, cap. 4. v. 9 adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as Paul thought good. For that you bring out of his 2. book de Sacerdot. you should have specified the chapter, and we would have closed with you better. In the Greek I find nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which before out of S. Cyrill, in the very superlative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in the same chap. he says (which is the first of that book,) that Christ committed his flock by Pasce oves meas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Peter, and them after him. And lest you think he means only the Popes, he applies it to 
* Even so is that to be taken which Bellar. notes out of Chrysoft in Acta (see pag. 15. 〈◊〉) that the Christians are not to be ashamed, if they be miscalled after the name of some eminent Pastor or Prelate of the Church. For he means not the Pope there, rather than himself. For first, why should Constantinople, or Antioch either, gratify Rome so much: considering the emulations. 2. Though we should grant Chrysoft to speak by prophesy. 3. But besides it appears, that Chrysostom's followers were called Iohann●…, of his name. Zonar. & alij. 4. And yet we call not the Papists from the name of this or that Pope among them, as Chrysoft. meaning is, but from a general one to all that occupy the Sca. 5. Which till the Pope engrossed it, was yet more general.  himself, not yet so much as Bishop, but only called to single priesthood, that he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, suppose you like a Peter,. i. be set over all the substance of God's house. And farther he says he is to do those things, which Peter if he did, should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. go beyond the rest of the Apostles. Do you see then how all the prerogative of Peter, is built upon his practice, and good desert; not absolutely cleaving to him, and his? Nay, no more (says Chrysost.) then extends to every good Pastor. I might contemn your Latin now, to which nothing is answerable in the Greek. Yet suppose it were so, as you avouch. AUTHORITATE praeditum, ac reliquis item Apostolis longè praecellere. Is this arguing for a jesuit? Which all put together doth not show so much, as that Peter had any authority over the Apostles. Unless you think because he had authority, therefore they had none. This were pretty, if you could work it, but never out of chrysostom. And yet longè praecellere, is worse than so, of gifts, of qualities, not of jurisdiction. And I believe, if the truth were known, that same very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I quoted even now, nothing to their purpose. In sum, if S. Peter had all the authority that Chrysost. gives the Priest in his book of priesthood, it would not serve the Pope, who is for temporal and coactive, which Chrysost. denies tooth and nail, cap. 2. 3. etc. of the aforesaid. Another place you bring out of Chrysost. cap. ult. in evang. joh. that Peter was the mouth of the Apostles. And you might have added that of David, I will give praise with the best member that I have, meaning the mouth, or the tongue: for else what gain you by this bargain? And again, Awake my glory, that is my tongue, say the Interpreters, because the tongue is the glory of a man, Psalm. 56. Casaubone will show you, and that most excellently, that the 
Exercit. ad Baron. pag. 726.  mouth is put in a diminutive sense, and notes ministery, not supremacy, office and pains, not authority. And so we might say of the head; which Peter was, as the forwardest to resolve; ad respondendum & faciendum paratissimus, says S. Cyrill, as including both. This was his disposition, not his commission. Of late the Pope hath left both the head, and the mouth, and betakes him to the hands. S. Bernard had 
De consid ad Eugen. l 4. c 2. Voss. edit.  challenged him for it long ago, for living by his hands: not as S. Paul and the old Monks, which is tedious to you to hear of, but he meant of bribes, we of forcible and coactive execution. Brachia mea iudicabunt populos, as if he took it 
Esa. 51. 15.  literally, and to himself. And could you not for a need, find in your heart to construe, caput congregationis, after S. Austin's meaning, as a figure of generality, and representing the whole body? What a scandal will it be for jesuits to encounter such a work, and of so reverend a Prelate, with no better spears, than one might make of fennel stalks, breaking into fitters with the least crush, and which if a man should answer but as many ways as he might, it would be intolerable?  
§ 52. That which follows is as idle, that Christ did not upbraid S. Peter for his sin; as if he doth any, jam. 1. 5. either for grace afforded, or faults pardoned. That Peter had the care of his brethren committed to him; as if we imagined Peter such a Cain, that cried, What have I to look to my brother? But, he is confident now, that was fearful afore, to ask 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Why not then rather superior, 
Chrysost in joh 21. a question. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, Peter asks for 〈◊〉 now, as afore john asked at Peters●etting ●etting on. So it is no great prerogative, but only one for another.  when he might set john a work to do as he directed? Besides, great charges make not confident, but careful rather, and solicitous surely, as extraordinary favours bind to awe, flesh not in pride, unless it be fools. The approved love of our Saviour Christ, in receiving him to grace, and settling him in his Apostleship, or (if you would suffer me to speak so) in restoring him, might add spirit to him, which is S. Chrysostom's meaning, not as you construe him. But, alas, what did Peter get by ask that question? What, not secret censure, but open check, at our saviours hands? Quid ad te? what prejudice to his discretion, let S. Cyrill show you. But two faults only, Curiosity, and Desire to have other men partakers of his miseries. This is the inbred corruption of our nature. Communiter insitum hominibus (saith S. Cyrill) ut optent, si quid periculi subituri sint, non se esse solos, sed caeteros etiam aut videre pati, aut passos audire, aut passuros esse. It is the nature of men, if they be to slide into any danger, to wish not to be alone, but either to see others to suffer, or to hear of them that have suffered, or that they shall, and must, at least, suffer the same. So Peter. Hearing that he must suffer, he asked whether john should escape; or no. As for, Si me amas; fratrum curam suscipe, if cura fratrum be the boundless Monarchy, little need he woo Popes to that place, by so stiff a conjuration, as Si amas me. Ask julius the second, who when his friends were offended with him, 
Papyr. Mass.  for offering too largely for the Popedom, he said, None that knew the worth of that place, would stick at any gifts, whereby to compass it. Ask Praetextatus the heathen, Make me 
Ibid ex Amm. Marcel.  Pope, says he, and I will be a Christian. Yet, this is your, Si amas me, suscipe curam fratrum. It were infinite to go through all. I will conclude with Mr. Casaubones' most worthy observation, that if Peter were the Head and Rector intended, as you imagine, what need S. chrysostom make the question, Quare Petrum omissis caeteris affatur de his rebus? why does our Saviour confer with Peter about these matters, skipping by the rest? For every man might see it were the due of his place. And so much of S. chrysostom.  
§ 53. THE last of them whose authority you allege, is S. Leo, your own Pope, and not a little addicted to the amplifying of the Phylacteries of his own sea, as his MAJESTY hath told you in his Apology most plentifully; but all, as it seems, upon the deaf side. For you will not hear, nor be charmed. Yet what says Leo? The charge of feeding the sheep of Christ, was more specially commended to Peter, Ep. 89. A most true word. But the Bishop tells you how, Praeceptum ad omnes, Solennit as ad illum. So Peter more specially received the keys: for he received them, says S. Austen, as the Church's proxey; but communicandas cum omnibus, to be imparted to all, as Optatus told you but very lately. But in an other place, Ser. 3. de Assump. ad Pontif. what brings he? That Peter was chosen out of the whole world, to have the chief charge of the vocation of the Gentiles, and of all the Apostles, and of all the Fathers of the Church. Here is nothing for your turn, save that Peter was chosen to have the charge of the Apostles. But to the calling of the Gentiles, though all helped, yet none might compare with S. Paul, for that matter, who therefore calls himself the Apostle of the Gentiles: and lest you think he gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in faith and verity, 1. Tim. 2. 7. Neither do we deny, that Peter might have the charge of the Apostles, yet no commanding charge; but either as ferrum acuit ferrum, as Solomon says, one iron whets and sharpens another, so the 
Prou. 17. 17.  face of one brother, to quicken another by his encouragements, Confirma fratres: or, bono unitatis, preferred for his maturity, to prevent schism and disorder, as hath been told you. Though the name Apostles is common to some without the company of the twelve, and the Scripture useth it so, Phil. 2. 25. whom Peter might be charged with, and with the other Fathers of the Church, as Leo here calls the Bishops of their making, without derogating from the College of them, properly so called. Therefore hear how S. Leo qualifies this saying in the same Sermon, a little after. Transivit quidem etiam in alios Apostolos vis potestatis istius, & ad omnes Ecclesiae principes decreti huius institutio commeavit: sed non frustrà uni commendatur, quod omnibus intimatur. It cannot be denied, but the force of this authority passed also unto the other Apostles, and the same ordinance comprehends all the peers of the Church. But not without cause is that delivered to one, which concerns all. Why so? Petro enim ideò hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur. That is: For therefore is this particularly recommended to Peter, because Peter is made a pattern of all Church-governors. And S. Austen de verbis Domini secundum johannem, Serm. 49. Dominus in uno Petro format Ecclesiam: Our Lord still fashions his Church in Peter. Leo says, the governors; Austen, the whole Church, is exemplified in Peter. So that Peter, you see, still stood for a general man, and not for a particular; and as S. Austen said afore, to commend unity: so Leo both takes in that, uni commendatur, and gives the reason withal, because Peter's example was most worthy the imitating. Cunctis Petri forma proponitur, and, Ecclesiae rectoribus, to all rulers of the Church, to show that Peter was not ruler alone. I might oppose you with other sentences in that Sermon, which you could hardly salve, that wrest all so violently to your turn: as, Vt cum Petrus multa solus acceperit, nihil in quenquam sine illius participatione transierit: yet the Scripture never says, that of Peter's fullness we have all received. And again Leo, Nunquum nisi per ipsum dedit, quicquid aliis non negavit. Yet S. Austen de verb. Dom. secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Quod nemo potest in Petro, hoc potest in Domino. But his MAJESTY in his Apology, having prevented all that might be alleged in this kind, your silence shows, you have not what to answer. Neither will I therefore trouble myself with the rest of your citations, till you have qualified these. Facile est Athenienses laudare Athenis: so it was 
Plato, Menexeno.  easy for Leo, to rhetoricate at Rome, in the praise of Peter. Let us pass, say you, to some other matter. And let us see, say I, if you bring any better.  
§ 54. AS for the law in the Code (the next thing in your book) it is a sign you lack proofs for Popedom: else you would never bring so cast a law, first controvert, and then counterfeit, besides importing so little for your side. Yet you say, this law is brought by you, in your Supplement, to prove the dutiful respect and obedience of the ancient Emperors to the Roman Sea. The respect we grant you, as long as it was Catholic. For what good man would not respect both Church and Bishop Christian? I except not him that wears the diadem, as S. Chrysost. speaks in another 
Hom. 83. in Matth. iterumque comm. in Acta.  case: but, as for duty and obedience, certes neither any that we find in this law greatly, and the clearer monuments, as Gregory, as Agatho, as diverse others, often brought you, and often told you, will show it rests on the Pope's side. And what if justinian writing to the Pope, had followed the vein of an Epistle so far, as to besmear him with all the kind terms that might be? All that you bring, is, that the Roman Church is caput Ecelesiarum, which no way derogates from the emperors authority, nor enjoins him no such durie or obedience as now is urged, and when all is done, caput is nothing, but ecclesia prima in ordine, not, tanquam habens authoritatem in cateras; which is no more than was determined in the Council of Chalcedon. Can. 28. that the highest Church in Christendom after Rome, should nevertheless be magnified in Ecclesiastical menages, no less themshee. And this hath been told you, and rung into you, 
Cicer. pro Muraenâ. Neminem vestrum fugit, cum multi pares dignitate fiant, unus autem primum solut possit obtinere, non eundem, & ●. Proptereit quod renunciatio gradus habeat, dignitas autem sit per●●pè ead●… omnium.  of the difference of order, in the equality of power, and yet you stand urging a stale phrase, out of a law of the Code, no sounder than it should be, and add no strength to your blunt iron. So, still might the Bishop say, Poterat abstinere Cardinalis à criando, the Cardinal might have abstained from quoting this law, and the law inter claras, is scarce a clear law. Yet Baldus (you say) calls it, Clarissimam legem. And yet he vouchsafes not to gloss it, scarce in three words, you know. His calling of it Clarissima, with an allusion to Inter Claras, is nothing, but as every petty Master is wont to praise the author that he expounds to his scholars, as Persius' notes, — ab insano multùm laudanda magistro. As for Accursius his glozing of it, and some one or two more, of how much less force is that to prove the soundness of it, than the silence of so many, that think it not worthy a gloss, to condemn it? Of whom you may presently reckon these, more afterward, if they come to your mind: Bartholomeus de Saliceto, Cynus, jacobus de Arena, jason, Antonius also the Roselliss, if I mistake not, Franciscus Aretinus, Paulus Castrensis, Butrigarius. And this last says, It is neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily read, when he wrote, who wrote when the Pope was at the highest. Add to them, Bartholus, and Angelus Perusinus. By which you see, what is to be attributed to Alciates conjecture, that, some later heretics, and wishing ill to the Pope, have razed it out of the books. Is the Pope such a Dionysius, that he dares not trust the razors? Yet consider how long those Lawyers flourished afore Luther's time, which is the time, no doubt, that Alciat glances at. jacobus de Arena, ann. 1300. Butrigarius, who was Bartholus 
Vid▪ 〈◊〉▪ Ge●…d G●sner. Heg●…. etc.  his Master, ann. 1320. Cynus ann. 1330. Salicet 1390. Aretine 1425. which being the last of all that I have now named, is just a hundred years afore Luther. Castrensis later, and jason later than he, yet both short of the 500 year. Sichardus, whom before I named not, ann. 1540 yet he also passes it over without a Gloss. Since Alciat it hath been censured by other Papists in like sort, whose judgement Alciat could not turn, as Gregory Haloander, and Antonius Contius, the setter out of the law, in his Praetermissa. I pass by Hotoman, because he was ours, otherwise no obscure Father of the law, and hath written the largest of all in the cause. Whom he that hath undertaken of late to answer, Andreas Fachineus Count of Lateran, in his eight book of Controversies, hath not satisfied so fully in all points, as is thought. Neither about the contradiction of the Dates, nor especially to the contradictions between justinian and himself, one time not consulting with the Pope of Rome, about Ecclesiastical matters (as he professes to do here notwithstanding) namely in his so many Novel Constitutions: another time making the Church of Constantinople, to be Head of all Churches: (lib. 24. c. de Sacrosancta Ecclesia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and the same again, L. Decernimus 16. eodem titulo,) which here you would have him seem to give to Rome. So as still the law is no law de claris. Your oppositions to the contrary are little worth, unless because Hypatius and Demetrius were the messengers, no letter could be coged with their names, or that this must needs be the true Epistle, because Pope Nicholas quotes a shred out of it, or that justinian confesseth he wrote to Pope john, in a letter to Agapetus, which letter of justinian's, you referring us only to Binnius for, some would sooner question for Binnius his sake, then for the credit of it embrace the other. Though for my part, I like well of what I find there, that justinian calls it the faith, quam sequendam DUXIMUS, which shows he depended not upon the Pope's approbation, no not for his faith. And the Pope receiving it with willing gratulation, as he also there signifies, not his assent only, but the whole Church of Rome's was added to it: which if the Pope were infallible, what needed it? But the truth is, that you have not yet resolved, whether it be the Pope of Rome, or the Church of Rome, that cannot err. Enough belike, if either of them keep up the ball. Lastly, to return to the Epistle to Pope john, let me ask you, what you think of the good Latin in it? (I speak to a Priscian, to a Latin Aristarchus.) Which not only justinian, but perhaps Bellisarius himself would not have uttered in those days. As, Properamus crescere honorem sedis vestrae, for, We make haste to increase the honour of your seat. They did indeed, that meant to do it by feigning. To omit, that if justinian gave advancement to the seat, it is beholding to the Empire, not the Empire to it, and so we know from whence the worship of it flowed. I have heard of some, that this was the cause, why certain would not gloss it, because it favours the opinion, that the primacy of Rome is juris humani, or Imperatorij, not divini. And yet do you bring this law against us? As if ourselves could more despite the Pope, then by so saying. But proceed in your eloquence. Alieni Catholicae Dei Ecclesiae; which sounds well in Greek, not so in Latin: and no better that, Quae ad vos est unitas sanctarum ecclesiarum. Lastly, Petimus vos orare pro nobis, & providentiam Dei nobis acquirere. All which, your elegancy would never digest for good Latin, nor worthy of justinian, if you are the man that you are taken for. The testimony that you insist upon, of the perpetual integrity of your Roman Sea, that as often as any heretics had risen in those parts, they had still been corrected by the sentence thereof, was no warrant for the times to come. You did run well, but who hath set you back? Thou knowest not, saith Solomon, what a day brings forth. And if we be forbidden to boast of to morrow, how much less of the consequence of all times and ages, for the blessing of God hitherto afforded? Yet these are your goodly proofs that the Chair of Rome never tottered 
* In the same book of the Code, Lege Cunctos, Th' odosius, Gratianus, and Valentinian, (Edicto ad Constantinopol. C●…) wish all men to follow the same faith, quam sequi hody claret Damasum, Pontificem Romanum, & Petrum Alexandria Episcopum: that is, which Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria embracet, the which Peter he calls more over, Virum Apostolica sanctitatis, an an of Apostolic holiness: ascribing to Damasus neither Apostolic, nor any other title. But I note it for this; If the Pope's authority be not sufficient for our direction in matters of faith, except the Bishop of Alexandria his name be joined with him for illustration sake, what infallibility hath the one above the other?  since, because it corrected heresies in justinian's days. As if more hath not been said of private men, as 
* Carm. de ingratis. Anne alium in finèm posset procedere sanctum Concilium, cui dux Aurelius, ingentumque, Augustinus erat, quem Christi gratia corn● Vberiore rigans, nostro lumen vedit aevo Accensum vero de lumine? S. Austen was light of very light in S. Prospers eye.  Prosper of S. Austen, that where he was present, it was impossible for the Council to go awry, and yet no man would hold him thereupon excused from possibility of error, much less perhaps promise for a whole Church. S. chrysostom says, that diverse Bishops came to learn of Antioch, and went away instructed, even of the people there. Neither say, says he, that Rome is famous for her greatness, but show me a people if you can for your life, as diligent at hearing God's word in Rome. 
a Serm. 4. in Hoseam.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For Sodom had the stately buildings, says he, whiles Abraham remained in an obscure tent. And he sticks not to call Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same place, the mother city of the whole world. What greater style doth justinian give to Rome, though there were no question of the sincerity of his style? Whereas Antioch otherwise was called 
b evagr. l. 4. c. 38. & alij complures.  Theopolis, God's own city, which must needs be the largest, I trow, for regiment. And afore, Jerusalem inherited that title, Civitas magni Regis, God's city, or, the city of the great King, by our saviours own acknowledgement, Matth. 5. 35. Again, Nazianz. Ser. Epitaph. in Caesarium, calls Byzantium that then was, the now Constantinople, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first city, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Are you not afraid lest that be more than order, even a presidence of authority over all Europe? 
Ecclesia praesidens in regione Romanorum. Ignat. Epist. which the Papists catch at: this per Europa●●.  Whereas 
* Et l. 1. cp. 3. quae est ad 〈◊〉 sub nomine Paulae & E●…, Quantò judea caeteris Provincijs, tantò hae: V●●S cunctà s●bl●…or est judea. Et cum totius provinciae gloria metropoli vindi catur, quicq ud in membus ●●udis est, omne refertur ad caput. Making by that means H●…salem the prime seat, and as it were metropolis of the world.  Hierome speaking of Rome, calls it quondam caput, the sometime head of the world. No doubt, because it was head in the right of the Empire, and that changing, the spiritual pre-eminence of it changed also. So uncertain are these things, and not built as you would have it, upon divine ordinance, but either following the favour & good liking of the Emperors, or the other variable stream of causes. To conclude your Law, about the Universal authority of the Roman Sea: for so much as you quote Accursius his gloss, hear what a stout observation he hath mode on both sides of that cause. justinian calls the Bishop of Constantinople, fratrem vestrum, the Pope's brother. Parificat ergo, therefore he equals them, says Accursius. But strait again, and with the turning of a hand, because the Emperor says, sequi festinans sedem vestram, that the Bishop aforesaid labours to follow the judgement of your seat, Minor est ergo, therefore he is under him. Is not this well shot now? As if sequi were to come behind in place, not to accord in opinion. And whereas the Pope, sets the emperors name before his own, in the beginning of his Epistle, justiniano johannes, etc. Note, says Accursius, Papa praemittit Imperatorem, quod hody non faceret, the Pope sets the emperors name before his own, which at this day he would not; belike because prouder. So much of this Law.  
§ 55. THE label, and the last of your first chapter, is this: The Bishop to the Cardinal alleging the words of the Pataran Bishop, suing to justinian to restore Sylverius, whom he had condemned to banishment, which words seem to spread the Pope's authority very far, answered briefly, and in his wont style, the style of wisdom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as the ancient Divines say of taking the Sacrament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; What should we hear Patarensis his words, as long as we see justinian's deeds? justinian banisheth, Sylverius is banished, Patarensis pleads for him: Who is the Superior? Not because the words, that this pleader used in Sylverius his behalf, to magnify his reputation, could not otherwise be answered, as shall appear anon, but being a nameless person, and no where else mentioned (which is worthy your marking) the Bishop shook off both him and the Cardinal, in the aforesaid fashion. So the valiant beast, little moved with the dog, or the hunter's staff, goes on his journey, minding other matters, as we read in the Poet,  — Et tergo decutit hastas. 
By this reason, say you, never any thing in the world was so wickedly done, but it may be justified. For, howsoever it be reprehended by holy, grave, or learned men, those that list to justify the fact, may say, Facta cum videamus, verba quid audiamus? When we see the deed, what should we hear words, etc. As though it were not one thing to justify a thing done, by the simple doing of it, against all that might be excepted, or controlled in it, concerning the wickedness, and another thing to avouch the power of the doer, or the authority of the doer, who howsoever abusing the advantage of his place, yet he doth no more than in that right he may, and his deeds pass for uncontrolled. As Nero, as Herod, as Pilate, whom you allege. Meritum criminis, not always going with ordo potestatis; and ordo potestatis, often having his course, where there is no meritum criminis. For neither, when Syluerius was banished by justinian, do we justify justinian, as having done well, though we bid you mark what justinian did, but rather point at his authority, evidenced by such actions: nor if we would prove the power of heathen Caesar over our Saviour Christ, condemned by his deputy, and at length crucified, are we therefore to be thought to approve his deed, or the use of his jurisdiction. And yet I hope, it shows where the authority rested, and how true it was that our Saviour said, Non haberes potestatem in me, nisi desuper datam, for so much as our Saviour never excepted against 
Passus est sub Pontio Pilato. This it a main cause of pilate's coming into the Creed. And the Papists doctrine opposing Magistracy, opposes so the Creed, & gathers fast upon heresy.  him as an incompetent Magistrate, but willingly submitted himself to the very death. According as S. Andrew, of whom we read in the 
a Decret. part. 2. caus. 23. qu. 1.  Decrees, that being condemned to die by the Lieutenant of Achaia, when some would have rescued him, he desired them, not; Quaeso, ne impedite martyrium meum: I pray, good people, disturb not my martyrdom. Who if pirates, or thieves, had offered him this violence, without any lawful calling of Magistracy, I suppose he would not have refused to have saved himself by all honest means. As S. Paul did against whipping, Act. 22. He opposed, says S. Austen, his civil privilege, to defend him, in the assault of his sacred faith, as the left hand holds out itself to protect the right. What so natural? cum percuteretur dextra, opponeb at sinistram: in Psal. 120. And most excellently to our purpose, the same Father again, Epist. 48. to show, that power howsoever used, is from God. 
* 1. The countermine of Powers temporal op pugning the truth, is to the godly courageous a glorious trial, to the faint of courage a dangerous assault. But the same powers, when they stand for the avouching of truth, to the honest-hearted that are in error, they are profitable advertisers: but to the foolish and besotted, bootless scourges. Yet still there is no power but of GOD.  Terror temporalium potestatum, says he, quando veritatem oppugnat, justis fortibus gloriosa probatio est, infirmis periculosa tentatio. Quando autem VERITATEM PRAEDICAT, errantibus cordatis utilis admonitio est, & insensatis inutilis afflictio. NON EST TAMEN POTESTAS NISI A DEO, etc. No iniquity can abolish authority. And yet by your leave, Sir, howsoever you excuse Sylvenius, in your relation how the matter passed, (as I can not blame you, if you be loath to have more traitors registered in the beadroll of your Popes, then needs you must,) both Procopius and Euagrius, lib. 4. cap. 19 show, that he was held in suspicion of high treason, as drawing the Goths to besiege the city, and an author of your own, 
In vit● Sylver.  Papyr. Masson. can hardly acquit him, as in all likelihood savouring of old rellikes, and having a Goth in his belly, since his first education. Fortè enim amantior Gothicarum partium erat Sylverius Frusinone genitus, and, as Pope, now able to give countenance among the citizens, 
Such Popes, no marvel if S. Cyprian say, the Emperor was less offended with a rebels insurrection, than their creation. Aequior audiebat imperij amulum in se coniurare, quam Dei fieri Sacerdotem.  to traitorous attempts. Neither was this any cause, that Euagrius mentions, or in the least sort points at, why justinian afterward was stricken of God, but rather his heretical declining from the faith. Now we never denied but Emperors, if they be men, may fall into heresy, but even in heresy we so free them from the fear of earthly control, as tremblingly we refer them to the heavenly censure. Neither yet for lack of learning was justinian punished, nor it may be for want of that so much as seduced to heresy (though you would gladly insinuate so much out of Suidas) sith many wanting learning, have both known the right faith, and kept it to the end. I am sure Pope john, in the Epistle that begins Inter claras, of which before, calls him edoctum Ecclesiasticis disciplinis, taught in Church-learning, or Church-disciplines. Suidas also, at the place that you quote out of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most orthodox Emperor. And yet had it been otherwise, neither you Mr. F. T. nor any of your side, remembering your Popes; need greatly to object the defects of learning to a secular Emperor; many of the Pope's coming to their preferment, as if it were by that rule which Aquinas cities out of the 70. Psal. when he would defend 
Geburoth and Sopheroth no friends in Popery. 2. 2. quaest. 188. art. 3.  such proceedings, but not from his heart, Propterea quòd non cognovi literaturam, ideo introibo in potentias Domini. And was it learning, or charity, that you lacked trow, when you said, that Euagrius places justinian in hell, to endure penalties: whereas he only says, he was taken from hence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to abide the trial of the places beneath. Which not only your own Popish religion, holding more underground places than hell, but the right faith would teach you so to constive, as should be no prejudice to justinian's salvation. You cite also Euagrius about the suddenness of his death, as a punishment of God, which Euagrius mentions not in the least word, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, invisibly stricken; unless you will say suddenly, because he foresaw not his death coming: which who does? Else he reigned in all about 39 years. As for the words of Paterensis, whom you call from Patera, as if your mind were in pateris, or yourself dignum patellâ 
Ve●● Athenas neque me quisquam ibi agnovit. Tusc. Quaest. 5.  operculum, a worthy champion for such a wooden Bishop, whom no body vouchsafes to know (like another Democritus coming to Athens) save only Liberatus, and that in the very place, which Surius your own author finds evident footsteps of egregious forgery in, ab improbo nebulone quodam conficta videntur: and, nescio quid monstri parturire: which if any such be, I see not but it may reach to this story of your man of Patara, being both in the same page, and within half a score lines one of the other; but howsoever it be, the authority is not worth a rush. For first, what is this to the temporal primacy? which we descry here to be the Emperors, and not the Popes, by justinian's driving him into banishment; they call it, I know, Bellisarius his act, but in the power of justinian, no doubt, and for a secular matter, viz. for treason. So as the Pope is subject to the emperors censure for civil faults. Secondly, let him be Pope over the Church of the whole world, that is, in order of pre-eminence (not in right of government, or confirmed jurisdiction) as the chief Patriarch; which is evident by the comparison, or disparison rather, of earthly Kings there used, whereof one hath no such reference of order to an other, but the patriarchal Seas are fixed, saith S. Leo, by inviolable Canon, legibus ad finem mundi mansuris, 
Epist. 33 ad Anatolium. 3  and admit no confusion. Thirdly, there is this difference between Kings and Priests, that Kings are confined to their own dominions, and if they be taken without them, they lose their privilege, and stand but for little better than subjects in those parts: whereas the Priest may exercise his acts of office, in every part of the Christian world, as bind, or lose, or preach, or administer, or ordain also, if he be thereunto called. And if he be restrained from any of these, it is Ecclesiâligante, as your Tapper telleth us, and Viguerius, and diverse more, quae ligat & ligare, which even binds out binding, and for order's sake confines that but to certain places, which is indifferent to all by primitive ordination. See yourself of this point, cap. 2. numb. 50. & 52. Whosoever is Pastor in any one part of the Church, is capable of Pastoral jurisdiction in any other, though he be restrained to avoid confusion. And Basil says of Athanasius, pag. 304. of the Greek by Frobenius (for the Epistles are not numbered) That he takes no less care for the whole Church, or rather all the Churches, then that which was specially committed to him by our Lord. So chrysostom says of the Priest, that he is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the father of the whole 
In 1 ad Tim. c 1. orat. 6. initio ipso.  world. Where by the way also, you may see the vanity of your reason, which you magnify so much, when the Council of Chalcedon calls the Pope their father. Which is no more than chrysostom gives to every Minister, to be father of the whole Church, though not in authority, yet in loving care, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is all that the Council says there of Leo, and explains itself by 
In this sense Sidonius, l. 6. Fp. 6. add Eut●●p●… Bonitas conditoris, habitationem po●… hominum, quam charitatem, finalibus claudit angustij●. And again, S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in Acta Apost. Ethico. calls every Bishop in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop over all men, and yet in the same place says, That no Bishop in Bishop over more than one City. Both of which make for us against you, and seeming contrary include no contradiction. Yea Hom. 8. in Acta, he says twice together, that his Lay-auditors shallbe Occumenicall Masters, if they do this & this, of his prescribing. Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: They shall be to all, that which he is to them.  benevolentiam praeferens; of which happily hereafter. The same chrysostom again, Epist. 176. ad Paeanium, twice attributes as much to him, to be rector or rectifyer, as he there speaks, of the whole world. And doth not S. Hierome begin his Epistle ad Salvinianam so, that the care of every Christian belongs unto him, as he is a minister of God's Church, pro officio Sacerdotij, & that their good proceeding is his glory? S. Salvian also ad Salon. l. 1. adv. Avar. Ad fidei meae curam. pertinet (as if not his Charity's only) nequid ecclesiastici operis vacillare permittan. When S. Chrysost. went into banishment, 
Chrysost. in quadam epist.  you may please to remember how the Monks saluted him, that the sun might sooner lose his light, than his virtue be eclipsed: & yet I hope his jurisdiction did not stretch, in your opinion, as far as the sun, which if Patareus Apollo had but said of Sylverius, you would presently have concluded in favour of him. I omit many things, to come to an end. Of justinian's Constitutions, about matter of faith, directed to the Bishops, sometime of Rome, sometime of Constantinople, which you so often tell us of. Do you see therefore, what power the Emperor had in spiritual causes, to give forth Constitutions? That Agapetus deposed Anthimus, and set up Menas, but causa perorata apud justinianum, justinian having first the hearing of the cause, & by his authority, no doubt, though a Bishop was used to sentence a Bishop, as was 
Principis favore Liberat. c. 21.  most meet far form; Like as Menas was preferred to Anthimus his place, but how? as a special favourite of justinian, saith the story, and so you may be sure by his direction. That Agapetus his judgement of Anthimus was feign to be scanned in a Council of Constantinople, gathered for that purpose by the Emperor, before the proceedings of a Pope could give satisfaction to the Church. That Patarensis doth not excuse Bishops in general from the emperors censure, as you would have it, but only moves him to show respect to Sylverius, for the amplitude of his place. And lastly, the Emperor as he binds him over to trial, to see whether he were guilty of treason or no, so if he were found guilty, he forbids him Rome; which shows that the Pope and Rome may be two, and bodes but ill, as if some Emperor one day, or Imperial man, should make the divorce. On the other fide, it sets out justinian's praise, that was content to punish treason so moderately, as not utterly to take his Bishopric from him, but only to send him packing to Palmaria, or Fonicusa, as now they call it. Lastly, whereas he reverenced, you say, the Sea Apostolic, let them perish hardly that reverence not the very place, where the dove hath troad, fleeing to the windows, but with meet proportion, because corrupted since.   

To the second Chapter, about sundry passages in the Council of Chalcedon.  
IN the Roman discipline when of fendours were many, they used a course called Decimation, to chastise every tenth person only, for the misdemeanour of a multitude: So must I hereafter, but point as it were at every tenth soloecism, which occurs in the perusing of the Adjoinder; it being hard I grant, for any to avoid faults in multiloquio, as the wise man tells us, but specially for him, as I should think, who so purposely studieth it, as if he meant to oppress us with a flood of terms, and weary the Reader whom he cannot persuade. Wherein he could not show himself more adverse to his adversary, whose praise is compendiousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like the gold coins, that include great worth in small compass, and Timantus pictures, presenting more to the mind then to the eye.  
§ 2. And for so much as I have professed, as the truth is, that my task now was to justify the allegations only of the Bishop's book, against such idle scruples, as this man casts in every where, having showed, as I may say, by the blow in the forehead, so by this first encounter, that if need were, I could take more advantage, and rip up this Goliath, this bulk of paper, as the other was of flesh, to his greater shame, I will now proceed with all possible brevity.  
§ 3. About the Bishop's allegation of the Council of Chalcedon, the 28. Canon, partly he struggles to shift it off, partly he cavils with him, about the quoting of it. In which respect, I have thought good, first of all to set it down, as it lies in our books. In all points following the Decrees of the holy Fathers, and admitting the Canon lately read, of the 150 most blessed Bishops, assembled together under the great Emperor Theodosius, of pious memory, in the Imperial Constantinople, new Rome, we also decree and determine the same things, concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, the new Rome. For justly did the Fathers give privileges to the throne of old Rome, because that City was then regent. And the 150 most blessed Bishops, moved with the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome: wisely judging it meet and reasonable, that the City which enjoyed both Empire and Senate, and was endued with the like privileges (or equal privileges) that old Rome was, should in matters Ecclesiastical be advanced and magnified, even as she (or no less than she) being second after her, (not subject to her, but, second after her: yet F. T. says the Bishop left out those words of set purpose. Rather indeed because nothing to the purpose.) And that etc. Even as, if I break off now, and English not the rest, no wise man nor learned, that hath but read the Canon, will deem I break off fraudulently, or for advantage, but only because that which follows is not material. Now see what exceptions the gentleman takes to the Bishop's allegation. As first, that he should say, that the Canon makes the two Seas, the one of Rome, the other of Constantinople, equal in all things. What is here amiss? Equal, says the text, sicut illam, even as the other: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges. But where is that in all things, says the wrangler? The words perhaps not, but the sense so clear, that without that, the Canon were no Canon, and the rest of the words to no purpose at all. Have you not heard, that indefinites are equivalent to universals, especially where one exception being made, it is plain that all others are thereby cut off, according to the rule, Exceptio figit regulam in non exceptis? And therefore the rank, or the priority in order, being only reserved to Rome in that place, as it follows about Constantinople, that she should secunda post illam existere, be second in rew, as the new Rome to the old Rome, the old being first, and the new second, is it not clear, that there is equality in all things else granted to Constantinople, and the magnifying or advancing of her in Ecclesiastical matters, sicut illa, as she, or, no less than she, generally to be extended as far as Rome's? Sozomene says expressly, for civil matters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, she was equalled in all things, Constantinople with Rome, lib. 7. cap. 9 and the ground of the Canon is, the equality of the two cities in civil affairs. Therefore, either the Fathers conclude not well, out of their own premises, or else the equality of the two Seas, even in Ecclesiastical matters, is to be understood secundum omnia, in every respect. For as in the one, so in the others, let it be, say the Fathers. To omit that as Error is subject to Inconstancy, you answer this afterward another way yourself, that there might be equality, seruatâ proportione, and only in comparison with inferior Seas, where you will not deny, but per omnia, may be borne in that sense, in the alleging of the Canon, though the text hath it not. The Bishop therefore might add it without injury to the Text, though it be not in the letter. Yea in your 47 numb. of this present Chap. you give the Cardinal leave to add Totius, where there is none in the Text, but vineae only without totius, saying he doth it for explication sake. And may not we then, upon so good grounds, as you have not for Totius out of all that Epistle, but we have for per omnia, out of the circumstances of the Canon, as hath been showed? I suppose if two Consuls should strive for pre-eminence, or two States of Venice (to use your own comparison in another place of this brook,) and the judge should so order it, that they should both have equal allowance of honour, the paria privilegia that you are so stumbled at, (for so I construe them, and I think the righter) one to be advanced in matters of government, as well as the other, only that one should hold the second place, and the other the first, were it not evident that they were equalled in all points, though the word all were not by him expressed, save only in parity of rank and order? So the case was here. The Bishop of Rome was to sit afore the other in assemblies and meetings, to be mentioned before him in the prayers 
Barlaam.  of the Church, to deliver his opinion and judgement first, and yet for matter of authority or jurisdiction, one Sea to be magnified sicut altera, even as much as the other, and that per omnia, in all respects, whatsoever F. T. grin to the contrary.  
§ 4. And by this we answer to his other wise objection, that if pre-eminence of order be reserved to Rome, how then does the Canon make them equal in all things? In all things else, this only excepted, which the Canon excepts, and nothing else, to show, that as for other things, they are to be equalled in all.  
§ 5. Yet you cavil the Bishop, for leaving out that clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the second after the other, namely, Constantinople after Rome, as if the Bishop had left it out, because making against himself, which was nothing to the purpose to have inserted, because it concerns not the primacy of authority, but of order only, about which we strive not.  
§ 6. As for the printing of those words, in all things, in a different letter, which according to the measure of your accustomed frankness, you call corrupt and fraudulent dealing, how often shall we tell you, that the Bishop followed the difference of the letter, as diverse others have done, and daily do, to specify the thing itself intended by the Canon, and to imprint it the deeper in the Readers mind, not as alleging the letter of it, and so counterfeiting, as you please to call it. From which in truth he was so far, that you make it his fault in this very Chapter, num. 3. not to offer to lay it down, or the words of it, but only to argue, and to draw consequences therefrom, as his occasion served.  
§ 7. Now whereas you would explicate the Canon's meaning, by the words following, about the ordaining of certain Bishops by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as Pontus, Asia, Thracia, etc. and by exempting that Sea, from standing subject any longer to the Bishopric of Heraclea, of which it was once but a parcel; it is true, that from thence, even from so low estate, it was exalted by consent, to be a patriarchal Sea, and not every such neither, but the second in order, and setting that aside, equal to Rome in all respects. Else neither should this Canon have suffered such opposition, you may be sure, at the Bishop of Rome's hands, nor needed the Fathers to name this so distasteful equality with Rome, in the body of the Canon, if nothing but the ordaining of Bishops had been assigned him, which other patriarchs exercise in their diocese, as well as the Bishop of Rome, without his repining. And yet lastly, you may remember, that the Canon of Nice, describing the pre-eminence 
Can. 6.  of the Bishop of Rome, as a pattern of Patriarchship, utters it in those words of Ruffinus translation, quòd Ecclesiarum suburbicariarum curam habeat, that he hath care of the Churches that are abutting upon the city; to which Canon of Nice, spreading so the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, this Canon of Chalcedon may seem to allude, mentioning so many Churches as you here recite, and all of them subject to the Sea of Constantinople.  
§ 8. As for that you thrust in here, upon very small occasion, of Athanasius of Alexandria appealing to julius Bishop of Rome, to show that Alexandria was subject to Rome, if you mean the subjection of order and rank, it is nothing to the matter, and yet it followeth not, by your leave, out of your example. The subjection of authority is that which we contend about, and yet that much less may be gathered from hence. For neither did Athanasius flee to julius alone, but with his company of Bishops, as his letters 
Athanasiapol. conera Arian.  show, that he brought in his behalf, Omnibus ubique Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopis,. i. To all the Bishops of the Catholic Church: and again, Hac quidem & ad omnes, & ad julium scripsere:. i. This they wrote to julius, and to all. And the Church that enjoys more flourishing fortunes, or whose arm God hath strengthened with temporal prosperity, may be sought unto of the distressed, though not subject to it, by any duty of obedience, as one King (says the Orator) easily 
Pro lege Manil. Regum afflictae opes facise alliciunt misericordiam.  rescues and succours another, though not referring to him by subjection, no more than Mithridates did to Tigranes; as also I doubt not, but if julius had suffered wrong, and Athanasius could have holp him, neither would julius have disdained to crave his assistance, nor Athanasius have refused him; no more than the aforesaid Bishop of Patara did to sue for Syluerius, and to shield him all he could, against the rage of justinian, as even now you told us; and yet he of Patara, much inferior to the other without question.  
§ 9 But, to deal more liberally with the Bishop in this point, put case (say you) that the Council of Chalcedon did mean to give to the Church of Constantinople that equality with the Sea of Rome, which he affirmeth; yet he should nothing gain by it, but rather it confirms the primacy of Pope Leo, whose only authority was able to quash it. How is that proved? First, because the Canon took not place presently. Which is no more than happens, for the most part, to any law, to have slower execution than it hath making. But does it follow from hence, that either the Bishop alleages a counterfeit Canon, (for by this reason you may cavil any Canon in the book) or that Leo's authority was of force to disannul it? Let us briefly look into it, as not much to our purpose. For in truth, what end may we look for of dispute, if so pregnant allegations be reckoned for counterfeit? By a few heads we may judge of all the rest. You observe 4. things out of Gelasius his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, to disprove the Canon.  
§ 10. One, that Martian praised Leo for not suffering the old Canons to be violated in that point, and yet himself zealous for the advancement of Constantinople. The answer is most easy, He might take Leo's excuse in good part, as grounded upon pretence of conscience, not to cross the Canons, though it was so far from being sound, that both Leo might have altered them as yourself confess, (positive Canons) 
Num 70. huius & num. 28.  and afterward it was altered even by a general Council, (if that of Lateran at least was general) as you acknowledge. And I hope, Sir, I may praise Constancy, even in mine adversary, and in a wrong matter, though I could wish his constancy were better employed. So might Martian with Leo; and somewhat the rather, to induce him by addoulcing; for direct thwarting alienates rather. Is this a good reason now, why the Canon should be no Canon, or this also scored among the Bishop's forgeries?  
§ 11. You say secondly, that Anatolius, in favour of whom the Canon was made, being rebuked by Leo for his forwardness to prefer it, derived the fault upon the Clergy of Constantinople, and said it was positum in ipsius potestate; Leo might choose whether he would grant it or no. Answer. That the Clergy of Constantinople concurred to the making of it, I hope, good Sir, derogates not from the Canon, but rather fortifies it, as likewise the consent of so many other Bishops; and if Leo's shake, bestriding his pray (that is, the honour of his seat, the singularity rather) affrighted Anatolius, and startled lentum illum Heli, as he calls him, that timorous old man, what is that to the antiquating of the Decree of a Synod, and so populous a Synod as this was? For I hope the Canon was not so in favour of Anatolius, (whatsoever you prattle) but that much rather of his Sea, then of his person, as both the reason shows which the Canon contains, drawn, as you may remember, from the Imperial city, and Martians love was to the city, not to the man. Yea it rather took place, you say, after his death. What then do you tell us of Anatolius?  
§ 12. Your third observation, that Pope Simplicius was as loath to yield to Leo the Emperor, for the advancement of Constantinople, as Leo the Pope had been to the Emperor Martian in the same cause, proves nothing against the Canon, unless it be granted, that the Pope hath a negative voice in the making of them, which is the thing in question between you and us, & therefore to be proved, not to be presumed. But if you mean, that it took not place so soon, you have your answer before, it broke out at last like fire in the bones, and that's enough.  
§ 13. With like facility to your Quartum Notabile, that Acacius obtained the censures of Pope Felix, and executed them upon the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. What then? As if one Bishop may not crave aid of another, to repress abuses, when he cannot do it himself, even as they in Peter's boat, beckoned to the next to come and help them, (for your primacy is that Moses taken out of the waters by your own description) so here Acacius beckon to Peter, that is, to the Pope himself, as you dream. Neither think you that Acacius was the Pope's man, to execute his pleasure, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Homer says. And, congregatis vobiscum unà cum meospiritu, as in all excommunications, so specially, I suppose, when patriarchs are to be censured. Does not Gelasius say so, in the Epistle that you quote, Ipso quoque Acacio postulante, vel exequente. Where you see what execution Acacius performed, namely, with which Postulation might well stand, which is not the ministers, or the under-officers part, to demand censure against offenders, but only to lay it on as is enjoined. We read in the same Epistle, that Acacius proceeded against other two patriarchs of the aforesaid Seas, whereof one was Calendion, whom Gelasius names, the other unnamed, only qualiscunque Catholicus, as Gelasius styles him, and that neither with a Synods, as Gelasius there says, nor by censure obtained from the Sea of Rome, for aught that he implies, but belike of his own head; yet Acacius had no authority over the aforesaid patriarchs. No more than hath the Pope ordinary over them, whom in casu, and quantum fas est, he may offer to excommunicate, when they are otherwise incorrigible. And therefore this proves no Supremacy neither, of the Pope above other patriarchs, that Acacius as you say executed his censures.  
§ 14. What should I say of them that withstood these censures of the Pope, and despised them? and yet godly men, and allowed by the Church. Which shows, that they breath from no such power, as you imagine. See Austen contra Donatist. l. 5. c. 25. of Cyprian, not forfeiting his freehold in the Church, though he were one of them, quos Stephanus Papa abstinendos putaverat, whom Stephen Pope doomed with excommunication. Irenaeus censured Victors censuring 
Euseb. l. 5. c. 25.  of the Churches of Asia, where Baronius would triumph upon the name of Victor, as if straightway victory went with Rome, but give me Irenaeus for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in choro nostro, the supremacy will go rather on his side. Blessed are the peacemakers. So likewise did Polycrates, if you 
Ibid. c 26.  regard names so much, a man compounded of multitudes and power, which two endowments your Church much delights in. Anicetus, a pretty name too, to guggle Baronius, yet resisted 
Ibid.  by Polycarpus, not abhorring in his nomenclature from the Church's property, Esa. 54. Paulinus in his Epistle ad Sulpitium Severum, calls the buzz of the Pope, or the bull, as you term it, vacui murmur culicis, the trumpeting, or the wheesing of a silly gnat, that was all he set by it. Tertullian hath many flings at him, as Pamelius will tell you, and no marvel 
De liturgicis Fragment. Hilarij.  for the rigour he sustained among them. S. Hilary to Liberius, Quotapars orbis es tu? as much to say, as, what are you, sir, that you should so take on? And sometime other Bishops did as much for the Pope, I mean, they excommunicated him, no body controlling them. For it is ius commeabile, or, ius reciprocum, passing and walking from the one to the other. In the Council of Ephesus, the Bishops that held with 
Apolog. Cyrilli Mandate. Synod. Ephes.  Cyrill and Memnon, Scire autem volumus vestram sanctitatem, etc. We do you to wit, (even you the Pope's Legates representing his person) that if you despise aught of these things, you are thereby shut out from our Communion. what was that in effect but excommunication? Lastly, you tell us, that Acacius obeyed the Pope for a time, as much to say, as, while he listed himself. And even Gelasius, when he affirms him to stand excommunicate, by virtue of the excommunications that he procured against others, he means iure meriti, not, iure fori, desert being one thing, sentence another. Unless you will say, that Nathan censured David, in, Tues homo, which was rather David's act against himself, like that in the Gospel, Ex ore tuo judico te, which in Conc. Sinuessano was made you know whose privilege, not the Bishops of Constantinople, but the Bishop of Rome's, (though very ridiculously) that no body should proceed against him, but only himself. And so much of your four reasons out of Gelasius his Epistle, why this canon should be insufficient.  
§ 15. In the examples that you bring us, of such Bishops of Constantinople, as sought for union with the sea of Rome, what a childish ignorance is it, not to be able to discern between the union of consent in matters of faith, and union of subjection, which implies superiority, that they never acknowledged in the Popes over them? Was there no union sought for but with Rome? Or, do not all the members of the great body pant for it, each string of that harp endeavour after accordance, to make up the perfect harmony of Christianity? No doubt this is that which the Apostle saith, Did the word of God come out from you alone? or to you alone? 
〈◊〉. Cor. 〈◊〉. 36.  which was the case of Corinth, not of Rome, in those days. It were long to trace all your absurdities. The like you bring us out of the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Symmachus, that the soundness of the true faith was always preserved in the Roman church, because of Tues Petrus, & super hanc petram. Lo the primacy of the Sea of Rome, say you, grounded upon our saviours express words, with little regard to the equality of privileges in the Council of Chalcedon, which the Bishop so much standeth upon. Thus you will neither give leave to the learned Fathers, to deflect those words after a witty manner, to their innocent purpose, as Pighius says of some of them, that scripturae iis nascuntur sub manu, for their dexterity that way, and Andradius dares no otherwise defend your detortion of Ecce duo gladij, to establish the temporal 
Defence. Trid. l. 2.  jurisdiction in the spiritual, (one monster in another:) nor again can you distinguish between primacy of power, and infallibility of judgement, which though Rome cannot be said to have preserved always, in rigore, as S. Basil 
Hear ses propagant, Epist. 8. ad Euseb. Sam.  and diverse others will testify, and somewhat we have spoken thereto afore, yet without doubt this place so glances at the one, as it hath no word so much as tending to the other. For if exemption from error entitles to sovereignty, then how could Peter be the governor of the Apostles, who all of them had this privilege of not erring? So foully you fall under your own instance. Lastly, Chrysost. Tom. 
Edit. D. H. Savil.  4. pag. 942. in Lat. contion, applies these words, Tues Petrus, etc. to demonstrate the steadfastness of the Church of Constantinople, other some to Leo the lay Emperor, etc. 
Epist. episcop. secundae Syriae ad Leon. Habetur int●… Act? Concil. Chalced.   
§ 16. The like also I might say of Vigilius his presidentship in the Council of Constantinople, which what if Eutychius did of courtesy offer him? Praesidente nobis Beatitudine tuâ. Who knows not that the Precedents of general Counsels, are not always the chiefest Bishops in Christendom? As cyril, as Hosius, as divers more. Cui non concilio praefuit Hosius? and yet Hosius a Cordevant, not a Roman Bishop.  
§ 17. The like of the deposition of divers Bishops of Constantinople, by the Popes, as you say, and namely that Agapetus deposed Anthimus, with many more. Shall I tell you what wise men are wont to say in this case? Agapetus did depose Anthimus; but was Anthimus deposed? as much to say, They did their best, but de bene esse only, and, valeat ut valere potest, for, authority they had none. And therefore all this while, the Canon is not impeached but remains good.  
§ 18. What should I tell you of Euagrius, l. 2. hist. c. 4. that this Canon was enacted in that Council by the Fathers, not forged by the Bishop? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you may read the rest in the very end of the chapter, that Constantinople had 
* The prerogatives before other Churches  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only short of Rome, and short but in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as hath been said, in order, or, in number, as the Logicians are wont to discern things of the same species. I 
Novel. Constit. 131. Com. in Photij Nomocanon. tit. p. c. 5. Com. in Can.  might add justinian, Balsamon, Zonaras, the Council quinisextum at Constantinople in Trullo, c. 36. which both deduces it from the first general Council in Constantinop. c. 3. which you quarrel, and recites the words that offend you most in this of Chalcedon, about aequalia privilegia, and, Magnificari sicut illam, equal privileges, or equal prerogatives, and to be advanced like as the other. But I go forward. Indeed nothing is more absurd, or rather can be, than your descanting upon intercedere, in a double sense, that you bring, to show you have some smack of the Latin yet, at least when your masters and monitors help you. Because the Bishop had said, Leone frustrà intercedente per literas suas apud Augustum, Augustam, & Anatolium; that the Canon took place for all that Leo could do by his letters to the Emperor, to the Empress, and to Anatolius: you dream of intercession like that to the Saints, which you build out of places as well construed as this. And because in other places, the Bishop happily so useth the word, following your own terms, for your better capacity, therefore you conclude he uses it so here, but especially because else, Leo should have been so potent as to resist the Emperor. As if intercedere per literas, did not a little mollify the matter, which is to hinder and to dissuade, but by his writing only, and how humble that? Or to show that Leo did all he could, yet to no purpose; which frustrà gives you to understand, added by the Bishop in the same sentence, non frustrà. But if you will needs make Leo so saucy a Prelate, you may do as you please, your judgement is free concerning the Popes whom you pretend to honour: we find his letters to be of another strain, very humble & supplicatory, towards the great ones especially, and had rather construe more gently of him. Sciens gloriosam Clementiam vestram Ecclesiasticae studere concordiae etc. precor & sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro. Epist. 54. ad Martianum Augustum. That is: Knowing your royal grace to be zealous of Church unity, I pray and beseech you by diligent suggestion, etc. Neither any command shall you find given by him to the Emperor, nor resistance of authority, though he profess much zeal to maintain the Canons, thinking he might not break them, as was said before. Wherein nevertheless, you descent from him, and say he might. So as, if you had been his counsellor, not only this had been a Canon, but even a Canon by Leo's own consent, which you so much oppose, under colour of his name at this day.  
§ 19 But are the jesuits so idle, or so addle rather, as to think that they may put such tricks, I will not say upon the Bishop, cui nulla ciconia pinsit, but upon the youngest scholar in our Universities, as because intercedere hath a double sense, either to withstand, or to entreat, they may pin which they list of the twain upon us? Was not the word rather chose by the Bishop of purpose, to show what a withstanding Leo used, namely joined with entreaty, as if all his resistance could not go beyond prayers? which another that had weighed the double meaning of the word, and with single eye looked into the matter, would rather have believed to be the Bishop's very drift and especial aim. But how should then the Adjoinder have blurred so much paper, to show that Leo did make no suit? Sure those words before alleged out of his Epistle to Marcian, put it out of doubt, that he did make suit, whatsoever this jangler mumble to the contrary. Et precor & sedulâ suggestione vos obsecro, I both pray and beseech you, dutifully advising, or informing. What can be plainer? As for that he says, non frustrà, not in vain, because the Emperor praised Leo for his constancy, we have refuted it before, and the very event proclaims as much, that it was frustrà, or in vain, the Canon having gotten the credit, which they in vain malign.  
§ 20. Now for that which he cities out of his Epistle to Pulcheria, the 55. in number, Consensiones Episcoporum repugnantes regulis apud Niceam conditis, in irritum mittimus, if it had been only so, it might have showed Leoes resolution against the Canon, and his stoutness to deny it for his part, not but all this while he was suppliant to the Empress. But when he adds moreover, unitâ nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate, and, per authoritatem B. Petri apostles, what a vantage does this give, even to Pulcheria herself, to interpose in determination of Churchbusinesses, and as it seems, a kind of fellowship in S. Peter's authority? Yet this is our lay-Iesuites dish above Commons, which before he called liberal dealing.  
§ 21. Concerning Anatolius his receiving to favour, and I know not what submission, that he would feign bring him to, as it were to ask Leo pardon, I must tell him as before, that Anatolius his cause, and the Canon are two. If either weakness, or dissimulation, made him to shrink, yet the Canon prospered and thrived daily: neither did the Bishop say, frustrà, contra ingenium personae, but contra Canonen only, in that Leo made head in vain against the Canon, not against Anatolius his disposition, which is nothing to our matter.  
§ 22. Neither are his reasons sound, which he brings, why Leo should be against the Canon, though as I said, neither this touches at all the Bishop, as being no refutation of any part of his book, neither is it ought worthy our consideration, since we hold the Canon might be good without Leo. Indeed they hold that Leoes consent was requisite to the enacting of it, but that they prove not. His reasons for Leo are these 4. First because it sprang from Anatolius proud humour, to advance himself inordinately. But this is a flat slander of Anatolius, not a justification of Leo: or, though it were true of Anatolius private part, that he had a touch of the Luciferian spirit, to exalt his nest, and climb higher, which is not so likely, yet the concurrers with Anatolius in his desire for Constantinople, were led, as is apparent, with far diverse respects. In their Epistle to Leo, the Fathers of that Council mention these: 1. To gratify the Emperors, who rejoiced in it: 2. to show their zeal to the Senate: 3. their honour to the city of Constantinople itself: and 4. lastly, not only from the good liking of persons, but à naturâ rei, to establish order, and to abandon confusion out of the Church of God. You see all was not for Anatolius his sake, whom you so much talk of.  
§ 23. Secondly, because it was made you say in the absence of his Legates, and by surreption. Answer. That it was made in their absence, it was their own default, who would not stay: but that it was made by surreption, it is your untruth: for they all gave consent to it again the next day, and protested strongly against this imputation. You shall hear the Council itself for the first of these; Act. 16. so we read. Paschasinus & Lucentius vicegerents to the Sea Apostolic said: If it please your highness we have somewhat to say to you. The most glorious judges answered, Say what you will. Paschasinus and Lucentius said, Yesterday after your Highness were risen, and we followed your steps, there were certain things decreed as we hear, which we think were done besides the order and Canons of the Church. We beseech you therefore that your excellencies would command the same to be read again, that the whole company may see whether it were rightly or disorderly done. The most glorious judge answered, If any thing were decreed after our departures, let it be read again. And before the reading, Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople (after a few other words premised) said thus. We had somewhat to do for the Church of Constantinople. We prayed the Bishops that came from Rome, that they would [stay and] communicate with us. They refused, saying, we may not, we are otherwise charged. We acquainted your Honours with it, and you willed that this holy Council should consider of it. Your highness then departing, the Bishops that are here, conferring of a common cause, required this to be done. And here they are. It was not done in secret, nor by stealth, but orderly and lawfully. This for the First.  
§ 24. Hear also for the second, what we read in the same Action. Lucentius reverend Bishop, and Vicegerent of the Sea Apostolic, said: First, let your Highness consider, how guilefully the Bishops were dealt with, and how hastily the matter was handled, that they should be constrained to subscribe, contrary to the holy Canons. And Beronicianus, most religious Secretary of the sacred Consistory, interpreting the former saying, the Reverend Bishops cried out, None of us was constrained. And after many things between, again we read: The most glorious judges said: These, the most holy Bishops of Asia, and Pontus, that subscribed to the book, as it was read unto them, let them say whether they subscribed of their own accord, and with full consent, or compelled by some necessity laid upon them. And the aforesaid Bishops of Asia, and Pontus, that had subscribed, coming forth into the midst, Diogenes reverend Bishop Cyzici, said, Before God I subscribed willingly. Florentius reverend Bishop Sardeorun Lydiae, said, No necessity was laid upon me, but I subscribed of mine own accord. Romanus reverend Bishop Myrorum, said, I was not constrained: It seems just to me, and I subscribed willingly. Calogerus reverend Bishop Claudiopolis Honoriadis, said, I subscribed with my will, not constrained, and according to the determination of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers [in the first Council of Constantinople.] Seleucus' Bishop of Amasia, said, I did it by mine own will, desirous to be under this Sea (of Constantinople,) because to me it seems good wisdom. Eleutherius Bishop of Chalcedon, said, I subscribed by my will, knowing that both by the Canons, and by custom aforegoing, the Sea of Constantinople hath these privileges. Where, by the way, you may see how fond the objection is, that Lucentius then made, and some since him, that the Canon of Constantinople was never put in use, whereas the Bishop of the place here, where the Council was held, alleges both Canon and Custom for it. Nunechius reverend Bishop of Laodicea of Phrygia, I subscribed of mine own accord. Marinianus, Pergamius, Critonianus, Eusebius, Antiochus, with diverse more, too long to be reckoned, professed in the same sort, Sponte subscripsimus, we subscribed willingly, on of our own accord. What can the Adjoindrer reply to this? And yet afterward more effectually, if it may be, When the glorious judges had so pronounced, Oportere sanctissimum Archiepiscopum regiae Constantinopolis novae Romae, oisdem primatibus honoris & ipsum dignum esse, etc. that the most holy Archbishop of the royal city of Constantinople, which is new Rome, must be allowed the same primacies or pre-eminences of honour, that the Archbishop of old Rome is: and when they desired the holy and universal Council, to declare what they thought, (for so are their words in the said Action,) Reverendi Episcopi dixerunt, Haec justa sententia, haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent, etc. The Reverend Bishops said, This is a just sentence, we all say so, these things like us all, we all say so (once again) the decree is just,— and much more to that purpose, which I omit.  
§ 25. His third reason is, because the other Canon of Constantinople, upon which this was grounded, was never put in practice till that time. But how happily have we refuted that even now, out of the mouth of one of the Bishops that subscribed, Eleutherius Bishop of Chalcedon? Besides, Baronius confutes him, that acknowledges chrysostom (talem patrem, as he says, such a Father,. i. so reverend) to have practised this Canon, in deposing no less than 13. Bishops of Asia, as you may read in Sozom. l. 8. c. 16. Likewise the Clergy of Constantinople, that in this very Council, Act. 11. relying on this Canon, challenged to themselves the ordination of the Bishop of Ephesus, metropolitan of Asia minor, and called it Custom, as well as right. So that belike they had known it practised by others. Lastly, why did Anatolius subscribe his name in this Council, the Council of Chalcedon, before Maximus and Iwenalis', one Bishop of Antioch, the other Bishop of Jerusalem, but only because the Canon that was made at Constantinople, in favour of that Sea, was and might be practised? And when you quote Leo, Ep. 53. that the Canon of Constantinople lacked authority, because it was never sent to the Bishop of Rome, neither does Leo say any such thing, that I can find in all that Epistle, nor shall you prove that the Pope's consent is necessary to enact Canons, though most childishly you presume it: and lastly, he rather yieldeth in the said Epistle, as I conceive him, quandam transmissam huius rei noticiam ad Apostolicam sedem à praedecessoribus Anatolij, that Anatolius his predecessors sent knowledge hereof to the Roman Sea, and in the Epist. 55. he grants that some might have attempted is, (which without Canon surely they would not in all likelihood) but could not obtain it, he means perhaps, not so fully as afterward. Else we proved you know even now, that the Canon was not buried for want of practice, some while afore. Neither can I tell, what those words of Eusebius mean, in the 16. Act of this Council: 
a And I myself read over this Canon, to the most 〈◊〉 Pope, in the City of Rome, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople; and he received it.  Et hanc regulam Sanctissimo Papae in urbe Româ ego relegi, praesentibus Clericis Constantinopolitanis, eamque, suscepit: I say, I know not what they mean, but that notice hereof was sent to the Pope; which makes Surius in the margin to note it thus, 
* Either Eusebius 〈◊〉, or Leo wa●… deceived.  Aut Eusebius mentitur, aut Leonem fefellit: you may do well to help me, if I be amiss.  
§ 26. Your fourth and last reason why Leo should disallow this, because it was repugnant to the Canons of Nice, is a very trifling one, and you answer it yourself, in the 28. and 70. Numb. of this Chapter, granting that he might have ratified it for all that. And I hope, if the Canons of Nice had been so inviolable, it concerned Maximus, and Iwenalis', the two patriarchs, one of Antioch, the other of Jerusalem, to look to the keeping of them, as well as Leo. Yet they yielded. So much of this.  
§ 27. Is there any thing else to be sifted in this chapter? It sticks sore in his stomach, that the Bishop finds a difference between the backsides of letters, and the decrees of general Counsels. Because I know not who, some miserable suitors, had magnified Leo with glorious titles to move compassion. Mr. F. T. demands, why did not those suitors, that endorsed their supplications after such a fashion to Leo, rather magnify the Council, and flatter that, if the Counsels authority was greater than Leos? As if he never had heard, how the man took his 
●lspan●. A wood 〈◊〉 in stead of a dove.  entertainment, when he saw others used as well as himself; greatly scorning it which before he accepted, and breaking out into these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so Alexander refused to be enroled free denizen of a certain city that offered him that honour, till he heard them say they never afforded it to any but Hercules. For the respects are 
Non est admirations una arbour, cum tota in eandem altitudinem sylua su● exit. Seneca.  nothing which are shared among a multitude, to those which are thrown into the bosom of some one man, and perhaps like Leo here, ambitious enough above his fellows. Besides that who so honoureth the Precedent of a Council, in the place that he holdeth, his honour redoundeth to the whole assembly, and yet it delighteth the ringleader of that dance, after a special manner, being applied to himself.  
§ 28. These titles (saith he) were taken by the Notaries, and contradicted by none. They were taken, as the devotions of poor suitors, who give somewhat to gain more, and speak fair where they look for relief. — Liberalis est pauper 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉.  
Quoties amico diviti nihil donat,  could the Poet say, which when it wants in substance, must be supplied with language. Contradiction needed not, where the style of beggars carried no validity, and the Council eftsoones controlled those terms, in the Canon that we speak of, unless well construed and dexterously understood. So the Patriarko Alexandrine at this day, in his lowest ebbs, writes himself the judge of the world, which some say S. Cyrill deserved for himself, and his successors in that throne, for playing the Precedent so well in the Ephesine Council: and the rule is not unknown, which teaches us how to interpret such manner of phrases, Loquendum ut vulgus, sentiendum ut pauci, or, ut sapientes; the one like Ischyrion, and his distressed mates, the other after the ordinance of the sacred Council.  
§ 29. He thinks the Bishop hath not satisfied such places, as were alleged out of the Epistle of the Synod, wherein Leo's authority is so greatly extolled. Alas how greatly? Head of the members, that is to say, Precedent of the Council, and therefore they add, Quibus tu sicut membris caput praeeras, not praees, which is continual, as by virtue of his 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. finds a Head in every Congregation; but, Popes are not so frequent.  Popedom, but praeer as for the time only, and as Precedent of the Council. Again, sicut pater, as a father, for many causes God wot, whereof the Popedom is none, for his age, for his gravity, for his learning, for his Praesidentship, for his great eminency in the Church of God, as we ourselves confess, and yet drawing no tail of universal jurisdiction after it. So Cyrill, so Atticus, call them their sons, whom 
Epistad Concil.  the African Council sent for copies of the Nicene Canons to them; Innocentius the Priest, and Marcellus the subdeacon, though they were not of their Diocese, but toto divisi orb 
1. Sam. 25. 8. David eals himself Nabals' son, yet so far from acknowledging any authority that the churl had over him, as he threatens him the sword soon after, in the same chap.  rather. And, I pray you, does not Marcian call Palladius father, Palladi Pater? (See Sacra Marciani, post Concil. Chalced.) which Palladius was only Praefectus praetorio, and no way superior to the Emperor Marcian. Not far off from the same place, the Bishops of Egypt writing to Anatolius, entitle him thus, Archiepiscopo Constantinopolitanae & Catholicae Ecclesiae Anatolio, as if besides his archbishopric of Constantinople, he had been Bishop of the Universal Church of Christ, as you wildly feign of the Pope, that he hath the whole Church put into his hands, together with the Bishopric of the city of Rome; as if the scholar of Rome, forsooth, or the herring-boat rather, cymba Petri, had the ship of the whole world appendent to it. Proterius in the same Epistle, Bishop of Alexandria, is thus styled by them: Archiepiscopus, & Catholicae pastor Ecclesiae, which insinuates as much, too much I know for a jesuit to grant, without discreeter interpretation, Gregory Nazianzenes 
Epitaph. in Patrem.  father, though a very mean Bishop, and not to be spoke of, but for his son, was cleped the father of the Popes themselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, father of all the high Priests of God. Of him in Baronius I told you before, Pontificumque caput, the head of Bishops, yea of Pope's verily. That our Saviour committed the charge of the vineyard to Leo, as is there said, as if therefore his supremacy were de iure divine, is no more than Palladius, (another Christian Magistrate of that name) bestows upon Epiphanius in his Epistle to him, before the Anchoratus, Dignare ad hoc à Saluatore ordinatus, vouchsafe O thou appointed for this end by our Saviour, and what to do, trow you? to prescribe rules of the right faith in the Trinity, which yet was not Epiphanius his task, de iure divino, the Popes rather, as they I am sure would have it, Aquinas by name, in his 2. 2. to give Creeds to the church; And a 
quaest. 1. art. 10.  little before that, in a stranger tune, as speaking to our blessed Saviour, Praeceptor serva, Master save us. Is not this rather a pilot of the universal ship?  
§ 30. Whereas Dioscorus fault is amplified by the Fathers, to have wronged Leo after Flavianus and Eusebius, 
Leo before all, because reckoned after all.  with a post haec omnia, as if therefore Leo were above them all, though we deny not but in order of place he was above them, and specially then, when he was Precedent of the Council, (of which nevertheless we may say with S. chrysostom upon the Acts, homil. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a matter of presidence rather than of precedence) yet he might as well argue, that to imprison Peter was a greater fault in Herod, then to slay james, (and indeed that's the reckoning that the Papists make of these names now a days, I mean Kings and Popes, the one in james, the other in Peter, yea though they flay the one, and but emprison the other) because the scripture says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he added moreover, or, he proceeded also, 
Act. 12. 2. 3.  to attach Peter. Though F. T. perhaps, drunken with jesuitism, would argue from hence for Peter's primacy, as catching at every thing, and surely as wisely as Turrian his fellow jesuit, from the 4. quaternions of soldiers that were set to guard him, in the same Chapter, an universal man no doubt, and spreading into the four corners of the world. Another time, quia vas pertigit ad Petrum, the vessel came just as far as Peter, that is, the Church and the Pope are coextending.  
§ 31. But his greatest stick, is at the Bishop's answer, about the charge of the vineyard, committed to Leo, that ad curam omnium ex aquo pertinet, the care of the vineyard belongs to all alike, not to Leo only. And here he plunges into a discourse over head and ears, that all are not equally obliged in conscience, to take care for the Church. As if the Bishop had said, aequaliter pertinet, or aequè pertinet, that all are bound in like degree, who only says, ad omnes pertinet ex aequo, that is, that all are bound and none exempt, to take care for the Church; ex aequo pointing there to the indifferency of the care, the generality of the parties, not to the degrees of caring.  
§ 32. Yet he argues from hence (that you may know the man, and what his humour his) that if this be true, than cobblers and tinkers shall have as good right of suffrage in general Counsels, as any Bishop of them all. Yea nothing but confusion and Chaos will overflow, the difference of vocations being extinguished in the Church, etc. As if first the Bishop meant this of the Laity, such as cobblers and tinkers, and not of Bishops only and other Clergymen, which afterwards himself is feign to acknowledge, num, 86. with shame enough, having beaten the air so long before to no purpose. Or, if the Bishop should extend it to the Laity, and all, (for disputation sake, and to chafe this snarling mastiff a little,) yet it were not easy to put off all that he brings, by this distinction, that howsoever the care as exiens in actum, breaking forth into this or some other duty, is not common to all, as the nurse only cares so for the child as to suckle it, yet the care in font, or in radice, the original solicitude and indistinct care, is common to all, as they say in the Psalms, We have wished you good luck, you that be of the house of the Lord: even as they may wish well to the child, that are not particularly put in trust to battle it, and to give it suck, but custod●●o ordine maternorum membrorum, as S. Austen says in the like ease, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every man in his own order, 1. Cor. 15.  
§ 34. At last, the Bishop is set to school even in plain terms. Whereto I answer (saith he) he must learn to distinguish, etc. Between what think you? Between the primacy of Peter, and the privileges of the Sea of Rome. So he. And what of this? Therefore the Fathers might give the privileges indeed, as the Canon speaks, but still the primacy is of Christ. What primacy, Sir, what primacy, I pray you, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ to be advanced and magnified in Church-matters, to be Ladie-regent and governresse in that quarter? What primacy did our Saviour else give to your Church, when he gave most, as you feign in Peter? Unless you speak of the Temporal, which nevertheless you make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the other, an undivided consequent, and so both as it were but one. Nevertheless this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called here privileges, by the Fathers of this Council, and it is said, the Fathers gave it afore to Rome, and now to Constantinople, by the tenor of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless you will teach the Fathers how to speak. Which devise of yours, when I think of it, is as good as that before, numb. 59 that the Fathers gave not all privileges to Rome, but some only, and therefore the Bishop offended in his si qua, that is, all in general, or whatsoever. Which you correct thus, The Canon speaks only of privileges given to the Church of Rome, in respect of the Imperial seat. So that whereas the Fathers of Calchedon bring this for an argument, why their fathers and predecessors gave privileges to Rome, namely because Rome was the Imperial seat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the construction must be thus, by your grand Logic, The Fathers gave not all privileges to Rome, for the seat imperial, but the privileges given thereto, in respect of the Imperial seat, were given thereto in respect of the Imperial seat, and none others. Is not this sweet art now, and worthy of a jesuit?  
§ 35. The reasons that you bring, why the Council should not mention the prerogative of Peter, because it would hinder Anatolius his cause, and the preferment of Constantinople, which was then intended, do they not show, that either the Fathers were damnably partial, to obscure the true cause of Rome's advancement, or else that Peter was no cause thereof at all? For say not, it helped not to the cause in hand. The Fathers were not so blind, as not to see it; much less so gross, as seeing to smother it, or for desire to win their cause, to translate it clean another way. And suppose they would have done so, why did no body contradict them, as you said a little before, about the titles of Supplications? When there were negatives in the Council, qui non subscripserunt, as we read in the 16. Action: why did no body lay forth the lameness of their reason, and draw Peter from under the stuff? Once again, me thinks, an Angel should have smote him on the side, and bid him stand up now if ever. For the Fathers had buried his prerogative clean, and entitled the dignity of Rome to the Empire, as if the Empire authorised the Church, not the Church the Empire. No reply was made, none found fault with the reason. Therefore we take you at your word, num. 67. That the mention of Peter's primacy, does not only not help, but even cross this Canon. If the Canon then be good, Peter's primacy is none.  
§ 36. That Leo excommunicated Dioscorus by the Synod, restrains his power of excommunicating Patriarches, rather than establishes it. You know it was a question, whether the Pope might inflict censures promiscue, without a Synod, yea or no. Of which more Gelasius in his Epistle before cited, ad Episcopos Dardaniae. And yet Leo does nothing here, but by the Synod, & re, & stylo, directly mentioning it, (his Legates I mean for him,) fetching assistance from it. And Peter is put in the last place, after Leo and the Synod, as 
Leo 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 S. Sy●… cum 〈◊〉 Apost.  whose authority the Synod as well as he participated. Might not this therefore have been better left out?  
§ 37. You omit not so much, as that Leo is said to be ordained to be the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter to all men. I wonder what you would say, if what Nazianzen ascribes to Athanasius, had been said of your Leo in that 
●anegyr, in Athan.  Council? One time that he was the fan that cleansed the floor, suppose you the fan in our Lord's hand, to separate as it were between the wheat and the chaff, so between true opinions, or erroneous in the faith, yea you would say, judging between the nations of the world, and dividing the good from the bad by sentence. Behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Alexandria, even before Cyrill. Another time, that as our Lord rid the ass, so Athanasius managed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the people of the Gentiles, as far spread as they were throughout the world. Another time, that he was the two tables of Moses, and his verdict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very law of verity: another time, the tuft of Sampsons' head, which, as we know, appropriated the holy Ghost to him. Yet Leo was the rather praised, because Precedent of the assembly, and to his face, also enjoying the grace that accompanieth councils: Athanasius in his particular, and after death, and not only at one time, but continuedly. And, I pray you, what says the same Council of the Emperors, Leo by name, but not your Leo? Leo 
Edit. Venet. p. 389.  Imperator inexpugnabilis palma, & honour fidei, accepit a Deo super omnes homines sine prohibitione aliquâ potestatem. What is this to being the interpreter of Peter's voice, whereas S. Peter would have every body to be to God, as they, that you speak of, make Leo to be to Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the oracles of God, so let-every man speak, 1. Pet. 4. 11. But there is more in that authority, for which cause I must english it. Leo our Emperor, the impregnable garland & honour of the faith, hath received of him (that is, of God) power over all men, without any control. We see here for matters of faith, and of religion, what the Emperor might challenge, being called the garland of it, and impregnable, or invincible. 2. He hath command over all men, Clerks and all. 3. from God. 4. without any check or control, which would have made great titles in the Pope's style. Again, Nerui, & arma, & virtus Ecclesiarum vos est is 
Ibid. p. 390.  Christianissimi Imperatores, etc. You most Christian Emperors are the sinews, the weapons, and the puissance of the Churches, etc. This out of the Council that yourself quote. And of the difference of the testimonies, given to the two Leo's, let the Reader judge.  
§ 38. The last thing that I will note in your second chapter, shall be this, remembering my promise to observe brevity, from which I am but too easily blown awry, with the storm of your fopperies.  
You make it an argument of Leos supremacy, (you call it Monarchy very roundly a little after, and are not ashamed at it, chap. 4. num. 3.) that, first Leo was admitted Precedent of the Council held in Greece: then, that Leo being absent, Anatolius kept not his place, but Legates of his own sending, whereof one was a Priest. The answer is most easy. Leo being denied one part of his will, to have the Council in Italy, it was a poor recompense (I mean for his monarchy, and in regard to that) to be employed to be their Precedent, as a wise man, a learned man, and a stout man, likewise also in order surmounting them all, as hath been acknowledged, whereas diverse Precedents had been in Counsels, that were inferior to Leo in these points, and therefore much more removed from the stately Monarchy, that you from hence gather.  
§ 39 But, Why not Anatolius? say you. Was not he fit to be Precedent, whom the Council thought fit to be so advanced in their Canon, as to have the like stroke in Ecclesiastical affairs, that the very first of the rank had? Once again I must tell you belike, that the Canon advances not Anatolius, but Constantinople. And it was the parting of stakes between Leo and him, that though the Council were in Greece, yet Leo should be the Precedent. As for his Legates, it was no matter, (after once they had concurred upon Leo to be the man) whom he sent in his place, so long as they were sufficient, since himself could not be there. And I hope they brought instructions From Leo, as themselves say often, and might have reference to him, if any doubt should arise. Also it was the fitter, that Italian Bishops should be Precedents, and not Grecian, that the Canon might be the authenticaller, which was enacted for Constantinople, as farther from partiality of the lawmakers. To which purpose they say, in their Epistle to Leo, (the Fathers of that Council) that the emperors affecting the exaltation of Constantinople, Volebant celebrari & ab universali Concilio, for more authority sake no doubt, and so likewise by foreign Bishops, as Leo and his Legates. But if you think his Legates had any such stroke, that Anatolius should envy them for their greatness, you may remember, how boldly the Council dissented from them, and the Canon was confirmed, notwithstanding their demurs.  
§ 40. Neither despise you Priests, to come into councils, 
Ad num. 78. Specially one of Leos legates being but a Priest, saith the Adjoin.  gentle friend. This shows how vain your discourse was before, num. 52. that Concilium Episcoporum est, the Council consists of Bishops only. Do you not know the difference between suffrages, some decisive, some deliberative; definitine, or consultive? Hath Ego definiens subscripsi, so often repeated in this Council, no better settled into you? Or will the Jesuits be content, to refrain from Counsels, as many as are not Bishops? Perhaps because they are loath to be called away from Prince's Courts. But that you may know, Priests have their interest in Counsels, at least, Sir, by connivence of Bishops, (as 
* Council 1. Nicen. Can. 8. A●●●r. c. 2. itemque Can. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed praecipuè Can. 13. eiusdem. Sa verbo Praedicare. Nullus Episcopo contradicente praedicare praesumat. Ex Concil. Trid. Et Triumph. Ancon. Licere quidem presbyteris praedicare; sed de lice●… Episcopi. Quia actus est jurisdictionis. Etsi Pi●s 5. Mendicantibus liberum voluit, & repugnant Episcopo, nisi praedicare velletipse. Sa ubi prius.  in diverse other things, as we read in the Canons) Athanasius a Deacon stood the 
b Sozom. l 1. c. 17.  church in good stead in the Nicen Council: yea an idiot, & a man wholly illiterate, confuted a Philosopher, one of the Princes of the world, as S. Paul calls them. In Conc. 
c Ann. 813.  Moguntino, three turmae were set apart, Episcoporum one, Abbatum another; and the 
d S. Cypr. lib. 4. cp. 2. mentions a kind of Synod, where unà cum Episcopis, Presbyt. etc. etiam Laici stantes super lapsis tractavere rationem. The Araus●an Council was subscribed by certain honourable personages of the Laity Garanza in fine Conc. Araus. And, in Conc. Syrmiensi, judices ex palatio, doctrinâ praestantes, (learned Courtiers) praesidebant. Soz. l. 4. c. 5.  third of Laymen, that is less than Priests, as you are wont to reckon. I say nothing of S. Ambrose, made a Bishop before baptised, and Nectarius an Archbishop, Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 8. So much shall suffice to your second Chapter.   

To his third Chapter.  
1. Places of the Fathers, S. Cyprian and S. Hierome. 2. The Bishop far from jevinianizing. 3. Nothing is deducible out of his doctrine, which favours the Popedom.  
§ 1. THe Fathers follow. First S. Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae. Whereas the Cardinal had said, that Cyprian makes Peter the head, the root, and the fountain of the Church, the Bishop most truly and sound answered, not Peter of the Church, but the Church herself head of the members belonging to her, root of the branches shooting out of her, fountain of the waters issuing forth from her, etc. one in substance, but many in propagation, which is no new thing in this mystery, or in any such body, as the Philosophers call deiuncta corpora, rising of many moieties into one 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut.  sum. Nay lastly, S. Cyprian, to show whom he speaks of, calls her matrem, mother, in plain terms, which is not mother Peter, but the Church says the Bishop. And this so vexes the gall of our jesuit, as you would not think. For indeed what more compendious victory could there be, insomuch as F. T. is feign to say, that Cyprian had no occasion 
Numb. 7. hulus.  to name Peter there, but the Church only; like the Rhemists' annotation upon 16. to the Rom. that Peter was out of town, when he should have been saluted by Paul; so we must believe, just there the occasion failed of naming Peter, whereas in all the other current he only is meant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. chrysostom says most excellently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epist. 190. ad Pentadiam Diaconissam. Such a thing is truth, in one short word she confutes the caviller, and stops his mouth. For the words, lying thus as they do in Cyprian, unum tamen caput est, & origo una, & una matter foecunditatis successibus copiosa, yet the head is but one, the spring but one, the mother but one, plenteous in her blessed and happy fruitfulness, who can imagine, that Peter is the head here, and the church the mother, and not rather that the whole sentence belongs but to one, whether that be Peter, or the Church, or whosoever? For as the sentence runs on in an even line, so doubtless it comprehends but one and the same subject. But Peter is not the mother, as F. T. confesses. Therefore neither the head, nor the spring; nor any thing else. And indeed so it follows in S. Cyprian, Illius foetu nascimur, illius lacto nutrimur, illius spiritu animamur, she breeds us, feeds us, and enliues us, which may well be understood of the Church our mother, but of whom else, whether Peter, or any other, I see not, I confess, I; S. Austen so, lib. 2. contra Crescon. Grammat. c. 35. & 36. and again, l. 3. contra eundem, c. 58. & 65. understands these words, quoting S. Cyprian, not of Peter, but of the Church. And I mean the words de font & rivo, de sole & radio, that I may fetch it as high as F. T. himself, even from the place where, if any where, S. Cyprian speaks of Peter, by his own acknowledgement. And Pamelius, their own author, commenting upon S. Cyprian, though he greedily draw all advantages that may be, from other places of this Father, to establish the Popedom, yet passes this over in deep silence, as nothing favouring their desired Headship, nay crossing it rather. For he had read immediately before, in the same place, Hoc erant utique & eaeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. i. The rest of the Apostles were utterly the same that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and power. Where by the way we may note S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian their agreement about this point, not only for matter, but for words. For so Ambrose before quoted, Hoc erant quod Paulus: and here Cyprian, Hoc erant quod Petrus. As if there were no diffe●… neither between Peter and Paul, nor between the other Apostles and them both. For quae alicui tertio una sunt, inter se quoque una, or aequalia, says the light of nature. Will you know then, why he makes mention of Peter in singular? Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur. But the beginning proceeds from unity, or from one man, to show that the Church of Christ is but one. How does the beginning proceed from one, but as S. Austen shows in the place before quoted, Only Peter was spoken 
De verb. Dom. 13.  to, that others being not excluded, yet this precious unity might be commended in one? As we read under Solomon, that the people were all like one man, and Act. 2. in the first times of the new Testament, the people were all of one heart and one mind. Where by the way you see, how Solomon prefigured Christ, and those times these latter with strange accordance. And if this become the people, how much more the pastors, or the master builders, that they should all set to their work like one man? To which nothing can be more contrary than the Popish usurpation, over-bearing other pastors, which nevertheless they would ground upon these places for unity. S. Cyprian also declares his own meaning in the same place, to be as I have said, in these words. Quamnis omnibus Apostolis parem tribuit potestatem, though our Saviour gave equal power to all his Apostles, tamen ut manifestaret unitatem, disposuit originem eius ab uno incipientem, yet to show the unity (so he construes monstretur, not as if that Church could be pointed to with the finger; from whence other Churches receive their unity, as F. T. may imagine) but, ut manifestaret unitatem, to make known the unity of the Catholic body, and that the Church is but one congregation of the faithful, though branched and billeted out into sundry parcels, he took order that her originals should begin at one, which is short of authority, and much more of supremacy, but most of all of the monarchy, that the Jesuits would crown Peter with, by virtue of this place. And when the same Cyprian, a very few lines afore the words last alleged, makes this to be the cause of abuses in the Church, quòd ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput quaeritur, nec magistri coelestis doctrina servatur, what is plainer, then that by caput (which they so catch at) he means nothing else but the original verity, which our Saviour Christ first delivered, even that same Sic ab initio, as both origo veritatis, & doctrina coelestis magistri declares, which encompass the word Caput like two torches of both sides of it, to give light unto it, that we mistake it not. Then follows his commendation of Church-unity, the only remedy in Cyprians judgement against the aforesaid maladies, which having taught to be figured by our Saviour in S. Peter, whom in equal privileges of power with the rest, he called from the rest, to pattern that virtue, he amplifies from other places the authority of the Church, as una est columba mea, Cant. 6. unum corpus, and unus spiritus, una fides, Ephes. 4. with, Qui ecclesiae resistit, quomodo se in ecclesiâ esse confidit? and after a notable enforcement to the preserving of unity from unus Episcopatus est, there is but one Bishopric throughout the whole Church, which every Bishop hath his solid share in, and, Qui in ecclesiâ president, which are chief in the Church, showing that many Bishops govern the Church, and not one Bishop alone, as the Papists would have it, he returns to ecclesia, Ecclesia una est, quae in multitudine latiùs incremento faecunditatis extenditur, etc. and yet again more closely, after certain protases of similitudes, which F. T. says the Bishop durst not lay down for fraud, but himself laying down gets nothing but hatred for his abominable tediousness, Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa (says he) per orbem totum radios suos porrigit, unum tamen lumen est, ramos suos extendit, rivos expandit, unum tamen caput est, & origo una, & una matter, etc. That is: The Church replenished with the light of our Lord, stretches her beams through all the world, yet the light is but one, (F. T. would have Peter to be this light, as if the Church were but rays, and he the body of the sun, which S. Cyprian never meant, but for more perspicuity sake calls it Domini lucem, our Lord's light, unless Peter be that Lord too) reaches out her branches, spreads her rivers; yet the head is but one, the spring but one, and the mother (her self) but one, abounding in fruitfulness, etc. So as one may wonder that F. T. after so manifest conviction, would persist to force this clause upon Peter, which so properly and so immediately belongs to the Church, but that it fretted both him and the Cardinal too, not a little, to be taken tripping so foully, as to make Peter a mother, or the Pope a woman once again: and he hath no shift but to say, that S. Cyprian in one and the same tenure of undivided connexion, means the first part of Peter, and the latter part of the Church, like Virgil's monster: — in Pristin' desinit aluus.  
§ 2. Here is also to be noted, that F. T. citing that sentence of S. Cyprian, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, etc. foists in those words, which are not to be found in the printed copies, ut una cathedra monstretur, at least not in 
* Morel. edit. of Cyprian praised before all other by Alan. 〈◊〉. Ad●…. ad Lector ante Dialogos.  Morelius, yet a Popish edition, which I now used, anni 1564 at Paris, not of Frobenius at Basil, anni 1530. not of Gryphius, not divers more. And yet this is the man, that challenges the Bishop for corrupting of Fathers. And farther he prints those words, one Chair, in an eminent letter, to give credit to his cozenage, one Church in an ordinary, because though that be Cyprians, yet nothing to his purpose, num. 5. of this third chap. How beit, if una cathedra were read in Cyprian, it is not the Pope's chair, but answerable to that of which he said a little before, Episcopatus unus est, etc. there is but one Bishopric in the Church, and yet such a one, as every Bishop hath his full share therein. For as the Bishopric, so the Chair. With like honesty he perverts the words of Cyprian, exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, by either adding to them, or translating them in this frantic fashion, num. 4. The primacy is given to Peter, whereof not a word that we find here in Cyprian. And he tells us, we heard before that Cyprian says our Saviour built his Church upon Peter; which for my part, I neither heard nor read yet in S. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae, of which work now the question only is. What he says ad Quintum, comes not to be examined till his 12. numb. But thus he must patch one thing with another, that cries out against falsehood in all men else, as the only Dove. And the toil is more to reckon up his lewd corruptions, than the task to clear the Bishop from those things, which he imputes to him in that very kind. Lastly, for a taste of his learning, as well as his sincerity, he construes robur unum, in S. Cyprians comparison, one strength. Multi rami, sed robur unum: Many boughs, but one strength. Neither giving us the sense of S. Cyprians similitude, but utterly smothering it, like a faithful alleadger, and forgetting Virgil, Aeneid. 2.— Roboribus textis—. yea, his very Accidents, Pectora percussit, pectus quoque robora fiunt.  
§ 3. Now in the epistle ad Quintum, what find we? Petrus quem primùm Dominus elegit, &, super quem aedificavit ecclesiam suam. As if one of these did not expound the other. For our Saviour is said to have built his Church upon Peter, in that he chose him first, not chose him to be first, primùm 
Constar ex Mat. 4. 18. Nec obstat, johan. 1. 41. ut periti explicant Vide Maldonat.  elegit, not elegit in primatem, as preventing him with the promise, and honouring him with the exhibition of the keys before the rest. For they were delivered to him in the general name, as signifying unity, as both S. Austen, and S. Cyprian have taught before, so as the rest notwithstanding had as full right in them as ever Peter had; which S. Cyprian declares, when he says, Pariconsortio praediti potestatis, endued with like fellowship of power; and, Hoc erant caeteri quod Petrus, the rest were the same that Peter was. S. Austen also in those words of his cited before, but of necessity to be brought to your remembrance, I see, ever and anon, There are some things, which though they were spoken to 
In Psal. 108.  Peter, yet can make no good construction, unless they be referred to the Church in general, and he instances in that, Tibi dabo claves. As for the building of the Church upon Peter, howsoever some writer may say so in his sense, yet you need not be ignorant, how the most sort construe it, to be a building upon his faith, not upon his person: Super petram quam confessus es,. i. super meipsum. August de verb. Dom. secund. Matth. serm. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 2. item l. 6. to the same purpose, (for I couple his faith with the object for this time, that is to say, Christ,) Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matth. Ambrosin Eph. c. 2. & 
●t iterum Chrysost. 〈◊〉 7 pag. 〈◊〉. & iterum Beda ●erm in Cathed. Petri.  the Sacram. Incarn. Domin. c. 3. Beda in cap. 21. johan. I sidor. in Exod. c. 42. Dt quâ soliditate (fidei) Dominus dicit, Super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam:. i. of which soundness (of faith) our Lord says, Upon this rock I will build my Church. Euagrius may seem to imply as much, lib. 4. c. 40. speaking of Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, where Peter first sat. To which Bishop the assaults were so fiercely given, as if his overthrow would have been the Captivity of the right faith (they are the Historians words) and in him were all. But he manfully withstood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For he remained upon the impregnable rock of faith, juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, with five more Bishops, in Rescripto Synodico, in Council Calched, ad presbyteros & monachos Palestina Provincia, having quoted the words of the Gospel aforesaid, infers thus, 
*. i. Upon this confession the Church of God is established.  Super hanc confessionem roborata est ecclesia Dei. Where by the way you may see, what the opinion was of the Fathers of that Council, concerning those words, Super hanc petram, to settle the cheifedome in Rome, as before you would bear us down, though they derive the privileges of it merely from the Empire, and the grant of their ancestors. Also the Bishop's surmise remains good, that the Cardinal left out those other words in Cyprian, as prejudicial to his cause, that Peter did not challenge to himself any thing insolently or arrogantly, as to say he had the primacy. You say, he might have said so, in his full right, but S. Cyprian calls it, an insolent, and an arrogant challenge, by which you see, that primacy whatsoever it was, was not of authority, but of mere seniority, like primùm elegit, a little before (even Andrew's first resorting to our saviours school hinders not this, sith there was duplex vocatio, as Maldonate will show you, before quoted) which the words following show too, Et obtemperari à novellis ac posteris sibi potius oportere, comparing Paul the later called, with Peter anciently designed to the Apostleship. In one respect an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or an abortive, as himself confesses, and yet in other respects nothing short of the chief. S. Austen also, though he alter S. Cyprians words, lib. 2. de bap. c. 1. as is soon done in allegations of memory, yet he keeps the sense, and favours you nothing; the primatus Apostolorum excellenti gratiâ praeeminens, standing in dignity or quality, (let the word gratia help to persuade you) not in authority. Yet we have principes Apostolorum, Paul and Peter, nothing so common in your own men's mouths: yea Cardinal Pole says, both their Apostleships grew into one: Amborum Apostolatus in unum coaluit: lib. 3. ad Henry. 8. etc. So as either no monarchy now, or of more than one, a thing merely impossible.  
§ 4. That you quote out of S. Austen concerning Peter, 
l. 2. de Bapt. c. 1.  Peter did otherwise then the truth required, yea and in so great a point as was Circumcision, also afterward more plainly in the same num. 14. that he erred: would you ever write thus, if you were well in your wits, striving for Peter's primacy, to impute error to him, and error in faith, which you know cannot be, without the grand peril of the universal Church? As S. Gregory says, that all fall, if unus universalis 
Lib. 6. cp. 24.  fall, one in whom are all, as you in your Pope, even as the moil stumbling, all goes to wrack that the beast carries, and the greater the beast, the fouler the wrack, whether it be gold or silver, or what other freight foever. And I pray you, what does your primacy serve for, unless it be joined with infallibility? Yet you forfeit the one here, to win the other.  
§ 5. I might likewise ask you what manner of primacy you call that, which excuses not the superior from the just and lawful rebuke of his inferior, but so as if S. Peter should have refused to follow, and to obey S. Paul, (they are your own words, num. 16.) he should have done insolently. Call you that a primacy, specially a Popish one, which must be patient of control, liable to the obedience, even of his underling, if it will avoid pride?  
§ 6. And therefore thought the Bishop in his usual modesty, say, as you note (numb. 16.) videtur mens Cypriano fuisse, it seems Cyprian was of the mind, it is not for diffidence Sir, but as I told you. Videtur and est is all one with the Philosopher, says Zimaras in his Table, quoting the Commentor for it, And so the Lawyers. If there be fraud in videtur, it is rather in Bellarmine's, De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 9 Indicare videtur Apostolus ad Heb. 8. What? that the Church triumphant is a pattern of the militant; where there may be videtur, but no est certainly, because there is no such thing in the Apostles text. You might rather have thought of that, Luke, 22. 24. Quis videretur esse maior, where if videretur be not better construed, your primacy is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a very fancy.  
§ 7. I am ashamed of thus digressing: but your dealing forces me, I cannot forbear; yet with this I will end concerning Cyprian. To your 17. numb. whereas the Bishop says, Fundamentum, sed non unicum, what more confonant to Scripture? not Apoc. 24. as you quote it, but 21. v. 14. where there are 12. specified. But again, whereas he says, There is caput unicum, and therefore non sequitur à fundamento ad caput; what more agreeable to sense? For, as for that you add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and with a mouth speaking big, which Anna forbids, 1. Sam. 2. 3. that as the 12. to Christ, so the eleven to Peter, were interchangeably subordinate, you should show this written humano stylo, either in Scripture, or in Father, that we might run and read it. But though you sweat your heart out, it grows not there. Yet you seem to yourself wise, when you show the Bishop as well many heads upon one body, as many foundations of one building. Videlicet, say you, the states of Venice, so many states, so many heads of that commonwealth. Which first is harsh in Aristocraty, to make every governor a several head (more than the Amphisbaena hath) the whole company rather, and many men if you will, but one head. Yet this fonder, that the Bishop arguing from a material house, not a metaphorical, and from a natural body not a proportional, to demonstrate what is meet to be expected in the mystical, you show him a political, which is nothing to his demand.  
§ 8. NExt of S. Hierome. And why might not the Bishop tax the Cardinal, for suppressing S. Hieromes words, as well as before S. Cyprians? As well (say you) the one as the other, that is just neither, or neither justly. But of Cyprian we have seen, see we now of Hierome. Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatis tolleretur occasio. Amongst twelve, one is chosen, that a Head being appointed, occasion of schism might be taken away. lib. 1. in jovin. But in the same book (says the Bishop) Hierome thus, which the Cardinal would take no notice of. But thou wilt say, that the Church is built upon Peter. (What then?) though the same in another place be done upon all, [that is, the Church is said to be built upon all the Apostles,] and all to receive the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church to be equally grounded upon them all. Yet indeed one is chosen among the twelve, that a Head being appointed, occasion of schism might be cut off. Is this no cooling card to the other authority? For you that tell us of dice, I may do well to speak to you in a suitable metaphor, and not abhorring from your trade. As the Philosophers say, the brain in a man's body, tempers the heat of the heart beneath; so do not the words precedent allay the force of these latter, which yet the Cardinal only set before us? For the threefold equality, which S. Hierome before ascribed to all the Apostles, one of their equal interest in the foundation, another in the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the third, which is reiterated for deeper impression, of bearing the whole strength, or stress of the Church, leaves only now this sense of caput, that Peter was chosen to have such a kind of Headship, that is, of priority among the twelve, as should not derogate from parity, and yet exclude schism or garboil, or confusion. Which is the primacy of order that we have often told you of, and you would feign divert to a primacy of Majesty. I could not answer your fallacy in a director fashion, yet I know you have replies, as that caput in the last place, adds great force, to, super quem fundata est, in the first. Which we remit to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, whether so many equalities yielded to the Apostles, in the words afore, do not rather force us, to construe caput as hath been said, not derogating from the equality of their power in the keys, nor from bearing the groundwork of the Church jointly: that is, as you construe it, from being governors thereof. Besides that Caput is only a borrowed word, and signifies primum, or the first in that kind, (which we grant to Peter with all readiness) and last tempered with such a modest clause, to keep out schism or disorder only.  
§ 9 You say, there is more danger of schism now, then among the twelve. For they were confirmed by special grace, we not so. And therefore they were not so likely to run into schism, for which they should have a head. As though Paul and Barnabas were not running into a 
Act. 15. 39  schism, a paroxysm at least, that is the first grudging of the other ague; as though when Peter confirmed his brethren, & tu confirma, Luk. 22. 32. they had the less use of him, as their head, against a schism. And though the will of God be to confirm some here, yet not without means, neither at first to rectify them, nor afterward to continue them in their good course, to the end. Of which means this might be one, of which S. Hierome speaks. Was any man more confirmed then S. Paul? rapt into the third heaven, etc. yet he struggles with his nature, least preaching to others, he should be a reprobate himself. So here. Besides that this schism, which our Saviour prevented, by appointing an Head, as S. Hierome says, might be schisma populorum, not Apostolorum, and therefore he says, ut occasio schismat is tolleretur; that the Christian people seeing who was eminent in the College of the Apostles, might not every one rashly set up their principal, and so fall into schism.  
§ 10. But at least we need a Head now a days, as much as they. As if we have not our Head in our manifold regiments, Dedit quosdam pastors, Eph. 4. &, Obedite praepositis. Hebr. 13. &, Terribilis sicut castrorum acies ordinata, and so forth. Is there no Head but of an universal Bishop? yea, theirs was of order only, and to shun confusion, ours of power, and commands subjection. Besides 
What a sweet suppressor of schisms the Pope is, may appear by that of Innocent. 7. who slew eleven persons, endeavouring to succour the state of their country, running to decay, and cast their bodies out at a window, saying, That was the way to suppress schisms, and no other. Plat. Innocent 7. Catiline's quenching of fire, non aqua, sed rui●●.  Kings and Princes, which God hath given to our times, as to feed his Church, and to give them milk (which very milk is Discipline,) so to bring home wanderers from the high ways and the hedges, to the feast of the great King; that's to suppress schisms, as S. Austen often, but namely contra Gaudent. l. 1. c. 25.  
§ 11. For where you tell us that Princes may cause these schisms themselves, and so contemning spiritual censure and proceedings, must either be hampered with another coercive power, extending to bodies, and to estates, or else all run to nothing, and the Church be clean extinguished, you bewray your spirit sufficiently, and a man may read your drifts in your forehead, which at another time you would so feign cover and smooth over; Sermo tuus indicat te, may be our speech to the Pseudo-Peter, as was once to the true. Do you think then, that S. Hierome would give this leave to Priests, or the Prince of Priests, as you would have him, to bind Kings in material chains, and to load their Senators with such iron fetters, as no metaphor hath mollified, & to use such other violence as commonly goes herewith? Though of you I less wonder, if you give them iron in their chains, to whom you have given it in their crowns, as Clement to Charles, if Platina say true, in Clem. 7. But to S. Hierome. How then does he construe these words of David, Against thee only have I sinned, to have been spoken 
Ad Eustochium.  in that sense, because David was a King, and not to be proceeded against by any temporal punishment, or coactive hand, of a mortal man? How does he say in his Epistle to Heliodore, de obitu Nepotiani, that a King rules men against their wills, a Bishop no farther than they will themselves? They subdue by fear, these are given us for service; and many the like. How does Basil upon the 37. Psalm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (and he knew his power as he bore his name,) A King is subject to no judge? How does chrysostom profess so often, that he can go no further than words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Shepherd though he be, yet he may not fling a stone at a wolf, but rate him only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Again in his 2. de Sacerd. c. 2. & 3. at large; again in the Homil. which is not extant in Greek, but in Latin only, Cum ageretur de expulsione S. johannis; Statis omnes non ferro sed fide devincti. Tom. 5. And in Act. Apost. hom. 3. in Morali, the people to the Minister are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [not subject to him, or in his hands, but having their obedience free in their own power.] Again in the same place, within a few lines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [Magistrates rule by fear, so do not these, viz. the Ministers.] And yet more frankly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Hortantur affectione non potestate. Cypr. de habitu virgin.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [There things are carried by order, and by appointment: here, no such thing, neither may we command any thing as by authority.] Again, Comment. in ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Minister is a teacher (quoth he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The same at large, Homil. 11. in 4. ad Ephes. in Ethico. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Idem habet Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 285. & 387. Edit. Eton. per D. H. Savile.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Minister and a Counsellor leave every man to himself, they enforce nothing. What more can be said for us? See Orat. 5. in Oziam, toward the latter end. He says the course that God takes with Kings, if they offend, is not to deliver them over to any man to chastise, but, Adduc ad me, as the father bid them carry the child to his mother, and our Saviour the Apostles to bring the party to him whom they could not cure. Let me alone with him, I shall deal with him. Orat. 1. in Babylam, he commends him more for moderating his hand, after he had once put the tyrant back, and that he fell not to flat striking (which is not lawful for a Priest) then for debarring him entrance into the Church at first. For, the one, every body would have done, that is, execute his anger, being enraged, but only Babylas, or one like him, keep a mean in performing his office after provocation. And because we spoke of chains a little before, it may be for this cause, Babylas desired to be buried with his chains, as S. chrysostom relates, in one of his Orations upon him, and again, Hom. 9 in 4. ad Ephes. to show what he endured, not what he administered; and so likewise of the sword that was buried with him, after it had struck off his head. S. Hilary gives the reason, 
Can. 1. in Matth.  why Rachel (that is, the Church) would not be comforted for her children, whom Herod had butchered, (that is, the persecutor martyred) Consolatio enim rei amissae praestanda est, non auctae: [For we comfort losers, not gainers.] Now the Church gains by patience in persecution. Therefore she loses by resistance, and opposition. Of which thing S. Cyprian also, in application to the Church, and how she may not resist, nor wreak her wrongs, lib. de bono patient. at large. Et quoniam plurimos scio, vel pondere iniuriarum, vel dolore, vindicare velociter cupere etc. nec illud reticondum est quod dicit Dominus, Soph. 3. Expecta me, quoniam judicium meum est, ut excipiam Reges; Only God is to deal with Kings. And soon after, Hunc expectemus judicem & vindicem nostrum, omnium justorum numerum ab initio mundi secum pariter 
Let all write for God our judge & our revenger, and not only ours, but all the Saints 〈◊〉 the beginning. etc. A●d, The revenger him (e●●e hath not yet revenged himself. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  vindicaturum. And lastly, Qui ad vindictam suam nimium festinat, & properat, consideret, quia needum vindicatus est ipse qui vindicat. And in his book contra Dometrianum, he alludes to Virgil's verse, ●●f●l●● lolium & steriles DOMINANTUR ave●●: Implying, that wicked and profane men may obtain domination over the Church in this world (though the jesuit cannot abide to hear it,) and yet still remain but infoelix lolium, in all their jollity and worldly ruff. Theodoret. quaest. 6. in Numer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By purple the Kingly office is declared, & with that goeth punishing, or coercion. Of what then is the Hyacinth a resemblance, which was another covering of the holy vessels? belike of heaven. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Theodoret. And in heaven there is no punishment. The Minister, as a heavenly Magistrate, not an earthly Sovereign, he afflicteth none. Gregory Nazianzen in his 2. Steliteut. against julian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do you see what a course he prescribes for reformation? Not by violence, as you dispute, to repress tyrants; by music, not by blows; by persuasion not compulsion, etc. And a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; To which he opposes only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by word and by prayer. You may remember Ambrose, Pugnare non debeo, I may 
Amb●. Ep 32. 33. ●o●at contra Au●ent. etc.  not fight: & Arma nostra lachrymae, our weapons are tears; and, Multi jobi, many jobs for one, that is, many patient Christians. And, lib. 3. de officijs cap. 9 Nulli noceat sacerdos, ne lacessitus quidem, & iniuriâ offensus: A Priest must hurt no man, (viz. forcibly and violently) though provoked and wronged. Whereas you think you may do any thing for bonum spirituale, and in ordine ad ecclesiam, to preserve that. Primasius in 2. ad Rom. Lex Christi iam non minatur gladium peccantibus, sed promittit praemium liberè seruientibus: that is, The law of Christ now threateneth no sword to offenders, but promises reward to them which truly serve him. Which you must construe in such a sense, as not to bring in Anabaptism, nor destroy all Magistracy, but to curb your 
Cypr to the very same effect, Epist 11. l 1. add Pompon. Tune gladio o●…e●●●tur, quando circumcisio carnalis &. nunc quia circumcisio spiritualis, sp●●. gladio necantur. So as the Adjoiner is the jew, that stands for bloody source, not the Bishop, as he tails & raves.  Priests, in comparison of the Priests of the old law, from attempting violence, because Primasius speaks upon those words, Litera occidit (that is, They) but spiritus vinificat, (which you would fain be accounted, calling yourselves to that end the spiritual men.) See the same Primasius again, against Ministers coactions, in 2. Cor. 1. Non quia ideò credidistis ut vobis dominemur, sicut in lege sacerdotes, etc. And, Non quòd metu cogamini, not that you are constrained, not so much as with fear, much less by force. Yet with you it is apparent, that folks believe in Christ, that you may censure them the more freely, even Kings and all, over whom being infidels, you had no such confessed power. Qui laesi non essent 
Cic. pro Quint.  nisi CREDIDISSENT, as he saith. And therefore see how you will answer Primasius. Tertullian in Apologet. gives no leave to redress inconveniences with force, no not with the death of a man, much less with the peril of a Sovereign Prince or State. Christianus etiam damnatus gratias agit. And, Christianus nec inimicum suum laedit. And, Paratus est ad omne supplicium ipse habitus oris Christiani. Hoc agite boni Praesides, extorquete animam Deo supplicem pro Imperatore. And again in the same book, Hippias, dum civitati insidias disponit, occiditur. Hoc pro suis omni atrocitate dissipatis nemo unquam Christianus tentavit. Yet nimius & copiosus noster populus, saith S. Cyprian, speaking to the same purpose; contra 
And so also Tertul. de multitude. Christian. satis cre●iò.  Demetrianum, whom you may do well to read. And to make short, see Eusebius Emesenus, sermon. in dominic. 4. Aduentûs, upon joh. 1. Ego vox clamantis, (that is a ministers calling) not manus percutientis. If he write upon the wall a sentence against balthasar by God's direction, that is all. Add Concil. Tolet. 4. c. 31. where, whom the Minister cannot amend, he delivers over to the King and his justice, to be accordingly censured, but who shall censure the King himself? Neither may I omit Origen, both in 13. ad Rom. and Tract. 12. in evang. Matth. upon those words of our Saviour, Matth. 20. Reges gentium, etc. Sicut omnia carnalia in necessitate sunt posita, non in voluntate; spiritualia autem in voluntate, non in necessitate, sic & Principes spirituales. Principatus corum in dilectione subditorum debet esse positus, non in timore corporali. Which last authority is cited by Bellarmine, lib. 4. c. 21. de Pontif. Rom. you may wonder how he can digest it. In English thus. [For as all carnal matters are subject to force, not to free liking, and all spiritual matters to free liking, not to force; so are also spiritual superiors. Their cheifdom or princehood ought to stand in the love of such as are under them, not in their bodily fear, etc.] Which bodily fear, the Pope is wholly for driving his subjects into, and without that he is nothing. But thus far the Fathers, because I spare the rest.  
§ 12. The Scriptures also banish us from like forcible dealing, in more than one place, if we had leisure to produce them. The minister must be no striker. The servant of the Lord must be patient and long suffering, expecting men till God give them a mind to return home. We wrestle not with flesh & blood, that is, with material enemies. No marvel then if the weapons of our warfare be not carnal, nor material, but spiritual. Armastulti pastoris sunt gladius & baculus. Our commission is in our tongue. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I may explain that by the way. We bear no rule over 
So, captiva captivitas, for captivi. Eph. 4. So electio for electi, Rom. 11. 7. Vide S. August. de Praedest. Sanct cap. 6. & 〈◊〉.  your faith, that is over you the faithful people of God (like vestra Sanctitas) limiting his power, and preserving his reverence to the Christian people, both in one. Lastly, we beseech you in Christ's stead, be reconciled unto God. Yet with you if there be no coaction, all is marred.  
§ 13. You say [that Bishops in their Courts mulct the purse, and sometime imprison the bodies etc.] Though I think you are scarce perfect in this part of your lesson (for I have heard otherwise of a very sufficient Doctor) yet suppose it were so; This leave comes of the King, strengthening the arm of spiritual censure by that means, lest the profane and wanton of the world should contemn 
Nemo presumitur tulisse contra seipsum: &, Previlegia non sunt interpretanda in praeiuduium concedentis.  it. Originally there is no such power in a Bishop. Will you then retort upon the King with his own licence, or unnaturally gall him with his own quills? Is not this the way rather to spoil all, and to disarm the Church of the royal protection?  
§ 14. You say [that he which hath command of the soul, hath also of the body. And therefore the spiritual power which is acknowledged to be in the Minister, draws the temporal with it as a consequent.] Truly I grant, that he which can command the soul out of an absolute power, it is likely the body is also subject to him. But neither the ministers power commands the soul, by any forcible impression, (for as we cannot make one hair white or black, so no more can we make one soul merry or sad, further than as God shall cooperate with our endeavours) and the persuasions that we use, they are directed no less to the saving of the body, then to the gaining of the soul. Both the Magistrate and the Minister, deal both with the soul and the body. But the Magistrate violently applies himself to the body, to reclaim the soul, if need be; and the Minister perswasively carries himself to the soul, to the end the body may be made pliant to righteousness, Rom. 6. The proceeding, not the subject, then, is that which makes the difference between the two powers; and howsoever your Casuists say, a lame-handed man cannot 
Sa. Aphorism.  regularly be made a Minister, yet that is for Pashurs' turning Magor-mishabibs, jer. 20. the kingdom that we send 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Cor. 5. 1.  to, as it is not built with hands, so it requires no violence to convey thither.  
§ 15. If in the nonage of the Church, the Apostles were endued with power of punishing men corporally, to the 
Orig hom. 14 in Levit. 24. Hur. in 1. Cor. c. 5. Chrys in 1. Cor. hum. 15.  end the Gospel should not be trampled underfoot, by unrevenged scorns, yet now the Magistrate supplies that place, being himself turned Christian, and suppose that should fail, and all things revolve to barbarous Heathenism, as in former time, (which God forbid) yet we are to think, that the like extraordinary providence would still attend the Church; but howsoever it were, no private man might be too forward, and much less a Minister, which seemed then so inconvenient, that the opposers were delivered 
1. Corinth. 5. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. ●im. 1. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to the devil to be tormented, in defect of Magistrates, rather than the jesuitical mutinies, which F. T. here pleads for, should take place.  
§ 16. THe substance of your Discourse being thus disproved, it were no hard matter to gather up the spoils, and note certain 'scapes of smaller importance. In translating the Bishop's words, numb. 22. Quod toties iam nobis seriò inculcat Cardinalis, you handle it thus: Which the Cardinal doth now so often and earnestly inculcate unto us. What think you of inculcate first? you that muster the terms of the Bishop of Lincoln's book (for so hares may pluck dead lions by the beard) though nothing so uncouth as your Rhemish Testament hath, Praepuce, Sindon, to evangelize, the orient, etc. But to omit that, Does the Bishop mean, that Bellarmine pleads earnestly in the case, or rather marvel, that he is in earnest at all, the argument being trifling, and not worth the naming? yet thus you say, [so often and earnestly,] as if SO might augment his earnestness too. Did you understand the book that you took in hand to confute? And as this is your eloquence, so view your conscience. numb. 27. you say, the Bishops have their proper talon of calumniating Bellarmine. Again calumniate as good a word as inculcate before. And if common to both, how proper to either? yet you say both have their proper talon. Be like not quarto modo. But, Sir, who taught you to call vices talents? Is this your reverence that you bear to Scripture? or do you so confound God with the devil? What remains but you call grace chaff, and virtue cockle, and the rest as your ungodly Rhetoric shall inspire you? But well do you fulfil the measures of your fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the thunder bolts walk not, as Nazianzen says of them that abused S. Basil. So Campian in the tower jesting at his adversaries, for the weakness of their argument, said he could make as good sport about the Incarnation. Another (I think Rastall) (or but a letters difference at least) paints his margin thus, Luther's lying with a Nun in the Lord. What vengeance remains for such graceless companions? And are these Divines, and handlers of God's cause, foaming out such shame, which were intolerable in him that followed the plowtaile? Yet you have up with the Bishop (and Eudaemon before you,) for his pleasant vain forsooth in writing. You may remember your jolly preface to Parson's Discussion, which I touched 
He says there, that the Bishop's style becomes him as well, as to dance about a maypole in his hole and doublet.  at before. If you had your will, you would make us dance about another maypole without hose or doublet, as you did our forefathers, while your power lasted. Thanks be unto God, that hath shortened those days, abridged your malice. Yet Elias confounded Baal's priests with a jest, and S. chrysostom commenting upon the 140. Psal. bids us 
Et in epist. ad Philemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  make much of the frumps of the godly; which is your fault, to have profited no more by the Bishop's kind reproofs. Yet in all the passages of that Reverend man, there is no one word contumelious to piety, or disgraceful to religion, or prejudicial to gravity and good manners. Whereas Sir Thomas More, the champion for your Clergy, (as it were vicarius in spiritualibus, he was such a buckler to the Bishops, as Stapleton says the common voice was 
De tribus Thomis.  in those days;) yet he, I say, undertaking the Church's cause, wrote a book so gamesome, and so idly idle, that dissembling his own name, he was feign to father it upon Gulielmus Rossaeus; a title that one of your fellows hath taken upon him of late, to shroud his virulences under, as he did his vanities, and lastly the great Philosopher kept a fool at home, as the same Stapleton records, to make him merry no doubt, though his wit was able to provoke laughter in others, as full often it did. And if More be of no more authority with you, you may look back to your own Cardinal, that dry Child, that sage Sobrino: yet he excuses himself in one place of his controversies (a work a man would think that did not fit so with mirth) Ignoscat 
lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. c. 22.  Lector quòd temridiculè Tilemannum exceperim. Let the Reader pardon me for being so merry, or so pleasant with Tilemanne. This he. Yet because you have descried such a vein in the Bishop, as you think at least, might you not have answered yourself, touching that which you object to him here about jovinian, that it savoured but of Irony? For what more fit to be hit in your teeth, who every where crack to us of jovinians heresies, then when you bring that in earnest, to countenance your Popery, which S. Hierome puts upon jovinian, by supposal? At dices, tu; joviniane scilicet. Though the Bishop doth not challenge him for such an absolute jovinianist, but only says, Probè in to secutus iovinianum, the Cardinal therein following jovinian very handsomely. Which words are enough to dissolve your cavil, that the Bishop should lay absolute jovinianisme to his charge, which, you say, surpasses all impudency. Such a rustic you are, an arrant clown, not discerning what is jest, and what is earnest. Howbeit, it will be hard for you, to prove jovinian to have been an heretic, (Epiphanius and Philastrius do not reckon him among the catalogue). and they that may conclude him to have held a falsehood, will find some a do to condemn him for an heretics. Neither. is the meaning of that word by all agreed upon, neither do all take it in every place alike: Yet because this scandal rests upon jovinian for the most part, you may be pleased to remember, Sir, out of S. Austen, what other monsters jovinian fostered, and therein, if you think good, compare his doctrine with ours. As, that all sins are in like degree heinous, which is the Stoical paradox, no way cleaving to us, though you slander us so unjustly, for not holding venial sins, which 
* Advers. Luther. And Andradius, Venialia qua dicuntur peccata, tamen sempiternis poen● (interdu●) ●…untur apud inferes. De pecc. orig. lib. 5. which utterly overthrows the nature of venial sins, insomuch as Rada (in Conciliat Thomae & Scot●) says, that God in strict justice, can not punish such kind of sins in that sort, though all grace of pardon be away.  Roffensis himself held not. That fasting and abstinence profits nothing. Can you charge us with any such impiety? That the regenerate man cannot sin after baptism; wherein he comes nearer to you then to us. As for your merits, you may keep them, the badges of your insolency, and in 
Tertull. de carne Christ Quis conspueret Christi faciem nisi merentem: Horribile dictu: Sed vult dicere, aptam conspui ex vestigijs infirmitatum in suscepta mortalitate, etc. Sic est illud, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apoc. 3.  you, Sir, of your ignorance, not to know what merit means all this while. Yet beware how you magnify the Virgin against the married, lest the Council of Gangra condemn you, not for an heretic now, but a cursed heretic, Can. 20. giving you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if you do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though you condemn not marriage; if you but swell out of the conceit of your single life. And so Minutius Foelix most divinely, Inuiolati corporis virginitate fruimur potius quam gloriamur: After that he had said, unius matrimonij vinculo libenter inhaeremus. S. chrysostom goes further, If the perfection of Monkery itself may not stand with marriage, all is spoiled. See Comm. in ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in ipso fine. And why should Virginity then be exalted above marriage, if the perfection of the strictest Monks themselves be compatible therewith? And he closes his discourse, with that divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Pindar says should be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; (a iunket always in 
Apud Clem. alexander.  the end of a feast) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Use marriage moderately, and thou shalt be the very first in the kingdom of heaven. Indeed therefore all the Saints are lodged in Abraham's bosom, in the married man's bosom, as the same Father cannot deny, lib. de Virg. in extremo. Once the Trinity in his tent, and now the Saints in his bosom. Yet still the married man, and not the worse for his marriage. As for the rewards of the faithful, that they are not equal in the heaven that we look for, and that the sacred Virgin suffered no decay of her maidenly honour, by the stainless and immaculate birth of our Saviour, let jovinian think what he will, (though S. Hierome never imputes this latter to jovinian, in the 2. books that he wrote against him,) yet, not only you, but troops in the English Church so teach. And, would the time give leave, is there not a Montane, and a Tatian, to make you blush, for your abominable heresies, about meats and marriages, as well as you have a jovinian to twitt us withal? But because, I now only assoil the Bishop from your wicked slanders, it is well his integrity hath so acquitted him without me, that yourself dare not speak of him, but with, It may be, and, Except; such a hook his fame hath put in your nostrils, who only in this may be resembled to jovinian (to Paphnutius rather) that in single life, he defends the liberty of other folks marriages. But hast we to an end.  
§ 17. To the other places of S. Hierome, as Matth. 16. which in great good will you advise the Bishop to read over forsooth, what saith S. Hierome there? That our saviours dicere is facere, his. saying is doing, therefore calling Peter a rock, he made him so. But I hope, good Sir, as doing and saying went together in our Lord, so both of them in his own meaning, not in your mistaking. What is this then to prove Peter's Monarchy, or smaller regency either, if such could content you? And if it could, yet it were hard, I say, to boult it out of this place of S. Hierome, where (no syllable 
〈◊〉 Apostoli lu●… ex Christo lumine vocati s●…t, & caetera ab codem sortiti v●…bula: s●… Simo●… qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri ●…gitus est nomen, Ac secundum metaphoram rectè ei dicitur etc. Hier.  of authority or power once appearing, for explanation sake, as reason was, if you meant to speed,) he says only, that Peter for believing in the rock, our Saviour bespoke him, and yet not properly, but in a metaphor, saying he would build upon him.  
§ 18. The like ad Marcellam, Epist. 54. upon whom our Lord built his Church, namely Peter. But can we answer S. Hierome better than by S. Hierome? The fortitude of the Church, or the puissance of the Church, was equally built, or grounded upon them all. Super omnes ex aequo. You heard it before out of his 1. lib. against jovinian. How does this then prove Peter's privilege, in the matter of authority, though building were granted to found that way, as it doth not? And when S. Paul sundry times, as Coloss. 1. 23. and Eph. 2. 20. speaks of grounding, and building the Church, either upon faith, as in the first place, or upon the Prophets and Apostles, as in the second, shall we think he was envious, that said nothing of Peter, and that extraordinary manner of the Church's building upon him, that you dream of?  
§ 19 Here you tell us of three ways, by which the Apostles might be said to be foundations of the Church, in hope that Peter may be so in singular. And quoting Bellarmine for it, not your own invention, you counsel the Bishop to learn it of him. Shall we first see how good it is? One way, for that they first converted nations, persuaded people, and founded Churches, not Peter alone, but jointly all of them. In this sense belike they are all foundations. But what is this, to, being the foundation of the Catholic Church, and to lie like a rock under that great building, because they were planters of particular Churches? Also you argue fallaciously, from the diligence of preaching, to the power of supporting, and that by authority, as now the question is. Besides, a founder and a foundation, is not all one. And did none plant Churches, good Sir, but the Apostles? Shall your Jesuits in japonia be foundations too? And shall we say of them, super quos aedificaeta est Ecclesia dei? You see the absurdity. Yet you quote proofs, Rom. 15. I have preached the Gospel where Christ was not named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation. Does this prove that men are foundations of the Church? or rather, that the man and the foundation are two? Again, 1. Cor. 3. I have laid the foundation like a wise architect (so speaks your Vitruvius-ship) but would you call him a wise Logician, that should argue from hence, that S. Paul meant himself to be the foundation? Yea, though he said not in the same place, jesus Christ, and no other foundation.  
§ 20. Secondly, you say the Apostles were all foundations, because the Christian doctrine was first imparted to them, and the present faith is grounded upon that, which was delivered at the first. And new articles of faith (you say) are not always revealed. Is not this accurate, trow you, as well for order as for substance? For had this been a reason, ought it not to have been set, in all reason, before the other? Can a thing be preached, afore it be understood? or made known to others, afore itself be known? Your argument therefore from preaching, should by all means, I say, have followed this from revealing; and this from revealing, have gone before the other. But pardon your order, look into your substance. Were not some things revealed to others afore the Apostles? Did not our Lord first manifest his resurrection to women? Did not the Angel say to them, Go and tell Peter? Will you have women and all to be the foundations of the Church? But we are much beholden to you, that you coin not new articles of faith every day. Articles therefore, and new articles you grant, and of frequent revelation, but not every day. We long for your last kind of foundation, wherein Peter is so entire.  
§ 21. Thirdly then, you say, in respect of government and authority. For Peter's was ordinary, theirs Legatine; his original, theirs depending from him. You should show what Father says so, besides yourselves, for of Scripture you despair. And yet you agree so ill among your own selves of this point, that you jump not about the very terms. For 
* See Casaub. 〈◊〉. 16. cap. 138. ad Annal. liaron. with the contradictiō between Baron. & Bellarm. as is between Bellar. & himself in this very matter, l. 3. de Interp. verbi dei, cap. 4. where he makes Moses extraordinary, and so greater than Aaron, as Peter greater than the rest of the Apostles, because he only was ordinary, etc. yet he says he mentions Peter, comparationis causá cum Mose, for comparison sake with Moses. What so unlike? Besides, Aquine will tell him, that Paul rather answered to Moses, than Peter; each of them being admitted to the Vision of God's essence; the one as principal of the Old Test, the other of the New, (for so he compares them) Neque enim probabile est ut minister veteris Testamenti, etc. Quaest. disp. de Raptu. Art. 1. in Conclus. As for Peter's being in mentis excessu, Act. 11. he makes nothing of that, to this of Paul's. Ibid. resp. ad 9  Baronius calls Peter's power extraordinary, the other Apostles ordinary: you make his ordinary, and theirs extraordinary. Is it possible that kingdom should long hold out, which is so at odds? Yet behold another leak in this observation. For though the Apostles had derived their authority from Peter; yet they might all have been foundations of the Church, as well as he, even in regard of government; no less than some receiving the doctrine immediately from Christ, as Peter, james, and john, (witness Clemens in Eusebius before quoted) the others from them, yet you make them all, in regard of doctrine, to be foundations alike, num. 25.  
§ 22. Another authority of S. Hieromes is out of his Epist. ad Damas'. 57 I following no first, or chief but Christ, do communicate with thy blessedness, [or am linked in fellowship with it,] that is to say, with the chair of Peter, upon that rock I know the Church is built. You see Hierome follows no first but Christ. Nullum primum. Where is then the primacy that you challenge to Peter, if none of the Apostles be afore another, but Christ? Indeed Bellarmine says, he means, he prefers none but Christ before Damasus; which is an utter perverting of S. Hieromes words, who, as he says, he follows no chief but Christ, or none prime but Christ, so he shows after what sort he is affected to Damasus, communione not subiectione, by communion, not by subjection, (communico tibi) as to Theophilus, to cyril, to Athanasius, to who not? the ancient orthodox profess of themselves in divers places. But the edge of the place, as it serves your turn, lies in those words, I know the Church is built upon that rock. Which rock is Christ, not so long before mentioned but this may refer to it; and to build upon a chair, is no such clean picked metaphor, that we should be forced to take it so, though upon a rock be. Besides the scio that he gives it, a word of certainty, makes us 
* Vide citatos paulò ante auctores in hoc capit. p. 132. Quibus add aliud S. August. tèstimonium ex Tract. 10 in 1. Epist. joh c. 5. Super hanc petram, edificabo Ecclesiam meam. Quid est super hanc petram? Super hanc fidem, super id quod dictum est, Tu es Christus, etc. There is Fides, and obiectum fidei, id quod dictum est, etc. But by no means doth it long to Peter's person.  think he would never be so peremptory for Peter, sith divers have construed the rock another way, whom S. Hierome would not cross over hastily with his Solo; and lastly his own modesty declared a little before, professing to follow none but Christ. Therefore he took Peter for no such foundation.  
§ 23. The last, and the least, is out of his first against jovinian, O vox digna petrâ Christi, â speech worthy the rock of Christ! But you may as well build Christ himself by this devise upon Peter, as the Church of 
Rivallows Archidiac. Redonensis, de Marbodo Episcopo, Hic basis Eccelesia po●du● portabat,— apud jacob. Sirm. in notis ad lib. 3. & epist. 14. Goff. Abb. Vind.  Christ. For as Saunders writes of the rock of the Church, so Hierome calls Peter here, the rock of Christ. That is, the fortress, and champion of the Christian faith, as S. Ambrose was called columna Ecclesiae, S. james 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the title of the Church of Ephesus, wherein Timothy was to converse, rather than of Rome, as the Apostle bestows it, and the 
* Petrus Chrysologus. vide cap. 8. huius, ex Damas●. eadem verba, de jordane Archimandr●●a Quid quòd idem Damas●. serm. de Defunctis, vocac Athanasium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,. i. the foundation of the Church of God? Among communities, the University of Oxford was calle● Ecclesiae fundamentum, in the hearing of the King, and he disliked it not. Paris Anno 38. Hen. 3. Quidam Magistri Oxoniae, circiter novem artistae, etc.  Archbishop of Ravenna, in one of the councils, was honoured by the same style. So clean is petra Christi beside your purpose, either as too little, or too much.  
§ 24. Of S. Chrysostom's testimony we have said enough before to your first chapter. Vertex and Princeps is found too light. Magister orbis is not Monarchae orbis. And for all S. james his, Be not many masters, in this case many Masters were sent out into the world, whereof james was one. Yea chrysostom himself, as 
a Theod. lapsus Rescrip. ad Chrysost. b Hom. 87. in johan.  Theodorus entitles him. Nothing clearer with chrysostom in the place you quote, then that all the Apostles had the charge of the whole world, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You will tell us, I know, of Peter's ordinary power. But in all antiquity we find no such difference. And yet another testimony of chrysostom we have cited to you elsewhere, out of his Comment. upon the Acts, affirming that Peter did nothing, by way of authority, in ordering church-business. What can be plainer?  
§ 25. As for james his being only Bishop of Jerusalem, 
Adjoind. num. 44. Col. S. chrysostom (says he) gives us to understand, that whereas S. james was only Bishop of Jerusalem, and the countries adjoining etc. S. Peter had the charge of the whole But if we hear Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1 c. 27. Caeteri Apostoli missi sunt ad certas provincias, Paulus ad omnes Gentes, sine cortae provinciae determinatione. Et ipse de se ait, Plus omnibus laboravi. At least, as Eutalius Diaconus (for so they write him) praesat. in Epist. Pauli, Petrus & Paulus inter se partili sunt universum orbem: in which division Paul had the better every way.  as if that might disparaged him in comparison of Peter, it was not because his power was narrower than Peter's, (for our Saviour confined not james to Jerusalem, but private election) but to show that S. james abode there, as thinking his pains best employed in that place, Peter in the mean while traveling farther into the world. In the 3. of ler. 17. v. one would think Jerusalem the higher seat them Rome, besides that it was our saviours province, as I told you, and so perhaps to be preferred in that respect. So far is Peter from any excellence above james.  
§ 26. I might pass by your argument out of the 44. Psalm, In stead of fathers thou shalt have children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands. Suppose first, that this were Monarchical princehood, or a princehood of power, of majesty, and of authority, which is nothing less: for Ite praedicate carries no such commission. Yet than they were sent into all the world, than they were made Princes in all lands. But whatsoever it be, what is this to Peter? Is it not common to all, does it not extend to all? And not only Peter is not designed to be he, but no one Prince magnified before another, though we should grant the singularity to be his, if any's. And shall all the Apostles now have their successors? shall all their authorities be conveyed to after-commers? I had thought Peter's only had been permanent. Yet here, of all, Pro patribus tuis nascentur filii; every Apostle hath his son, his successor, and every one's son is made a Prince throughout all the world. You will say perhaps it makes for temporal power in the Episcopal calling, though not for Peter's successors in special. But to omit, that Princehood here is regnare verbo, and regnare praconio, in which sense Virgil says, a diligent husbandman— imperat aruis, as a King at his work, and in his calling, though homely; You may remember that chrysostom and Theodoret 
Conim. in locum.  turn it another way, to the Apostles succeeding the patriarchs, not to the Bishops succeeding the Apostles. Though he that considers the tenure of the place, and how the holy Ghost speaks to the Church there in the person of her husband the Lord jesus, will soon resolve it to bear 
Genebeard construes this both of all the Apostles, citing Arnobius, Pro 12 Patriarchis 〈◊〉 12 Apostoli. and also of all the faithful, who are called sons (says he) because begotten through the Gospel. And he adds, that they do gerere vices Christi, (how will the Pope like this?) and that their Sovereignty here mentioned, stands in the imitation of the virtues and worthiness of their ancestors. And lastly, this he calls the eternal succession. Genebrard. in Psalm.  this sense (under correction) that as young brides that are loath to leave their parents, yet for love of their husband, and hope of issue, are content to abandon their own native home, etc. So should she. 
Hespere, qui coelo lucet crudelior ignis,  
Qui natam poscas complexu avellere matris!   
Yet this for Christ's sake, and for the great reward. Therefore it follows, Then shall the King have pleasure in thy beauty, and in stead of thy parents thou shalt have children, even royal children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands. Whom we may construe to be the faithful, and believers in general, who are Kings & Priests, apoc. 1. a royal priesthood, (S. Peter himself calling them so) not the Apostles 
1. Pet 2. 5.  only, or their proper heirs, the Ministers. And to recall you to a place, Sir, of your own citing before, Esa. 32. 
〈◊〉 liny●d c. 〈◊〉. num 56.  Princeps digna Principe eogitabit, a Prince will devise of things worthy of a Prince. Their princehood then being thus, as I have described, you must look they should content themselves therewith, not moil with temporal matters impertinent. Whereunto even that persuades which you touch upon soon after, in the same number, viz. 43. that David says of them in the 19 Psalm, Sonus eorum, their sound is gone out into all worlds, and their words (as you read it) into the bounds of the earth. For by them they rule, by words and by sound, not by forcible engines. Whereas happily if the Pope should domineer no farther than his voice were heard, or his sound went out, preaching especially, not only a bulls hide might measure out his territories, as they say of Carthage, but ere a taper were clean burnt out, we might get forth of his confines, with greater ease, I suppose, then Pius quintus his nephew did, when his Uncle once discharged 
Masson in vitâ P●● V.  him, in such a sort, upon displeasure.  
§ 27. Nought remains that I know of, to be cleared in this Chapter, but your doughty collection upon the Bishop's words: If the twelve had a head to prevent schism, as S. Hierome says, or if a head may be appointed over a competent number, that he can conveniently provide for, and the same endued with a power proportionable, as the Bishop grants; much more had we need of one, after the Church is so multiplied &c. to exclude the disorders which are likelier to arise between many than few. To which I answer: That we are not so destitute of a Head, as F. T. imagines, nay of many subordinations of heads and governors, not without reference to a Principal, though we entertain no Pope. The Deacons to the Priests, the Priests to the Bishop, the Bishop must be subject to Christ, says Ignatius, 
Epist. 7 quae ad Smymeni●s.  even as he is to his father, and Pope he knows none. Dionysius also will show you how the Church is ranged, in his Epistle ad Demophilum, where he makes the scala thus: 
Apud Gelas. Cyzic. p. 172. ex edit. Morel. per Sal●oreum jesuitam; Episcopus habet locum capitis ecclesiae post Christum, preshyter Seraphicum. D aconus Cherubicum No Pope then but Anti-christ.  from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they call it, or the last pitch, is in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the coordinate faithful, not one but many. So the prime in Christendom (for we deny not a prime) with his Synod of Bishops, as the councils both of Basil and Constance would have it, though the Jesuits repugn, may serve for that use in the Church of God (not to call for Constantine.) which Peter among the twelve. Though Peter was the apt to be trusted with that place (principium actionis only, and the giver of the onset) because a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so likewise the whole College which he oversaw, neither that seditious, nor he tyrannous. But the Pope's authority being extravagant in itself, and no way lawful, his tyranny is not abated by the increase of the Church, or multitude of people, as the Adjoindrer disputes 
See him ad longum, num. 40. etc. Moses and Salomo, two famous patterns of government in Scripture, each of them complaining of the great multitudes of people committed to their charge, (and yet but a handful to the now Christian) marvel that Peter never did of his, if all was so entirely recommended to him, as they fable. See 1. King. 3. and Numb 11. 14. As for Quu ad baec idoneus, that is Paul's, not Peter.  out of his hidden Politics, but the more he curbs with it, the more cruelly he usurps. And indeed whereas the Bishop made two exceptions against the argument from Peter, one from the number of the people to be governed, the other from the nature of the authority to be exercised, he only smothers the one with the other, (saying, Tyrannies are sooner practised upon smaller states,) but answers neither.  
§ 28. One thing more, and so an end. Whereas our Adversary would bind the 
Adjoin Seeing that Peter was made head of the Apostles, 〈◊〉. of the Church, the Bishop cannot deny the same authority to. S. Peter's successors, for the same reason, especially since the succession of all the Apostles is failed in other Churches, saving only in the Church of Rome by our saviours providence, etc.  first place to Rome, by virtue, as he says, of succeeding Peter, the chief of the Apostles, num. 38. to omit of Peter's non comparuit at Rome, of which before, & sure the Scriptures take no knowledge of his arriving there, whereas S. Paul (says 
* Homil 55. in Act 2.  chrysostom) entered Rome like a King, or a General after sea-fight, quasi Rex post navalem pugnam at que victoriam, in regalissimam aulam istam ascendit; nay, as he speaks in another place, the very 
a Praefat. in Epist. Pauli. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pro Lege Manil.  fame of Paul's coming to Rome, composed matters, and put the city in order. The like whereof Tully rhetoricates of Pompey, and Plutarch reports as a truth of Philopoemen, that the opinion of his drawing near, caused the enemies to raise their siege: (to omit this,) 
b In Athanas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Pertinax himself in Herodian, lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Much more true in the Episcopal throne, than the Imperial.  Nazianzon will tell him, that no promise of grace goes currant with succession simply considered, and we are so far from acknowledging the Providence, which he speaks of, in preserving that Sea, that, to say nothing what we have groped with our own experience, concerning the Apostasy, not only Sedulius an ancient writer observes upon those words, Rom. 1. Obedientia vestra divulgata est pertotum mundum, that the Romans obedience was divulged 
Primas. 〈◊〉 in Epist. Paul. gives this reason why the Epistle to the Romans is set first. quiae scripta erat ad inferiores. I suppose it should be infirmiores, by that which follows. But that helps but little. And comparing all the churches to which the Apostle wrote, he makes Rome simply the worst And whereas now a days they conceit it to be such an armory of faith against all defects, he makes them so simple, that he says, nihil intelligebant, They understood nothing at all. As for their moral perfections, see Salvian de gubernat. dei. l. b. 7. Viciositas & impuritas quasi germanitas quaedam est Romanorum hominum, & quasi mens atque natura; quia thi praecipuè vicia, ubicunque Romani. Et ibid. Omne impuritatis scelus, omnis impudicitiae tur pitudo, à Romanu admittitur, a barbaris vindicatur. Et, avaritiae inhumanitas proprium est Romanorum penè omnium malum. Et, Induraverunt facies suas SUPER PETRAM. This is the super petram that he acknowledges in Rome. And lest you think he excuses them from perverse faith in the midst of so many moral corruptions, lib. 5. he says, Ipsae haereses barbarorum de ROMANI MAGISTERII pravitate fluxerunt. See Bernard. de Consyd. ad Eugen. lib. 4 c. 1 & 2. Quid tam notum seculis quam proteruia & fastus Romanorum etc. at large. Yet of late a French parasite, Flor. Rem. praises that sink, (which is the worse for continuance without all question) as the Paradise of God, and the dug of heaven. For he says it signifies mamilla in the Hebrew, childishly enough. De orig. haer. l. 5. c. 4. num. 5. 6. etc. One thing I allow that he observes, that it was ab initio obnoxia incendijs, always in danger of fire since first it was a city: that we may believe that one day it shall be burnt clean down, as it is in the Revelation.  throughout the world, divulgata magis quam laudata, rather divulged then praised, but the Apostle himself is thought to point at as much, both Rom. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, else thou shalt be cut off, even thou for all thy privilege, and Rom. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to the Bishop and all of that Sea, from time to time, viz. not to arrogate too much unto himself, not to be wise in his own conceit, as if he were that infallible one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

To his fourth Chapter.  
Basil, Nazianzen, chrysostom, Austen, their authorities; The BISHOP'S Answer stands good against his frivolous exceptions. And of the eight Popes, who living in S. Austin's time, exercised (as the Adjoinder dreams) an Universal and supreme authority.  
§ 1. NExt are Basil, Nazianzen, chrysostom, and Austen. To the place of S. Basil, De judicio Dei, Ille beatus qui caeteris praelatus discipulis fuit, cui claves regni coelestis commissae;. i. that blessed man (Peter) who was preferred before the rest of the Disciples, to whom the keys of the heavenly kingdom were committed, etc. he says the Bishop hath answered nothing to any purpose. num. 5. in the end. These are the cracks of this insolent patch; the very impatience whereof, were able to divert any man from his business. But how does he take away the Bishop's answer, who yields him even more than S. Basil says in favour of Peter, and yet still 
numb. 2 ipso fine.  forsooth no Monarch, to return his own words, scoffing though he use them, not ashamed now in plain terms to plead for the Monarchy of spiritual men. I know Bishoprics have been called so, as by Hilary, Pope, in his Epistle ad Leontium, but never in this sense. And so Paschasinus (among Leo's Epistles it is) finds a Corona in his great Patron, to wish honour and good success to. But these are baubles. To the point in hand then. If the argument stand in BLESSED, that Peter was a Monarch, because called blessed, either by our Saviour, or S. Basil, to omit how many others have been called blessed, both men and women, in holy Scripture, (they reckon some seven in all, I trow, of the feminine kind) to whom no Monarchy was decreed; Et nos cum Petro beati, says Epiphanius, and we are blessed with 
Praefat. Anchor. Idem Origen. in Matth. vide c. 5. huius.  Peter, if we hold fast his confession. Nay, they say when Bellarmine's uncle came to the Popedom, the times were so bad, that it was thought a man could not be Pope and saved, 
Masson. in Marcello 2.  that is, Pope and blessed. Therefore what doth this argument from beatus on God's name? But to omit this I say, the Bishop scanning S. Basils' words, finds Basil the best opener of his own meaning, both concerning the blessedness of Peter, and his being preferred before the rest, which is the firmer hold of the two, for you to trust to, if you be wise. For immediately thus it follows in S. Basil, after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preferred before all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, who only was witnessed of more than others, and was pronounced blessed before others. Does not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now, limit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Bishop had said? Does not the honour that he received, to be witnessed of by Christ, as a little before he had witnessed of Christ, and our saviours pronouncing him blessed in plain terms, (which imports no jurisdiction, whatsoever you fancy) limit his preferment in S. Basils' style? And though no such thing were in S. Basil, yet how many ways are there of preferment, besides making Monarch, or installing one supreme Prince of the world? Yourself, Sir, can tell us soon after very saucily, num. 10. of this Chapt. that the King can show favour to some one subject, and yet not make him Primate of the province. So might Peter be preferred, and yet not made a Sovereign prince, much more. Though the more I consider it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is less than our PREFERRED in English. For he means, he preferred him in voice & verdict, not in real exaltation, as they commonly take it. And that is it which the Bishop answered out of S. Basils' own words: preferred, but how, quoth he? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let us look into the third title of Peter's style, as it runs in S. Basil, Cui claves, etc. to whom the keys of the heavenly Kingdom were committed. But do you see how? Not only the kingdom is described here, to be heavenly, not earthly, which Peter received the keys of, (what is this then, I wonder, to temporal Monarchies, which the very place so counterbuffs, and yet they would feign establish, and establish from hence?) but how does it make for Peter's sovereignty, since as the Bishop hath most pregnantly answered before, he received the keys indeed as Basil says, but whether for himself, or for the Church, Basil shows not, Austen does. You say, you have refuted this, and 
Cap. 1.  I think we have answered you. Cum caeteris communicandas claves accepit, says Optatus himself. Will you have so many Monarches, as received the keys, that are afraid of two a little after?  
§ 2. Your impudent putting of a Monarchy upon the Pope, by your quaint definition, as you think at least, holds no water, and much less fire. A Monarch is he (say you) that governs for the common good, not for his own. Let us believe the Pope to be that single-hearted Charity, quaerens non quae sua sunt sed aliorum (aliorum indeed too often, for the devil himself gives over seeking his own, if S. Bernard say true) is this all that is required to make a Monarch? Is there no difference between government and government? Let Gelasius tell you, de vinculo Anathematis, to say nothing of Chrysost. a little before quoted, or hath not our Saviour himself, a Vos autem non sic, to spoil your definition, and to mar his Monarchy?  
§ 3. I might tell you of S. Basil in this very work, what respect God hath planted in us to Kings, by the hand of nature, which respect you would so wickedly purloin from them, and carry clean away to the Popes, by perverting the Father's words about S. Peter. I have 
Idem habet S. Cyprian. tract. de idolorum vanit. Rex unus est apibus, dux unus ingregibut. Vide & Hieron. in epist. ad Rustuum, Grues unum scquuntur ordine literato. It is a scholarlike order to be subject to Monarchy in the politic estate. Also Chrysost. most excellently, Come in 13. ad Rom. (which comment. upon all that discourse of the Apostle, for obedience to Magistrates, though they be infidels, the Jesuits are so confronted with, as if it had been purposely written against their newfangle devices) finds the like evident prints of sovereignty in Bees, in Cranes, in flocks of sheep, etc. yea, in the bottom of the sea, among the fishes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence Seneca perhaps, l. 1. de Clemen. c. 19 Natura Regem commenta est.  scene a swarm of bees, says he, etc. But when he shows what is answerable in the Church of God, to that which a King is in human societies, he dreams not of a Pope to supply the analogy, but of the word of God; that is our King (says he) and the fall from that makes way to Antichrist: just as S. Paul says of the dissolution of the Empire, Donec tollatur è medio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That you may see by what means the Popedom thriveth, 
b On the other side, our Saviour Christ came into the world, when intrusion and usurpation of Kingdoms was rifest: as if his errand had been among others, to give Monarchies their right, and to cut short the encroachers, says Haymo. Halberstat. conc. hyem, in Epiphan. Dom. Quia enim deficienti●… principibus ex judi, alienus & extraneus atque falsus etc.  namely by the fall of Princes, and what thrives with the Popedom, namely Antichrist, and the extinguishing of God's word, which is our King, says S. Basil. But I come to Nazianzen.  
Nazianzen 4. And though I affect brevity, yet Nazianzenes place I will set down somewhat more fully, the rather because our man says, the Bishop thought some words as sore as a bile, and therefore set them down in his margin indeed, but durst not touch them in his text; those sore words. As if any would do the one, I mean print them in the margin, that was afraid of the other, that is to speak to them in the text. For why might he not better have left them clean out? But hear we Nazianzen, & those words at length. See if any thing could be brought to check them more. De moderate. in disput. seruandâ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Seest thou of the Disciples of Christ, all high and worthy to be chosen, one is called a rock, and hath the foundations of the Church entrusted to him, another is more loved, and leans upon the breast of jesus, and the rest brook this praelation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that, whereas afore he argued out of S. Basil from praelatus est, we have now prelation first of more than one. But proceed. When they must go up to the mountain, that he might glister in his shape, and show his godhead, and discover him that lay hid in the flesh, who go up with him? For all are not beholders of the miracle. Peter, and james, and john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which both were, and were reputed to be afore the others. Afore we had two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preferred; now we have three, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that were, and were reckoned to be afore the rest. But who were with him in his agony, and a little before his death, when he went aside and prayed? the same again. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the order that our Saviour took in preferring. It follows. The rest of their comeliness, and orderliness, how great? Peter asks this question, Philip that, judas that, Thomas that, another that, and neither all the same, nor one man all, but every man particularly, and one by one; and as you would say, every one thereafter as he needed. But of that what think you? Philip would say a thing, and dares not alone, but takes Andrew to him. Peter hath a question to ask, and sets on john by a nod. Where is surliness here? where is ambition? How could they more show themselves the disciples of Christ, that meek and humble hearted one for us, a servant for us his servants, and who in all things returned all the glory to his Father, that he might show us an example of orderliness and modesty, which we are so far from observing, that I would think it were well with us, if we were not bold-hardier then all beside, etc. Now let F. T. plead for primacy from hence, and the pride that our Saviour suppressed in his disciples so long ago. You see, that if our Saviour preferred one, he preferred more, and the name of preferment, serves them all alike, no better of Peter, no worse of james, of john, etc. So true it is, that the Bishop answered, of many monarches, to be picked from hence, if any at all. But what say we to the words, as sore as a bile, That Peter had sibi credita Ecclesiae fundamenta, the foundations of the Church entrusted to him? Neither does this prove monarchy, nor supreme magistracy. It is nothing but an exegesis of what went before, that Peter was a rock & not a rock for nothing, but to build upon, and to carry (as the rest doc, Apoc. 21. for I must not leave urging him with the Bishop's answer, though I see it anger him) the foundations of the Church, though to him, more particularly confessing Christ, it was said also more particularly. But if this was the reward of his constant profession, as no man doubts, and the text most clearly shows, to be termed rock, and withal he confessed in the name of the rest, as Bellarmine 
De Rom. Pontif. l●b 1 c 12. ex Chrysost. Hieron. & Aug. Petrus pro omnibus locutus est. Add Cyprian. l. 1. ep. 3. ad Co●…. Petrus unus pro omnibus loquent, & ecclesie v●● respondent.  grants, and the Fathers affirm, who sees not that this title must belong to the rest, to be rocks all, as well as he? and therefore the Bishop's answer remains most sound, that he is a rock indeed, and bears the foundations, but with others. And so his instance vanishes, that a King may bear one more favour than another, though he make him not so great an officer or prelate. For, as we grant, the pre-eminence that Nazian. speaks, to have been yielded S. john, to lean upon Christ's breast, did come from greater love than to Peter; so we deny, that Peter was a prerogative of jurisdiction, though it was the honouring of him in an other meet kind, answerable to the confession, wherein he outstripped his fellows. For as he spoke first, so the terms of honour first lighted upon him, no authority, Sir. And to be graced with those terms directed to him, was the particular pre-eminence that Nazianzen speaks of, answerable to S. john's leaning upon Christ's bosom in particular. Though it is true, that john also signified for others, as we showed 
Cap●…ag. 25. 26. etc.  before out of S. Austen, as well as in Peter the others were included, that allowed his confession. And truly if it be good arguing from the prerogatives of Peter and john in Nazianzen, the one to be called a rock, another to lean upon our saviours bosom, I see not but john excelled Peter herein. For his honour was real, Peter's verbal (hitherto) though I know that Christ makes all good in the end which he promises. Peter's doubtful, and subject to expositions; john's clear, evident, and ocular. Peter, you say, was the first stone in the foundation after Christ, but john we see, immediately leaned upon his breast; which breast, if it be, (as certainly it is) the foundation of the Church, is not this a type, who hath the greater interest therein of the twain? But your way should have been, if you had not been that fumbler, to have argued thus out of our grants; That all the Apostles were the foundations of the Church, and Peter had the foundations committed to his charge, as Nazianzen says, therefore Peter was made governor of the Apostles. As if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were any thing but the exegesis of a rock, as I said, ordained for building, itself the foundation, and carrying the foundations as you would say; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an usual scheme. Which was the cause that the Bishop meddled not with that bile, having said enough to it in the word Rock before. But suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a distinct sense, will you say they were committed to him to be governed? Does the earth govern the heavens and all, because they are in a manner founded upon it? What preposterousness is this? or what faith is there in him, that would so falsify the very word of faithfulness itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I mean, in his 8. numb. where he deflects it to government, all too unseasonably?  
§ 5. As for chrysostom, which is the next, never any thing so ridiculous, as he shows himself there, in defending the Cardinal. Only the Cardinal owes him so much the more, for doing him service, in so desperate a cause. Tantò plus debes, sext, quòd erubui. 
Mart.  Homil. in Matth. 55. Cuius pastor & caput homo piscator, speaking belike of Peter and the Church; that is to say, whose Pastor and Head a fisherman is. Though to be a Pastor of the Church, is a small title in S. Peter's style. For first, a pastor is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, captivut pastor: non Rec pastor: as the Papists would. Vide joseph. l. 1. contra 〈◊〉.  a word of reproach, and baseness, if we believe S. Basil. Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet transferred to Church-uses, it is nothing singular, but comprehends, whom not? both Apostles, and others. Dedit quosdam pastors, Eph. 4. He gave some to be Pastors, and to what end? Not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to keep them right that are once converted to the faith, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to gain them that are without, (Aquinas so distinguishes them upon the place) which the Papists would make to be the Pope's proper care, to set men on work to convert the infidels and unbelievers. But here we see it is common to collegium pastorum, to the many pastors, not to unus pastor only, Eccl. 13. or to the master of the assemblies. Even as Demetrianus of Alex. sent Pantaenus into 
Hierom. epist. ad Magnum.  India, to convert the Brachmanes, into India Athanasius sent Frumentius, Sozom. l. 2. c. 23. 
* Apud Theod in Eccl. lust. l. 5. c. 4.  Meletius sent Stephanus into Germanicia: S. Austen of his own head writes to the Madaurenses, to convert them from Paganism, Epist. 42. Victor Vticensis yields us another example hereof, lib. 1. de persecut. Vandal. which I will set down somewhat at large, because I am fallen into this argument. Martinianus (saith he) Saturianus, and two more brothers of them, being sold by Gensericus that cruel tyrant, took Capsur King of Mauritania, keeping his Court in that place of the wilderness, which is called Caprapicti, what by their preaching, what by their living, (and yet but 
* At lest Martinianus consented to marry a maid called Maxima, which you may do well to see Mr F. T. whether you will allow to Churchmen, or no●… though we hear you have taken this liberty to yourself, whatsoever you are.  lay-folke, for so much as appears by the story, and moreover sold for bondslaves, whereas the Jesuits think that piety can find no work to do in captivity, but hath her arms and her legs chopped off, as Solomon says in another matter, only exercising herself in a pleasurable estate) tali modo ingentem multitudinem gentilium barbarorum Christo Domino lucraverunt (so speaks Victor) ubi anteà nulla fama Christiani nominis erat divulgata: i. gained a great multitude of Gentiles and Barbarians to the Lord Christ, where before the Christian name was not heard by fame. And all this they effected, afore they had help from Rome; afterward they sought, and found there, as reason was. TUNC DEINDE COGITATUR quid fieret etc. So as Rome itself did not presently come into their minds for this matter, but that other places might have afforded the same aid at need, and like enough usually so they did. This Victor. But now, as I was saying, and to return to the authority quoted out of S. chrysostom: Whatsoever become of pastor, which though we find not where he quotes it in S. Chrys. yet with all our hearts we ascribe to Peter, (I would he could keep there; God appeared to Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not contending, but keeping sheep, says S. Basil where before, but the Pope he hath left the one for the other) yea and ecclesiae pastor, pastor of the Church, of the Catholic Church. (So Clemens makes all Bishops, Constitut. lib. 6. cap. 14. much more then, an Apostle.) What says he to caput, that Peter is head of the Church, which we find not in the Greek? You shall hear his answer, & cum riseritis ineptias hominis, then think as you list, for my discourse will soon be at an end. I answer (says he) that though they 
num. 12.  be not now in the Greek copies, which the Bishop hath seen, yet it little importeth, seeing that the Latin translator found them, as it is most probable in the Greek copy, which he followed, and S. Chrysost. says as much in effect, both there, and in other places. Number the absurdities. First, not now. Belike then heretofore they were in. Who took them out? you shall hear his own guess, num. 18. Either the Grecians themselves in the time of their schism from the Roman Church, or perhaps some of our late heretics, who have taken upon them (TAKEN 
So cap. 1. hu●us, Al●●ate not finding the uncertain Epistle of Pope john in some ancient copies, suspects the heretics (as he calls them) to have razed▪ it out.  UPON THEM) to print the Greek in these days. Perhaps, says he, so doubtfully he speaks, and perhaps neither. But if the Printers of these days have picked them out, why show ye not some ancienter copies at least; that have them? Not any (say you) which the Bishop hath seen. Hath any then, trow, that yourself hath seen? or that the Cardinal hath seen, or any other? If they have, why do they not name them, why not produce them? Not only none hath them, that the Bishop hath seen, but show you which of all hath not been seen by the Bishop, that we may believe they are yet extant in some other copies. The rather, because the Cardinal alleging the same place in his controversies, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. c. 25. cries out by parenthesis, as if he had cause to triumph, Ecce nomen capitis Calvino inauditum, behold the name of Head which Calvin never heard of. And the Gentleman by the way, as offended with our men's ambitious 
In like sort Florimund. Remund. 〈◊〉 orig haeres. part. 1. shows himself very much offended with those of our Divines, that translated Greek authors, either historians, or dogmatists, etc.  forwardness forsooth, calls it taking upon them, to print the Greek Fathers. 
* Numb. 16. 3.  You take too much upon you, Moses and Aaron, said they of old, or as David's brethren, 
a 1. Sam. 17. 28.  We know thy pride. For our defence would not be taken, although we should say with David, Was there not a cause? Belike they should have tarried till F. T. would have given the onset, the signal to the battle: as no man among the 
b Brisson. in Persicis.  Persians might shoot the dear, till the King had begun. But how if the man be so modest, that we should have stayed, God knows how long, to our no small disadvantage, ere he had presumed to venture upon the work? Shall it notwithstanding be called arrogance, or precipitation, in our men, or taking upon them? crass pudet me tui, o stultos Cottas etc. I 
Cic. in Pis.  am sorry for Eton College, and my honourable and worthy friend Sir Henry Savile, that he used no more advise afore his setting forth of chrysostom, but rashly so precipitated into a work, not for his mowing, without the Pope's leave. But this complaint comes all too late now. And no force. Yet the Latin translator found them there, as it is most probable (you say) in the ancient Greek copies. Why not you rather foisted them into his translation? or, what if he were false and partial to your side, as you said even now, the Grecians were to theirs, and so put them in where he found them not? Shall we not therefore be judged by the authentical Greek copies? And yet, alas, poor Grecians, 
Plut.  well may I pity them; upon whom (as gardeners set rue by roses, for these to purge all their venomous qualities upon the other, to whom such noisomeness is but natural; so now) as if they served for nothing else, other men's faults and 'scapes must be derived. And shall that be called chrysostom, in the trying of the question between the King and the Cardinal, which is no where to be seen now but in the Translator of chrysostom? But the last excels. Though it be not extant totidem verbis, in the place quoted by the Cardinal, yet in effect and substance it is to be found, you say, both in that Homily and elsewhere. Who ever heard such paltering as this? The words must be brought, and when they are not to be found, the sense must serve. So a man may say, that the deposition of Kings, and worse too, is authorised by the Apostle, Hebr. 7. 7. not that he speaks a word to that 
And indeed Pope Nicholas argues so in gond earnest, out of that place, from Benedicitur to M●▪ l●d●●ur. Epist. ad Michael Impor. Tom. 3. Com. Sur.  purpose, but, minor à maiori benedicitur, this proves the superiority of Priests to Kings, in a jesuits construction, and therefore interficitur, or deturbatur, and what not? Is this to give us the sense for the words? the spirit for the letter, quoth you? or do you so maintain godliness in the power of it, Tit. 1? And yet supoose this were right, where is the sense, or the substance that you talk of? If in other places of chrysostom, why are not those places quoted at the first? why do you choose to dwell upon a counterfeit one? Are you not ashamed to run gadding thus up and down, first from words to sense, then from one place to another, to make your lamps to shine with borrowed oil, begged rather, nay stolen apparently, after the thrones are set, and the judge is come? On the other side, how direct is the Bishop in his proceedings? how square, as I may say, and exact every way? Hath he not satisfied the Cardinal to the very last farthing, and paid the score which he brought to convince the King withal? His MAJESTY calls for the Fathers of such a compass, to disprove him. And you see how they are brought, not only speaking by an interpreter, and not the faithfullest neither, whereas there should be no compromitting at all in so serious a canvas: but no tinker in his kettleworke was ever more foully foiled, than he in avouching the Cardinal's quotations. Lysander's two skins to patch the one the other, so he his words with senses, nay one text with another, is the most natural representation of his dodging here. In so much, as if I should not answer a word more in the behalf of the Bishop, yet you see how he hath performed as much as he undertook, namely, to maintain the kings challenge against the Cardinal, about the judgement of the Fathers within such a space, and this fellow cannot refute him without such shameful shifts, as lay him open to more disgrace. Yet to two places I will say somewhat, for the other are not worth the while.  
§ 6. Out of the Homily aforesaid, Peter was a diamond, jeremy a brazen pillar, or an iron wall. And which meant Chrysost. for the stronger of the two? or did he mean to magnify one above the other at all? yet you should speak to their authority, and let their constancy alone. Their virtue is one thing, their place another, howsoever how confound them. Unless you think, that because with you place goes for virtue, (witness Hildebrande in Dictatis) therefore with them virtue may infer place too, which is nothing so. But let us hear the rest. jeremy was set over one nation, Peter over the whole world. And what is this, but the difference of the old testament and the new? the field and the garden? fons signatus Cant. 4. and fons patens or reclusus Zach. 13. the breaking down of the partition-wall, Eph. 2. the rending of the vail, etc. I hope every minister in the new testament, not Peter only, hath not the land of Palestine, which might be jeremy's limitation, but the latitude of the whole world, to deal with. Yea it is your own doctrine, c. 2. numb. 50. and 52. that as far as the Church reaches, (which at this day reaches through out the whole world,) the office and function of every minister may extend. But the Apostles specially, between whom and Peter, herein, there was no odds, whatsoever difference there might be in their provinces, as they parted them among themselves. Yea, but Peter might have chosen Mathias Apostle without communicating with the rest, for which you quote chrysostom hom. 3. in Acta. Quid? anon licebat ipsi eligere? Licebat, & quidem maximè, etc. And again in the same place, quam est feruidus? quam agnoscit creditum à Christo gregem? Might not he choose? yea verily he might. Then: How fervent is he? how doth he acknowledge the flock of Christ committed to his charge? No doubt he regards the flock of Christ, in speaking first in the congregation, about the choice of an Apostle, which much concerned the Church at that time, not to be destitute of a pastor, in the defect of judas. And this was grex creditus, which S. Peter so regarded, not the Apostles his flock, as you would feign have it: as if he were their Tutor, and they his pupils, (as you were wont to appoint 
Polydor. Virgil. Anglic. hist. l. 21. in Hen 7. Cic. de sirab. 5.  our King his Tutor, Nos tutores Regibus misimus, right Romans:) but the flock which he regarded jointly with the Apostles, was the Church in general, whose benefit he provided for, in calling the company together, for the choice of an Apostle, judas being removed. And S. Chrysost. says but so, as yourself English him. How doth he every where speak first? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. l. 2. c. 13. Not for any authority then, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his virtues sake. And what order can you imagine, where many meet, unless one speak first? then, why not Peter he, and yet not superior to the rest? As for Peter's power to choose an Apostle of his own head, it is marvel it should so be, since Bellarmine gives him not power to choose the Deacons, (much less than the Apostles) without consent of the multitude, holding it to be enough that they were not chosen against his will, nor without his assent. de Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 16. In the choosing of Mathias, we find no less than an hundred and twenty to have come together. Act. 1. 15. whereof some were women, v. 14. of the same: and not Peter, but the lot settled it upon Mathias, v. 26. What then says chrysostom, whom you quote, that Peter might have done this alone, and of his own authority? You quote him lamely, which you object to the Bishop about Cyrill and Austen, but how falsely, we have showed. The next words in Chrysost. confute you plainly, if you had durst to allege them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And beside (says he) he had not yet received the holy Ghost. Do you think then, that Peter might have chose the Apostle by authority given him from our Saviour Christ, to whom Christ had not yet given the gift of discerning, or the holy Ghost to direct him? where is your axiom, that you can brave us with elsewhere, Qui dat formam, dat omnia 
Cap. 3. num. 40. Qui dat esse. etc.  consequentia formam? or where do you find God to allow the end, without means sufficient to achieve that end? We are therefore to understand, that if Chrysost. say (as he says but at uncertain) that Peter might have made the Apostle himself, he might upon presumption of the multitudes good will, who would not have contested with him in such a case likely, as honouring him for his virtue, etc. In which regard he commends to us the meekness of those times, for our imitation, and as he says, that Peter did nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so he marvels that S. james would not interpose a word, being at home as we would say, and Bishop of Jerusalem, where this assembly was held. Neither last do I see, how, ius constituendi par omnibus habebat, can so handsomely be drawn out of Chrysostom's text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the commoner reading in the greek copies, and denies it rather. Thus much of chrysostom.  
§. 7. About the place of S. Austen, serm. 1. 24. de Temp. I have touched before in a word or two, your notable ignorances, with no less malice, which you bewray in the misconstruing of the Bishop's words. Componit salutem, &, medicorum filii, &, Etsi omnes, non ego. You complain in your 10. Chap. of the obscureness of the Bishop's style, and he seems to you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at noon day. I believe it verily, your apprehension is so good. Senecaes' fool said, the house was dark 
〈◊〉.  after herself was fallen blind: And S. Paul afore his conversion, was dazzled with the exceeding lightsomness, as S. chrysostom notes most excellently: but soon after he 
Sir 4. in Apost Paul. tom. 8. Nemo benè v●d●●, nisi qui prius 〈◊〉, exeundo Pauli. Chrysost.  saw clearest upon his eye-sights taking from him. An image of the Papists (specially our English) that are offended with nothing more than the abundance of that light, that shines in their country at this day, whom a little of the old darkness perhaps would reduce to their right minds; as mad folks are tamed (they say) with withdrawing of the light from them. But omitting complaints, quae ne tum quidem gratae, tùm necessariae, what say you to the answers to S. Austin's place? Three exceptions did the Bishop take unto it. First, 
1 2  that it was cited out of a doubtful work. Secondly, that it mentioned but a crazed head, and therefore not to be brought for honesty sake, to prove Peter's primacy, which another would disprove it by rather. Thirdly, that S. Austen, not in asermon de Tempore, but in a lawful Synod, cures this head, by confining him to his bounds, and restraining appeals from beyond the sea, which you brook not. The first of these is confirmed divers ways. 
I 1  One, that the title of those Sermons is not sincere, neither given by S. Austen at the first, nor yet known by that name diverse hundreds of years, after his death. And if S. Austen wrote no Sermons de tempore, why should we yield, as to S. Austin's authority, to that which is quoted by the name of de Tempore? Yet you say, they are taken out of other his works. Let those works than be quoted by their own names: let every witness appear in his own likeness. The Emperor would not trust the man that had died his 
Quia barbam caputque tinxerat, iccirco rem●… eum de collegio ●udicum P●ut. in apothegm. at Philip.  own beard, he suspected salshood by such small tokens. And where the name is counterfeit, what credit can there be either in the man, or in his verdict? Does not such an one rather profess that he means craft? Innominatus habetur pro nullo, is the axiom of the law. And why not then perversè nominatus, much more? Besides, you have so chopped the number of these Sermons, yea the substance too, now adding, then diminishing, sometime amplifying, and then again withdrawing, in your divers editions, that no Euripus more uncertain to build faith upon. And yet these you bring forsooth to confute his MAJESTY, and to disprove his challenge. For where you say, they were so called and culled out from the rest, for the ease and commodity of the Readers: I see not what more ease can be in giving them a false name then a true, or what commodity can arise from hence to the Reader, unless to be abused and deceived, be a commodity. Yet such are the commodities, Egraunt, that you Jesuits deal in, when you set forth Authors. But lastly, the Sermon itself, bewrays itself, to be none of S. Austin's. As what think you of that clause in the latter end of it? Agnovit enim sibi ut homini peccati irrepsisse perniciem, quod totum hactenus ut memini divinitùs procuratum est. Have you so lost your smell, as not to difcerne between this, and the true S. Austen? I say nothing of that which follows, which no wise man but would abjure for S. Austin's, Videte quemadmodum exiguae culpae permittitur subiacere tantus Apostolus: (first, who ever called this exigua cupla, to deny our Saviour? which Bellarmine himself, when he excuses 
De Rom. Pont. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. c, 28.  all that may be, cannot deny to have been a most horrible trespass.) And again, ut emendatus elationis vicio atque correctus. Did S. Austen ever say, emendatus vicio? The rest is as good, but I spare. Yet, Quemadmodum eum dominus tui causâ patitur circumscribi delicto, would not be passed over. I leave it to your thinking. In the same sermon, he makes Peter to have been a stark Pelagian; Per solum liberum arbitrium, non addito dei adiutorio, promiserat se pro. Domino moriturum. 
The Pope an 〈…〉. 4  And yet you bring this to prove Peter's primacy, and Lordship paramount, over the whole Church, for direction sake. As for your sleeveless shift, that S. Austen wrote Sermons of the solemn tunes of the year, of Saints days also, etc. so hath the Bishop preached as much as any, of the yearly festivals, (and long may he ay pray God) yet he never thought he had made sermons de Tempore, till you told him so. The thing no doubt is ancient, for the substantial object, to solemnize the appointed times of the year, as the Quadragesima, or the Ascension, or the Natalitia, and the like, which you instance in, with suitable sermons: but Sermons de Tempore, is too short a name, though we take in de Sanctis too, to comprehend all, sith there were many more Sermons made, both by Austen, and others, upon ordinary Sundays, which are reducible to neither part of the aforesaid division. As for that you allege out of Possidius, that S. Austen made sermons in vigilijs paschae, upon Easter eve, whereof this, you say, was one in all likelihood, being made on the Wednesday before Easter, is it not as mad as all the rest, or shall we think it likely, that Easter eve fell upon the wednesday before Easter? What confidence hath the jesuit, that would boar such holes in his Readers nose, and paint his face, while he lies broad awake? Yet numb. 56. of this Chapter, you find that which was 14. year after the time, as fit as the Eve, you say, to the holy day, belike that we may believe you the rather here, of three days distance between the Eve and the Feast, when at another time the Eve sell out just 14. year, you say, afore the holy day. And so much to justify the Bishop's first exception.  
§. 8. To the second you answer, that Bellarmine had no 
TWO  reason to be greatly ashamed of the place that mentions Peter's frailty, for even that confirms his primacy most wonderfully. How so? For having had trial of infirmities, he was so much the apt to succour others, or to show compassion to others. Truly I doubt not, but Peter's fall made him the tendererhearted to repenting sinners, yet not so much in his particular, or for any primacy, as representing the Church, and the whole body of the ministry, as you were told out of S. Austen, de Agone Christiano. c. 30. Else only Popes should be tender hearted. Though S. Austen also in the place, that you newly quoted, Serm. de Temp. 124. says it fell the rather upon Peter, because he was a fierce and a choleric man, (not only fervent as others call him) as his practice showed upon poor Malchus, and therefore it was meet he should be abated so. Howsoever it be, the Bishops exception to the Cardinal is very good, that a better place would have been brought in all reason out of S. Austen, so copious an author, to prove Peter's headship by, then that which implies the crazines of it, even before we are showed to what use the soundness of it serves. Neither does the Bishop argue, as you wickedly slander him, that Peter by frailty denied our Saviour, ergò he is not head of the Church. And yet it were as good as Bellarmine's argument, and better too, which you use in this place, that his headship is confirmed, or established by his fall. As if none could fall any whit foully, but from the height of supremacy over the Church. Was it nothing to fall after his exaltation to the Apostleship, after other graces which he enjoyed not a few? Did not this make our Eutychus his fall the more dangerous, that he tumbled down even from such a window? That you may see how many primacies were in Peter, as it were stories in a building, though no such monarchical pre-eminence ensue: which primacies the Bishop never denied. And if Peter's gentleness, which he learned by his fall, reach no further, then to assoil offenders upon their repentance, as I see not what other you here aim at, you know that office belongs to all Priests in general, as well as to the head of Priests, and therefore no Popedom follows fromhence any way at all.  
§ 9 To your place of S. Gregory, hom. 22. in evang. that our Lord intended Petrum praeferre cunctae Ecclesiae, we return S. Greg. l. 4. in 1. Reg. cap. ultimum, that Paul was made caput nationum, where caput is more than praeferri ecclesiae, sith every minister is set over the Church, as we have often told you, Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum, vocatur ad servitutem 
As the service of God is the truest liberty, so the ministers regiment is but service.  ●●tius ecclesiae, says Origen. hom. 6. in Esaeiam, each Bishop is servant to the whole Church: as otherwhere, Ad imperium vocantur totius ecclesiae, qui Episcopi creantur. Goffrid. Tract. de Ordin. etc. for the sense is all one, and every where you see the latitude of their bounds; and in a word, they are nothing but circumlocutions of their Apostleships both Paul's and Peter's. Lastly, you abuse the Bishop intolerably, in saying he taunts at Peter's fall, who is of another spirit, and knows that Saints can, pugnare de genu, or as S. chrysostom 
Seneca.  says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Saints are gloririous even in their falls: but he refutes Peter's proud vaunt, Etsi omnes non tamen ego, by his own experience, which is lawful to do, I mean to take down the confident and the overweener with a sober gleek, as even Aristotle can 
Arist. Rhetor. Cic. de orat. 2.  teach you, Eth. 4. and elsewhere. So much also of his second exception.  
§ 10. It is long before he will understand the third, as having no mind to it, loath to come at it. It stands in this. That S. Austen, not a counterfeit Sermon of Austin's, but himself in person, and sitting in Council, neither flourishing before the people in a bastard homily, about Peter's prerogatives (which we must tell you again & again, are not strait the Popes, though you presume so,) but consulting most advisedly in an assembly of Fathers about the Bishop of Rome, (which is the man in controversy, and against whom our plea lies, not against Peter,) I say, that S. Austen consulting about the Pope, and his authority to hear appeals, in a council of Africa, is not fearful to censure them with excommunication, as many as shall appeal beyond the sea, that is to Rome, says Balsamon, that is to the Pope say we, and you will not deny. Which how could S. Austen and others have done, I would feign know of you, if they had been persuaded of his universal power over the Christian world!  
§ 11. Here you cast mists, and fogs, and railings. But passing by them, as the Moon does by the barking of a curre-dogge, let us take you as you lie. You deduct three points from the Bishop's words, as you say, and you call them three lies of his, in little more than three lines. Usual modesty, but let us view your parts. The first, That the Pope had no further authority, but over the Church of Rome in S. Austin's time. The second, That no man might appeal to Rome, out of afric, in those days. The third, That S. Austen never acknowledged those three Popes, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, to be heads of the Church, and yet cured S. Peter's disease in them. The first, say you, will be clear by the discussing of the second and the third. But how if the Bishop never affirmed the first? neither is any such thing to be gathered out of his words? What needs your second and third to refute this? Why rather do you not bend against the second, and third, for their own sakes, to show that all Appeals were not cut off, by the Fathers, out of afric to Rome, or that S. Austen cured the swelling disease in the Pope's aforesaid? Does not this show, that you neither want impudence, and yet want matter? since the Bishop's words, that may sound that way to your first proposition, are only these, If ever he be healed (viz. the Pope) let him be head of the Church of Rome, as he was in S. Austin's time, but let no man appeal, etc. And is this as much as that the Pope had no authority over more than Rome? whereas the Bishop neither denies his Western Patriarkship, 
Ci●… says of one, Quod nondum potestate poterat, ob●i●u●t authoritate. So as power & authority go not always together, though the jesuit confound them.  nor otherwise the great sway that he might justly carry throughout the rest of Christendom, out of the eminency of his place, especially if joined with virtues answerable, though still his Diocese were but particular. But as for Appeals, what more plain, for the proving that S. Austen censured all such Appellants out of afric to the sea of Rome, with excommunication, then that which we read in the Council of Milevitum, Can. 22. enacted both by him, and divers other Bishops there? Whosoever shall think fit to appeal beyond the Sea, let no person within afric receive him to fellowship, or to communion. First therefore you turn away, and will not understand, till divers sections after, any such Canon or Council, but tell us of a letter written to Pope Celestine by the African Bishops, which, you say, was petitory, but containing no Decree nor demand, as altogether resting in Celestines pleasure, whether he would grant it, or no. I will set down the words, that the truth may be seen. Though this I must premise, that it was nothing unbeseeming the holy Fathers, to use reverent terms, even of petition and request to Pope Celestine, when they sued for no more than their own right, as the Apostle S. Peter, and divers others in the like cases, I beseech you brethren, abstain etc. Sapientem omnia prius quam armis experiri decet; it is the old saying: and, Responsio mollis frang it iram. So here. Strictè exigo, & strictè praecipio, is for the Pope to his Catholics, whom he makes coneys. But the words are these: Our due salutations remembered, and done: We entreat, and earnestly pray you, that hereafter you will not lightly give audience to those that come from hence to you, neither any more receive such to the communion, as we excommunicate: because your Reverence shall easily perceive that order taken by the Nicene Council. For if there appear a proviso for inferior Clerks and laymen, how much more would the Synod have the same observed in Bishops, that being excommunicated in their own Province, they should not be suddenly, hastily, or unduly restored to the communion by your holiness? And likewise your holiness must repel these wicked refuges of Priests, and other Clergy men [to Rome,] as becometh you: for that by no determination of the Fathers, this is derogated from the Church of Africa: and the Nicene Canons do most evidently commit both inferior Clergymen, and the Bishops themselves, to their own Metropolitans. No doubt they most wisely and rightly provide, that all matters should be ended in the places where they first arose: neither shall the grace of the holy Ghost be wanting to any Province, by the which equity may be gravely weighed, and stoutly followed, by the Priests of Christ, especially whereas every man hath liberty, if he mislike the judgement of those that hear his cause, to appeal to the councils of his own Province, or to a general Council. Or how shall the judgement over the Seas [at Rome] be good, whereto the necessary persons of the witnesses, either for sex, or for age, or sundry other impediments, cannot be brought? FOR THAT ANY SHOULD BE SENT [as Legates] FROM YOUR HOLINESS SIDE, WE FIND DECREED BY NO SYNOD OF THE FATHERS.  
§ 12. And be here no words, but supplicatory, will you say? When they urge so vehemently, that the Nicene Council took order to the same purpose, that causes should not be removed from place to place, alluding to the 5. Canon of that Council, and to the latter end of the fourth, do these men think it is a matter of mere grant, or wholly depending of the Pope's pleasure? when they call such a refuge, a wicked refuge, of them that run to Rome, do they not show what opinion they conceive of it? Is it in the Pope's power to licence wickedness, or if it be now, was it so then? Nay, when they say he must repulse such straggling clients, is must a word for suitors and suppliants? when they tell him in the same passage, that it becomes him to stop such holes, that wretched men would creep out at, do they not plainly declare, that they have more confidence in it, then in a mere suit or petition only? yea, when they urge again, that the Nicene Council so ordered, and no derogation was ever made to that Canon, by any contrary constitution, do they leave it free to the Pope to yield to, yea or no? No doubt, say they, they most wisely and rightly provided, that all matters should be ended in the places where they first arose. And would these men have confessed, that the Pope might with justice do to the contrary? When they tell him, That the grace of the holy Ghost is not so fastened to 
The holy Ghost 〈◊〉 other provinces as well as in Rome.  Rome, but that it is to be found in other Provinces too, by the which equity may be gravely weighed, and stoutly followed by the Priests of Christ; do they not privily tax him for fond overweening his own sea, if he think matters cannot be ended at home, without his interposing? When they allege, that witnesses cannot be present at Rome, whom either age, or sex, or diverse other infirmities and casualties hinder, and yet so necessary many times, as that the causes cannot be tried without them, do they not rather show, what is meet in reason, and just in conscience, then leave it wholly in the Pope's hands, to grant or no? Lastly, what opinion had they of the Pope's agents in foreign countries, that stick not to avouch this to his head, That any from his Holiness should be sent as Legates, we find decreed by no Synod of the Fathers? Where, because you dare talk of the Nicene copies, as allowing appeals, which were pretended then 
Numb. 36.  with shame enough, but none such found upon most diligent inquiry, take you in that also which followeth, in God's name. That which you sent us hither by Faustinus, as a part of the Nicene Council, in the truer copies which we have received from holy cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and reverend Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, taken out of the originals themselves (which also we sent to Bonifacius your predecessor) in them, we say, we could find no such thing. Let Baronius, or Bellarmine, salve this now, as well as they can. Finally thus. And as for your agents or messengers, send them not, grant them not at, every man's request (do you see how faintly these men speak, as remembering they sued only to the Pope for that which was in his power to grant or no; and which if he did grant, he did but depart with his own right?) To which, this that follows, may be a notable confirmation? Lest we seem to bring the smoky pride of the world, into the Church of Christ, which proposeth the light of simplicity and humility to those that desire to see God, etc. This of the Epistle of the African Fathers to Pope Celestine.  
§ 13. But now what says he to the Milevitan Canon? Sith that was it, which the Bishop aimed at; as at last he awakes, and acknowledges himself. It excludes not all from appealing (quoth he) but Priests and Deacons only, and such inferior Clergy men. So as still the Bishops might appeal to Rome. And, transmarinus nemo, is of the Bishops forging, too too general. Is it even so? Whose forging then is that, Ad transmarina autem qui putaver it appellandum, whosoever shall think good to appeal beyond the sea, let him be renounced from the communion of all in Africa, the very words of the Canon? Is not, nemo transmarinus appellet, all one with quicunque transmarinus appellandum putaverit, or, quicunque appellaverit ad transmarina, puniatur, & c? What difference is here, but that the one is comminatory, the other prohibitive, both universal and peremptory? Yea, but Bishops are excepted, because not named. How if Bishops most of all included? As not only reason leads us to think, because Bishops might not so well be spared out of the province, as Priests might, they few to these many, (see Euseb. l. 6. hist.) and therefore no such 
Carnel. apud Euseb lib 6. histor. c. 33. d●●●t Rome unum 〈◊〉 Episcopum, presby: erot autem ●6. Vide B●ll●r. de Rome Po●t●f. lib. 2. c. 7.  detriment in the Priest's absence, as in the Bishops: but the Fathers of the aforesaid African council, in their epistle to Celestine, intimate as much, not only that Bishops are comprehended as well as Priests, but even much more. For if (say they) there appear a proviso for inferior Clerks and laymen, how much more would the Synod have the same to be observed in Bishops, that being excommunicated in their own province, they should not be suddenly, hastily, or unduly, restored to the Communion, no not by your holiness? And as the Council of Nice, meaning to forbid both Clerks and Lay, to forsake the judgement of their own province, and betake themselves to another, named not the Bishops, and yet in the general comprehended them too, quoting an ancienter Canon for their purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that whom one casts out (whosoever he be) another should not receive: so here the Fathers: for whom it was enough to instance in certain inferior degrees of Clergy, though their intent was doubtless to comprehend all: either as aiming at the Nicene Canon itself, and so labouring to come as near it as possibly they could, or because Canons are applied to the present use, (as 
●….  the saying is) and the rashness of a Priest, one Apiarius by name, gave occasion to afric thus to decree. I might further ask, whether laymen might appeal, notwithstanding this Canon, yea or no? Sith only Clerks are mentioned in it, and F. T. will have none but those to be prohibited, who are directly named. If he say they might, what a wide gate is left open to tumult and disorder, notwithstanding the Canon, for laymen to do that which Clerks might not? Nay how does the Clerk avoid committing himself to foreign tribunals, sith a layman, in case of controversy with a Clerk, complaining to a foreigner, draws the Clerk happily after him, to his no small molestation? If he say, he might not; but that he is forbidden, though he be not specified, so might the Bishops likewise, which is our question. Lastly, if those Fathers might forbid Clergi-men to appeal to Rome, though Clergi-men only of the inferior sort, it shows that the Pope's jurisdiction is not universal, and in the end Bishops might be forbid and all.  
§ 14. As for your fustïe Epistle to Antony of Fussula, it is out of the number of S. Austin's Epistles, which Possidius recounts, a faithful witness of S. Austin's desks and papers. One Gravius, a Dutchman, brought it first from Rome, and set it out as a neweltie, which yourselves durst not avow, from whom it sprang. And though nothing is in the Epistle prejudicial to our cause, which may not easily be answered, yet this shall suffice in this place.  
§ 15. Innocentius, you say, allowed the Canon of the Milevitan Council. Therefore it makes not against the Pope. Nay, therefore Innocentius was content with that proportion, which the later Popes are not satisfied with. As Boniface himself in his Epistle to Eulalius Bishop of Carthage, is so impatient of this restraint, that he makes the devil to be the author of that, which S. Austen and the rest devised, for the barring of Appeals to Rome. Behold, what kin the devil is to S. Austen, as Boniface would persuade. And yet others succeeding, less moderate than he. You tell us that the Sardican Council allowed these appeals. What then? Therefore this in all likelihood contradicts them not. As if that which was lawfully ordained at first, might not afterward be changed upon apparent inconvenience, as yourself here insinuate of the Pope's Legates, and their outrages: of whom you know what 
* Salisb. Polycrat. Vide & Bernard. de consid. ad Eugen. l. 4. The words of Charles Brandon Earl of Suffolk, that England never received any good by the Pope's Legates. Vide & Sadolet. Epist.  one said, that they were as Satanas emissus à facie Domini ad vexandum orbem terrarum, like the devil let loose to scourge the world. Yet, you like a good fellow, would prove the lawfulness of appeals, by their pranks and practices, though never so irregular, as he that would justify false titles by possession. Albeit neither was the Sardican Council general, and so of no force to bind all in all places: and if it had so been, yet you may remember, how many Sanctions even of the Nicene Council, are out of use with you, canceled, abrogate, as the Bishop shows in one part of that book of his, 
Cap. 7. p. 168.  which you now fumble about the refuting of. To omit that the constitution runs but thus, though it were never so authentical, even by Placet vobis? May you please 
Can. 3. Sard. Concil.  to allow; and rather for julius his virtue, than the seats privilege, and so to last no longer than men endued with the like integrity that julius was, should occupy the room, but no way descending of such original right, as you pretend. Else what need the Canon either the Father's consent, or the scrutiner to begin with placet vobis? As for Petri memoriam, that they would vouchsafe to honour Peter, memory, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non res 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergò.  even that shows it was arbitrary, and rather not to be denied to his blessed memory, then due to his successor by right of inheritance. Though Optatus leads us to more memories than one, as there were more Apostles and Saints than one: of whom he construes that, even in the Sardican sense, memorijs Sanctorum communicantes (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
Rom. 12. 13.  lib. 2. contra Parmenianum, and again, memorijs Apostolorum, lib. 4.  
§ 16. Now to back your fancy, that appeals were not forbid by the Milevitan Canon, in S. Austin's time, you descend to Leos time, short of S. Austin's, so as you refute not the Bishop, nor say nothing to the purpose, but that you long to be untrussing your pedlerly farthels. As if Leo were not like enough to encroach upon the Canon, to gain advantage to his Sea; a sea indeed, which ears out the earth 
Leo Epist. 87. ad Episcop. Maucitaniae.  though never so well fenced: and the distressed estate of the Churches of Africa, increasing with the times, might drive them to admit of more than was reason, but that they were glad to make their peace, at any hand, though with hard conditions. Concerning Gregory's times, you fall a 
Greg. Regist. l. 1. epist. 82.  great deal lower, though you are clean besides the cushion there too. For whereas you granted before, that the Canon forbade the appeals of Deacons, though not of Bishops; now you bring us an instance of two Deacons appealing, 
Felicissimus & Vincentius.  so as the Canon is trampled down by your own confession, and yet the Bishop's allegation was of the Canon only. Shall law, or practise be our judge? And yet when Gregory, refers the plaintive Deacons over to a Synod, he does but as the Canons had enacted before in that behalf, namely, Nicen. can. 3. Antioch. can. 9 Constantinop. can. 2. What proof then is this of Gregory's authority to hear appeals, which rather he commits to the trial of Synods, as equity would?  
§ 17. And the same fault is in your next example. Certain Priests of Africa complained against Paulinus, Donadeus a Deacon against Victor his Bishop. Yet you granted even now, that Priests and Deacons were barred Appeals, by the Canon, most evidently. What is this then to the matter, but that you want work, and are feign to suck occasion out of your fingers ends, that you may be doing? And in one word, when Gregory so order the matter upon these fellows complaints, that he refers the hearing to an assembly of Bishops, with the primate of the Province, as you allege, either Victor, or Columbus, or whom you will, he shows no authority, but only does as the Canons had appointed to be done, whether he would or no. Indeed Gregory professes his respect to the Canons in diverse places, and herein he keeps it.  
§. 18. It follows, of certain Popes, who exercised (he saith) universal authority in S. Austin's days. Though I showed that this need not, because no way thwarting the Bishop's words, yet briefly to his objections, that he seem not over wise in his own conceit. S. Austen says of Zozim. Ep. 157. ad Opt. Iniuncta nobis à venerabili Papâ Zozimo Apostolicae sedis Episcopo Ecclesiastica necessitas nos Caesaream traxerat. The necessary occasions of the Church imposed upon me by Pope Zozimus drew me to Caesarea. And out of Possidius, Literae sedis Apostolicae compulerunt. This may prove violence, as well as authority, because of trahere and compellere: Which surely Zozimus used not to S. Austen. He lacked a learned man, and called for S. Austen, using his best interest to persuade him. What is this to the Popedom? How many such compellers could I show you out of S. Austen? Marcellinus for one, a temporal Earl, but an exceeding good man, and afterward Martyr, as we are told by S. Hierome. Sic 
Contra Pelag. lib. ult.  me compulit vel ipsa charitas tui Marcelline Comes, sic inquam me compulit, sic duxit, & traxit, etc. De peccat. meritis & remiss. l. 1. c. 1. Just as the Apostle acknowledges of himself, and all Christians, Charitas Christi cogit nos, the love of Christ constrains us. So here the necessities of the Church did S. Austen, recommended to him by Pope Zozimus; yet with no more jurisdiction perhaps, then Marcellinus had over him, which I think was but small. The examples of this kind of phrase, are rife every where. We read in the book of Samuel, that the witch constrained king Saul to eat meat. 1. Sam. 28. And Luk. 24. coegerunt eum, the two Disciples that went into Emaus, constrained our Saviour to tarry with them. Howbeit doubtless not superior to him, specially after his resurrection. Abraham and Lot constrained their guests, as we may read in Genesis, yet not giving laws I suppose to strangers, which is condemned in another place of that book, Peregrinus est, & vult dare leges, but to teach us to enforce our liberalities and our courtesies, where modesty 
Chrys. in locum.  rejects them, though need crave them. And these guests were Angels. Which it were fine if you could bring under the Pope's compulsion, as some of your men have seriously laboured, to make the Pope paramount to the Angels themselves; once, Abraham and Lot though no spiritual men, here constrained them for certain. What speak I of Scriptures? Even Tully de Amicitiâ, Cogitis certè, quid enim refert quâ ratione cogatis? You constrain me (quoth Lelius) no matter how. And again S. Austen, Praef. librorum ad Simplicianum, Quaestiunculas quas mihi enodandas jubere dignatus es. He says, Simplician commanded him to dissolve questions. And yet, I take it, Simplician had no such regular power over S. Austen, as to command him. This jubere would have troubled Pope Nicholas wonderfully. I never read his Epistle ad Michaelem Imperatorem, but I pity his passions, to see him so stormed with a poor jubere of the Emperor. Whereas the Emperor writing in all likelihood in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be construed, wishing or exhorting, if either he or his interpreter had not been afraid of a blue spider, a dread where none was. But again S. Austen in the forenamed place, cum tibi placet quod scribo, novi cui placeat, quoniam qui te inhabitet novi. He means, that the holy Ghost dwells in Simplicianus, which would have made a fair show in a Pope's style. Largitor enim omnium munerum per tuam sententiam confirmavit obedientiam meam, etc. He speaks of obedience yielded to Simplician, who yet was not his superior. Again, In meo ministerio, dixit Deus fiat & factum est. (He calls it his ministery, or his service, and sets him almost in the place of God.) In tuâ verò approbatione, vidit deus quia bonum est. At least, there he makes him his God, or his superior directly. Generally of all Bishops, thus we read in S. Austen, Epist. 168. In aliis civitatibus tantum agimus, quod ad ecclesiam dei pertinet, quaentum vel nos permittunt, vel NOBIS IMPONUNT earundem civitatum Episcopi, 
See the same phrase, Cura scripturarum in●posita, Epist 110. of the Bishops of Carth. & Numidia: that enjoined him to write a book. Which he did.  fratres & consacerdotes nostri. What is less in imponunt, then in the iniungunt that you urge? Iniuncta nobis à Zozimo necessitas. Yet here you see, imponunt is an act that any Bishop might exercise towards S. Austen, even his brothers and fellow-priests, [fratres & consacerdotes,) not only Zozimus. So Ruffinus in exposit. symbol. ad Laurent. which Laurence was no Pope, though he be called Papa there,. i. a reverent parsonage. One Laurentius stood with Symmachus for the Popedom, I grant, but he lost it, as you know. Well, what says Ruffinus? He calls it, pondus praecepti, because Laurentius desired him to put his exposition which he had preached upon the Creed, in writing; the weight of his charge, or the charge of his commandment. Again, Astringis me ut aliquid tibi de side, etc. Yet Laurence had no power, that I know, of binding Ruffinus. Lastly, expositionis à te impositae necessitatem, says he, which answers word for word almost to that which you bring out of S. Austen, Iniuncta nobis à Zozimo necessitas. But of Zozimus (saith he) hereafter, wherein we will attend him.  
§ 19 First therefore of Liberius, a most wretched proof. Certain Arian heretics obtained his letters for their restitution, 
Basil. epist. 74. & 32.  to the assembly of Tyana, and by virtue of them they were restored, though they did but dissemble, in that they feigned their conformity with the Church of God, inwardly remaining deep Arians. Is not this fit to be brought in behalf of the Pope, to show how well he stands upon his watch, how meet a man he is to inherit the trust of all Christian souls, that suffers such knaves to beguile him in this sort? As for that, that Liberius letters were of force; so should any other grave and worthy Prelates have been, upon whose testimony the Synod might rely; especially when, if there had been no doubt of their repentance, they should have needed no other mediator happily then themselves. But because he hath quoted S. Basil in the margin, let us hear his words, and see what confidence he puts in Rome, or in the Bishop thereof. Epist. 74. thus he says of Liberius, and his restoring of Eustathius that Arian heretic, which suspicion, to say truth, Liberius was not free from, inclining thither himself when time was. The rather might he write in the behalf of an Arian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Since therefore from thence (he means from Rome, and from the Western Churches, this Epistle bearing inscription to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishops of the West) since from thence he hath received power to hurt the Churches, and the liberty that you gave him (Liberius with the rest) he to the subversion of many hath abused, it is necessary that reformation should spring from the same place, and that you should send word to the Churches, for what cause he was received, and how being changed since in his opinion, he makes void the grace that was then given him (not by Liberius so much as by the Fathers, that is, they of the Council of Tyana) of which before. And in the same Epistle, a little afore this place, S. Basil gives two reasons, why he implores the aid of the Italian Bishops, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The first is, because if only the Eastern Bishops appear against Eustathius, it may be thought to come of emulation and partiality, one Bishop of the same country opposing another. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But you the farther of, the better believed. Which, to say truth, hath always been the Pope's felicity. But you see he flies not to them for any universal authority or prerogative (as they imagine) from Peter derived, but for the distance of the place, which makes them seem to be more incorrupt. The second reason is, from the consenting of many Bishops together, and the power of that to prevail with people's minds, when there shall be a concurrence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is; But of with joint consent many shall aver the same thing, the very multitude of them that are of one mind, will make it to be entertained without contradiction. By which, you see, the Pope can do little alone. And so speaks Basil in his greatest extremity, even when he needs the Pope most. Else we know, how sharply he can tax Rome, and give the Popes their own, when occasion serves. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Western pride, saith he, &, haereses propagant, they spread heresies, or, multiply heresies. Epist. 8. ad Euseb. Samosat.  
§ 20. Of 
* Yet Sozomene l. 3. hist. c. 23. Pa●lus, Marcellus, Asclepas, & Lu●ius, suas sedes recuperarunt, quandoquiden ex literis Imperatoris facta est his potestas ad sua redeundi. The Emperor (●ot julius, saith he) restored them.  julius and Athanasius I spoke before. The same was the cause of Marcellus, and Asclepas, Paulus, and Lucian and the rest, restored, as you say, by julius Pope, tanquam omnium curam gerentem, as bearing care of all. Tripart. l. 4. c. 15. As if every Bishop were not obliged to do his service to the whole Church, as far as he can, which were easy to demonstrate, but that I have done it before, and quoted Origen very lately for the same; yet julius the rather, because the prime Bishop, but prime in order only, and in a certain excellency, propter sedis dignitatem, as the Tripartite here speaks, in the very words that this man quotes, not propter auctoritatem. S. Austen calls it Speculam, his watchtower. Besides that this same julius is many years before S. Austen, and yet he professes to reckon up only such as lived in S. Austin's time. Do you not see how he labours to utter his provision? Finally in Sozomene, who reports the same matter, and is quoted by this man, to that very purpose, cap. 2. num. 8. In Sozomene I say, lib. 3. c. 7. thus we read. That the persons, to whom julius wrote, in behalf of the aforesaid catholic Bishops, though they acknowledged the Church of Rome, primas ferre apud omnes, to be the chief Church in every body's estimation, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the school of the Apostles, and the mother city of piety, (not for any succession into the authority of S. Peter in particular) and yet deny (they say) they cannot, but the first authors of Christian religion sprang from the East (not from Rome) nevertheless indignati sunt se posteriores ide●ferre, quòd magnitudine ecclesiae superarentur, idque cum virtute, & pio vivendi instituto, longè superiores essent: they thought much that they should be set any whit behind the others, because their Church was not so great or so ample as theirs, specially when in virtue, and godly life, they far excelled them. Thus they. I compare not now the opinions of Arians with Catholics, in that point of their dissension, which the Scripture hath determined, and right faith compounded, but as for East and West, you see what estimation one had of the other, and how little our Grecians thought themselves short of Rome. Therefore they are so confident a little after, as to challenge julius for doing against the Council, and their own definition; Insimulàrunt julium ceu transgredientem ecclesiae leges. And whereas julius a little before had threatened them, they threaten him again: and Sozomene calls the letter that they sent to julius, plenam minarum atque ironiae, full not only of threats, but mocks and taunts, unless you will otherwise construe it; So miserably were they afraid of the Pope's authority in those days, divided from equity. Pollicentur pacem & communionem julio, si approbaret abdicationem factam, sin resisteret decretis eorum, etc. They promise julius to be of his communion, if he will do as they would have him, if not, to leave [that is, to disclaim] him, you would say to excommunicate him, if it made for you. And indeed in the 10. Chap. of Sozomene, soon after, they do so in good earnest.  
§ 21. The next is Damasus. In whom I must be short. What tell you us of titles, and terms, and styles? what though they called him most blessed Lord, raised to the height of Apostolic dignity, holy father of fathers, Damasus Pope, etc. Think you, that the boys would forbear laughter, hearing this argument? That the Bishops of Africa call him Damasum Papam, Pope Damasus, etc. therefore Damasus Pope might receive appeals out of Africa. If that be not in their style, the rest is vulgar, and nothing to the matter. Who was not Papa in those days? which you engrossing, bewray yourselves. Yea, but nothing might go for currant concerning important affairs, as deposition of Bishops, say you, nisi ad noticiam vestrae sedis delatum fuerit, unless your Sea knew of it. To which, I answer, noticia is one 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 6. Assuerus Rex non erat subiectus sapientibus illis vi●●●, quorum faciebat cuncta consilio: Hest. 1. And yet that was consilium statum, or permanentiae; this less than so. Nay there was to be consensut (cuncta faciebat de illorum consilio) hear relatio at the most, or noticiae, but intimation.  thing, consensus another. Men may seek for resolution, and yet not be subject to authority, unless themselves please. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the sovereign stroke in every business should be the metropolitans of the Province, the Council of Nice determined very clearly, Can. 4. of more authority than your Damasus his epistles, or to Damasus.  
§ 22. But is not that a brave confuting of the Milevitan Canon, alleged by the Bishop against appeals beyond the sea, that S. Hierome sought to Damasus for his judgement about Hypostasis? This also may prove an appeal in time, when appeals grow scant. It hath been answered by our Divines, over and over: it is nothing to our question, therefore I insist not upon it. Neither yet that of Ambrose (if it be Ambrose) who living within Italy, that is Damasus his province, says, Damasus governed the house of God, the house no doubt, wherein he lived, and wrote at that day. But how if he had called it, as it follows in S. Paul, columnam 
1. Tim. 3.  & firmamentum veritatis, which S. Paul does Ephesus, wherein Timothy lived? yet neither Ephesus that infallible one, that you imagine Rome to be, for truth of doctrine, nor Timothy a monarch or universal Bishop.  
§ 23. That Peter of Alexandria was restored to his Bishopric upon Damasus his letters: you show not they were mandatory, we think rather commendatory. Damasus certified good things of Peter, and the people received him, illis confisus, trusting they might be true; or, they did what they desired and longed to do, upon so good a hint. The Pope gave not Patriarkships in 
* And long after that time, Fulbert. Carnoten. (I thought good to note it) calls himself, Dei gratiâ Episcop●●, & Regis sui Rob●…, i Bishop by the grace of God and the King. Epist 4. quae ad ipsum.  those days: yea had any so challenged, the Alexandrines would have torn him in pieces, they were so violent.  
§ 24. Vitalis an heretic, and an Antiochian, was examined, and censured by Pope Damasus. But you dissemble not that Paulinus their Bishop permitted it. The wonder had been, if Damasus had intermedied against his consent. One Bishop may refer his Priest, to be examined by another whom he will. Things were not so well settled with Paulinus at this time in Antioch, as it should seem, through intestine discords, which long continued. So Damasus might prescribe a form of abjuration to Vitalis the heretic, though otherwise prescribe is but an imperious word of your own devising, and to draw him a form, which he meant should be used by him upon his return to Antioch, had been enough. Your author whom you quote, in Ep. 
Elias Cretens.  2. ad Cledon. says only thus; Damaso postulante edidit, or, literis consignavit fidem: at Damasus his instance he penned a form of his belief: not Damasus for him, but he to Damasus. Which Athanasius also did at the Emp. jovians request, not to purge 
Theod. histor. lib. 4. cap. 2.  suspicion, but to instruct him in the truth. Of prescribing to Paulinus, I read nothing in that place. In Damasus his Epistle 
Tom. 1. Concil. Ep. 1. Damas'.  I find this qualification, both that tuae voluntati & tuo iudicto omnia derelinquimus, we leave all to your will, and your judgement: and in the end this, Non quòd haec ipsa quae scribimus, non potueris convertentium susceptioni proponere, sed quò noster consensus liberum in suscipiendo tibi tribuat exemplum: Not that you could not of your own self have propounded these things to converts, ere they were received, but that our concurrence might yield you freedom of example to receive them. And if freedom, how prescription?  
§ 25. It is a wonder, how you dare mention the name of Flavianus, who by the Emperor's favour kept his seat against 
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.  so many Pope's one after another, striving to unhorsed him, and all in vain. The pains that chrysostom and Theophilus took, to make a peace between him and Damasus, showed their good care of the Church's unity, and worthily entitles them to the blessing of peacemakers. But that which you call pardoning Flavianus offence, and restoring him to the communion of the Church again, was no more than was usual in those days, between Bishop and Bishop, if they misliked one another, to forbear communicating mutually; if satisfaction were given, to return to fellowship and communion again, which you perhaps, to amplify the Pope's power, would have us think to be excommunication and absolution. Where you say, that the people of Antioch, were IN TIME REDUCED to concord and unity, with Flavianus their Bishop, through this act of Damasus, it shows it was rather the relenting of their minds, and appeasing their stomachs, out of Flavianus good demeanour, and other such considerations, than the Pope's sentence, or bare definition. For then what need long time to work it? Neither was that a sign of Damasus his supremacy, that Flavianus sent his embassage to Rome. For when two are to meet, why should not the inferior come to the superior, rather than otherwise? I mean inferior in order, as Flavianus here to Damasus, Antioch to Rome, but not in authority. Though the embassage was not intended so much to Damasus, as to clear the scandal that went of Flavian, and to satisfy the whole Church of God in those parts, that East and West might no longer continue in jealousy and alienation.  
§ 26. And now to come to his successor Syricius, as your own words are, how do you prove his universal jurisdiction? I know it wrings you to be held to this point, but there is no remedy, to that you must speak. Forsooth the Council of Capua, committed the hearing of Flavianus his cause to the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Egypt, with this limitation, as S. Ambrose witnesses (I report your own words) that the approbation and confirmation of their sentence should be reserved to the Roman sea, and the Bishop thereof, who was then Syricius. Suppose this were so, how far is it from arguing universal jurisdiction? For as the Council might make choice of the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishops of Egypt, to take the first knowledge of Flavianus his cause into their hands, so, out of the same authority, might it reserve the after judgement, and the up shot of all, to the Bishop of Rome: it might do this, I say, out of it own liberty, and for the personal worth of Syricius Pope, not for any prerogative of his Sea. And rather it shows the pre-eminence of the Council, that might depute the Pope to such a business, as likewise the Bishop of Alexandria and Egypt. The Eusebians made an offer (witness Athanasius in his Apology) to julius Pope of Rome, to be their judge, if he thought good; julio si vellet arbitrium causae detulerunt. But if julius had no other hold, it was a poor supremacy that might content him. Yet Ambrose, in the Epistle 78. which you quote, says not so much. Rather of Theophilus somewhat magnificently, Vt duobus istis tuae sanctitatis examen impartiretur, confidentibus Aegyptijs, that your Holiness might have the scanning of these men's cause, while the Bishops of Egypt were your assessors. And again, Sancta Synodus, cognitionis ius unanimitati tuae, caeterisque ex Aegypto consacerdotibus nostris commisit. The holy Synod (of Capua) committed the power of judging this matter to your agreement, and the Egyptian Bishops. What then of the Pope? Sanè referendum arbitramur ad sanctum fratrem nostrum Romanae sacerdotem Ecclesiae. Sure, we are of the mind, that it were good it were referred to our holy brother the Priest of Rome. First brother, than Priest of Rome, lastly arbitramur. The Synod belike not ordering so, but Ambrose giving his opinion thus. And, Quoniam praesumimus te ea iudicaturum quae etiam illi displicere nequeant, because we presume you will resolve in such manner, as shall not be displeasing to him. See you, how one of them is as free from error, as the other, in S. Ambrose mind? And he is content, that Syricius should have the cognusance of the cause after Theophilus, not that Theophilus error might be corrected by Syricius, but that one's concurrence might strengthen the other.  
§ 27. Do you look I should answer to Syricius Decretal sent to Himerius? or does the conveying of it, to France and Portugal, prove universal jurisdiction, exercised by the Popes in S. Austin's time? But with such baggage you make up your measure. Himerius asked, and Syricius answers. What then? And Himerius was within the Roman Patriarchship, caput corporis tai, not caput corporis universalis, says Syricius himself, in the end of his Rescript. But proceed. Optatus (say you) calls Peter principem nostrum, our Prince. Now he could not mean Peter to be that Prince, for he was dead and gone, and so nothing worth. Therefore Siricius who then lived, and was his successor in the Popedom. Bravely shot, and like a Sadducee. Yet in the same book, Optatus calls Siricius in plain terms, not princeps noster, but socius noster, our friend and fellow, as S. Ambrose a little before, his brother and priest.  
§ 28. That, in the African Council, Can. 35. the Fathers decreed, that letters should be sent to their brethren and fellow-Bishops abroad, but especially to Anastasius, to inform them, how necessary their latter decree was, in favour of the Donatists, contradicting a former Canon made against them, what is that to Anastasius his universal jurisdiction? Do you see how you are choked, if you be but held to the point? yet they sent to others, no less then to Anastasius. But to him especially, you say. It might be so; for the eminency of his Sea, as we have often told you. And the Donatists being too strong for them, as appears by that decree, which controls the former, they were glad to take any advantage, I warrant you, to countenance their proceedings. Durum telum necessitas est.  
§ 29. That, the Bishops of Africa requested Innocentius to use his authority, to the confirmation of their statutes against the Pelagian heretics; it was not because the ordinances of provincial Synods, are not good in their precincts, without the Pope, as I think yourselves will not deny, but that the Pelagian heresy being far spread throughout the world, might be kerbed within the places that Innocentius had to do in, as well as in afric, where the Council was held. Which taking so good effect, as it seems it did, S. Austen cries out that they were 
* So likewise. Alexander Bishop of Alexand●…, wrote to all Bishops wheresoever d●…, warning th●m to r●s●aine from t●e communion of 〈◊〉. Sozom lib. 1 c. 14. whi●h i● more than to define dogmatically. Yet they will not allow him universal 〈◊〉.  toto Christiano orb damnati, condemned over all the Christian world: not that Innocentius authority was irrefragable, but the concurrence of so many Pastors in the cause of God's truth, was of force at that time to rectify the consciences of such as wavered before. In this sense Possidius might well call it, judicium catholicae dei Ecclesie, the judgement of the Catholic Church of God, when Innocentius & Zo●●mus accursed the Pelagians, because it sprang from the consent of so many godly Fathers, as incited those Popes to that act of justice, and lead them the way in this dance of zeal, as I may so call it. Not that the Church stood in them two, or as if they had the universal jurisdiction that he talks of, or rather dares not talk of, but captiously and crookedly involves only in impertinent allegations.  
§ 30. I might spend time, about S. Austin's authority, Epist. 92. writing thus to Innocentius; That the Lord hath placed thee 
* Sozom. l. 1. c. 1. Episiopt Nicaeni dignum 〈◊〉 dicavere Eustath●…m, qui capesseret sedem, Apostolicam. Est vule dicere, 〈◊〉 ex Be●…ensi. Idem Sozom l. end. e. 10 Alexand●…m quoque & 〈◊〉 Ecclesiam. Apostol●… accipit, sub Ma●… & Alexandro. Iterum apud eundem Sozom. lib. 4. c. ●4. Cy●llu● Aposto●… sedis antistes, quia ●cil. Episcopus Hi●rosolym●… Sido●. Epist. 1. l. 6 de Lupo, Post novem dec●● sa quinque●… 〈◊〉 Seed. Apostolic. Et paulò antè de codem, To●a Ecclesiae dei membra super 〈◊〉. Et, Dig●● q●● ab omnibus consula●…. Howbeit Bishop only of 〈◊〉 in France Yet Bellar. most impudently l. 4. c. 8. de Not. Eccl. will have the whole Church of God to be called Apostolic, only because the succession from the Apostles never failed in the Church of Rome, as he idly dotes, whereas in other (he think) it hath, and so only that Apostolic for ●ooth. But besides that already brought out of Sozomene and other●, Baronius checks him, acknowledging more Churches than the Roman to be Apostolic. See Tertull. de Prescript. c. 36. Per●… Ecclesias. Apostolicas, apud qu●… adhuc Cathe dr●● Apostolorum, etc. Lastly, Euseb l. t. hist. c. 1.  in sede Apostolicâ. And doth this prove universal jurisdiction? or is there no Apostolic sea but the Roman? By which reason we shall have many universal jurisdictions. Or, that it were negligence to conceal aught from his Reverence, which concerned the Church? But if it were, as they pretend, it were more than negligence, even flat rebellion, not to communicate with him about all such affairs. But making it but negligence, he shows they sought for advice only, or countenance, not for leave and grace, when they referred to him. Whereas S. Austen had spoke, of the Pope's applying his pastoral diligence, to prevent the dangers of Christ's weak members, F. T. interprets it, his power and authority, over all the members of Christ; which if the Bishop had so done, to put in ALL, where it was not in S. Austen, to enforce an argument, had been cheating, and cozenage, and to be proclaimed in markets. See chap. 2.  
§ 31. Innocentius his testimony of his own precedency, carries small force with it, and 
* I confess I was once of A●… his mind; but since I 〈◊〉 by perusal of more, that this Epistle, bad though it be, yet i● like all the rest of Innocenti●sse●, as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Aureliu●, to johannes Hierosolym. etc. Never worse Secretary, I think, or that kept 〈◊〉.  Erasmus hath found some cause to suspect this Epistle for counterfeit, or at least censured it for one not worthy of Innocentius. Whereas the Apostle Paul had said of himself, Praeter ea quae extrinsecùs sunt, cura omnium Ecclesiarum, this man imitating him (
* Bellar. de Pont Rom. lib. 1. c. 17. 〈◊〉 Quod autem.  for you hold of Paul too as well as Peter) reads it clean contrary, Praeter ea quae intrinsecus sunt, etc. that you may see his Clerkship. And yet you make him worse, then in truth he is. For whereas he more modestly, Arbitramur referri debere etc. you leaving out arbitramur, avouch it peremptorily, that about matters of faith, all Bishops ought tareferre, etc. Is this good dealing? Lastly, if S. Austen and Alipius say of him, concerning his rescript, Rescripsit ad omnia eo modo quo 
Adomnia, and per omnia, differ.  fas erat, etc. he hath written back to all, as meet was; they mean for matter, and for the points in controversy, between Pelagius and the Church, not for aught that he enterlaces of the ambition of his own Sea. And of these things hitherto.   

To his fifth Chapter:  
Of Origen, Hilary, and Maximus, their authorities.  
§. 1. AS I have often complained of the tediousness of this mate, the only: invincible armour that he fights with, as certain beasts make their parts good 
Cic 2. de 〈◊〉. Deorum.  against the hunter, by the evil savour and sent they cast forth to annoy him, being otherwise unable to resist him in the encounter: So he shows it in this chapter more than any where else, referring us (besides his prattle) to former places of his book, for confutation of such points, as he mislikes in the Bishop's Answer. As if no body had confuted his confutation of those Answers, which the Reader of himself is able to do, I dare say, if he have perused but the former part of this book, without any further pains to be taken in that behalf. And yet every where he remits us to what he hath done, and said, as altogether unconquerable. Now for that which is so firm in the Bishop's Answer, as not to be removed by any means, that he rails at and calls stale: else 
S. Hilary professes of himself to do so, ut recens lectio & collata responsis invitis etiam & contradicentibus sensum veritatis eliciat. De Trin. lib 6.  why cannot he iterate his refutation again, as well as the Bishop repeat his Answer? but it shames him, that so many Arguments should stumble at one stone, 
b judg. 9  like the sons of Gedeon, beheaded by Abimelech all at one block: and therefore he falls to carping and depraving. Etiamne antidotum contra Caesarem? said he. So here, the Bishops fault is to have showed the error, and not let the Cardinal's fallacies to pass for currant.  
§ 2. That Origen and S. Hilary, in allowing the Church to be built upon Peter, with certain other pre-eminences which they afford him, deny not but the rest had their fellowship in the same, this is 
a Adjoind. num. 3 He flieth to his common and s●…e shift. All which I have fully confuted to his sh●… in the 1. Chap. where I have declared how he abuseth SS. August. Ambrose, Cyrill, etc.  stale to F. T. and for that only reason deserves to be misprized. As if the fault were, not so much in the weakness of the answer, as in the frequency of repeating it, to which his Battismes nevertheless, and his abominable Crambes, give the only occasion. Whereas, I think, a bad answer is to be accounted bad, though but 
b As Menander's saying is, That Hunter is short to him, though his tale be never so long, because he tells it well; Chaerilus tedious in three words speaking.  once given; and a good, the oftener it serves the purpose, the more it bewrays its own strength, and the adversaries exigent, that hath but one kind of way to assault the truth, and therefore is still beat back at the same door. Where, what marvel if the Bishop rest not satisfied with this inference, that those Fathers 
c Num. 〈◊〉. [Card.] Origen. in 6 ad Rom. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendus ●…bus traderetur. & ●.] To which the ●ish answer, Summa rerum, The chief pastoral charge was giu● to Peter, but it was given others also. Ex Origene ipso in Matth. 16. Tract 1.  when they ascribe certain excellencies to S. Peter, and yet perhaps, short of the supposed Monarchy, by that means, debar the rest of the Apostles from their part therein, whereas the Cardinal himself says as much of S. Peter, as you would think a man could possibly say, to advance his dignity, and yet means not but the Twelve were equal with him, in the same? Which were hard to allege now, for the proving of Peter's excellency above the other Apostles, though we would argue for the Cardinal out of the Cardinals own works. For example, what can be more for Peter's Monarchy over the Church, then to say, that he only was made chief Regent thereof? And yet summa potestas, is by the Cardinal made common to all the Apostles, not once, but twice, within few lines, cap. 9 l. 1. de Rom. Pont. and again in the same chapter, unusquisque Apostolorum it a cur am gerebat totius Ecclesiae, ac si ad SE SOLUM ea cura pertineret. Every one of the Apostles so managed the Church, as if that care had only belonged to him. And, cap. 11. Summa atque amplissima potestas, is given to them all. Shall we not ponder these words then, henceforth in Authors, if at any time they give as much as this to Peter, and be ready to acknowledge by the Cardinal his own confession, that Peter had no more than the rest of the Apostles in all this prerogative, and therefore no Monarch?  
§ 3. Now that Origen follows an Allegorical sense like to a Preacher, as you say, (whereas the Preacher, 
Adiound. It is to be observed, that Origen in that Homily followeth altogether an Allegorical sense, & seeking to draw from thence some moral doctrine, (as Preachers use to do) applieth the same, not only to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, but also to all perfect Christians, teaching, that whosoever doth confess Christ as Peter did, he shall have the same beatitude that Peter had, and be a Ra●ke as he was, etc. So also (N●m. 〈◊〉) he applies the giving of the Keys as well to every ●a●●…ll Christian as Peter, or the rest of the Apostles. But then (Num. 5.) every just man and wom●n, should have as much Eccles●●sticall power and jurisdiction as Peter, to bind, loose, ex communicate, & ●. Then (Num 〈◊〉.) every Priest as much as his Bishop, Bishop as Metropolitan, etc. overthrowing thereby all subordination in the Church, and confounding the Eccles●●sti all with the Secular, the La●●●e with the Clergy, head with members, shepherd with sheep, etc.  if any body should tell the plain truth) leaving the literal altogether, it may show his modesty; and check your rashness, that build so boldly upon the literal sense, if it be true which the Cardinal in another place observeth, that the literal sense of things spoken to Peter, is obscurer than the allegorical, though that be hard to be believed too, and is commonly found contrary, by his leave. Yet thus he writes, lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. 12. Non negat Augustinus ad literam posse & debere intelligi quae dicuntur de judâ, Petro, & johann: Sed tantùm dicit literalem sensum saepe esse obscurum, & non facilè inveniri, sensum autem mysticum esse multò illustriorem & clariorem, & proptereà se omisso literali figuratè ea exponere loca voluisse. That is, S. Augustine denieth not, (so as he would bring S. August. too within the compass of this dotage) that things said of Peter, judas, and john, both may and aught to be literally understood, but only he says, that the literal sense is ofttimes obscure, and hard to find out (where I wonder says S. August. so?) but that the mystical sense is 
He quotes Trac. vl● in johan. but all too wide.  far more clear and evident, and therefore that he omitting the literal exposition, would expound those places figuratively, forsooth. This is the constancy of these men, that as Benhadad for fear and guilty conscience, ran from chamber to chamber, so they to avoid what makes against them, change sense for sense, sometime literal for allegorical, then allegorical for the literal, about the words spoken to Peter by our Saviour. The former they think they may do with S. August. and avouch him for it; there the allegory is the clearer; As for the latter, they will not endure that Origen should do so, by any means. Here all is spoiled, unless you stick to the Letter: And a Chaos, a confusion is brought in by us, Lay folk and Clerks, Men and Women, promiscuously invading both the keys and the office, no difference left, nor sign of difference, if we allow of this. Thus he. But howsoever you roll and ruffle in your Rhetoric, declaiming against the supposed Anarchy of our Church, and not discerning (which even Balaam did) the beauty of those tents, to which you are a professed enemy, (so thick is the fog of your malicious ignorance, that stuffs up your senses;) I believe Sir, the keys are conveyed to the commonalty rather by you then us, and to the worse sex too (not so to be honoured) as in your Abbesses to be governors, in your gossips to be dippers and baptisers, and I know not what. And doubtless you would have admitted them to be Preachers 
Catholic Divine in Answer to the Reports, etc. c 8 sect. 16. quotes out of Baldus, that the Pope in some case may commit spiritual things to a mere layman And that de facto he gave a noble Lady leave to take the communion out of her own hands, Vide Florim. Rae●… de ortu haeres huius saeculi. lib. 6. c. 19 sect. 4.  too by this time, if you had not thought it fitter to discharge your men, then to licence your Women. Neither if Origen extend this to more than Peter, must it therefore presently be communicated to all; There are Apostles besides Peter, there are Pastors besides the Apostles, there are the just and faithful of all sorts, besides divers that belong to the body of the Church in show. It is not necessary we should open so great a gap as you think, though we take Origen literally. Though this I must tell you, that Origen in all likelihood would not have applied it so by allegory, unless he had stretched it beyond Peter, in the very property. For assurance whereof consider his words. Si super unum illum Petrum existimas aedificari totam 
in Matth. 16. Tract. 1.  ecclesiam, quid dicturus es de johann filio tonitrui, & Apostolorum unoquoque? If thou thinkest the whole Church is built only upon Peter, what wilt thou say of john the son of thunder, what of every one of the Apostles beside? It seems incredible first to Origen, that the whole Church should be built upon one man only, though it were Peter himself. Therefore he insists upon totam Ecclesiam, and considerately opposeth unum illum. And makes the one but existimas, or si existimas, If thou thinkest so (saith he) by Peter, but the other is, quid dicturus es, how wilt thou answer it, how wilt thou defend it, against john, and against the rest? And sure as Origen was of the mind, that no Apostle of the Twelve, sat out from being a foundation of the Church, in the sense that Peter was, so he names john you see in particular, of whom afterwards you shall see how great opinion he conceived, and how full of reverence, not inferior to Peter. In the mean while it is evident how he pleads for the Apostles all in general, whom he cannot digest to be denied this privilege, of supporting the frame equally with Peter. For which cause he deals so peremptorily, and takes up his adversary, as we noted before, Si existimas Petrum, quid dicturus es de caeteris, etc. Which differs from his moral collection, as you call it, which is a great deal more mawdlen, where he affirms by fortasse, Fortasse autem quod Petrus respondens dixit, etc. Perhaps if we say the same that Peter said, we shall be privileged like him: this is but perhaps. Yea, the practice of the Church implies no less, than we now stand for, which Origen there declares towards the end of his discourse. Quoniam ij qui Episcoporum locum sibi vindicant, utuntur eo dicto sicut Petrus, & claves regni coelorum acceperunt, etc. Because they that are Bishops, take this to themselves, even as Peter, and have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Hear you? not every Christian now, nor predestinate man, which is his moral doctrine, and offends you so mainly, but the Bishops, good Sir, the Bishops in special take this to belong to them, and claim the keys. Is not this a sign the keys were committed to all the Apostles? For the community of Bishops descends from all the Apostles; If the Keys had been Peter's only, only the Pope should claim them, pretending 
Hierm. ad evag. Omnes Ep●s●opi Apostolo●um successores sunt.  to come of him, as now he doth. But Origen saith, the Bishops do this in plural, Episcopi utuntur eo dicto sicut Petrus. The Bishops make use of this saying, even as Peter did. And they have received the Keys, etc.  
§ 4. Now when you tell us, that Origen never mentions in this place the commission of feeding, pasce oves meas, (though the Bishop brings this place to answer the other by, about Summa rerum de ovibus pascendis, out of his Commentary upon Rom. 6.) and so the Bishop's answer fits not with the objection: You are to know, that 
S. Cyprian puts the● both in one, speaking thus, De habitu V●rg. Petrus etiam cui oves suas dominus p●scendas 〈◊〉 commendat, super quem posuit & fund●uit ecclesiam.  as the one, so the other is to be construed, either of Peter or of all. If, Tibi dabo claves, belong to them all, and specially, if, Super te aedificabo ecclesiam meam, so doth Pasce oves too, by proportion, either equal, or maioris virtutis, as they call it. For what so singular and so individuate, as Super te aedificabo? Sure, pasce oves, is not so much. The one a promise, the other a precept, and precept is not broken, if it extend to many, promise either is, or is the weaker for it, without all doubt. And yet Origen himself teacheth you as much in this tractate, as it were preventing your objection, when thus he saith towards the middle of it: Si dictum hoc commune est caeteris, cur non simul omnia velut dicta ad Petrum tamensunt omnium communia? That is, If this belong to all, though spoken to Peter, (as he doubts not but it does) why not all the rest then, though directed to him, yet are to be meant of all?  
§ 5. Another place you quote out of the same Origen, unquoted by the Cardinal, but belike to help him, post aciem inclinatam, out of Hom. 2. in diversa evang. namely that Peter was Vertex, which is no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which before, given by S. Baesil to the great Athanasius. Yea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no bare top, nor no bald vertex, as your Popes is, at this day. Martial hath an Epigram, against one that had three skulls, and when alms were distributed came for three men's parts. Si te viderit Hercules, peristi. We are not they that make more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or more Coryphaeos', than needs we must in the senate Apostolic. The number of such worthies, whereof every one was so sufficient as to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as they say of the Argosy, that every mariner in it might have been a pilot) commends the wisdom of Christ the chooser, and makes much for the Church's safety and prosperity, to whom they were appointed guardians. But as for the man of three sculis, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Martial, let your Pope in good earnest take heed of Hercules, wearing three Crowns, and not content with more than three men's parts. Of vertex too much, whether in jest or earnest, unless the argument were better. We are speaking of Origen, and his second Hom. in diversa. Are ye advised therefore what privileges he heaps upon S. john there, not inferior to Peter, not to any? for it is not for nothing, that john still crosses Peter, though the one set out former, yet the other arriving first at his journeys end, joh. 20. Cui donatum est (says Origen) quod tibi donatum est, o beat? To whom was it ever given, that which to thee hath been given, O thou blessed creature? Dic quaeso, cui talis ac tanta donata est gratia? I pray thee tell me; To whom ever was such and so great grace conferred? Fear you not lest he deface the Virgin's garland, not only Peter? And as Peter is a rock, by interpretation, as you tell us, so john (if we believe Origen) Latinè, quod donatum est, as if a pack of gifts were couched in him, and the speciallest gift, that ever befell a man, (either the Monarchy then belike, or above the Monarchy,) another one in degree, to whom that may befit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you know the place. And indeed no writer speaks of Peter, as if he had all gifts in him. S. Ambrose divides them between Peter and Paul, serm. 66. One had one key, another another. Ille scientiae, iste potentiae. And iste erudit ad salutem, ille suscipit ad quietem. Paul in this life, Peter in the next. Neither doth this much make for the Pope's pre-eminencies, who is not so simple, as to reserve himself for Paradise, rather all for the world present, which was made (they say) for the presumptuous. Yea, most plainly in the same Sermon, Quis cui praeponatur incertum est. S. Ambrose knows not which to prefer. Wherein Bellarmine is more happy; for he says, Paulus plus profuit 
De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 27. versus finem.  Ecclesiae, Paul did the Church more good than Peter. And he would have him more honoured of us at this day, than Peter. As Stephen a Deacon is more honoured in his memory, 
The Pope a Poly-Stephen for his triple crown sake.  (saith he) then S. james an Apostle (why should he strike at james above all the rest?) Laurence then Sixtus, etc. Neither is this peculiar to Bellarmine, but all the Jesuits ought to be of this mind. For they propounded S. Paul of all other the Apostles, whom they would most willingly imitate, witness Maffaeus, de vitâ Ignatij, l. 2. c. 13. And yet 
Cuiut maximè ve●… sequerentur. Therefore they went to his Church potissi 〈◊〉, and there s●s●…ere votum relligionis suae, profession● solenn●: says Massaeus ibid.  the Jesuits, men archical enough, or given to sway. Which is an argument, that may make for Paul's supremacy in time, above Peter; not only for preaching, but for government too, unless they abate. And the other Fathers are of the same judgement. S. Leo serm. 1. de Natali Apostolorum. In the body of the Church, whose Head is Christ (not Peter nor the Pope) the two Apostles Peter and Paul are set like geminum lumen oculorum, like the two eyes in a man's head. Therefore no such difference. S. Gregory, l. 1. dial. c. ult. 
* Add E●…tius come in Ep a l Rome c. 1. Ne vel ipso Coryphaeo Petro inferior videretur Paulus, aut 〈◊〉 aliquid ha●…re. Not minus 〈◊〉 in grace and in gifts; not ●…ior in government, and such like pre-eminence. By which we see what a Coryphaeos' Peter.  Paulus Apostolus Petro [etsi] Apostolorum primo, in principatu Apostolico frater est. What is this but equality, in principatu, in the cheifedom itself? Eucher. in Natal. Apost. Petri & Pauli, calls them aequali per terram luce fulgentes, shining all over the world with equal brightness. Lastly, all the solution that S. Ambr. can find of his doubt, is this, by reducing it to their titles; that one is Petra, the other Vasculum, both of them necessaria domni salvatoris, each necessary to our Lord's house. Paul feeds and relieves the household, whiles Peter's virtue is buried under ground, like the foundation of an house, & as it were least in sight. Though for my part, I confess, I can hardly conceive how this holds, or how Peter stands the Church in such stead, to lie under it, as you would say, to this very time. In a house, I grant, 
S. Gregor. says, l. 28. in job c. 6. that, In sacriloquio, etc. he never finds the word foundation put in the singular, throughout all Scripture, but only for Christ. Yet the Papists make Peter a singular foundation, and by himself. See Haymo come. in Eph. 2. where he will not so much as construe that, Fundati super fund. Proph. & Apost. otherwise than thus, That Christ alone is the foundation of Praphets, of Apostles, and all: and he adds out of Matth. 16. Super hanc petram, i. super me aedificabo Ecclesiam.  the foundation is of most use. But such a Foundation, who can lay but Christ? 1. Cor. 3. 11. S. Paul's benefit of feeding us, that is of instructing us, is daily, and obvious, and intelligible. Therefore by my consent, the prerogative shall rest with him still. But leaving Ambrose, to whom we have digressed, return we to Origen, and conclude of him in a word. Concerning john he adds; Fortasse quis dicet, tantundem Petro collatum. Happily a man may say, S. Peter had as much bestowed on him; but he denies it in the next words, and more plainly soon after; Sed non temerè quis dixerit, etc. yea, how high he rises? Non ergò johannes erat homo, sed plusquam homo. Therefore john was no man, but more than a man. How would this serve the Pope's turn, had it been said of Peter, and if the Canonists had the handling of it? Who not only salute him with Dominus Deus Papa, even in their late editions of such slattering Glosses, as they have decked their Law with, which perhaps might be excused, either by Dij sunt multi, Dominique multi, 1. Cor. 8. 5. or the style of Rome under Domitian, full 
Though Augustus himself refused the title Dominus; which Orosius construes to have been done in honour of Christ then borne. l. 6. c 22.  of baseness; but even in their studies, and closerts, and most retired contemplations, define him to be, 
* joh. Capistranus.  Ens conflatum ex Deo & homine, a certain medley of God and man. But being affirmed of john, as it is by Origen, I hope here Mr. F. T. will give way to allegories, to quench the fire, which else these words might kindle very dangerous, and not urge him to maintain the letter too precisely. Lastly, thus: Whiles john was leaning upon our saviours breast, and so safe, and well apaid, Peter often tripped, saepe titubabat, quasi trepidae actionis symbolum, says Origen; not the rock of faith now, immovable, impregnable, but the picture of the active part of our life, weak, and frail, and faint, and tottering. This of Origen.  
§ 6. In S. Hilaries words, and your exception to the 
Of S. Hilar. testimony.  Bishop's answer to them, there remains only these two points to be cleared. One, that you say S. Hilary so ascribes it to the faith of Peter, to be petra digna aedificatione Christi, a rock worthy of Christ's building upon, as yet withal he denies it not to his very person. Another, that you affirm in plain terms, it was the merit of his faith which purchased him this. Which is first very insolent (for I begin with your later) that faith should be a meritour at God's hands, or a meritresse, if you will have it so (I pray correct me, if I speak amiss, for you see whether your absurdities lead me) whereas Charity not faith is the fons meriti, the actual deserver, by condignity at least, as yourselves hold; for ex longinquo is another thing, and expraeviâ dispositione, etc. Where in truth you are so dazzled about this merit of Peter's, that you say you know not what, ascribing that to his charity which is more proper to his faith, and again that to his faith which belongs to his charity. To be chief in feeding you ascribe to his Love, to Amas me plus his? Which is true in our saviours 
joh. 21.  sense, for exciting his care, not in yours to invest him in the supreme jurisdiction, which rather requires the privilege of freedom from error. And here, his deserving to be the rock, or the principal, for bearing sway, you impute it to his faith, which is too young to be a deserver, if it be 
Absolute Pelagianisme. See S. Austen, etc.  not otherwise accommodated, even by your own doctrine. This is one absurdity therefore. Secondly, that he should merit to be the rock of the Church, whereas a man cannot merit, that is not first in the Church, (as yourselves will not deny) and so presupposeth the foundation is laid. But in no sort, can one merit to be the foundation thereof himself. As 
* De praedestin. Sanct. ad Prosper. & Hilar. lib. 1. Cap. 15. Est etiam praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis & gratiae, ipse saluitor, ipse mediator. Respendeatur quaeso, unde haec merunt? Quod etus bonum qualecunque pracessit, etc.  S. August. often shows, that the Redeemer of the world, did not merit the conjunction of his flesh with the deity, but being invested once therewith, then merited for us, and wrought salvation. Whom, although we should grant, to have merited to be the foundation of the Church, the judge of the world, etc. yet you are not ignorant, how it is held by your own divines, namely per titulum secundarium, having right to it before, out of the worth of his hypostasis, which in S. Peter is nothing so. But especially, if you will take to that of Maximus, whom you quote a little after, that S. Peter for rowing in a frigate or small boat, was made Master and governor of the Universal Church. for what merit could there be, of that in this? And suppose that there is an orderly promotion among 
Vide Epist. Anaclet. 1. &. 2 item Clement ad jacob. fratrem domini, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Tim. 3. 13.  shipmen, from the Lower rooms to the higher, till they be Pilots, and Admirals, etc. or in like sort, that the good Deacon gets himself a fair degree, (as S. Paul speaks,) to be made Priest, Priest a Bishop, Bishop a metropolitan, etc. yet you speak of a promotion in diversissimo genere; which is too too uncouth, that S. Peter for steering his material vessel at the sea, should be preferred to sit in the highest place of the Church, and congregation of God. Thirdly, if this were true that you avouch of his merits, S. Peter should not only have merited for himself, but for as many monsters & miscreants, as ever sat after him in that sea; Which you do well to shroud under the merits of S. Peter, lest they appear too too ugly naked in themselves; saving that pallium breve as the Prophet Esay speaks, their covering is too short, and non est satis nobis & vobis: Matth. 25. What? For them that believe not, for them that apprehend not, that concur not in the least sort, yea for them that were not borne when S. Peter lived, could S. Peter merit? As for 
* Hild. Dict. Sent. 2●. Pontifex Romanus, sicanoni●● mod● ordinatus suerit, meritis B. Petri indubitanter efficitur sanctus.  Hildebrands dictates, they are no gospel. His words are neither slanders, when they are directed against us, nor testimonies of any force, when they are produced for you. And will you allow no qualification of S. Hilaries word? Whereas they that have but tasted the ancient writers, know that to merit, is to obtain and procure, though by grace and favour, and no further to be urged. He attained then (saith S. Hilary) a supereminent glory. Which glory may be in many 
Lib. 6. de trin.  things, beside his primacy, as the Bishop answered you of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in S. Basils' authority; and calling it gloriam, it seems he rather points to our saviours approbation, then to any real preferment collated upon Peter. Gloria is in fame, in predication, and report, as even Tully will teach you, Orat. pro Marcello, which is nothing to office, and to instalment. 
Si quidem gloria est pervagata, etc.   
§ 7. As for the coupling of S. Peter's person with his 
Adjoind. num. 9 Thus saith the Bishop seeking by a lying gloss of his own to make his Reader believe, that S. Hilary doth so admit S. Peter's faith to he the foundation of the Church that he excludeth his person, etc. Nevertheless I would not have him to think, that in affirming with S. Hilary, that Peter was the foundation of the Church, I do exclude his faith from his person, as though S. Hilar. should say, or any Catholic man mean, that the Church was built upon Peter's person, and not upon his faith, etc. Fearing lest another should deprave him as he hath done the Bishop.  faith, & his faith with his person, which is the second point of the twain, about which you sweat, and travel sore, casting up molehills, and mustering your Metaphysics long unskoured, the Bishop never dreamt, as you fantastically imagine, that S. Hilary should give this to a fleeting shadow, or to faith without a subject, like your Accidents in the Eucharist, which you welcome as well, as S. james his host doth his guests, that bids them warm themselves without a fire, feed without victuals, and so you them to sit down without a chair, or a stool: Not so: But if faith be the proper foundation of the Church, as S. Hilary implies by his fivefold repetition, Haec fides, haec fides, etc. 
Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est, per han● fidem infirma sunt adversus eam po●● inferorum. Haec fides Regni coelestis, etc. Hilar. ubi prius.  then was Peter, in behalf of his faith only, pronounced by our Saviour the foundation of the Church. Which is another thing then to be preferred, for the merit of his faith, to be the Church's foundation, as you fond dream. For so it might fall out, that he should still remain the foundation of the Church, though he had cast of his faith, wherewith he began, which will not stand with S. Hylaries conceit of it, and accordingly, none other are at any time to be reckoned the foundations of the Church, but they that shall tread in the steps of faithful Peter, howsoever otherwise they may come near him in calling. For where is more promised to Peter's successors, by virtue of mere succession, then to Abraham's children? Rom. 4. Nay, the adoptive branch may not challenge so much to itself, as the natural, Rom. 11. Succession (saith Greg. Nazianzen) is oft-times 
Paneg. in Athanas.  between contraries. Sickness succeeds health, night succeeds day, so an unworthy Bishop succeeds a worthy, as Nazianzen instanceth. So your Popes may Peter. Irenaeus saith warily, that we must obey those Priests in the Church of God, which deriving their succession from the Apostles, together with their succession in Office, have received the certain gift of truth, lib. 4. cap. 43.  
§ 8. By this also the other places of S. Hilary are declared, 
Beatus Simon subiacens aedificationi ecclesiae: (scil) post sacramenti confessionens.  where he proceeds to call Peter the foundation of the Church, as you expound them; his person, I grant, if ought at all, as the Bishop also meant, (not a quality without a subject, which is your chimaera) but in respect of his virtue, not of his authority singular. And as all the faithful may 
Idem Hilar. eodem libro, tres columnas ecclesiarum facit, Petrum, johannem, & jacobum. In the same place S. Hilary thus bespeaks the Apostles (not Peter alone) Vos O sancti & beat viri, ob FIDEI VESTRAE MERIT●●, claves regni coelorum sortiti, & ligandi atque soluendi in caelo & in terram i●●, etc.  come more or less, near to Peter's faith, so they have all more or less a part in this prerogative, as you heard lately out of Origen, yet still without disturbing the Church's array. Neither perhaps should Peter have been the rock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if so precise regard had been had to his faith, as to value it with his primacy, so much for so much, by way of meed and merit, as you pretend (and yet no Simonists) but either all the Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Pet. 2. 1. which are dignified with a faith nothing inferior to ours, even to Peter's self, or the poor woman in the Gospel, of whom our Saviour affirmed, O woman, great is thy faith: or lastly the Centurion, Verily, I have not found so great faith in Israel.  
§ 9 But in silentio reliquorum, while others held their 
Hilar. ubi. priu●.  peace, and primum cognoscere, & eloqui illud quod nondum vox humana protulerat, that was it that made S. Peter's confession 
Vide Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 12. ●●antem globum testium in hanc sentent. Leo ●●rm. 11. de past. D●… Omnium 〈◊〉 ●ra pr●…m. Chrysost 〈◊〉. 55. in M●t. Confe●… pr●…t, ac praeue●… ait. Of 〈◊〉 Ma●…m. testimony.  so glorious, and so remarkable, witness Hilary, witness divers more, whom I forbear to name. And in that sense, he might justly be termed a foundation, or a prime workman; not but that others followed or consented with him, and so foundations too, Apocal. 21. but his zeal was such, he spoke first, for which hast it is not like he was made chief governor.  
§ 10. There remains S. Maximus, and first, whether he were that same Bishop of Turin, or no. Which the Bishop denied not, as not hasty that way (although the case were plainer) to be so peremptory, (it is enough for you to determine magistraliter) but left under doubt, the rather because the Sermons that are attributed to Maximus, have been printed with S. Ambroses in times past, and so uncertain to whom to be adjudged, as in many other fathers it fareth at this day. And if your observation be good, which 
The Adjoind. p●…fes, that S. Maximu● made certain sermons of this kind.  you bring out of Gennadius, you see what profit the Bishops doubting hath brought with it, I would say praise and commendation to you, if it were thought to be your own, which you will hardly persuade them that know you here, not to have dropped out of the Notebook of some of your good Masters. As for the Sermons de tempore, not made as the Bishop said in S. August. time, which you call a scaepe or a not able oversight of his, and you think you might call it a flat lie, according to the rest of your maidenly modesty; you are answered before; yea yourself have answered 
See afore cap. 〈…〉.  yourself in that point, as Siseraes' mother did, that at least S. August. gave no such titles to his sermons, whatsoever they did that came after. Yet in producing Witnesses, is it not reason that you should call them by their proper and right names, or else they lose the force of their credit for deposition? And this was all, that the Bishop made stick at, concerning that point.  
§ 11. Now to the authority itself, & the Bishops answer thereto; Quanti igitur merits apud Deum suum Petrus, which you persist to construe, Of how great merit was Peter with his God, (so hardly are you driven with the dog from his licourment) as if Peter's merit had been to row the boat, and his reward to be made the governor of the world, whereas the indifferent translator would rather have construed it thus, Of how great interest, or how great account, therefore, was Peter with his God, (antecedens pro consequent, which your Rhetoric cannot be ignorant of, that quote Quintilian 
Adjoind. cap. 9  afterward, about the trope Catachresis) who after the rowing of a little boat, had the government of the whole Church committed to him? Thus Maximus. And the more to blame you then, as the Bishop well answers you, to assign him the government of a particular Church (Peter I mean) & so in effect to rob him of the Universal. For we deny not, but that both he, and his fellow Apostles, had the whole Church committed to their care, jointly and severally, without any limitation. And surely Maximus his words import no more. As for that the Bishop says, that Y O V have given him the government of a particular Church, after the government of the whole, have not You, I 
Numb. 14. He supposes h●re that not Christ but 〈◊〉 have give it him, and that S. Peter ●…s not Bishop of Rome, otherwise than in our concert, and by our gift.  pray, given it him, in that You allow it him, & that You stand for it to be his, against them that make question of it? Will you never leave this dissembling of your skill, to take all things in so wrong a sense, and by the left handle, as Epictetus calls it? Isay, You have given it him. Not we but Christ, you will say. You mean perhaps of his Universal government of the whole Church, which in a sense we grant you, as common to the rest, and not to be transmitted to posterity. In your sense you are as far from evicting any such thing, for aught I see, as if you had never gone about it, that he should be the ordinary pastor only, and the rest the extraordinaries. But to the particular Church of Rome, 
Eud●…. Patal. p. 137 Non du●… qu●… tot●… 〈◊〉 sa●lo ho●…m ●…deat, ●…m P●… 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…re.  you will not say yourselves that Christ designed him, no more then to Antioch which he abandoned after possession, but rather his own choice, if not your fiction. For you have given him leave to sleet, and to chop, and to fix his seat else where then at Rome, when so seems good. Only, piè we must believe, that he will not do so in haste. Howbeit 
Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. c. 4.  if we should deny that he was ever at Rome, as some have been moved by no weak grounds to do, as both collections out of Scripture, and supputations of the time when he should arrive there, yet your argument is strange whereby you would approve it here, in your num. 15. where you say, it is demonstrated, and as it were proclaimed, by the continual successions of Bishops in that Sea, to this very day. Call you this a demonstration of Peter's being at Rome, that Bishops never failed in that Sea, to this day, ergò S. Peter was the first that sat there? Though again it were no hard matter, to disprove the continuance of your Bishops in that Sea, even at sundry seasons, 
By schisms, by simonies, by transmigrations, sometime also by plurality of incumbents. As Felix and Liberius, Sozom. l. 4. c. 14. But chiefly whereas the Papists challenge other Seas to have failed in their succession of Bishops, we may truly answer them, that it had been more for their credit to have had none at all, then diverse such as they are feign to show to uphold theirs, of late times.  if it were pertinent to this place. But howsoever that be, you ought to bring a more colourable argument of Peter's sitting there as I take it. For of many that I have heard, this is simply the simplest. Neither is that much better, which you vaunt far more in, if it be possible, writing thus in the same numb. And withal he adds a strange Parenthesis [quasi ea totius pars non esset] as though the same particular Church of Rome were not a part of the whole. As who would say, that S. Peter could not be governor, both of the whole Church, and of a particular Church. Wherein, he argueth as wisely, as if he should say, that a Bishop of Ely could not be governor of the particular Church of Ely, and of the whole Diocese; or that a Bishop of Canterbury could not be governor of that Bishopric, and primate of England; or that a general of an army could not govern a particular company, and yet be general of the whole army. And here, though you would seem to have triumphed over the Bishop, in your impregnable instances, yet you show, it wrings you at the very heart, to be so met with about Maximus his authority, when in your numb. following you set him down both in Text, and Margin, for a man whose head should be confounded with blows, rather than confuted with arguments. So notable a champion you are at your Ismaels' Logic, whose fist was against every body, and every bodies against his, which Philo interprets to be the image of a disputer, but like none so much as the Popish disputants (you may say they dispute in Schola Tyranni, Act. 19) from whose butcherly hands, I pray God deliver us, that even thus declare their fingers to be itching, till they may deal with us.  
§ 12. As for the Bishopric of Rome, joined or adjoined to the Bishopric of the whole Church, which you would pattern with the Diocese and Church of Ely, recommended to the government of one man, or the government of a whole army, and one company in that army, entrusted to the care of the same general, and such like; how unlike are these comparisons, I report me to your conscience! For the government of that company, which is a limb of the main army, while it remains so, is impossible to be divided from the government of the whole, and so Ely Church from Ely Diocese is not so easily separated, in ordine current, as now things go; but he that hath the one must needs have the other. But yourselves hold, that the Bishopric of the whole world, hath been actually divided from the Bishopric of Rome, as namely while Peter sat at Antioch, before he came to Rome, to say nothing of your later Popes, that lay soaking at Auenion seventy years together: whereupon Bellarmine grants, as you heard even now, that they may be divided again, if occasion so require, 
Idem Bellarm. alibi, nimirum de Roman. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. Si transferatur etiamnum sede●, Romani Episcopi non erunt 〈◊〉 totius ecclesiae Episcopi. And, Francisc Vellosillus, Bishop of Luca, in Aduertentijs. in 4. tomum B. Chrysost. Quaesit. 17. proves this conclusion of his, by diverse reasons, Quid constitutione ecclesiae sieri posset, ut Episcopus urbis non modò sedem suam ab urbe demutaret (as he speaks) sed ut nullam omnino particularem ecclesiam sibi applicaret, etc.  and yet hopes that God will not easily permit it; by which you see, your comparison halts of one foot. But the main point lies in this: That the Bishop of Ely, hath no new induction to his Church of Ely, more than was given him at first entrance upon the entire Bishopric, and so the general of an army, hath no new constitution over a part of his army, after he is admitted General over the whole. Whereas you giving to S. Peter the whole Church for his Bishopric, if afterwards he take up his seat in Rome, by a more peculiar title, what doth he but extinguish his former clean? which, I think, will hold even in fitzherbert's Law.  
§ 13. Neither say that S. james was Bishop of Jerusalem, and yet governor of the whole Church, with the rest of his colleagues: for james was extraordinary as you also confess: but show that one man may be ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, and yet ordinary Pastor of a part too, by a second title distinct from the former; or else you say nothing, but palter about the Bishop's answer to Maximus, and bewray a manifest contradiction in your doctrine.  
§ 14. I labour to be brief, and I need not to add any thing to the Bishop's answers, which you see how pregnant they are against all reproof. Only, because the Bishop is so exceedingly compendious, in his Answer to the Apology, and occasion hath been given me to peruse the Sermons newly quoted of S. Maximus, I will set down, in a word or two, mine own observations, out of the said Sermons lately set forth, for F. T. to consider, if they make not 
Ann. 1614 Pa●is.  more for S. Paul, then that doth for Peter, which the Cardinal alleged. In his second Sermon therefore, de eodem festo, viz. Natali B B. Petri & Pauli, speaking of Paul, after he had commended Peter for his great faith, Cuius tanta est nihilominùs plenitudo sidei: Whose fullness of faith is so great notwithstanding. First, fullness of faith, like plenitudo spiritús, which they attribute to the Pope. And, notwithstanding Peter's, as deserving a reward no less than his, if there were place for deserts, unless you will say, that Peter had engrossed all 
Nothing left for. ●●sopt. because his fellows professed to know all things first. 〈◊〉.  before, and nothing was left for Paul though deserving. Yea he adds, that our Saviour in his providence chose him, peculiarem quodam modo ducem, a captain (of his Church) in a manner singular, and without fellow. Erat enim tam praecipuus, etc. ut ad ecclesiae solatium, & ad firmamentum omnium credentium, Christus eum vocaret è caelo. He was so singular (in his gift) that to the comfort of his Church, and the support of all the faithful, (firmamentum credentium not inferior to petra) our Lord directly called him from heaven. Lastly, Vt adverteret princeps futurus nominis Christiani, that he which was to be the prince of the name Christian, that is, the most eminent in all the Christian congregation, might mark, etc. As for the third Sermon of that argument, which is that from whence the words, Quanti meriti, are quoted, whereunto the Bishop answers: it follows immediately after them in the praise of Peter, thus of Paul: That Paul in his Apostleship, how highly did he please Christ? (where you see meritum is counterpoized by placere, indeed all one) who is his own witness, sidelissimus sibi testis: who shunning to reveal his own praise, and yet seeking to make known the power of his Christ, wraps up in modesty, etc. Alluding, no doubt, to those places of his Epistles, wherein he evidently challengeth equality with the best, and reporteth 
viz. 2. Cor. 11. 23. etc.  such things as is wonderful by himself, though not tickled thereto by any private vainglory, but merely enforced by his adversaries importunity. In the first Sermon of that argument, they are jointly called, both Paul and Peter, Ecclesiarum omnium principes, Princes of all the 
S. Hieron Praef. comm. in epist. ad Gal. calls them twice, principes, within a few lines, once Apostolor●●, again Ecclesia●….  Churches: and again, reverendissimi Principes omnium Ecclesiarum, the most reverend Princes of all the Churches.  
§ 15. I omit your railing in your num. 18. where you say the Bishop hath been puzzled with places, and feign to trifle, wrangle, cog, and lie, etc. I account it my ill hap, to be matched with such a rakeshame, that observes no reverence, and is only good at proving our patience. Only my comfort is, as Demosthenes is said, to have said in the like, that I shall overcome in being put down, and you lose in conquering, in so damned an encounter. The Bishop had said of the cardinals testimonies, cited out of the fathers, unum hoc peccant omnia. All the places brought for Peter's primacy, trip in this, that they have nothing, in truth, which may not strait be granted, except some petty word, about which I mean not to jangle. And what more excellent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could there be then this? a premonition, or an amulet, against the errors, that might arise in unstable minds, by mistaking the fathers, while they use such speeches. For as Epiphanius says, that such cautions must be used sometimes, even towards the writings of holy Scripture, lest the Reader be perverted, rather than edified; so, in the fathers much more, who neither write so plain for understanding as the Scriptures, nor yet so currant for belief. It follows in the Bishop; Nam nec primatum negamus Petri etc. for we deny not the primacy of Peter, nor the names which do signify it, but we demand the thing, or the matter itself now in question, to wit, his earthly Monarchy. Thus he. And to this what say you? You say, he grants the primacy of Peter, and yet labours to overthrow it, when it is proved out of the fathers. As how, trow you? When they teach that Peter had the primacy, because he was the foundation of the Church, and that he had a special commission given him to feed Christ's sheep, he goeth about to prove that Peter was no more the foundation of the Church, than the rest of the Apostles were, nor otherwise Pastor thereof, than they. And what of that? Wherein then consisted this primacy, which the fathers teach, and deduce, from the power given him by the keys, and by his pastoral commission, which do import authority, power, jurisdiction, and government? This you. It hath been told you, Sir, sufficiently, over and over, wherein the primacy of Peter consisted, though it draw no sovereignty or jurisdiction with it, and much less so great, as you are in love with, I mean the temporal and the terrible; quae & spiritum concutit saecularis rei gratiâ, as Tertullian says, or saeculum concutit praetextu 
De patientia.  Spiritûs, as yours apparently doth. It is 
* The ancienter Papists were not so immoderate. joh. Slotanus contr. V●●sium, etc. after he had allowed the Pope ●aculum, as well as ●eram, one for doctrine, the other for discipline, expounds himself in this manner. Habet summus ecclesiae Antistes super omnes potentiorem potestatem coactivam; quam etiam Principes sil● subi●●ere potest. SEEN CAEDE TAMEN. Hic est autem spiritualis gladius ●lle, per quem interdicere potest ingressu ecclesiae, & coelum claudere, etc. Thus he limits the Pope's coactive power. And Espencaeus Digress●n Epist. ad Titum, c. 1. p 172. En Episcopalem duritiem, in VFRRIS tamen, non in VERBERIBUS sitam. Nam carceres, & huiusmodi corporum coerctiones, cum dominij● temporalibus, BENEFICIO ET DEVOTIONE PRINCIPUM accessisse puto. Gravissima TUM poena erat excommunicatio, non MORTALIS●a●… ●a●…, sed medicinalis. Also, Card. Pole, lib. de sum. Pont. c. 49. praising the Pope's form of government, None to that (saith he) quae— volentes Per populordat iura. And, c. 44. The Pope, if he will be good, must never descendere de Cruse, i. interpose in worldly affairs.  neither keys not crook, that will content you, but only a glaive, and a staff, the armour of the foolish shepherd, whereof Zacharie speaks, describing your Pope, that idol in sede meâ, as Christ from heaven bespoke him long ago, if the stories say true. And yet why should we tell you, wherein this primacy consists, that the Fathers deduce out of the words of Scripture, rather than you conclude it out of the words themselves, or the Father's words upon those words, and so force it upon our consciences, that we may have nothing to answer, but by yielding to your desire? Now you are feign to rave, and chase, and cry, after all is done, what is it, if it be not this? What is pasce oves, and super hanc petram, but only the making Peter chief Magistrate of the Church, so as all jurisdiction may flow from him? Whereas we may say more truly, and ask of you, what so unlikely foundation hath this exorbitant power, as either the keys of the Church, or the feeding of Christ's sheep? And doth the Bishop, good Sir, only go about to prove that other Apostles are joined with Peter, either in the feeding of Christ's flock, or in the receiving of the keys? Which he hath evidently convinced, and demonstrated to your eye, both by the sequel of the text, and the authorities of the Fathers. The Father's argument then, (say you) is nothing worth, whereby they would establish the primacy of Peter, from such places. As though Peter's primacy might not be proved from 
The Papists device is overthrown by themselves; so far are the Fathers from abetting it. For Maldonate upon joh. 21. notes it for a principal circumstance, that Pasce oves meas was said to Peter, post prandium, after dinner: and yet the rule of their law is, that Ordines non dantur post prandium, Sa. ex sylvest v. Ordines. § 14 How much less the Popedom, which so infinitely surmounteth all order▪ Though Mald. most absurdly note in the aforesaid place, that our Saviour Christ did almost all his extraordinary works, either after dinner, or after supper. These are the gravities and godliness of our Jesuits. To our Saviour, no doubt, all times were one.  the places, and yet that primacy be no such primacy as you conceit. For the very promising of the keys, though with intention to them all, yet to him only formally, & the feeding of Christ's lambs, which was the charge of them all, yet three several times enjoined to him, because of his threefold denial of his Lord, gives him a kind of prerogative or primacy, if you call it so, which we envy him not, and yet still falls short of your Monstrous Monarchy. S. August. hath told you, and S. Ambrose 
Bellarmine himself confesses, that Pasce oves meas, feed my sheep, is said omnibus pastoribus, to all ministers & past●●. De Rom. Pont. l. 1. e. 12. resp. ad 5. and moreover, whatsoever is said to him, ratione off●… pastoralis, in regard of his ministery, is common to all.  hath told you, the first two that Pasce oves, belongs to all, yea to all us, not only to all them; but the last, that not those words only, but whatsoever else was said to Peter, (by way of such honour no doubt) is common omnium, common 
Vid● supra in ho cap.  to all, at least common to all the Apostles. Neither pity the fathers, as most idly you would seem to do, in your 19 numb. for inferring the primacy from such places as those; but rather condemn your own foolish fancy, for misinterpreting so grossly, both the Fathers and the places. When you say, The Bishop is miserably troubled with certain petty words, with voculae quaedam, as Caput, and Primatus, and sometimes he grants them, sometimes denies them: What more just, or more reasonable course can be held, then both to grant them, and deny them, the one in the Father's sense, that they allege them in; the other in yours, as you pervert them? As for troubling the Bishop, they are so far from that, those small words, & as you say, petty voculae; that by his accurate explaining them, I verily believe, he hath provided so well, as they shall never trouble any man more hereafter.  
§ 16. In fine you carp him, for calling the Pope's supremacy, an earthly Monarchy, or temporal primacy; of which before. Yet you repeat it again. And wherefore then did you, in reporting origen's words, num. 2. of this Chap. concerning the founding of the Church upon Peter, veluti super terram, as upon the earth, break off the English, to print those words aswell in Latin as in English, veluti super terram, which is more than you afforded to certain other of 
Super terram.  the same sentence, to express them twice? Was it not to persuade us, that his primacy was earthly, or his Monarchy temporal, which here you abhor? But let us hear 
Mo●●●chia terrestris.  you in good earnest. The place, say you, is temporal, or earthly, where it is exercised, that is this present world, the power 
Adi●yn. Num. 22. cap. 5.  heavenly, both by institution from above, and because he is guided, by God's spirit, in the use of it. Which, I pray you, may we not say, of the power of Kings, as well? Unless either you have forgotten Rom. 13. That, there is no power but of God, 
Theodor. de Constantin. Magno, in principio historiae: &, Concal. Triburiens. de Arnulpho, anno Dom. ●95. vide edit. Venet. tom. 4. p. 27. A●apet. Epist.  or the emperors style, which the Fathers give them, Non ex hominibus neque per homines, or in the Council of Calchedon, Desuper regni sceptra suscipiens Imperator, etc. Or, Per me reges regnant, Pro. 8. 15. Or, Ind potestas, unde spiritus, Tertullian in Apologet. Or Gregory Nazianzen in orat. ad Praesidem irascentem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab illo sceptrum habes, etc. Thou reignest with Christ, thou hast thy sceptre from him. Or that happily ye are persuaded, that the Pope is better assisted, than the King, by God, in his Consultations. What means that then, Prov. 16. 10? Oraculum in labijs: and, In judicio non errabit os eius. What that, Prou. 21. 1? The heart of the King is in the hand of God, & quocunque volet flectet illud. Which S. August. so stands upon, that he doubts not to say, per cor Regis ipsa veritas jussit, Truth itself commands by the heart of the King; and again, Emperors command the self same that Christ, for when they command what good is, no man commandeth by them, but Christ. Epist. 166. To make short, what think you of that, Rom. 13. Rulers are no terror to good works, but to the evil. No nor to 
Praise comprehends all the means that Kings have to reward, though they are marry. Because it is s●●um humano●…, as Aristot●aves ●aves. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  workers neither. Do what is good, and he will praise thee not punish thee. The ruler is the Minister of God, for thy good, but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon all them, that do evil. Yea, they are all God's Ministers, attending upon this very thing continually. Doth not this rather show, that the King is assisted by God, than the Pope, to preserve him as well from scandal of action, as from error in judgement? Though for the Pope, you are not wont to deny yourselves, that he may err in action, and that very foully: all your care is to uphold the credit of his judgement, wherein you see the King enjoys God's directions, no less than he. But why should you be so loath, to admit of the term of temporal Monarchy, or earthly primacy? May we not say with the Poet, as he doth of Dido?— hoc praetexit nomine culpam, cladem rather: or with the same author elsewhere, — Quid si quod voce negatis, Mente datis, or vendicatis? What is this, but to cut the throat with a wooden knife, pretending gentleness to the acts of fierceness, Jacob's voice, and Esau's hands? Or like the Axe, in Aesop's fables, which Bishop Fisher told of, that came a begging upon a time to a certain goodly wood, or tuft of trees, for a helue or a handle, promising to trim it, and prune it, and keep it neat, but ended in felling, quelling, and destroying. So the Pope challengeth nothing, but a spiritual primacy, to keep Kings in order and in awe, who else would be extravagant, he says; which if once you grant him, you shall see what feats of mischief he will work you, as Balaam said, I would kill the outright, if I had but a sword, or as 
Numb 22. ●9. 1. Sam 21. 9  David of Goliath his, so he of the spiritual, Give me but that, there is none to that. Let him alone, if once he can get but to grasp the sword, be it what it will be, sword, or swithe; Monarchy, or Primacy, and of what kind soever.  
§ 17. Why, but S. Peter exercised a corporal power, and S. Paul likewise, for so much as they both ended in corporal effects, as 
Adjoin Num. 22  in striking Elymas the sorcerer blind, as in punishing Ananias, and Sapphira, with bodily death. As if this were the power, either of Peter or Paul, being miraculous in them both; whereas Miracles come from no inhaerent power, as your Schoolmen teach, from a circumstant rather, or an attendant; almighty God, by means unknown, being ready to execute the determinations of his servants. But we speak of a power inherent in the magistrate, which is denominated by the effects, as the effects are sorted and qualified by their objects, goods, bodies, limbs, and liberty. For about them are conversant the acts of magistracy, deprivations, imprisonments, maims, or deaths. Which the doer of miracles hath no hand in the inflicting of, but at his request Omnipotency effecteth. Even as you read of josua commanding the sun, Obedivit Deus voci hominis, but voci only, etc. S. Ambr. confutes this argument of yours, lib. 3. Offic. cap. 14. speaking of Elizeus & the Syrians whom he took prisoners, that, Non erant manu percutiendi, quos supernaturali virtute subiugâsset. They might not be stricken with hand, whom God had extraordinarily put into his hands. So as S. Peter himself 
Expellit dictis, non armis, says Lucret. lib. 5.  might not exercise any bodily force upon those, whom the holy Ghost by miracle had subjecteth to him. Much less than may we, by his example.  
§ 18. Neither is it to be wondered, that the primitive Church might have temporal power, or corporal power in defect of Christian Magistrates, to punish offenders, which since hath ceased in the ordinary government, the Church having returned to her Channels, as I may say, and the Magistrate being at hand to take her part. To omit 
Cap. 3. huiu●.  that as I noted to you before, the devil was appointed to be the executioner, rather than once the Apostles should defile themselves, with that work, or handle the sword; to which now the Pope's hand even cleaves for eagerness, as did that Captains, 2. Sam. 23. 10.    


THE DEFENCE OF the Bishop of ELIE his Answer to Card. BELLARMINE'S Apology, against the slanderous Adjoinder of F. T. The second Part.  
EPHREM.  
¶ To thee, and but to thee to none, I make my prayer.  
PRINTED BY CANTRELL LEG, Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1617.   

To the sixth Chapter of the Adjoinder, about Invocation of Saints.  
The authorities of the Fathers, of the first and second rank (according to the BISHOPS most accurate division of the confused huddle brought by the Cardinal) are reexamined in this Chapter;  
AND HIS ANSWERS TO THEM found to be such, as maintain themselves against all exception.  
§. 1. TVllie would not vouchsafe to accuse Vatinius, but only presseth him with certain questions, to disgrace him the more. I have hitherto done nothing, unbeseeming the reputation of a far greater adversary, and indeed afforded him somewhat too large answers, making bold with the Reader, and his gentle patience, rather than I would come behind in any sort of satisfaction. Henceforth I I must crave leave to be a great deal rounder and stricter with him, as drawing towards the Centre. It a feriendus est homo, ut ne sentiat quidem perirese: for his comfort.  
§ 2. Num. 3. then. He acknowledgeth invocation of Saints (though not of God) to be possible without faith in them. This is first against the generality of the Apostles text, Quomodò invocabunt in quem, that is, in quemcunque non crediderunt? Rom. 10, How shall they call upon him, in whom [soever] they have not believed? And at least a man might invocate God, though not as the 
a Aqui● part. 〈◊〉. summae, quest. 25. Artic. 3. in resp. citans glossam. Deus per creationem, cui debetur Latria. Dominus per po●…am, cui Dulia. Such are their fooleriet, that in one respect now, God and the Saint shall be worshipped alike, yea with equal worship, with Dulia both. Whereas, 〈◊〉 Deo nihil mi 〈◊〉 est, or else, Non esset omne Deu● quod in Deo est, contrary to the Axiom. See S. Leo sweetly pronouncing of this point, serm. 8. in N●t. Domini.  creator of heaven and earth, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as some Saint, or demigod, by this distinction; not ex ass but ex semunciâ, (as 
b Contra jul. lib. 3. cap. 2.  julian the Pelagian cavilled with S. Austen de senis uncijs) albeit we did not put affiance in him. Which were against the Apostles, Quomodò invocabunt? How shall they call? As who would say, Nullo pacto, not at all. Therefore, num. 9 he eats his word, and allows faith in Saints themselves, as necessary for the invocation of them too. In some sort, says he. An egregious blasphemy, and by which one Chosroes only, a Persian, is known, none else that ever I read of, 
c 〈◊〉 Call●st. lib. 18. cap. 22. Hist Ecclesiast.  (Nicephorus reporting it,) to allow faith in Saints, or in creatures, to be lawful. 
d joh 24.  You believe in God, believe also in me. Who might say this, but he that was more than a bare creature? Quis dicat Sanctorum, Crede in me, nisi Sanctus Sanctorum, saith S. Austen, de peccatorum meritis & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 14. And Origen to the same purpose, 
e In evang. johann. Tom. 32.  Non est dictum, Qui credit in vos, credit in me; etsi dictum est, Qui recipit vos, recipit me. It is not said, He that believeth in you, believeth in me, though it be said, He that receiveth you receiveth me. And the one of these, is for the Sermo, in origen's declaration of it, the other for them qui à sermone, that is for the Apostles. The very same hath S. Austen, almost totidem verbis, upon the same place of S. john, Tract. 44. that you may know one Father borrowed of another, specially the Latin of the Greek. Each of them showing this, that the Saints though they are to be received by us, yet not received by faith, but Christ only, who is the word of his father. And again Origen more pithily, Hom. 4. in Ezech. Ad eos qui in Sanctis fiduciam habent, non incongruè proferimus exemplum, Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. Against them that put their trust in Saints, we allege that Scripture not without good cause, Cursed is the man that makes man his trust. And a little after, Si necesse est in aliquo sperare, omnibus derelictis speremus in Domino. If we must needs hope in some body, leaving all let us hope in the Lord. Like those godly Burgundions, whom Socrates reports of, lib. 7. hist. cap. 30. that weary of seeking aid any more of man, they determined to commit themselves henceforth wholly to God, and guided by the providence that never forsakes, chose the Christians God, who was then worshipped throughout the Roman Empire; And their reason was, because he was never known to fail any such as trusted in him. A most true Elogium, and a worthy ground of coming to God, accedendi ad Deum, that I may speak with the Apostle, Heb. 11. Which soon after was verified upon them, by a most joyful experience; and a Bishop of France (no need of the Pope to such work, I wisse, whatsoever you dream) baptized them, and incorporated them, after he had humbled them with fasting (a most worthy practice) seven days together, & instructed them in the faith. But this by the way. Return we to putting confidence in God only. How often doth the Scripture particularly so appropriate it? Faith in God, Act. 20. Hebr. 6. jerem. 17. Psal. 117. Psal. 146. etc. As who would say, It is the privilege wherein God and the creature communicate not, (like gloria mea not to be given to another, like Achilles 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  his spear, which only himself could brandish) no more than joseph and Putiphar, or joseph and Pharaoh, the one in the government of his private house, the other of his Kingdom, might be consorted. Yet nothing reserved from joseph by either of them, but only the one his wife, and the other his crown. So is faith in God, one of God's peculiars. Yea S. chrysostom observes, Hom. 3. in Act. that the Apostles durst not say when time was, Fides in eum, that is, in Christum, but only, fides per nomen eius, faith by his name. So tender a point this is. Which he repeats elsewhere. S. Cyrill also; of whom 
In fine huius.  anon. In the mean while proceed.  
§ 3. Numb. 4. He belies S. Hieromes Commentary 
g Among S. Hieromes works, the Com. upon this Epistle is twofold. In one, he extends charitatem to the Sanct●, but not fidem, ●…ing, Qu● enim diligit caput, diligat oportet & membra, not so, Qui credit; In the other, thus he explains himself. Quod autem dico●ale est. Cre●… quispiam in con●… Deum: Non potest credere ●…si prius crediderit de Sanctis 〈◊〉 vera esse que scripta sunt: Adam à D●e plasm●…m, Eu●m, etc. Where is conscience now, Mr. F. T?  upon the Epistle to Philemon, who speaks of no faith to be reposed in Saints, but credence given to their doctrine only. S. Paul's text than must thus be understood, fidem in Deum, and charitatem in Sanctos, faith in God, and love to the Saints, specially such Saints as there he speaks of, whose bowels must be refreshed, which are neither fit to be prayed to, because they stand in want; how much less to be the objects of our Christian faith, if it be but because they are the subjects of our sight? According as to the Coloss. 1. 4. he utters the same more distinctly, thus; faith in Christ; and love to the Saints, though here he deliver it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or upon a heap. So likewise again 2. Thessal. 1. 3. albeit when he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of every one of you towards another, he shows plainly enough, that love goes further than faith may, unless every Christian may believe in every one, and then where shall we stay? Gregory Nazianzen: orat. 
〈◊〉 in Ep. ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habutt Phil. 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…lloru● ex●…tendo. Or, 〈…〉, pro communone 〈◊〉, as the 〈◊〉 words are, explaining these, that is, d●●ds of mercy, to which he was 〈◊〉 to ●…ort him; not to believe in Saints.  5. de Theolog: says well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is one thing to believe in a thing, another to believe what is reported of it. Which S. Hierome only meant of the Saints in that place, that the histories that went of them in Scripture, were to be believed, and credited. Nazianzen adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this belongs to God [only,] namely to be believed in. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
The Co●… of Cal●… in Al●… ad 〈◊〉. pag. 21●. Sur. call● this, a ma●…●●ference.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If he be a creature, how do we believe in him? making it an evident argument of the divinity of the holy Ghost, that we believe in him. Also the Creed knows no faith in Saints, yet a complete form of our believing no doubt. As for Credo in ecclesiam, if some 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Symb. Nicen. Quanquam idem symbolum, ut exprimit●… a Basi●o, in Epist. ad Antiochen, pag. 308. edit. Graec. Froben. Omnem fidem perspicuè revocat ad tres personas Trinitatis, ne nomin●… quidem Ecclesiam, nisi in diversissimum sensum, sati●… di●● post.  have read it so, though there are other answers, yet it is enough that the Church consists of far more than they will allow us to put our trust in. And indeed it is a strange huddle and confusion of things, when the Church which was wont to contain the faithful, shall have them in it now, upon whom we must rely by faith.  
§ 4. Numb. 5. Almost senseless shift. As there is, Soli Deo gloria, says he, and yet, honour & gloria omni operanti bonum. Rom. 2. so there is a double invocation, one of Saints, another of God. As if glory in the first place, be not glory which we ascribe to God, in the second that which God vouchsafes to us. Is invocation so? Doth God invocate? And why does our Saviour conclude his prayer, the exemplary platform of all praying, with Quia tua est gloria, etc. but that Saints have no such glory; and yet pray we must not, but only to them, to whom we may ascribe the like glory. As the causal particle in that prayer implies, QVIA tuum est regnum, & potentia, & gloria, etc. FOR thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. Here they are gone in the Pater noster, as before they were confuted by 
pag. 94 〈◊〉.  the Creed, for Primacy. Passus est sub Pontio Pilato, etc.  
§ 5. Out of Gen. 48. Inuocetur nomen meum super pueros, he is not ashamed to renew such motheaten stalenesses. For what does that mean? Let them be called by my name, or let it be their title and style to have Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, to their Fathers. For it is no small prerogative, Quorum sunt patres, Rom. 9 Did they give commandment to be invocated as Gods, when they lay a dying (as he belike 
jacob is made to Canonize himself, yet alive.  would have it) like Cyrus in Xenophon, Sic me colitote ut Deum? And in Limbo this? See Psal, 48. as the seventy read it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, upon their houses and lands. Which we in English read thus, They call their lands after their own names, an usual phrase throughout the scripture. So jam. 2. 7. They slander the worthy name which is called upon you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as our late English excellently well hath it, by which you are called. And Esay. 4. Seven women shall say to one man, let thy name be called upon us; in the very same sense: that is, let us be reckoned and accounted thine. Solomon a little otherwise, in the dedication of his temple, desires that God's name may be called upon it, yet not as if the temple should pray to God, etc. But the rather did the Patriarch here desire this, concerning Ephraim and Manasseh, lest the disparity of their birth having an Egyptian to their mother, might quail their confidence in God's promises to their Fathers, and that they might know they had as good interest in them, as the rest of their kindred.  
§ 6. As for S. Austin's place, Locutinoum de Genesi, num. 200. He determines not whether the patriarchs were invocated by their children, as F. T. would bear us in hand, or upon them rather as we say, but only bids us note, that the word invocation is sometime verified upon men, aswell as upon God, and so exaudition likewise. What of that?  
§ 7. Numb. 7. Let him prove and not say, or not say till he prove, that intercession to Saints by our seeking to them, and intercession of Saints to God for us, is all one. Negamus & pernegamus. In all Chrysostom's Liturgy, (
* Our Church seems to reckon it for Chrysostom's, calling one of the prayers in it Chrysostom's prayer.  I mean that which bears his name) where there is mention of the intercession of Saints for us so many and so 
a Nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And as for Marry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not to her, not to them, but to Christ only.  sundry times, there is not the least praying on the 
b Understand this of the original Greek, not of Leo Tuscus his translation.  faithfuls part, so much as once, to the greatest Saint.  
§ 8. To the. 9 Numb. It will never be disproved what the Bishop answers to S. Basils' authority, that aliud est faceré, aliud statuere; and Legibus non exemplis viuen dum est. Gregory Nazianz. saying is, as I remember, Privilegia paucorum non faciunt legem Ecclesiae. Seneca himself, Permittit sibi 
Consol. ad Marcian.  quaedam, & contra bonum morem, magna pietas. And what though S. Basil should draw an argument from thence, which he doth not? Does not S. Paul so from a corrupt fashion of baptising over the dead, in some Writers opinions? 1. Cor. 15. See Bellar. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 6. confessing as much. Likewise chrysostom gives folk 
Hom. 10. in Acta Apost. Non tamen (inquit) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  leave to swear by themselves, that the name of God might be less dishonoured by them in their daily mention. Is it lawful therefore to swear by ones self? Himself denies it in the same place.  
§ 9 Numb. 25. He says there is no ordinance, or no decree, but in councils. Let him bring them hardly then, let 
Our demand of a decree for prayer to Saints.  him cite the councils. Are not they Fathers, and multiplied Fathers? Will his MAJESTY refuse the councils, wherein so many speak as one man, that is content to be ordered by the Fathers in singular, if the authority be pregnant, and the antiquity sufficient? But how shamefully does he belie the Council of Gangra? Neither is any such thing in the poem there, nor yet in the Canons. Only a corruption is crept into the poem, which is nothing material neither, though it were granted. See the Greek at Paris, of Tilius his edition, see other Greek copies. And, is to meet at Churches, or not to shun assemblies in Basilicis martyrum, all one with the invocation of Saints now become? Why rather should we not think their private mass condemned under a Priest and his boy, in the 6. Canon of that Council, contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against them that assemble without a lawful assembly? as likewise their Gossip-baptizers taxed in that which follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, against the performers of Churchbusinesses, without Priestly assistance, etc. On the other side, how mainly are the Popish practices in that Preface confuted? About 
a Can. 1.  the honour of the married life, the 
b Can. 4.  indifferency of celebrating with Priests married or unmarried, 
c Can. 14.  against women leaving their proper husbands, to observe the profession of I know not what continency, but like theirs certainly. Against 
d Can. 12. & 13.  affectation of apparel, as in the Nuns and Friars now of all colours. Yea, 
e Can. 3.  for the authority of Masters over their servants (the very case of Supremacy this day in question) though the one be Christian, the other an infidel: of which point Epiphanius most sweetly in a certain place, Navis ecclesiae non recipit fugitivum, neque qui à proprijs Dominis discedit. The ship of God, 
lib. 2. Tom. 1. haer. 61. quae. Apostolicorum est.  or of his Church, admits no runaway, nor for saker of his own masters. Against departing with riches under hope of more holiness, which is their vow of poverty, so magnified at 
Vide Praefat. Concil.  this day. I might add, out of comparison of the 19 Canon with the second in that Council, that although fastings, such as the Church appoints, are to be kept, which we deny not, yet without preferring of fish before flesh, as the more holy, which is their error. And do they tell us of the Council of Gangra? In which there is not one syllable, neither in preface nor bulk, of praying to Saints. Yea, in the 20. Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being distinctly so mentioned, and attributed to the Martyrs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Martres memories, but God's service.  are put absolutely as only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Gods only. Yet we have councils against them, even ancient councils, prayer to Angels being condemned in the Laodicean Council, and called a close Idolatry, of which hereafter. Now if to Angels, how much more to Saints, as Epiphanius his argument is, Ne Angeli quidem, nedum silia Annae; No not the Angels, much less the daughter of Anna, which is their 
Hzres. Collyrid.  highest Saint. See the Council of Nice, Can. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prayers to God, and to God only: as S. Paul in the Acts. 26. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 2. Cor. 13. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not Paul's speech more than vox ipsius naturae, the voice of Nature; Men praying still to God, and to God only, by the instinct of nature. As Tertullian observes somewhat not unlike in his Apologet. 
Idem ferè Cyprian l. de vanitat. idol Nam & vulgus in multis Deum naturalter consitetur. Item, Quae haec summa'delicts est, nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non poss●… Yet the Papists so.  O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae. Nature herself teacheth men this point of religion. But pass we to more.  
§ 10. S. Hierome against Vigilantius, never patronizes in one word praying to Saints. Yet F. T. is not ashamed to confound the questions still, of their praying for us, with ours to them. Whereas if they pray for us, they pray to God, and all our question tends only to the end, that God be not intermeddled with, in his right to hear prayers. For so in the Psalm. 64. I ween, Thou that hearest the prayer; and, To thee shall all flesh come. Well may they go together; The hearer of the prayer is the receiver of all, to him. But no particular Saint receives all flesh to him, Ergò. Again, Psal. 5. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. many reasons are given of his praying to God (unto thee do I pray, saith he) which utterly abolish all praying to Saints. As namely, the absolute purity of the divine essence: For thou art a God with whom dwells no wickedness: whereas, in his Angels themselves he hath found folly, as job says, And many the like. But returning to our Adjoinder, how gross is his ignorance numb. 19 that 
Adjoind. Numb. 19 The Latin Translator doubted not to translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hos oret, (the more wretch he) expresting also the Indicative mood in the Greek by an Imperative in the Latin: (so prates the parrot, and so he writes it) how boldly both?  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to pray, or to run to pray, as if there were no other running? Does not S. Austen speak of the fashions of his time, curritur cum infantulis, for baptism, no doubt, to be had of the Priest, not for prayers to the Priest; and so for many other causes, besides intercession? Likewise Denys of Mars-street, in his Epistle ad Demophilum, not unfit to be tongue into a Jesuits ear, to expel the devil of rebellion that is in them (as they hold opinion of bells, that they are 
Doctrine of peace & good order out of Mars-street.  to be dis-enchaunted:) Si famulum in Dominum, si adolescentem in Seniorem, si filium in Patrem dicere videremus, etc. flagitiosè facere videremur, nisi CURRENTES superioribus 
Would this stand with Card. Allens project against Q Eliz●  epem ferremus, etiamsi for sitan illi priores iniuriam acceperint. Here is CURRENTES, and yet in no such sense. But I will English the whole, for the good that may come of it. If we should see one's servant give his Master 
Superiors must be holpen against their subject, with all speed, even RUNNING, though abused but in tongue only, yea though themselves have done the wrong.  bad words, the younger to his elder, the son to the father, we might seem to be guilty of no less than villainy, if we did not R V N and succour them, yea & that though the injury sprang first from them (viz.) the superiors. R V N saith Denys, and succour the Magistrate. Yet with this man, currere is nothing but invocare; to run is to pray unto. I might ask him here, whom he went to invocate, which of all the Saints, that same aliquem Sanctorum, as most fond they construe, job. 5. that he could not come to in England, when he ran beyond Sea. Besides that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, to the monuments of the Martyrs, not to the Martyrs themselves, whom we need not to run unto, if it be as they say, that they hear our prayers, but may speak unto them in every place, and from every place, as shut up no where. Let them remember their own principles, Non inijcimus Christo compedes: We do not fetter Christ. 
〈◊〉 de Eucha●…  And surely, where the Lamb is, there are they. Apoc. 14. 4. & evang. joh. 17. 24.  
§ 11. In his 16. numb. (for I go over them thus cursorily, not curious of a method) when he thinks he hath greatest advantage against the Bishop, and talks so like a noddy, of a new Grammar; what says 
Truly he must either make a new Grammar to 〈…〉 his construction, or else retract his exposition, & and, Num. 15. But will you further yet bear him confute his own gloss, & see him tripped, as I may say, in his 〈◊〉 play? The word HE (saith the Bishop) cannot be referred to relics. For the gender doth not suffer it. Why doth he then in the former place, make hos to signify memorias martyrum? Doth the gender trow you suffer it, either in the Latin or the Greek? Can he make high or ho, to agree wish memorias 〈◊〉 monumenta, etc. Ad●…ynd.  he? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says he) cannot signify memorias martyrum, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because that is masculine, and these are feminine, or neuter. I might tell him of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the like; which in effect are all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or memoriae. But let them stand aside. Euripides in Medeâ, speaking of the children newly returned from play, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, ex gymnasio ad eum usum: not from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves, though the one be masculine and the other neuter. So here. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per metonymiam, is put for the place to which they belong, of what gender soever they are, that resort to the place. See Casaubone of this in Theophrasti characteres. And withal hear, what the oracle of our parts, for Greek and all good learning, Mr. Andrew Downes, (whom I name by way of reverence, and singular honour) hath taught us of this matter, even ludibundus, sometimes. In orat. Demosthen. contr. Androtionem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro, in comitio, ubi congregatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same oration, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. theophra. in Charact. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Apud Lucian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro loco habendi symposy.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.. i. in loco ubi praestigiae spectantur. I suppose, this is the place that gives occasion to Mr. Casaubone, whom I lately named, to make the like observation; but remembering the general, I had forgotten the particular, I confess. At Athens in the Piraeum, not far from the haven, there was a place called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. where proof was made of wares and merchandise. Homer. Odyss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (in answer to your quotations out of Homer about Thetis and the rest) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for locus saltandi, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for locus certandi. Plautus himself, if his mention offend you not, (though why should it, when you can front us with your Ovid?) In iure, pro eo quod est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ubi ius dicitur. So, in ius vocare, in ius ambulare, pergere, etc. that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In one of the Apocryphaes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro, in loco ubi discuntur & docentur parabolae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Aristoph. pro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sexcenta sunt eiusmodi. I must bring you home. How often in S. Leo, or S. Gregory, crastino apud sanctum Petrum, for, in Basilica S. Petri, or the like? Your own Maldonate in 4. Matth. v. 23. hath the like observation, of the word ecclesiae, both from the Hebrews and the Greeks, as he says. The persons give name to the place that they use. Chrysost. orat. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the same purpose. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is the Scriptures fashion, when a thing is done at such a place, or at such a time, to call both time and place by the name of the thing. So also of the persons. Why not? And yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall not be cum memorijs, but cum Sanctis ipsis. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the place, I say, when words of moving to it, or removing from it, are used, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implies no such thing, and may therefore be understood of the Martyrs themselves. Do you now see the reason, good Sir, to vary the construction, without any inconstancy in the Bishop as you imagine?  
§ 12. Likewise once again, I must tell you, to your num. 17. the Cardinal's argument is most ridiculously miserable, from veneration of relics, to intercession of Saints. Quo ferrumine tandem ista? What sother hath he to make these hold? Though we deny relics to have been ever venerated in the primitive Church with your manner of venerations. S. Austen indeed says, veneramur baptismum Epist. 145. and, Hortatio haec quae ubique iam praedicatur, quae ubique veneratur, de Agon: Christ. cap. 11. Baptism, and the word preached, are venerable to 
a S. Austen would have Baptism and the word preached to be had in worship of us. Which the Papists making slight of, divert their veneration now to the Sacrament of the Altar, as if none but that. S. chrysostom hom. 8. in epist. ad Ephes. Angeli venerantur 〈◊〉 Pauli, which were too much for an Angel, to worship Paul himself, much more his chains. But, Estimation with 〈◊〉, is called worship, if F. T. would understand this.  S. Austen. So happily relics. They were venerabiliter habitae, respectfully kept, or regardfully preserved, not worshipped, nor adored. You may read S. Gregory about this point, Epist. ad Constant. August. where he mislikes the taking up of dead bodies, to make relics of them; the worshipping much more. They neither sought the living among the dead, which the Angel condemns, nor à viventibus ad mortuos, which Esay forbids, and he purged as you know by an Angel, and a coal. But what need we more words, when yourself say, that 
Cap. 10. Numb. 19 of the Adjoind.  the Bishop grants as much as you desire in this point? Do then as he.  
§ 13. Now to your numb. 17. and 18. Not hae, but high, protect Countries without all doubt. 
Adloynd. Although the Cardinal citeth those words of S. Bisil, for the veneration of relics, [Hi martures, etc.] yet the intercession of Saint, is also CLEERFLY proved thereby, and again the use and veneration of holy relics, by the help & protection 〈◊〉 we receive from 〈◊〉 and Marty●.  Not the relics of Martyrs, but the Martyrs themselves (if aught at all) under God. S. Basil meant no otherwise. Therefore Bellarmine is most idle, when he draws such consequences, from the virtue of Martyrs, to the veneration of their relics. Are not relics subject to divers casualties? to wars, to fires, to consumption, etc. And shall they keep Countries, that not themselves? S. Chrysost. in Lazarum, says, that the very houses wherein Bibles are, are the more defenced against Devils and sundry calamities. Yet the Bible is not worshipped, by you especially. But for their love to the Bibles, God doth this. So for them that honour his Saints without idolatry.  
§ 14. To Numb. 29. Mamas was but vocatus, not invocatus, nor advocatus neither, as you translate it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Vocatus straight●…catus ●…catus, or advocatus.  saith S. Basil. And that might be by Apostrophe. Or, as if we should say, daniel's God, not invoking Daniel; so Mamas his god; we name his name, but we do not invocate him as our patron. Only we show we consent in religion with him, and in our joint service to the common Lord. As he that commanded all men to worship daniel's God. Dan. 6. 26. Does S. Basil say that Mamas ever helped him? I warrant you not. What then does he else, but even take advantage of the honest people's affection, towards the deceased champion, to establish them in the zeal of the true God, whom he served and suffered for? In this sense it may be true, what you say out of Theodoret, cap. 8. num. 45. That, prayer to Saints (such prayer as I have 
Deus Christianorum, often in the Church. historians. Does that infer praying to Christians 〈◊〉 or not rather to the God of Christians only?  now described) confirms Christ's Divinity. Which else it disables rather, but surely dishonours. And so I answer to your 22. and 23. numb. of this Chap. that by this means they might know the same God to have holpen them, whose Martyr Mamas was, though they made no petitions to the Martyr himself.  
§ 15. The defence of your translation of S. Basils' text, against so clear a light as is the original greek, is more than impudent. Therefore I pass by that, and come to Eusebius, the cardinals next author, in your Numb. 29. 
De praep. evan. l. 13. cap. 7.   
§ 16. Though that also about Eusebius, is of the same strain, for matter of translation. Quid 
The Bishop chargeth the Cardinal with fraud in p●…ting the Greek text, because the words in the Greek are somewhat otherwise, making no express mention of praying to Martyrs, but only at their tombs. Whereto I answer, that the Latin translator followed the sense of Eusebius, gathering the same out of the circumstance of the place. For Eusebius showing the conformity of Plato's doctrine to our Christian religion, &c: Numb. 29. A djoind.  tandem? You defend Christophorsons false gloss against Eusebius his original greek text. Whom shall we believe in this case? Neither say, it is gathered out of the circumstances of the text. His MAJESTY looks for Fathers, in suo puro & nativo, without your dashings, or interlacing. Nay verily it is an argument, that no such service of Saints was ever used in the primitive Church, because Eusebius here hath no such words. Who else would have been forward, you may be, sure to have paralleled herein the Christian fashion with Plato's devices. But he mentions not praying to them in the least word; the Translator only. Therefore as I said.  
§ 17. You plead, that the Cardinal is guiltless of this fraud, and deals uprightly, though the Translator lead him aside into error. It is hard to believe you, when the Greek was at his hand. But in the mean time, you see his proofs are answered, which is all we stand upon.  
§ 18. Numb. 31. Out of Chrysostom's Orat. in juventinum & Maximinum. I would I had the leisure to compare your religion, with the religion of those two. They complained of smoke, of sacrifice, etc. while julian domineered. 
Apud Th●…t.  Under you the sun is darkened with such vapours, with your censing, perfuming, and the like. They offered to die in obedience to the Emperor, and so they did, though martial men and well able to resist. With you, against the King, if the Pope proscribe him, Omnis homo miles est, as Tertullian speaks, even Churchmen and all. 
Apologet.  But to the purpose. Adoremus for adornemus. How can you defend this? Are you not ashamed to reiterate it? What though your Venetian Editions have it? the juntae, and the Sessae, and such like? Is that enough to make it authentical, because it came from Venice? So you read angulos for angelos, 
Can. 35. apud Garanzam in ●…ma. Cone.  in the Laodicean Council, as if that were the way to decline it. But it is well, that the Council is so forcible against you, that it drives you into corners. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to touch, that it should signify to worship, as you bear us in hand, who believes it? Yet it is marvel you infer not faith in relics, because S. chrysostom says, Let us embrace them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with faith. Which rather, I should think, checks your use of relics, as now adays they are used, and lifts up the mind à mortuis ad viventem, or à spolijs mortuorum, from shirts and hand-kercheffs, to the living God.  
§ 19 You quote Plutarch, Othone, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Some think it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. per modum supplicationis tetigere manus. But in Plut. Otho I find neither, and both come to one end.  If your quotation be right (for I promise you I cannot find it) it proves not, that touching is worshipping, with Plutarch, but that hands supplicate, or make request, which they performed then, of whom Plutarch speaks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aggressi sunt, they set forward to supplicate and make prayer by hands, as I construe it. Else I know not what the meaning of your quotation is, and whence you had it, see you. You quote Crispinus his Dictionary, compiled out of another of Budaeus his, as you imply. But in Crispin's Dictionary of 1595. which is said to be recèns restitutum & auctum, I find not one word sounding that way. Therefore I think it is not in Budaeus neither, yet he reckons up many significations (I mean Crispin doth) as capessere Rempublicam, laedere ', haerere & conglutinari, gustare, comedere, perstringere etiam & taxare. Marvel, how he should leave out only this, if any such were. Sure you never turned the book, but either believed your Monitors, or thought it was so, because you wished and strongly imagined it to be so indeed. Hesychius, and Suidas, are as dumb the same way about the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stephen and Scapula, who both quote Budaeus for the senses of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet have none such neither. In the end of Plutarch's Otho, I find only this, speaking of the love which the soldiers bare to Otho even dead, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, some touched his hands, Which, I pray you, may not a man do towards a dead body, for the love he bore to the person in his life time, unless he worship it? Remember the story of Artemisia and Mausolus. That was more than touching, when she eat and drank the ashes of her dead husband, for very love. Some kissed (says Plutarch) the wound of the dead body, some touched his hands, some made obeisance a far off. What is this to the matter? And one of the Dictionarists aforenamed, quotes the place of the Gospel, of many that touched the hem of our saviours garment. Yet of worshipping it, not a word. I should think that were a fine place to ground worshipping of relics upon, (if touching be worshipping) our Saviour being as sacred and sovereign in his life time, as any Saint is after his death. But the story of his interring by joseph and Nicodemus, (where there is no mention to 
Mark. 15. 46.  this purpose) consutes relics more than this can possibly help them. And yet lest you think it holds only in Christ, who was to rise again the third day; hear how your Maldonate construes that of S. john, Volo eum manner 
Com. in 21. joh.  donec veniam. This may be (saith he) though S. john died, well enough. For manner is to tarry, non concisum neque dilaceratum, sed sanum atque integrum, quamvis mortuum. Which could not be if he were to be cut out into mammocks, such 
Nemo distrahat Martyrs, etiam 〈◊〉 sensu. Vide August. de oper. Monach. c. 28. Alij membra Martyrum (si tamen Martyrum) venditant, etc. In Greg. Turon. lib. 9 c. 6. A sachel of mice-bones, moales-teeths, beares-clawes, etc. were found with a Mountebank, in stead of true Relics.  as your Relics are. Not Christ therefore, nor john, were to be carved into Relics. And were any worthier to be preserved, trow you, than they?  
§ 20. As for tangere genua, a circumstance which they were wont to use that prayed, it shows not that tangere signifies to prey, nor yet to worship, unless genua be put to it, or some such rite expressed, which in Relics holds not. S. chrysostom does not say, Let us touch their knees, but them howsoever. Which some body perhaps would construe without any great anagogy, of not abhorring either the death of God's Saints, which is precious in his eyes, as David witnesseth (in his, whatsoever 
Sure in S. Gregory's time it was impious and sacrilegious but even to touch the bodies of Saints dead in the Western parts; with whom we have now to deal. Intolerabile est atque sacrilegum. Vide Epist. 30. lib. 3. Regist. indict. 12.  it be in the worlds) or the memorials of the deceased, lately temples of the holy Ghost. But upon that I stand not. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Homer; so Thet is elsewhere; so Hecuba in Euripides. What is this to touching in an absolute sense, to signify worshipping? Is it not one thing what touching simply signifies, another what touching with such particular circumstance, as the beard, the knee, the hand? etc. Our Saviour himself touched the leper, and cured him, Mat. 8. 3. And, Mar. 10. 13. for the like cause they brought young children to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he should touch them,. i. bless them, not worship them. You say, job professeth that he kissed not his hand at the Sun rising, which with you imports, that he worshipped not the Sun. If you would persist in your first principle, that touching is worshipping, job should rather have 
S. Chrysost. construes those words of job, job 31. (the Adjoind. notes no place) of the frailty of all things, which appears even in the sun and moons decays; nothing to Adoration. Orat de Auarit. l. a●…. Tom. 7. Edit. Eton.  said, that he touched not the Sun with his hand, when it rises, which who doth? And S. Chrysostom does not bid us touch our hands, or kiss our hands, at the sight of the Relics, but touch them. Let chrysostom expound himself in another place. In his Comment. upon 2. Cor. the last chapter, Hom. 30. he mentions not only touching, but kissing one another (and that expressly in osculo sancto, with the holy kiss, or the religious kiss;) yea he says, they kissed the Church so, and the Church-porch so. Which, I suppose, yourselves would not admit, that we should worship one another, or worship the Church, and much less the Church-porch, with religious adoration. Therefore touching is no adoring; no nor 
Touching & kissing of holy things, is from a reverent assection, not a religious adoration.  kissing neither, which is a touching in specie, as your martial, no doubt, hath told you long ere this time. And now to Mr. Martial therefore.  
§ 21. Roma salutavit voce manuque Ducem. 
Matt. lib. 8.  What is this to worshipping, and not rather to saluting, but that with you, to salute the Virgin, is to pray to her? We worship the God, whom we confess we cannot touch. But, Otho protendens manum, adoravit vulgum, in Tacitus. By that reason, S. Paul adored the assembly when he stretched out his hand, speaking to them, Act. 26. 2. Which Athanasius says of himself, that he does too, as much as he may in absence, to the Emperor Constantius. See Apolog. ad Constant. in the beginning. Did he worship him in so doing, trow you? or rather make audience? Neither did Otho touch the people whom he worshipped, and yet you bring this, to prove, that touching is worshipping. Venerantes Deum tangimus frontem, says Servius; but nostram, not deorum. What is this to tangamus relliquias, for adoremus? So the rest that you produce out of Paynim-idolatry, as yourself confess to your great glory. And lastly, out of Ovid his good stuff, Tange manu mensam, as we do the book when we take an oath. What of that? Or would you ever reason so, if you had either conscience, or reason in you? We touch the book when we swear upon it: Ergò, the touching of relics is the worshipping of them. Well, Basil says, that relics 
Com. in Ps. 115. Orat. 1. in ●uliā. The bodies of Saints departed profit 〈◊〉 less 〈◊〉 the●● souls.  help by contact, and so Nazianzen. And, 4. Reg. 13. the touch of Elizeus bones, revived the dead. Belike, the dead body worshipped Elizeus, whom it touched; for that you must say, or else you say nothing. We will soon grant, that God may dispense blessings by dead bones, but not to the worshippers, no not of the living Prophets, but of God only. Him worship, Apoc. 19 and 22. Yea, S. Ambrose would not say, Tactu ipso medicabiles esse relliquias, if Tactus ipse were adoration. For why should he extenuate adoration so? I touch a wholesome herb, and it abates anguish; I worship it not. Nay, the woman that found health by touching our saviours hem of his garment, though he was the proper object of worship, which Saints are not, yet her touching was no symbolum of her adoration of him, albeit by God's blessing a means of health to her. Therefore we deny your conclusion, numb. 42. that touching includes veneration of the thing touched. Yea, sometime the healer touched the party grieved, (whom he worshipped not you may be sure) as 2. Kin. 5. 11. Naaman looked for it. But in the 4. of the same book, v. 34. Elizeus practiseth it far more strangely, upon the Sunamites dead child, whom he raiseth to life. Of our Saviour before, who touched the leper, another time the beer that carried the dead, Luk. 7. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  14. but worshipped neither.  
§ 22. Numb. 46. you say, a few sermons of Ephrem cannot deserve the name of a Tome. Yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and resoluit 
Conc. Constantinop. Can 5. & Calched. Conc. in Act.  tomum, or scidit tomum, often in the Counsels, not for a huge volume, but what scroll soever. Why may not the Bishop speak after that manner? Though you cannot deny, that Ephrems edition is distinguished by Tomes, as they are properly so called, unless you be very stranger to the matter. And give us leave to suspect your Crypticke authors of your own editions, and but late editions, when we call for Fathers, that is no bastard Fathers, to determine controversies. The Bishop was not only true in quoting Ephrem, but quoted him out of the original Arabic, that he wrote in. Not in coggery therefore, as you call it, but so much the more to be respected and credited, afore your grottae, or your Cryptae. As for Vossius the Translator and Prefacer, and setter forth, with whose authority, poor man, you are so much delighted, as his name in Dutch, which was his natural language, signifies a Fox, so you are but the Goose for your labour, if you credit him too far. And this as I was wished from him that understands these things best, so I tell it you.  
§ 23. Now Numb. 46. We may pray to God alone, you say, and yet to Saints too. Fine phoolosophyes. Tibi soli 
Ambr. in Psal. Hieron. ad Eusto●h.  peccavi, and yet he sinned against men. Let S. Ambrose teach you, or S. Hierome either, the meaning of those words, to establish in you at once, as well loyalty to Princes, as piety to God: that he sinned against God only, as his competent judge, being utterly exempt from flagella hominum, from human punishments. And in that sense he sinned not against any man.  
§ 24. Numb. 47. S. Paul's stirring up the Thessalonians to pray for him, is compared with prayers made to Saints deceased. quam nihil simile? Did S. Paul desire them to pray to Saints for him, or to Angels? etc. That were somewhat. In the mean while, our requesting of good men to pray for us, that yet live, is no cultus, no church-service, or else we might have a liturgy in the Church to living Saints, to mediate for us to God. 
a And not only to the now living, but to the veroe Saints in glory. Witness their owme Cardinal Tolet in Summa C●●uum l. 1. c. 1. Qui prec●s pe●●● à sa●●●do●e, De●… se ●●cere prae●…s●mit. viz. Sae●e●dotaliter, & 〈◊〉 a part of church-service. Now, if we may offer them to the Saints, the Saints may peters, ask the n. Why not▪ So as Tully Philip. 2. (guided by the light of nature) ●rves out against. 〈◊〉. O h●…inem dete●…lem, for being Cae●…sar. Priest, after his death; that is, honouring him in public and Preistly●●shion ●●shion.  But that were very absurd. Therefore your comparison is not fit, and your consequence does not hold. Fraternal and liturgical, or brotherly and Churchly, officious and religious mediations, I say, are diverse. To the Saint it is worship, to one another of us it is not. As appears by the example which yourself bring, of S. Paul's requesting the Thessalonians for him, whom doubtless he worshipped not, being so much his inferiors, though the Thessalonians like the Lystrians might seem to do so to him, (in your mad fancy at least) if they had requested the like charity of him.  
§ 25. You ask the Bishop, who published Ephrem, how many Tomes of him, etc. In which matter we are not scrupulous to shape you answer to the full, though it were more that you asked. Of Tomes before. The words are these, which willingly I would set down, both in the Arabic and the Hebrew, as I have received them of the Bishop, if we had such characters at hand. But in the Latin thus, both for form & meaning. Illaica we shaveca lamb atlabu.. i. Ad te & praeterquam ad te, non facio orationem. In English thus, for the satisfaction of every Reader, yourself and all, good Mr. F. T. To thee, and but to thee to none, I make my prayer. The Bishop cited them out of a manuscript which he keepeth yet to be seen, upon any occasion, called the Diuruall of the Maronites, a certain kind of Monks, in a Monastery on Mount Sinah. Which book was printed at Rome, anno 1584. at the commandment of Gregory 13. by Dominicus Basa in Syriaque characters, though it be the Arabic tongue, under the name of the prayer of S. Ephrem. The words also before and after, are these; Accipe deprecationem meam ô Domine, non propter justitiam meam, sed propter misericordiam tuam, & in multitudine benignitatum tuarum, & miserationum tuarum, salva animam meam, quae captivata est à morte. Memor esto mei ô Domine, & etiamsi peccavi & vulneratus sim vulneribus laethalibus, tamen NON PRECOR QVENQVAM PRAETERTE. Sed ad misericordiam tuam & bonitatem me recipio, quoniam tu es ille Dominus Deus omnia comprehendens, & potestas tua super omne vitam trahens, etc. That is; Receive my prayer O Lord, not for my righteousness, but for thy mercies sake, and in the multitude of thy bounties and of thy compassions, save my soul which is taken prisoner of death. Remember me O Lord, and although I have sinned, and am wounded with deadly wounds, YET DO I NOT PRAY TO ANY BESIDES THYSELF. Look you; The Papists would have them that are oppressed with the conscience of grievous sins, fly to the Saints as fittest to deal with, or to deal by, for desperate offenders; they being too unworthy to appear immediately before God. Yet S. Ephrem saith, that although he have sinned, and be deadly wounded, yet to God, and to God only, doth he commend himself by prayer. It follows. But to thy mercy and bounty do I betake myself, because thou art that Lord God, which comprisest all things, (or embracest all things) no doubt the most recreant sinners of all) and thy power is over all that liveth and breatheth, etc. Besides this, which yet is pregnant enough to justify the Bishop from being such a falsary, as this man would make him, (who may rather fear the imputation of it himself, as if his two letters were as many marks in his forehead to know a False Thief by) besides this I say, though S. Ephrem (as he is now printed) have not these words verbatim, yet in all the procationes and orationes of his (which of purpose have been perused and read over for this end) in the first Tome (for if any of it be Ephrems, that is; as for the rest, the Bishop will avouch it, that they are no more Ephrems works, than his own) there is never any the least mention of praying to any Saint. And so much also of Ephrem and his authority be spoken.  
§ 26. Numb. 47. Ambiguously, if not fraudulently, or fraudulently if not falsely, you translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prayeth unto them, for standeth in need of them. Who ever denied but we need the Angels, and the heavenly messengers, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 1. yea the Sun, and the Moon too, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made and appointed for the common good by God? Yet I pray you, let us have no praying to them. And is this the place that you would needs help the Cardinal with, out of S. chrysostom, after the Bishops answer so pregnant to those authorities which he brought before? For let me tell you in a word, you dash against that rock, all your foaming waves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rock I say of the Bishop's double caveat. First, de rebus necessarijs ad salutem, which chrysostom never held prayer to Saints to be. Nay he says that our Saviour yielded to the poor woman Matth. 12. suing for herself, and 
Hom. in ea verb.  denied her when she used the Apostles for her mediators, and generally, that he respects our prayers for ourselves, more than others for us. Yea Tom. 1. in Genesin. pag. 345. 
Edit. D. Hen. Savile.  he says God never hears the prayers of the dead for us, but only when there are none left alive to make intercession in our behalf. And he whets it with that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Esa. 48. 11.  not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he, but if there were none else, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God will do it for his own sake. See ibid. pag. 49. of job, Daniel, and No, who he says benefited others in their life time by 
Idest in Gen. c. 19 serm. 43. Item in Acta Apost. c. 16. Hom. 36. in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: God takes it unkindly at our hands, when we dare not trust him so far, as to speak for ourselves, but set up other mediators to him in our room.  praying for them. But even they being dead shall not be heard, says God: To show, that the most potent for mediation in their life time, are not to be sought unto after death. See pag. 360. and 361. to the same purpose. Yet most absurdly you prate numb. 55. that prayer to Saints is a necessary duty, and may not be spared, nor bated us at any hand, because the Catholic Church hath practised it. Does not this bewray your beggarly proofs for prayer to Saints, together with your base conceit of the articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation? I remember Bonaventure (and he not the worst of your schoolmen) 
In 4. senten. Dist. 45. art. 3. quaest. 3.  having alleged many reasons against prayer to Saints, and surely not to be despised, howsoever he thought of them, determines thus in the end, as in very good earnest, that those reasons are no reasons, because facit hoc communiter ecclesia, & constat quòd non errat, etc. that is his last resolution. The Church doth otherwise, and she for certain cannot err. So you. But what says the spirit, Psal. 93. v. 6. Elevauerunt flumina vocem suam, the floods O God have lift up their voice. That is the noise and the din which your Church makes. But. v. 8. testimonia tua credibilia nimis, etc. This drowns the other, not the other this, as Bonaventure fancyeth. The Son of Sirach says right well, cap. 16. v. 3. Better is one that doth the will of God, than a thousand transgressors. The like sentence ●is cited out of your own Panormitane. See chrysostom at large following the same point, and quoting that very place of the Son of Sirach, Hom. 8. in Acta Apostolor. where among other things he thus says; That a multitude not agreeing in the will of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as good as no body, etc. And yet when did you bring us the consent of the Church, (unless it be your own late faction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. chrysostom there distinguishes) that allege no Council, no Canon, 
Chrysoft. adds there, Multi in gehenna, pauci in regno. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As he of children, so we of Fathers and authors themselves, unless they be very approved. 2  nor no ordinance, within the compass assigned for sound antiquity, but private men only, voluntary devotions, popular multitudes, which is the other head, or the other horn, as I may so call it of the Bishop's answer, and that impregnable?  
§ 27. So Numb. 51. You add to the authority that the Cardinal cited out of S. chrysostom, certain words next following, wherein there is not one dram of matter to your purpose, though they were squeezed to the proof. Howbeit I make haste, yet I will set them down. Thus he says. Therefore darest thou be so bold to say, that their Lord or Master is dead, whose servants even when they are dead, are 
Ex Hom. 66. 2d Pop Antioch. vel 26. Hom. in 2. Cor.  the protectors of the world? (This may prove perhaps their intercession for us, though in strict Logic it proves not that neither, but ours to them no way, no colour.) Then he goes forward. And this is not only seen at Rome, but also at Constantinople. For even here the son of Constantine the great, thought his Father to be much honoured, if his body were laid before the gates of the Fisherman. Thus chrysostom. And what is this to the matter? Though I remember the same Father speaking of Constantinople in another place, says, 
How. 11. in 4. ad Ephes. If a man 〈◊〉 lost 〈◊〉 religion, he might find et at Co●●tant●nople.  the common voice was, that they were a people that would entertain any religion, even the Christians among them, and professed. The rather this perhaps under a semblant of devotion, but the place shows not so much as that. Unless you please yourself therein, that S. Peter is called the fisherman. Of whom I remember what Arator, lib. 1.  
— Petrus omnia prendens (the Pope just,)  
Bethsaidá satus urbe fuit. Then,  
— Quo nomine Hebraeo  
Venatorum est dicta domus, quia verus ab illà  
Ecclesiae venator adest, etc.  
You have succeeded the hunter, and Abac. 1. 15. the fisher too. Specially in troubled waters.  
§ 28. In the 53. Numb. You say somewhat, if you could prove it, that they that oppugn prayer to Saints, oppugn a notable argument of Christ's divinity. Which is so contrary to all truth, that Athanasius, and Cyrill, and as many as prove the divinity of our Saviour, against the Arrian heresy, prove it by this argument among the first, sometime that he is prayed to, sometime believed in, sometime worshipped. So Domine josu suscipe spiritum meum; Stephen 
Act. 7. 5 p.  at his death. And it is Bellarmine's own argument against the Transyluanian Arrians, to maintain the divinity of our Saviour Christ by. So Psal. 72. Prayer shallbe made ever unto him. — vocabitur hic quoque votis. 
Aeneid. 1.  And because you quoted Martial even now, take Martial; 
Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus,  
Non facit ille deos, qui ROGAT ille facit.  Do you see how gods are made, not as Michael Angelus, 
D●●ina 〈◊〉 M● h●… & Ti●…ani. Flor. Rem. l. 8. de orig●…r●s. 〈◊〉. 3.  or other Statuaries in your Church are wont, whose divine hand most ridiculously you magnify? Of our saviours quia, I spoke before, quia tuum est regnum potentia & gloria. As who would say, therefore we pray to him, and but to him that stands invested with these prerogatives, we pray to none, as Ephrem said even now. Yet you will cavil perhaps, as you insinuated before, or rather more than insinuated, in the beginning of this Chapter, that honour and glory is to every well doer, Rom. 2. Therefore to the Saints. But it follows in the Lord's prayer, in saeculum saeculi, for ever and ever. God's eternity confutes you, which the Saints do not communicate in, neither ab antè at all, nor à retrò in the sense that the Lords prayer hath it. For the Saints continuance hath flux and succession, so hath not Gods, but is tota simul, as Bo●thius hath explained, and divers others. 
Who only hath immortalitit. 〈◊〉. Tim. 6.  Of Athanasius see answer to your 8. Chapter. Of Cyrill thus briefly, out of one only book of his, De rectâ Fide ad Theodosium. The Angels (says he) were bidden to worship 
Adorate e●…m o●…nes Ang●l● Dei. Heb. 1.  the Son; poterant enim; & valde meritò, humanitatis videntes paruitatem, tardiores ad colendum & adorandum esse, & ad glorisicandum eum quem nobis similem cognoscebant; ut quam longissimè discedere viderentur ab errore. That is: For they might, and that very justly, considering the stendernes of his humane-nature, be the lo●ther to worship and to adore him, and to glorify one whom they knew to be like unto ourselves, avoiding so, the very show of committing the error (of idolatry) as carefully 
Abstinete ab omnis spe●ie ●●●li.  as was possible. Do you see how dangerous it is to worship a man? and how carefully the Angels fled of from that error? Themselves forbid themselves to be worshipped, revel. 18. and here they are feign to be commanded to it, afore they can be brought to worship a man.. Yet what man? Adoratur, quidem ut unigenitus, et si vocetur primogenitus, id quod manifestissimae humanitatis mensuras maximè decet. As the first begotten he worships, as the only begotten he is worshipped. For he consists, ex nature a adorabili, & adorante, says the same cyril there. According as his own words are, joh. 4. Nos adoramus quod scimus. Yet plainer. Num igitur tanquam hominem adoramus Immanuelem? Absit. Deliramentum enim hoc esset, & deceptio, ac error. That is. Do we therefore worship the Immanuel as a man? God forbid. For that were to dote, to err, and to be deceived. And, In hoc enim nihil differremus ab his qui creaturam colunt vltrá conditorem. That is, For in so doing we should, differ nothing from them that worship the creature above the Creator. Not that any worshipped the creature more than the creator, (who so mad?) but every iuxtà is ultrà with S. Paul, when any thing comes to be worshipped besides God, Rom. 1. Many the like clauses are in that book, but with this I will end, to show Cyrills' judgement of faith in Saints, which was the thing that we began with. Alioqui quemodè in illum credamus? Else how should we believe in him? namely if Christ be not God. Again, Non enim tanquam in unum nobis similem (yet the Saints are like us, I am. 5. 17.) neque etiam in hominem fides, sed in Deum tendit naturalem & verum (for we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 4. 8. whom we 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  must not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not give dulias to, unless it be naturalis deus) in personâ Christi. That is. For our faith is grounded, not upon one like us, (as the Saints for certain are; no) nor upon any MAN; but upon the natural and true God in the Person of Christ. And wot you what he adds yet, for assurance sake? Hinc quidam curabant, ne fides in Christum reciperetur, namely, quia eum simplicem hominem minimeque deum esse putabant. That is. For this cause some endeavoured to hinder the enterteyning of faith in Christ, because they were persuaded he was a mere man, and not God. Would the Church at that time allow faith in Saints think you? Ergò necessariò ad periculum & metum illum tollendum, sidem referebat in Deitatis naturam (Christus viz,) & quidem in persona patris, & non nostra humilitate, dicebat, Qui credit in me, non credit in me, said in eum qui misit me. That is. Therefore of necessity to prevent that fear, and that danger, (Christ) reduced our faith in him unto the nature of his Godhead, and said in the person of his father, and not in our [nature's] meanness, He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me. This agrees with S. chrysostom, who, as I told you before, observes that the Apostle durst not so much as name sidem in Christum, faith in Christ, a good while after his resurrection, till the world was better seasoned with the belief of his Godhead. But hereof so much.  
§ 29. Numb. 58. Certain books of Scripture, you say, are not known by what authors they were penned, and yet they carry the force of authority notwithstanding. Therefore Homilies falsely or uncertainly attributed to these and these Fathers, are available against the King, in the trying of this controversy.] Negatur consequentia. There we know the inditer, though we doubt of the penman. Here all rests upon the credit of the writer. 
a See S. Austen of thi●, lib. 3. de Trinit. in prooem. Item lib. 2. ad Vincent. Vict. Epist. 1● ad Hieron. Epist. 7. ad Marcel. Epist. 48. ad Vinc. Ep. ad Fort. 111. Item lib. 2. de Baptis. contra Donat. cap. 3. S. Hieron. in Ep ad Theoph. adverse. joh Hierosolym. Quae omnia apud Grat. 9 Dist. Decret.  Divine authority goes not with true Fathers, says Gelasius, S. Austen, and your own 
b Who also distinguishes between Canonita veritas, & Ca●…ca authoritas.  Driedo, with many more, much less with the suspected or questioned. Though suppose it were otherwise, what says Maximus, or Ambrose, or whosoever he is, when you have done all you 
In natoli D Agnetis.  can? For I spare to tell you that this Oration is not in Ambrose, where divers others are of them which are found of late to be Maximus his brood. So as this also may seem to smell of a grotte. I will take the words, as they lie in your book, and of your own translating: We beseech thee, O Virgin, with as fervent prayers as we may. 
The very Latin words are these. Quibus 〈◊〉 precibus exo●amus. Not as he falsely translates them, as servantly as we may, (there is no word of fervency there, or any such thing:) but doubting belike that she was clean out of the hearing of prayers; which we also think.  Which we ourselves are ready to do, I mean to pray to any that we may. But he that says so, doubts of the lawfulness of his own act. How think you? or if this like you not, you may do well next time to set down Maximus his own words in Latin, and sparing yours, to leave the Reader to his own interpretation of them, unless you could better. And why I pray you does Maximus pray only to Agnes among so many Saints, as he Panegyrizeth in those Orations, both men and women? Or how did he say a little before, Veni iam Virgo ad Thalamum, etc. Is not your own note, in the Margin there, this, IMITATIO? to show that it is not real but figurative. And yet you are he, that will allow no tropes forsooth, in the father's compellation of Saints deceased.  
§ 30. Numb. 63. You say, Nazianzen exhorted others, to imitate the example of her, that prayed to the blessed Virgin. Yet in Nazianzenes' words, even as you cite them yourself, there is no such thing but only that they should rejoice, and give ear, both sorts of them, both married and unmarried: for to both (he says) his narration may serve for an ornament. This is all. What shall we say to him, that so shamefully belies his own tale, and corrupts Nazianzen? Neither do you wipe away the stain of inconsequence and contradiction about a double Cyprian in that Oration of Nazianzen, which the Bishop had charged you with. In so much as Billius your own man, confesseth, that Nazianzenus hîc caecutijt, Nazianzen was dazzled here. Lastly, suppose the damosel made such prayer, as you speak of, it will always be true, what I told you out of Seneca, Permittit sibi quaedam & contra bonum morem magna pietas. Devotion transports, if it be fervent, commonly. Gorgonia, Nazianzenes sister, abandoned her chamber, in 
Apud Nazianz. Epitaph. Gorg.  her fit of sickness, but a little slaking, & went to the Altar to pray to God, threatening not to depart (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Nazianzen) till she had her desire. Was that well done? And yet her fit. clean left her, and she came home well. For she prayed to God, not to the Saints. But I speak of the aberrations of minds, that are otherwise godly, even in prayer. Therefore when Abraham was to do that great work 
Orat. in eam rem.  (says S. chrysostom) of sacrificing his son, God called him by his name, Abraham, Abraham, and he answered, Here I am. Not to show in what place he was, which God doubted not, but that he knew what he did, and was not transported with any violent pang of passion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says the famous Apostle, 2. Cor. 5. 13. We are mad to God. Else Ignatius gives to maidens this precept in special: That, when they pray, at any time, they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Epist 6. quae ad Philadelph.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;. i. have only Christ and his father before their eyes, being illuminated by the holy Ghost. How sweetly hath he comprehended the blessed Trinity alone, and shut out all others, from communicating with them in prayer? Now briefly to your seventh Chapter: Of your sixth thus much.   

To the seventh Chapter of the Adjoinder: Chap. 7. of the Defence, etc.  
Wherein (answerably to the Title that he gives to his) the Fathers of the third rank, their testimonies brought for Invocation of Saints, are showed to be most plentifully assoiled by the Bishop, and S. Ambrose by name to have received no injury, nor disgust from him, no not the least: (could they as well justify their false printing of him, a most inexpiable abuse:)  
As also, That what he talks of a general practice of Invocation of Saints in the Primitive Church, both by the Fathers and the Faithful, is a mere jest, and a jesuitical crack: Epiphanius besides others prophesying even then, (and in this very matter) that Haeresis est sicut mala mulier, Heresy is like a shrew, getting ground unsensibly by the connivence of people, unless snebd at first, (which our age hath found true) as also (which F. T. here brings to our minds, in not resting satisfied with the Bishop's answers, though never so absolute) that she will be sure to have the last word.  
§ 1. NOthing is more accurate than that division of the Bishops, of the confused rout of the Cardinal's witnesses into three classes. Some true Fathers, but not truly alleged: Some truly alleged, but not true Fathers: Some true and truly alleged, but nothing to the purpose. Yet this man derides it, counts it not worth three chips. What should one stand tugging with such a sowterly fellow, qui neque literas neque nare, that knows not art, when it is brought before him, and laid on his trencher? To the third of these ranks, belong those Fathers, says he, whom we must now entreat of, Nyssen, Nazianzen, Hierome, Maximus, etc. We must see whether Apostrophes, or Rhetorical compellations may be discovered in these men's prayers to Saints. Which the Bishop had both answered, and backed with sundry reasons: as that they speak to other things in like phrase of speech, whom nevertheless they would never speak to, but in a figure of Rhetoric: 
So Luk. 1. 76. Et tu puer. Yet the child understood not Zacharie prophesying. Unless we will continue the miracle, as I grant some of the Fathers do, Origen, Theophylact, etc. but sure it needs not. And again, 1. Cor. 15. O death, O hell, where is thy sting, or thy victory?  Eusebius to Piety, de vitâ Constant. lib. 5. Ambrose to the water of Baptism, lib. 10. in Luc. cap. 22. Nazianzen to the feast of Easter, Orat. 2. in Pasch. Of which sort we have many in Scripture too, and namely that, Numb. 21. 17. Rise up well. Cantic. 4. 16. Arise O North, and come O South, and blow, etc. Besides that they profess, they are uncertain whether they are heard by the parties they speak to, yea or no. Nazianzen of Constantius, or rather of Constantine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if thou discernest any thing that is here done. So of his sister Gorgonia. So Nyssen of Theodorus, Hierome of Nepotian, etc.  
§ 2. We are admonished of 4. things by this man in his third numb, to disprove the Bishop's answer in this behalf.  
First, that the doubt of some men's estates, as not delivered from Purgatory, nor having paid their last farthing (though Tertullian call inferos novissimi quadrantis exactores, hell (not Purgatory) 
De resurrect, carnis.  the exactor of the last farthing) might make them to be uncertain whether they were heard or no, by such as they spoke unto. Wherefore is this? That one error may support another, whereas rather each destroys the other, as Cadmus' children, or as they their brethren, whom Moses set on work to mutual slaughter, Exod. 32. For if they held them to be in pains, and not in glory, how would 
S. Cyprian, Orat. de lapsis. will not allow Martyrs to help us afore the day of judgement: much less I should think those, whose state is either miserable, or at the best but uncertain. Credimus quidem posse apud indicem plurimum 〈◊〉 martyrum, etc. sed cum judicij dies venerit, post occasuns saeculi, etc. And soon after, Putemusne quenquam prius quam vindicetur ipse, alios posse desendere? Shall any help another, that is yet unrevenged himself? Yet so are all the Saints & Martyrs, Apoc 〈◊〉. 10. Howbeit Emanuel Sain Aphor. 〈◊〉. O●atio, is for souls in purgatory to be praved to and all. Possu●● 〈◊〉 & an●… quae sunt in Purgatorio, says he. So cross he is to Cyprian, and in the other extremity clean. But to which side soever of the two you incline, they both confute the Adjoinders fiction here, that the Fathers would pray more confidently to Saints departed, but for fear of purgatory.  they pray to them? were they not afraid of that, Thou which hearest others, help thy self? Or if they pray unto them, afore they are certified of their estate, either they are rash in praying (for there must be no wavering james 1. 6.) or else it appears they dreamt not of Purgatory. Would you have them to mammer, as Elias said merrily once of Baal, Perhaps he is gone to war, or perhaps in his journey, so perhaps he is gone to Purgatory? You say, they made no question of their hearing, that were Saints declared and acknowledged, and you name Theodorus in Nyssen for one. Yet of him, Nyssenus in the Orat. you quote, Vbicunque tandem fueris, wheresoever thou art. He doubted therefore. Certainly Abraham hath not known us, nor Israel acknowledged us, 
Nune cognovi,. i. s●re & ipsum, & a●… fect de Abrahem. Gen. 22. 12. Therefore Abraham a Saint declared. 2  meum say you, though erroneously, and Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, confirms no less by our saviours exposition. This was your first exception.  
§ 3. Another, that when Nazianzen says to Constantius, and so others to others, If thou hearest, or if thou discernest, it is not of doubting, but of adjuration, as when a friend to a friend, If you love me: and S. Paul to Philemon, If thou account me as thy partner: that is, because I know thou accountest me. That Nazianzenes meaning may be this, Because o Constantius I know thou discernest, etc. Which I list not to refute, but refer to the Readers indifferent judgement, whether Nazianzen in bespeaking Constantius so, should mean to adjure him, and all other souls of Christian Kings, whom there he calls unto, no less than his. The Greek Scholiast says plainly, upon that place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is taken from Isocrates, who perhaps held not that the Saints see all clearly afore the day of judgement. And he construes it in other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for he was absent) 
If thou hast any 〈◊〉 to discern and hear things here done.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no form of adjuration, but of doubting still. Else it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like S. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And by the way, you may see how true it is, that the Bishop observes, of the Father's falling into Rhetorical acclamations, whereof this was one, taken from Isocrates, a Mr. in that faculty. But more clearly of Gorgonia, Si Sancta animae haec talia persentiscant. If the holy souls understand such things as these. This is no adjuring of Gorgonia, I trow, but his doubt in general, even of them he spoke not to, but only of.  
§ 4. A third is, That it is dangerous to say the Fathers carried themselves like Orators. Not a whit I warrant you, though it be your shame to mistake them so grossly, as from thence to patch up your damnable idolatries. So wings, and arms, and eyes, and other members are attributed to God in holy Scripture. A stumbling block to the Anthropomorphites, or such shallow wits, but no fault of the holy Ghosts, qui scribit vigilantibus, as laws are made. We imagine not, says S. Austen, our God to be a Cupid, because he is described to have wings and arrows, lib. 3. contra Crescon. c. 78. You heard before, what Nazianzenes commentor says, of his borrowing from Isocrates. Though the Bishop says no where in plain terms, that the Fathers did as Orators, not as Christians. But, Theologiamne docore, an rhetoricari putes? Would you think these men meant to read a lecture of Divinity, or to practise their Rhetoric? And, Oratorum encomia, quae nihil habent enucleatae Theologiae: Orators praises, which contain no perfect substance of Divinity: suppose you, like that which your Schoolmen deliver. So Hierome (says the Bishop) speaks with Paula and Nepotian: how? With both as an Orator, with neither as a Christian, that is, according to the rules of strict catechism. What of this?  
§ 5. Your fourth observation in the 8. numb. is petitio principij, and the turning of the wheel. Therefore I will not meddle with it. Let the Bishops answer be but applied to your objection, and it will salve it as before.  
§ 6. You praise pictures by the way, and say that they greatly edify the people. Which shows to what kind of creatures your book is dedicated, namely those, whom an Idol may hold in awe for their simplicity, and though it be 
Ne●… cognoscit Deum ex simulachro. A●…tisthenes apud Theodor. contr. Graec. 1.  not good at teaching any thing, save only lies, as the holy Ghost says, in Abac. 1. 18. yet it may serve well enough to be their Master. You do but utter your ware, when you interlace here about pictures: for else you know it is nothing to that place in the Bishop's book, which you pretend to confute. And I might seem to do the like, if I should be so mad as to follow you. Only thus in brief. S. chrysostom of them that would have pictures of the Seraphim, 
Tom. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  because they appeared in such and such form, Esa. 6. which is your very pretence at this day, why God should be painted, (not the Seraphim only, but God; a monstrous shame.) Non te defodis? Art thou not ashamed, O thou wretch, (says he) of such a gross collection? Why dost thou not rather run under ground, bury thyself alive? And he adds in the same place, that the Seraphim are said to cover their faces with wings at the appearance of God, only to show that God is incomprehensible. Yet you paint them for their wings, whereas their wings are given them by the holy Ghost, says chrysostom, to show the secrecy, and that it must not be painted, which cannot so much as be comprehended. I say nothing of the forbidding of the Lamb to be painted, in the Council of Constantinople, which Mald. your fellow jesuit in his Comment upon Daniel answers thus. That the Fathers in that Council were not rightly instructed, and the Church saw more upon better consideration in after times. Yet you make us believe that you reverence the Fathers, and we censure them. As for the fruit you talk of to come by pictures, it is one thing, I should think, what constant and stayed minds may gather therefrom; another whether 
A●… speaks to his waxen image of Cupid, saying he will fire it, unless it en●…e him. A just reason to burn Popish idols (even out of the mouth of an idolater) because they kindle to no good.  they are fit to be set up in Churches, to nourish the devotion of simple people by. Lest they plant error while they would induce to piety, seduce I should say, as they that pulling up the weeds, in the parable, pluck up the wheat with all, perversâ diligentiâ. You may remember what S. Austen says de consensu Euangel. l. 1. c. 10. 
The same S. Austen lib. 5. contra julian. c. 2. when julian had said, that he borrowed his arguments from the pictures of Adam and Eve, repels that slander with this peremptory denial, that, Non à pictore inanium sigurarum, sed à doctore divinarum literarum; showing us what we should trust to. And yet both Aquine and Bellarm argue from pictures in the question of Peter's primacy, and again far worse about the dolours of Christ's soul. If it were so (says Bellar.) we should have seen him painted in Churches tormented by the Devils, etc. De anima Christi. l. 4. c. 8. Is not this a grave handling of controversies, trow you, especially with them that find fault with our lightness?  Sic errare meruerunt qui Christum non in codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt. So they deserved to be mocked that sought for Christ not in written books, but in painted walls. Neither are muri depicti, your images, or your pictures, though such are promised unto the Church, Esa. 49. 16. nor portae sculptae, 54. 12. of the same book. Of the Council Eliberitan. Can. 20. of Epiphanius, and his rending the vail of Anablath, of S. Chrysostom's exiling painters clean out of the city, and out of the world too, as men of no use, no service in life, much more out of the Church, I might spend much paper. See his hom. 50. in Matth. Yet with you it is one of the three gainful trades now at Rome, as we are informed, even as the making of shrines was to Demetrius, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. Apost.  in the same book. Nyssen speaks of pictures for ornament chiefly, for instruction either very faintly, or not at all. And yet that also for grounded Christians, rather than for novices, (for S. Austen is jealous what may betide to such) but 
Ad curuamdam infoelicem animam. In Psal. 113.  of worshipping them not a word. Lastly, as the Martyr, so also the persecutor was painted in the work that Nyssen speaks of, and upon the pavement to be trodden on, as well as upon the walls to be gazed on. Par opus historiae in pavimento quod pedibus calcatur effecit pictor. What doth this help you?  
§ 7. You mislike the Bishop's answer, of Vbicunque fueris, to show the uncertainty of their persuasion. He might be high (say you) in God's favour, wheresoever he was. What? if in the punishments of his own sins? (for such a place you have for the Elect after this life.) Might he be so high in favour for all that, as to succour others, and be prayed unto? Therefore this is not Nyssens belying the people to their faces, as you fond fancy, but your own want of understanding Nyssens meaning, and the people's practice. Which though unwarranted by Scripture, or Church-law, as we have often told you, yet was not so bad as you would make it. In such case we may be bold to say with Tertudian, Meminero cor 
De resurrect. carn. c. 3. The people's heart is but ashes.  populi cinerem dictum, and with chrysostom, Hom. 4. in Epist. ad Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Not every body's voice, but wise men's, must be attended, to decide controversies. Ne me curaut bubulcum, said he. Now when they pray to him in Nyssen, as entire and present, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who was mangled and disparent, is there no Rhetoric in this neither? or should that be a good ground to build faith upon? Yet this is that gem, for which you have searched the Vatican, as you tell us. As for degrees of glory, though we doubt not but there be such, for stella à stella, etc. and he that sows sparingly shall reap sparingly, and many 
Vide supr. c. 3.  the like, yet I hope one heaven contains them all. Would you say of Paul, ubicunque fueris, or of the blessed Virgin, & c? yet you know not their punctual degrees of glory. Yea, and of Christ himself? yet we know not the particulars of his advancement; only nomen dedit supra omne nomen. Philip. 2. and 1. Pet. 3. 22.  
§ 8. To colour your imposture, you construe Greg. Nyssens, wheresoever thou art, by, howsoever thou art employed in God's service. Which is not Nyssens meaning, but your own vision. For the Saints have served their age, seruierunt saculo suo, Act. 13. 36. and henceforth they are occupied about us no more. Mortui non miscentur actibus vivorum, neque adiuvandis, neque cognoscendis, says S. Austen, de Curâ pro mortuis, c. 13. Do they not rest from their labours, Apoc. 14. 13? And active at least, if not passive, to preserve your purgatory, as Denys answers it. Neither say it seems not labour to 
resolute. Theolog. Item Francis. Mayron.  them, though it be laborious, for no more it here seems to godly men. Lastly, it is wonder you should stand so stiffly upon that point, that the godly Fathers, and by name S. Hierome, (for you name him among the rest) should not sometime flourish with a figure of Rhetoric, since not only divers of them haunted that school, as Austen, as Basil, as Nazianzen, and the like, chrysostom especially (who would not ride to school, being a rich man's child borne, 
Vita Chrysost. per Anonymum.  but preferred to go on foot, for his love to learning,) but S. Hierome professes of himself so much in plain terms, where speaking of his Epist. ad Heliodorum, de laud vitae solitariae, he calls it jusus, his play. Epist. proximè sequent. quae est ad Nepotianum, de vitâ Ctericorum.  
§ 9 To your 16. 17. etc. Numb. The Bishop said not, that Ambrose was blasphemous, as you blaspheme him, but that the Cardinal citing that place of Ambrose, which you might better have abstained from, shows he had rather bring Christ's blood into contempt, then let go his Dalila. Is this against S. Ambrose? or the Cardinal rather? Whom Ambrose his speech, not so wary as to be wished perhaps, yet excusable by his being a novice, as then for certain he was, might trip as it does, and hath done but even too often. What virulency, good Sir, is this against S. Ambrose? Though if need were, as there is none, and yet if there were, I were not worthy, being more novice to the most worthy Bishop, than ever S. Ambrose was to himself, yet I say, if occasion so required, to show what my conceit was once hereof at a blush, and a little to choke you the more about the place that you so ruffle in, how if granting it in rigore, that 
To seek to Angels, may be construed, to resort to the Ministers for help, who are our Angels.  obsecrandi sunt Angeli, etc. yet we should deny that Ambrose allows prayers to Saints, or to Angels either? Are not Ministers called Angels? Apoc. 1. Even as Angels are called Ministers, Heb. 1. Who if ever they be to be sought unto by supplication, I suppose in such case as Ambrose there speaks of, that is, in the hour of temptation, and amidst the violent assaults of youthful lusts, and fancies. To say nothing of repairing to them in distress of conscience, in which sense S. chrysostom says, he will rise at midnight for 
Simile apud Dionys. ●●copin epist. ad Demophilum.  the relief of any poor soul, and Minutius Foelix in Octavio, reports the jeer of wicked Pagans, in those terms, Adorata sacerdotum virilia, etc. Not that it was so, but for seeking to them for aid, in the aforesaid fits and pangs of mind, most submissly. But what then shall we say of Martyrs, which is another thing in S. Ambrose? As if the ancient Christians were not wont to crave pacem à Martyribus designatis, afore they went to execution. See Tertullian in 
Exhort. ad Martyrs.  his book of that argument, see others. I do but oppose you, I leave it so. Cyrill upon the 1. of Michea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Angels leave us, they play the fugitives. And the same he gathers out of Esa. 1. 8. that the daughter of Zion shall 
Di●●ys. in epist. praecita●… ad D●…: Deut haeret ●…ter & cum 〈◊〉 qui cum deserunt. God sticks l●…gly even to them that forsake him.  be like a cottage in a vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, namely, because waited upon no longer by the Angels. And how are they fit to be prayed unto that leave us? Neither say that after sin, for after sin we have most need to pray of all. The Apostle is confident, that Angels 
It is enough that Angels cannot divide us ●tó Christ, but they mediate not for us, Rom. 8. where ver 26. and v. 34. we have two persons in the very Trinity, one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us. As many as the mystery of their relations would permit. And need we more?  shall not separate us, Rom. 8. 38. but no talk of uniting us, or approaching us to Christ. Sure S. Ambrose his ground was from intercessio vivorum, namely Andrew's and Peter's, for Peter's mother in law, Luk. 4. which we allow. And Ministers are praesidia nobis, (as S. Ambrose speaks) not only Angels; while that which is said of martyrs may be understood per Proterosin, of them that are not yet martyred, but only appointed to the block: whom we have more than pignore corporis with us, and yet that too. True praesules, true speculatores, as S. Ambrose calls them.  
§ 10. Yet lo you will prove, though clean beside our scope, besides your own, (but that, as they say, a beggar is never out of his way) that we may satisfy for our sins. And you lay your ground, numb. 18. that Christ's passion gives life to all. That's the blindation. But as well wood and clay, or other base ingredients in Nabuchodonosors' image, with sounder metals, eagles feathers, and other birds, may be mixed and compounded, yea the jarring ashes of the two Theban brethren reconciled, as our wretched works and sorry sufferings with our saviours righteousness, which is 
Ibi habitat justitia,. i. Christus. Pet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  righteousness itself. Do you not conceive how one is incompatible with the other, almost crying out with S. Peter, Depart Lord, for I am a sinful man, so, depart Lord, for I am a sinful work; while you boldly blend, and play the Vintner's, mingling guilty blood, with the blood of his sacrifice, innocent and immaculate, most preposterous pilate's?  
§ 11. Nazianzen is quoted Orat. 1. in julian. ut satisfacerent Christo sanguine suo. In Nazianz. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may as well be the justifying of Christ's cause by the effusion of their blood, having newly dishonoured it by stooping to the emperors poisonous baits, as to satisfy for their fault to the judge of the world; which no man can do, though in shadow and proportion one may come nearer perhaps than another: As he that spares not his life in his Lord's cause, after he hath offended him, before him that languishes still, and plays the lazy Christian. So Nazianzen might mean, I see no cause to the contrary. Does not S. Peter take the word so? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Pet 3. 15.  etc. The same is to be said to your other authorities, if time would serve, which you fond here multiply, clean besides the mark, but that you longed I dare say to vent your commodities, and were glad no doubt of this occasion. In so much as you have not spared Dan. 4. Peccatum tuum eleemosynis redime. Which in Hebrew is abrumpe, as hath been often answered you, and so in other places. Yea, we are saved by hope, and he hath saved us, by the laver of regeneration, comes in to show, that a man may wash away his own sins, either with tears, or with blood. Is this good handling of Scriptures, trow you? If we are saved by hope, is it by hope in ourselves, or our own arm? If baptism purges us, and the Sacrament of our Lord, shall there be the same virtue in our corrupt selves, who but for grace should rather stain the font, stain our baptism, true Coprony●…?  
§ 12. To S. Ambroses place in 1. ad Rom. Ad deum non est opus suffragatore, that is, To god we need no spokesman: He says, S. Ambrose speaks against them only, that were devoted to the Sun, and Moon, and the Planets. But did ever any man make them his suffragators or spokesmen to god? And if as numb. 18. you suggest to us, it was the Paynims fault to hold that God governed the world by under officers, what is yours less, that apply that so, endeavouring to make way to invocation of Saints, Take thou power over five cities, thou over ten, & c? Shall Paynims faults be only taxed in 
Coster. Enchirid.  Paynims, and not in them that revive the errors of Paynims, which they call Catholic? You wish the Bishop to mark those words, Ad deum promerendum in S. Ambroses mouth, and so in other Fathers, nothing to your merit god wot. Multanoes à deo bona meruisse cognovimus quibus nequaquam digni fuimus, says Theodosius the Emperor (among 
Felix culps quae talem MERVIT redemptorem.  the laws I trow it is) and many the like. Ad promerendum deum, that is, ad conciliandum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so translated by our old interpreter, Heb. 13. By which you may see that to promerite is nothing, but to gratify, or to please. But of merit heretofore, and more hereafter.  
§ 13. You say, no sacrifice might be offered but to God. And is not prayer a sacrifice? Indeed what 
The Papists make the jews to have had a worship of God incommunicable to creatures, namely sacrifice, us none, since now sacrifices are ceased. So much are the jews perfecter than the Christians by their reckoning.  richer? Is not all almost turned thereinto? Into puram precem, as 
* Apologet.  Tertullian says. And what salt is in sacrifice, without prayer? Yet sale salietur, you know the place. Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt; which you apply to purgatory, wisely no doubt. You say, that to God all hearts are manifest, and he needs no relator. Indeed because he only is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Thou that hearest the prayer, (viz & beside whom none else; i● is made God's property) to thee shall all flesh ●ome. Psal. 64 ●●cumdum vulgar.  therefore only he is fit to be prayed unto, sith prayer is of the heart, not a calf of the lips, though of them too, when occasion serves, but the life thereof is from the heart, as Solomon says truly, that from the heart proceed the issues of life. And I see not but it may be verified, even in this sense too. To whom of the Saints than dare you pray thus, either as they in the Acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. 24. or as the Church in her service, O God to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, etc. But that passes, that by this reason S. Ambrose may seem to take away our Saviour Christ's mediation and all, if he be not limited by your interpretation. Read but the Fathers, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, upon Rom. 8. 34. Interpellat pro nobis. You shall find, his intercession stands, in offering up the memory of his death and passion to his father, for us. As a soldier which shows his scars to his Prince, though he say nothing, yet he begs favour. Which makes our prayers at the Eucharist, so much the more effectual, because therein we renew the memory of his death and bloodshed so lively. According as himself said at the institution, who best knew the virtue of his own Sacrament, Do this as oft as you shall do it, in remembrance of me. Our 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i (say some which are no raw Grecians) ad refricandam apud patrem memoriam mei, to bring the father in ren embrace of me, and my precious and powerful sacrifice. S. chrysostom also saying to this purpose, that the time of praying is while the King is set,. i. during the communion, and so long he grants any thing.  minds therefore being possessed with the remembrance of that his death, wholly taken up with that recogitation, our prayers have so much the more easy speeding towards the throne of grace, to whom that gives force. And can the Saints do so of theirs? Which of them all was crucified for you? 1. Cor. 1. 13. yet you compare their intercession, with Christ's for us. Of whom some died not at all, most of them not violently, but none at all to make atonement to God, for us. And because I have vouched the Father's exposition upon Rom. 8. to be as I said, I will set down their authorities in no other words then their own. Theophylact says, Intuens namque Christi corpus pater, recordatur dilectionis suae erga genus humanum, quâ de causâ scilicet filius olim corpus gessit, at que inde ad misericordiam & miserationem inflectitur. This sense renders Theophylact of interpellat pro nobis. The like hath S. Hierome, Comm. huius loci. Interpellare pro nobis dicitur [Christus] dumb hominem quem suscepit, patri pro nobis pignus ostendit & offered. The very words of S. Hierome, hath Primasius in his commentary, and Sedulius in his. Remigius hath the sense in somewhat otherwords. Interpellat pro nobis patrem, saith he, non voce sedmiseratione; dum quotidie hominem quem assumpsit, & gravissimum genus mortis quod pro nobis sustinuit, vultui paterno offered, ut nostri misereatur. Haymoes' words, in his commentary, are the very same with Remigius his, now set down. Saving that Remigius ends in this most sweet close; Qui qualemc unque habet tribulationem, hanc audiat Pauliexhortationem. Into whatsoever tribulation any man is sunk, let him give ear to this exhortation of S. Paul. Whereas the Papists think, that some may be buried under so deep oppressions for the conscience of their sins, as they may not presume to come immediately to Christ, [whose intercession, says Euthymius, is semper essicax, always effectual for us: in comm. huius loci] but they must run circuiting and fetching a compass about by the Saints. Of what judgement chrysostom and Theodoret are, may be seen by Theophylact before alleged, who sieldome dissent either for opinion or words. Of Lyra, and of Aquine, the like might be promised. But Sylvester in Summâ shall determine all, though he expressly quote Aquine, Part. 2. V. Oratio, § secundo: Filius orat patrem (says he) ostendendo patri humanitatem cum mysterijs eius, ut dicit S. Tho. Rom. 8. Let this susfice for this matter.  
§ 14. Neither does S. Ambrose say, Declaratore non opus est; but, suffragatore non opus est. You pervert him therefore when you say, he meant no more than so, that the Angels and Saints need not inform God.  
§ 15. I will conclude with that, that S. Ambrose forbidding to adore our fellow-servants (for prayer and adoration go together with him, as I told you of S. Cyrill even now the sane) says, we can reserve nothing more to God. But you have found out certain distinctions and kinds of it, which the Saints may partake, without God's injury. Adoro te, but thus far, intra Canonem, intra mensuram, 1. Cor. 10. 13. Huc usque venies, & franges furentes fluctus tuos. Dulicè, not latricè. Gloriam meam dabo, but not totam dabo. The strumpet's dividatur.  
§ 16. Numb. 32. and 33. Tu solus innocandus, is rather strengthened and fortified, by, Tu 
I think the Bishop will not divie, her that 〈◊〉. Ambrose might very lawfully have desired the people to pray to God to represent Theodosius in his children, though S. Ambrose say, Tu solu● 〈◊〉 gandu●…, 〈◊〉, etc. Therefore, Tu solu● 〈◊〉 du●, may stand with prayer to Saints. Adjoined.  solus rogandus, but surely not enseebled. Though you cast this, as cold water, in the face of the other. For S. Ambr. (say you) might rogare the people to pray for another Theodosius. Is this comparable with our rogare Deum, with our making requests to God? Is God & the people sued unto alike? Why then do you join such unsuitable matches, when you pretend earnest? But hircum qui mulgent, & vulpes iungant. As for your sweet distinction, and subtle one no doubt, that only 
Another shift of the Adjoind.  God is to be sued unto for grace, but Saints for other things, and that this is the reason, why S. Ambrose said, that God indeed only was to be requested, to give a supply of more Theodosijs, which without his grace could not be 
confuted three ways. 1  done, I might ask you, first, what one thing we have by virtue of prayer, which may not be termed grace? I mean as descending of free gift, and bounty. In which sense, perhaps, the fathers of that Council defined so long ago, that if any body, bearing the mind to commit lewdness, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Con●. Neocaesar. Can. 4.  should be hindered of his purpose [howsoever,] we were to know that such a one was delivered by grace. Therefore if grace come from God, not from the Saint, from God not from the Saint must come all that we stand in need of. And so prayer be made, not to the Saint, but to God only. But secondly, Saints may representare Theodosios', supply good men as fast as they decay, if not by their own strength & inherent virtue, which reacheth neither to grace I confess, nor to one crumb of bread, yet by their potency with God, and by procuring his aid through their mediation, if at least your doctrine be true on this part. And therefore the qualification that you use towards S. Ambrose, about Tu solus inriocandus, or rogandus either, is most ridiculous and childish. For even the Saints power, may stretch to Grace at second hand, as you imagine. To omit, that, tu solus rogandus es ut Theodosios repraesentes, is particularly determined, and if you will to grace, because without that a Theodosius could not be: but, Tu solus invocandus es, is as general as any thing, even as the objects of prayer themselves in their largest extension; and therefore this last must not be limited by the former, howsoever construed, but all invocation is to be confined to God by the judgement of S. Ambrose, saying, Tu solus invocandus es; scilicet ad omnia, or, in quacunque causa.  
§ 17. The most Reverend Bishop never said of himself, 
Adjoind. num. 34.  that he could not slip in matter of memory. Si sciens fallo, is his imprecation. So jeremy for Zachary, Matth. 27. 9 so diverse like. For what should I say of the Father's quoting Scripture, as they do often, rather as it was in their memories, then as we read it in the text? And yet no honest learned man, but would hold such 'scapes for very venial I imagine. S. Austen a little before was found to have reported S. Cyprian somewhat wrongly, citing words out of his 
Cap. 3. hulus.  book de unitate Ecclesiae. Sunt quidam eruditi errores & obliviones, says Rodolphus Agricola, Certain learned errors or oblivious confusions even in the best authors. And Turrian says of Cicero, Praefat. in Constitut. Clementis, that he was minè immemoris ingenij: very forgetful touching quotations. Though there are more in this kind to be observed in Tully, then ever Turrian took note of I believe, as hypercritical as he was. And think you not that we may with better reason avow, if we had not rather be ingenuous, then obstinately contentious, as you are in defending your gross errors when they are espied, that S. Ambrose wrote not only one book, but even many the Oratione, than you can avow the cardinals allegations, either by the circumstance of the text when the letter fails you, or by the Italian presses of the juntae or the Sessae? Call to mind a little, if you think good, De interpellatione three books, De interpellatione David one book, that is, all of them in effect de Oratione. Again in his books de Sacramentis, also upon the Lord's prayer etc. All these wrote S. Ambrose in effect of prayer, I 
Basil. Orat. in julittam. Nyssen Orat. 1. itemque 2. de Orat. dom. Chrysost hom. 3. in Gen. Damase. l. 3. de side Orthod. c. 24. And Clichtoveus in his Comment. upon Damas'. calls it completam definitionem orationis, a perfect de sinition of prayer. Sylvester, Navarrus, divers other Papists retain the same.  say, or the Oratione, as the Bishop called it, and mentions not any where praying to Saints. Is this now of no force with you? And finally, so many Fathers have defined prayer by our reference to God only, (as indeed the Pater noster does, which I must always tell you of) that neither shall you be ever able to claw of that argument, neither if we now and then name one of them for another, ought you so much to blame us for defect of memory, as forcibly subscribe to so great variety of consent, as is able to confound the best memory.  
§ 18. But what if S. Ambrose mention not praying to Saints? No more he does (say you) of our mutual praying for our enemies and the like. As if these were not the objects and materials of our prayers, which are infinite in number, as Aristotle 
Individua sunt insimta.  tells us, that all particulars are, and therefore not to be comprehended. We speak of him to whom we are to direct them, which is soon learned, and most meet to be told, as Pater noster, and nomen TWM, and regnum TWM, and the conclusion of all, quia TWM, thrice repeated, of which I told you before. Every clause, every syllable in the pater noster, shows to whom we must pray. So no doubt would Ambrose, commenting of prayer, have directed us to the Saints, if God had not sufficed. But he is Shaddai so too.  
§ 19 Yea but Numb. 36. you tell us, that S. Ambrose makes no mention of the Saints interceding for us, which the Bishop never thelesse grants. Is it therefore none? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and an ox with an ass. Good Lord how unlike? For the one of these is free to think or not, the other of faith, that God must be prayed to. If he be on our side, Rom. 8. you know what follows, all other may be spared. Even the Angels themselves, even then when they come ad denarium numenum, 
Christ is better than ten Angels, that is, than all, saith Albinus Alcuin.  to the number of perfection, (decem principes eivitatis, Eccles. 7. 20.) yet wisdom is better than they, that is Christ, says Albinus, upon the place before named. No doubt our Lord is all sufficient to relieve us. And, not praying to God, we can receive no benefit from him; the Saints intercession which they make for us, whether we sleep or wake, whether we know of it or not, is alike beneficial to all. No such reason therefore to determine this.  
§ 20. S. Ambrose himself, of whom we speak, upon the words now quoted, Rom. 8. Semper causas nostras agit apud patrem [Christus.] Our Saviour always pleads our causes before his Father. And shall the Saints put in, where he is always agent? This is worse than spectant Roscio gestum agere, to interpose our Saviour at pleading for us, as if he were not either cunning or graceful enough at it. Again, Cuius postulatio contemni non potest (nor therefore, adiavari opus habet adventitiâ aliquâ advocatione) quia in dextra Dei est. Whose request cannot be despised, because he sits at the right hand of God. Like unto which Tertullian, Facilè impetratur semper quod filius 
De peenitent.  postulat. That suit hath evermore easy speeding which the son makes, (Christ, to wit.) Neither does S. Ambrose mention without cause, the sitting of Christ at the right hand of 
Christ fits at the right hand of God to make request for us.  his Father, to whet his mediation. Which S. Paul had mentioned, for the very same cause, in the place that he comments upon, Rom. 8. 34. And indeed but to Christ, it was never said to any, Sede à dexteris meis, sit on my right hand, Hebr. 1. 13. Which by collation of places, shows, that there is none other intercessor for us, but he. Lastly, thus S. Ambrose, Vt de Deo patre securi, & Christo filio eius, in eorum fide laetemur. That being confident of God the Father, and Christ his Son, we may rejoice in the faith that we have in them. So as you see, faith and advocation goes only still with Christ, not with the Saints.  
§ 21. NExt is Ruffinus lib. 2. historiae c. 33. who says not, that Theodosius did invoke the Saints, but as the Bishop answered you, and you cannot take away, that at the tombs of Martyrs he craved help of God, by the Saint's intercossion. Which although it suppose their suing for us, yet it is not coupled with our praying to them. What you bring out of chrysostom, who names not Theodosius, much less points at this fact of his, as you dream both here, and numb. 50. but only speaks universally of the Emperors, hath been replied to before. We dress no Crambe. He names Constantine. And if he meant Theodosius, why does he not name him? But whomsoever he means, they may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, need the holy ones (suppose the Angels) and yet not pray to them, nor to Saints neither; and yet whether they do or no, it makes no law. Hear S. Cyprian orat. de lapsis. Mandant aliquid Martyres fieri? Sed si scripta non sunt in Domini lege quae mandant, antè est ut sciamus illos de Deo impetrâsse quod postulant, tunc facere quod mandant. That is, Do the Martyrs command a thing to be done? But if that which they command be not written in God's law, it is reason we should first know, that God allows what they ask, before we do what they command. So as not only the actions of mortal men, though never so godly, but the commands of Martyrs, appearing from heaven, must be examined by the law of God, ere they may be accomplished by S. Cypr. judgement. Antè est ut sciamus, etc. Yet you back it by Sozomen. lib. 7. histor. cap. 24. out of whom that which you bring is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Sozomene, it is said, or reported, though you amplify it, by, commonly reported. Well what is it? First you leave out Theodosius his going into the Church to pray to God, and to none else, that he names in that part of the sentence. This you dissemble, and leave out, as not concerning the matter, though nothing more, who charge the Bishop so causelessly and sencelesly else where for the same fault; yea, when it is no fault. Secondly, as for the Temple which Theodosius built in the honour of S. I. Baptist, we might ask you, how that agrees with S. Austin's, Templum Martyribus 
De civit. dei. lib. 8. c. 27. Sic Greg. de Val. T. 3. Comm. Disp. 6. q 11. puncto 5. de Idololatria.  non ponimus? You will say, it was called by the Baptists name only, and in memory of him. So, it may be, he but named or remembered the Baptist in his prayer, as he had good occasion, conversing in the Church that might put him in mind of him. You have both built Churches, and offered sacrifice (though you cloak it never so much) to him and to Martyrs, contrary to S. Austen. For do you not offer sacrifice in the honour of the Virgin? You will not deny it. How then does this differ from the Collyridian heresy? To omit how 
Vide eundem Greg. ubi suprà, frigidissimè & hoc & alia defendentem. Atque iterum in libris de rebus fidei controverfis, lib. singulari de idol. eadem ad verbum repetentem.  much more heinous a matter it is to offer Christ our Lord, in honour of his Mother, than a cake as they. The like I might say of vows which you make to Saints by way of special honour, which the aforesaid Valentia, seeking four ways to justify, is most fowl in all. One time he says, that the Saints are called for witnesses of what we vow to God. A small prerogative, and yet more than need too, even this. Another time, that we vow to God indeed, but for love to the Saints. As if God were not lovely enough, or had not right enough to our vows, but for the Saints sake. A third time, that we do this, because we think the Saints are well pleased with such service, when it is performed to God. But by this reason we may as well vow to Saints in earth, and in mortality. Lastly ', he denies it to be an act of religion, if it be done to the Saints; of which hereafter. As for Theodosius, his calling S. john Baptist to be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it might be materialiter, that the piety which he had showed in decking the Temple, with the name of the Baptist, for distinction sake, might be mentioned by him to God, to move him to favour, as Ezechias and 
* Nehem. 15. 14. Remember me, O my God, con●●r●…g what I have done for the house of God, etc. & in fine. Remember me, O my God, for good.  Nehemias' and diverse more have done the like. And yet not trusting in their own righteousness neither, but by some proportion of their endeavour, and his good acceptance. In this sense, S. john Baptist might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and as our works are said to pray for us, (vitalis oratio, Bellarmine acknowledges; another, that eleemosyna orabit pro te) so this an imploration of S. john Baptist, renewing the memory of the Temple that bore his name, before God in his prayer. The stars, are said, to fight against Sisera. Heaven is called to rejoice over Babylon. So all the Saints out of their brotherly sympathy, are our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all times; vocati nec vocati; and yet when we call for them, we may call for them of God, without praying to them. Ille educit thesauros ex abyssis. This therefore, though there were no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proves no praying to Saints. Whereas you say, that if we pray to S. john Baptist, why not to others? We make no question, but the reason is alike; but you have heard our answer to Sozomens story, which at another time no man disclaims more than yourselves, (Sozomenus multa mentitur in historia, Greg. de Val. Tom. 4. Comm. Theol. p. 1952. The like judgement gives Bellarmine both of him and Socrates, T. 2. edit. Ingolstad. anni 1605. p. 487.) and remember, I pray you, that he says, Theodosius went in to pray to God, so as if he prayed to the Baptist, it was beside his purpose.  
§ 22. The Bishop's reasons against prayer to Saints, because we have no such warrant in the holy Scripture, and we know not if they hear us or no, etc. how do you refute? The Church of God, say you, the spouse of Christ, the pillar of truth, hath done it before us, with whom our Saviour hath promised to be continually assistant. What then? And this is in stead of Scripture. To you it may be. But first you have brought us no such testimony of the Church, unless you think, that all that meet in a Church to hear a Sermon, or a Homily, as they did Nyssens, of whom we spoke a little before, are a sufficient assembly to countervail a Synod, which is the Church, without question, from whom we should look for determination in such causes, even by your own confession. Yet now you are offended with us, when we call for Synods. As for, our saviours assistance with us, to the end of the world, I see not how that proves praying to Saints, but rather sends us from them to him, as to whom we have not only easy access, but himself continually watching about us. Do you not read in the Cantic. how dangerous it is for the spouse of 
Cant. 1. 7.  Christ, to run a gadding after the flocks of the shepherds, though they be called his fellows, or companions, but not fellows in this. And again in the same book, Paululùm cum pertransissem, 
Cant. 3. 5.  when I had past a little farther; that is, as both S. Bernard and Guarricus expound it, when I had passed the Angels, and soared above the creatures, than I found where to rest, upon God and Christ, no doubt, and not before. And it proves not, first, that the Church cannot err, 
If the Church be of such authority for being the p●ll●r of truth, what shall we say of him that bears the Church itself, not the Pope, but Chrysostome● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In concione apud Georg. Alex. in vita cius.  though she were the pillar of truth, that you speak of, 1. Tim. 3. 15. Where, if it were lawful to add any thing to that which hath been answered to that place of the Apostle, over and over by our writers, I would say that he alluded to the two pillars, which the posterity of Seth are said to 
joseph. Antiq. l. c. 3.  have erected after the flood, containing divers verities both physical and Theological, most memorable in them, but not authorizing them at all. So happily the Church. For to her the depositum was committed coram testibus, as the Apostle says in the next Epistle, 2. Tim. 2. 2. the truth, as I may say, engraven in her, as it were in a marble pillar. But secondly, though the Church were never so infallible for her doctrines, yet she might err in her practice, as you confess of the Pope. For even the Church herself, is not more privileged with you, than the Pope, from error. Though we never read him called the pillar of truth, as we do of others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,. i. O most divine father, the pillar and ground of truth; saith Damascen to jordanes the Archimandrite in his Epistle de Trisagio ad eundem. And yet he not infallible neither, because no Pope. Thirdly, your examples, put them altogether, make no Church. Which hole shall we stop first in your sieve, in your argument?  
§ 23. Theodoret's beginning is very laudable, that they often 
Ex 8. lib. de Graec. morbis curandis.  meet to sing hymns and praise to the Lord of Martyrs. If they went any further, I can but say with Epiphanius, Haeresis est tanquam mala mulier, heresy is like a shrewd woman, give 
Contr. Collyrid.  her no advantage, no more then to the water, no not a little, let her not have her will. If she had been kerbed at the first, it had not come to those riots, and extremities, that since we labour of. Though when I cast mine eye upon Theodoret's own text, not as you trenlace and translate it at pleasure, I see very little to make for you, if ought at all. First, he reports only fashion or use, and that not general, which you promise in your title of this seventh Chapter. Do you see then how quickly you are fallen away from your terms, which very terms were not answerable to the primitive challenge, although you had kept them; which called for sanction not for practise, for rules of Fathers, not routs of people, etc. Neither does Theodoret say that the people made their prayers to Martyrs, but having spoken in the last words of the God of Martyrs, he adds immediately of their praying, for all such things as they stand in need of, but specifies not to whom they prayed for them, whether to God, or to the Martyrs. To whom then rather, then to the God of Martyrs? His words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Thirdly, if there prayers were made at first to the Martyrs, to them also should their thanks for speeding be returned. Of which thanks he speaks in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But yourselves in your Liturgyes, sieldome return thanks to the Saints or Martyrs, of which I am to speak in another place. And indeed, if thanks are to be returned to the Saints, can it be but that God is in exceeding great danger of losing his honour, with whom such partners shall communicate? And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it does not force that they prayed to the Martyrs to accompany them, whose company they might beg as well of God, and he licence them. Which nevertheless would be thought of, how possibly it can stand with another clause of Theodoret's in that very chapter, viz. the souls of Saints, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, range about heaven, and their bodies are dispersed into divers towns and countries. How then could they accompany the poor wayfaring man, but that Theodoret turns rhetorical, and meant no other, then only to oppose to the Gentile gods lately by him named, or such as intruded upon the honour of God, Antiochus, Hadrian, Vespasian, etc. the exaltation of Christian Saints, so far as was compatible with Christ's true Religion? And therefore correcting himself, he is feign to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not absurdly distinguishing between dulias and latria, as your brains crow, but deprecating the scandal which his former words might seem to imply. Where we have also the gifts and donaries before spoken of, offered to God in plain and direct terms, not to the Martyrs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For their Master accepts them, says he, [not they,] As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let the Saints pray for us as much as you will, that is nothing to our question of praying to them. And yet Theodoret adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This shewet, that their God is the true God. Which confirms what I said, in the former Chapter, of Mamas spoken of in S. Basil, that Deus Mamantis, Mamas his God, and so here, the Martyr's God, they are mentioned to this end, to show that the people's recourse unto them, was not as to certain favourites, and under-officers of the great King, to dispense largesses, but as worshippers of the same God, (even with loss of their dearest blood lately in their life time,) in whose honourable service themselves rejoiced, and the rather because dignified by such noble partners, and fellow-servants. Lastly, showing of what trades and occupations of life, diverse of those Martyrs were while they lived, he reckons up very mean ones, not to call them base, and concludes thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: That is, Of such men and women consists the Choir of Martyrs. Yet Parsons that hellhound (your worthy 
In his Three Conversions of England, but namely part. 3. in the month of March. Chap. 7.  predecessor, or if you will, progenitor, into your world of Antics) scoffs at shoemakers, and beere-brewers, and such kind of people, that they should be thought Martyrs fit for a Calendar, or able to discern what faith they died for. You hear what Theodoret here not only confesses, but vaunts of. Of such men and women consists the Choir of Martyrs. And what says the Apostle? Non multi nobiles, etc. Or what kind of trade is contemned in Scripture, towards the advancing of Christ's Gospel, fishing, tanning, weaving, tentmaking, and such like? Ecclesia Christi de vili plebecula congregata est, says S. Hierome lib. 3. Comm. in Epist. ad Gal. And Onesimus the fugitive (Baronius writ it, if I remember) succeeded the Apostle S. john in his Bishopric of Ephesus. But Parsons hath answered this by this time, and many other matters; I urge him no farther.  
§ 24. Only take you heed, how you believe the Saints (as here you seem to do) to 
It follows, notonely that, etc. but that Saintsheare the prayers that are made unto them, seeing that they obtain the grant thereof, and give succour to their suppliants. Adjoind. numb. 45.  understand the prayers that are made unto them, because now and then the desire is granted. Consider ye not what collusions may be among devils? And, Audit ad voluntatem, cum non ad salutem, even God himself as S. Austen teaches, which your Sylvester with others observe out of him, v. Oratio. He hears us to our will, when not to our weal. Conceditque iratus quae negaret propitius, saith the same father. And grants in anger what he would deny in love. Neither is the devil the better loved for speeding in his suit, to go into the swine, you may be sure. Yet the devil begged rightly, you worse than he, at a wrong door. Neither is the Bishop to be blamed for searching this question of Invocation by reasons (as S. Hierome says of Quadratus that he wrote a book in defence 
De scriptor. Ecclesiast.  of our religion, 
* Full of faith and reason.  plenum fidei & rationis) since you confess yourself that it is persuadeable, but by inducements, namely what others have observed, found, and experienced, and is not necessary to salvation, 
* A fitof contradiction between the Adjoind. & himself, in numb 29. and num. 55. where he calls it a necessary duty, unless he mean necessary, but not to salvation, to destruction rather.  numb. 29. Why then should you shun the trial of reason? To omit that as S. 
a De civit. dei.  Austen, and your School hath it, In faith are many things above reason, but none against it.  
§ 25. The revelation of vicissitude or per interualla that Saints may have, as Elizeus of Naaman and Gehezi, and the like, is not enough to avouch praying to them. It must be permanentiae, it must be spiritus manens & non transiens. Else we may pray to them, when they hear us not, and when nothing is revealed. This man hath prayed to me, and I was not aware, or Dominus abscondidit à me, as the Prophet said. So shall we be sure that they do not ever hear us, but whether they do ever hear us or no, we shall not be sure. Can there be any thing more disparageable to a poor suitor than this? This to your numb. 46.  
§ 26. Whereas you say in the 47. that they know our prayers, by the relation of Angels. First, how shall the Angels know them to relate? By revelation from God, you will say. But he that reveals to the Angels, might reveal to the Saints eâdem operâ. What needs this revelation then? Sic fieri per plura, quod potuit per pauciora? Secondly, who makes that the Angel's work, to be offerers of our prayers to the Saints in heaven? Is this worthy of them? Is this a fit work to employ Angels about? Why not rather to myself, says the Angel? And surely if this be once entertained, that the Angels acquaint the Saints with our prayers, which else they should not know but for them, will not the Pagan opinion which S. Ambrose hissed out, and you with him, even now, return, that God also should be ignorant of our affairs, unless the Angels revealed them? For you make the Angels, to offer our prayers to God too. A just reward of your perverting so the Apocalypse, c. 5. v. 8.  
§ 27. To your 48. 49. etc. Numbers. 
* Concil. Tolet. 3. can. 11. Irreligi●sa Consuetudo est, quam vulgut agere consu●…t in se●●i●●tatibus Sanctorum: Both Custom and Multitude are to be condemned, if they be wrong.  That Church-custome determines diverse things without Scripture: I answer briefly, they must be things of a lighter nature, than the substantials of God's service, as is our prayer to him, or whomsoever you will thrust into his room. No prescription can rob him of his honour. Homines nihil usu capere possunt 
Cic. de leg. ex. 12. tab.  à dijs immortalibus. And again, among the same Laws, as I rememember, Aduersus hostem aeternae authoritas, but maximè Dei, & Divina sibi vendicantem. Your own Genebrard upon that verse of the 119. Psal. LEGEM tuam dilexi, 
To baulk the Law of God, is to decline to heresy.  INIQVOS odio habui, that is, haereticos saith he, or such as departing from the law of God, either fall into heresy, or are not far from it. So much it concerns us to stick close to the Law; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Basil wills: and in another place he makes a Law to himself, to endure all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all forms of death, rather than to forfeit one syllable of divine 
Apud Theodoret. hist. l. 4. c. 1●.  writ, being tempted to dispense at the small things of God's Law, (as was pretended at least by the wily Courtier) with no small offers. The very place of Esay, that sends us ad legem & ad testimonium, bars us from looking towards the departed, though they be Saints. It were endless to reckon up all the father's authorities, in detestation of such traditions, as accrue beside the word of God, and how they reduce all controversies of this nature, to no other touchstone, than the holy Scriptures decision. Out of THESE BOOKS, saith Constantine, let us try the Question, meaning 
Apud Gelas. Cyzic  the Bibles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let the Scripture be Umpire, saith Basil ad Eustathium. S. chrysostom, Tom. 4. edit. Eton. per D. H. Savile, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The doctrine of holy Scriptures is the inheritance of our Fathers. Even as we say, that the Common Law is every man's inheritance, because it tries titles, & by that we hold. Dionysius therefore most properly calls it substantiam fidei, the substance or livelihood of our faith, suppose that by which it is fed, as you would say, and nourished, and maintained. Likewise, Thy testimonies have I claimed as mine HERITAGE for ever, says the Prophet David, in the Psalm before named. So as the King you see, consists by the tillage of this field, and they are his for ever, even as in the nature of an inheritance, as was before said. Apollinaris (in Eusebius. l. 5. c. 1.) Bishop of Hierapolis, writing to a friend of his, Avircius Marcellus, about the heresy of the Cataphrygians, alleges this as a cause of his slow setting forward to write (even against those heretics,) ne quicquam apponere viderer Euangelico verbo novi testamenti: lest writing so much as one line after the Canon of holy Scripture, he might seem to have a mind to add to her most complete sufficiency. S. Gregory also the great, lib. 1. Epist. 24. ad quatuer Patriarchas, saith, that as the Priest in old times was wont to consult God in doubtful cases, apud arcam testamenti, at the Ark of the Covenant, or of the testimony, so Ecclesiastical rulers are to perform the same now, [apud arcam testamenti Dominum consulunt] si de his in quibus dubitant intus apud semetipsos sacri Eloquij paginas requirant. The Pastors than consult the Ark of the Testament, when concerning those things that they make doubt of in their minds, they have recourse to the pages of the word of God in their breasts. For which cause you shall find, that a Divine of yours, Antonius de Pad●a, was called Arca testamenti, 
Apud Lip●….  the Ark of the Testament, by them that admired his cunning in the Scriptures. Which study is not so honourable, if we read them but to read them, or to wax cunning in them only, unless we resort unto them as to the law of our life, and countenance of our whole proceedings. Wherefore again the same Gregory, whereas the Church in the Canticles is called a Dove, he gives this reason of it, because the doves property is to gaze upon the rivers, and so 
In Epist. 5. Cant  the Church's study is wholly in the Scriptures. His words are, Doves also for this cause are wont to sit by the full rivers of waters, that they may discern the shadows of birds flying over them, and casting themselves upon the waters, eschew the claws of such foul as are too fierce for them. Even so godly men discern by holy Scriptures the deceits of the devil, (suppose such as F. T. would feign put upon us here under the colour of the Church) and by the platform therein contained they descry the fiend, as the birds do the hawk by her shadow in the water. Then follows, Dunque se consilijs Scripturae addicunt, ut videlicet NIHIL AGANT nisi quod ex RESPONSO SCRIPTURARUM audiunt, quasi in aquam se proijcientes, hosti illudunt. Quae flumenta PLENISSIMA dicuntur, quòd de QVIBUSCUNQVE SCRUPULIS, in Scriptures consilium quaeritur, sine minoratione de OMNIBUS ad plenum invenitur. What can be said more for the perfection of Scriptures? It is well that Canus says a Pope may err if he write a book, as here Gregory doth; not if he determine 
Can. loc. come. de Pont. Rom. autho rit.  in the chair. Yea and Anselm, your own Doctor, no less then Greg. upon Col. 3. Habitet in vobis verbum Christi copiosè in omni sapientia, etc. is not nice to affirm, that omnis sapientia is where Christi verbum is, all wisdom is there where Christ's word and warrant is. And reckoning but those four branches of wisdom, first, to know the holy Trinity, than the manner of worship belonging unto it, thirdly, godly coveting after the Kingdom of heaven, fourthly, good works and honest life in this world, he concludes thus, In huiusmodi rebus est omnis sapientia quam Christianus habere debet in hac vitâ, that is, In such things as these, stands all the wisdom, that a Christian man needs to have in this life. What then should we do with Saints and Angels, and the worshipping of them, after the holy Trinity religiously served by us, unto which S. 
a De Orat. dominic. Observe that word Observance, For by that, Greg. de Val. his distinction is taken away, that denies the worship of religion to Saints, but grants the worship of Observance. See hereafter, Cap. 8.  Cyprian says, that all our devotion and observance ought to be confined? Yea and 
b Aquine further quotes Deut. 4. Haec est sapientia vestra, etc. and Act. 20. Non sub erfugi annunciare vobis OMNE consilium Dei. Even as we do against the Papists, denying the Scriptures sufficiency.  Aquine himself, more yours perhaps then Anselm (as was Anselm then Gregory) yet commenting upon the same words, acknowledgeth such perfection in the holy Scripture, that saying the Apostle exhorts, us there to wisdom, he adds more over, that he beginneth that exhortation, with showing them where wisdom is, and calls the word of God, (to the study whereof the Apostle there incites) fontem sapientiae, the FOUNTAIN of wisdom. Unless your thirst be so preposterous, as the very fountain cannot quench it. And indeed in old times, the Bible was laid forth in the midst of Synods, as Constantine's words insinuated even now, quoted out of Gelasius, to show, that their determinations of matters of importance, should come only from thence. Sexta Synod. Constant. sub Agath. Propositis in medio sacrosanctis Euangelijs Christi Dei nostri: The holy Gospels of our Lord jesus Christ, being laid forth in the midst. And S. Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 2. Copiosus numerus Episcoporum in unum convenimus, & Scriptures diu ex utrâque part prolatis, etc.  
§ 28. To the 51. numb. What marvel if Paulinus be poetical in verse, when the Fathers, as hath been showed, have their flourishes in prose? And yet not to the derogation of Christian religion, save only as you flies, or beetles rather, corrupt good ointment with your abusive breath. The custom and practice of the whole. 
Adiound. ex Hi●…. contia Lucifer. cap. 4. & aliis. To●ius orbis in hanc partem consens●● insta● praecepti obtin●ret. But every body may see that he speaks not this dogmatically, but insultingly over his adversaries, after he had foiled them otherwise sufficiently, by Scripture.  Church, is a bauble which the fool hath gotten by the end, and brandisheth it as gloriously as if it were Hercules his club. We have seen no such, I tell you. Ecclesia Dei non habet talem consuetudinem, vix vel simplicem praxin. And yet if you think to facere populum, and carry the cause by many voices, I must tell you with the same S. Hierome, whom you quote so rise, lib. 3. contra Pelag. prope finem, that, Multitudo sociorum nequaquam te Catholicum sed haereticum demonstrabit. To allege multitudes on your side, will make you thought to be an heretic, not a Catholic. The like I have quoted to you out of S. chrysostom before, Hom. 8. in Act. Apost. And in brief, what custom can do, you may learn of your fellow Sa, in Apharismis, v. festum. namely, that fairs may be kept, and the mill driven upon the holiday, with some other things, which certain of you will scarce excuse from mortal sins, (as he says;) but the salve of all is, Licet, concedente id consuetudine: It is lawful, because custom permits it. Is it not reason that we should be guided by such a wandering star?  
§ 29. What can be more absolute, or more powdered with that salt, which our Saviour commends, than the Bishop's answer to S. Austin's authority, out of Serm. 17. de verb. Apostoli? that, for a man to be recommended to the prayers of the Martyrs, is to be interessed in the intercession of the mystical body, etc. Christ only being prayed to, and yet God hearing both him and us, while each is solicitous for the need of others, no less then of himself. Neither doth the comparison, wherein the gentleman so pleaseth himself, 
Adjoind. Numb. 60. As if a man should say that for a man to be recommended to the prayers of the Bishop of Ely, is not to ●raue the help of his prayers in particular, but to wish that the King's MAIESTIN, and all English Protestants, may pray for 〈◊〉.  numb. 60. to disprove this, any whit prejudice the Bishop's interpretation. Nay, if a subjects wishes were so favoured by a King, as whatsoever he wished, the King would accomplish, might I not sue even to the King to have my part among them that the favourite should recommend, without making particular means to himself? So Christ and the Martyrs. What they wish we have, what he inspires they wish; and yet we seek not to the Martyrs, but to God only.  
§ 30. His unsavoury scorn of his MOST SACRED MAJESTY, to be Head of the Church of England, I might well reckon with him for, but I pass by. God be thanked at what time I was writing these things, the news was (and true he grant, as we doubt not but he will of his grace, in the end) that the King of France had acknowledged this title by proclamation in his Dominions, & severely threatened the contradictors. There is hope that this leaven which his MAJESTY hath prepared, like the good housewife in the Gospel, by his most skilful hand, will leaven more than one peck in time, even the other parts of the Christian world.  
§ 31. Espencaeus (and he a French Papist) says, that Reges are prima & maxima capita populorum (even Christianorum, and therefore Ecclesiae. For what is the Church but Christian people?) How then doth this differ from our KING'S style in English? Espenc. in Ep. ad Tit. cap. 3. initio ipso. And soon after, he construes columbam Domini, spoken of by jeremy 25. 27. 46. 50. to be Nabuchodonosor, though a profane King; whom the jesuitical spirit would have termed corvum diaboli, the devils crow, rather than God's dove. The like he hath often in his foresaid Digressions.  
§ 32. Numb. 56. you say, S. Austen denies no invocation to the Martyrs, but sacrifical and Priestly only. For he adds, you say, whose Priest he is, namely Gods: and you construe it thus, that because the Priest is God's Priest, & aught to sacrifice to God alone, therefore he doth not invocate the Martyrs in his sacrifice. But the Bishop's questions will never be answered, If at Matins, why not at mass? If not the Priest, why others? Might a layman, at the time when he communicates in the mass, privately invoke a Martyr, or no? If he may, what a foil is this, to S. Austin's, Non invocantur apud sacrificium? If not, what difference is there, between Priest and laymen then, in this point? For I hope it is lawful, even for a private man, not to participate your mass, without a private invocation, even in the act of that service. And are Priests set only to offer sacrifice? Is not blessing and praying a Priestly function, as it is exercised in the Church? or does not the force of the sacrifice stand in invocation? The Saints therefore, and the Martyrs, being removed from the one, they are removed from the other, by S. Austen. But if you admit them to the one, as you do to Invocation, you cannot repel them from Sacrifice neither. It comes here to my mind, that as S. chrysostom notes lib. 1. contra Indaees, that God gave the jews leave to sacrifice to himself (though he delight not in sacrifice) rather then to devils: so, if the fathers could be convinced to have winked at this error, not weighing the consequence of it, yet it was rather to alienate the people's minds from Idols, then that they thought it good religion to pray to Saints. Sure I am, that in the third council of Carthage (which is both ancient in itself, and confirmed by the sixth general Council in Trullo) there was proviso made, that no man should presume to use a form of prayer, dissident from the common, till he had consulted with certain brethren of the better instructed sort (so speaks the Council) and that always at the Altar, the prayer should be directed ad patrem, to the Father, not excluding thereby the other two persons of the Trinity (
* S. Hieron. in Ep. Pauli. item Chrysost. & Aug. in varijs locis. & S. Athan. in Epist, ad Serapion.  as all divines agree) but yet Saints, and creatures, whatsoever.  
§ 33. You refer us to S. Austen de cura pro mortuis, c. 4. which the Cardinal brought not: but still you may help him, suc Mineruam. What says S. Austen there? I see not what help the dead may receive (belike 
Baronius Annal. Tom. 2. Anno 226. sect. 12. brings another reason out of Maximus, as if the very neighbourhood of the Saints bodies availed the souls of them that lie buried by them, against damnation: so does superstition increase in despite of S. Austen here, after once it hath broken loose: yet Maximus having ascribed somewhat to the Saints, dares not rest there, but brings us home to ourselves again, as time was, saying, Attamen consocij sanctitate.  by being buried in Churches) but only that whiles the living remember where their bodies lie, they may by prayer recommend them to the same Saints, as to their patrons, who have received them into their protection. Where, a man might ask you, if already they are received into the Saint's protection, what further need of recommendation? But the burying in Churches, is but a cold recommending to the mercies of Saints, howsoever you magnify it. By the way you construe, apud dominum adiuvandos commendent, they may commend them to be holpen with Almighty God, as if apud dominum depended of adiuvandoes, and not of commendent. With such pretty bosses of exquisite learning, is your work embellished, that write against Bishops. And may we not stomach with Synesius, in such a case?  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Hymn.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But in a word to S. Austen. Do you see how little this makes for praying to Saints? I see no other cause (says he) but this. He affirms not this cause then, but seeking the cause of a causeless zeal that men have one way, he lights upon this, which eftsoons he refutes. But they might do that (says he) as well, though they were not buried there, etc. And yet shall this be brought for S. Austin's judgement about prayer to Saints? which perhaps the very multitudes would not bring for themselves. Of affectus recordantis, and precantis, I there read: but affection is no good rule to rectify the conscience by, specially popular, and of them that we know not what they were. And, issdem 
Adjoind. Numb. 62. The prayer whereof S. Austen speaketh here, cannot be said to be made generally to Christ, and to all his mystical body, according to the Bishop's gloss, but particularly 〈◊〉 Sanctis tanquam 〈◊〉, to the s●… Saints as to their patrons, and eidens Maytyri, to the same Martyr, by whose tomb the b●dies of the dead are buried.  sanctis, or eidem Martyri, excludes not the general, howsoever you press it, though it endears perhaps to him the party buried, to whose protection, you say, he was recommended.  
§ 34. By the way, you wish us, to mark the fashion of praying for the dead. Which although it be nothing to our question, yet it neither follows half currently out of the words that you here quote, nor advantageth you one whit, albeit it were granted. For all your striving about prayer for the dead, is for Purgatory, as we know, whose walls rise not at the others rising. Neither is every Purgatory, that hath been fancied, alike. S. Hierome reports upon Ephes. 6. the opinion of some that should think, that no man's conflicts end with death, and that there are temptations expecting us after our deliverance from the body. Which they would also ground upon the Apostles words in that place. Non omne adversus diabolum praelium morte finitur. Sed cum de isto saculo exierimus, tunc nobis fortius & apertius praesentibus contra praesentes est futurum certamen. And, Non potest aliquis omnia in praesenti vitâ operari. Sed 2. Cor. 5. siue in praesenti, sive in futuro, studendum est placere Domino. For thither also they would draw those words of the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Corinthians. S. Hierome delivers not his judgement hereof, one way nor another, much less shall I needmine. Only we may well lament our case, me thinks, if there be new temptations accosting us after this life, and that it is not enough to have been faithful unto the death. For my part, I hope for a far better condition, when we have quitted this. Or else, what get we by the exchange so much desired? Yet your Purgatory gets as little by this new purgation. For first, this is general, and encloseth all, Non potest aliquis omnia in praesenti vitâ operari. Then necessary, not subject to be diminished or released by the prayers of the living. Upon which foundation nevertheless, your market-house is erected. And lastly, not torments, but temptations remain for us, and fresh combats, if these say true. Your pots may freeze then for all this Purgatory. But at least it follows from prayers for the dead; which you bid us mark here. As if in the ancient Liturgies, 
S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 6. & lib. 4. Ep. 5. Meminit oblationum pro marlyribus. Sacrificia proijs (inquit) somper offerimu●. Whereas one cannot offer prayers for a Martyr, without doing him in●…ie, faith S. Austen. Those oblations therefore neither were prayers, nor went with prayers. S. Epiphan, also●…resi ●…resi A●…, thus hath, reciting whom they pray for. Proi●stis, & Patribus, & Patriarchis, & Prophetis, Apostolit, Euangelstis, Martyribus, Confessoribus, Episcop●…, Ana. horet●…, ac▪ pro ●…iuer so ord●….  the Virgin Mary were not prayed for, whom you so quit from Purgatory, that you excuse from death: in other some the Martyrs, who go not thither by your doctrine, but are glorified immediately: yea, all souls, and all departed, are prayed for by others. Yet not only S. Bernard's soul flow immediately to heaven, as your Authors inform us., but even Father Hozius the jesuit, 
Massaeus in de vita Ignat. l. 2. c. 6.  and I know not who of that crew, their souls were seen fleeting thither as fast, by some of their own confederacy forsooth, that we may believe it the rather. S. cyril in his Catechis. quotes the words of the Greek service thus; Offerimus & pro omnibus qui●… saculo tibi placuerunt Sanctis: We offer for all Saints and righteous persons, that have been pleasing to thee, O Lord, from the beginning of the world. And more peremptorily afterward, to show that even profit accrueth here of the souls departed; but what profit you may think, sith he makes it common to the souls of the most righteous & just themselves, even all of them. Magnam utilitatem credentes accessuram eorum animabus pro quibus offertur, which puzzles your Pamelius, who quotes that, to prove the clean contrary of it, which it importeth. Gregory Nazianz, Orat. in Caesarium sratrem, though he had laid down his ground, that Caesari●… was saved, and his soul enriched with competent honours, (dignum fructificaret honorem) yet he prays thus to God in the sequel for him, Nunc, O Domine, Caesarium suscipe. Tuis eum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, Receive him, Lord, we give thee him whom thou hast already taken. Of which manner of prayer I shall speak a little after. S. Ambrose is not 
S. Ambrose saith of Valentinian, that he is in luce perpetua, in tranquillitate diuturna, in detectatione florenti● in light never sailing, in rest a●xaies lasting, and in flourishing delectation. How much short of heaven then, I would feign knows  slack to pray for Valentinian: 
* Confess. l 9 c. 13.  S. Austen for his mother Monica, though they assure themselves of their exemption from all manner of pain: Et credo iamfeceris quod te rogo, saith S. Austen, sed tamen voluntaria or is mei approba Domine: And I believe Lord, thou hast already done this; but yet Lord, accept the freewill offerings of my mouth. But let Gregory de Valentia cast it hardly. Tom. 4. Com. Theolog. Disput. 6. Quaest. 6. Punct. 1. De forma Eucharistiae, thus he says; Facit saepe magnitudo affectûs in Sanctis, ut illud tanquam in excasi quadam petant à Deo, quodtamen iam factum est. [The Saints in transportation, many times pray for things already granted.] The same saith S. chrysostom of S. Paul, Hom. 10. in 4. ad Coloss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He begs for what he hath already. Holy job also concurring, cap. 9 cum vocantem me exaudierit, non tamen credo quòd audier it vocem meam: [When he hears me calling upon him, yet I scarce believe that he hath heard my voice; and therefore importune him with fresh suit for the same thing.] Yea, Maldonate the jesuit gives as much (out of the Author Imperfecti) commenting upon Matt. 6. 11. Vocari volunt panem nostrum illum etiam ipsum quem iam habemus, quem nihilominùs à Deo petere iubemur. Quod verum quidem & pium est, etc. So as not only in ecstasy and transportation, as Valentia would, but in the daily form of prayer, prescribed by our Saviour to the whole Church, the Saints are to pray for things already had. But return we where we left.  
§ 35. The last is of Florentius, apoore old man of Hippo, who 
Aug. de cluit. dei, l. 22. c. 8.  having lost his cloak, S. Austen says, he prayed at the monuments of certain Martyrs; but not to them. The young men scoffed him, say you, for praying to the Martyrs. It seems then, it was no such use to do so. For they were not Pagan young men, but more likely Christian. And though they mocked him eo ipso nomine, for praying to the Martyrs, yet it follows not that he did so: for even our Saviour was mocked as praying to Elias, when he prayed to his Father only. So it might be that neither Florentius prayed to any but to God, and the young men mocking him as praying to the Martyrs, declared the judgement of those times and those parts, which was, that Martyrs were not to be prayed to. You say, they mocked him not for praying to the Martyrs, but for requesting of them, quinquagenos folles (so many pieces of money) towards his cloak. Which is not likely, he would capitulate so precisely with Saints, for the buying of a new cloak: but if he did, you may weigh his wisdom, and think how fit a man to square the faith of God's Church by his actions. Cartosus the cook might say, Ecce quomodò Martyres te vestierunt; behold how the Martyrs have clothed thee, though neither Florentius prayed to them, nor Cartosus allowed such prayer to be lawful, but only comforting him against the taunts of the young men, who had impured that to him, to pray to Martyrs. S. Austin's epiphonema, Cui nisi huic fidei attestantur ista miracula, to what faith do these miracles bear witness, etc. hurts not us, who deny not miracles, (though they that call for them untimely, drive our Saviour to groans again, Mark. 8. 12.) nor wish ill to Martyrs, and least of all to Faith, but say, that faith in Saints, and prayer to the dead, are both of them repugnant to the right faith of our Lord jesus Christ.   

To the eight Chapter,  
The Bishop's arguments against Praying to Saints are maintained (which the Adjoinder saith, may be expected in all likelihood, that he should satisfy, and therefore addresseth himself thereunto in this chapter.) The Canon of the Church of England about the Cross in Baptism, neither guilty of imposture, nor any otherways to blame. Wrangling, juggling, trifling, and the rest of his brave Rhetoric wherewith he fronts the Bishop, returned upon himself rather in proof than words.  
§ 1. YOU call it the Bishops abusing of Theodoret, to quote as much of the text only, as was most pregnant to the matter in hand, besides that you know his accustomed brevity: And yet professing to lay down Theodonets place, you dare not yourself lay it down at large. I will add what you left out. The question between us arises of the 35. Canon of the Council of Laodicea. Of that Theodoret in his Comment, upon the 2. to the Coloss. thus. They which defended the law, did provoke them also to the worship of Angels, saying that the law was given by them. Now this fault remained in Phrygia and Pisidia a long time. Wherefore the Council which met at Laodicea, which is the Metropolis 
The Council forbids praying to Angels.  of Phrygia, by decree forbade praying to Angels. And to this day we may see, among them, and their neighbours, Churches, or Oratories, to S. Michael. Most of this, good Sir, you left out, you I say, that blame the Bishop for not putting in all. I imagine you were ashamed of S. Michael's Oratories, which you have multiplied, in ipsâ formâ, or that the idolatry to Angels, which the Council forbids, is construed by Theodoret 
The Papists maintain cultum Angelorum, Angel's worship, which is idolatry, by Theodoret's exposition of the Council of Laodicek.  cultus Angelorum, the worship of Angels, which worship of them at least yourselves defend. He goes forward, They therefore gave this counsel in humbleness of mind, saying, the God of all things could not be seen nor comprehended, nor that we could come to him, and that we must procure God's good will by Angels. This S. Theodoret calls baseness of mind, and the worshipping of Angels. He calls it worshipping of Angels I say, our seeking to procure God's favour to us, by their mediation. Yet you do so. And further, the Council calls it Idolatry. You are idolaters therefore in so doing. Lastly, it reforms that whole fault by forbidding prayer to Angels. Now think you therefore, whether Theodoret be against you, and the Council of Laodicea, and whether you be idolaters, yea or no, for your resorting to Angels, praying to them, single worshipping of them, though you went no further. And lest you think Theodoret construes the Council amiss, by saying it forbids prayer to Angels, when it forbids idolatry, (though the Council be plain, Ne nominemus Angelos, which is the Invocation of them, or calling upon their names, and it were hard to entertain such a thought of Theodoret, yet) hear Theodoret repeating the same again, upon the third Chap. to the Coloss. The Synod of Laodicea also following this rule, and desirous to remedy that old disease, by statute decreed, that none should pray to Angels, nor forsake our Lord jesus Christ. What more evident, than that prayer to Angels was forbid by the Laodicean Council, in Theodoret's judgement? No, say you, but the forsaking of our Lord jesus Christ. Pray to him, pray to Angels, pray to both. Which the Council says not, as distinguishing between them that prayed to Angels alone, and them that pray to 
Not unlike to Qu●… Mambre in Sozom. lib. 1. c. 3. at which Parson pieces deo omnium mederatori fundunt, pars ●bi Angel●s invo●ant. Quisque prout singulorum poscit relligio, etc. So that one and the same religion calls not upon God & Angels; yet F. T. would have it so; which is the worse.  our Lord jesus Christ too, but they as I shall set down in their own words; That Christians must not forsake the Church of God (by this you see that prayer to Angels was not then received publicly in the Church,) and depart aside, (either as into corners, or from the track of the Church-fashion and observation) and name the Angels, (or call upon them by way of prayer, as Theodoret construed it) and make meetings, which is a thing forbidden, (viz. all the forenamed.) If any man therefore be found to use such privy idolatry (they call it idolatry, praying to Angels) let him be accursed. Because he hath forsaken our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God, and betaken himself to idolatry. Now, say there are two kinds of worshipping of Angels, one with Christ, another without, as your Valentia distinguishes of two kind of idolatries, one lawful, the other unlawful; 
Vbi supra. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Pet. 4. 3. jerem. 2. 13.  out of S. Peter. The Council yields it as a perpetual reason, why we should not pray to Angels, because that is to forsake our Lord jesus Christ the Son of God. Two evils (says the Prophet) hath my people committed, digging false pits that hold no water, and leaving me the fountain of life. So here.  
§ 2. You say, Theodoret alleges not any one word of the Canon, numb. 3. It is enough that Theodoret understood the Canon, and construes that which they there forbid, to be praying to Angels. Either say that Theodoret mistakes the sense of the Canon, if you dare for your ears, or confess you are concluded under the Counsels curse, for praying to Angels. And yet Angels, I hope, is one word of the Canon, which Theodoret uses. And is not relinquere dominum nostrum jesum Christum, another clause of the same? which Theodoret hath in his Comment. upon the 3. to the Coloss. But what talk you of words, when he gives you the sense?  
§ 3. You say, the heresy which the Council forbid, was of such, as thought we could not come to God, otherwise then by Angels, which you do not. But the Council first hath no such words, but forbids the invocating of Angels barely, without showing their reason that were wont to use it, and Theodoret himself doth not say otherwise, but only non posse perveniri, that is, that God was hid, and retired, and incomprehensible, not to be come at, (viz. of himself) and therefore that we must use the mediation of Angels; Which yourselves would not stick to allege, to him that you would persuade to worship Angels, and draw an argument from the remoteness of Almighty God, to crave help of such proctor's, though you dare not deny the mediation of Christ. Mean while, herein you are worse than they, for they say, God cannot be approached to without Angels, you say, Christ himself must be approached to by the Angels, as if he did not offer himself unto us, and so lead us to God; for by him we have entrance, etc. Ipse via, ipse 
Rom. 5. 2.  vita. Leo de passione Domini, Serm. 16. Meritò Dominus ipse nobis factus est via, quia nisi per Christum non itur ad Christum. Well is our Lord made our way, because by Christ only we come to Christ. S. Austen also in Psalm. 123. Praefat. Ipse Rex patriae factus est via. Quo imus? ad Christum: quâ imus? per Christum, etc. The king of the Country is made our way to the Country. Whether go we? to Christ: which way go we? by Christ, etc. To whom add that of Theophylact, in his Comment upon the 3. to the Coloss. at those words, verse 17. Whatsoever you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord jesus, giving thanks to God, and the Father, by him. By him (saith Theophylact) we must thank the Father, by him pray to the Father, in his name do all things. For as he is our mediator, to bring our persons to his Father, at the first; so also to convey our prayers to him for ever after. Where is your distinction become, between mediator of redemption, and mediator of intercession, if this may take place? He that brings our persons, brings our prayers to the Father. And that you may know, that not only Christ is to be embraced, & laid hold of, but the Angels to be quite cashiered in this work of recommendation to almighty God, S. chrysostom and S. Theodoret, both, thus proceed. If by Christ, than not by Angels. Theodoret as you quote him, upon the 3. to the Col. in your 4. Numb. Utter your thanks to God by Christ, and not by Angels. And as thanks, so prayers questionless, 1. Tim. 2. 1. for thanks are a kind of prayers. chrysostom so likewise, hom. 6. in 2. ad Coloss. Walk in him (says he) (for he is the way 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. v. 6.  that leads to the Father) not in the Angels. That way (viz. the Angels) leads us not thither: that is, the Angels have no part at all in mediation to God for us. And yet more pregnantly, if more may be, Hom. 9 in 3. ad Coloss. ver. 16. etc. Whether thou eat, or drink, or marry, or travel, do all in the name of God; that is, calling him for thine assistant, praying to him before all, and so set upon thy business. Wilt thou say any thing? set him first. For this cause we (or as others read Paul) set the name of the Lord foremost in our (or as other his) Epistles. Where the name of the Lord is, there all things are prosperous. For if the names of the Consuls make their writings to be of force, much more shall the name of Christ do the same. This also may be the Apostles meaning here, that we should say and do all in the name of God, as hath been showed, or in affiance towards God, not bringing the Angels. Dost thou eat? thank God both afore thou eat, and afterward. Dost thou sleep? Thank God both afore thou sleep, and afterward. Dost thou go to the market place? Do the same. Do all in the name of the Lord, and all things shall go well with thee. Wheresoever the name of God is set, there all things are prosperous. If it expel devils, if it drive away diseases, much more will it give easy riddance to thy business. And what is that that the Apostle says, Whether in word or deed? That is, either praying, or doing any thing else. Harken how Abraham dismissed his servant, in the name of God; how in the name God David overcame Goliath. marvelous is his name, and very great. Again, jacob sending away his sons, saith, My God give you grace in that man's sight. For he that doth so, hath God for his aid, without whom he durst do nothing. God therefore in recompense of the honour, wherewith a man honoureth him, by calling upon him, will honour him again, by giving good success unto his business. Call upon the 
Christian invocation hath this property ' that one person being prayed to, all are prayed to. Which is not so in prater to Saints. For neither, if one Saint be called upon, another is, nor if the Saint be prayed to, therefore is God called on. And this latter much less. Because God and the Saints are farther off in nature, than the Saints between themselves. Which shows how repugnant prayer to Saints is to the Christian invocation.  Son, give thanks to the Father. For when the Son is called upon, the Father is called upon: and when we give thanks to the Son, we thank also the Father. Let us learn to perform these things (let the Jesuits learn, if they love their salvation) not only in words but in deeds. Nothing is of like force to this name, (the name of God) this name is wonderful in all places. For thy name (saith he) is like unto ointment powered out. Whosoever names this name, he is straightways filled with most sweet savour. No man can call jesus the Lord, but in the holy Ghost. This name works so great things. If thou sayest by faith, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, 
Eph. 2. 18 We have access to the father, through Christ, in one Spirit. The whole Trinity is named; but no Saint needful to the procuring of our access.  AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST, thou hast effected all. See how great things thou hast done. Thou hast created a man, and done all else that is wont to be done by baptism. This is that fearful name, that commands sicknesses. For this cause THE DEVIL BROUGHT IN ANGELS, (their service or worship) envying us the honour (of having to do with God only.) These are the enchantments of the devils. Though he be Angel, though Archangel, though a Cherubin, endure it not. For indeed the very (heavenly) powers themselves, will not endure it, nor admit it, but will repulse and reject it, when they see their Master dishonoured. I have honoured thee, saith he, and I have said, Call upon me. And dost thou dishonour him? If thou but faithfully apply 
Note this consequence of S. Chrysost. which the jesuits deride. Call upon me, saith God: Ergò not upon creatures, though they be Saints or Angels.  this charm, thou shalt drive away both devils and diseases (& all.) And if happily thou shalt not be able to conquer the disease, yet know that it is for the good of the party, not for the weakness of thy charm. According to thy greatness, saith he, so is thy praise. By the virtue of this name, the world was converted, the tyranny dissolved, the devil trampled, the heavens opened. And what say I the heavens? We ourselves by this means are begotten a new. If we have this name, than we flourish and shine. This name makes Martyrs, this name 
Add hereunto another excellent declaration of S. Chrisost. judgement touching prayer to S●… C●…. in 1. Cor. 〈◊〉. at those words, With all that call upon the name of our Lord jesus Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not this 〈◊〉 and that man● name, but only Christ●.  makes Confessors. Let us hold fast this name for a great gift, etc. Or if you will, let us change this name for a new, the Name of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Trinity, by Paul, and by chrysostom so highly commended to us, for new names of I wot not whom, foisted in by the Jesuits. I speak to our Countrymen, weary of their welfare, and itching after novelties, hasting out of God's blessing into the Saints warm sun, as they suppose at least. To whom I add, but this one thing, by way of remembrance, because they would seem zealous of their Country, and the ancient 
Card. Al●●s Answer to the Apolog. of Engl. just. See Speed in He●. 〈◊〉.  honours thereof. The famous victory, that our nation atcheiued, against the French, at Agincourt, so few against so many, was consecrated by the prayers of King Henry the fifth, of worthy memory, exhorting thus his soldiers, partly sanctifying their mouths with the participation of Christ's sacrament, partly kissing a mould of earth in rememembrance of their mortality, IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINIIE, AND IN THE BEST HOUR OF THE YEAR. But go we onward as I said.  
§ 4. Numb. 5. You quote the Council false, accessit ad idola, for, ad idololatriam. Be like you think the Angels are no way idola, though we pray unto them, and therefore the Council cannot be meant of that. But besides that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the greek, perverse worship and rash prayer turns an Angel into an idol. And here your idols are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things essential, or subsistent, not chimeras only, as you pervert S. Paul, 1. Cor. 8.  
§ 5. But, O noble argument, Numb. 6. That this cannot be the abominable idolatry, which the Council forbids, (the Council calls it privy idolatry, as taxing the fair gloss, wherewith you gild over your idolatry, abominable though it be, yet perhaps not outwardly, and therefore not so called by the Council) but it cannot be the same you say, because then S. Paul should be an idolater, exciting the Corinthians, the Romans, and Thessalonians, to pray for him, etc. For he hath for saken the Church of God, (mutual prayers agree not with Church-discipline) and renounced Christ, etc. Will this balductum never be left? Also jacob should be an idolater, because of, Angelus qui eruit me, the Angel that delivered me, bless these children. Did you never hear of Angelus magniconsilij, Esa. 9? or Angelus foederis, Malach. 3? The Angel of his Counsel, and the Angel of the Covenant, that is Christ, and none other Angel? a word of office, not of nature. Or, that the Mediator preluded to his future incarnation, by appearing familiarly many times to men, and exercising the part of a gracious Angel? 
Idem habet Greg hom. 6. in Evang. & hom. ●5. Quid est quòd duo Angeli videntur in loco dominici corporis, nisi quia Latinâ linguâ Angelus nuncius dicitur, & ille ex passione sua nunciandus erat qui est Deus, etc.  S. Austen cont. Faust. lib. 16. c. 20. Quis, nisi nec tenuiter Graecis tinctus, ignorat, Angelum nuncium dioi? To be sent about a message therefore, is enough to make one be called an Angel.  
§ 6. joshua fell down before an Angel, you say, and called him Lord. Why not as before? Yet some say representing the person of God, like honos Regis legato delatus, the honour of the King given to his Ambassador. 
Hom. 8. in evang. Non habere dedignantur hominem socium, qui super se adorant hominem deum. Of the same mind are Beda, Ruportu●, Anselm●●, Richardus, etc. all quoted by the Adjoinder himself, cap. 9 to this very purpose.  Gregory observes, that in the old Testament this was sometimes in use, afore our nature was exalted by our Lords taking part of it, but not in the New. Neither did the Virgin worship Gabriel, Luk. 1. (rather Gabriel may seem to pray to the Virgin, in his Ave Maria, if that be a prayer, as with you it is) nor the Disciples those Angels that appeared at the sepulchre, joh. 20. and you know in the Revelation it is absolutely forbidden. Vide ne. Yea the Fathers say, 
Leo serm. 12. de Passione Dom.  Christ should not have been adored by the Mage, by the Centurion, and others, but that he was acknowledged to be the Word, and the second person in Trinity.  
§ 7. Assistance of Angels proves not prayer unto them; 
Adjoind. ubi suprà.  not presence, not help, nor benefits through them. Such Divinity is for parasites, or them that labour in the kitchen, like Ignatius and Borgia, the two first stones in your foundation, 
Rib●…ra de vitâ ●gnat. l. 3. c. 2. Scho. Ios. de vitâ B●rg. l. 2. c. 12.  that are enroled jesuits: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. My oil and my wine, saith she in the Prophet, nay, my flesh pots and my garlic, more shamefully, if it may be. If we should construe S. Paul so (as some do) Eph. 3. 10. that the Angels receive benefit and increase of knowledge by our preaching (which is another-gates advantage, than your temporal reversions that you are so madded with) would it infer any duty from them to us? I think not. No nor yet, that we have all, our particular Angel; which is another thing that you stand upon. By this reason, we should pray but to one among them all; and how shall we know him, or how distinguish him from the rest of the company, that we be not unthankful to him, that we may speak properly, when we pray unto him? Though from thence it is come to that pass now (the mala mulier is) that every particular Monastery and congregation of Friars, hath his particular Angel, or Angels, over it. So says Molina in 1. part. Thom. Quaest. 113. Disp. vnic. And, they move, singulos communitatis, to such or such enterprises, as are for the good of the whole fraternity. To the murdering of Kings, to the embroiling of States, etc. that that may be called an Angelical work now, as Guadalupa upon Hoseah says, the Inquisition is rather an Angelical institution then human. So hath Satan forgot his qualities and old cunning, of transforming himself into an Angel of light. And dare you talk of imperium Angelorum over men, Angels government or command, which though it were currant once, yet is not now? as Hebr. 2. Non subiecit Angelis orbem de quo loquimur: The world that we now speak of, is not governed by the Angels, that is, the world of the new Testament. And again in the Revel. conservus tuus sum; I am thy fellow servant, Not,— dominum cognoscite vestrum: but one of the many that depend of the main, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coloss. 2. 19 holding by the head, no less than thou, which is our best security. Yet you quote also Theodoret's Questions upon Genesis, nothing to this time. Besides, imperium 
Quaest. 30.  might be the government, that any principal in his faculty hath over the novice, without such authority, or superiority, as you fond amplify in ministering spirits, Heb. 1. (how then commanding?) specially so great, as to make va ask them blessing.  
§ 8. But how he sweats in the 9 Num. to show what this idolatry was, which the Council 
Photius in Comm. hulus loci. makes the error to have been this. Quod obsecrandi essent Angeli, (that by this we may know how to weigh S. Ambroses, Obsecrandi sunt Angeli, totidem verbi●) and all because we are not worthy to come to God of ourselves, not yet to be brought on by Christ: The very Popery that we protest against at this day.  forbids, that it be not prayer to Angels, as Theodoret hath defined twice over? Some Magical worship, saith he, of Simon Magus. But is sorcery, and idolatry all one? Why no word of magic then, in all the Canon? in Chrysostom's Comment? in Theodoret's? in the rest? Oratoria Michaelis were the sorcery, or the magic that Theodoret described, none other. And the idolatry is forbid to Angels by name, magic neither to Angels nor without Angels is allowed. S. Paul distinguishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 5. 20. you confound 
Item johan. A. poc. 22. 15.  them. It might be Cerinthus heresy, say you, (but him john confutes,) Or certain Phrygians. Well may it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which seeing you will not see, 
In Popery it is now turned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lawful Idolatry, according to Valent. his distinct.  but hoodwink yourself wilfully, as if partnership in offences might quit the guilty. Whosoever build Oratories, or places of prayers to Angels, whether they be Michael, or Gabriel, or whomso you list, if to created Angels, they have abandoned Christ, as the Council tells you (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at least privily, though not so openly as Cerinthus) & are become anathema. And to conclude this matter; I must tell you to your 11. numb. that the prayer to Angels was sooner banished, then to Saints. For that was stale idolatry, vetus morbus, says Theodoret, and so the easier discerned: this 
In Coloss●…. 〈◊〉.  came up secretly, closely, imperceiveably, while men were both zealous to honour the Martyrs, that had been so vallant as to die for religion, and yet suspected no intrusion into God's privileges, because their mortality had declared them to be but men. Neither of which was incident to the Angels. As withal also to confirm the Christians belief, touching the immortality of the soul, even in them that had lately died before their eyes, which in the Angels needed not. And yet Theodoret's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or taking his leave of them, whose lives he had wrote, with a prayer at the end; some would think to be no prayer, howsoever you account of it, but a flourish of his pen, by way of an Apostrophe, in the conclusion of his work; or to make the most of it, like the subscription of the Nicene Canons in the Arabic copy, which your Turrian tells us of, in his translation of them. Orationes sanctorum patrum Nicaenorum, sint cum eo qui descripsit hos canon's; which is not to pray to them, but to be prayed for by them, to be comprehended in their good wishes. Which is the grace that Theodoret may here seem to long for, notwithstanding his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so much to these Numbers.  
§ 9 As for Numb. 12. the next in your bill; Whereas, the Bishop (you say) argues against praying to Saints, out of Reason and Discourse; why not rather than you, (for as well is too little, considering the cause in hand) that bring your inducements of praying to them, from the like heads many times? As twice in this chapter, from the practice of people, from the sense of their benefits, from conformities & congruities with other Scriptures, though testimonies of Scripture you are able to show none direct, neither indeed endeavour you. Above all, that if charity remain in them, they will help us, and being potent they can; and, that they know our case, and behold our estate, or else they were not completely blessed, if they should wish us well, and yet not know how we did. With a great deal more of such fiddle-faddle-stuffe which S. Paul condemns in one word, in the place before named, Coloss. 2. Instatus sensu carnis sua, puffed up with his own carnal reason, or carnal sense; and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strutting and pacing in things that he hath not seen. Not seen indeed, but yet picked out, by F. T. his occulta philosophia●.  
§ 10. You know not (says he) how the sea ●●s and flows, 
Adjoind. num. 13.  how the loadstone draws iron, how the eye sees, whether extramittendo, or intromittendo, etc. And surely though we doubt of them, we are in no great danger. Simple may we be, but not sacrilegious. Quae sine periculo ignorantur, oppugnantur etiam quandoque cum laud. Faith hath her assurance, and sense hers. That Saints should be prayed to, is accompanied with neither. Were it as evident as the former, though we might sift it happily, with an argument or two, for discourse sake, yet we would not persist in the denial of it, as now, when neither Scripture abets it, and sounder antiquity makes against it. He says, We know not how the Saints, pray for us: Suppose we do not, the matter is not great. Yet we must be sure they hear us, and perhaps know how, before we pray to them. For they may do us good, though we be not aware of it; have reference to them we may not, unless we have good ground for it. Howbeit, whereas he says, we cannot conceive how the Saints pray for us, if the Saints have reason and affection remaining with them, as doubtless they have, what difficulty is it to conceive how they should pray for us?  
§ 11. And dare you question of our Saviour, how he sees our prayers? Do you not rather 
Adjoind. Num. 14 Let him tell me how the Angels and Saints in heaven pray for us, or how the humanity of Christ heareth our prayers, and knoweth our actions, etc.  wonder how he should be ignorant of any thing? have you forgot what flows from the hypostatical union? Which Saints have not, Angels have not. You are wont to tax us with the Agnoites heresy: who is the Agnoite now, but he that doubts how Christ should know all things, and that not in pilgrimage, but in bliss?  
§ 12. To your 15. and 16. numb. out of S. Austin's lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. That God works wonders at the Tombs of Saints, and yet we know not how: Therefore we may pray to Saints, though we discern not how they hear us. Resp. Nothing like: For neither does the Scripture ever say, that God shows no miracles at the tombs of Martyrs, that we should question this so nicely before we believe it, by the Virgins Quomodo, Luc. 1. Rather it most often witnesses of Almighty God, qui facit mirabilia magna solus, indeed solus, so as no body cooperating with him, none suffered to see and to inquire how he does them. Quis consiliarius fuit ei? Rom. 11. 34. But forsomuch as it denies that the dead know any thing of our condition here, and such a gulf (as I may so say) is pight between us & them, as all 
Psal. 6. Esa. 65. upon which words S. Austen, de cura pro mort. cap. 13. St tanti Patriarcha nescisbant populum ex se procreatum, & di●…tùs promissum, etc. Psal. 27. 12. Ecclesiast. 9 5. josias subtractus ne videret malumiquod & Aug. adducit ubi prius.  intercourse and commerce is debarred, (the places are too common to be here recited) therefore first show us how, or worthily we believe you not.  
§ 13. The Angels may rejoice, upon the rising of a sinner, 
Adjoind. num. 17.  when they conduct him into heaven, as they did Lazarus his soul, though they be not privy to his passages here in earth. And yet in earth, they may see, by outward demonstrations, such signs of repentance, as they cannot always trace our supplications by: which for the most part are cordial, and within the vail. The heart is deceitful, and who shall search it, who gauge it? says jeremy. For which cause, S. john says, God is greater than our heart: only God. We are strangers to it ourselves, and shall they be no strangers, which are so much estranged from us, both in place and quality? In Cassians Collations, a godly Abbot, 
Abbas Serenus. apud Cass. Coll. lib. 7. c. 16. Velut quodam de intimis concl●…b us prode●… tinnitus, quid sit reconditum in abdi●is interioris hominis recognoscunt. And, ut the saurum corporis nostri explorent, noxias suggestiones quasi arenas inspergunt.  useth this similitude. As certain the eves when they would know what store of gold is hidden in a house, that they beset, they fling in some handfuls of smaller sands, at the windows, that by the sound of that in the fall, they may judge whether any treasure be within or no, and not lose their labour; so the thoughts of the heart are subject to knowledge, by such or such signs, upon provocation. Which may hold well enough in matter of repentance, to see whether the sinner will return to his old courses or no, but is no way to know what he begs in prayer. To omit, that our saviours words might be construed by supposition, that so great is the joy for repenting sinners, as Angels would have their part in it, if they knew it, and when they know it, than they have de facto. Heaven and earth in 
Apocal.  another place are invited to rejoice over Babylon, your Babylon, by a figure of hyperbole, for the wrongs that you have done them. Lastly, Revelatio vicissitudinis, or intervalli, is one thing, as I told you before, statae permanentiae another. The first may suffice to verify the saying, Luk. 15. of the joy of Angels over repenting sinners, but that they should know our prayers whensoever we make them, more is required.  
§ 14. The like I might say to your instance of Samuel, who told Saul all that was in his heart, namely concerning the matter then in hand. Of Elizeus, that saw Gehezi by transitory revelation, and discovered what the king of Syria did in his privy chamber. The presenting of our saviours glorious body to S. Stevens eyes, is not comparable with an intuitive speculation of the thoughts, though this also was at a glimpse, and not ordinary, whereas the Saints must have ordinary to hear us at all times, if they will be called upon.  
§ 15. Athanasius is counterfeit; yet he means but of 
Quaest. 11. ad Antiochum.  things belonging to their beatitude. Sine his autem satis beati esse possumus. Both we and they too may be happy enough without this. Then, post mortem & in die judicij. After death and in the day of judgement. Time enough therefore if they know all things in the last judgement. What is that to prayer to them, which must be in the mean while, if it be at all?  
§ 16. As for S. Basil, he means intra sphaeram only, 
Lib. de vera virginit. Nullus est ex his qui non singula ubique consideret.  within their quarter. For though they are quicker sighted than we, yet they have a limitation both of act and virtue. The Custodia hominum, which S. Basil ascribes to them, may be with knowledge of our outward ways, without knowledge of the inward, to which our prayers belong. And yet again he may be custos or protector of us, that watches over our safety with prayers, and with good wishes, though he know not so much as our outward estate. As job, when he prayed for his children, unknowing to them; as S. Paul when he said, absens corpore, prasens spiritu, and yet knew not what they did, but love linked him; nor might they petition to him in such absence. Spectator actuum an Angel may be, as you quote out of S. Ambrose, and yet not cogitatuum, 
De viduit.  which is prayers chief seat, as hath been often told you.  
§ 17. We say not, that Saints are shut up in a coffer, as you maliciously slander us, with Vigilantius. We grant they follow the Lamb whethersoever he goes, but signanter dictum, sequuntur non praeeunt, they follow him, not go before him, that is, they applaud his resolutions of showing mercy to his Church, not importune him always with fresh demands, only sighing for our salvation in general. The blessed Martyr Fructuosus, as you may read in Baronius, Tom. 2. Anno. 262. when he was hasting to his martyrdom, and now come to the stage of his execution, one Felix requested him to have him in mind, [belike after death] To whom the holy Martyr and Bishop answered, clarâ voce & audientibus cunctis; In mente me habere necesse est ecclesiam Catholicam ab oriente usque in Occidentem. That is, I must needs have in mind the Universal Church of Christ, even from the East to West. Limiting thereby his prayers, to the Universal estate of Christ's Church here upon earth, and no longer owning particular suits, after his departure out of the body. As he that gives us the Contents of the second Tome of Baronius, in the end of the book, understands those words more peremptorily yet then so. Non esse orandum sibi nisi pro Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, that he may not pray for any but only for the Church. Whereas what if they should pray for the general of mankind? But I must further follow you.  
§ 18. S. Gregory's speculum, is rejected by yourselves. 
Adjoind. Num. 21.  Is it like the Saints see as much as God? Do they see him as much as he is to be seen? Do they comprehend him, in quantum comprehensitilis est? Yet himself does so; And if by seeing him, they see as far into him, as the nature of things is resplendent in him, they should do this, and all. He means, the presence and contemplation of God excludes all wretched and woeful ignorance from them, and fills them full of happiness, but after the measure of their capacity. And though they could discern all that is in God, yet it is a question whether he would not restrain them from some things purposely, speculum voluntarium, not naturale. Though they affect us well, as we confess, yet their felicity stands not in the knowledge of our welfare, but in submitting themselves and all their desires to the pleasure of God, of whom we read, that he shall be all in all in them, but not that they shall be all in all in him. I mean, to see all that is to be seen by him.  
§ 19 I have omitted one thing in the 17. Numb. that the Saints offer up our prayers unto God, Apoc. 5. for so you quote. In all which chapter nevertheless, there is no mention of offering at all. The 24 Elders are said to have haps, that is, the instruments of praise, and vials full of sweet odours, which the holy Ghost expounds, to be the prayers of the Saints. But their own as well as others, for aught I know. Either their thanksgiving to God, for their wonderful redemption, as v. 12. (for thanksgiving is reckoned a kind of prayer:) or, because you are so delighted with the Bishops grant, the intercessions which they continually make for us. As for the 8. chapter of the same book, where you read thus, Another Angel came, and much incense was given him, to the end that he might, dare de orationibus Sanctorum, offer, as you conceive it, of the prayers of the Saints, the original Greek reads, dare orationibus, that he might give of that 
In eadem opinione est Viega in hunc locu●n, nec Ribera negat multos sentire.  incense to the prayers of the Saints, not offer them himself. Which Angel, S. Primasius expounds to be Christ, so Beda, so Ausbertus, (our Rhemists insinuating though not expressing so much) S. Austen before them all, Hom. 6. in Apocal. and therefore he is called another Angel, as eminent above the former; and he indeed graces' our prayers with his merits, as it were with sweet odours, to make them acceptable to God; Or if you will needs take it of the created Angels, you see they add no merits of their own to countenance our prayers with, but borrow incense from the Altar, that is, Christ's merits from him, for he is our Altar, Hebr. 13. Data sunt ei thymiamata multa, as having none of his own. Which is enough to overthrow the mediation of Angels, though there were no more. For by a scheme of speech, they are made to be casters on of the perfume, though it be Christ alone that can dispense his own merits, and the Angels are strangers to them. As when it is said in Mulachie, that a book of remembrance was written before the Lord, another is made to supply his memory, as it were, though his singular sufficiency need no such help. Lastly, if we should read, as we no where read, that the Angels offered up our prayers to God, or carried them to God, I would say that their carrying or offering them to God, were nought else but their understanding his gracious will and pleasure, for the granting of our prayers commenced in Christ's name, beautified with those incense, whereof the text speaks; and their return to us, the execution or performance of them on their parts, wherein we needed their succour; as Tob. 12. Act. 10. and sundry places in the Psalms, as, Mandabit angelis suis de te: again, Mittet de coelis & cruet me: He shall command his Angels, he shall send from on high and save me. etc.  
§ 20. It is not worth the ripping up now, how the Rhemists have expressed their dotage upon this place, Apoc. 8. that because it is said, vers. 3. the prayers of all Saints, etc. or because the title of Saints they are but slowly belike 
〈…〉 worse then that in Te●… Per●… 〈◊〉 ipsi 〈◊〉 est ●…tro●● quem d●f●●so●… 〈◊〉.  brought to extend to holy persons living upon the earth, therefore they have devised mediations of mediators between themselves, Saints for Saints, and Angels for Angels, making intercession in heaven, the superior for the inferior as they term it. What greater victory could we wish to the Truth, or where shall we stay if this be once admitted?  
§ 21. NVm. 24. He comes to another head of the Bishop's plea, why we should not pray to Saints, because there is no precept for it, and all addition to the Law, in matter of God's service, is Leviathan, a bug. But he insists upon the place, Deuter. 12. alleged by the Bishop. Quod ●●bi praecepero hoc tantùm facies. Thou shalt only do that which I command thee. It extends no further, (says F. T.) then to the things in that Chapter, namely to the not offering of such sacrifices as the heathen. As if God could be offended only one manner of way, viz. by sacrifice, or, as if in sacrifices themselves, some rites were not arbitrary, as he instances himself, about feasts, and holy days, in his numb. 26.) so the substance be uncorrupted; or, as if other things being precisely ordered by God's mouth, this were not a general recapitulation of all the rest, as too long to be repeated in particular, that nothing in God's worship must be done besides his word, I mean for the substantials. And, Quod de uno dico, de omnibus intelligite, as our Saviour to his Disciples, what I say to you, I say to all. So what of one, that of all. The Scripture is full of the like caveats every where, against 
Deut. 5. 3. & 17. 20. etc.  your patchings to the word. Turn neither to the right hand, nor to the left hand. Which Bellarmine saith, is all 
D●…verbo Dei, vb 〈◊〉. D●uter. ●2. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 2●. 〈◊〉. Prou 30. 6. Deuter. 4●… & D●ut●●▪ 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉  one with the former. To the Law and the Testimony, Esay. 8. 20. God's works are perfect: add not to them, nor detract not from them, no more then from Lysias his Orations, (nay much less) where one syllable being perverted, all the whole frame falls to ground. His law is the truth, yea and the whole truth. Whatsoever is without that, is but mere fables. Iniqui narraverunt mihi fabulas, The ungodly told me 
Psalm. 119.  fables, but not according to thy Law. Therefore fables, because not according to thy Law. And a hundredth such like, which no doubt bind us, to a precise adherence to Gods will and sure, revealed in his word, even us I say of the new Testament, 
Numb. 26. c. 8. Adioyr. Put case that this commandment was general in the o●dlaw, will the Bishop infer that it is to be extended to the new Law? etc.  not only them of the old (see Apocal. 22. 18.) yet, for this the Bishop is a jew with this gentleman, a reviuer of Moses ordinances, and I know not what.  
§ 22. Though more particularly I might reply to his fond exception, unto the place aforenamed out of Deuter. 12. (which he saith was only a rule for sacrifice) that the same precept was given afore, even Deut. 4. and without any mention of sacrifices, sometimes applied to all the commandments ver. 2. again, ver. 5. again, ver. 8. particularly against idolatry ver. 15. to which this, of praying to Saints, is thought to be reducible. Therefore Bellarmine answers that place another way, lib. 4. De verbo. Dei cap. 10. Not that we must do no more than is commanded us, but in a thing commanded, no more for substance, than the commandment importeth. Which is enough for us, as I have often said, that God therefore is not to be prayed unto, by the mediation of Saints, unless he had commanded it; because that is not so much an appertinence, or a bare form, as a wrong service, a substance by itself.  
§ 23. Absurdly in his 26. number, is the multiplication of certain festivals, in which no new 
If these wor●… shall be understood as the Bishop taketh them, than the solemn feasts ordained by Mard●che●s, I●…h, and the Macchabees, to wit, that of the Dedication which our Saviour honoured with his presence, joh. 10. had been unlawful, etc. Adjoind. jer. 2. 28. & 11. ●3.  worship of God was erected, compared with the setting up of tutelary Saints now a days, and praying to them, that of jeremy being verified of the Popish Church, Numerus divorum secundum numerum civitatum, yea capitum. The number of their Saints is after the number of their cities, yea verily their persons.  
persons 24. A new device in the 28. number; that though it were true as the Bishop affirmeth, that we may not depart one inch, from God's prescript and will, yet the will of God reacheth further than his written word. Let him show, that this holds concerning the substance of God's service, we contend not with him for minutiae, for such accidents as may adesse and abbess (saith Porphyry) without corruption of the main. To place a Saint in God's throne, to 
S. john thought this a sufficient restraint of superfluous prayer, 1. joh. 5. 16. Non dico, I do not say, insinuating, that in prayer we must hold no other course, than Scripture leads to, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; how much more then, when the Scripture shall say, No, or Vide ne, as the Angel himself said to S. john? Apoc. 22.  address our worship to him, to pour out our heart and conscience into his lap, to submit unto him by prayer and devotion, is no such petty thing, whatsoever he imagines, but toucheth the foundations. Where this is offered, strange fire is offered, unless God authorise it.  
§ 25. To the place of chrysostom, upon that text of the Apostle, Tenete traditiones, 2. Thess. 2. eâdem fide digna sunt, tam illa quam ista. No doubt whatsoever the Apostles delivered, either by word, or writing (and they might deliver by word, what they did not by writing, as long as they were points of meaner nature, especially some of them, that wrote nothing at all) I say, whatsoever the Apostles delivered, no doubt but all deserved credit, and credit alike, ratione annuntiantium, in regard of their persons, which were far from lying, but not as to force us to the like obligation of believing and crediting them, in the way of salvation, or to eternal life. And do ye think, we could muster no authorities of Fathers, if the time would permit, or we were so disposed, to show that all is contained in Scripture, which we are either to practise, or believe, as by necessity of commandment, and how that entering into that Sanctuary (the Sanctuary of Scripture, and revelation from above) 
Simulac introiut in Sanctuarium, tunc cognovi Psa.  we may be instructed and certified about any points sufficiently? As Rebecca to the Oracle, when there was strife in her womb; so we in controversies. The Scriptures are called Oracles, Rom. 3. I am wiser than my teachers (saith he,) but how? by studying thy Law. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are able to make thee wise, and wise to salvation, spoken of 
Timothy taught in the Scriptures from a child, which were able to consummate him a MAN a man of God, 2. Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17.  Scripture: again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the man of God may be perfect in all things. Perfect, without traditions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I delivered what I received. S. Paul goes no farther, 1. Cor. 15. And there, a point recorded and written in Scripture, as the doctrine of the Lords Supper, is comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and made a Tradition. All Traditions therefore, you see, are not unwritten: but the tradition is to be spurned at, that descendeth not from Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanasius, one for many, Oratione contra Gentes, about the very beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To the declaration of truth (unless your Traditions be not of truth, the guise of some is to delight in lies, a just reward for abhorring Scripture the rule of truth. 2. Thess. 2.) to the declaration of truth (saith Athanasius,) the holy Scriptures are sufficient and complete. And are the Scriptures so sufficient to beat down Ethniques, whom Athanasius there writes against, and who care not for Scripture, as is commonly seen, and yet shall they not be sufficient to compound controversies arising in the Church, between Christian and Christian?  
§ 26. Theophylact makes them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in 10. johan. The Scriptures (saith he) give resolution of all points. Tertullian most excellently, Apologetice contra Gentes: Quò pleniùs & impressiùs dispositiones eius & voluntates adiremus, instrumentum adiecit literaturae, si quid velit de Deo inquirere, & inquisitum invenire, & inventum credere, & credito deseruire. Search, truth, faith, service, all comes of Scripture. And to the end we might confer with God more fully, and more effectually, or piercingly, know his courses, know his will, instrumentum adiecit literaturae, he hath given it us in writing, in black and in white, as you would say, he hath recommended to us the Scriptures. Add Hilary in Psal. 118. Octon. Nun. Vt qui nocte egressus lucernam antefert, & quò pedem inferat contuetur, atque ad singulos gressus lumine praeeunte sollicitus; ita unusquisque nostrum manens in se, verbum dei in omnes operum processus tanquam lucernam praetendit. And again, Vt eâ in omnem progressum cuiuscunque operationis utamur. Yea not only operationis, but cum aut agimus, aut cogitamus, aut loquimur. And lastly, Ad omnem animae nostrae pedem. The sum is. As a man will not set foot to ground in a dark night, but he will have a candle borne before him, so God's word must be the direction to all our deeds; yea deeds, words, and thoughts. S. chrysostom, I grant, observes in a cértaine place, that it is a sign that God is not so well pleased with us, as of old, because now he writes to us, rather than speaks and confers as he was wont. Mittit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tanquam alienioribus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Tom. 5. And yet Orlandine the jesuit in his Historia societatis jesu, lib. 1. num. 27. says of Ignatius their founder, that he, quamvis nulla extarent sacrarum monumenta ac testimonia literarum, tamen fidei dogmata, & tenere rectè posset, & tradere, etc. He could deliver points of faith, though there were no Scripture, well enough. Do you see the Jesuits drift, to ease us of Scripture by all means they can, and they care not how? either by dreaming of such a perfection, and entireness with God, as needs no Scripture (as he said of Ignatius) which is their pride; or taking away that very remaining token of God's love, and manner of communicating himself unto us, which is by writing (as S. chrysostom had said) and argues nothing but their detestable cruelty, and regardless behaviour towards the souls of Christian people. But let us hear you farther.  
§ 27. You say, That Christ gave no commandment of 
Adjoind. numb. 28. It is evident that our Saviour did not command any thing at all to be written, etc.  writing. No more he doth of fasting perhaps, of feeding our parents, of waging war for our country, not literally, not expressly, but yet insinuatively and intentionally, even of lifting up our enemy's beast out of the ditch. Whereof none is prescribed totidem verbis, in our saviours doctrine, yet all of force issuing and flowing from the same. The word Honour in the 5. Commandment, how much doth it comprehend, sustenance, services, reverence? etc. So, Preach the Gospel: Predicate every way, vijs & modis, by writing too; by printing and publishing, though long since devised. S. Gregory saith upon the 9 of Ezech. as I take it, that our Saviour appeared with a writer's Inkhorn at his back, cum atramentario adrenes, because though he writ nothing himself, whilst he lived, yet when his back was turned, and after his ascension into heaven, the Apostles did for him; by his appointment no doubt. Yet to S. john in the Reu. the spirit saith directly, Scribe, write. He is bidden to write. And if no prophecy (S. Peter telling us. 2. Pet. 1. 21.) came at any time by the will of man, but the men of God spoke as they were lead by the Holy Ghost, than were not written prophecies neither merely depending of the will of men, and of the election of the writers, but they did as men of God, that is servants of God, homines 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Dei, even herein also obeying his will, and as the spirit carried them, that is, enjoined them. Whosoever therefore wrote the Scriptures, had a commandment for writing them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I was necessitated to write, Jude the 3. ver. In the 4. to the Ephes. Dedit quosdam Euangelistas, quosdam pastors, etc. Some think Euangelistae are scriptores sacri codicis; that the Evangelists there, are the penmen of holy writ, and by that differ from others there mentioned. It is said, dedit, Christ gave them to the Church, therefore he set them on work. For no man would take this honour to himself, Heb. 5. No wise man at least: not a lesser than this, and therefore this much less, to indite Scriptures, which is one of the greatest of all. The place to the Ephesians, Aquine, and certain others, so interpret, as I have said, viz. Anselm, Lyra, yea and Canus himself, l. 7. Locorum: which is de Sanctorum authoritate. c. 3.  
§ 28. Now to Numb. 32. Of the Baptism of infants. Have we no Scripture for that? Origen (you say) calls it an Apostolic tradition, Yea, he means, that at least, though it be of Scripture too. And there are scriptae traditiones, as your own place teacheth you, 2. Thessaly. 2. Retinete traditiones, hold fast the traditions, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam, whether by word, or by writing, commended to you. Therefore traditions might be both. S. Austen you allege, de Genesi ad literam. lib. 10. c. 23. that the baptism of infants were not to be believed unless it were an Apostolic tradition. That is, I suppose, incident to one of the two kinds aforenamed, and in a word if it disagreed from the Doctrine of the Apostles. We have the figure of the Law, with some advantage on our side. There the knife, here the water. There within eight days, here within a competent 
The Adjoinders absurd slander of the Bishop throughout both questions, both of Princely supremacy, and Scriptures sufficiency, concerning God's worship, that he is jewish. But only in not casting such a hog as he.  space only. And yet they are no jews that observe this analogy. We read of whole houses baptised by the Apostles, Lydiaes, Stephanaes', the Tailors, etc. Marvel but some infants. We have Sinite parvulos venire ad me, a model, and an idea of baptism, at the least. For what doth Christ in baptism, but bless them, and release them from their sins? For, hic est qui baptizat, it is Christ still that baptizeth: and, Eph. 5. he cleanseth the Church. If regnum coelorum belong to such, why not baptism, which is the door of the kingdom of heaven? If they be in foedere, why 
4 1. Cor. 7. 14.  not in tesserâ? If they be borne holy, no doubt in the right that they have to baptism. For else holiness proceedeth not from the womb, corruption rather. Psal. 51. Eph. 2. 3. Rom. 5. In 
The worm our sister, and corruptió our mother. job. & ex eo Greg hoc sensu.  quo omnes peccaverunt, etc. What should I say of that, Baptizantes omnes nationes, Matth. 28? among whom were infants. We have divers other grounds, if this were a time to open them. But these are enough, to show that we have more than bare precedent, and practise, for our warrant, in affoarding baptism to Infants. And if S. Austen against 
cap●3 ●3. Places alleged by the Adioy●d Num. 〈◊〉. etc.  Cresconius saith, that the determination of the Church is enough to stop the mouths of such clamorous heretics, as the Donatists were, about their rebaptisation, though Scripture were silent, because the Church abhorreth it, yet prayer to Saints is of another nature, neither are you the Church, and much less the Church, sine ullâ ambiguitate, as he there speaks, nor can you show this descending of the practice of the church, from the first times, fili ductu, which was Austin's triumph, to confound them with the Church, after he had conquered them with the Scriptures. Nay, in his second book against Cresconius, c. 31. he allows such a supremacy to holy Scriptures, that by direction of them, do caeteris literis fidelium (not only infidelium) liberè iudicemus. We may freely judge of aught other writings, of faithful men (therefore of Fathers themselves) by collation of Scriptures. And, de unit. Eccl. c. 16. Non dicimus nos nobis ideo credi oportere, quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus. [We say not, we must be credited, because we are in the Church.]  
§ 29. As for that other place of his, out of the 4. the baptism. cont. Denatist. cap. 24. What neither councils have determined, nor Scripture defined, etc. one part is for you, that no councils have decreed your prayers to Saints, no Scriptures ordained them, but in the other ye are far short, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, whereas you show nothing afore the fourth age. And God wot how weak, Martyr pro nobis oret, Let the Martyr pray for us?  
§ 30. Numb. 33. Are Godfathers and Godmothers of the substance of baptism? And yet suppose they were, I hope there is a print of this very thing in Scripture. See Esa. 8. v. 2. I took unto me faithful witnesses, Vriah the Priest, and Zachariah the son of jeberechiah. This was at the naming of the son of the Prophetess, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But you answer yourself by the words of the Canon, in the same number, that these rules are rules of doctrine, concerning 
Can Ecclesiast. 30 in the Synod at London Anno. 1603.  indifferent things. And is our strife with you about such?  
§ 31. Mr. Rogers might well say, that we are not commanded by express terms to baptise infants. Yet warranted, as I have showed you, yea commanded, but not in express terms, which you would smother. Your fopperies are neither expressly, nor implicitly, scriptural.  
§ 32. To your 34. Numb. where you profess to lay open a notable piece of trumpery, of the Bishops of England, (for with such reverence you speak, when you speak of them all) I pray you see how notable. First, the Canon never 
Can. qui ptiùs.  says expressly, nor by consequence, that the Papists hold that the sign of the Cross is of the substance of the Sacrament. And yet herein you would feign observe a contradiction between his ROYAL MATESTIES' gracious censure of you, acquitting you from that error, and the 
Conference at 〈◊〉.  words of the Canon, as they may seem to glance at you for so holding. Such encouragement you give his MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, to make the best of your errors, to which his princely nature easily inclineth him, and more easily might, for the great benefit of God's Church, and the compounding of discords, if you had the grace not to deprane him. But as I was saying; The Canon only affirms, that the sign of the Cross hath ever been accompanied, of late times, in the Church of England, with sufficient cautions, and exceptions, against all popish superstition and error, and again, That since the abolishing of Popery, the Church of England hath ever held and taught, that the sign of the Cross is no part of the substance of that Sacrament; and that the infant baptised, is, by virtue of baptism, received into the Congregation of Christ's flock, as a perfect member thereof, even before it be signed with the sign of the Cross. Whereas all this while there may be other errors about the sign of the Cross, then holding it to be a part of the substance of Baptism. And from them we have purged it. Bellarmine, I am sure, de effectu sacram: lib. 2. cap. 31. ascribes spiritual virtue to this ceremony, and quotes to that end, a number of authors, but wrested, as his manner is. Yea he would have it to work wholesome effects ex opere operato. What think you of that? And how if Bellarmine either straggle and wander, now, from your Church herein, or, convince you to be unworthy of his majesties mild censure, in attributing grace and power to this sign? Lastly, though your Church never held any such thing, that is, your congregatio 
An Owl at C●●stance in the Council.  Aquilarum, as Pighius calls it, your quickesighted clerks, and in that respect the Prelates might truly inform his MAJESTY, that you yourselves were never so gross, as to impute virtue, or efficacy thereunto, yet divers simple souls, lurking in the promiscuous body of popery, might be tainted with this infection, and in that respect it might be called a popish error, though still I must tell you, that the Canon doth not call it so, there are errors enough besides that which the Canon might refer unto. Yea the fond persuasion of laypapists, calling for it as violently, and as importunely, as for the water in baptism, which hath been known in this land, (I will not say where, nor how lately) because it is an error springing from Popery, & fostered in your bosoms, though not proclaimed by your Church, might well be accounted among the Popish errors, from which we have refined the sign of the Cross, by neither ascribing virtue to it, holiness, grace, nor yet necessary observation, but only by way of obedience where the Canon appoints, and conveniency withstandeth not, for some advertisements sake. Can you doubt that there are errors, and errors in Popery, about the sign of the Cross, besides making it to be a part of the Sacrament of baptism, that allege Navarrus here, your grand Casuist, affirming 
Manual. c. 22. num. 6.  that if baptism be administered without the Cross, we ought to supply it afterwards? whereas either baptism must then be renewed and readministred to the party, which cannot be without horrible sacrilege, Heb. 6. and Ephes. 4. or the signing with the Cross there, is not the Cross in baptism, if it come so long after. But we treat of the Cross in Baptism, and that is it which hath ministered all the offence. Finally, you say, if the midwife baptise, than the child must be crossed afterward. So that the midwife may baptise belike, not cross. A high point in your low Divinity, unless you will have the midwife to baptise the unborn, another worthy practice no doubt, and yet then they might cross too, one as well as the other, in aerem both, as the Apostle speaks. 1. Cor. 14. But we go forward.  
§ 33. Numb. 41. The Bishop cannot answer, you say, in defence of himself, that in things indifferent it is lawful to add beside the written word; though not otherwise: for his saying is, id tantùm audemus facere: We dare only do that; etc. But be you answered, That facere with the Bishop, as with Moses before, concerneth the main action; not the ceremony appertaining, and vesting, such as prayer to Saints cannot be reputed, but is a service of itself, and of a proper erection. Though if it were a ceremony, ceremonies are like your glosses, which if they deface the text, they are accursed, 
Male●●cta glossae, quae corrumpat textum.  so these when they destroy the substance.  
§ 34. Num. 43. Beyond the degree of ridiculous. The Bishop seems to grant, that to pray unto Saints, is either good of itself, or at least indifferent. Why so? For if it were absolutely bad, saith he, it were in vain to demand a precept of it, which notwithstanding he doth. What? and if he demand of them, that think they do well in so doing? Yet the Bedlam adds, So as either this his demand is very idle and absurd, or else he must acknowledge it at least to be indifferent, and consequently no less lawful, than the Cross in Baptism. Time and paper, how are you cast away?  
§ 35. Num. 45. If we cannot pray to Saints without injury to Christ, how do we crave one another's prayers here in earth? If of sinners, why not of Saints? If of men, why not of Angels? Thus he. And why might Adoniah marry lower, and yet not match with Abishac his father's concubine, without high treason? Of deep providence hath almighty God enlarged charity amongst Saints on 
S. Greg lib. 1. Regist. Ep. 24. showeth this sweetly, by a comparison of two men, that walk together in a slippery place, & each holds up the other from falling. Impendo quod peto, sed recipiam quod impendo. No such exchange between Saints in heaven & us.  earth, and ratified the exhibitions thereof by law. But where there is no fear of decaying it any more, as in the heavenly Kingdom, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Cor. 15. the offices are superfluous that tend thereunto, and all reference to the glorified spirits, so complete of themselves, that we cannot requite their favours with the like, is construed to be prejudicial to our common King. By which we answer also to your retortion of the Bishop's text, in your numb. 47. Is the desiring the prayers of living Saints, as much as Venite ad me? Do not they come to us, as well as we to them in this sort? Venite ad me therefore, is a far other matter, and to be shunned towards Angels, towards heavenly Saints; not so the borrowing of aid, the imploring of help of men, and pilgrims, such as ourselves are.  
§ 36. Numb. 49. You acknowledge like a man, that Christ is our only Mediator by way of prayer, as well as of redemption. Accedens per semetipsum, Heb. 7. and many such like. Hold you to that then. Your foot stands right if you can keep it so. And when S. john saith, whom you also quote, 1. joh. 2. We have an advocate, and he is the propitiation: doth he not show that propitiation goes to make an advocate? So, unus est Mediator, but, qui dedit se pro omnibus, that is, by redemption, 1. Tim. 2. they go still together. Now the Angels are not for the one: therefore, not for the other.  
§ 37 You answer us, as you think, Num. 52. That the Angels are not excluded as Mediators to God for us, but that by way of Christ's merits they may mediate well enough: and so you construe that of Austen, contra Epist. Parmen. cap. 8. lib. 2. that only Christ prays for all, he whets the prayers that others offer for us. But what are Christ's merits to the Angels, good Sir? what interest have they in them? Do you think they were directed to the use of Angels, that they should lay hold on them? And if not so, with what confidence shall they pray to God through them? how shall they desire to be heard of God, whether they pray for us or for themselves, (for that skills not) by the merits of Christ, as you fancy? We have heard that prayer presupposeth faith. Shall the Angels repose trust in the merits of Christ, which belong not to them? So are you tossed in your vanity, like a boat in a storm, that you forget the very principles of Christian religion, namely, that Christ never took the Angels upon him, but the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2. and for us he suffered, not for them; and by him, not by them, are we to be brought to God, as Theodoret, as Chrysost. as Theophylact, 
See cap. 8. huius.  as Photius told you before, as the Scripture every where, per quem habemus accessum, Eph. 2. 18.  
§ 38. Yet, you say, the Church concludeth her prayers to Saints and Angels, per Christum Dominum 
It is to be noted, that notwithstanding this clause, per Christum Dominum nostrum, the Papists have other prayers to Saints in which there is no such. Which Greg. de Val. being to answer to, hath no refuge but this; Quaererem ab iis qui tantâ diligentiam eiusmodi praecandi formulas in obsoletis & corrosis voluminibus venantur, our illis magis qu●…n aliis moventur, etc. A pitiful defence. Tom. 3. Comment. Theol. Disp. 6. Qu. 11. punct. 5. § At interdum.  nostrum, adjuring belike the Saint, to be gracious unto us for Christ's sake, (for what else is the meaning of that clause?) As if Christ were now our Mediator to the Saint, not the Saint to Christ. So are you gyddied and hurled up and down, with every blast of vain doctrine, every puff of temerity. The like I read in Maffaeus his life of Ignatius the jesuite-maker, lib. 2. c. 5. that God the Father commended the Jesuits to his Son, whom the Scripture speaks of as our commender to the Father, and no otherwise. A voice was heard from heaven, saying to Salmeron, and Laynez, and those good fellows, Ego vos commendavi, or conciliavi, filio meo. These were the trances, and the windlaces of the first Jesuits.  
Jesuits 39 But lest you think, you can wrest that club of S. Austen, contra Epist. Parmen. before quoted, out of the Bishop's hands, viz. that Christ is he alone, pro quo nemo interpellat, sed ipse pro omnibus, for whom no body makes request, but he for all; you may please to consider, that if this be so, then must the Angels of force give over being Mediators. For if they mediate at all, they must mediate for all, and none for them, which, S. Austen saith, is proper to Christ. None for them, because they are in no want, as other folks are, all tears being wiped from their eyes, or rather never any tear having bedewed their cheeks. Again, they for all; because burning with charity, they neglect none, but compassionate the cause of all them that are in distress. And from hence it will follow, that either Christ must needs give over this specialty, which S. Austen invests him with, or the Angels their mediation. Do you see now, how fitly the Bishop urgeth this place against you, and how you have inverted that of Daniel, in stead of millia millium ministrabant ei, setting up so many Angels, qui depraedentur eum, to supplant God, and rob him of his honour?  
§ 40. But let us hear you out of Daniel, what you allege for yourself. Num. 57 out of Dan. 3. that militant Christians fare the better, for the prayers of the Saints in glory, because Daniel belike urgeth God, with his promise, to Abraham, and Isaac, etc. This I find not in the 3. of Dan. and the question is not, whether Saints benefit us, or no, but whether we may pray to them. In this place Daniel only mentions them to God, but makes no petition to them himself. Yet because it is a phrase that occurs in Scripture, and may stumble the heedless, I answer briefly. For Abraham, and Isaac, and Israel's sake, that is, not for the merits of the men, as you construe it, whereas they never entreated by their own merits, much less others by theirs: (see Dan. 9 8.) but for the tenure of God's promise, running upon Abraham, upon Isaac, and their seed. So our Saviour in S. john, Adhuc nihil rogâstis in nomine meo; As yet you have asked nothing in my name. In my name, that is, in express knowledge of me, since I was revealed to the world. For, Deus Abraham, & Isaac, was then all in all. Henceforth we pray, per Christum Dominum, or per Christum filium, and obtain our suit in that form of style. As was prophesied long before, Psal. 60. 16. Adorabunt per eum, they shall worship by him, or pray by him, which then was not performed, now is. Howbeit Origen not amiss, puts them both together, hom. 7. in Ezech. upon those words, Incensum meum posuistis ante faciem eorum, that is, idolorum; and, incensum, says he, is Orationes sanctorum, out of the Apocal. Incense is prayer. Si ergo instituti ad Orationem, cum illam Deo debeamus offer, Deo Abraham, Deo Isaac, Deo jacob, & Patri jesu Christi, iis offerimus quae ipsi confinximus, in tantum ut idolis incensum Dei proponamus, etc. that is, [If therefore whereas we are taught and trained how to pray, we when as we should offer our prayers to God, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of jacob, and the Father of jesus Christ, shall offer them to such things as ourselves have devised, insomuch as we set the incense of God before idols, etc.] Note here three things. First, prayer is God's incense, as belonging to God only. Incensum Dei est oratio. And to that we are trained, nurtured, and taught. Instituti ad hoc. And what else says Origen? Quòd debeamus orationem Deo offer: that we must offer our prayers to God; not ante faciem eorum, not to others. Secondly, he that offers it to any but God, offers it to idols: quae confinximus ipsi, which ourselves have devised. Unless we have warrant for so doing; but warrant we have none, God neither giving us, nor meaning to give us any. As Tiberius forbade the Romans, 
Dio in Tiberio.  to erect any Temple or image to him, Nisi ego permittam: adding immediately, Atqui ego non permittam: [that is, unless I licence you: now I never mean to licence you.] You are Idolaters therefore, you cannot avoid it, though they be Saints that you pray to, unless you can show a revocation of God's mind in this behalf under his own hand. Thirdly, the conjunction of Deus Abraham, with Pater Christi, the new Testament with the old. Though now the former of these two, resolves into the latter; the God of Abraham into the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, in whom alone we must put our trust, concerning the granting of our prayers. Yourselves do not much mention Abraham amongst the Saints, nor Isaac, nor jacob, which shows their names were not put for meritorious, but only formal, or legal, as upon whom went the promise, which now in Christ alone is yea and amen, that is, perfectly perfect.  
§ 41. To return to your method. So for David's sake, 1. King. 11. God abated his wrath towards Solomon, you say. But Solomon never prayed to his Father David, in such a manner, after he was dead. How then? God having promised in David's life time, that he would 
So 2. King. 13. 23. thus we read (which clears this point) And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of HIS COVENANT with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, etc.  not destroy his children, though they transgressed his Laws, but only chastise them with the scourge of men, verifies this upon Solomon now, by force of his promise so made to David. What gather ye from hence? Is it not lawful to urge God with his promise, unless we pray to the Saints? As for David's divinity, it was clean otherwise. No man may deliver his brother's soul, Psal. 49. and Psal. 6. In inferno quis confitebitur tibi? Besides that, Christ is often called David, in the old Testament: as, Suscitabo eye David Regem ipsorum, jerem. 30. id est, Christum, saith Theodoret upon that place; and, the holy things of David, Act. 13. And the Keys of David, Apocal. 3. 7. who is that but Christ?  
§ 42. Moses, and Paul, their saving divers hundreths, or one of them hundred thousands, by their intercessions, in their life time; neither argues their particular intercession for us, now they are dead, (servierunt enim saeculo suo to speak with S. Peter) and much less the lawfulness of our recourse to them. The like of job, of others that you bring, may be said. Baruch, me thinks, properly, Bar. 4. 21. Clamabo ad altissimum in diebus meis, I will cry to the most high, in my days, that is, whiles I live. Meaning, he should have no place of doing so after death. As S. Peter says of preaching, 2. Pet. 1. 13. and S. Paul also, Phil. 1. 23. who else needed not to have been in a straight, if after death he might have succoured his people.  
§ 43. In your 59 Num. you bewray yourself. The ability of Saints to help men (say you) is to be ascribed not only to the effect of their prayers, but also to their power, authority, and dignity. You fly then to the Saints, as to the givers of those things (out of their power and authority) which you ask in prayer, not only as suitors to God for them in your behalf. What more gross idolatry can there be then this? Is not this that, that you were wont to disclaim? Where is now per Christum Dominum nostrum?  
§ 44. Well; Num. 61. having talked your pleasure of the practice of Christ's Church, of the consent of antiquity, of the custom of all ages, etc. at last you bethink yourself, how all this will go for currant, when you shall come to a reckoning. The Bishop say you, will oppose to this effect, that the authorities brought, fail both in time, as being later by 300 years, than the challenge was, and in uniform consent, for others also must be heard to speak as well as they, if any thing will be done. Yet you comfort yourself thus, that his MAJESTY professeth to reverence the Fathers, more than ever the Jesuits did, and yet they reverence them all, after the three first, to many ages downward. Who doubts but his MAJESTY reverences the Fathers, both for infinite good that may be gotten by the reading of them, and namely towards the discerning of the truth of points, even now controverted in religion, though still with submission of his judgement to holy Scripture, and also reverenceth them more by much than the jesuits do, though the jesuits happily reverence more fathers than he? For what pedaneous author have not they made a father of? Ye may say with him, considering their falsifications in this kind, Mutavit calceos, pater conscriptus repentè factus est. 
Cic. Philipp.  Nay, now every jesuit is a Father at first dash, whether 
R. P. the jesuits style.  he write or no. And though his MAJESTY hath dispensed so much with his height, as by writing his Apology to encounter with them that are no Kings, yet he will never be tried by them that are no Fathers. And therefore you guess well, when you think you shall be forced to look farther backward, than you have done yet, if you well evict any thing. It is true also, that the Bishop says, (although it anger you) of the Cardinal, that he hath done nothing in his Apology, in doing no more than so. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he had as good made no Apology at all. By the way it is pretty, and worth the noting, how you report the Bishop's words, Rex expectat in quadringentis annis, etc. though de quadringentis would have fitted you better; which you quote in the margin, as the Bishops own words, and like enough to be so; not, in quadringentis. But this is your Latin, when you list to speak like yourself, and reform Bishops for theirs. If it be true, as you say, that the Fathers of the three first hundred years after Christ, are so few and so scanty remaining to our days, (you reckon but 7. or 8. though, I suppose, there are divers more) yet what ill luck have you with them, that can find no footing of all your newfangled superstition, in any of their works? Not in Tertullian, not in Origen, not in Irena, Ignace, Lactance, Melito, Cyprian, justine, Clemens, Arnobius, Methodius, Minutius, the Cyrils, Dionysius, Athenagoras, Theophilus, etc. not in Eusebius himself, who lived there anewst, and inclined to the Platonics, as did some others of the forenamed rank. Which Platonics are thought to be somewhat favourable to your fancy of worshipping Saints, above the rest of the Philosophers. And if the Fathers, as you say, write so few in an age, does not this show that the square of our faith is the Scripture, not the Fathers? for how if the Fathers had wrote nothing at all? As, of diverse points, you confess yourself, they did not, Num. 63. and, Num. 66. And in the beginning of this Chapter, you would make us believe, that the Apostles themselves had no commandment for writing. Might not the Father's pens much more have stood still? Yet you add that the after-ages abounded with writers, when persecution ceased, and many worthy Volumes were spread abroad into the world. It may well be; but as heresy is confounded many times by writing, so some errors will creep in withal, and hardly can it be eschewed. Abundabit scientia, but abundabit iniquitas too. Daniel the one, our Saviour Christ the other, each of the same times of the world, & of the Church. The Elephant oppresseth Eleazar in the fall. So falsehood gets some ground of truth, even in seeming to be foiled. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was our saviours depositum, which he left to the Church; witness he in the Nicene Council, Apud Socr. lib. 1. cap. 8. not ventilation, not disputation. Wherein, I may boldly say, that truth of religion comes in as much hazard to be lost, as our Saviour was in the crowd, and concourse at jerusalem. As in the overflows of Nilus, the corn fields are the better, and the fatter for it, but serpents and Crocodyles come in amain; so whiles many pens walk, the original purity is less preserved. It will be always true which Tully saith, Quò propiùs aberant à divina progeny, etc. (so from the Primitive times) eò acutiùs, cautiùsque & vena videbant, & recta tenebant, which posterity failed in.  
§ 45. When you ask, if we would not receive the sign of the Cross, as proceeding from antiquity, unless all the Fathers had stood for it, why should we hold you long in suspense? It is the uniform consent of the godly Fathers, that endears the use of that memorial to us, and had only certain singulars, like stars in a dark night, delivered their opinion of it, it should never have found such entertainment at our hands, for the antiquities sake. And therefore you must muster a squadron of Fathers (though I see it be troublesome unto you) for prayer to Saints: not come in with your snatches, and your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here and there, if you will carry it by the Fathers. Where it may please you, to remember, that in the Conference at Hampton Court, which you quoted so lately, the Bishop that you now write against, brought Tertullian for the Cross, and the use thereof in baptism, in immortali lavacro; you have neither author, for Invocation of Saints so ancient, nor piece of an author. Yet you compare this with the sign of the cross. How unfitly?  
§ 46. The Bishops, (you say) are given to teach the Church; if they may err therein, the Church may be deceived, and so all is marred. 
The Adjoinder chargeth us wi●h Vigilantius his heresy. And yet he would have the question determined by verdict of Bishops. Whereas Hierome reports ●…ripto prime cont. Vigilant. that the Bishop of the place, and he a holy man, winked at Vigilantius. Miror sanctum Episcopum, in cuin● parochia esse Presbyter dicitur, acquiesiere 〈◊〉 eius. Yea, he speaks of him, as if he had run the same course with him; Videbat furem, & curreba● cum eo, etc. How then shall the Bishops direct, our judgement? Also julian (apud August in lib. 1. è posterior. 〈◊〉.) acknowledges, that there were 650. Bishops, who took part with Arius; scarce 7. remaining Catholic, in the whole world.  As if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Austen doth not tell you of erring Bishops, of deceiving Bishops, which the people fond relied upon, he in vain recalling them, and denouncing that the Bishop's authority is no sanctuary to the erroneous. See lib. de pastor. cap. 10. Saepe hoc dicunt heretici, securi sequimur Episcopos. The heretics have this often in their mouths, 〈◊〉 are safe so long as we follow our Bishops. It is a sign of heresy, with S. Austen, to follow the Bishops, and their judgement, securely, viz. without looking any further. And in the 7. Chapter of the said book, he applies that to the Bishops of his time out of Ezek. 34. Quod errabat non revocastis, the wandering sheep ye have not called back. What remedy are the Bishops now against error? And, Si Episcopus constitutus in ecclesia catholica non bonam rationem reddit de oue, quam non quaesierit errantem de grege Dei, qualem rationem redditurus est haereticus (viz. Episcopus) qui non solùm non revocavit ab errore, sed etiam impulit in errorem? Do you see, that Bishops do not only not bring from error, but lead into error, yea thrust, impel? cap. 10. of the aforesaid. And yet you think, the only antidote of Church errors, lies in the Bishops. How much better, S. Peter, Habemus firmiorem sermonem propheticum? We have a surer testimony, namely the holy Scripture, not only then the authority of any Bishops can be to preserve from error, but then a voice from heaven, (for of that speaks S. Peter) which Satan may counterfeit, and so likewise fain himself a Bishop, as well as change himself into an Angel of light. Therefore S. Hilary says, that Christ would not 
Hilar. in Matth. can. 16.  let his Disciples bear witness of him, (and yet no mean persons) because he was to be approved by other manner of witnesses, namely the Law and the Prophets, that is, the Scriptures. And S. chrysostom, Hom. 9 in cap. 3. ad Coloss. Exhorting the laymen to provide them books, the medicines 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aug. de Vnit. eccls c. 10. says Christ proved his body's resurrection, not by his body, though he had it to show, but by Scrip. And S. Chrys. says, that  of their souls, as he calls them, bids them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to tarry for another Master (not the Prelate himself) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he hides many things, many times, from them, for envy, or for vainglory. Whereas the Scripture lays all open sincerely. Is this a small prerogative of Scriptures above the Doctors? S. Austen also cap. 11. of the book aforequoted, after he had lodged his sheep, like a good pastor, in the mountains of Israel, that is, as he interprets it, in the authority of the divine Scriptures, he thus bespeaks them. Ibi pascite, ut securè pascatis. Quicquid inde 
Christ lost his head (or his life) only to fulfil the Scrip. [So as Script. is preferred by Christ himself, both before his head and his body.] Heman Matth. 84.  audieritis, hoc vobis bene sapiat, quicquid extra est, respuite. And again, Audite vocem pastoris, colligite vos ad montes Scripturae sanctae. No doubt, these are the mountains that our Saviour bids us fly unto, under Antichrists persecution, that is, yours. Ibi sunt deliciae cordis vestri, (adds S. Austen) ibi nihil venenosum, nihil alienum. And lastly, when he hath shut them into that sheepcoat, and penned them up in that fold, for he urgeth the word, [Erunt stabula earum illic,] he gives them 
Stabula earum illic. Ezech. 34.  leave to triumph, and say in this wise: Bene est, verum est, manifestum est, non fallimur. This he calls, requiescere in stabulis illic, to rely upon Scripture, not upon the Bishop's authority. Now it is well with us, now we are right, now the case is plain, now we are not deceived, when the Scripture first says it. What should I tell you here either of Cyprians licensing the people of God, 
Ne sibi plebi blandiatur, quasi immunis à contagione delicto esse possit, cum sacerdote peccatore communicans, & ad iniustum atque illicitum praepositi sui Episcopatum, consensum suum accommodans, cum per Oseam deus doceat omnes omnino ad peccatum constringi, qui fuerint profuni & iniusti sacerdotis sacrificio cotaminati.  the flock of Christ, to renounce their wicked Bishop, not partake with his services, lib. 1. Ep. 4. or of the third Canon of that famous Council of Ephesus, which enjoins thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Council gives charge, Not to submit to the authority of any backe-slided Bishops, or Bishops departed, that is departed from the truth. There may be Apostatical Bishops then, departers from the truth, (had you no such Popes? ask Lyra, ask Genebrard) and 
Apostatare à side, Lyr. in Matt. Apostatici, saltem apotastici, PP. Geneb.  they are not to be regarded. And even in those which deserve not to be called Apostatae, by so heavy name, because they fell not so foully, simpliciter errantes, as S. Austen calls them, de Bap. l. 4. c. 5. yet their lighter errors, their moles, as I may term them, like that in Cyprians own breast, which S. Austen saith, was covered with the dugs of his charity, 
August. cp. 48.  they make no authority for others to follow them, lest Vincentius Lerinensis pronounce his doom upon them thus, though wondering at it himself, O mira conversio: absoluuntur 
Commonitorio.  Magistri, condemnantur discipuli: O strange pass: The thief escapes, and the receiver is hanged, the inventor goes away scotfree, and the scholar perisheth in his prone credulity. Which you may do well to take heed of, in the present question, of praying to Saints, if any passion from a multitude, or a single Christian, hath drawn forth a vow, a prayer, or such like, if any sudden motion hath transported further than should, yet to beware how you make an article of it.  
§ 47. As for that you say, the Fathers whom you quote about this point, were agents in the councils, which the King and the Bishop profess to reverenee; it is one thing what the Fathers say in several, as it were solitarij in tecto, another when they meet Synodically in a Council. Is there no grace belonging to councils? Why is it not said then, ubi unus, but, ubi duo aut tres in nomine meo, naming the first multitudes, to show the virtue of an assembly, where far more meet than two or three? You have first no councils, for your supplication to Saints; for miserable are your proofs of Flavianus and Proterius: they have touched the Diamond, but they cannot draw like the Diamond, they are 
〈◊〉 Acts.  of kin to the Council, but they are not brought within the Canon. Neither again have you all the Fathers, no not of one whole age among the five, no not of the later and weaker in authority, nearer the bottom, and those that you have they write dispersedly, never so much as joined in domestical conference, which is a great derogation in regard of the credit that goes with lawful Synods, although less general. And lastly though you never lyn vaunting, and prating, what you have produced out of the Fathers, as if it were so peremptory, yet we having examined and perused them before, find not one of them to depose so pregnantly on your side, but that he may be avoided. If the stream of the Fathers, not only of one age, as you idly crack, but sundry ages together could prevail any thing with you, you would never have defined so proudly and 
Lib 7. loc. c. 1. Omnes Sancti uno ore, asseverarunt B. Vrginem in peccata conceptam.  so irreligiously of the conception of the Blessed Virgin, without sin: (of which see Canus your own author, with his legion of Fathers) nor given sentence against the Dominican for the Franciscan. As for the place to the Ephes. which you quote, to show that God hath placed Pastors in the Church, to defend it from error, Dedit quosdam pastors, etc. Eph. 4. It is by way of industry, in dispensing Gods word, not of infallibility, that they cannot possibly err. Where vision ceases, though the Pastors be never so many, yet the people perish; yea, many Pastors are the cause, saith God, why my vine is destroyed. I made indeed my Covenant with Levi, and, the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, Mal. 2. but the Priests oft times depart out of the way, and they cause many to stumble in the Law; IN THE LAW, saith God, by misinterpreting it, no doubt; they have corrupted the Covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. This in the old Testament. In the new, what? If the salt be unsavoury, to the dunghill with it, saith 
Unless you will admit of the rotten gloss of Pa●… de Palacio, in his Comm. upon S. Matth. cap. 5. that the Si indeed is put upon the salt degenerating, because Salt stands for life and good manners, and Popes and Prelates may fail in them, but not upon the Light. It is not said, if the light be darkened, to show that Prelates cannot fail in truth of Doctrine. This he. Why then does he call the Pope, Sal salium, in the same place? Is it because his manners cannot be tainted neither? Or, why does he say, that Praelatus satuus mittendus est foras? Shall the Pope be deposed for evil life? It is not the fashion. Or lastly, why does he argue from, In quo salietur? co prove that the Pope hath no superior to salt him, and therefore concludes, that he cannot turn foolish, because Christ (says he) left nothing without remedy. Is not the dunghill his remedy? And yet in another place, he allows the Pope to be Pope, though his light turn darkness, as well as his salt folly. Papa tenet cathedram etsi ignirantissimus: in 16. Matth. How do these things hang together?  our blessed Saviour, of his times. Out of you shall come fierce wolves, says S. Paul, Act. 20. speaking of them soon after, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishops and Priests, as S. Chrysost. construes it, Tom. 7. D. H. Savile. p. 219. There shall be false teachers among you, as well as in that people, says Peter, whom you build upon, 1. Pet. 2. 1. And he adds moreover, bringing in privily damnable heresies. This of yours is privy (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) take heed it be not damnable. I have acquitted the Fathers in my former speech; I apply this to you.  
§ 48 But S. Austen, you say, thought the testimony of six Bishops, sufficient to convince julian the Pelagian about original sin, and the baptism of young infants. He means sufficient to tame julian's pride, and haughty humour, after he had laid him on his back, with Scripture-arguments, which is not all one with deciding the question by the Father's authority. julian had called Original sin, Manichaismum. S. Austen alleges those Fathers for it, that were known to be no Manichees. It●●e tibi, fili juliane, nos omnes Manichai 
The same he hath often, in libr●… posterioribus contra julian. hac anno primùm ed●…. per Claud. Menardum. p. 170. 172. & 194.  esse videmur? l. 1. c. 4. not 2. as you quote it. So is it one thing ad hominem, and another adrem, disputare. As likewise it is one thing vincere, and another thing triumphare, as that memorable Dr. Whitakers, was wont to say in this case. The Fathers and all come in at the triumph, like those that waited on our Saviour into Jerusalem, but it is the Scripture that strikes the stroke. Neither doth S. Austen mislike that saying of julian, l. 1. c. 7. that Scripturarum authoritas, goes before eruditio Sanctorum. In the establishing of a truth, the authority of Scripture, goes before the learning of holy men. Qui tamen sancti non authoritatem veritati suo tribuêre consensu, sed testimonium & gloriam de ei●… suscepere consortio, [Which Saints nevertheless, or godly men, authorise not the truth by their concurring in one, but win praise and estimation by their general submitting of their judgements thereunto.] Or, is not original sin to be proved by Scripture, without a jury of Fathers, think you? As for the baptism of infants, I have spoken before. And julian himself was baptised in his infancy, as S. Austen tells him, l. 1. c. 4. What compass will hold the authorities of Scripture, that proclaim our infection from the very womb? job saith, the infant of one night is not clean, etc. Nay, he would never have cursed the day of his birth, c. 3. but that he was borne in sin. For nothing can subject a man to the curse, but sin. The Psalm saith, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and made warm in my mother's sins. Again, The ungodly are froward from the womb. And, The iniquity of my heels, (that's the original 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●…r. 12.  sin, which sticketh so fast,) encounters him still, even-after regeneration. For the serpene wounds us in the heel, the woman's seed him in the head. Illusiones lumborum, and, Ab occultis meis munda me, is thought to be the same. Moses saith, every figmentum of the heart of man, is only evil continually. What was Esaies' uncleanness of his lips, Esa. 6. but this 
Os & labia ponuntur pro toto homine. Espencaei obseruatio in ad Tit & est ve●issima.  Original pollution, that he had not discarded from him? For we must not think that the Prophet was ribald in his talk, or that-ways obnoxious, as a filthy speaker. God forbid. And infinite the like, throughout all the old Testament. Besides divers other proofs out of Salomon's Proverbs, he would never have said, that the day of death is better than the day of birth, but that we are borne in sin, and never set free from this grave jugum, of the sons of Adam, as another calls it, till our very death. It is primum vivens, 
Ecclesiast.  & ultimum moriens. But my purpose was not to reckon up places of Scripture, for confirmation of Original sin, though you see how far your provocation carrieth me, that say, that this could not be proved against young julian, but by the Fathers. If I should speak of the new Testament, what end would there be? I will name but one place (omitting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 4. and, Eramus quondam, Tit. 3. and many the like) namely, that which S. Aust. chokes the gallant with, after he had ruffled in his rhetoric, and so sprusely urged him to show but a cranny, or a little hole, by which this original sin hath crept into the world. Ostendo tibi, saith S. Austen, non angustam rimam, sed latissimam ianuam, IN QVO OMNES PECCAVERUNT. Rom. 5. Look you, Sir, (saith S. Aust.) not a little hole; but a broad gate that I show you, or rather the Apostle showeth you, by which sin entered into the world; viz. the first man, in whose fall we were bruised, as the Platonikes are wont to say of the wing of the soul, and they alluding perhaps hither. So notorious is the original corruption of mankind, that sense gropes it, and nature feels it, and the world complains of it, that though the Scriptures did not testify it, the Fathers need not be cited, where the Platoniks proclaim it. As for S. Austin's judgement of councils, where the lis is dependens, and Scripture hath been produced as yet on neither side, that one saying of his is sufficient, to show the insufficiency of them, which is extant in his book against Maximinus the Arrian, l. 3. c. 14. Nec ego tibi Nicenum, nec tu mihi Ariminense debes concilium obijcere. He remits his adversary the Nicene Council, rather than he will stand to any trial but Scriptures, about a point of faith. In which Nicene there were more than six Fathers, which you talk of here; no less than 318. if you remember.  
§ 49. And is not that goodly proof now, for invocation of Saints, that it hath been beneficial to the world, and graced with miracles, & c? As if it were for nothing, that the spirit saith, Si surrexerit in medio tui propheta, yea and etiamsi 
Deut. 13. 1. etc.  evenerit secundum verbum eius, although it come to pass according to his word. For God doth all this to try us. A shipman is seen saith Pliny, in a tempest, when the cables are stretched, when the winds beat, the waters swell, cum gemit arbour, when the shipboard groans, yea when the blood cometh out at the mariners fingers ends. So faith is no faith till it be sound tried. Now let me see saith Hercules to his son, (in Sophocles his Trachiniae) Mene an illam potiorem putes, whether thou lovest thy mother (the Papists are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or me better. So God of us.  
§ 50. As for Deut. 17. that two witnesses are to be heard, I answer in matter of fact, not of faith: where Angels are not 
Gal 1. 8.  to be heard, if they cross the Gospel, though coming from heaven, nay Anathema must be said to them; which the Council of Laodicea precisely observes, in this very cause of adoring Angels, Can. 35. to give Anathema to all such (belike Angels and all) of which before. Yea, not only Angels, but Christ himself, if he be counterfeited, is to be rejected, Ecce hîc, & ecce illic, as in the Cook Cartosus, in the zeal of the multitudes mad upon Mamas, and the like. For to speak of Peter now, were superfluous after these, though he be your Pope, whom you prefer before all, in your partial fancy; of whom Remigius construes 
Com. in locum.  those words of the Apostle, Gal. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though any other, though the Pope himself; yea, if himself corrupt the Gospel, let him be accursed.  
§ 51. But that surpasses, in your 70. Num. that because the Bishop shows by his quotation of Bellarmine, that he had read his book, de beatitude. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 20. and refutes not the answer that he there makes to our men's objections, about praying to Saints, therefore he is guilty of wilful malice, and goes against his conscience, in not taking away the solutions, as there they stand. As if the Bishop lacked work for sooth, or his task had been to refute the cardinals Controversies, and not the Apology only. With such crimes you patch up, when you lack matter.  
§ 52. You think much, that the Bishop calls you to such authors, as Origen against Celsus, as Athanasius, and Cyrill, and the like Fathers, ancienter than those that you delight in, by which time a leak was made in religion; and corruption, (which can hardly be kept out for a hundred years, as Luther was wont to say) in process of time had gotten no small advantage. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (idolatry at least) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Euseb. lib. 3. c. 32. Vide & Euseb. lib. 4. c. 7. & c. 21. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Tertul. de Praescrip. Ammian. Marcellin. l. 21. Christianan relligionem absolutam & simplicem anili superstitione confundens. De Constan. Hegesippus, Tum quidem ecclesiam virginem fuisse, idque antonomasticè, ut declarat Baro. tom. 2. Ann. 120. At deinde faciem eius nec decoram, nec spectantibus dignoscibilem, sed instar solis densis obtecti nubibus; atque errores aperto capite in eam irruisse.  Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, his speech is very observable, concerning the Church, that being left as a chaste virgin, & spouse of Christ, to the Apostles tuition, they indeed kept her so, but so did not they that came after, but stained that praise of hers by sundry devices of their own bringing in, which was a thing that S. Paul feared in his own life time, about the Church of Corinth, 2. Cor. 11. 2. 3. lest Satan had played the wily serpent with them, and seduced them from the original simplicity of Christ, which they once enjoyed. In Origen and the aforenamed Authors, we find no such Divinity, as praying to Saints, though much occasion was given them not to have dissembled it, if any such had been. As when with their conformity, they might have gained the heathen, by inclining to them, which is a thing that Eusebius hunteth 
De praep. evan. lib. 12. & 13.  after not a little, to parallel us together. Origen refuteth the argument drawn from Courtly mediations, as Ambrose after him; and though he whisper as if the Saints spoke certain good words for us after they are in heaven, yet he makes it no consequent that we should pray to them, nay he saith, as jealous of his own judgement, in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 2. Maneatinter occulta, 
Item in Cant. hom. 3. Non erit inconueniens sic putare. In Ios. c. 3. Ego sic arbitror. And, Audivi quendam ita dicentem. This is great certainty, no doubt. So Euseb. of Potamiaena, lib. 6. c. 5. that undertook to intercede for Basilides after her death: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Be it as it may be, as not greatly believing it. Valeat ut valere potest.  nec chartis committatur, [Let it remain as secret, and not be delivered in writing,] acknowledging it Apocryphal, and not Canonical doctrine, by the very tenure of his words. And this he speaks of their praying for us: not acknowledging so much as the Bishop grants, (as you often tell us) though when that is granted, that they pray for us, it follows not that we must pray to them. See Origen contr. Celsum lib. 8. at large. One time he rejects Celsus his Popish inference, that God is not displeased with such inferior patrons, as the Angels, and spirits, to mediate for us. He grants that the Angels are Gods Ministers indeed, and his honourable friends, but he saith, that when God is made our friend, all his friends are strait at friendship with us. And because the places are many, I will relate them in order, beginning with the first, though alleging many, I may seem to leave out more. He begins his aforesaid book then, viz. the eight against Celsus, with praying to Christ, and to Christ only, to be his good speed. Octavum aggressurus volumen, precor Deum & verbum eius unigenitum: the rather to confute Celsus his praying to sundry demigods, which in the process he challengeth him for more openly. jamque ad sequentem Celsi contextum pergendum est, ubi scitatur, quâ de causâ gravemur daemonas colere. That is, [And now we must proceed to Celsus his next words, wherein he asks, why we should beloath to worship Angels.] And when we say, Impossibile est pluribus Dominis simul servire, [It is impossible to serve more than one Master:] Celsus rejects this, which nevertheless was our saviours rule at first, and agrees very well with our worshipping the holy Trinity, wherein there is but one Dominus, but one Lord or Master, though distinguished into many persons; and excludes all dependence upon Saints and Angels, for so much as they are not interessed in the mystery of the Trinity, how glorious otherwise soever. Celsus proceeds. Qui enim plures deos venerantur, hoc ipso ren gratam faciunt summo Deo, quòd nemini honor contingat nisi quem ille honorari vult. Quapropter qui veneratur eius subditos, non offendit illum, cuius omnes sunt: that is, [For he that worships many gods, does good service therein to the supreme God, because he honours none but whom he would have to be honoured. And therefore he that honours his subjects, doth in no wise offend him whose subjects we are all.] But by this reason, we were to honour all men in the world, because they are all God's subjects. In the mean time, this defence of Celsus. his idolatry, is the very same with the Papists, who are not ashamed 
Coster. Enchir. de venerat. Sanct.  to say, that we must honour God for his own sake, and the Saints for God's sake. It follows in Origen. Nobis autem unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia. That is, But we have one God the Father, to our Father, of whom are all things. This NOBIS, saith he, he speaks of himself, and all that have ascended to the God of Gods, as I told you before out of the book of the Canticles, according to S. Bernard's exposition, Paululum cum pertransissem●, etc. Ascendit autem in summum Deum is, qui eum inseparabiliter & indivisibiliter colit per jesum Dei filium, cuius solius ductu pervenitur ad patrem, per cuius verbi ac sapientiae contemplationem, modis omnibus conciliamur Deo conditori omnium. That is, [Now he ascends to the God of 
We approach by Christ to worship the Father, because by him we are reconciled to the Father.  Gods (fleeing over other petty gods) who inseparably and vndiuidedly worships him, through jesus the Son of God, by whose conduct alone we approach to the Father; by the consideration of whose word and wisdom, we are every way reconciled to God the maker of all things.] And a little after, Laudat creaturam beneque ei precatur: He praises the creature (but that is all) and wishes well to it, (not precatur sibi ab eâ, not prays unto it,) nec distrahitur ipse à Deo, ut liud colat simul cum eo, nec sustinet servire duobus Dominis. That is, [Neither is he rend a pieces from God, to worship some other thing with him, neither does he endure to serve many Lords or Masters.] Then, Non est igitur seditiosa vox sic sentientium, & nolentium servire dominis pluribus, contentorum uno Domino jesu Christo. Celsus had called this a seditious speech, to worship none but God, neither Saints, nor Angels, etc. Therefore Origen answers him; [And this is no seditious speech of them that are thus minded, and that refuse to serve many Masters, being content with the Lord jesus Christ alone.] Cui seruientes erudiuntur ab eo, ut eruditi reddantur digni regno Dei & patris, etc. Whom they which serve, are instructed of him, that being sufficiently learned, 
Christ a sufficient bringer to the Father, because a sufficient teacher of him.  they may become fit or worthy of the Kingdom of God, and the Father, etc. Christ, you see, is able to bring to heaven the worshippers of him, though they worship none besides him. Nec ideo cavemus ne cui praeter Deum seruiamus, ne laedatur Deus, sicut home laeditur, si servus eius seruiat alteri: sed ideo illi seruimus ne nos ipsi laedamur, separantes nos a portione Dei, etc. Celsus belike had said, that God was not hurt, though more were served besides him, as men think themselves hurt, when their servants serve any other besides themselves. But we are loath, says Origen, to hurt ourselves, rending and separating us from the inheritance of God, if we look to any other then God alone, to worship them. Olim Lacedaemoniorum legati Persarum regem adorare noluerunt timentes unicum suum Dominum. The Lacedaemonian Ambassadors in old time, would not worship the King of Persia, though greatly pricked on thereunto by his Courtiers, because they feared their only Lord. So should we (thinks Origen) and with far greater reason, refuse to give worship to any other than our Lord God only, etiamsi satellites horum principum daemones atque Angeli, etc. though Angels or devils (indeed the devils angels) draw us never so much aside into error. I pass by many things, because I have many to go through. Whereas Celsus had said, that if they will needs worship but one God, by that reason they must not adore Christ neither, etc. Origen thus answers: Si Celsus intellexisset illud, Ego & Pater unum sumus, & iterum, Sicut Ego & Tu unum sumus, non putasset nos alium colere Deum. That is: If Celsus had known the force of those words, I and my Father are one, or, As thou, O Father, and I are all one, he would never have thought us to have worshipped another God, though we worship Christ together with the Father. By which we see, that worship belongs only to God, and to Christ, no otherwise then as he is God, even one God with the Father, and that they only are to be worshipped, who are so subsisting in that unity of Godhead, and trinity of Persons, as the honour done to one, necessarily reflects upon them all. Which, as I have often said, is not the Saints lot, because they are infinitely short of that divine prerogative, though never so eminent in the rank of creatures. Where, I cannot but insert, as it were into origen's ring, this gem of Athanasius, it is so suitable, though I shall have occasion to speak of him more particularly anon. In his book the Incarnate. verbi, thus he says; Si adoras hominem Christum, eò quòd inhabitet in eo dei verbum, eâdem operâ adora Sanctos quoque, ob Deum, qui domicilium in iis habet. That is: If thou worship Christ, because the word dwells in him, (to wit, dwells in him by grace, and not by personal union) worship the Saints too, in whom God also dwells. As who would say, that neither the Saints are to be worshipped, though God dwell in them, nor any thing which is less than the Deity itself. Whereas, doubtless, if there had been a worship proper to Saints, neither Origen, nor Athanasius might have done them this wrong, to deprive them of all worship, under colour of the Divine; but here, if ever, the distinction should have showed itself, either of latria and dulia, or cultus maior & minor, as Bellarmine neatly calls it, or minimus & maximus, or minor minimo, 
De Satr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 〈◊〉  or maior maximo, or what you please.  
§ 53. I see I should be long, if I would lay forth all the treasure, which the aforesaid book of origen's against Celsus contains, condemning the idolatry that reigns now in Popery. That which hath hitherto been alleged, may seem to make against the worship of Angels, somewhat generally. Hear we now a word or two of prayer and Invocation of them in particular, how that is relished by Origen, and so conclude. Pag. 406. of the Greek by Haeschelius, 1605 at Augusta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is: Away with Celsus his counsel, saying, that we must pray to Angels: let us not so much as once hear of it. FOR WE MU PRAY ONLY TO GOD, which is above all, and we must pray to the word of God his only begotten Son, the first borne of all creatures, and we must beseech him, that he as high Priest would offer 
As OUR RIGHT PRIEST. But the Saints are not so. Yet this is origen's appropriating reason here. And if the Schoolmen deny that an Angel may minister the communion, what more right have they to of●… our prayers? Is it not a priestly action?  up our prayers to his God and our God, after himself hath received them. And though nothing can be either more pregnant or more perspicuous than this, which Origen hath both delivered, & by reason confirmed, yet add we, as it follows, in the very same place. Only thus premising. It seems Celsus, besides all other honours and prerogatives, which willingly he garnished his Angels with, (whose favour and good affection he magnified no less mightily, than the Adjoinder doth the Saints, when he dilates their happiness who have them for their patrons,) yet farther allowed them saith, and prayer, in particular; the two things now in question, between the Bishop and the Adjoinder. Celsus words were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is: That we must both pray to them, and put our trust in them, that they may be gracious unto us. And because, though they are no Gods, yet they belong to God, (as chief Ministers no doubt, etc.) What says Origen of this? How does he value the Angel's favour? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is: What talk ye of the favour, or patronage of Angels?) He that hath the God which is above all things, gracious unto him, for his piety towards him, and because he hath entertained [in his heart by faith] that same Angel of the Great Counsel of God, the Lord jesus, if he [can] content himself with the favour of God, through jesus Christ, he may boldly say, as one whom all the whole army of the devils cannot hurt, The Lord is my light, and my salvation, whom then shall I fear? The Lord is the defender and protector of my life, of whom then shall I be afraid? Yea, and he shall say, Though a legion of men were set in battle array against me, yet shall not my heart be troubled nor dismayed. Again, in the same book; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is: But we to whom we give our first fruits, to him [and to him only] we send up our prayers: (now first fruits are Gods, in signum, & in recognitionem, universalis dominij, as your Schoolmen teach us, which the Saints, I hope, have no right in, unless you will make many Gods) having A GREAT HIGH PRIEST that hath entered the Heavens, jesus the Son of God. And we hold fast this confession whiles we live, having God favourable to us, and his only begotten Son jesus Christ, being revealed amongst us. But if we be in love with any multitude, whose favour we would gladly purchase, [suppose Angels and Spirits] we learn [out of Dan. 7. and 10.] that thousand thousands stand by him, and millions of millions minister unto him. Who beholding them that imitate their piety towards God (with the very same countenance, that one would look upon his friends and his kinsfolks,) help towards their salvation, for somuch as they call upon God, and sincerely call upon him: appearing [also] 
Angels obedient to godly men.  unto them, and thinking that they are bound to yield obedience, and as it were at the hearing of the watchword, or signal, march forth for the benefit and salvation of [all] such as PRAY TO GOD; to whom themselves also pray. See ye now that the Angels their praying to God, does not enforce our praying to them? Nay, because they pray to the same God with us, therefore we are taught by that, not to pray to them, but to God with them, as Origen tells you. In whom it follows. For they are all [but] ministering spirits, [and] sent forth to minister for them that shall receive the inheritance of salvation. And yet it follows again, a little after, to refute Celsus his fond distinction, of satrapae aulici, and satrapae coelestes, or elementares, which is the Papists distinction at this day, and likewise their comparison of earthly favourites in Princes Courts, with celestial spokesmen, and mediators for us, in the kingdom of heaven: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Look you (says he) how Celsus hath devised his Satrapae, and Consuls, and Praefecti, under-officers of the great God, after the fashion of silly mortallmen, etc. But this being formerly refuted by Ambrose, we shall need no longer to insist upon it here. Pag. 430. thus we read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that is, How much better is it, to entrust ourselves with the God which is above all things, [he would have trust to be put in none but in God,] through jesus Christ which hath taught us this lesson, and to crave of him all aid, and preservation, even that which the holy Angels and righteous spirits may afford us: that they may rescue us from the naughty devils which hover about the earth, & are plunged in sensuality, etc. [The preservation through Angels, is to be sought for from God, not from Angels themselves.] What then shall we pray to them for, if we may not pray to them for that, which themselves immediately and of themselves may afford? But I will conclude for Origen, and his opinion of this matter, with that one famous sentence of his, and rejection of Celsus, which is extent in the foresaid book, pag. 432. of the Greek. Celsus therefore having endeavoured divers manner of ways, (as is the fashion of all such) to divert the mind from her dependence upon God alone, insomuch as after he had sought to enfeoff them to Angels, at last he was not ashamed to enthrall them to mighty Princes & Potentates here in earth, not caring which way, so he discouraged piety, and decayed religion, (like that ungodly Lawgiver, which forbade Daniel, and all his subjects to ask any thing of God, for the space of certain days, but only of himself.) To this subtle device of Celsus, I say, thus Origen replies; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that is, We must endeavour to please only God alone, who is above all things: AND WE MU PRAY TO HIM ALONE, THAT HE WOULD BE MERCIFUL TO US, procuring his favour with godly piety, and all manner virtue. And yet if Celsus would needs have us, to insinuate into the favour of any more besides the most high and supreme God, let him consider, that as when the body is moved, the motion of the shadow doth infallibly accompany it: In like sort if Almighty God be but propitious unto us, it follows that all his friends, both Angels, and spirits, and souls of the righteous, will be friendly to us, and take our parts. For they are privy unto such, as are thought worthy to find favour in the eyes of Almighty God. And not only they mean well to such as are found worthy, but they assist all such as are forward at the worshipping of God Almighty, and they pray together with them, and they entreat together with them, and together with them they incline him to favour. Insomuch as we may boldly say, that with godly virtuous men praying to God, an innumerable company of heavenly powers pray together with them VNPRAYED UNTO, or unspoken to, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be M●… prayed unto, (see cap. 〈◊〉. h●…) them here Angels help us, though they be not prayed unto. But whether it be so, or not, Origen is direct against praying to them. For if we may not vocare, how much less invocare?  succouring with joint consent our mortal and frail nature, whom they see so many devils to make head against, and to seek by all means to subvert their salvation, specially such as have committed themselves to God, [forsaking and abandoning all other created patronages.] Of Origen thus much. Is there yet any more?  
§ 54. You say, the Saints were never honoured in like manner, as the heroes of the heathen. Yet you may remember what Mantuan saith, Vt Latij Martem, sic nos te sancte Georgi. And many such like testimonies out of your own mouths might be alleged to convince your idolatries, if we list to observe them. Or, if the Saints are not honoured like the heroes of the heathen, when as questionless they stand in like proportion to God, in your opinion, it must needs be, because you are borne down with that truth, that none are to be honoured with religious worship, but only GOD, in what proportion or distance soever they stand unto him. Culius relligionis, or the religious worship, is not to be given to any creature, but to God only, saith S. Austen, no mean Father, and in no mean work of his, but another palmare, if I may say it without offending you, which the Bishop cannot do of his the civit. Dei, but you will be ever touching upon that string. And I mean, contr. Faustum, lib. 14. c. 11. Apostolus vetat culium relligionis exhiberi creaturae: The Apostle forbids religious worship to be given to the creature. If the Apostles authority may move with you, forbidding it; let S. Austen be believed delivering the message, and telling you that he forbids it. S. chrysostom had said upon Matth. 26. in the homily quoted not long before to the like purpose, that when the Apostles dissuaded our Saviour from suffering, he referred them to the Scriptures: Else, saith he, how shall 
Matth. 25. 54. Luk. 24. 26. item ibid. 44.  the Scriptures be fulfilled? And so, repugnantibus quamvis Apostolis, vicit sententia Scripturarum. But this is two in one, that we bring you now, not an Apostle without Scripture, but an Apostle in his writing, or the Apostolic Scripture. And for interpretation of it, you have the judgement of S. Austen. The Apostle (quoth he) forbids religious worship to be given to the creature. And there the Scripture prevailed against the Apostles, to the destroying of our Saviour. How much more shall Scripture, and Apostolic Scripture, prevail against all such pitiful deponents as you rely upon, to the maintenance of Christ's honour, which is dearer to him then his life? So as these things are more, if they be laid together, than arguments ab authoritate merè negatiuâ, which you so scoff at, numb. 73. as if that were the only argument that the Bishop brought, or not sufficient to beat you down, as he urges it. And now to show what a Clerk you are, you charge the Bishop in the last place, with false quoting of Athanasius. You grant, that in his third oration, contra Arianos, he proves the divinity of our Saviour Christ, from our adoration of him. Of which it is consequent, that no mere creatures are at all to be adored, neither Saints nor Angels. We take this grant of yours, concerning Athanasius his authority. As for your trifling distinctions wherewith you would elude it, they have been huffed out before. And yet more may be said in the next chapter, where you shall hear your own Doctor, Dr. Gregor. de Valent. to renounce this distinction, and clean wash his hands of it. Mean while, S. Austin's testimony so lately quoted, is a choke-pear that you cannot swallow, that religious worship is not to be given to any creature: Therefore to God only. Though Athanasius hath the same again, in another book of his, viz. De incarnatione verbi, that you may know how familiar this kind of arguing was with Athanasius. And S. Ambrose the same in 8. ad Rom. Nec Dominus ubique, se adorari pateretur, nisi quia Deus: Our Lord would not suffer himself to be so commonly worshipped, but that he was God. S. Leo likewise if you have not heard of it before, de passione Domini. serm. 12. Sine 
Idem habet Chrys. hom. 8. in Matth.  verbi potentia, magi puerum non adorarent: that is, But for the power of the word, the wisemen would never have worshipped the child. As much to say, Unless the Child had been the word, that is very God with us, and the second person in Trinity. Answerable to that in the parable, Matth. 18. of the two debtor, whereof one owed his Master, the other his fellow-servant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 29. The former worshipped, as a servant should his Master, the latter entreated only, as a servant to his fellow-servant, to forgive the offence, as it was committed against him. Neither yet are there wanting other places of Athanasius, to the same effect. In Epist. ad Adelph. contra Arianos, one time thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, We worship not any creature, God forbid we should. (No not so much as the humanity of our Saviour Christ, if it were divided from the Godhead: for of that he speaks there: how much less the Saints?) Another time thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Let them know.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let them know at last, that when we worship our Lord in the flesh, we worship no creature. Another time thus most divinely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that 
Creatures worship not creatures.  is, The creature did not worship the creature, when the Sea, and other elements adored our Saviour, etc. And truly, if worship were due from creatures to creatures, there should be a Dulia of the Sea, and of the winds, etc. to the Saints belonging, as well as Latria to God, and to Christ. But you deny that in the second Oration of Athanasius, contr. Arian. any such thing is to be found, as the Bishop quotes, namely, that he concludes Christ to be God because he is invocated or prayed unto. Now truly I might have believed the Bishop's quotation, without farther searching, because it was his; yet I con you thanks for giving me the occasion, to read over that long, but most excellent, Oration. In the end thereof (you were weary belike ere you could turn so far) we thus find. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let them know, saith he, that the Saints do not 
Let them know.  request him to be their helper, that is a mere creature. And not only there so, but he hath the like again, Oratione contra Gentes; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He speaks of images, which the heathen worship as Gods, and thus he saith: They pray unto them as Gods (belike Athanasius would have none prayed unto but God) and they invest them with this honour of the true God. So as praying to, is for God, and the true God, only. Again in the same book, he coupleth prayer and the Godhead, thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That is, How then should these be Gods, or how may it beseem us to request any thing of them? The grand master of Requests is God only, with Athanasius. And yet if you lack a mediator, hear him once again in his book De Incarnate. verbi: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is: The word of God alone (to wit, Christ, his Son) is sufficient to mediate, or to be our ambassador to the Father, in what cause so ever. The reason whereof he gives in his Epistle ad Adelph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is: For one creature can never be of force to save another. And therefore not to mediate between God and itself. Yea, if this had been possible, I mean for one creature to undertake for another, in any sort or fashion, the Redeemer of the world might have been some mere man of Gods making, and yet divided from the Godhead, though a principal man.. Shall I speak yet plainer to you, or do you understand me sufficiently? As you make the Saint to intercede but for show, and pretend that all the 
a Per Christum Dom. nostrum, used to the Saints.  virtue comes from Christ: so God of his free mercy might have 
b A new way of redemption out of the Papists newfangle intercessions; and like that of the Persians, beating the rob, for the noble man's offence.  pardoned us the fault, and yet chastised it for certain exemplary satisfaction sake, in the person of that elect creature, man or woman. But this conceit is abominable, and the work too weighty for any but the Immanuell, the Son of God, to travail in, as Athanasius implies throughout his whole work, or works rather, quelling you. And so much of Athanasius, and this eight Chapter of yours. For when you tell us in the end, Num. 76. that the Devil envies the honour of Saints and Angels, and useth 
S. Chrysost. chose, (before quoted in 3. ad Coloss.) saith, the honouring of angels canie from the Devils envying of us and our honuor: which in all likelihood he more maligns. See also Epiphan. quoted in the 9 cap. & how often he puts all this idolatry to Saints and Images, upon the Devil.  the Bishop as an instrument to deface them, it may please you to remember, that the devils malice is ancienter to God, then to his Saints; and his intrusion into the titles of the one, much more usual then of the other. Ero similis ALTISSIMO, not subordinatis. And when he cannot aspire thither himself, he ingests in other partners and compossessioners, he cares not whom. By which your wisdom may weigh, who is more like to be the devils proctor, that you talk of so quaintly, and take heed it be not yourself, even while you plead for Saints.   

To his 9 Chapter.  
The Adjoinders small drops in this and the next Chapter, after his greater storm. Earthly Monarchy, Supererogation, Relics, Merits, Hierome of Adoration, Gregory of councils, Supremacy, English Puritans, Mr. Thomas Rogers, etc. In all which, the Reverend Bishop, out of the wariness of his own writing, (which is the Adjoinders stumbling-block) acquits himself from the others most unjust slanders, and uncivil reproaches.  
§ 1. THE Bishop's faults, and herein his changing the state of the question, are the subject of his ninth Chapter. And how first doth he change the state of the question? In confounding Peter's primacy, with his earthly Monarchy. And of this (saith he) before. 
1. Earthly Monarchy.  And, I think, you are answered to it before. The sum is, that not only Primacy and Monarchy, but even spiritual and temporal, as you have tied them together, like Sampsons' foxes, are in effect all one. Change of words is no change of the state of the question, but an opening rather, which is necessary many times, if but for this one cause, that men would smooth over their dangerous and desperate assertions, with plausible and colourable terms, and when those terms are once removed, themselves grow ashamed of what they thought to persuade others before. Like as when some old witch is turned out of her dress, wherewith she besotted as many as saw her, and afterward is confounded at the sight of her own ugliness. In this sense, say you hardly, that the Bishop hath changed the state of the question, for other aim or sinister drift in varying the words he had none. And yet, do not you, good Sir, grant at another time, that it is a plain Monarchy, viz. chap. 5. num. 21. of your Adjoinder? Or why doth Sanders entitle his book, de Monarchia Ecclesiae, but to addoube the Pope a Monarch at least? Or what are the effects of it, but to dispose Monarchies? Is not that it we contend about? Lastly, how many clauses are there, in your cardinals books the Pontif. Rom. that sound this way, and that not hoarsly, but very shrilly? even beside that in his first book, cap. 9 whose plain title is, Quòd Regimen Ecclesiasticum praecipuè Monarchicum esse debeat: That the government of the Church, ought especially to be Monarchical. Wherein his mind doth not so wholly run upon Christ, to be the chief Monarch, but just in the next Chapter, cap. 10. the title is, Probatur PETRI Monarchia, etc. The Monarchy of Peter is here proved. And that after he had pleased himself in his former pains so well, about the Church-Monarchie in general, that he saith, Explicatum est, &, nisi fallor, satis diligenter: We have showed it, and I believe diligently enough. But the word earthly, that offends you. It is no earthly Monarchy. As if the objects of this power, & the origen from whence it flows, coming into comparison, (which are the two ways to judge of the temporalty or secularity thereof) it be not plainer which we allege, that the objects thereof are earthly to make it earthly, then that which you pretend, that the institution is from heaven, to call it he avenly. As for temporal power, we have before showed you, where Bellarmine calls it so, and writes a whole book of it under 
Lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. See c. 1. h●…s. § 42.  that name. How much doth that differ from earthly then?  
then 2. A second is about Supererogation. I will neither hold 
2 Supererogation.  you, nor the Reader long. The defence of the Bishop is compendious, and stands in this, that either you must mend your meaning, or change your word. For Supererogation there is none, where first all is not done that aught to be done, and then a vantage too, or surplus over. Now, for so much as there is no man but labours of his defects, and all 
We cannot answer him one of a thousands job. And S. Chrys. The most righteous of all need mercy in Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. Serm. 4. at large. Idem habet D●…s. Ep ad Demoph. Idem Epiph haeresi A●… discrimen hoc assignans, inter Christum, & alius Sanctos: quod & apparere vult in funcribus mortuorum. Aug. lib. 9 confess. c. 13. Neque enim respond bit illa nihil se debere, ne convincatur etc. praeclarè.  come short of the glory of God, and all have need to cry, dimit nobis debita nostra, forgive us our trespasses, which is the Bishops own allegation, and yet by you called an impertinent arguing: I say, for somuch as there is no man living, but stands charged in the former of these two kinds, to be somewhat short with God in his reckonings about obedience, therefore it is certain that Supererogation there can be none, though praetererogation we should grant you, howbeit subtererogation were the fitter word, as the Bishop hath most godlily and acutely told you, wishing you to mend the other by this. What you tattle of S. Austen, is nothing to the purpose. As if we could not tell you the like of S. Hilary, in Psal. 118. as also of Greg. Nazianz. in his first Steliteutike against julian: S. Hierome in many places, and namely ad Pammachium de obitu Paulinae, etc. Whereas, if you look to the scope of that Parable, Luk. 10. no question but that drives clean another way, namely, that the Lord jesus left no part of our score unsatisfyed to the Father, not to show what we do in recompense to him; who for certain are the traveler wounded, and half dead in the way, not the host of the house, as we are there figured. Nay, the host being S. Paul, as both S. Austen, and S. Hilary, and the 
In the places quoted by the Adjoinder.  author of the Hypognostique, l. 3. c. 9 do consent, how doth not that shake S. Peter's primacy, that the chief of the house whither the wounded man was carried, should be Paul, not Peter? (for the Church is the Inn, and therefore the host of the Inn, must be the chief in the Church.) Or if you say, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fit resemblance for an ecumenical Pastor.  that he is the stabularius, because of his Doctrine, why should S. Paul give higher rules of perfection, then are to be found either in S. Peter, or any other Apostles writing, but for some 
* S. Aug. ad Bonifac. l. 3. c. 3. If you say the Apostle, and name not which Apostle, we understand Paul.  cause of eminency of degree, above the rest? Yet they all make him only to be the stabularius, and the Scriptures, to say truth, show no less. As for the word supererogate, which makes all the stir (yet no such dangerous word in the good Samaritans meaning) S. Austen he took it as it lay in the Text of the old translation, and applying it to us, though not without a wrist, as even now I said, yet gave the most consonant sense to the faith, that he could then find of it, without building an article, a dogma upon it, as you fond do: whereas, if a man should have told him, that erogare with super, to pay over and above, presupposeth the payment of the principal debt, he would neither have denied the truth of that suggestion, nor blushed at the humility of our confession, crying all with one consent, dimit nobis debita nostra, and that the whole world is obnoxious to God, and that, if he should enter into judgement with his servants, or mark what is done amiss, no man would be able to abide it, etc. Neither tell you me, that you also are of this opinion, and confess with the forwardest, your many 'scapes, and halting obedience. For why then do you not reform so monstrous a term, especially since you pervert it to a more uncouth sense, than ever came in S. Austin's head, from whom never thelesse you would seem to borrow it? Is it not pity, that you should talk prouder than you think, and speak loftier than you are affected? For if you mean no more than so, that a man may do somewhat, which may be pleasing to God, and yet not descending of his rigorous injunction or taxation, as Tertullian says wittily (though considering 
contra Psych.  the cause he then maintained, scarce catholicly, as your selves will not deny,) Non tantum obedire debeo Deo, sed adulari, We must not only obey God, but addoulce him and flatter him; I say, if this be all, we differ not much from you, neither about refraining marriage, nor refusing hire for preaching the 
The Adjoinders examples.  Gospel, (as for an Apostles labouring with his own hands, look you to that, how you will censure it.) Though you shall do well to consider, what S. chrysostom writes, Hom. 5. in 1. Rom. alluding to that of our Saviour no doubt, When ye have done all that ye should, say ye are unprofitable servants, & therefore be far from craking of supererogations. His words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, It was a debt that which the servant did, if he did aught at all. For whatsoever things we do, we do but fulfil a duty in so doing. Wherefore Christ himself said, When you have done all things, etc. say, We are but unprofitable servants, for what we should do, that we have done, [and no more.) You will say, that at another time, S. chrysostom saith, S. Paul flew over the line of the Law, and did more 
T. 8. D. Savile. Sir 〈◊〉. 1. in S. Apost Paulum, & saepiculè alias.  than was commanded him. Therefore you must construe that place by this; and above all things mollify the hard word Supererogate, learning rather of the Bishop how to change your rough and ill chosen terms, than carping him for changing the question, which he changeth not.  
§ 3. The third is ridiculous. Call you that also changing the state of the question, that when the Cardinal says, Christ 
3 Adoration of Christ.  is to be adored in the Sacrament, the Bishop takes exception to his limitation, and says, Apage verò, Away for shame, & why not out of the Sacrament too? Rather the Cardinal changeth Christ, a thing of greater importance than the state of the question, expounding himself thus, The Sacrament, that is, Christ in the Sacrament. Is Christ the Sacrament? Is the author and the institution all one? doth the substance and the symbolum differ nothing? Doth not Bellarmine say, that the 
De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 16.  Sacraments of both Laws, viz. Baptism & Circumcision, are neither good nor bad of themselves, but indifferent? And is Christ so? Are you so indifferent what you think or say of Christ? What a change then make you here, that cry out upon changing? We deny not that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, whether we eat, or eat not. Yea, with Austen and Ambrose, we adore it the rather, when we partake the 
Ambros. lib. 3. de Sp. Sanct. c. 12. Aug. in Psal. 98.  Sacrament. For when have we greater cause of so doing, I mean of adoring, and falling down, and thanking God, then when that business awakes our consideration? Then, I think, is the time exultandi spiritu, and yet procidendi corpore. Adoraverunt, & manducaverunt, says the Psalm. Which S. Austen turns hither, I say not how rightly. But, Nemo manducat panem illum, nisi prius adoraverit. No man eats of that bread, unless he first worship. Let-it be granted. He doth not say, unless he worship the bread first, for which you strive. Solum contemptum non vult cibus ille, saith he elsewhere, 
In Psal. 118.  That food asks no more of us, but that we contemn it not: that we honour it as a Sacrament, not as the Lord of the Sacrament; as Panis Domini, not as Panis Dominus, to speak with the same Austen, Tract. 59 in johan. whom we more than honour, we adore and worship at that time, at other times, in the Sacrament, without the Sacrament, when, where not? Why should this dislike you? And yet, this is the effect, of all that which you cavil at, in the Bishop's doctrine, in this place. Where you might do better to correct your own manner of speaking, then traduce his. For in your 8. Num. here, speaking of the Elements going with Christ, which is the substance of the Sacrament, or as you call it the thing, and how we ought not to make divorce between them two, you bring for example, the humanity of our Saviour Christ accompanying his divinity, so as worshipping the one, we worship the other, in the unity of his person, etc. And to enforce this comparison, you begin your sentence with, As well might he say, which is very inconsiderate, that I censure it no harder, to think that the Elements or forms of the Sacrament, are linked to Christ in as strait a band, as his divinity and humanity are between themselves; or that the one of these couples, may be divorced with equal facility, as the other. The forms without Christ, is no impossible matter, Christ without the forms, how usual, how necessary? and yet you would have these, to go as well together, as Nature with Nature doth in his sacred person. Who though they should not be divided in ordinary event, 
Nunquam deposuit quod semel assumpsit Axiom. Theol.  I mean the species from Christ, no more than his Natures may be parted asunder, yet still the union is very different of the two couples, this hypostatical, that but institutionall, and arbitrary, and Sacramental, and therefore you were more hot than judicious in your As well, which is full ill rather, and nothing at all to the purpose. And albeit the Bishop did not mean, to put that blame upon you, which you are suspicious guilty of (as it seems) in this place, that the bare Sacrament, or forms of bread and wine, are to be adored: yet you may remember, what a certain writer of your own, and he not of the worst note for such argument, as he hath handled, one Didacus Yanguas a Spaniard, writes of this matter, in his 2. book of Sermons, Serm. 1. de Sacram. Eucharist. to this purpose; Neque solum terra carnis eius, sed & species ipsae Sacramentales, ex unione a● carnem Christi, ita elevantur, 
Also Cornel. Mus. come. in Rom. 8. Sacramentum Eucharistiae est Ipsa Gratia: which is Christ's title, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tit. 2. 11.  & excelsa terra fiunt, ut etiam virtutem effectivam habeant conferendi hominibus gratiam, & alios spirituales effectus, sicut non paucis Theologis visum est. That is: And not only the earth of his flesh, (viz. Christ's) but the species also, or the forms, of the Sacrament, themselves, are by their union to the flesh of Christ, so elevated, and exalted, that they have power effectual, to confer grace, and other spiritual effects, upon men, as no few Divines have thought. Can ye be long from adoring them, if ye attribute this to them?  
§ 4. Num. 10. You would charge the Bishop with changing the state of the question, about the adoring of Relics, and 
4 Adoration of Relics.  yet you confess, that for his refuge, he took hold of the word Adoration, used by the Apology, and exacteth of the Cardinal some proof of adoration due to relics, taking adoration in the stricter sense, as due to God. Where you see, you cannot charge the Bishop with this fault, unless you lay it upon the Apology first, or rather because the Bishop was to follow the Apology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is so far from changing the substance of any question between you and us, that he sticks close to the very words which the Apology useth, whose defence he undertook, and for that full wisely here you peach him. But neither doth the Apology mistake the question, and when the Bishop calls for the word adorare, it was partly because the Cardinal had fronted him with one such false place out of chrysostom [adoremus for adornemus] partly because venerari implies no worship at all, in the Father's sense, neither 
a As S. Chrysost. in ult. ad Coloss. at those words, Salutatio mea Pauli, manu meâ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It was like they would find themselves somewhat affected, at the sight of Paul's hand. Yet not to worship the paper. So we at relics. Yet S. Paul's handwriting not inferior perhaps to relics.  divine nor human, but only reverent esteeming, or preserving; (as to omit other places, S. Austen twice together says it of the Bible, 
b The same says Constantius apud Athan. Graecol. p. 716. in epist. ad Episc. Arimini congregatos, de doctrinâ & verbo, which S. Austen says de codice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Behold the book and doctrine venerable, or worthy to be worshipped. What more of the Sacrament, or where the like of the species?  veneramur codicem, we worship the book, de unit. Eccles. c. 12. and yet neither by dulias nor latria;) partly because whatsoever be the doctrine of your Schools in this point, which is commonly subject to great inconstancy, the practice of your idiots must so be defended, or else left for desperate.  
§ 5. In the mean time it is worth the noting, in your 12. Numb. how you confute the Bishop, about the Angel forbidding S. john to adore him (which the Bishop had alleged) to prove, that other strange perversity of his, or change of the question, as no less textually, then marginally, both ways, you blaze it, that no adoration of creatures is lawful. First, say you, he makes S. john ignorant, until the Angel instructed him. Novum crimen, etc. No 
c S. Austen is of another mind, quaest. in Gen. 23. Corrigendus fuerat adorator Angeli. The worshipper of the Angel, (viz. S. john) was to be reform. Therefore he might err. Yea therefore he did err.  doubt a great scandal, and unworthy of S. john, either to offer for his ignorances, with the high Priest in the old law, Heb. 9 7. (and yet S. john no high Priest, nor proportional to him, but only Peter to be so paragoned) especially when the ignorance was not juris, but facti, or to have an Angel to be his schoolmaster. We may call for the ox and the ass to be yours, Esay 1. which forget neither their Master, nor their master's crib, whiles you run a gaddng post greges sodalium, not content with one or two, unless you heap up deities to yourselves, as they do doctors, 1. Tim. 4. 3. But this is one exception which you take to the Bishop. Another, that he reasoneth (you say) as substantially, as if some holy man of modesty and humility, refusing some extraordinary honour done unto him, saying it were to be done, not to him, but to God, one should infer, that no such reverence should be done to men. For such no doubt was the case betwixt S. john and the Angel, either of them showing their humility, and their respect they bore the one to the other, etc. Thus you: changing very handsomely the law of religion, and those absolute and peremptory words of the Angel, vide ne, into mere compliments, and court, between S. john and the Angel: as who would say, Remember yourself, Be not so courteous, a shadow whereof there was between our Saviour Christ and S. john Baptist, I grant, Matth. 3. but between the Angel, and the Evangelist here, for certain, none at all. Is adora Deum, and vide ne feceris, of no more force with you, than so? And to your noble instance, of a godly man, putting off a great honour done unto him, etc. If that godly man were well learned withal, & seen in points of faith, above the other, whom he should charge to keep such honour for God, & not to cast away upon him, would you doubt but he were to be listened to, and obeyed in his good counsel, not idle complement, as you madly decipher it? So did they in the Acts, I mean Paul and Barnabas, refusing 
Act. 14.  the Lycaonians, and their wild honours; so Peter to the Centurion, so Gregory, so your Vincentius, so many more, not by complement or courtship, but by horror of the fact, and strait commandment to desist. You quote in the same Numb. 
* S. Greg. idem repetit, in Com. Cant. 8. praeter locos alibi citatos.  S. Gregory, S. Bede, Anselm, Rupert, Richardus de Victore, to this effect, that the Angel refused S. john's adoration, in regard of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, since which our nature is reverenced and respected by the Angels, and they presume not to take such obeisance 
Now Reader judge, who comes nearer to judaesme, the Bishop, and the Church of England, as F. T. objects in divers places, or they that revive the worshipping of Angels under the new, which these Authors confive to the old Testament.  at our hands. Does not this confute you then, for worshipping them still, and ascribing sovereignty to them (as your religious submissions to them can import no less) who not only are our conservi, by right of creation, but inferior to us, in so much as our nature is united unto the godhead, which theirs is not?  
§ 6. You tell us in your 13. Numb. of three kinds of adoration, and say, it is instruction for ignorant readers. We know but two, Sacred, and Civil. You would feign cog a third, as it were semi-sacred. Whereas, secunda relligio, or relligio secundae maiestatis, as Tertullian calls it, is for earthly 
Apolog contra Gentes.  Kings, not for heavenly Saints, who by your distinction should inherit it before the other, if it were properly so called. But God having the first religion, the Emperor the second (as we speak at least) the Saints is none now, because it must not be the third. Therefore they are banished from religious adoration. To your authorities that you bring out of Gen. 8. Gen. 19 etc. where Angels appeared in visible forms, and corporal shape (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hebr. 13. 2. they that entertained them, knew not whom they entertained) what marvel if they received civil adoration, going for men, and not known to be other? Or why should we think that that was religious? The same I might say of Abraham's, the same of Lot's respect, which they showed to Angels. And so likewise of josuahs', Ios. 5. Though, as I signified before, sometimes Christ is called the Angel, when he makes apparition, (Athanas. cont. Gent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Word, that is Christ, is justly termed his Father's Angel, or Messenger) and sometimes also God is honoured in his ambassador. Which advantageth you nothing, that vendicate a proper and a standing worship to the Angels, due by kind, or by excellency of their order, not only to the person which they casually sustain. You say, Saul adored samuel's soul. Though I believe it not of Saul, and there is no reason to load him with more infirmities than his own, yet if you will needs have it so, let him be your example hardly, as also of going to a witch, and consulting with the devil. How well did you transform idolatry into sorcery, in your 6. Chapt. where you laboured to put off the Laodicean Council, who now so confound sorcery with idolatry, that by the example you bring of Saul, you may defend the one as well as the other, if at least any such ever were? Abdias, you say, was a man in temporal dignity far greater than Elias, yet Abdias fell on his face before him, and therein did an act of religion to Elias. Believe it who list. And did the Emperors perform 
When the late king of France Henry 4. did M. Beza such like honour, dismounting from his horse, and running to embrace him, marvel but this was religious adoration, in our Adjoinders fancy.  acts of religion to the Pope, when they used the like reverent demeanour towards him? or perhaps the Popes were not so religious of late days, that the honour done to them should be an honour of religion. For you would have it to be religious, when it is done to religious men, and for relligions' sake, and so to differ from the Civil forsooth. Likewise, the children of the 
Adjoind. cap 9 Numb. 14.  Prophets, worshipped Elizeus, with religious adoration, because they saw him pass the river by miracle: a thing which every damned 
Greg. Hom. 29. in Huang Corporali● miracula, ost●●dunt aliqu●●de sanctitatem, no● 〈◊〉.  wretch might have done, to have wrought a miracle, & yet this must challenge religious adoration. But, if S. Austin's notation of the word religion be true, de verâ rell. c. 54. quòd uni deo religet animas nostras, because it binds our souls to God only, then sure though S. Austen had not put in uni Deo, but only told us of religation, or of binding, it had been enough to show that S. Austin's meaning was, that religious worship belonged only to God, as to whom only we are bound in knots of soules-seruice, otherwise free, being fellow-servants between ourselves, as you heard the Angel say but lately to S. john. What else is there? The children of the Prophets, adoraverunt Eliam proni in terram, worshipped Elias falling flat upon the ground, which you persist to construe of religious adoration, we see no cause why it should be so, no more than Ruthes to Booz, or Mephibosheths to David, or the rest, whom you sequester from this kind yourself, though the Scripture speak of them in the same phrase, as yourself also acknowledge, numb. 15. But what marvel if ye hale in these into your muster, when as Nabuchodonosor adored Daniel, you say, with a religious adoration, and jacob worshipped the top of Joseph's rod, which you would make a rood of, a puppet, or what you please, like the worshipping of the footstool, of which anon? For as they that run a whoring once after the creature, forsaking the one and only true God, Rom. 1. change him into the vilest and lewdest shapes that may be, of calves, of creeping things, etc. so it was meet that when you would bring down once your religious adorations, from that divine sublimity, to such pelting trash, as in respect of God is whatsoever the world contains, you should stay no where, but even bequeath it to rods, to footstools, and to what not? Was it all one for jacob in his feeble and accrazed state, to worship God upon the top of his staff, being unable without that to sit up in his bed, (an act, without all doubt, of most absolute devotion; for where would not he worship God, that worshipped him so?) is it all one, I say, for an old man to worship God, raising himself upon his staff in his bed; and to worship the staff itself with religious worship? Are you not afraid lest this staff prove a scorpion to chastise you, while you argue so wanton, so wickedly, and yet so weakly: or that your hearers hardly hold their hands from you, to be mocked so grossly? Or if joseph be this rod, as other some construe it, like that phrase in Esay, Egredietur virga de radice jesse, will you persuade us that jacob worshipped his staff, because he worshipped God in the hopes of his son joseph, shooting up like a plant out of a pleasant ground, as they that came of the stock of jesse before named? But let us hear the Fathers, and how they interpret it. S. Primasius two ways upon this place, but in neither of them dancing after your pipe. One while he says, that jacob worshipped his son joseph as a temporal Prince over all the land of Egypt. But if you take it of a spiritual and religious worship, than worshipped he Christ (says he) and his mystical Kingdom, over all creatures, both in heaven and earth, not any material rod, which is heathenish to Primasius. His words are. jacob cognovit per illam virgam joseph, designari regnum Christi. Non ergo virgam adoravit pro Deo, secundum ritum gentilium, etc. The same words hath Remigius, as it were borrowed of Primasius. But he proceeds; Velure quantum ad literam, fortassis secundum consuetudinem illius temporis adoravit virgam joseph, quem videbat Dominum esse totius regni terrae Aegypti; quâ scilicet ratione, Hester legitur adorâsse virgam Assueri. That is, jacob understood that the Kingdom of Christ was resembled and figured by that rod of joseph. He did not therefore worship the rod for God [or, with divine worship] which is the manner of heathens and gentiles, etc. Or happily to understand this text literally, it may be that according to the custom of those times, he proceeded to worship Joseph's rod or sceptre, whom he saw to be Lord over all the land of the Kingdom of Egypt. In like sort as Ester is recorded to have worshipped Assuerus his sceptre. This is Primasius his judgement. 
Haymo hath the same word●s with Primasius.  Anselm upon the place saith, Nos in nouâ translatione legimus, Adoravit Israel Deum. jacob worshipped God, (not the rod but God.) Which in our English translation, the Rhemists so mislike, that they call it an intolerable corruption. And again: Si adorâsset fastigium virgae illius, non esset dicenda sides. To worship the top of a staff, had been no faith (Infidelity rather, and Idolatry, I suppose) whereas the Apostle brings in this for an example of his faith. But he adored (says Anselm) sublime imperium Christi, the lofty kingdom and government of Christ, to which he submitted himself with all his heart. And whereas some read, Adoravit ad caput lectuli (which the Hebrew is not against) he says, the holy man had his bed stand so, that he might compose himself to prayer in it, upon any occasion, (but to prayer to God only) and that was his worship here spoken of by the Apostle. As for Austen, our Rhemists confess no less of him, and in one word they are so bare upon this place, as they have not one Father so much as to pretend for them, by way of colour. And this may suffice about the worshipping of the staff, which Erasmus makes so light of, that he thinks, to deride it, is to refute it. They have found out (says he) a new fangle worship, the worship of the staff, by their acquaint Metaphysics, and their rare devices. Thus he.  
§ 7. As for the worshipping of the footstool, adorate scabellum, for adorate ad scabellum, per ellipsin praepositionis alioqui bis inculcandae, and somewhat like also in the Hebrew, though not altogether the same, the Bishop hath so plentifully 
Respons. ad Apolog. pag. 201.  cleared it in his answer, that it is more than wondrous how you dare meddle with it, but that you are more than impudent in outfacing us with any thing. And by this also may be seen, to what simple animals your work is dedicated, that dare offer to feed them with such dirt for diet-bread.  
§ 8. Nabuchodonosors also adoring of Daniel, is as frivolous, which you will needs have to be with a religious adoration. 
Dan. 2.  But you may remember, that incense also and sacrifice was offered to Daniel by Nabuchodonosor, and to be short, he worshipped him in all points as a God. Will you by this then prove your worshipping of Saints? joseph. l. 10. e. 11. Antiq. jud. Nabuchodonosor non aliter Danielem quam Deum adoravit, divinis iuvenem dignatus honoribus: that is, Nabuchodonosor worshipped Daniel no otherwise than God himself, yielding divine honour to the young man. S. Hierome resolves it, at last, thus. Regem stupore confusum ignorâsse quid faceret. That the King amazed at the wonderful effects of Daniel, knew not what he did, and so discerned not inter servum & Dominum, between the servant and the master, in giving honour. Hieron. Com. in 2. Dan. And Theod. Com. in eundem loc. saith, he gives the Priests charge to offer incense to Daniel, not presuming himself upon that service, as too sacred for him. Whereas the honour due to Saints, is such, as any body, not only the Priests, may perform unto them, in the Papists opinion. Yea, I believe, they had rather trust the poor ignorant people with this kind of duties, than their more intelligent Clergymen. And Bellarmine does as good as confess this one where, telling us how dangerous it is, to unfold their mysteries, of Saints, and Images, in a popular assembly. But Theodoret brings yet another thing to our mind. Consydera quanti sit, illum arrogantem & insaniae morbo correptum, adorare captivum judaeorum, in ordinem mancipiorum redactum, etc. That is; [Consider what a thing it was for that proud and haughty Tyrant, almost mad with pride, to adore a jewish prisoner, one no better than a slave, etc.] Which may teach the Jesuits, those stormers against the authority of heathen Magistrates over believers, that servitude under Infidels, is no disparagement to true virtue, wheresoever to be found. S. chrysostom also, though he may seem to waver through 
Com. in 11. ad Hebr. Homil. 26. in Ethico.  uncertenties, as one that does not greatly care to assoil the question, (professing that he had rather give his auditor's occasion to search it by themselves) yet once or twice he inclines this way; and with more reason. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, He whom all the earth honoured as God, reckoned of Daniel even as of a God. And afterward comparing him with Herod, or rather more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, But Daniel accepted of divine honour, not of words only tending that way (as Herod did.) Which how it may stand with daniel's piety, it were good that you would consider a while. For chrysostom meant not to leave him with that aspersion, and yet thus you see he declares the nature of that honour, which the Tyrant afforded him. Lastly, his reason is, that the King called him Beltazzar, which was the name of his God. Therefore it is likely he honoured him as God. Neither does chrysostom neglect the note, formerly made by Theodoret upon this place, that captivity under infidels, is no abatement to true virtue. For here the conqueror adores the prisoner, etc.  
§ 9 As for the signification of the word adoro, if to that end only you allege the place, to show what the word may sometimes signify concerning the adoring of one man by another, & that not civilly only, but religiously, it follows not that it is every where to be so taken and construed of a religious worship, if in this monstrous and exotic one act of Nabuchodonosor towards the Prophet Daniel, it imports so. Yourself bring many places, and many examples, of Scripture, and holy men there recorded, by whom you confess it is to be taken only of evil adoration, num. 15. of this Chapter. As of judith to Holophernes, of Abigail to David, etc. And Gregory de Valentia, your champion for Idolatries, yet in the place that I shall quote by and by out of him, is not afraid to grant as much, even in this very cause, that uno eodemque communi vocabulo res etiam diversissimae significantur; that is, that Unity of terms makes no identity of things: or, diverse things are sometimes signified by the same words. Lastly also, to your other quiddity, that The worship of Saints is religious worship, because yielded to Saints for their religion sake: I deny your reason. As well might you say, that the worshipping of a wooden image is blockish worship, because done to a block; or to relieve a soldier in case of necessity, is an act of soldiery, because done for consideration of his soldierlike exploits in former times. Rather say, because it springs from the virtue of religion in the mind of him that yields it, as the original of his act, & yet imperant only, not elicient, dirigent, not exequent, as your Schoolmen love to speak. But so are many acts beside, neither done to religious persons, or done to them, and yet not for the relligions' sake, which nevertheless are accounted religious actions, because they proceed from the virtue of religion in the doers. As even your own man acknowledges, Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Disput. 6. Quaest. 11. etc. denying flatly that the worship of Saints is properly or immediately religious worship, yet he adds in this wise: Quanquam non est negandum, quin ipsd virtute relligionis erga Deum, ut ad VIRTUTUM ALIARUM officia, sic etiam ad exhibendum sanctis honorem OBSERVANTIAE, (not relligionis) induci possimus. That is, [Though it is not to be denied, that we may be moved, as to other offices of sundry virtues, so to yield the Saints the honour of observancy, out of the virtue of religion towards God in our hearts.] So as both he would have religion to be only towards God, and yet an exciter or setter on of our reverence to Saints, per modum imperantis, as I said before. And should we rest in your devise of religious worship, because given to certain men for their relligions' sake, weigh the consequence, and tell me how you like it. For by this means it might come to pass, that two men at one time should both give and take religious worship of one another, and that equal in measure, if they equal in merits, which were very uncouth (to say no more) that you should worship him that worshipped you, & that just so much, & at the very same time. Finally, whereas the Bishop denies, that creatures may be adored, and yet both you and we grant, that there may be 
The Adjoinder finds a knot in a bulrush, a contradiction in the Bishop where none is.  a civil adoration, you must understand the Bishop to speak of the sacred or religious adoration, in which fence S. 
* Chrysost in Epist ad Coloss. p 114. lin 20. edit. D. H. Savile.  chrysostom goes further than so, to deny even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is less than adoration, & but Valentiaes' observancy) to Angels, to Archangels, or to any creature whatsoever; but he means the sacred, or the religious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as the Bishop doth.  
§ 10. You brook not that S. Hieromes adorare civeres Abdiae, in his Epistle ad Marcella●i, should be expounded by the same S. Hierome, writing to Vigilantius, and that not pauso vigilantiùs perhaps, by non ador●…; we worship not only not relics, but neither Cherubin, nor Seraphim, nor any such like. Yet if it be true which we are often taught by S. Austen, that Ecclesiastical writers are not so absolute in their 
Vide pag. 249. h●ius c. 6. & add eundem August. de unitat. Eccl. pluribu● locis.  writings, but that they may fall into error now and then, and be reform by the judgement of aftercomers, much more may they be corrected by their own selves in other places, and their suddenner or less advised phrase of speech one while, be qualified and tempered by their more deliberate resolutions, at another. As here S. Hierome. In the full source of his Rhetoric, and where he spoke without an adversary, or to one that could understand him inoffensively, and with discretion sufficient, he speaks for adoring of Abdias his ashes, that is zealous resorting to the place of his burial (for that is all:) but where he spoke before his adversary, before Vigilantius, like the bird that sleeps with the thorn at her breast, then more vigilantly, more accurately, and more circumspectly, he denies it utterly, that they adore either relics, or things better than relics, even those for whose sakes the relics are made much of. There, error 
Hieron. adversus Vigilant.  iwenum, and culpa muliercularum, non est imputanda relligiosis hominibus; the error of young men, and the default of light giddy women is not to be imputed to Religious persons. There, paucorum culpa non praeiudicat relligioni, the aberration of some few is no prejudice to religion. Lastly, there, Non adoramus, etc. we worship neither relics, nor Martyrs, nor Angels, nor any name that is named either in this world, or in the world to come, but God only.  
§ 11. Here also we have another cast of your sweet Latinity, numb. 22. Ais Vigilantius, etc. Which, breaking of, you construe thus, you say that Vigilantius, how fitly for Grammar, let the Grammarians judge. It pleaseth you not, that the Bishop in the conclusion of his answers, inclines to that, that S. Hieromes adoration is adoratio per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not properly so called. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you say, is never used, but when there wants a proper word, witness Quintilian, etc. You mean, never el●, but when the speaker wants a proper word to express his mind by, as namely when he would either fall so low, or soar so high, as no ordinary word occurreth to him to equal his conceits, though the language hath store enough beside. So here S. Hierome. Therefore he expounds his adorare in one place, by non adorare, sed honorare, in another; when the passion was cooled, and the judgement awaked. Non colimus & adoramus, sed honoramus, etc. lib. 1. contra Vigil. The Grammarians will tell you, because you send us to the Grammarians, that there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this verse of Vergil, and least happily you find it not, in the word sperare. Hunc ego si potui tantum sperare dolorem; 
Aeneid. 4.  though the language have diverse more to supply the sense of it, as timere, providere, metuere, etc. S. Austen also advertising us contra Faustum, lib. 22. c. 18. that Abusio verborum in omnibus linguis latè patet, which is in effect, that Catachresis spreads further than want of words by much, in any language.  
§ 12. But I may not omit numb. 18. where you think you have spoiled a jest of the Bishops. But one could you? Though you shall find earnest where you look for jest, at those hands; woollen pace and iron vengeance; severity loves to mask in smiles. I quoted S. chrysostom to you before, that the Saints merriments are holy earnest, and S. Austen contra Faustum lib. 15. c. 9 speaking to the Church, bids her misericorditer irridere, deride and pity, or, compassionately deride, the madness of the Manichees, her transported adversaries. At other times you are wont to charge the Bishope 
Chap. 10. Adjoind, sub finé.  with the clean contrary, as harsh and crabbed in the Genius of his style, not propense to jesting, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  as Homer says of the champions in their deathful combat; so hard a thing it is to give you content. But what is it you bring? That, pulverem lingere, is not in all that Epistle of S. Hierome ad Marcellam, but only lambere lignum crucis, not to lick the dust, but to lick the wood of the cross. A great mistake surely, to put the one for the other. And yet pulverem lingere, to lick the dust, is the honester of the twain, as S. Austen describing the idolatry of the Gentiles, whom our Saviour calleth dogs, in his speech with the poor caitiff, Matth. 15. (the image of us all) It is true (saith S. Austen) the Gentiles are dogs, for canum est lingere saxa, 
Serm. de Temp.  it is a dogs property to lick stones, and so ligna too, so statuas, and the rest; whereas the other the Psalm directly leads us to, speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles to God, that they shall lick the dust of his feet, or footstool. 
Psalm.  If you are not ashamed of the first, why should you be of the second, which is so much more countenanced, as you see, than the other? Or, to speak in your own words which you delight in, as it were your darling, if ye be cruci-ligni-lambi, why should you be afraid to be pulueri-lingi? But if not this, how the other? So that you see in effect it comes all to one. But for so much as the Bishop's drift was, only to show that S. Hierome speaks figuratively in that discourse, and you have no way to resist him, but only by saying, that all the Epistle is not figurative, as if some might not be, though all were not, let us see if you think good, not how many elegant metaphors and allegories, as you confess, are scattered throughout the context of that Epistle, but whole periods of speech, tending to the same purpose of devotion, can be construed no otherwise then only figuratively. First, Sepulchrum Domini quotiescunque ingredimur, toties iacere in syndone cernimus salvatorem. That is, As oft as we go into the sepulchre of our Lord, so often we see our Saviour wrapped in a linen cloth to lie before us. Is this true properly? Is it true without a figure? Yet add again, Et paululum ibidem commorantes, rursum videmus Angelum sedere ad pedes eius, & ad caput sudarium convolutum. That is, And staying there but a while, again we see thee Angel to sit at his feet, and his clothes wrapped or folded towards his head. Can ye understand this to be true without a figure? But come to the end, and to the place that you now touch upon, see whether there be any scanty of figures. In Oliveti montem, cum ascendente Domino, voto & animo sublevemur. Let us be lifted up in heart and wishes into the mount of Olivet, together with our Lord ascending. Yet our Lord's ascent is long since past, and we come too late to ascend with him now. Again, Videre exire Lazarum fascijs colligatum, & fluenta jordanis ad lavacrum Domini puriora, etc. To see Lazarus come forth bound about with his partlets, and the river of jordan waxing the purer for our saviours bathing in it. Ind ad mare veniemus Genezareth, & de quinque & septem panibus videbimus in deserto quinque & quatuor hominum miillia saturata; That is, From thence we will come to the sea of Genezareth, and of five loaves and seven, we will see five and four thousand men satisfied in the wilderness. Is this also true properly? or could Marcelia, and her invitresses, see these things without a figure? But what a shake doth he give to your superstition of Saints, when he concludes thus? Pergemus ad Itabyrium, & tabernacula salnatoris, non ut Petrus voluit cum Mose aut cum Elia, sed cum patre cernemus & spiritu sancto. We will go to the mount Taber, and we will there behold the tabernacle of our Saviour, not as Peter would with Moses and Elias, but with the Father and the holy Ghost. Do you see whom he leads us to, and from whom he weanes us? From Moses, and Elias, that is, the Saints, to our Saviour and his company, to wit, the Father and the holy Ghost. Unless happily it delight you to err with Peter, because Petrus aliter voluit, Peter seemed to be of another mind. I believe yourselves will be glad here to acknowledge a figure.  
§ 13. To conclude about relics, and their adoration, how may they be believed to have adored relics, that were no friends to the keeping of them, as we may gather diverse ways? For though relics may be kept, and not adored; yet no adoration, if no keeping. S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham. cap. 9 bids us, non diutiùs inhaetere ●●rtuis, but only officij quantum satis est defer. That is in effect, to bury the departed, but not to dwell long upon dead corpses; which how it can stand with the preserving of relics, I say not honouring, observing, worshipping them? And again the same Father, l. 2. de officijs, c. 28. In sepulturis Christianorum requies defunctorum est: In the burial of Christians, is the repose of the dead: which stands not with relics, either to be preserved, or digged up. And in the same place again, Nemo potest indignari humandis fidelium relliquijs spacia esse laxata: that is, It is no fault, nor thing to be grudged at (unless then by the Arians, who carped S. Ambrose without cause, and so now by the Jesuits) that the ground is enlarged to bury the remnants of faithful bodies massacred.) Is this man likely to countenance relics, or the worshipping thereof? Sozomen, lib. 4. c. 20. says, that when there was consultation about removing the body of Constantine the great, out of the Church of Constantinople, (where it was first interred,) because they feared the fall of that Church, this purpose was resisted by such as took part with the Nicene Council, that is, the godly and the Orthodox, who held it, saith Sozomen, for no less a sacrilege, to translate dead bodies, then to break open tombs violently and feloniously. And do not these condemn the use of relics, which in you is accompanied with translation, with circumgestation, and such like pomps? Yet behold, when the Church was like to fall, they refused to be of party with the preservers of the bones of that divine Emperor, by translating them, not but that they were worthy the preserving with the best. When 
Chrysost. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Theod. lib. 3. histor. cap. 10.  Babylas his body was translated from Daphne to Antioch, by julian's appointment, and the devils instigation (not by any seeking of the Christian people) they cried that accompanied it, all the way as they went, Confundantur omnes qui adorant sculptilia, Confounded be all they that worship carved images. Doth this please you? Optatus will tell you his opinion of Lucilla, that factious dame, and employer of her wealth to support mutinies against the Church of God, as S. Austen reports of her in more than one place: I say, 
Contr. Petili. 〈◊〉. etc. Contr. Parmen. lib. 〈◊〉.  Optatus will tell you how wicked she was, in not receiving the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood, unless she had kissed the relics of a certain Martyr that morning, if at least a Martyr, saith Optatus. Yet you are for kissing them, in your numb. 24. very definitively. And if it be godly to kiss them, why not also to begin the communion with such a service? And may not we say of your Martyrs, as Optatus doth of hers, of Lucillaes' I mean, si tamen Martyris, if at least they be Martyrs, either your ancient, or your modern? But Optatus mislikes this doting upon Martyr's relics, though true Martyrs, as the place showeth. Of joseph and Nicodemus, no snatchers after relics, not so much as clothes, though they had as fair opportunity as ever any, I told you before. Yet doubtless their behaviour was a lesson to posterity, how to be affected towards the dead bodies of Saints. They committed it to the ground, and that was all, though the rather to a garden, in the hope of reviving & reflourishing the third day, as from a fertile soil, as S. Ambrose sweetly gathers, alluding to our saviours speedy resurrection. So likewise of S. Gregory 
In Lucam.  l. 3. Registri, Epist. 30. ad Constant. August. It amazed him to hear the dead bodies should be digged up again, or as the fashion before had been, (S. August. so witnessing, S. 
Novi multos sepulchrorum adoratores, etc. Et in Epist. Hieron. quoque. Vid. Epist. eius.  Hierome, and diverse more) that the fragments of Martyrs should be carried up and down, under pretence of devotion, but indeed for sale, or for gaze of idle people. It being one thing not to neglect either the body of a Martyr, after he had given up his soul in the 
Imper●tores Honori●s & Theodosian Augg. legen tulerunt, Nemo martyres distrahat, (this was to put the Martyrs to a second death, I am ●os secunda 〈◊〉 ma●et, to speak with Bo●thi●●) nemo mercetur. By the way, note the power of Kings commanding about matters of religion. But more fully, read Gregor. T●●. l. 9 c. 6. and that hideous history of a Rellique-monging impostor, with his sachel full of rats-bones, and roots, and the teeth of moles, and the fat of bears, etc. Yet he concludes, Multi sunt qui 〈◊〉 s●…ctiones exercent, & populum rusticum in errorem mittere non desinunt. De quibus opinor Dominus in evangelio, Surrecturos in novissimis qui etiam electos in errorem inducant, etc. Is it not pity that we Englishmen, will not traffic with the jesuits, for such ghostly commodities?  defence of the Christian faith, or some limb of his body casually brought to hand, to preserve it from unseemly and unmanly disparagements, who but for his constancy in Christ's cause, might happily have been buried in his ancestors tombs; another thing to convert it to profane idolatry. I have omitted Origen, lib. 8. contra Celsum, who thus professes of his time, and of the doctrine they had learned. Organa rationalis animae sepulchro honorificè demand are didicimus: We have learned to recommend honourably to the grave, the instruments of the soul reasonable, that is, the bodies of men, and the members thereof. Therefore not to make relics of them. In Victor Vticensis, lib. 1. de persecute. Vandal. we have two examples hereof. One of Armogastes, a godly Christian, who desired Felix (another of the profession) sepeliri sub arbore siliquae,. i. that being dead he might be buried under a homely tree (if a tree,) non cum triumpho & gratiâ, not with triumph, and favour, or solemnity. As for the Sarcophagus, which appeared, as it were by miracle, in the place by him allotted for his burial, I impute that to the satisfaction of his godly desire, about a quick consumption, or turning into nothing, than which nothing can be more repugnant to your ceremony of Relics. Another in the same book a little before, of Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage, whose worthy members (so speaks the Historian) the people out of their zeal might have violently snatched away, or pulled a sunder, nisi CONSILIO PRUDENTUM nesciente multitudine sepeliretur:. 1. unless he had been buried whiles the people did not know of it, at the suggestion or direction of wise men. So as to resist your Relliquations (the true bankruptures of religion) is wisdom to Victor, and to the ancient Christians that lived before him. But let S. Hierome end this matter, in De vitâ Hilarionis, where he will tell you, that S. Hilarion gave order before his death, to be buried in his clothes, in tunicâ cilicinâ, in his coat of sackecloath, & sago rustico, and his homely cloak, or of the country fashion, cum cucullâ, with his hood, & ne puncto quidem horae post mortem reseruari, and not to be kept above ground, no not an instant of an hour, after his departure. Would he have been content to have been pickled up in Relics? And in the same book, Anthony charged them that were about him, to bury him privily, where no man might know of it, lest one Pergamius, as he said, a very rich man of that country, & belike deùout in his kind, should steal away his body, and enclose it in a shrine. The like was done to Moses body for the same cause, God every where forbidding to seek the living among the dead, as you do plainly in your relics, worshipping not them, but Christ in them, as you stick not to triumph, numb. 25. of this chapter. But so much shall suffice to have spoken hereof.  
§ 14. Yet you think to mend the matter, with your 
De Civit. Dei. l. 10, c. 1. & quaest. in Genes.  moth-eaten distinction of adoratio latriae, quoting S. Austen for it, num. 28. But S. Austen never said, that we may adore a creature, whether Saint or Saint's relic, with a religious adoration, no not under latria, or never so dulically. He saith, the word adoration is equivocal, which is very true, I grant, and transferred to men, whom we adore civilly: for he speaks of Abraham adoring the Gentiles, that is, the children of Heth, which for certain was but civil. 
Quaest, in Gen. 23.  But taking it in the sense of religious adoration, as we now do in our question with you, he never denies but that it is proper to God. I will observe a few clauses, out of his the Civit. Dei, which you quote, lib. 10. c. 1. He expounds relligionem servare erga Angelos, by sacrificare, and sacra facere. But you will have no sacrificing to them, nor S. Austen neither. Therefore no religion is due to them. His words are; Nunc videndum ac disserendum est, quomodò credendi sint Angeli velle à nobis pietatem relligionemque servari, hoc est ut apertiùs dicam, utrum etiam sibi, an tantùm Deo suo, qui & noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus, & sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra, seu nosipsos, RELLIGIONIS ritibus consecremus. Again, servitus duliae quae debetur hominibus, is such a servitude, according to which the Apostle commands servants to be subject to their masters. Only this, is due hominibus, to men, saith S. Austen, or of this kind only. And will this kind of service content your Saints? It will not certainly. Therefore S. Austen patronizeth not your dulias to Saints. Mean while, you may well blush reading this place of S. Austen, or of the Apostle either, concerning the dulias due to masters from their servants, that have extinguished all allegiance and subjection upon earth, what 
The two questions still cross, or rather kiss one another, of our subjection to Princes, and devotion to God.  by your treasons, and what by your releaseth, to erect an 
* I mean odious even to the Saints themselves. Witness Chrysost. Homil. 9 in 3. ad Coloss. See pag. 293 huius.  odious service to Saints in heaven. S. Austen goes forward, to show, that not only these things, quibus nos relligiosà humilitate submittimus, to which we submit ourselves by a conscionable humility, or a religious humility, are said coli; but etiam subiecta nobis, diverse things under us: so that the cultus of creatures, is of that kind, by which, things that are inferior to us, may be honoured, and therefore surely not religious. Yea, but S. Austen says, that we submit ourselves to the creature, relligiosâ humilitate, by religious humility. What marvel, when he acknowledges in the same place, that not only adoratio, but relligio, and pietas, are words aequivocal, or of diverse significations? For we are pij in parents, (which even S. Paul shows to Timothy) and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Tim. 5. 〈◊〉.  exhibemus relligionem, says he, quibuscunque necessitudinibus, to affinities, and kindreds, not only doctissimorum, but also imperitorum. To all these, we perform a reverence of religion. But religion, as it stands for holy, for sacred, and spiritual, you are not able to show, where S. Austen ever alloweth to the creatures. Therefore your distinction of dulias is impertinent, and never owned by S. Austen in this sense. Yea Gregory himself de Valentia, Tom. 3. Disp. 6. Quaest. 11. de Idol. puncto 5. at last awakes, and recants the old error of his consorts, about religious worship, to be given to any but God. Sequitur ex dictis actionem illam, quâ Sanctis honorem damus, proximè non pertinere ad virtutem relligionis, sed ad aliam longè diversam, quae species quaedam obseruantiae erga rationales (no talk of SANCTAS) creaturas sit. And he adds, Quae doctrina est Divi Augustini, quoting lib. 10. de Civit. dei, c. 1. (the very place that we ground upon) & explicatur (says he) à D. Thomâ 2. 2. q. 
* Falsely printed in Valentia, 10. 3.  103. art. 3. & 4. Again, (that you may know it slipped not from him unawares) Actus proprius virtutis relligionis divinam gloriam spectat proximè, & indirco ad deum tantummodò proximè pertinet: Actio verò quâ veneramur Sanctos, non nisi etc. And, Hoc discrimen inter utrumque cultum, dei scilicet & Sanctorum, quod profectò LONG MAXIMUM EST & ADMODUM REAL, indicare volunt Orthodoxi Doctores, cum etc. Then, Quâ sanè ratione illi non differentiam verbalem tantùm assignant, sed eo diverso loquendi modo differentiam illam realem inter utramque colendirationem significant, quam exposuimus iam esse MAXIMAM, inter duas illas virtutes dictas, relligionem nempe erga deum, & peculiarem erga creaturas praestantes (not yet SANCTAS) obseruantian. And repeating the same again, Exposuimus quemadmodum honor Sanctis, non per virtutem relligionis proximè, sed per aliam LONG DIVERSAM exhibeatur. So ashamed is the late jesuit, and ponderer of all the circumstances of this cause, to stand to religious worshipping of creatures, in any sense, though never so diminutive. Yet he proceeds in his rage against Calvin, to contradict himself after so many declarations of his mind. Quanquam si maximè unâ eademque relligionis virtute alium deo, alium Sanctis honorem tribueremus, non equidem satis intelligo quidnam iccirco de divino honore detraheretur, uti fingit Calvinus. Vt enim eâdem virtute charitatis etc. An evident contradiction out of mere malice to Calvine, not that he reputes of his former doctrine. For if there is to be maximum & real discrimen, between our worship of God, and of the creatures, and, LONG DIVERSA VIRTUS, which applies us to them both, etc. how can it be without God's great dishonour, to give the creature his worship, or the creatures to him? But what marvel, when he will have us love God and our neighbour with the like, yea the SAME charity? Which is not to be granted, save so far forth as the name is the same, but the thing most divers. Yet this is his doughty instance of this matter. Will you hear what S. Austen says in other places hereof? Lib. 20. contra Faustum, c. 5. Solus ille colendus, quo solo fruens beatus fit cultor eius, & quo solo non fruens omnis mens misera est, etsi qualibet re aliâ perfruatur. That is, He only is to be worshipped, (namely religiously,) in the fruition of whom stands the blessedness of the worshipper, and by want of whom alone, each soul turns miserable, though it plentifully enjoy all things beside. Are Saints such? Are Angels such? or is any creature in the world such? Yet you tell us most absurdly of a divine cult, Numb. 26. (for so cult you are, or so quilted in your terms) as if there were an inferior and human answering to it. S. Austen knows no colere here, and therefore no adorare, of aught else save God only, in whose fruition alone consists our blessedness, and not in the fruition of one another. And of Martyrs more plainly in the same book, cap. 21. (for Faustus it seems urged him with the Christian practice, which might be straggling in some few, but surely Catholic in the main, as he complains in the same place, that the godly of his age are compelled to bear with many things, which they liked not, and yet could not redress, Aliud est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemus) 
Sic de moritus Eccl. c. 34. etc.  I say, of Martyrs, he thus professeth: Colimus Martyrs, sed eo cultu quo in hac vitâ coluntur Sancti homines. That is, We worship Martyrs, but with such a kind of worship, as holy men are worshipped with, during this life, that is, during their mortality, during their corruption, and that 
Heb. 12. 1.  same fast-cleaving sinfulness; which is wonder if it should stretch so far, as to religious adoration of men, not only frail, but also faulty, and obnoxious. Finally, to omit how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if at least 
Aug. de Morib. Eccl. Cath. c. 30. Meritò ecclesia Catholiea nullam nobis creaturam adorandam inducit, cui servire iubeamur. Removet à creaturâ adorationem etiam eam quae cum simplici servitute coniunctaest. Quorsum ergò de Dulia?  there be any difference, whereas you would have us serve the creature more submissively, and more basely, namely per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God more remissly, by your latria, as you call it, (which is exceeding preposterous, that we should submit to men lower than to God.) as also that the 70. put the one for the other, opus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for a work of religion, but of ordinary household service: Yea the new Testament doth the fame, sometime confounding them, as Apoc. 22. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes complaining of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the creatures (which you are not offended at) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 4. 8. sometime extending even latria to the creature, or seeming to extend it, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 13. 10. To omit these, I say, S. Austen cuts the throat of this bastardly distinction, whom you 
S. Austen would have both duliae and latria given to God, not to Saints. 1 〈◊〉 Lao Serm 8. de Nat. Dom. Ne● sunt gradus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●c. 2  very frivolously entitle the father to it. Quaest. in Exod. 94. he appropriates latria to God as God, dulia to him as Lord. So as, first, worshipping God, we shall worship him in disparity, and in inequality, as if there were any thing in God to be worshipped less than another, and not all to be worshipped after the most excellent fashion that we can. Yea by this means, we shall worship God with the worship of the creature, namely by dulias, if your distinction say true, which how can you think convenient, I pray you? For if God, as the creature, than the creature as God. Why not? Though it is worse to abase God, then to exalt the creature, and yet both most dangerous. Lastly, we must either bring in many Lords into the world, contrary to that, Eph. 4. 5. unus Dominus, likewise Isa. 42. 8. 1. Cor. 8. 6. or else your dulias must come to nothing. I hast to an end.  
§ 15. You rest not satisfied with the Bishop's answer, to those words of S. Ambrose, Crux Christi in regibus adoratur, 
De obit. Theodos.  the cross of Christ is adored in Kings: that, if the cross of Christ be adored in Kings, then with the same adoration that Kings are, which is not spiritual, nor religious. What can you find fault with in this answer? For if the cross with one adoration, and the King with another, be to be adored, it had been more for the commendation of the cross, to have said, we worship it wheresoever, even in the beggarliest creatures, where no cause else appears of worshipping. But because it is true, that when we give honour to the King, we honour per accidens all that he is adorned with, for so much as the Emperors abhorred not the monument of the cross in their attires, S. Ambrose shows how much it hath gained by their conversion, namely to be honoured alike with them, yet civilly still, and not religiously. So S. Austen, as I remember, 
Contra Faust. Manich. Sed & contrà Crese. Grammat. Grammat. 2. c. 15. Honoramus Sacramenta in gestante.  saith, the Sacrament either of Baptism, or Circumcision, is worshipped in the partaker, adoratur in gestante; there the man for the sacrament, here the thing for the man's sake that carried it about him, wins honour and respect: but how? Sicut ipsa incircumcisio in allophylo spernebatur, as the want of the sacrament was despised in a forrreyner. Yet none ever worshipped the sacrament of Baptism religiously (and much less circumcision) as you would have us to do your cross, or your wooden images, though we acknowledge the worth of God's institution, wheresoever we find it. So as neither civil is religious first, nor all adoration the adoration that you strive for, but an honourable esteem, nor the cross the cross, by S. Hieroms exposition, as you shall hear anon. As for defer redemptioni, which you say follows immediately in S. Ambrose, to honour our redemption, that is it that we plead for, and we do that without adoring either wood or picture, yet excited happily by occurring memorials and advertisements whatsoever. As S. Austen acknowledgeth, that ab admonitu locorum we think of the Saints, and endeavour the imitation of them so much the more zealously, when we but come into their Churches (I mean Churches called by their names, not otherwise) lib. 20. contra Faust. c. 21. How much more then, are we ravished with the admiration of our Saviour, considering the very instrument upon which he died for us? So Helen, when she had found, not the sign of 
The Adjoind. of Helen, numb. 29.  the cross, but the very cross itself, or the remainders thereof, S. Ambrose carefully provides his spell, as I may say, to exempt her from blame, that, non utique lignum, she 
Vbi prius.  adored not the wood, which is a heathenish passion, and the vanity of the wicked, saith he. And if she worshipped not the wood, she worshipped nothing of the cross that she found in Palestine, which was all of wood, but her Saviour, and her redeemer, by that occasion lively brought to her remembrance, him she worshipped. Even so they that approached the Emperor in his Court, with the cross in his garments, from thence they rose to think of their redemption. In other cases you may distinguish between lignum (as you are wont) and forma Sancti, or Sanctae, in ligno, but here if not lignum, nothing but redemptorem, and seruatorem, without question. But not lignum, saith S. Ambrose, that is the Pagans error, therefore not ferrum they, nor any such material, whether in boss, or bridle, or in the king's crown. Ego crucem dico, non lignum, sed passionem, saith S. Hierome, in Psal. 46. I by the cross understand Christ's suffering. And when I profess to worship the one, I mean my affection and devotion to the other. And yet you quote a fresh testimony of S. Hierome, uncited by the Cardinal, saying that 
Apolog 2. advers. Ruff.  he adored the cradle and the cratch, coming to Bethleem. No doubt as he did the ashes of Abdias before, in his visitation of the holy places, or as they did in whose person he there speaks. Was our saviours cratch (for cradle he had none) or Abdias ashes, remaining, think you, till then? As for admonitus locorum, as S. Austen speaks, the place was not so ruinous, but it might put him in mind of who had been there sometime. Yet you never so much as mention this explanation of S. Hieroms, concerning the cross, to understand the passion by it, which the Bishop allegeth, whom nevertheless you may accuse for leaving out whole periods, and taking no notice of principal arguments, of which we are now to consider in the second place.  
§ 16. A Second kind of challenge then, you make to the Bishop, for not printing all his adversaries words, but suppressing somewhat of that which was forcible. And you descant merrily, that happily it might be for lack of room in the margin, or some such cause. But what would you say, if he printed none at all, as few do, and as the fashion is, or but very sieldome, now adays? though I have scarcely seen a book that hath so much printed of his adversaries text, especially in the margin, unless it contained all, without any contractions. Is there no refutation unless all be spoken to? what end may we then look for? But at least you should have performed this yourself, afore you taxed others, who of all writers are simply the farthest off from it, not excepting your colleague that lately raged against the Bishop in like sort, as you do now. And if no body had flown upon the Bishop's book, but he which had perused and confuted it, by piecemeal, omitting nothing, the first stone had not yet been cast at it, nor I think ever would be cast, the most of it being such stone-worke, as no less impregnable to your confutation, than rock and flint to your digestion. But I pray let us hear this same notable argument, which dropped through the sieve, when his fellows stayed behind. You say the Bishop's argument, about the covering of sins, hath been an hundred times answered, (in your Numb. 25.) I believe, this no less than a thousand. And indeed how little pertinent was it to the grand question, viz. his majesties challenge of five hundred years? and then how loosely, how wretchedly doth it hang together? As thus, That because Adam fills us full of sins, as soon 
The Card, inferreth with the blessed Apostle, that seeing the sin of Adam was of force to make us truly sinners, the merits and grace of Christ are of far greater force, to purge and cleanse us from our sins, and to make us truly just: otherwise our help is not equivalent to our harm, our remedy to our disease, our rising to our fall, nor our gain to our loss, nor consequently Christ to Adam, etc. The Adjoinders clo quence, numb. 40.  as we are borne, therefore the gift of regeneration, which we have by Christ, replenishes us as suddenly with all manner of righteousness, and evacuates in us the body of sin. Is it not pity this Achilles should have been passed over in silence? Which the ears of our Sophisters every day ring with, and the schools, Churches, streets, with the answer of it. Again, that Adam conveyed inherent corruption to us, therefore the righteousness that we have by Christ is more than imputative. As if first we denied the riches of Christ's grace, to be plentifully 
To the 2.  inherent in the souls of his Saints, as faith, as temperance, as patience, as charitableness, etc. Ibunt de virtute in virtutem: though the main by which we hold, and by which we are saved, is not our own strength, or our own virtue, but the sufficiency only inherent 
Pronihilo salvos facies eos; which construction of the Fathers in this sense, (though deflected) Andradius himself mislikes not, but erounds a rule upon it for the like expositions. Defence. Concil. Trid. calling it, expositio per accommodationem: (belike, though praeter scopum.)  in the person of our Redeemer, which questionless is made ours, because interpreted to be ours, by the father's gracious acceptance, as if ourselves were possessed of it, which is that terrible imputation, that you are so startled with. As if our Lord had not plainly said in S. john's Gospel, drawing towards his death, Ego pro iis Sanctifico me; I sanctify myself for them, showing that both in life and death he wrought for us, he served our turn, and not his own. For even in this sense also, he came to serve and not to be served. But if this be your skill in the principles of Divinity, as not to understand how Christ both saves us by 
* S Hierom Co●…. in Epist. ad Philem, at those words, Mihi imputa, acknowledges the like between Christ and us (for matter of Imputation) is was between Paul and Philemon: saying immediately, Imitator domini sui, & Christum in se loquentem habens, ea debet sacere quae Christus, etc.  imputation, and yet powers upon us the gifts of his holy spirit really, howsoever abated by our indwelling corruption, and therefore not of ability to protect us in the day of judgement, I may doubt also whether you be perfect in Adam's case, upon which you ground your argument, whose very act of eating the forbidden fruit, is so ours, (saith S. Gregory Nazianzen) (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) that it were enough to condemn us, though no other imperfection had 
●rat in S. Baptis●….  been conveyed from him unto us. And so the merits of our Lord, which are without us, save us, his fasting, his praying, his weeping, his bleeding (like Adam's reaching, eating, and presuming) though each of them convey a certain positive store unto us, the second Adam of holiness, as the first doth of viciousness. But I have stood too long upon so trifling an objection, specially since the Apostle never compares them in this point, in his 5. to the Rom. which you here quote, I mean the one in ministering righteousness, as much as the other doth sin, and that presently, but either grace answerable to former trespasses, which grace is in remitting, not only in replenishing; in forgiving, not only in infusing; or the number of the one people, with the number of the other, that belong to each root, viz. Adam and Christ, (where by the way you tell us, numb. 39 your Latin translation saith, Plures per Christum quam per Adamum, more are restored by Christ, then are perished in Adam, which were worth the knowing how:) or last, that in the substance of their gift they may be equalled, though the remedy come halting after the offence in time, like Light after Ate. Regnabunt justi, v. 17. &, constituentur, v. 19 (both future.) And so to the Cor. Primò quod animale, 
1. 15.  deinde quod spirituale, and as the Psalm says, Which day by day were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them, but in thy book they were all written, viz. the members of the inward man and all. And, ut sit sine maculâ & rugâ, that she 
Aug. l. 2. Ré●r. &, lib. de perfect. justiciae. Hieron. etiam in Hier. 31. Bernard. in fest. omn. Sanct. homil. 3. Thom. part. 3. q. 8. art. 3. ad 1. To the I.  may be without spot and wrinkle, not that now she is so, (S. Austen so construing it) Eph. 5. And, justorum lux sicut aurora, crescens paulatim usque ad perfectum diem: The light of the righteous is like the morning (saith Solomon) which flasheth not forth all at once, but by little and little creepeth on to perfect day. By which also you are answered, to your first cavil of the two above propounded, concerning our first birth from Adam, and our second regeneration by Christ. Whereas we are regenerating here all the time of our life, (you happily think it is done in a moment) for which cause 
Ista decem menses non peperere bona. Prop.  it is called, the Regeneration by our Saviour, even the resurrection of the dead is, Matth. 19 28. A most true saying, Non moritur hostis, nisi in resurrectione mortuorum. August, in Psal. and, Moriendo nascimur, it must cost us our life, in this sense most of all. Hence it is, that S. Paul, Phil. 4. Non quòd peruenerim ad resurrectionem mortuorum, not that as yet I have attained (saith he) to the resurrection of the dead. Alas, who had? But he means of his slow creeping to perfection daily, I suppose like that of Jonathan's armour-bearer, towards the top of an high mountain, upon his hands and his knees, so between humble prayer & fervent endeavour. Contrary to which opinion of S. Paul, touching himself, Hymenaeus & Philetus proudly gave out that the resurrection was already past, viz. on their sides, as if they had been at the top of the ladder of perfection, much like to that which the Jesuits dream of now a days among themselves. See, 2. Tim. 2. 17. And Canus expounding it in the aforesaid sense, (which I report for his commendation) lib. 4. locorum, cap. 6.  
§ 17. To Numb. 35. That, justin Martyr, Origen, Hierome, Austen, Gregory the great, and collation (as you say) of the Scriptures themselves teach, that covering of sins is a full remission of them, may well make against you, that hold punishments of sins to remain to be abidden after remission, as if God would punish what he had once pardoned, yea truly and fully pardoned, as saith the Cardinal: against us nothing 
Card. in Apol. c. 7. p. 84. l. 19 as the Adjoinder quoteth him in this 9 cap. numb. 33. pag. 387.  at all, who teach, that our sins are so pardoned, when they are pardoned, as we shall never come into condemnation for them, Rom. 8. though the spring of old corruption be not clean dried up in us. The Apostle saying there, not that there is no crime in us, but no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after we are engrafted into Christ, and, non ne insit, sed ne obsit, as S. Austen speaks, peccatum regnans being one thing, and peccatum inhabitans another, and the jebusite not so easily turned out of doors, to use S. Bernard's allegory. Yet most 
Vbi prius.  pitifully you quote the Cardinal, saying, that it is Christ's disgrace, if he could not truly and properly purge, or make clean those, that are borne again in him. As if it were for want of power in Christ, that we are not suddenly perfited, that the jebusite is not cast out upon the sudden. Whereas rather his power is perfected in weakness, and, his Grace is sufficient for us: and as God would not suddenly cast out all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan before the children of Israel, 
josh. 17.  because they were not enough to empeople the Country, thinking it the more easy affliction of the two, that they should be encumbered with enemies, then overrun with wild beasts; so here to keep out pride, like a wild beast, and to exercise us with daily struggling against concupiscence our enemy, (our foe, the foams) Almighty God hath deferred to work a perfect regeneration of us, though he hath granted from the beginning a perfect remission, which is your monstrous error, not to distinguish between remitting and removing faults, between releasing them and rooting them clean out.  
§ 18. The like I say to your quotations out of Esay, and divers other Prophets, Numb. 36. namely, that the iniquity of God's people shall be taken away, wiped, or blotted out, abolished like a cloud, like a dew, like a mist, that our sins shall be buried in the bottom of the sea, that he hath removed them as far from us as the East is from the West, that our sin shall be sought and not be found, with many the like: Quoad reatum nimirum, not quoad vitium, in regard of the guilt, not in regard of the fault, of the stain, of the corruption, which hath taken deep rooting in mortality, and is not pulled out, but with 
Cor ipsum eum cupiditatibus evellendum. Sen.  our very heart. We revolve all these sentences, with unspeakable comfort, for securing of our conscience against the hour of tentation, though we dare not wax insolent, because of the sense of our infirmity, continuing in us, that we can not do as we would, Gal. 5. 17. and for that no good thing dwelleth in our flesh, and, we see a law of sin in our members, rebelling against the law of our mind, yea and leading us captive to the law of sin, Rom. 7. But, cum venerit quod perfectum est, abolebitur quod imperfectum, and when this mortality shall put on immortality, and our corruptible be clothed with incorruption, when we shall see him as he is, and be satisfied with his likeness, than it will be otherwise with us. You in the mean time are all for the present, as if the Jerusalem were on earth which comes down from heaven, and is not ready for her husband yet, but yet is making ready daily. For when you bring in that among the rest, that sins like scarlet shall be made as white as snow, you must beware how you stretch it too far, beyond the sense, though you are a partial friend to the cardinals scarlet, whose cause you plead, and which perhaps you look to inherit one day: neither think that sins shall ever turn so white, as to become virtues, but the indulgence of a father, forgiving all that is amiss, turns scarlet to snow, into innocence guiltiness. And that is by not imputing, not by clean abolishing. So David's, Wash, yea wash me more and more, makes more and more against yourself, when you quote it most: for this shows, that we are never washed clean enough whiles we live here, but though God hath begun to make a renovation in us, yet still we cry, and have cause to cry with David, O Lord wash me yet more and more. Whereunto if one should object, as you are not very forward, that, Qui jotus est, non habet opus nisi ut pedes lavet, etc. although that may seem to set out the singleness of the Sacrament of Baptism, which without horrible sacrilege cannot be reiterated, yet applying it to the daily defunctions of our penitence, we may answer briefly, that we are totipedes, more feet and more soil than a man would think. As for your numb. 37. where you heap as many places out of the new Testament (as before out of the old,) testifying that Christ hath purged our sins, purified our hearts, canceled our debts, killed enmities, exhausted corruptions, that we might be holy, immaculate, and irreprehensible before him, etc. This is first true in the Saints that are in heaven, who have shaken of this yoke of woeful bondage, and in regard of our Saviour it is true de merito, concerning us too, their unhappy survivors, though our indisposition delay the complementum of it, for which we sigh, and groan, and wait, and attend, though our eyes waste with looking for his salvation. O Lord I have looked for thy salvation, saith the Patriarch, even when he was ready to die. So happy are they, to whom, I say not in senectute, but in morte contigerit huc aspirare, as he says; Cui suspiramus semper. Where you say that no guile must be in the spirit, Psal. 32. 2. and therefore sin is clean purged in the just, you are to know that all sin is not guile, but the sin of hypocrisy, dissembling our sinfulness, and rejoicing sinisterly in our supposed perfection, of which let them take heed that dance to your pipe, and delight in your doctrine. The Psalm opposeth it there to dum tacui in the next verse, v. 3. for where there is tacui, there is guile, where no guile no tacui. And the Saints in the Revelation had no guile found in their mouths, because they confessed they were sinners, saith S. Austen.  
§ 19 ANother fault of the Bishops, is here complained of, that he hath not laid down at full the Cardinal's argument, out of the Epistle of Theodosius to the Council of Ephesus, by which is showed who should be present at general councils. And I hope it is no matter, whether he lay it down at length or no, so he answer it. But you that undertake the refutation of the Bishop's answer to the cardinals Apology, why do you mention but one part of his answer to this very argument? Is not this a worse fault, and yet in the same kind? As for example, one part of the Bishop's answer was this, that a Count and a King be not all one, and when Theodosius forbade the Count to meddle, he precluded not himself. This you mention, but the rest you leave out. First, that it appears Theodosius did not set this law to himself, to be no meddler in Counsels, because he assembled it, yea confirmed it, and ratified the Acts of it, which Count Candidian might not do. Secondly, that the Emperor exhorted this noble Courtier and Count Candidian, to suppress them that were at odds, and to curb the humour of such as loved jangling. Could this be without his interposing in their tractate, which are the words that you stand upon? 
Can 69. of approaching the Altar.  And you shall find in the Trullan Council, that other laymen are forbidden that thing, the liberty whereof is reserved to the Emperor notwithstanding. So might it be here. And indeed who would ever retort upon a King out of his own words, or bind Theodosius as it were with his own girdle, so with his own Epistle, 
This is like the woman-philosophers elench, apud Laert. l. 8. in Hipparch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non sequitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which he never meant should yoke himself? To omit, that Constantine carried himself like a Bishop, witness 
* De vit. Constant. l. 1. c. 37. see ibid. l. 3. c. 13. item c. 22. 23. etc.  Eusebius, nay Bishop over Bishops, that is the ecumenical Bishop, which you would be glad if your Pope had the like plea for himself, to intermeddle with the matters of Constantine, and of the Empire. Why then might not Theodosius? Or though only Bishops, as you would feign force, may have to do in Counsels, yet why should Theodosius or Constantine sit out, that are Bishops without the Church, as others are within, and during divine service? See Sozom. l. 4. c. 21. of Leonas and Laritius, two lay-Courtiers, one satelles aulae, another praefectus militum, as the author styles them, sent to the Council of Seleucia in Isauria, de mandato Constantij, by Constantius his commandment, that in their presence de fide accuratè inquireretur, strict inquiry might be made of Faith. And when some Bishops would not enter into disputation about things controverted, because of the absence of other, Leonas tamen jussit de fide disceptari, Leonas nevertheless commanded them to confer about religion. In the Council of Syrmium, the Emperor likewise appointed judges precedent of his own palace, doctrinâ & auctoritate caeteris praestantes, in all likelihood but laymen. Idem Sozom. lib. 4. c. 5. And cap. 13. of the same book, Constantius letter to the Church of Antioch, and the Bishops there assembled, contains thus; Placet prohibere à conventibus Ecclesiasticis, It is our pleasure to forbid certain from Ecclesiastical assemblies. You may say now, if you will after all this, that Emperors have nothing to do in Counsels, and that Theodosius meant to bar himself by his own letter, or else that he knew not the right which Constantius exercised, and was descended to him by succession even from Constantine. But there is a letter of Theodos. and Valentinian, jointly extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council, the 3. in number, in Surius his edition, beginning thus, Praeclarissimo Comiti, etc. Which you may do well to read, to see what lay Emperors may do in councils. You shall see how he checks the whole Council there, for there partiality and partaking, for their tumults and sicut non conveniebat, and how he concludes the matter, Quapropter Maiestati nostrae visum est, ut huiusmodi authoritas nullo pacto locum habeat, & quae inordinatè sunt gesta cassentur. Wherefore it seemed good to our Majesty, that such authority should by no means take place, and that those things be abrogated or disannulled, which were disorderly done. Yea how he ties the Bishops to their residence at the Council, forbidding any to depart, and how he sets an Oportet upon omnia corroboranda sunt à nostrâ pietate, and lastly how he ends most imperially and worthily, Maiestas nostra non hominum aliquorum, sed ipsius doctrinae ac veritatis curam gerit! Our Majesty takes not care of men's persons, but of (Gods) truth, and the [heavenly] doctrine. The like he doth in the Epistle that you quote, and namely chargeth them to hear no accusations, but proceed to discussion of faith only.  
§ 20. TO your numb. 42. and 43. what we hear from witnesses, though sure and certain witnesses, yet we do but hear, when you have made the most of it. So as the Bishop might well say, Augustinus nihil praeter auditum habet, Austen hath nothing more than hearsay, 
Of Felix his apparition after death, ex Aug. de cutâ pro mortu●…. c. 1●.  meaning he reports not this of his own knowledge, though he would not seem to deny credit to those witnesses. Which many a man (to say truth) is loath to do, I mean to detract any thing from the credit of the reporter, even then when he scarce believes that which is told. As for the assistance of Angels, or apparition of Saints, it proves not that it is lawful for us to pray to them (as hath been showed before) and therefore it matters not greatly whether that of Felix be true or no. Sure it is, that S. Austen in the same book where he tells this, de curâ promortuis, argues from the saying of holy Scripture, Abraham hath not known us, nor Israel, etc. that Saints departed are ignorant, if not careless, or forgetful, of our state here. A figure whereof there may seem to be in the story of joseph, whom the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt Apostolo, Heb. 13.  butler forgot as soon as himself was escaped out of prison, (as it were the Saint newly departed out of the body, and 
* I mean not a culpable oblivion in the Saints, as was in the Butler, but as they complain in Esay, Israel nescivit nos, or, Terra oblivionis, in job; and, All his thoughts perish. In sepulchre quis meminit tu●… Pl. 6. a Joseph's.  forgetting his late fellows in pilgrimage) the rather, because both a Philo and the Rabbins say, that God ordained this of special purpose, that only himself might be seen in Joseph's exaltation, without the cooperation of any man: even as now he would have us to beg of him, not of Saint or Angel. But is not that pretty, numb. 44. that though the Saints appear not in their own persons, yet the apparition may well be called theirs, viz. because Angels appear for them, in their name and likeness? as if the Devil did not counterfeit their name and likeness too, and therefore he appearing, they may be said to appear, as well as when the Angels, by this reason. Yet most ridiculously you add, that Angels appear for the Saints merits, and so the Angel's apparition is the Saints apparition. But first, we have told you our mind about merits, in the former part of this book, which if any were in this life, yet none in the other, none in patriâ, where the Saints are. They have done meriting, and yet to merit for others, is more abominable then for ones self; but for men to merit, that Angels should come, and do offices in their name, is most absurd of all, and therefore worthy of F. T. whatsoever he is. At last, you grant in the same Numb. that not only Saints may appear in the shape of Angels, but God himself hath done so de facto, as Gen. 18. Exod. 3. to Abraham, and to Moses. Yet, afore you said, that the Angel whom Abraham worshipped, was a created Angel, numb. 14. How does this hang together? As for that you interlace, that no shape can represent God, it is so true, that S. Isidore, upon Exod. 3. says, God appeared to Moses, in rubo, in a bush, because the bush is unfittest of all shrubs to be graven or made an image 
2. Cor. 4. 4. Christ is the image of the invisible God. As who would say, No image of God (because invisible) but only Christ. In him we see God.  of. But then, how do you not tremble, to have images in your Churches, and images of God? Whereas the Council in Trullo, Canone 83. forbids Christ to be painted in the form of a lamb, which is far more tolerable than the holy Ghost like a dove.  
§ 21. WELL, num. 45. you fall to a third kind of accusation of the Bishop. But there you commit that very fault, which was the last 
This fault is called by the Adjoinder, The Bishop's abuse of Authors, partly in wresting their sense, partly in fraudulent citation of them. And I will begin, saith he, with his abuse of the Cardinal.  that you blamed him for, though without cause, as I have showed. Quoting Calvins words, lib. 3. Institut. c. 14. as they lie in Bellarmine, your other self (I and the Cardinal, or else it is no bargain) where you leave out the Paragraph, or the section of the chapter, to hide your craft the more, you clip off those words also (words of moment) si in se censeantur: and only say, that, no work can pass from holy men, by Calvin's verdict, which doth not deserve the just reward of shame. True, Sir, if you take in all that Calvine says, namely, if it be weighed strictly, rigorously, and in itself, without any overshadowing of the divine pity. Si in se censeantur. Refute this, if you can. In the mean time you allege the author corruptly, which is the thing that you declaim against; stealing, and crying out against theft both at one time.  
§ 22. What mislikes you in the Bishops antithesis, that he makes to the Cardinal's disputation about the justice of works? I believe nothing more than that you cannot brook it, and yet know not how to put it off. Opponi potuisse, hast non potuisse refelli. I have heard some praise this one passage, as the flower of the Bishop's book, although they thought honourably of all. Vulnerasti me uno crine tuo, or, uno oculo tuo, may we say with the Spouse, though Tota pulchra, by his confession elsewhere. But you must be allowed so much the rather to carp at it. Fortuna attonat summa (as Maecenas was wont to say,) and no less, Procacitas rodit. For the Cardinal's modesty, 
Adjoind. Num. 54. Ostentation of merits so far from the Cardinal's humility and 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉.  as he is a private man, it is nothing to the purpose, whatsoever you prate, unless you will weigh by that the dangerousness of your doctrine, fraught with such insolences, that it may make even a modest man to turn proud. And if that be true, which here you pretend, that when we teach that the form of our justification before God, stands in his free mercy, not imputing our sins to us, we take away all use of a future judgement, by consequence of that doctrine, doth not the Bishop as truly, and most pithily, retort, that if you can be justified by your works here, you may as well also forbear any other judgement? How does the first of these, evacuate the judgement, which we believe in the Creed, more than the second? Or why should not a judgement be held for this cause, as well that it may be seen and made known to the whole world, whom God hath acquitted and whom not, to whom he imputes their sins, and to whom not, who have laid hold upon him by faith & who not, as who have kept the law, wrought righteousness, fulfilled the commandments, and who not? Besides, that if our actions be partly pure, and partly impure, as both Bernard and Gregory acknowledge, in those sentences which the Bishop quoted, and you suppress, the judgement may be for the notifying of them both, the one to acceptation, the other to remission and pardon, why not? And the good that is in them, the cleaner part as I may so call it, though not published nor accepted ad meritum salutis, to the merit of salvation, which is your blasphemy, as if we might be saved by our well doings, yet ad cumulum gloriae, to the improovement of our reward, and to acquire a degree of pre-eminence in 
And this not secundum exigentiam operis, but either proportionem studierum, or condecentiam b●… d●…. They are the words of your own shop.  the kingdom, which both you acknowledge, and ourselves deny not, as hath been told you heretofore. And yet again, for so 
Cap. 3. ●…s.  much as faith is that by which we attain salvation, not only the cumulum, or degree of glory, but the very first interest in our salvation, 
Faith in essentiali, and as it is habitus. For augmentum and intensio, belong ad grad●… gloriae, or ad cumulum praem●…, as other v●…tues do in their total.  I say, which faith is counterfeited by diverse hypocrites that have it not, why should not works come to be examined in the judgement, as the cognisances of our faith, the obrussa, or the touchstone, according to the saying, Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos, and Gal. 5. Faith profiteth indeed, but, if it work by love? Agreeable whereunto our Saviour Matth. 25. though he pronounce the blessing upon such only as have fed himself, clothed him, and visited him, which is faiths proper object, to be conversant about 
* Maria autem assidebat Christo, while Martha attends other necessary provisions, A semblant perhaps of Faith and her sister Charity.  CHRIST, and to make all towards him, yet he descries it by our works done to our neighbours, In quantum minimis hisce fecistis, mihi. Insomuch as you have done it to one of these little ones, you have done it to me: that is to say, your works have approved your faith, and your respect to mine, shows your trust in me. Lastly, the last judgement may by no means be spared, though only faith, and not imputation of sins, be there predominant (as not only S. Basile, of whom you have often heard, but S. chrysostom 
De Humilitate. Com. in Epi●… ad Colos p. 114. Edit. Etonensis, Nobilissi●… D. Savilij.  also could say, long before Luther was borne, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, by faith only without any of these workings) I say, the last judgement may by no means be spared, though faith only should there reign, if it be but to make manifest to the mundus circumfusus, to the nations round about us, what the riches of God's grace is in pardoning our offences, in receiving to favour such recreant sinners, without any deserts of ours either afore or after, how his mercy weighs down all his works. Is this a small cause of erecting the throne, or exercising the judgement, the manifestation of God's glory? But 
Stella, Suarez, with Bellarm, and diverse others, plead for an honourable salvation, which they think is by our works. As if we were to God, as Tully to Caesar, Minus me debere tibi putarem, si ut sceleratum me à te conseruatum existimarem. Pro Marcell. Which is nothing so. But, cum adhuc inim●ci essemus. Rome 5.  because you aim only at your own glory, therefore that being taken away, you would take away the judgement too, and the thrones and all. And lo, you are not ashamed to urge that place of the Apostle, 2. Tim. 4. 8. Quam reddet mihi justus judex, as if justus were not as much as clemens and misericors, in the scripture phrase, as Matth. 1. 19 joseph being a just man, would not shame his wife, nor expose her to censure, no more will God us for his iustice-sake, that he will exercise in that day, that is, his clemency and his pity. Even as it follows in the Apostle, omnibus diligentibus adventum eius: yet, to all that love and desire his coming; which we should dread and fear, and 
Mercy rejoiceth against judgement. jac. 2. 13. specially in that day, and in altero saeculo saith S. Austen For he had said a little before, as of the time to come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not love nor long after, if justice were so rife, or so bestirred herself, as you would make, and the account that we were to render, of our life, and actions, to be none other than so, that we must answer Almighty God for our carriage to a hair, or else clean perish, as the Cardinal fancieth. 
Born. in Cant. serm. 71. Ego fidenter mihi usurpo ex visceribus domini mei, etc. Anselm exhort. all fratrem moriturum: Obijcio mortent filii tui inter te & me, aliter tecum non contendo. Idem in meditat. Conscientia mea meruit damnationeni, poenitentia mea non sufficit ad satisfactionem, sed misericordia tua super omne opus meum. What marvel, cum super omne opus suum?  Can any better account be made to God, of our actions, then by opposing the death and passion of his son, to the rigour of his justice, for whatsoever we have done amiss, and been faulty in? But so much may suffice to have spoken hereof.  
§ 23. Numb. 55. and so 56. and 57 you do nothing but sing your Cuckoo's song, what corruptions of the Bishop you have formerly discovered, about S. Ambrose, S. Austen, and S. Cyrill, as also the Council of Calchedon, and the African Synod, with Theodoret's commentary. All which have been cleared by me before. And though you have this trick by yourself, clean differing from the fashion of all other writers, that ever I read, to repeat, and reiterate, and resing your own glories; yet we, non habentes talem consuetudinem, thus pass on.  
§ 24. Epiphanius, you say, never reprehended praying to the 
Haeres 77. apud Epiph. quae Collyridian.  Virgin Marie, but sacrifice only in the Collyridian gossips. And was their sacrifice without prayer? or could it well be? Remember I pray, your own principles: then show where Epiphanius, reproving the sacrifice, excepts praying, and condemns not all their foppery in gross. Yet he scans the point nicely, and shows what we may give to the Virgin without offence, what we may not, in all which, of prayer not a word that he vouchsafes her. What marvel, when he acknowledges such virtue in prayer, in comparison of sacrifice, that he says elsewhere, the sacrifice of prayer, turned 
Anchorato.  the old Testament into the new, even before the Gospel. At least therefore now, prayer and praise, is our best sacrifice, under the new Testament, and not to be afforded to any but God. But because when you stand for the invocation of Saints, you deny not but it is an act of the adoration belonging to them, and refer it to the cult that you so foolishly talked of not long before, you shall hear how often Epiphanius debarreth all adoration from the Virgin, in the treatise aforenamed, against the woman's heresy (for so also he 
Totum hoc mulieris opinio est. And Hi enim qui hoc docent, quinam sunt praeterquam multeres?  termeth it) never adjudging any adoration to her, of what kind soever, never prayers, and much less praying to her there himself, though he shut up that discourse 
* Pergamus deum invocantes ut opituletur, quò veritatis partes investigemus, etc. And in like sort he had begun, Pro viribus deum invocantes contra hanc haeresim dicemus. And, Vt quorundam rabiem in Deo exoluere possimus, etc.  with a prayer to God, not so much as mentioning her. First, condemning the worshipping of Saints, & the use of images, both in one, and making the devil to be the author of both. unde non est simulachrificum hoc studium, & diabolicus conatus? [How can this be but an idolous piece of work, or a devilish attempt?] Praetextu enim justitiae semper subiens hominum mentem diabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, statuas humanas imagines prae se ferentes per artium varietatem expressit: [For the devil always creeping into men's minds, under the colour of righteousness, deifying the frail nature in the eyes of men, hath framed images resembling men's countenances, by diversity of skill, etc.] Et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur, ipsorum verò imagines quae 
The dead not to be worshipped.  nunquam vixerunt adorandas introducunt, adulterante mente ab uno & solo deo, velut commune scortum, etc. [And (first) they are dead men whom they worship (which should not be:) 
Much less images either of dead or living.  (secondly) they bring in their images (inferior to the dead parties themselves) which are not dead indeed, and good cause why, because they never were alive, and nothing can die, but that which once lived.] By which we see, that Epiphanius would have that only to be adored, which (first) liveth, and (secondly) dieth not, or cannot die again. Such as only God is, as the Apostle speaks, who only hath immortality; neither Saint, nor Angel, in that sort. Then follow his terms of detestation of this practice, that the mind by so doing, runs a whoring from the one and only God (only God therefore is the object of chaste worshippers) like a common harlot, that hath outlived all honesty, and keeping of trust in wedlock, itching and tickling after innumerable enormities of divers lustfulnes, etc. (which is notably to be seen in the Romish Church this day, who leaving God, and declining to creatures, could keep no ho, no measure, in their misdemeanours.) But (as if one had objected, what is this to the Virgin Marie, and the worshipping of her? for she is not every body; Is adoration 
Whereas Epiphan. in all this tract, dwelleth so much upon those words, speaking of B. Marry, Non est Deus, she is no God, it is a greater abatement of her honour, then perhaps the Pap. will grant, who will easily say, that they hold her not for God, (though some of them have called her so, even lately) and it may be expounded by that of Dionys. in Epist. 4. ad Caium Monachum, jesus ne homo quidem erat, non quòd non esset homo, sed quòd homines longè superaret. The Virgin is denied to be God therefore, as not so highly Superior, no not to men.  proper to none but God?) Epiphanius therefore adds, confirming our assertion; Reverà, Sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen deus, Revera virgo erat ipsa virgo, & honorata, sed non ad adorationem nobis data, sed ipsa adorans, etc. That is, No doubt the body of Marie was holy (he calls her Marie still, as 
* Hieron. ad Theodoram v. duam de morte Lucini Betici mariti sui: & addit, Confundatur haresti quae ideo incerta & magna promittit (to the Saints no doubt) ut quae certa & moderata sunt auferat.  S. Hierome in the like case, Let them know, saith he, Mariam Mariam, that Marie is but Marie) her body was holy, but [she was] no god: no doubt the 
a Virgo, virgo, like S. Hieromes Maria, Maria.  Virgin was a virgin, and [also] 
* Not so much as magis eximia, But with the Papists no superlatives are enough in their Hyperduliae● Epiphan. removes from her the comparative degree here.  honourable, but she was not given us to worship, but herself worshipped him, who sprang of her according to the flesh (Christ) etc. Et proptereà, evangelium munit nos dicens, quòd ipse Dominus dixerit, Quid mihi & tibi est mulier? nondum venit hora mea. Quò non putarent aliqui magis eximiam esse sanctam Virginem, mulierem eam appellavit, velut prophetans quae futura esset in terrâ, sectarum ac haerese●n gratiâ, ut ne aliqui NIMIUM ADMIRATI SANCTAM, in hanc haeresim eiusque deliramenta dilabantur. Est enim ludibrium tota res, & anicularum fabula, ut ita dicam, tota haeresis tractatio. That is, [And therefore the Gospel armeth us, saying, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad Timoth. This day rife in Popery, and specially about the Virgin. See Don●. aliens. Resp ad Apol. p. 175.  that our Lord himself said, What have I to do with thee woman? mine hour is not yet come. To the end that some might not think that the holy Virgin was more excellent, he called her [barely] woman, as it were foreshowing what should happen in the world by way of sects and heresies [concerning her] that some through too great admiration of that holy [woman] might not slide into this heresy, and the dotage thereof. For in very truth, all this whole passage, is nothing but a mere mockery, and a toy, and an old wives tale, etc.] Then, Quae verò scriptura de hoc narravit? Quis Prophetarum praecepit hominem adorari, nedum mulierem? That is, [And I pray what Scripture informeth us hereof? Which of the Prophets commanded any man to be worshipped, and if not a man, much less a woman?] See you how he reduceth this controversy to Scripture? yet the Adjoind. makes no reckoning of scripture 
So Concil. Eliber. (a very ancient Council of Spain) can. 60. condemns a practice (seeming most religious) Quia in evangelio non est scriptum, neque invenitur ab Apostolis unquam factitatum: Because the Apostles did it not, and the Gospels have it not.  in this question, so we have miracles & traditions, and other observations. Well; it was lawful for Epiphanius to fly to that, Quae verò Scriptura? And, Quis Prophetarum praecepit, & c? See you also how he prefers not a few before the Virgin? For, we must not worship man, saith he, and much less a woman, belike though it be the Virgin herself. Eximium quidem est vas, sed mulier, & nihil à naturâ immutata. That is; [An excellent vessel she is no doubt, but yet a woman, and not a whit changed in regard of her nature.] Further, Honoured she is, but as the bodies are of the Saints, and if I may say any more towards the magnifying of her, sicut Elias, sicut johannes, sicut Thecla, Like Elias, like john, like Thecla. Only herein (saith Epiphan.) more honourable than Thecla, that she was employed to be the instrument of the mysterious birth of our Lord. But suppose she be like only to other Saints, may not they be worshipped? Epiphanius proceeds. Sed neque Elias adorandus est, etiamsi in vivis sit, neque johannes adorandus, neque Thecla, neque quisquam Sanctus adoratur. Not only no dead Saint, but not so much as they that never died, may be adored. (This, though we should 
The Virgin not assumed in Epiphan. opinion. Where I cannot but exemplifit the ●…regious fondness of him that compiled the Index to Epipha●. latin, of the Paris edition, 1564. that scores the pag. 107. l. t. to n. 3. to prove that Epiphan held the virgin's body to be assumed. For what words think you? By which only he would show that the flesh is not simply evil, because the Virgin cum suá 〈◊〉 p●ssideb●t regn●m c●…, etc. The assumption of the Virgin, is left in dulio, by Charles. Legum F●…. l. 1. c. 158.  grant that the Virgin was assumed; though Epiph. seem rather to argue à maiori, and to count her among the dead.) Neither Elias is to be adored, nor john to be adored, nor Thecla, nor any Saint is to be adored. Was it not possible, that Epiph. should light upon your distinction of diminutive adoration, that so often, so peremptory, denies it to the Saints, that it is lawful to adore them, and never comes in and expounds himself? Non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, ut relinquamus viuentem, & adoremus ea quae ab ipso facto sunt. [For we will not be overruled with the ancient error, that we should leave the living [God,] and worship the things which he hath made.] First, errors though ancient, shall not overrule Epiphanius; nor antiquity therefore if it be erroneous. Secondly, old errors are old errors still, with Epiphanius, though new scoured, and new whetted, as this by the jesuits. Lastly, he will not adore any thing that is factum, that is, any creature, and if he should do so, he thinks he should relinquere viventem, leave the living God: which consequence the jesuits will not yield to at this day, nor no doubt would the Gossips then in their mad service, but say that they stuck constant to the living God, and yet worshipped the Virgin, as his notable instrument, by a subordinate kind of devotion. And though the margin of the book, translated by a Papist, by a Papist corrected, and printed by Papists, with an epistle before it, thus superscribed, Omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae filijs, etc. To all the sons of 
Epi●h. interpret jano Cornario, cum repurgatione ind●●●s, & praefatione totius libri per jacobum Fabrum, Doctorem Sorbonicum, i●pressus Par. sijs. 1564. The Papists notes upon Epiphanius concerning Popery.  the Roman Catholic Church: I say though the margin of the book, thus by many interests Popish, in the edition, may seem to have acknowledged no less, than we plead for, by noting as it doth in the side of it, Imagines damnatae, that is, Images are here condemned; and again, Sancti non adorandi, Saints are not to be adored, or worshipped, &c. Yet let us go on with Epiphanius a step further. Coluerunt enim & adorarunt creaturam praeter creatorem, etc. It is a trespass with Epiphanius to worship the creature, or to adore the creature, (for he puts both) praeter creatorem, beside the creator; that is, though you exclude not the worship of the Creator, but only take in the worship of the creature. Si enim Angelos adorari non vult, quanto magis eam quae genita est ab Anna, etc. non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam, sed sicut omnes, ex semine viri, & utero mulieris. Here, here, arrige aures Pamphile. Here you should do well to list a while, you Polyphilus, or rather Pamphilus, of all bastard Deities. For if (saith he) God will not have the Angels to be worshipped, how much more will he not have her which was borne of Anna, and yet not borne otherwise, than the fashion is, & nature of all mankind, but etc. Two great points assoiled by Epiph. in these few words. One, that the Virgin Marie was not conceived, nor borne, after extraordinary manner, as the Jesuits affirm, but even as others are, which must needs be in sin, and in corruption. Another, that she is not so exalted in heaven, but inferior to the Angels, or else the consequence were not good, If not the Angels, much less Mary, or the daughter of Anna. There are yet more clauses against the adoration of the Virgin, in this tract of Epiph. Non tamen ut adoretur virgo. And, Sat in honore Maria, but Pater, & filius, & spiritus Sanctus adorentur. Again, Mariam nemo adoret, non dico mulierem, immo neque virum. And, Deo debetur hoc mysterium. Deleantur quae malè scripta sunt in cord deceptorum. Tollatur ex oculis cupiditas ligni. Conuertatur rursus figmentum ad Dominum. Ne quis comedat de errore qui est propter Mariam: nam & lignum non erat error, sed per lignum, etc. So by abuse of the blessed Virgin, creeps in error into the Church. And, Etsi pulchrum est lignum, sed tamen non ad cibum. So, Etsi pulcherrima est Maria, & Sancta, & honorata, at non ad adorationem. There are these, I say, and more sentences yet, tending that way, but aut hoc satis est testimoniorum (as he was wont to say testium,) aut ego nescio quid sit satis. Epiphanius himself seems to be weary of his own prolixities. Therefore I will conclude with him. Quò verò non longiùs extendam sermonem, sufficiant nobis relata. Maria in honore sit, Dominus adoretur. justi enim nemini exhibent errorem. Neque tentat Deus aliquem, neque servi ipsius ad deceptionem. That is, [And that I may prolong my discourse no farther, it shall suffice to have said thus much. Let Mary be honoured, but let God be worshipped or adored. The Saints lead none into error. God tempts none, nor his servants tempt none to deceive them.] Meaning, that if visions or apparitions of Saints, be brought to prove the lawful worshipping of them, we should not believe them. What bring you next?  
§ 26. Num. 58. You challenge the Bishop, for saying that Gregory siluit de quinto generali Concilio, said nothing of the fifth general Council, viz. when he professed his devotion to the other four. And though you might answer yourself by his words in the same place, Quatuor prima tantum honore HOC dignatus est, he honoured only the four first, with THIS honour, or with so much honour, so as his meaner commendations of the fifth general Council, may seem to 
The Bish. words are in the same place, Magnificè de quatuor pri●…, etc.  be a certain comparative silence thereof; I say, though you might answer yourself thus, out of the place which you quote, pag. 160. Respons. ad Apolog. yet suppose that all this did but go to the objection, as I see you take it in to no other purpose, nevertheless you might have found the plain solution thereof, if you had turned but a little further, viz. pag. 182. in summo paginae, where the Bishop both acknowledgeth that which you here oppose him with, out of S. Gregory's words, Quintum quoque 
Pariter is not aequaliter with S. Gregory, but as the Adjoinder truly Englishes it (for lack of too much Latin perhaps) together with. And it is to be noted, that S. Greg. lib. 3. cp. 37. is easily persuaded by Constantius Bishop of Milan, to pass over the fifth Council, & quatuor solummodo synodos laudare. Whereas it had been hard to leave out one of the 4. Gospels, for scandals sake. Ergo he held it not in the account, which he doth the other. The Bishop allegeth not only Gregory, but Isidore, who names quatuor Synodos principales, and no more. But of him not a word from F. T. because he was not for his carping.  pariter veneror, etc. and gives you answer, even afore your objection was hatched, by explaining his meaning, to this effect; Gregorius quatuor prima Concilia sicut quatuor evangelia, veneratur & suscipit. Quatuor prima Concilia quadratus lapis ei sunt, in quo fidei vitaeque structura consurgit. Qui etsi veneratur, & quintum, non de eo tamen tam sensit honorificè. That is, Gregory reverenceth and receiveth the 4. first councils, like the four Gospels. The four first councils are to him, that foursquare stone, upon which the building of faith and manners ariseth. Who although he reverenceth the fifth Council too [in proportion] yet holds it not in so great estimation as the others. These are the Bishop's words, are they not? What then have you brought to confute him by, more than is answered in his own writings? Let me speak unto you in your own words here, Num. 63. What more palpable fraud or foolery can there be, them to take the objection out of ones adversaries books, and to dissemble the solution, though it be to be found there? And if S. Gregory's meaning had 
Adjoind. numb. 60. And doth he not (Greg) acknowledge the infallible verity of the 5. Council, as well as of the other, holding him for accursed, who doth reject any thing determined by any of the 5. & c? And what other reason doth he allege, but because they were all 5. held by general consent, giving evidently to understand, that a general Council lawfully assembled, representeth the whole Church of God, and is infallibly guided by the holy Ghost. Yet Bellarm. being to avouch the iner●ablenes of Counsels, quotes for proof thereof, S. Gregory's judgement only of the four first, and not a word of the fifth. De Concil. author. l. 2. c. 3. quoting Greg. l. 1. cp. 24.  been to avouch that infallibility of general councils, which you dream of, as if all that were ordained by an universal consent, did for certain descend of the Holy Ghost, he would not have professed this reverence only to those Counsels, which himself had seen and known, but to all those which should be held with like order and solemnity in after times, even to the world's end. But now if you mark him, he speaks only de praeterito, nothing of the time to come, which he knew he might well doubt.  
§ 26. The King's Supremacy, is not well proved (you think) out of Deut. 17. nor his authority to interpose in matters of religion. I knew you could not be so swallowed up of your zeal to the Saints, but that you would now and then, have a rush at the Supremacy, though it lay not in your way. But wherein fails the proof out of Deuteronomie? First Moses gave no copy of the law to any King in 
The 1. Exception of the Adjoinder.  his time, for there were no Kings divers years after. Resp. Though summus Magistratus be equivalent to a King, in the Polity that he governs whatsoever it be, and of Moses it be said, Erat Rex in justitia, and not only justine the Historian, 
Deut. 33. ver. 5.  and a heathen man, reckons Moses among the Kings of the people of Israel, lib. 36. Hist. but the Cardinal himself, the Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2. says the same, quoting Exod. 32. that, as verus & summus princept populi judaici, as a true and sovereign prince of the people of the jews, he commanded many thousands to be put to death in one day, for the golden calf, etc. yet what then? Does it not show what right belongs to Kings, when Kings at least should be established in time to come? Will you allow nothing to Scriptures providence, or to God's foresight? Does not this show rather, that the precept which was given for to be observed by the Israelites diverse years after came of God, and not of man? And do not yourselves argue, out of the same books of Moses, that a king is not to be chosen but only exfratribus, which you are careful to have 
Deut. 17. 15.  observed, as you would seem at least, even till this day, though Kings (as you say) there were none in Moses time? What then do you tell us, that there were then no Kings? Yea, but this is no more than every private man and woman might be allowed, to have the copy of the Law at home with them. I am glad to hear you say so, I pray God you hold you to your word, and suffer Christian people hereafter, both men and women, to have the copies of the Bible, of the old and new Testament, in their private houses. Which you must needs do according to your word here, unless you will make us more jews, than the jews themselves, and bring a slavery upon Christians, more than ever they were put to that lived under the letter, to take both letter and spirit from us, which will least of all befit you in your encounter with the Bishop, that charge him with no fault more, nor more often, then that he inclines to judaism, and holds jewish conclusions about ceremonies, and Circumcision, and a great deal more of such idle stuff that you travail with. I am sure S. chrysostom upon the 3. to the Coloss. exhorts his people, those of the lay-fort, thus: For I speak (says he) to you of the lay: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, buy you books [particularly the Bibles] which are the medicines of your souls: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: No master like them. And Thomas Aquinas your jolly Schoolman, handling the same words, by occasion whereof S. chrysostom was lead to say this, namely, That the word of Christ should dwell richly, 
Coloss. 3. 16.  or plentifully in us, resolves thus. Aliquibus sufficit modicum quid de verbo Christi, sed Apostolus vult quòd habeamus multum. Ideò dicit, Abundanter. That is, Some men are content with a small portion or pittance, God wot, of the word of Christ, (this is not you, nor your church at this day, and that is pity) but the Apostle will have us to have much of it, or a great deal of it. Therefore he saith, PLENTIFULLY. S. Hierom and S. Primasius, infer out of the same words, that lay-folkes ought to have the word of God among them, and that non solùm sufficienter, sed etiam abundanter, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly, or as the Rhemists translate it, as if zealous of good measure, to be dealt to these poor folks, (though they mean nothing less) even abundantly. So Anselm upon certain other words of the same Apostle, Eph. 2. 19 You are no more strangers or pilgrims, but of the household of God, etc. gathers both wittily and godlily, that ideò non erant hospites testamentorum, (as some others had been, of whom he spoke before) quia non in transitu & recessu videbant ipsa testamenta, sed assiduè morabantur & exercebantur in iis; that is, that therefore they were no strangers (to God, and his Testaments) because they saw not his testaments only at a blush, or passing by, as you would say, but daily they stayed upon them, and were exercised in them, etc. This is with Anselm to be no stranger to God, but one of his household, etc. Whereas that unconscionable Cardinal of yours, in his Controversy about this matter, whether lay-folke should read Scripture, or no, quotes joh. 6. to prove that laymen have no right to Scriptures, because the wicked Priests said, Populus qui extra est, The people which is without, knows not the law, as if still without, and not yet taken into house. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this by the way only, because you say it is no more than every private man was allowed among the jews, to have the Bible in his house. This at least is more on the King's side, then on the private man's, that the King in particular is appointed to have it, by order from Gods own mouth, and the Priest to yield it him, yea the King himself to write it out for his own use. It shall be (says the text) when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book, out of that which is before the Priests, the Levites. WHEN HE SITTETH UPON HIS THRONE. Doth not this make a distinction between the Kings, and the layman's having of the book, though neither be forbidden it? Or doth it not show, that the King is entrusted with the book, in reference to his government over the whole kingdom? For the book must be offered him, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom (saith the text,) no doubt to distinguish between the end, for which he, and for which ordinary men, must read the book, if they read it at all. And what think you of that, that the King must write himself a copy? Is not this too great pains for a King? Which though I doubt not but we may construe, that the King must procure one to write it out for him, as Solomon is said to sacrifice when the Priests sacrificed by his appointment, and our Saviour Christ to baptise, though he baptised none himself, but only through his Disciples, yet first it argues a great entrusting of the King with divine matters, to let him have the Bible so much at his disposing, as to copy it out by such as he shall set a work. Secondly, it gives him a secret item to diligence, and to studying of this book, with more than ordinary carefulness. And lastly, as oft as the King changeth, so oft (as it may seem) should the Bible be transcribed, for the use of the Crown, while the Priests and the Levites are enjoined no such task, for the making of them perfect. Oleaster complains upon this place, that it is a wonder to see how dissolute Kings are, touching the study of laws, not only God's laws, but their own; whereas your doctrine, if they are prone of themselves, as we are all by nature to such recklesnesse, drives them headlong, and sets them going by authority. Yea, you threaten them with great penalties, if at any time they do but presume the contrary, as if they passed the bounds of their commission, in so doing. But I suppose Oleaster, when he took up that complaint, was not much acquainted with foreign Kings and Queens, such as God hath blessed our land with since, of whom I will say nothing in this place, lest I should seem to affect flattery, though it be hard to pass over in silence such an incomparable mirror as we enjoy in this kind at this day, God be thanked, and long, most long, may we enjoy I pray God. Yet I marvel that being a Portugese, 

Vide Lipsium in Quaest. Epistolic. l. 2. cp. 23. ad Turconium & Maldechemium, Vix est v●●…sum teneam, etc. Sed melius magnus ille Rex, (Alphons. scil.) etc.  
Apud Anton. Panormit. in vita. Alphons. S. Hierom. reports a fair less matter of Hilarion, vet not unworthy to be taken notice of, that in ●…u su●… descripsit adolescens Euangeliorum cod cen, which afterward he sold to pay the boa●man for his fare in necessity. Yet Hilarion no Clerk. In vitâ Hilar.   if not originally Spanish, Alphonsus' King of Arragon, one of his countrymen, should not come into his mind, who is said to have writ out the Bible once with his own hand, in Hebrew (as I take it,) and to have read it, as I remember, no less than sixteen times over. I think few Kings have come nearer to this precept of copying the Law, for the literal sense of it, than Alphonsus did, though certainly we are to presume he was no babe in the understanding of it neither. But Oleaster notes further, that from hence in all likelihood that custom took his beginning, that the Kings of Israel should be crowned with the book of the Law in their hand, 1. Chr. 24. which is very remarkable; and no less then for the King of France to be invested in a Deacons habit at his 
De just. etc. p. 433. 3.  coronation, as we are told by Rossaeus. A third exception. Vt discat (say you) Deum timere, that he may learn only to fear God, and for his private instruction. As if first any thing might well be called private in so great a Majesty, or as if the King learning his duty from the book of the law, could learn it for himself only, and not for others, his duty being to see that others do their duties, as every magistrates is, and his fearing of God being to fear him not only in the course of his own life, but of his whole government. Yet you please yourself in your quaint language, that the priest was to be possessed of a copy of the law, that he might observe it punctually for his own self. Not only so, Sir, but pungitively for others; he was to make others, even Priests and all, to keep the law, to enforce them, and to constrain them, to prick them and to drive them onward by the edge of his sword, which he carried neither edgeles, nor in vain, Rom. 13. no not then; as Ezechias did the levites, till he made them offer. Obtulerunt tandem, as it is in the Chronicles, by the King's instigation. S. Austen warranteth this in diverse places, as hath been told you, but I will allege S. Gregory to you now, l. 9 Registri. Epist. 60. ad Aldiberium, one of the kings of our Country. Regni sui vos ipse faciat esse participes, cuius vos fidem in regno recipitis & facitis custodiri: that is, Even he make you partakers of his kingdom, whose faith in yours you both entertain, and MAKE to be observed. The King's office is not only custodire, but facere custodiri, as the Bishop told you, if you had the grace to hear him. The Kings keeping is keeping in Hiphil, like spiritus interpellat, for facit interpellare, Rom. 8. Even as God saith in Ezechiel, Faciam ut faciatis; but God by aid, and by divine inspiration, the King by terror, by censure, and by fear; yet thus also is that fulfilled, Dij estis, whereas our part is Obsecramus vos loco Christi, etc. 2. Cor. 5. See Rom. 13. where all the good that is done in a common wealth, is attributed to the King, all the evil is avenged by him. And 1. Tim. 2. 2. exhorting that prayers and supplications be made for all men, he instanceth only in Kings, because the King's courses have an universal influence, and not only for a quiet and peaceable estate, but for a godly and an honest, which refutes the Jesuits, that think a King's care is to extend no farther than bonum politicum, or bonum reip. to preserve the commonwealth from running to confusion, from want, from plague, from hostility, or seditions, not regarding piety. But most notably of all, Psal. 2. not only the religion of a private commonwealth, but the conversion of the whole body of the Gentiles, is linked inseparably with the relligiousnesse of Kings. For having said in the 8. verse, I will give thee the Gentiles, for thine inheritance, he points to the means in the 10. and 11. Be wise now therefore o ye Kings, & nunc Reges intelligite. Where & nunc is pregnant 
F. T. is full of this divinity in his first chapter of the Adjoind.  to confute the Jesuits, that think the care of Religion, as it should be in Kings, is expired with the Kings of the old Testament. But the Psal. saith, & nunc, prophesying of the conversion of the Gentiles under the new. And further he bids them serve the Lord, whereas Kings (saith S. August.) then serve the Lord, when they do that for 
Epist. 50.  the Lord, which none can do but they that are Kings. But private honesty, or private integrity, is that which every body may look to and perform for themselves. Therefore the King's Office, which Deuteronomy calls him to, is an universal inspection. And as the piety of kingdoms depends of their Kings, as the latter end of the Psal. shows, that I now quoted, so the impiety, and the irreligion of them, is to be referred to none other, as appears by the beginning 
The people rage, because the Princes stand up, and take part against Christ.  of it. For whereas he had asked the question, why do the heathen and the people rage, presently he adds, or rather answers, and gives the cause himself, The Kings of the earth have conspired together, and the Rulers taken counsel, etc.  
§ 27. What now though the Original copy of the Bible 
4. Exception of the Adjoinder to the place in Deut.  was to remain with the Priest? is it not enough that the King was to have a true copy, and answerable to the Original in all points? For therefore he was bid to provide him a copy, to be written out of the Levites Original. But let it be that this makes the Priest to be Superior, since you will needs have it so, yet Superior as Expositor, or as Interpreter, if you please, not as guardian, not as custos.  
§ 28. Lastly, the King is bid to be obedient unto the Priest, 
5. Exception of the Adjoind.  even by the law itself, which he was to copy out, as appears in the same chap. v. 10.] I might say that the King is not named among those that are enjoined this obedience, and therefore not comprehended. For it must be liquidum ius that shall bind princes. The Sovereign is wont to be exempted in such cases. Let one be free that all the rest may be the better ordered. As iura Maiestatis non sunt communicanda cum civibus, both by Bodines rule and other Politicians, so necessitates subditorum, the taxations of subjects must not be enforced upon Princes, Unless the King were named therefore, no reason to bring him in within the compass of this statute. And yet secondly, there is an obedience to counsel, and to advice, to resolution, and instruction,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only to authority. 
Hesiod.  The first way the King may be subject to his subjects, and obedient to the Priests, if you will needs have it so, but the second way the Priest is subject to the King, without all question, and that is it with which Supremacy goes. The Cardinal himself can tell us so, when his fit is over, when it is his good day, lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 6. Ne Assuerus quidem 
The Adjoinder finds in the Bishop, ●ucul● interualla.  Rex sapientibus illis viris subiectus erat, quorum tamen faciebat cuncta consilio. Ester. 1. that is, King Assuerus was not subject to those wise men, by whose advice notwithstanding he managed all affairs. As for matter of execution, or coactive justice, the judge is joined in commission with the Priest here, v. 12. And is it possible that the King should be an underling to the judge?  
§ 29. That the Bishop should call Bellarmine dotard, for mistaking our English affairs so much, seems a matter to you very abusive, and intolerable. So as curiosity is but a light fault with you, though in strange Commonwealths, nor does it irk you any thing to hear your nation accused, which neither hath deserved ill at your hands, nor is culpable of that which the erring Cardinal lays to her charge. Though S. Paul would not accuse his own nation, albeit deserving, Act. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Not as if I had any thing (says he) 
Common ult. Actor. The same Chrysost. notes the like of joseph, that being cast into prison, etc. he never told the Butler, and such others as he found there, of his brethren's malice and cruelty towards him, but concealed domestical scandals.  to accuse my nation of. Where S. chrysostom notes most excellently, that not only he accused them not, though no doubt he had great cause, having conspired to kill him before they either ate or drank; but insinuated to the company, and yet without a lie, that he had nothing at all to accuse them of. For so are his words, Not as if I had any thing to accuse mine own nation of. But you renegates, and runagates, forsakers of the Land, make a trade of slandering your own native country, and patronizing the slaunderours, as here the Cardinal, and whereas S. Paul with great dexterity shunned the lie, to save his countrymen's reputation, you make no conscience of lying and slandering, to defame yours. And why may not the Cardinal be said to dote? Doth not the Poet say, dulce est desipere in loco? Which he did, I trow, when he accepted at last the Cardinal-ship against his will, and after much refusal, as Eudaemon tells us.  
— Cunctantem & multa parantem  
Dicere.  
To whom we may say in the same Poet's words,  
— Quid si quod voce gravaris  
Mente dares?  
And at last you see he yielded indeed. But to the point. Do not the English Puritans pray daily for his Majesty by the title of supreme head and governor? Do they not set their hand to it, and subscribe their name? Et voce & man attesting to it, least happily you should say, vox quidem jacob, manus autem Esau. And who are you then to gauge hearts, which Hieremy says are unfaddomable, or to search after secrets, which the Deuteronomy bids us to reserve to God, and leaves to man only such things as are manifest. Whence is it that you can reckon but of one example among us all of the English Clergy, that was censured for omitting the aforesaid title in his prayer, as you inform? Does it not show that others are of another mind, though this were granted you to be so? And yet there may be cause not to mention it in prayer, besides the want of persuasion of the truth of it at the heart. Though for my part I will not believe you in this report, which otherwise perhaps I should not greatly stick at, yet if it be but because it is of your suggesting. That of 
●●pr. l. 4 epist. 2. ad Antonianum. Neque enim possunt laudare no● qui recedunt a nobis, ●ut expectare deber●… ut placeamu● illis qui nobis displi●…, etc.  the Philosopher being verified upon such Tribades mendaciorum, such hackney-lyars as you are, that with telling so many untruths, you have lost your credit for ever, even then when you shall perchance speak the truth. And as Lucian says in his Phalaris, of such a kind of people as 
E●…on-Iohan. confesseth as much, that the English Traitors, Sermonibus su●●●…ora 〈◊〉 ●ala 〈◊〉, i. aggravated ●…ir evils with talking. Apolog. Pro. ●e●. Gar●. cap. 9 pag. ●38.  our English runaways and malcontents are, that exaggerate the severity of our laws with their lies, Believe them not, though they say they saw it, believe them not though they say they felt it, meaning the torments which they most falsely amplified, as these also have done, and set out in print, 
V●●●●●gan. Thea●crudel. haeret. nostri temporis.  of whom I speak. But behold another argument to convince the Puritans, and that we are cumbered with such cattle yet, as deny the Supremacy, whatsoever the Bishop 
Adjoind. numb. 76. 76. etc.  says to the contrary. There were such spirits certain years ago. Are they therefore now? Or, All have not disclaimed the former error. Therefore none? or a few only? or not the most? nay, why not all? For my part, if no other Puritans were to be found, than such as acknowledge not the king's supremacy, even in terminis, I think they would be a very geason people to meet with, like pretiosa visio. 1. Sam. 3. Yet you say, they choke conscience to swallow benefices, etc. Mala mens, malus animus. And, ut quisque animo optimè affectus est, it a difficillimè alios esse improbos suspicatur. Open suspecting of others, comes of secret condemneth yourself. But Bishop Barlow, & Mr. Rogers, lay this to the Puritans that they digest not the supremacy. The word is one, the kind is diverse: as all Papists are not powder-Papists: usus flectit, dies lenit, tempus 
It seems strange to the Adioynd●r, that the Puritans sect should vanish in England, whereas not only the wiseman says, Spuria vitulamina non agunt altas radices, etc. but S Cyprian of schism in particular, S●hismatici semper inter initia servant, increment● verò habere non possunt, lib. 4. cp. 2. and Epiphan. more particularly yet, of certain heretics, called the Ange●… (for their Purities like enough) that there was little to be found of their Tenets in his days, quiae ad tempus modò durarunt, & illi●ò d●sicrunt ac deleti sunt. Haer. 60.  mitigat: Some are boisterous in their beginnings, like Reuben the first borne, (whom jacob calls his strength) that in process of time are not so violent. Mr. Rogers exemplifies it by foreign Puritans, not by domestical, or by the old, not by the modern, if you allege him right. And Bishop Barlow speaks of the Puritans, as they were in the Auge, or in the Zenith, in their first love, when their appetites were sharpest, their proceedings hottest, not as it hath pleased God to qualify them since, and to temper them, qui revelat etiam si quis aliter sapit, as the Apostle says. You say, * The Cardinal doth not 
Adjoind. numb. 8●.  know this, though they have altered their judgment, and therefore he must have leave, forsooth, to slander our Nation, or to say he dotes is hard language. Yet why might he not have heard of it, if he had been so disposed? Shall we say, that ill news flies apace, the Ate still out-running the Latae, and his cares are open to no other talk, as the fly that hasts to sore places in the body, taking no delight in the sound? Or as Theodorus the stage-player in Aristot. politics, would never be brought to play any part upon a stage, unless he might enter first, because the first things are most noted (he said) and make the deepest impression, (the man belike having a good conceit of himself) so the Cardinal keeps that fast which he hath heard first, either for fame, or for faith, and it is true as the King's MAJESTY says in his book of him, that the English fugitives (your self for one M. F. T.) have so ramd in certain forms and apprehensions into his head, that they will not out again with any force. But though he be only for the first, let us hast to your last.  
§ 30. The last are these. One about the jesuits, that 
Adi●ynd. numb. 82. 83. 84.  should say they had committed no sin in divers years. Another about three Bulls of Excommunication from the Pope, ready to be published in three especial parts of the Kingdom, if the powder-plot had taken effect. A third, about F. Garnet, and his being privy to the said treason, as by his often confessions both before and at his death may appear yet, whereof some are under his hand. As for the first of these, the Adjoinder may do well to have recourse to Father Cotton, and to know of him what he thinks, whether it be possible or no to attain to such a perfection, of not sinning, in this life. Not only as to avoid singula peccata, each sin in the particular, but even omnia peccata, all altogether. The first of which Friar Soto says is possible to all men (not only to jesuits, or such sublimated creatures) and pro toto vitae cursu, as long as we here live, not only for certain years, which is the case in the objection. Neither is Soto only of that opinion, among the Papists. Though the Bishop doth not say, that any jesuit 
De Naturi & Grat. l. 1. Also Bellarm l. 2. de Grat. & lib. a●b. cap. 7.  hath written so of himself, as the Adjoinder either rashly or maliciously implies, to augment the slander. It is enough that they affirm it, though they put it not in print, as Orlandinus doth of Ignatius, the Protoplast jesuit, that he 
Hist. Societ. Ies. lib. 〈◊〉. pag. 10. Notab. 30.  should say he had no vainglory to accuse himself of, in confession, full twenty years before he died. Whereas vainglory notwithstanding, is one of the last sins that we shake off, (as appears by S. Paul, who was feign to be buffeted by an angel of Satan for the repressing of that vice in him) especially in such a life as Ignatius his was, daily meriting, and rising up in merits. And yet as he, that being reviled, and for a great while together said nothing again, at last when he cried out, See how patient I am, he lost the praise which else he might have won, if he had continued silent: So I would feign know, either of Ignatius, or his followers, how he that professes his freedom from the tickle of vainglory, doth not thereby bewray, that he hath yet some spice of the old corruption in him, whereof he will not be aknowne.  
§ 31. Concerning his second Quaere: Strange, if Father Baldwine cannot resolve him of that point, with all the circumstances thereto belonging, insomuch as one of them saw, or said he saw, the very boxes or caskets, which contained those Bulls, ready for the baiting. Neither is this so unusual a practice in Popery, that he should believe it so slowly; either to mind ill to a whole State, especially our English, which Eudaemon would have us think, that there is 
Apolog. pro Henr. Garnetto. cap. 4. ipso fine. id est, pag. 112.  no good man, but would spoil it if he could, and set fire to it, or again to await a time, of easing their malice, and pouring forth of mischief at the best occasion. Howbeit herein he mistakes, whether wilfully, or no, let the reader judge. For the Bishop did not say, that the jesuit being in prison, revealed this concerning the Bulls, moved merely thereunto by remorse of conscience, though well he 
See the place in the Bishops Answer to the Apology, cap. 5. in initio. Id est, pag. 113. Which the Adjoinder quoteth not (as his fashion is in all other places) lest his wilful forgery and depravation might be espied, making that to come of conscience, Numb. 84. in two several periods, which the Bishop never so much as in the least word insinuateth, to have proceeded thereof. And yet it might be a truth, though revealed in passion.  might say, that he confessed it of his own accord, without fear, or compulsion, or examination any at all. Quid si in iurgio? what if in a pet? As the French proverb is, that the boiling pot discovers the little pea that is in the very bottom of it. So enraged minds disclose all. But Mr. Adjoinder thinks all is so holy among the jesuits, that if our compulsions and examinations be away, nothing is done by them forsooth, but of mere conscience.  
§ 32. The third and last, about Father Garnet, is otherwise sufficiently testified to the world, though I say nothing: both by the most reverend Bishop in sundry places of each his books, out of the authentical Records of this Kingdom, and Father Garnets' handwriting yet to be seen. Against all which Father Thomas opposes the credit of a certain nameless Gentleman, that stood by Garnet (as himself says) whiles he was executed, and told him clean otherwise, viz. that he never confessed any such thing. Is it not reason that he should be believed, though he brought no more than even so to refel the Bishop? And indeed no more he brings to convince our Acts by, yea our ears and our eyes, our knowledge and our senses that here live, and were present at the whole passage. Yet he adds, that false bruits were spread against Garnet over all Christendom. As much to say belike, as the whole Church was in an error for censuring the Traitor. But to his notable impudence, braving thus the Bishop, that mirror of gravity, of conscience, and sincerity, himself a shadow, and one of Homer's sneak's, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to upbraid him with the lie, and the impudent lie, as the margin hath it, Numb. 82. or as the text riseth afterward, Numb. 83. an egregious lie, I will say no more, but even gently leading him by the hand, and bringing him home to his own door, remember him what liberty they in all likelihood take to themselves of lying far beyond us, who thus dogmatize, That a lie in a Sermon is no mortal sin, I 
Sa jesuita in Aphorism. v. Men●….  suppose if it be to a good end. And from hence it is that we have so many lies in Popery, prophesied of by S. Paul, 2. Tim. 4. 5. ut si vult decipi populus, decipiatur, that if the people will be deceived, they may be deceived, their own common saying. Perhaps not thinking of that which they fit to their people's backs, but even too handsomely, by this means, Qui non susceperunt amorem veritatis, sed complacuerunt sibi in iniquitate, 2. Thess. 2. 11. 12. who refused to entertain the love of truth, and delighted in falsehood and in injustice, (volverunt decipi, they would needs be deceived;) the very mark of the beast, and the character of them that are to live under Antichrist. But my wonder is not, that Papists lie, but that they lie in Sermons, and then excuse it from crime, or from mortal blame: First lying in their very doctrines, and in the course of their preaching, then raising a doctrine of the lawfulness of lies.   

To the 10. Chapter.  
The Reverend Bishop, most upright and uniform in his proceedings, throughout the whole cause. Concerning the Sacrament, the Reward of good works, the name Catholic, Monkery, Succession of Bishops, Kingly Supremacy, and the rest. The Adjoinder laying prevarication to his charge, is found to fulfil the slander himself.  
§ 1. Being to speak to your tenth and last Chapter, I think good to begin with setting down the Title of it, as it lies in your book, which is this: That the Bishop overthroweth his own cause, and fortifieth the Popish, granting many important points of Catholic religion. That he is turned Puritan in the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and betrayeth his majesties cause under hand, pretending to defend it: and therefore is neither good English Protestant, nor yet good subject. Lastly, what is the opinion of learned strangers, concerning him, and his book; with a good advise for a friendly farewell.  
§. 2. Do you expect what I reply to this frantic inscription? Spectatum admissi? Or rather, we will wish you some warm broths to comfort your brain, then either confound it with blows, as you even now sentenced (you may remember whom) pro ingenitâ modestiâ tuâ, or distress 
Cap. 6. of the Adjoinder.  it with gibes (though never so just) already troubled. And yet before you come to execute your late glorious title and denunciation of this your tenth Chapter, you must do as the Comedians do, that in their last act, bring in all the Actors upon the stage afresh, for pomp sake: So you tell us here, what feats you have wrought, in the precedent part of your book, as if they had never been dashed by any confutation, nor your interlude disturbed in the least sort. In the first Chapter I have done this, (say you;) and in the second Chapter this, in the third Chapter the like: and so you go on, blazing your trophies, both in Text and Margin, as if no body could reply to you, none stand in your hands, but you had carried all afore you, wheresoever you came, like a young Alexander. And yet more definitively, as it were from your iudgement-seat, thus you pronounce, an other Herod, that the world may take notice of your great equity and unpartialitie, joined with like gift of discerning spirits: Thou mayest remember (good Reader) that among many things, which I censured and reproved in Ms. Barlow, I greatly allowed and approved one, etc. No doubt, terrible is your censure, your reproofs dangerous, and woe be to them upon whom they light. Yet the Prelate that you speak of, were he alive again, he would rest so little satisfied with your approbation of him, in that one point, whatsoever it is, among the many that you disallow in him, that he would conjure you into a boot, or into a bench-hole for your labour, like a saucy Sinckanter, and make you an example for ever censuring him again, or any of his rank. But his untimely death preventing his pains, the want of the like spirits nourishes insolency, and flesh's importunity, in such bold companions as you and yours. As for that you tell the Reader, he may remember, etc. I assure you, it is more than I can do, to remember that which I never read, never heard of. I guess by the Margin you should mean your Supplement, from which God excuse me, for I would not read it if it were brought to me, or I hired to peruse it, specially if it be like this that here you offer us, the most wooden com-patchment, in such tediousness of repetitions, that ever I hit on.  
§ 3. Now there resteth only one point to be handled (say you) which is of far different quality from the former. And that is, as you explain yourself shortly after, of such places in the Bishop's book, as he overthroweth his own cause by, and fortifieth yours, even more than ever Mr. Barlowe did. A pretty imagination: shall we see how trow? First, because he acknowledges, that Christ is to be adored, in & cum Sacramento, 
About the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Adjoind. cap. 10. num. 4.  in and with the Sacrament. Why not? sith wheresoever he is, he is to be adored, and we deny him not to be in the Sacrament, (howsoever you slander us) though we define not the manner, but leave that to him, who both can and will verify his promise, though we be neither conscious nor concurrent. I may say unto you here, as Dionysius to Sopater, Epist. 6. Non si quid non rubrum est, proptereà candidum; nec si quis non est equus, is homo sit necesse est: Every thing is not white that is not red, neither if we deny a thing to be a horse, do we therefore strait conclude that it is a man. The Bishop grants that Christ is to be worshipped, and that he is to be worshipped in the Sacrament, which he infallibly accompanieth, and effectually assisteth: Ergò, with you he is a Pontifician, and maintaineth your cause, and betrayeth his own. No such thing, gentle Sir. To make him yours, more goes to it then so. Especially these two, Corporal presence, and Transubstantiation or conversion. These are the two main badges, or rather buttresses, of your Cyclops, neither of which is be found in the Bishop's writing, and God knows is far off from his belief. Howbeit, think you not that Christ is so to be worshipped in the Sacrament, or with the Sacrament, by our doctrine, as the Father with the Son, 
Athanas. ad Serap. Quòd Spiritus S. non sit creatura.  and the Son with the Father, or each of them in the other, where each partakes alike worship with the other: but as if I should say, that the King is to be worshipped, whether naked or in his clothes; whether bareheaded, or with his crown & diadem on; so Christ is to be worshipped in the Sacrament, and with the Sacrament, every where no doubt, but more specially there, where so incomparable a benefit exhibited to our eyes, and presented to our hands, justly challengeth 
Cyrill. Cateches. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the greatest zeal that may be.  
§ 4. Though again, when we say that Christ is in the Sacrament (because we would not be mistaken) we say not that he is there after a corporal manner: nay, that your own Captain and Cardinal disclaimeth, Corporaliter 
Bellarm. de Sacr. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 2. where he adds out of S. Bernard, Serm de S. Martino; that, In Sacramento exhibetur nobis vera carnis (Christi) substantia, sed spiritualiter non carnaliter: that is, that the true flesh of Christ is communicated to us in the Sacrament, yet not carnally, but spiritually. What other do we teach at this day? Therefore Bellarm, in the words following, puts his finger to his mouth, and gives us an item, not to talk too much of this point. Non videtur haec vex multùm frequentanda. And, Periculum est ne trahatur ab adversarijs, etc.  esse Christum in Sacramento: but we say not so much as that his flesh is there, or his 
* The Rhemists are so confounded in their bodily presence, that they make Christ's body to be a figure of itself, in the Sacrament. Rhem. upon Luk. 12. adding, that Christ is the image of his father, and yet of the same substance with him. But who knows not, that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, or supposita, so as well may one be image of the other? But Christ's body is only one, and the same. I would they had brought no other images into the church, but such as are the same with the primitive or prototypon.  body there at all, not only after a bodily or fleshly manner. Christus (saith S. Leo) quadragesimo post resurrectionem die, coram discipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentiae modum fecit, etc. Christ made a period of his bodily presence, being lifted up into heaven, before the face of his Disciples the fortieth day after his resurrection. And S. Austen out of those words, Matth. 26. Non semper habebitis me vobiscum, with other like in S. john, chap. 12. resolves it plainly, that secundum carnem non semper, according to the flesh, he is not always with us. Tract. 109. in joh. It were not hard to produce divers more to the same purpose. Yea, Si esset in terra, non esset sacerdos, Heb. 8. If Christ were on the earth, he could be no Priest. So as you destroy his Priesthood, while you stand for such presence, to commend your Sacrifice. I say therefore neither bodily, nor in body at all. For though the flesh and the deity of our Saviour Christ never were separated, nor never may be, since the first instant of his sacred conception, if you attend the knot of personal union, yet the Godhead is spread through diverse places and spaces, 
S. Hierome in Mark. c. 12. says of Christ, Coniungens in coenan purâ agnum cum pane: finiens vetus, novum inch●ans testamentum. So as the bread remains. For as the passover in the lamb, so the Eucharist in bread: or else the new Testament is not yet begun. And the same Hierome soon after in Mark. 14. Transfigurans corpus suum in panem, formans sanguinem suum in calicem: that Christ be transubstantiated into the elements, not the elements into Christ, by S. Hieromes manner of speaking. But by this, we see, the Fathers were far from being so strict for Transubstantiation of the bread (as the Papists are now adays) only labouring to fulfil the verity of the Sacrament, and to bring Christ, and his ordinance, together.  which the body and flesh approacheth not in any distance. Unless you will be so wood now, as to add brutish Vbiquitisme, to your barbarous Cyclopisme. So as Christ may be in the Sacrament, and there adored, yet his body be neither there, or not after bodily manner at least; but howsoever it be there, not transformed, nor transubstantiated out of the bread, as your conceit is. And thus therefore there is not paries, or maceries only, but murus still, or valtum, between yours and the reverend Bishop's assertion. The profoundness of this mystery, leads us to wade thus softly and suspensively, knowing that God's ways are in many waters, and his footsteps unknown, his paths unsearchable. We can scarce discern the print of his chariot-wheels, as he rides along before our eyes, only we hear a noise in the tops of the mulberry trees, as David did sometime, 2. Sam. 5. 24. The bones of the Passeover must be burnt with fire, saith S. chrysostom, and S. Theophylact, that is, Divine mysteries 
Comm. in johan 19  not ripped up, nor ransacked, but adored and covered by devout respect. And with good Mr. Hooker, we conclude our inquiries 
Church Polity; ubi de Euchar.  about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, with this modest Epiphonema, O my God, thou art true, O my soul thou art happy, solicitous for no more.  
§ 5. I had thought I had been at an end of this intricate question, or near an end, when I was crossed in my conceits by the author of the Manna. Whose intents as I cannot but praise for avouching the honour, and expressing the fruit of this divine mystery, so, what weight there is in his remonstrances for their Transubstantiation, that one sentence of his may show, which he quotes out of S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, Catechesi 4. Mystagogica, and he is content to seem to put such affiance in, as in that ship to venture all his ware, which the wise forbid. For which cause also, he hath not only singled it out from the rest, but set it in the front of his following Discourse, while he inserts it into his Epistle to his most Excellent MAJESTY, as the motive most of might, in all his Mount of Testimonies (so he calls them;) belike mons caseatus according well with coelum mellifluum, or nubes escatilis, as Tertullian describes it. Well, what says S. Cyrill? I will translate it out of the Latin, as the Author renders it, though the Latin be not so exact with the Greek in all points. Knowing this, and believing it for certain, that this bread which we see is not bread, although the taste discerns it to be bread, but that it is the body of Christ. And the wine which we see, although it seem to be wine to our sense of taste, yet is not wine, but the blood of Christ. This S. Cyrill. In all which words, of Transubstantiation not a word; or conversion any. And yet this sentence must carry the world, by the judgement of our Author, speaking from the clouds, and distilling influences. But he that does not acknowledge the phrase of the holy Fathers, speaking of Christ's Sacraments, to magnify the virtue of the hidden grace, with a certain contempt of the external sign, or abolishment rather, that the other may be most eminent, he may sooner bewray his rawness in Divinity, then hurt the cause by his profound arguing. Zelus domus tuae comedit me, says the Prophet David: And, Zelus mensae tuae nos, may they say. I mean the supernal and mystical table, (which themselves oft speak of, as prepared in heaven, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The rather perhaps, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cyril ipse, Catech. 4. quae est illa quam citat Author.  whereas if the Christ were on earth, on earth should be our table too, as well as our dish) but, the zeal, I say, which they carried to that intelligible table, and the grace that the great feast-maker distributes therefrom, makes them to make no reckoning of the visible elements, as they are hammered in nature's forge. For what profane eye cannot discern of them so? Who so ill nurtured, or so new-illuminate, such as those were to whom S. Cyrill speaks here? But to lift up the mind higher, to bring the spouse into the wine-cellar, (as the holy Ghost speaks in the Canticles) and to acquaint them with the treasure which those homely vessels contain, that was here S. Cyrills' study, and about that the holy Fathers spend their strengths most willingly, when they treat of this argument. The Cardinal says, (I grant) that in a Catechism, all things should be laid out most literally, and most plainly. And therefore S. Cyrill calling his works here Catechizing, we should 
For whereas he adds farther in the same place, that Cyrill was never suspected of error about the Sacrament, though he speak so; it is a mere bauble. As if we dissented from cyril, and not from them about the meaning of his words.  look for no figures, but all direct. In Catechesi omnia propriè & simpliciter explic antur, says he. Lib. 2. de Eucharist. cap. 13. Forgetting that these, though they are called Catechizing, yet not so much of instruction, as ours are wont to be, when we teach in Churches, as of spur and exhortation to the new-illuminate, (they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by S. Cyrill,) to inflame their minds, to kindle their affections, rather than to enlighten their judgements, (Seraph-like, not Cherub-like, if I may be suffered so to speak,) that they would consider of their profession, and adorn their calling, keep pure their garments, and henceforth construe of occurrents in religion, rather Christianly then popularly, which is the cause that S. Cyrill lifts up his voice, and bespeaks them in the language of vehemence new laid down. Not only to preserve the primitive phrase of the institution, though that prevail we see so far with the Apostle Paul, as to call it the body, when he calls it the bread (even with one 
1. Cor. 10. cap. itemque●1. varijs locis & versibu●.  breath both,) but to elevate folks minds also to the consideration of the right worth and value of it. As another of them, being to express the benefit of Baptism (a Sacrament less admired, though of most principal operation) is not afraid to say as much for our transubstantiation into Christ, as they can allege for the breads, out of any writer. And yet I hope they will not say, that we are really metamorphosed, or substantially transformed, into Christ's body, by Baptism. Leo Ser. 14. de Pass. Dom. In Baptism (saith he) while we lay down the old man, and take up the new, there is a semblant of our dying, as well as of our rising again; both in one. Vt susceptus à Christo Christunque suscipiens, non idem sit post lavacrum qui fuit ante Baptismum, sed corpus regeniti sit caro crucifixi. That is, [The body of the party Christened, is the flesh of our Lord, crucified.] This S. Leo. And to help you to Transubstantiation, he inclines almost to utter abolition, or annihilation, if that may gratify you. For he says, Non idem post qui ante lavacrum. That is, [The baptised party is not the same after, that he was before his baptism.] What more dangerous word could S. Cyrill let fall, or any Father of them all, to sound for your supposals about Transubstantiation, while they meant no such thing (your selves will confess that they never meant it in baptism) but only sought to endear the Sacrament to us, and to aver the sovereign virtue of it? But let S. Cyrill be judge, as we read him in the same place, which our 
Cateches. 4. generali, quae prima in Graeca editione Morel. Anni 1564. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Druggist quotes: specially because we find him so well minded in religion, (cyril I mean) as to make the Scripture judge of all that he shall say, commanding his scholars to believe him no otherwise, then as he shall be able to justify, all that he brings, by Scripture.  
§ 6. First, in his first Catechese, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of which the aforesaid authority is quoted. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be opposed to the body and blood of Christ. Which shows, that he inclines not to Transubstantiation, but a change of the use, and an increase of the grace, or benediction, that goes with them. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not repugnant to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and may be wine still. Again, he imputes this to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over them, the invocation of God's grace, and holy Spirits assistance, (which likewise he repeats in his sift Cateches: soon after) not to demurmuratorie words, which they use in Popery, and call Consecration. Yea doubtless, comparing this our Christian service, with the service of devils, (to give a little light by way of contrariety) wherein things offered to devils, are made profane by such offering, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) though afore they were sacred, or indifferent, he gives us to understand, that he means no more, but that the elements by prayer acquire a degree of sanctification (not of nature,) (I mean relative and collative, not essential sanctification) 
Creatura sanctificatur per orationem & verbum dei. 1. Tim. 4. 5.  though they are called by him the body and blood of Christ, in the same place, as they are also by S. Paul in the chapters before noted, either to keep the phrase of Christ's primitive institution (as I said) or to augment their reverence, and to proclaim their worth, for effectual operation.  
§ 7. Another place is in the Catechese which the objection is taken out of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You shall hear what words lie round about it, to direct us in the understanding. First, he says we have the body of Christ reached to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the type of bread, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his blood in the type of wine, not in the Accidents of either. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put so constantly for a substantial simile, as I think they will not easily show example to the contrary. And therefore no Transubstantiation with S. Cyrill. But he promises us to be concorporate, and of one blood with Christ, adding that we shall be made partakers of the divine nature by the same means, as S. Peter had said.] Which sure is not their lot that receive at all-aduentures, as it should be, if Christ's flesh were really in the Sacrament, but according to the faith of each godly receiver, so it happens unto him to be united to Christ, and that is the transformation which S. Cyrill here drives at. In so much as he condemns Sarcophagie in plain terms, which is the opinion that some have, as if they should eat Christ's natural flesh in the Sacrament, (the very Popish Cannibal at this day.) And he counts them Capernaites, for their gross conceit of that Divine mystery, saying that no marvel if they went back from Christ, joh. 6. v. 66. (even as this drives many back now, in Popery) only for want of spiritual understanding. Yet what spiritual understanding I pray, if Christ's flesh be eaten properly, properly between our teeth, digested properly into the members of our body, as he had said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except only that he says not properly, because he means mystically, and no otherwise.  
§ 8. Then comes in the distinction, between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and themselves as they are sanctified. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Consider not the bread and wine, as single bread and wine. For why? they are sanctified. And in our saviours phrase they are his body and his blood, but in our saviours phrase only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says S. Cyrill. What more true? And now we are not to think, that no more virtue goes with them, than the eye can perceive, or the taste discern, but we must rest ourselves upon our saviours words, upon faith, not upon sense. This is all the appeal from sense to faith, that S. Cyrill allows, not for quelling the natures, but extolling the powers, of the consecrated elements. As he says in the conclusion of his fourth Catechese, as it were taunting at the senses, if they contest with faith, or intrude themselves unmannerly into God's mysteries, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though sense be frampoll, though sense will needs have it so, (Hagar against Sarah) that is raw sense, and uncontrolled by the Spirit, which else is so governed & trained from above, as (not renouncing the taste, or digging out the eyes, with the heathenish Democritus, but only washing and cleansing them in the pool Siloam,) in a rugged shell it sees a pearl most precious.  
§ 9 The like in his fifth Catechese, and upon the like grounds. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, Commit not the judgement of this matter to your throat (your bodily throat) but to steadfast faith, etc. And good reason. For which he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, For no body is willed to eat bread, or to taste wine, (when the Sacrament is to be received:) But as the semblants or memorials of Christ's body and blood, so are they reached to us, and so received of us. Most truly, and most divinely. Which hinders not their persisting in the same nature that they were, though they are delivered to us, as instruments now of another work, or as monuments, or pledges, of a greater grace. Nay, because he makes them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, figures only of his blood, and figures of his body, he denies the essential in the Papists raw sense at least, to all that are not prejudicate.  
§ 10. But because I am stepped into his fifth Catechese ere I was aware, I will conclude with that. One time we read thus there. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He had said that we invoke or call for the holy Ghost, to be sent down upon the elements as they lie before us: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Then he adds, as the Greek imports, newly set down; For wheresoever the holy Spirit of God doth but touch, immediately the thing is sanctified, and also changed. Lo what transmutation S. cyril means, namely, 
Yet the Author of the Manna, quotes Mr. Casaubone, as if he were astounded with the word. Transmutation, so often occurring in the Greek Fathers. No cause why.  that which stands only in sanctification. And he says, wheresoever the holy Ghost but toucheth, the like transmutation is instantly wrought. Yet how often do we change by the operation of the holy Ghost, and not in substance? As, à gloria in gloriam, tanquam à Domini spiritu: which words were the conclusion of his last Catechese before this; and many the like changes that might be brought for instance. Finally, thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again bringing them together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, Holy is that before us, Holy you whom the holy Ghost hath inspired. Holy things with holy things bear good proportion. Yet what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between Christ and us, in the matter of holiness? what proportion or correspondence between our holiness and his? As S. chrysostom sweetly says upon Matth. 5. p. 96. edit. Etonen. Between God's mercy, and human pity, there is as much difference, as between the very goodness and naughtiness that is incident to men. And so also between our holiness and Christ's holiness. Therefore S. Cyrill concludes, looking up to Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is but one holy, there is but one Lord, which is jesus Christ. Rising from the elements, passing by themselves which were of the audience, pitching in Christ. Whom he knew to be far above, and in an other region, not in altars made with hands, but in the Kingdom everlasting, where righteousness dwells, that is, where himself. So as we have the Pharisee as well as the Capernaite, Popish justification together with Transubstantiation, here confuted. But this purposely, that by the way.  
§ 11. As for Bellarmine's addition to the other testimonies of S. Cyrill (which the Manna pretermits, or at least makes no vaunt of it in his Dedicatory) that S. Cyrill should forbid us in his fifth Catechese, to spill the crumbs of the holy Eucharist, Ergò, he presupposeth bodily presence; I answer in one word: we do the like with them, (I mean with the crumbs, which our Lord forbade to be spilled, when they ministered no grace, but only manifested his power, joh. 6. 12.) And not only with them, but with things much less holy. We bear a meet respect towards them, Propter connexionem cum Sancto; as the nature of mankind is, (even without a Schoolmaster) to be moved with the buy, and where we honour the principal, not to contemn the appertinances. Yet no Transformators, no such savage Sarcophagi, as S. Cyrill bends his pen against, in the place before showed. And thus much of S. Cyrill. I return into my way, and from Manna to Marah, to the Adjoinders cavils.  
§ 12. Two more he uses yet about this matter of the Sacrament, which I will end with them, them with it. One, that calvin and diverse other Protestant Divines, deny that Christ is to be worshipped in the Sacrament, or with the Sacrament, that so he may make the Bishop to be irregular and paradoxical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though it be allowed to Eagles to fly alone, and they are said to be but sheep that always heard together, yet he shall never put this scandal upon the Reverend Bishop, nor divide in him the eminence of a Pastor most conspicuous, from the meekness and the conformableness of the quietest lamb in the flock. Therefore shore up your eyes, good Mr Adjoinder, and look once again upon your Bellarmine, from whom you stole these quotations, wherewith your Margin is bepainted, in this place, of Calvine, and Melancthon, denying, as you pretend, the worship of the Sacrament, in the sense aforesaid: though still I must tell you, that the Bishop never avouched the worship of the Sacrament, (which some of your own Divines deny, if 
* Lib. 4. de Sacram. Eucharist. c. 29. § De modo autem, etc. Nempe [ipsi Catho●ici] qui docent Sacramentum Eucharistiae formaliter esse species panis & vini, illi negant Sacramentum hoc, [nisi materialiter] esse adorandum. That is to say, that Christ only is to be worshipped, and not the Sacrament, unless we will confound them.  Bellarmine say true) but only of the Lord, either accompanying his Sacrament, or wheresoever else present. You shall find in Bellarmine, that all the question between our Divines about the worshipping of the Sacrament, is twofold: The one during the use and the act of the Lords Supper, the other for the time following, and upon the reservation of the elements. And though this may find but small friendship among our writers, which, if your opinion be not disclaimed, exposes Christ to the most abominable injuries that may be, (as namely, to be worried or wasted of beasts, while you pretend to keep him to be worshipped of men,) yet in the act of participation, Contendunt Christi corpus esse adorandum, (saith he) they are earnest to avouch the worshipping of Christ's body, namely, 
a Luther. in formula Missae. & in lib. de verb. s, Hoc est corpus meum, & alihi.  Luther, 
b Bucer. in acts colloq. Ratisbon.  Bucer, 
c joh. Brentius in Apolog. pro confess. Wittenberg. Pericop 2.  Brentius, & 
d Chemnit. in 2. part. exam. Trid. Concil. sessione 13. cap 5.  Chemnitius. But it may be you will say, that these are such as hold the corporal presence and coexistence. You shall hear Calvine therefore, whom yourself quote, as a condemner of this worship, how modestly and how mildly he discusses the whole question hereabout. Institut. l. 4. c. 17. Parag. 35. Quomodò ex re ambiguâ ceriò conficient quod volunt? Nempe ubi certo Dei verbo desicise videbunt, quo uno consistunt animae nostrae, ubi Apostolorum doctrinam & exempla sibi adversari, se verò solos sibi authores esse cogitabunt, etc. Accident etiam alia. Quid? an res erat nullius momenti Deum hac forma adorare, ut nihil nobis praescriberetur? An cum de vero Dei cultu ageretur, tantâ levitate fuerat tentandum, de quo nullum usquam verbum legebatur? That is; How will they conclude certainly, out of a thing uncertain? For when they shall see they are destitute of Gods most pregnant word, upon which alone our souls rely, when they shall see that both the doctrine, and examples of the Apostles are wanting to them, and that themselves are the only authors of this devise, namely than they will be to seek for their adoration. So that Calvine, you see, argues from the want of ground in Scriptures for this controverted worship, rather than oppugnes it in any odious or offensive fashion. As also that shows which follows in him. [Is it a small matter, saith he, to adore God in such a manner as he never prescribed, or should that be so lightly or rashly attempted in the matter of God's worship, of which we never read any word any where extant?] At si quâ decet humilitate, etc. auscultassent certè quod ipse dixit, Accipite, manducate, bibite, huicque mandato paruissent, quo accipi Sacramentum, non adorari jubet. That is, But if they had submitted themselves to God's word, as they ought, they would have harkened to that which himself said, Take, eat, drink, and they would have obeyed that Commandment, whereby he bade them receive, not adore, the Sacrament. 
Bell. ubi prius, itemque Valent. ijsdem propè verbis, sed ista frivola sunt: Nam Christus non quondam in praesepi ut adoraretur, sed ut ibi requiesceret, & tamen illum Magi in praesepi adorarunt: & cum ambularet in terris, non ambulabat ut adoraretur, & tamen passim adorabatur. Et quando hic in terris Principes aliquò proficiscuntur, non eunt ad eum finem, ut ab occurrentibus salutentur, & tamèn, etc. Quare adversarij pluris faciunt printipem terrenum, quam Christum. Vide Greg. de Valent. Tom. 3. Comm. Theol. Disput. 6. quaest. 11. de Idololatria. punct. 4.  I know, that both Bellarm. and Valentia, and the rest of you, are wont to scoff at this argument. [He bids us receive it, but not adore it.] This (say you) follows not. But you shall see that Epiphanius argues so altogether in his Tractate against the Collyridian heretics, of which before. Marry was holy, says he, Marie was created for good use, and for the benefit of mankind, but not to be worshipped. This is his manner of arguing. If you deride us, deride him too, for our method is the same. I return to Calvine. Habemus Apostolorum exemplum, quos non legimus prostratos adorâsse, sed ut erant discumbentes accepisse & manducâsse. Habemus Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum, ubi fideles non in adoratione, etc. That is; We have the practice of the Apostles for us, of whom we do not read, that they fell prostrate and adored, but as they sat at table they took and eat. We have the observation of the Church, in the Apostles time, of whom S. Luke reports, that the faithful communicated, not in worshipping, but breaking of the bread. We have lastly the doctrine of the Apostles on our side, namely that in which Paul instructed the Corinthians [not mentioning the adoration of the Sacrament in least wise, and yet] professing that what he delivered to them he received of the Lord. In fine he concludes: Atque haec quidem eò tendunt, 
Expendant Loctores.  ut expendant pij lectores, quam non tutum sit in rebus tam arduis, etc. Calvine would have us to refrain from worshipping the Sacrament of the Eucharist for safety sake. Quia non tutum. Nam ut Christum illic ritè apprehendant piae animae, in coelum erigantur necesse est. For the soul that will apprehend Christ rightly in the Sacrament, must be lifted up into heaven, there is no remedy. Can you deny this to be most true? He adds yet. Quid ergo? superstitiosum esse cultum negabimus, cum sese homines coram pane prosternunt, ut Christum illic adorent? Huic malo proculdubio obuiare voluit Nicaena Synodus etc. That is; What then? shall we deny that to be a superstitious kind of worship, when men cast down themselves before a piece of bread, to the end they may worship Christ there? No doubt the Nicene Council intended to prevent this mischief, when it forbade us to be too basely or solicitously attentive about the elements set before us. And for this cause the people were wont to be advertised by some one speaking in a loud voice, sursum corda, that they should lift up their hearts. The Scripture also showing us where to seek Christ, bids us seek him in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, Col. 3. 1. Secundum hanc regulam erat potius spiritualiter in coelesti gloria adorandus Christus, quam excogitandum istud tam periculosum adorationis genus, etc. According to this rule we ought rather to worship Christ spiritually, and as he is placed in the heavenly glory, then devise this so dangerous kind of adoration. Dangerous he calls it, because it may have evil consequence, and be of kindred to gross and carnal opinions, concerning God, as are his words following in the same place; also he prefers the other before it by a potius, or by a rather only, as sparing the rest. Lastly, he thus disputes, or concludes shall I say, in his 37. Parag. not far from the former place. Christo inquiunt hanc venerationem deferimus. Primùm si in caena hoc fieret, dicerem adorationem eam demum esse legitimam, qua non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur. The question is there about the carrying of the host up and down in pomp. And they allege for themselves, saith he, that they give this worship to Christ. But how does Calvine answer them? I am first to say, quoth he, that if this were done of them, at the time of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, nevertheless that worship only were to be counted lawful, which did not rest in the element, but rose up higher, and were directed to Christ sitting in heaven. Where you see he resists the circumgestation of the host, rather than the reverence that belongs to the Lords Supper, and grants directly, that in cana si hoc fieret, in the Lord's Supper if this were done (namely that Christ were adored there) he would not greatly mislike it, so we soared above the sign, and confined him not to the element, but rose up in our cogitations to him, as he is sitting in heaven. The Bishop therefore revolts not from the current of our Divines, about the worshipping of the Sacrament, but worshipping Christ wheresoever he finds him (for even Bellarmine can tell us here, that we are not tied to any 
Bell. ubi prius, ex joh. 4. Non in hoc monte, etc.  place, joh. 4. since the times of the new Testament, but that they admit of all alike,) yet willingliest rises above the sphere of the Creation, & considers him as appareled with celestial glory. This was one.  
§ 13. Another thing that I am to note, of kin to the former, and entangled with the argument of the adoration of the Sacrament, is this. In sum, a gross untruth of the Adjoinders, Numb. 4. In that quoting the Bishop's book, pag. 201. lin. 8. he says he treats of the same matter there, viz. of the worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament. Of which not a word, on my word, in that place, but by occasion of another question about worshipping God's footstool, which S. Augustine and S. Ambrose construe to be the flesh of our Saviour Christ, not any material footstool, as the Papists would have it, he shows how the flesh and human nature of Christ may be worshipped, by the privilege of their assumption into his Godhead. And he explicates it by the similitude of a King, and his robe, which participates in a manner of the reverence done to the King himself. This do both S. Augustine and the Bishop manifestly in that place; I say, they show how Christ's flesh may be worshipped with the Godhead, whereas the Adjoinder says the Bishop teaches by this comparison, that the flesh of Christ may be adored with the Sacrament, and the Sacrament with it, by virtue of such conjunction. Which is a notable untruth, as I said before, the Bishop neither insinuating any thing to that purpose in all that place, and utterly denying it elsewhere, viz. pag. 195. of the same book. The Sacrament no where, says he, the earthly part, 
lib. 4. c. 34.  as Irenaeus calls it, but Christ every where is to be worshipped. And his flesh too: but as he declares afterward out of S. Austen, p. 201. lin. 8. as even now I noted. Such conscience in his reporting, or such diligence in his reading, heed in his observing, useth the Adjoinder. But so much of the first branch of this chapters accusation, concerning the Sacrament. I am to be short in the rest.  
§ 14. ANother is, about the Reward of good works. He says, 
Numb. 6.  the Bishop favours their opinion in that too. As if we, when we deny either justification by works, or the merit of good works after justification, denied reward, recompense, retribution. We acknowledge with S. Gregory in 
In cap. 5. M●… spo●si pl●●● hyacinth●●. juxta illud, Vbi ego sum, ibi minister mens erit. Greg.  his Commentary upon the Canticles, that the hands of the Bridegroom are set with Chrysolites, that is, that he hath many gems and precious jewels which he carries always about him, as it were the rings of his fingers, to reward his favourites with, now one, then another. But yet again, we cannot but join with S. Hilary, saying, That for so much 
I● Mat. can. 5.  as we are called to be like the lilies, which neither spin nor sow, and yet equal Solomon in all his royalty, it is a similitude of the righteousness which we have by faith, and the possession of eternal glory, without the merit of good works. Quibus (says he) nec laborantibus nec nentibus, extra operis mercedem gloriae candour a Deo indultus est, etc. And thus, he supposeth we are made like the Angels, which condition you know we are promised, totidem verbis, elsewhere, namely, Luk. 20. 36. And yet the Angels merits are little spoken of in Scripture, man's rather (though no were avouched, yet the rather I say, of the two) that man may be stirred up, to the working of good works, with no less zeal, and fervency, then if the obtaining of the crown depended merely thereupon. But the Angel's hazard and probation-time being passed, nothing is pronounced but exactly concerning them, to whom the glory of meriting must nevertheless belong in all reason, before we men may challenge it. Yea, but meritum and merces (saith the Adjoinder) are correlatives, and if reward be granted, merit may by no means be denied. It follows not, good Sir. There is a reward of free mercy, 
Merces gratuita, & merces debitae. S. Ambr distinct. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rewarding us above our desert. Geometrical proportion, not arithmetical.  as well as of due desert, a reward of liberality, as S. Ambrose distinguishes, as well as issuing from the rigour of absolute justice, which is the hirelings reward, whereas we hold by inheritance, and call him Father, as S. Peter puts us in mind, 1. Pet. 1. 17. or, are children and heirs, as 
* Rom. 8. 10, 17, 1●. Rom. 9 7, 8, Eph. 5. 1. & 5. 8. Phil. 2. 15. And, 1. Pet. 1. 14. 1. joh. 3. 1. 2. 10. & saepiùs.  S. Paul often.  
§ 15. The Hebrew word for wages, (the Adjoinders Merces, that he argues from) signifies (as I have heard) but as much as the calx, the heel in a man's body. Because as the heel is the final, the bottom of God's workmanship, so the work ceaseth when the wages is paid. As Solomon can tell us, that he that payeth aforehand, cuts off the hands, and the legs, meaning that the wages is the period of the work, and that being paid, all pains are at an end; no body works when he hath received his pay, no more than if his arms, or his legs were cut off. And the Latin calx, the goal after a race, may perchance come from thence, (but I define nothing) as the final of that exercise, in which they rest and breath themselves, that ran before. Consummavi cursum, 2. Tim. 4. 7. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore must be no otherwise construed in the New Testament; for the New loves to speak in the terms of the Old, as they know that know any thing. And so Merces is not so proud as to infer merit, (as the Adjoinder would) but only the reward which the work precedeth, and the work is concluded by that reward. They have received their reward, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their wages, Matth. 6. It is three times there in 
ver 2. 5. 15.  one Chapter. Do the hypocrites therefore merit in their damnable hypocrisies? It were a shame to think so. How much better Bellarmine, that awakes at last, and expounds mereri by impetrare mere? De Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 23. So as no marvel if our writers abhor from the 
Chap. 10. num. 6. Luther, and 〈◊〉, & their fellows, howsoever they teach that good works may have some reward (yea, 〈◊〉 most rich reward) even in the next life, yet they deny that they merit eternal salvation, etc. & num. 11. apertiùs. Adjoind.  word merit (as the Adjoinder notes) wishing rather it had never been in use: which is no more then S. Austen of the word Fortune, and yet that the Scripture useth in divers places, 
Retract.  as in S. Luke, and Ecclesiastes, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Cor. 12. 10. Much more therefore that which the Scripture never useth, as the word merit, though they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so, Heb, 13. most unfittly; unless you will abate from the sense of merit, (as Bellarmine even now) rather than rack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to so abominable insolence. S. Hierome in his Comm. in Matth. 10. says that Issachar by interpretation signifies merces, that is to say wages, a brand for them that hold by merit, as it is correlative to wages, as the Adjoinder teacheth; there being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wages of wickedness, or of unrighteousness (no less than of good works) which who will say we properly merit, unless it be the wages of woe and condemnation for sin? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is still put in Scripture in the bad sense, as might be showed more at large if it were pertinent. joh. 10. twice together, Luk. 15. likewise twice, etc. So as well might S. chrysostom say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we 
in Rom.  must not serve God for pay, but for his own sake. Though it is true, that Ipse est merces nostra magna nimis, Genes. 15. And does the Adjoinder think that he can merit God? Of merit hitherto.  
§ 16. As for the justice, that is incident to the keeping of promise, that there may be a justice in our rewards whatsoever; such a justice we grant you, we contend not about it. God; way of rewarding us (when he accepts our pains, rests well pleased with our endeavours) is full of this justice. Yea, all the ways of God are just and true, so: God is questionless just in all his courses. In the creation of the world, in the giving of the first grace, in the sending of his Son to be our Redeemer; but so as merit creep in never the more for all that, and much less the Bishop turn praevaricator, the clearest confessor, and the directest champion, (let the trial be his carriage even in this very controversy) that ever yet encountered you in the cause. Shall I say, that as Annibal 
Frontinus stratag.  would persuade the Romans that Fabius was for Carthage, and therefore burned not his gardens, when he burned all the rest, threaping kindness upon him? Or rather as I have heard some Sophisters in the Schools, when they were puzzled with an argument, which they could not tell how to answer, they would fall to trifling and shifting, Haec omnia verissima sunt, concedo tibi cuncta, iam meas partes agis, etc. but were never a whit the nearer to the assoiling of the objection, in wise men's judgements: so the Adjoinder doth here, and in this whole Chapter. He says the Bishop is turned Popish, and closes with the Cardinal, because he confutes the Cardinal, (as it were getting within him) either by his own authorities, or at least by his own Authors, as Gregory de Valent. here for one. And 
Seclusâ promissione divinâ non suppetit aliquis sufficiens titulus propter quem Deus debeat compensare tale opus vitâ aeterná. Valent. 8. 6. 4. The Adiounder quoting it twice, and still false, one time 9 for 6. another, 14. for 4. consundent vestigia circa specum ne capiatur.  though I could wish from my heart, that it were true which you say, that the Bishop were of your mind, that so you might be of the Bishops, Vellem omnes esse sicut memetipsum, 1. Cor. 7. 7. and Act. 26. 29. I would to God that all were answerable, and in all points, exceptis iis quae aut optare aut sperare dementis est, yet harken you in a word how much farther both the Cardinal and certain others have gone in challenging to themselves the heavenly favour (which is better than the life, than the Kingdom itself, if we believe David: 
Misericordia tu● super vitam. Charitas more.  Psal. 62. 4.) out of their inherent worthiness, than ever the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for his divine piety sake, then diverse under him, not only with your elenches, but with your more forcible engines, I mean your racks and your strappadoes, would ever be brought to do. And first the Cardinal, the card that you sail by, the justif. l. 2. c. 16. Effectus infusae charitatis est, reconciliare hominem Deo, & hic effectus consequitur ex naturâ rei absolutè. That is: The effect of the love of God, dwelling in our souls, is such, as to make our peace between God and us. And this effect follows absolutely ex naturâ rei, out of the nature of that quality, viz. the love of God, as it is shed abroad in our hearts. The question is, between the Adjoinder and us, whether the favour of God follow upon our good works, or virtuous habits, seclusâ promissione, without the promise of God, yea or no? Or rather in truth, this is not the question. But the Bishop not only granting this, but mainly urging it, and thereby either extenuating, or clean overthrowing their supposed merit, the Adjoinder says, that herein the Bishop says no more than the rankest Papist of them all: viz. that all merit presupposes God's promise. 
The Adjoinders words, cap. 10. num. 8. & 9 We are so far from rejecting the consideration of God's promise, that we ground the merit of everlasting life specially thereupon.  And yet here we have the Cardinal ascribing our friendship with Almighty God, our peace and our reconciliation with the Lord of all things, (which is our most immediate title to the kingdom of heaven, and the removing of the mainest bar that keeps us out from thence, or can possibly keep us,) to the effect of such poor charity as is found inherent in us, ex naturâ rei absolutè: the promise, either suppressed, or at least silenced; yea so silenced, as suppressed for certain, renounced plainly. But Vasquez more audaciously and presumptuously yet, then Bellarmine, (the beast belike waxing prouder and prouder) in I á secundae, Disput. 204. cap. 4. Deus ipse efficere non potest, quin per inhaerentem justitiam sit dignus quisque aternâ vitâ, et si per absolutam potentiam possit non dare. That is: God himself cannot hinder, but that every man is worthy of eternal life, out of his inherent righteousness, though out of his absolute power he may refuse to give it him. I examine not this Divinity, how God may be unjust by his absolute power, whereas his absolute power doth not give him that leave, to deny his justice, that is himself, which I suppose he should do, if he denied rewards to them that have deserved them, and are worthy of them. But by this may be seen, whether the Bishop be turned Papist yea or no, for standing for Gods promise to ground our hope of heaven upon, or rather whether Valentia be not turned Protestant, for holding so precisely, that secluso promisso, we have no cause of confidence. Or, if that be Popery, which Valentia holdeth, and the Bishop lays hold on, that we have no right to heaven but for the promise, whether Vasquez and Bellarmine savour not of a ranker contagion than so, that advance us to heaven, and to the highest favour of God, out of the worth of what is within us, though his promise were no where, though his pactum salis were clean ploughed down. Can there be any thing more contrary than the aforesaid opinions are between themselves? Or is not the Bishop most constant, while the Jesuits are thus at odds, like the Armites', among themselves? One of them being so humble, and so humbly conceiting of his own sufficiencies, as it seems at least, that you would think he might enter in even through the needle's eye; the others so swelling, as heaven itself, large though it be, is scarce able to contain them. But if this be their speculation, about infused righteousness, which is God's entire work, what do they think of their own works, trow you, which for certain they will challenge more reward unto, because they are more voluntary, and of their freer concurrence? And indeed the question was between the Bishop and the Cardinal, about the merit of works, not of habits. These, make habits and all to be meritorious, one absolutely ex naturâ rei, the other so as God cannot hinder condignity, though he deny pay. Yet S. Paul not only vilifies his habit of righteousness, Phil. 3. that I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, but his works of righteousness, Tit. 3. and which is more than both these, his sufferings for righteousness, Rom. 8. He had played the Auditor, he had cast up his accounts, and his total is what think you? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I find (says he) by computation, or by exact casting, that the present sufferings of this transitory life (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are so short) they are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed. He keeps the word, you see, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are not worthy. Yet Vasquez says, God cannot 
The monstrous giddiness of Vasque●, in contradicting; God may deny reward, but not our desert, saith he, whereas our desert is none, but Gods reward most certain. And to be claimed too, eâ quae par est humilitate, as the Bishop most excellently. That to be disclaimed altogether.  hinder their worthiness, no not only by his ordinary power, but not by his absolute, (though he may deny the wages by the later of these two, that is scarce justly, or very unjustly only, as I conceive it.) But what says Bellarmine? The Apostle (says he) means, that the sufferings here are temporal, the bliss to come eternal, and that between them there is no proportion. Now surely a worshipful solution, of an insoluble authority. Whereas the Apostle does not say, they are not proportionable ratione durationis, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they are not worthy, which is the very question. And was this a sentence worthy of S. Paul's wisdom, to tell us that there is no proportion between finite and infinite? Who does not know that? We may say unto him, as he does to Calvine in another place, about the wisdom of Ulysses, pronouncing for Monarchies; Ad hoc certè pronunciandum non fuit opus sapientiâ vel Pauli, vel Apostoli: De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 2. The very Centurion, to whom the jews had given that testimony, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is worthy, yet he overthroweth it in the same place again, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I did not count myself worthy, Luc. 7. 7. They thought him worthy that Christ should come to him, when he does not think himself worthy so much as to come to Christ. And not to come to him in earth, I say; yet into heaven trow you? to find him out there too? As he must, if he mean to be saved by his works. But so is merit and worthiness every way hissed out, so is it one thing for the jews to ponder other body's merits, another thing for the conscience to weigh itself in unpartial balance. The builder of the Synagogue is modester than the jews that enjoy his buildings.  
§ 17. Many things might be noted in the Adjoinders discourse, wherein he chokes himself, though he indite the Bishop of prevarisation. Num. 7. he says, the Bishop alludes to the penny in the Gospels, that was given to the labourers, by which the Fathers (as he confesseth) understand eternal life and salvation. He quotes Hierome in jovinian, lib. 2. Aug. de Virgin. c. 26. Greg. in job. l. 4. c. 31. also the Commentaries upon S. Matth. cap. 20. But if this be so, what more adverse to himself? For if the penny be but one, and all receive that common penny, then are we not saved by our works, which all that are saved are not furnished with alike, but some more, some less, as is evident. It comes therefore of the goodness of Almighty God alone, giving mercedem diei horario operi, awhole days wages for an hours work, as the Bishop most godlily. Can this be but of the free mercy of God, without respect to our merits, yea to our works themselves, though we entitle no merit to them?  
§ 18. Numb. 11. he brings that for an example of meriting by works, Centuplum etc. Matth. 19 a hundredth fold in this life. And if God do not give us an hundredth fold in this life, I mean them that serve him in most devout fashion, doth he not reward merits, or doth he therefore come short of paying the score? Yet the Adjoinder says, we merit the centuplum to be paid us in this life, because our Saviour promiseth so. Whereas how many depart this life daily, without the receiving of such a pay, the hundredth fold pay, in temporal commodities? And are merits unrewarded, shall we say, in all these? What is this but to do as the Apostle complains, Rom. 10. statuentes suam justiciam, justiciae Dei non sunt subiecti? [Seeking by all means to establish their own righteousness, they were not subjecteth to the righteousness of God.] We slander God, to flatter men, and wrong his scale to advance ours. Save that all is Centuplum, I grant, which we receive here, though never so little, if we compare it with our merits. Whether it be so then or not, that the Centuplum is here paid, merit is dashed.  
§ 19 In his 9 numb. he brings that out of Rom. 4. To him that worketh, the reward is imputed not according to grace, but according to debt. Why this? Because the Bishop had answered his other authority of unusquisque accipiet, Every one shall receive reward according to his labour; I say, the Bishop had answered it most pithily, and most properly, According to his labour, but not for his labour. It is the square of the reward, but not the formal cause whereby. In genere comparatorum, non efficientium, as the worthy Bishop most worthily had explained. By all which their inference of merit is confounded. To this than he opposes, that wages is of debt, not of grace, to him that worketh, Rom. 4. 4. Yet they are wont to say, both of grace and of debt: as they have many more such untempered mortering, and mongrel daub. Cornelius' Muss. in his Comment. in 6. ad Rom. in the very end thus, speaking of life eternal: Si deum respicias, semper est donum, nunquam stipendium, nunquam merces. In quantum enim redditur à Deo qui nullatenus debet, omnem meriti rationem excedit: that is, Eternal life if you respect God, is always a gift, never wages, nor hire. For in somuch as God gives it, who is no way debtor, it exceeds all proportion of desert or merit.] Yet they have found out a debet on God's part; & who sees not that all merit is dashed by Muss. his words, unless they come in, and show somewhat else, by which they may claim on their own parts? sith God is by no means to be challenged, as he says. Here the Adjoinder would have all to be of debt, and none of grace. Or else what doth that authority avail him out of Rom. 4. Wages to the workman, not of grace, but of debt. He kicks out grace, and cashiers it clean, that there may be both debt, and a pure debt, and so merit. And doth not the Apostle force him to do no less, unless he let go merit? Doth he not say in effect, If of grace, not of debt, if of debt, not of grace; as in an other place he affirms, and that very formally, If of grace, not of works, else grace were no grace; which is another place which overthroweth 
Rom. 11. 6.  their merit clean, because the Adjoinder will have it not to be without grace at any hand, in his 12, numb. But every body may see that S. Paul doth not apply this Rom. 4. to our state as we are justified, but to the natural man that should work wonders, and win heaven by his exact righteousness, if any such were. Therefore he divides the worker from the believer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But to him that believeth on him which justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed for righteousness. By which we see the former words do not belong to us, unless he will have us so to work merits, as not to believe in God, nor to trust in him which justifieth the wicked. And behold what follows, in S. Paul, how favourable to merits, if we had leisure to stand upon it? God impures righteousness without works, says he, v. 6. And, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. It is a tale, that they would tell us here, of the first and second justification. For where there is blessedness, where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever is secondary, is frustrate and superfluous. We cannot be better than happy. As all the world added to God doth not make him better, no more doth any addition increase felicity. Therefore once justified, and justified for good and all, perfectly justified, there is no entitling of us to any higher good. And so falls their distinction, which was coined at first, to uphold their other rotten buildings from falling.  
§ 20. The sum is. Wages to the worker without grace, says the Apostle, or without favour. Let it be so hardly. But that is pure merces then, strict wages, wages of rigour, nothing strained, but properly so called. To show that at other times when the Scripture useth the word wages, it speaks not properly, nor would be thought to speak so, but in a modified notion only, imitating wages, because wages comes last, and so the reward to us after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephes. 6. 13. the true Gnekeb of which before. And you shall observe that the Scripture keeps the phrase, for the most part, whereof the Apostle speaks, Heb. 12. v. 5. 7. the one in dealing by us, the other in censuring and pronouncing of us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rewarding our obedience far above our deserts. For he deals with us as with Sons. Now inheritances are not purchased, but freely given to them of the blood, IT IS YOUR FATHER'S PLEASURE, Luk. 12. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he calls strabones paetoes, looking upon us through the spectacles of love, and commends our work above the worth. He may say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are worthy; but we with the Centurion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I did not count myself worthy; non minùs veraciter quam humiliter, not of lying humility, but godly sincerity, (the distinction that the holy Fathers have used long ago to prevent cavil, in this very question.) Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luk. 20. 35. and again, 21. 36. and 2. Thess. 1. 5. expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not of dignity, but of dignation, not of them that are worthy, but are reputed to be worthy.  
§ 21. I hast to his last, and yet lo I am crossed with another objection creeping forth like a gloe-worme out of a hedge. Dignus est operarius mercede suâ, the labourer is worthy of his hire. Therefore merit. But this is spoken of Ministers deserving maintenance at their people's hands, whom they attend and serve, Matth. 10. 10. Luk. 10. 7. 1. Tim. 5. 18. not of God who is debtor to none, nemini debtor, rather all the world obnoxious to him. Are not these stout probates of the Adjoinder for Merits?  
§ 22. But now, num. 12. (with which I will end) when he seems to be most acute, than he is foulest of all other. Because God by his grace helps us to work, and we cannot work as we are of ourselves, therefore we merit by reason of God's concurrence. This is more than Pelagius ever meant to dishonour God by, when he denied grace, and pleaded so strongly for natural abilities. For it is worse to shoot at God with his own arrows, and to raise merit out of grace, than out of free will. Shall we see how many reasons fight against this conclusion? First, we do but little good, rarius exit, scarce one in a thousand, 
* S. Cyrill (of whom before) Catech. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,. i. Most things we do are worthy of condemnation. (This is more than Venial sins.) And describing the form of their service at Communion, he says of God, ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.. i. God in benefiting us doth not a justice, but a thing above all justice, viz. because above all desert. Indeed, if we be in hell, then justè nos hîc, as the good thief said; but if, in bonis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, More than our right.  as job speaketh. Then spotted and imperfect, si fortè quid, when it comes at last, like Jacob's lambs. Sicut pannus menstruatae, sic justitiae ipsae nostrae. Thirdly due, though it were never so excellent or exact. Due to our Creator, due to our Redeemer, every way due, as one that hath the dominion over all that we either have or are. Who of you will thank his servant? says our Saviour. Inter Dominum & servum non est justitia, says Aristotle, much less merit, and merit de rigore. Fourthly, though they were not due, yet because God helps us, and God assists us, or else they can be none (omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis Domine) therefore merit is turned out at that gate too. And yet the Adjoinders 
Chrys. in Matth. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. God evermore gives rewards above our designs (for S. chrysostom knew no Popish deserts.)  reason for merit is grace, but very reasonless. Lastly, Improportionable to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that down weighing reward, 2. Cor. 4. 17. and Luk. 6. 38. mensura superefluens, exceeding (merit.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are not worthy, as before was showed out of Rom. 8.  
§ 23. After all this, it will be said perhaps, nay after all this it is said, num. 12. in the latter end, that the Bishop nevertheless grants the Adjoinders doctrine about Merits of works, & divers other important points of their catholic religion. Why then do they carp his writings so bitterly, I would feign know, and the Adjoinder among the first? They have railed against many, they have traduced all that came in their way, the champions specially, the jewels, the Whitakers, the Casaubones, and who not? Yet never any like the Reverend Bishop. Patientia tua supergressa est universos. Is this a sign that he is so wholly of their mind?  
§ 24. And though this might serve, for a confutation of the whole chapter, whose scope is only to prove, the Bishop to be theirs, or turned from us, and yet mixed with such ta●t invectives every where against his person, which they would never use to a new-reclaymed friend (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but that they suspect he is not perfectly 
Act. 28.  reconciled to them, yet let us view the rest, with all expedition. To some of them speaking, though perhaps very little, leaving other things and remitting them wholly to the reader's judgement, as content to have descried them.  
§ 25. IN his fourteenth Numb. he belches forth a fresh that fame stale crapula of his, (it deserves no better) that God is honoured in his servants honour. As if therefore we might adore them too, and keep no measure, or at least defer religious worship. Honos servorum redundat ad Dominum, 
Quoted by the Adjoind. here.  saith S. Hierome; it is true, but not adoratio. There may be therefore a nimis, in honouring those whom God most dearly loves. Even the Ass in Aesop kissed his owner, thinking he did well, but was justly reputed a lout for his pains. Yet the Adjoinder is earnest for our kissing of relics in most devout fashion, Numb. 16. Origen refutes this objection of the Papists, in the Paynim Celsus, (lib. 8. quoted by me before) that we must worship creatures to please God, glorify them, to gratify him; the Church which is Christ's spouse lying with Christ's friends, (the Sodales in the Canticles) for Christ's sake, as the Bishop most wittily, and no less godlily retorted after the Scripture phrase, that makes idolatrizing, whoring, and our Faith to God the flower of our Chastity. Why doth not the Adjoinder refute that comparison? For the wife, though she give entertainment to her husband's friends, yet she must beware how she give them her husband's honour, which is worship and veneration between Christ and his Church. Cui gloriam, ei omnia, says Euthymius. And God by Esay, had said as much before. 
In Matth. Non dabo alteri.   
§ 26. But the 15. num. salves this sweetly; I will set down his words. Religious honour hath been often exhibited to Angels and holy Men, with the term of adoration, and with the exhibition of a corporal reverence. (So as he abhors not from religious adoration of Angels and holy men: But he goes forward.) Which may be more or less according to the devotion of the exhibiters thereof (belike he leaves the matter to every man's discretion) to give more or less thereafter as they are disposed, so that it be in their mind and intention distinguished from divine honour, due to God alone. In which intention, consisteth etc. See we to what this doctrine leadeth? That we may give any honour, and to any one, alike; God or man, Saint or Angel, pilgrim or triumphant, (it is well that the reprobates and the devils come not in too) only provided, that our intentions be right. They must 
Why not Sacrifice too, with different intent●…?  be varied, though the act be all one, and then it is well enough, for the rest the Adjoinder will carry you out. For the intention is that which differeth and distinguisheth all. And in his 6. Num. he is content to take in the adoration of the Kings of Persia too, either to justify, or to exemplify this conceit of his; which Mardocheus is thought to have denied to Haman out of a godly zeal, and Origen condemns in his 8. against Celsus very directly (as I have quoted before) and a certain Ambassador, wiser than his fellows, let fall his ring, and took it up again, with such a bending 
Plutarch.  of the body as is meet in the like case, when he came in the presence of the Persian King, pretending worship so, but doing none. So much more tender are the heathen sometimes, of the divine honour, than the Adjoinder Christian, and Catholic, as he would be thought, confounding all actions of honour and reverence both towards God and man, so the intention do but turn as it were upon a pin, which way it should. May I not say, as the Bishop most acutely urgeth them (when he examines their position, that there is no peculiar honour to God reserved, but only sacrifice,) 
Resp. ad Apol. p. 290. c. 12. Mis. sa non fit Eucharistiae ne bis fiat. ut quae per Miss● fiat. Euge, Eugepae.  that by this means we may offer the Mass to the Mass, not only to God, nay nor only to the Virgin, or to Saints and Angels, so our intentions be sound? But he says in the conclusion of his 15. Num. that for so much as the Bishop confesseth a certain honour to be due to holy relics (meaning they should be honourably laid up in the ground, not ventis & solibus, much less feris atque alitibus, to be left at random) he cannot with reason exclude from the same, corporal reverence. And yet the Apostle says, we put more honour upon our uncomely parts, 1. Cor. 12. 23. even as relics are buried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they would have, unless they were hid out of sight. And does corporal reverence follow to be given, from S. Paul's honour which he allots to these parts? But the Adjoinder is not content with corporal reverence, but he says we cannot exclude from them ANY corporal reverence (be it what it will be) so the intention be to do a religious worship, and not a divine, to them. He that robbeth his father 
Prou 28. ●4.  or his mother, and saith it is no transgression, (viz. because he hath a good intention) is the companion of murderers. I say no more; I leave the rest to the Readers judgement.  
§ 27. In his 16. Num. he tells us certain tales of processions, but by the way implies, that the word procession, is but very late. As now we term it, saith he; I believe the thing than is not very ancient. I showed before out of Theoderets history, with what manner of procession, Babylas body was removed by the Christians from Daphne to Antioch. The people cried, all the way as they went, Confounded be all they that worship carved images. And would this sentence agree with the Popish processions? But the question was not, between the Bishop and the Cardinal, about procession, but adoration of relics. Did he want matter, trow you, that he stuffs in this, or is the consequence good from the one to the other? May not I ask him, who is the prevaricator now, or, how it comes to pass, that he hath lost his way?  
§ 28. THE Miracles at Sichem affect him much. 
Numb. 17.  Stultus populus Sichem, the foolish people of Sichem, and not worthy to be called a nation, saith the wise Ecclesiasticus, c. 50. v. 25. and 26. Whom he professes also to hate before all the world. And in Sicima, not the cakeseruice performed by the dames, but the next in order that Epiphanius speaks of, was accomplished by the Samaritans, 
Haeres. Massal.  in a place like a theatre, a mixed superstition, and like this of the Papists. But this is Lady Aspricoll, that the Adjoinder meaneth of: yet the name you see how ominous, to delusions and fooleries, even of old. Others at Minich for sooth, and in Valentia of Spain, strange feats wrought at a Priest's body (notable says the margin) that died in April last. For as in Madrigals, so in miracles, always the last mock the vulgar most.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Thus the whores factors would feign draw customers to her burse of bawderies. And F. T. that he may be the man, offers his service, like Ticelius under Pope Leo, whom Luther scared. Nay, we are all of us gone at common Law (he thinks) that can show no miracles so long together in our Church, not so much as a lame dog, or a sick cat healed in all our Congregations, notwithstanding our lively and strong faith, that we are wont so much to vaunt of. Thus he. And specially, since the Bishop grants miracles to have been done at S. Stephen's body in S. Austin's time (the Bishop meant he would not reject S. Austin's report, and yet he repelleth their idolatries about the worshipping of relics sufficiently otherways: for, non sequitur consequentia à miraculis ad cultum, witness Bellarmine himself, lib. 4. c. 14. de Not is Eccl.) but, if he grant that miracles were done then, he must either show why they have ceased since, (saith the Adjoinder) or at least prove that all the Popish miracles whereof their Church boasteth, are no better than spectra, and diabolical illusions. A task not so difficult perhaps, but that the number is so infinite. Though why should not himself, or one of his fellows, approve the soundness of them, rather than we disprove them, since they bring those miracles for so many arguments of their doughty religion, which they call Catholic, we know to be counterfeit? The law of disputation being, as I remember, for the opponent to prove, the defendant to answer only, and to resist. But the Adjoinders discontinuance so long from the Universities, hath dispossessed him of these and all other good notions. Neither do I see any reason, why the Bishop granting that there were miracles done in S. Austin's time, should be bound to acknowledge their continuance till now, or show a reason of their ceasing (as the Adjoinder would feign charge upon him,) unless they likewise prove, that those miracles beginning with the Apostles time, continued in the Church without any intermission, from the primitive till S. Austin's days; which as yet they have not done. For Bellarmine attempting it, Lib. 4. cap. 14. de Notis Eccl. is both otherwise at a loss, and fails most grossly in the second hundredth of years. In all which time, he hath but one miracle, viz. that of the Christian soldiers under Marcus Aurelius, obtaining rain at the instance of their prayers, after a long and great drought. Which some would doubt, 
Of this kind see, both others, and Olympia Fu●… 〈◊〉, Epist. lib. 1. ad Caelium Sec. Curio●em. Fraterculus mens è fenestra excel●a supra saxa decidit. Sed non plus mali habuit, quà●… si in molli humo cecidisset. Vide ibid. lib. 2. Epist Andreae G●…leri de obitu divinissi nae feminae, paulò antem nominatae, & à Pontificijs persecutionem passae, any mo●ienti omnia plena v●debantur esse pulch●…imis floribus, etc. Illud ut ad miracula, hoc visiones pertineat; etsi non est opus.  whether to call a miracle or no, (a mirandum rather) or if it be miracle, yet we want not divers such, nor I think no Church under heaven, according to that of S. james, 5. 16. The prayer of a righteous man, availeth much. How much more, whom so many are combined together? And yet Bellar. calling it miracula, in the plural number, as it were many miracles, presently adds, De quo vide, etc. falling into the singular number with shame enough; like him that would call for his men john, having but one in all, and yet making show of great attendance. Well, omitting Bellarmine, who makes it a miracle if our religion last any thing 
Do notis Eccl. lib. 〈◊〉 c. 10.  long, which God be thanked, he hath not lived to see extinguished, S. Austen thus delivers his opinion of miracles, de civit. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. the very place which the Adjoinder quoteth. Quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat inquirit, magnum ipse prodigium est, quia mundo credente non credit. That is, [Whosoever calls for miracles in these days, himself is a great monster, that believes not, when the world round about him hath believed.] Meaning, that after the confirmation of Christ's doctrine by signs & 
Therefore S. Aust●● in the end of the foresaid chap. the Civ. dei, thus: Quid erat in cordibus exultantium [super patrato miraculo] nisi fides illa Christi, pro qua Stephani sanguis effusus est? Which was neither for praying to Saints, nor for worshipping of relics, Rather the story of S. Stephen's death confutes them both most pregnantly, if the Evangelist be not imperfect in his relation. Act. 8. And, ibid. c. 9 in the very beginning, Cui nisi huic sidei attestantur ista miracula, in qua praedicatur Christus resurrexisse in carne, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So as, new miracles must confirm old faith only, or else not be regarded.  miracles, such as we read of in the new Testament, Heb. 2. 4. we are to seek no further, but to rest in that, which being taught us once, or brought us once, (as S. Iud● says,) that is, confirmed once for good and all, needs no other daily demonstrations. What says the Scripture? Signs are for the infidels, not for the believers, 1. Cor. 14. If faith were currant therefore in the Church of Rome, they would call for no miracles to commend it. And the same S. Austen again, Tract. 13. in joh. insults over the Donatists, and their pretending to do miracles, and calls them, mirabiliarij, or miracle-mongers, by contempt. De unitate, also, Eccles. c. 16. he rejects not the Donatists only, and their miracles, but such as are said to be done in the Catholic Church, from having any force to demonstrate the Church, as the Adjoinder would. Non ideò manifestatur Ecclesia, saith he, quia haec talia [miracula] in ea fiunt. [The doing of miracles, though they be true miracles, is no note of the Church.] This is a flint that Bellarmine mumps at, and cannot get down with any chewing. To which finally may be added, another testimony of the same S. Austen, contra Faust. Manich. lib. 12. c. 45. where he prefers the prophecies that went of Christ in Scripture, before miracles, though never so illustrious, as which are more subject to cavillation, than Scripture Oracles. His words are: Etsi attestabantur miracula doctrinae Apostolicae, attamen non defuissent, sicut etiam nunc adhuc quidam mussitant, qui magicae potentiae cuncta illa tribuerent, nisi talis eorum cogitatio contestatione prophetica vinceretur. Magicis enim artibus longè antequam nascerentur, prophetas sibi constituere à quibus praenunciarentur, nemo utique diceret. That is, [Although there were miracles which bare witness to the truth of the Apostles doctrine, yet there would have been some (as there are also now) who would have ascribed those things to certain Magical arts or feats, unless that wicked surmise of theirs had been beaten and battered down, with the testimonies of the holy Prophets: for no man could say (though disposed to cavil) that Christ by Magic, could appoint himself certain Prophets long before he was borne, who should foretell of him, etc.] S. chrysostom says evidently, in 1. ad Cor. cap. 2. hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Miracles are forbidden in these days, or, miracles are at a stay now, choose you whether: for the authority is pregnant against you both ways. And he affirms, that the Church is the better for being without them, without sick dogs healed, and lame cats cured by your minikin-miracles, done at Minich, and Sichem, Sir. Make your peace with chrysostom first, and then come and wrangle with us hardly. The same Father remembering, that S. Paul had said, that Anti-christ should come in lying wonders and miracles (not yours I warrant you) he notes upon the place before quoted, that the Apostle speaking of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the power of miracles, sets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before it, that is, the spirit, to distinguish the miracles 
2. Cor. 2. 4.  of sorcerers and witches, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who can cure cats and dogs, I warrant you, with a wet finger, from such as proceed from the operation of the holy Ghost. But what can be more powerful, than the observation of the same chrysostom upon Tit. 1. that, if we mark well the story of the Acts of the Apostles, we shall see most men were converted by their doctrine and preaching, before ever they came to the working of miracles. So john did no miracle, 
joh. 10. 41.  as they confess in the Gospel, and yet drew the multitudes forcibly after him. Nevertheless john came with a new doctrine. In his last Homely upon the Acts, the same chrysostom thus, (that ye may see what a friend he was to miracles.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This is a great miracle, says he, to bring an argument from the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. By which reason, I believe, we shall have more miracles in our Church, then are stirring in the Popish, whatsoever store of lame dogs are healed there, or sick cats, as this wretch scoffeth from his chair of scorners. S. Gregory 
Sa, Scholijs in evang. Matth.  the great, as he is quoted by Immanuel Sa. in 4. Matth. notes most excellently, that our Saviour when he fasted forty days together, not without a great miracle, yet being oppugned by the devil, repelled him by Scripture, and not by miracle. Yet than if ever, were miracles to be brought for the avouching of the truth. Specially since the devil went to tempt him with hunger, our Saviour was to foil him with his miracle of fasting. Nevertheless, Scriptum est, there carried it, though the devil craftily had begun with it, to divert our Saviour from the use of that which he had profaned. And the same S. Gregory again, Hom. 29. in evang. makes it a sign of the Church's infancy, to be tittled with miracles; as S. chrysostom had also said in another place, that the Apostles 
Comm in Epist. Rom. & Cor.  were not always to be conversant with Christ, like the nurse-child with his nurse, nor fed with pap, but to try 
Bellarm. in Apo●… says the church is too old now, to expect new increase of light, for doctrine. Why miracles then, which are for a young Church?  their fortunes, and to go abroad into the world, and to shift for themselves. S. Gregory's words are, Nunquidnan fratres mei, quòd ista signa non facitis, minime creditis? Sed haec necessaria in exordio Ecclesiae fuerunt. Vt enim fides cresceret, miraculis fuerat nutrienda. Quià & nos cum arbusta plantamus, tamdiu eis aquam fundimus, quousque ea in terrâ iam convaluisse videamus. At si semel radicem fixerint, irrigatio cessabit. Hinc est enim quòd Paulus dicit, 1. Cor. 14. Linguae in signum sunt, non fidelibus, sed infidelibus. That is, [Shall I say you believe not now, my dear brethren, because you do none of these miracles? But miracles were needful in the beginnings of the Church. To the end that faith might grow up, it was to be fed with miracles. For even we, when we set trees, we water them no longer, then till they have taken root. And when once they are rooted, our watering of them is at an end. Hence saith S. Paul, Tongues are for a token, (or for a sign, or monument) not to the believers, but to the unbelievers.] Thus Gregory. And he might have added that out of 1. Cor. 13. 8. Whether they be tongues, they shall cease, etc. meaning miracles; and cease, not in heaven only, but in the state of the new Testament (for I willingly join with them that construe it so) that by tongues, we may understand, omne prodigiosum, even all miracles, the genus by the species, no unusual schematisme. And whereas I quoted Sa the jesuit so lately, a man of your function (and no less of your faction) I think it not amiss to bring to your remembrance another saying of his. Among his Aphorisms, V. Revelatio, thus he hath; that Revelations (which you abound with, witness Bridget, and Catharine, and divers more) are not rashly to be credited or entertained, but submitted to judgement, and tried by their conformity with the Catholic doctrine. Shall not miracles then abide the touch stone much more? Which if they do, then is not the doctrine to be grounded upon miracles, but miracles to prevail as far as the doctrine shall give leave. For who knows but God does many things to try us, Deuter. 13. and such assaults are given oft-times to the Church, out of God's deep providence, (ut cognoscantur probati, that the approved may be known, 1. Cor. 11. 19) as it endangers the very faith of the elect? By all which, and much more that here I omit, you may see what reason the worthy Bishop had, not to stand upon those words (which you quarrel him for not setting down) of the Cardinal's text, (as if they were aught to the question, or as if he were to busy himself with impertinent matters for lack of employment.) For my part, I am content to insert those words here, as much as they are extant in your 
Num. 18. Adjoind.  book. Respondes: Miracula divina, etc. In English thus, that all may take knowledge of them. I answer, saith the Cardinal, that divine miracles are seen only among the Catholics. And because the Bishop would not rush into this new branglement, therefore you think he left out those words fraudulently. And yet Simon Magus made a dead man to wag his head, when he strove with S. Peter, (as we read in Eusebius) which is more than to cure a lame dog. Another heretic removed an olive tree by virtue of his prayers, 
Apud B●… ann. 360. num 21. cx Anastasi● Ni●e●.  tainted with the damnable heresy of Macedonius, God forbid that any such should cleave to us, though malice herself were to censure. Eutychianus the Novatian, did a famous miracle under Constantine, whom he drew to favour him, and to own his acquaintance, by healing certain sicknesses, and by other rare acts (they call them miracles) which he performed. Namely, that being to sue to the aforesaid Constantine, for the release of a prisoner (who was in danger to die, by reason of the many irons that he was laden with, even before he could make suit for him to the Emperor) he procured his chains to fall off from him of their own accord, (not without miracle) and afterward obtained his pardon of Constantine. Witness here of Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 14. And Paulus another Bishop of the Novatian sect, did another miracle no less strange, (witness Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 17.) convincing a certain jew (who wickedly and craftily had often procured himself to be baptised) by a miraculous annihilation, or disparence at least, of the water in the font, even ready for the baptism. Now believe false teachers the rather for miracles, whether in straw or in stone; or our doctrine the less, because we brag of no such, though it lack not this seal, oftentimes, set upon it, by Gods own hand, but that we have a firmer evidence. S. Austen in his whole chapter de Civit. Dei, which here you quote, viz. l. 22. cap. 8. never stands for miracles to prove new doctrines by, but only the old (as was declared before,) and therefore you shall gain nothing from thence, who allege new miracles to authorize new articles, as praying to Saints, worshipping of Relics, and such like conceits, though we should subscribe to all that S. Austen reports, with no less promptness, than yourselves, that is more than himself may be well thought to do. For one time he confesseth of the aforesaid wonders, that non sunt tanta authoritate commendata etc. They are not of such authority as straightway to be believed, though between one faithful man and another. Another time he says, that as soon as they are told they are clean forgotten, and no body relates them to them that did not hear them, as they were rehearsed de libello, nor no body remembers them any long time himself. His words are: Nec [admodum] innotescunt, neque ut non excidant animo, quasi glarea memoriae erebra lectione tunduntur. Whereas if they were divine miracles, why should they not be divulged throughout the whole world, even where soever the Gospel itself is preached, as our Saviour said of the charity of that good woman, which anointed his feet? Again, Semel hoc audiunt qui adsunt, pluresque non adsunt, ut nec illi qui affuerunt post aliquot dies mente retineant, & vix quisquam reperiatur illorum, qui ei quem non affuisse cognoverit, indicet quod audivit. Lastly, as for the flowers which were wont to be applied to Relics (as you tell us) and from thence drew marvelous curing virtue, let S. Austen himself judge what you say, or though himself said it. In the 8. book of the aforesaid work, cap. 27. he allows not of meats to be set upon Martyr's tombs, for obtaining of blessing. A Christianis melioribus (saith he) hoc non fit. He denies not but it is done, but he says the better sort of Christians do it not. Much less flowers to be laid upon their bodies, and taken off again, with hope of virtue to proceed from them in application to sick folks. For of sanctifying meats to necessary use, we read in the Apostle, (and the Martyrs might concur to it, if they were conscious:) but of flowers no where, nor to no such purpose, specially from the dead. The Christians than might do this in S. Austin's time, but not the better sort of Christians, as he most advisedly speaks; not Meliores Christiani. Whom you list not to imitate, but choose the worse part, 
Deter●… sequo●, is the Papists motto.  and clout a Religion out of fond customs, which the judicious of those times neither allowed then, and much less would now.  
§ 29. Now to Num. 19 what shall we do, but take you at your word, that the Bishop grants as much concerning holy Relics, as yourselves desire? I will set down your words, that after them we may ask you, who is the praevaricator? That they are to be decked, and adorned, laid up with honour and solemnity, reserved and kept in honourable and holy places, and finally that they are to be honoured, yea and that God doth sometimes work miracles by them, which he cannot deny (say you) to be a notable and divine confirmation of the honour that is done unto them. Though this last be stark false, that miracles done at Saints bodies, infer the honour which you challenge to them, by any probable consequence, as Bellarmine denies about jeremy's body, and was quoted to you a little before out of his de Notis Ecclesiae, yet insisting upon the words that you bring out of the Bishop, let me ask you in good earnest, what makes so much for you in all that enumeration, that you should say, you desire no more than he granteth? Adorning, decking, laying up with honour, laying up with solemnity, reserving, keeping, in honourable and holy places, and finally in one word, that they are to be honoured: suppose all this, what is become of your Adoration now? what of Worship itself? The rest are ready hand; but these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Mountains swell, and a mouse creeps forth. Scias (says S. Austen, Epist. 44. in the very end) à Christianis 
S. Austin's Noverint universi.  Catholicis nullum coli mortuorum: Be it known to you (says S. Austen) that Christian Catholics (what you are we know not) worship no dead men. Si nullum mortuorum, nedum quicquam mortui: Neither parts nor partlets, limbs, nor linen clothes, or what else of theirs soever. Besides that your Valentia told you but lately, Cultus ne angelorum quidem, obserudnce only. And will you observe Relics?  
§ 30. As for that you think, that that kind of honour must 
Eodem Numero.  needs be religious honour, which is not done for civil respects, but proceeds out of devotion, and tends directly to the honouring of God, though we honour in this fashion even living men, and earthly Saints, whose holiness may be counterfeit, for aught we know, and whose end may be damnation, whereas the religious honour should not go but with beatitude, as Bellarmine therefore entitles his main controversy about that point, De Beatitudine Sanctorum; yet what is this, I say, to adoration? You honour piety itself, justice, mercy, when you hear or read any thing virtuously done in any of these kinds, yet not with cap and knee, as you speak, not with civil honour, like the Burgess of some town, I hope. Do you adore it therefore?  
§ 31. IN your Numb. 20. and divers following of the same relish, about the Monkish profession, you say that therein also the Bishop prevaricates. Because he affirms, that his MAJESTY reprehends the persons of your Monks, and their personal vices, their Order or foundation not so much. Non institutionem, sed instituta. He allows then (say you) the institution. And what if he should? Though Philo doth not speak of Christian Monks (in the place that you quote of him, to show their antiquity) how soever it hath so seemed to certain learned men, but is detected both by Scaliger, 
●c Emea. Tem.  and divers others to be a mistaking, (the description rather falling upon the Esseni;) yet suppose he should allow it as descending of the Law positive and agreement of parties, not from divine ordinance, what then? For what can be more plain, than that fame grant of chrysostom (where in all reason he was to grant as little as might be of this kind) that the Monkish profession is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither belonging to the faith and Religion Christian, nor doctrine and preaching. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 6. Savilian. p. 167. Therefore without question not appointed of God. And in another place he will tell you, Hom. 25. in Epist. ad Hebr. that what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians, when he exhorts them to the highest virginity that may be (and in Christian virginity, Sir, all is contained, you need not be solicitous for the other two vows: 1. Cor. 7. 34. the Christian virgin takes care only how to please the Lord, and that she may be holy both in body and spirit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, going with her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he speaks not to Monks, whereof there was none then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not the print of a Monk's foot in all the church, but to laymen and lay-women. As who would say, he prescribes no stricter rules in all that Epistle (where nevertheless he showeth them the more excellent way, and exhorts to virginity, and to an undivided connexion with the Lord Christ always, such as no Monk of them all can come nearer to him) yet stricter rules, I say, he gives not to any, (by S. Chrys. verdict) then are observed de facto, & meet to be observed, in the general of Christianity, amongst all that belong to the mystical body, Men or women, Clerks, or lay, though your Monks like mongrels are neither of them both, but Minotaures, and mixtum genus, many times, — proleque biformis, like Don john of Crete. And in another place he says, that there is not a maid left this day in all the Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in 1. Tim. c. 2. Hom. 8. in extremo. The honourable state of maidenhead, is quite decayed in the Church. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The world abroad laughs at us [Virgins.] Unjustly, trow you? No. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the maids (that are called maids) have brought this contempt upon themselves. 
a Numb. 24. The Bishop utterly condemneth his own religion. He confesses it is void of all Christian perfection, etc.  Yet, you think we have no Church, because we have no maidenhead forsooth, with your many more good-morrows', formally vowed now and professed amongst us. Yea, he tells us of Christ, 
b Epist. 2. ad Olympiadem.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expelling half the virgins, that is five of ten, in the parable of the 
c Matth. 25.  Gospel; as who would say, he would happily do the like, if in strict visitation, he should come among the nunneries, now a days. Once, he doubteth not to affirm, that, the Virgins being rejected by our Saviour Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they that came without virginity (if fraught and flourishing with other fruits of righteousness) were most honourably and most comfortably received by him. And are received no doubt daily. Where, because I spoke of the visitations of nunneries a little before, you may call to mind, what happened here in England, long before King Henry the eights days, whom you have not yet forgiven his dismissing of your sisters, and demolishing their cloisters, though God knows it was high time: But I mean, under the reign of King Henry the third (as Matthew Paris, with other historians recordeth) that the virginity of your nuns was feign to be explored, by certain visitors in Commission (for repressing the scandal) even by nipping of their dugs, to see if any milk would come out, to detect their incontinencies. Such unnatural remedies, did the unreasonable courses, then held by your sister-hoods, drive the Magistrate unto. But it is enough forus, that chrysostom not only censures the professed of his time, which nevertheless were not half so rank and so degenerate, as have yours been since, but denies Monkery to come of God, or of divine institution, when it is at the best. There was not then (says he) a footesprint of a Monk in all the Church. And again, Monkery is no matter of Christian faith or doctrine. What marvel then, if a plant not planted by God (the heavenly husbandman) 
Matth. 15. 13.  be afterwards rooted out, when it turns intolerable? And I insist the willing liar upon Chrysostom's authority, (though I might allege many others, if I were 
Under chrysostom also, and Nect●…, Confession auricular was 〈◊〉 extrusa, (Medi●… words, de continent l. 1. c. ●7) utterly abolished, by occasion of the abust. How much more may Monkery, which is less de jure divine, than Confession, to Papists?  disposed) because your Cardinal in his Preface to his Defence of Monkery, (where he revels in his kingdom of Rhetoric most gloriously) hath no greater authority then S. Chrysostom's to confute us, or to countenance the honour of the Monkish profession. You shall hear his words; Probat hoc i●primis totius Graeciae eximium decus S. johan. Chrysostomus. Is & alibi, & Homilia 8. in Matthaeum, sic. Si quis nunc ad Aegypti veniat solitudines, paradiso prorsus omnem illam eremum videbit digniorem, & innumerabiles Angelorum caetus in corporibus fulgere mortalibus, etc. Suppose all this, Sir, but how long to last? Did not Monks warp even in Chrysostom's days? Does not the Council of Chalcedon (not far off from his time) find a difference in Monks, as if all were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pure Monks, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Can. 4 in initio  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but some apparel, counterfeit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having Monkery for a cloak or a vizard, as S. Paul hath his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his true Nun, as you would call her, not a false sister, 1. Tim. 5. 3. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Monk that lives in pleasure, and delicacy, and idleness, is dead alive. What marvel then, if King Henry turned them out of doors? Are we not wont to do so by dead men? And Remigius most excellently, upon those words of the Apostle, Ephes. 6. 14. State succincti lumbos in veritate, having your loins girt about with truth: With truth (says he) because nothing does so encroach upon the professions of strictness, (to their utter disgrace) as dissimulation and hypocrisy, contrary to truth. Yet your Cordeleirs wear restem pro veritate, a rope about their loins, (the very habit of hypocrisy and extreme disguisement) in stead of that 
Lumbi in veritate  sincerity, which the Apostle here prescribeth as the comeliest ornament for a Monks back. Before S. Chrysostom's time also, the Council of Gangra (an ancient Council) finds wefts in Monks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pretending holiness to their deeds of slothfulness, or of cruel unnaturalness, in abandoning their own parents, under colour of conscience, and freedom of contemplation, Can. 16. or else neglecting their children, as it is Can. 15. And S. Cyprian, ancienter than any yet named, de Duplici Martyrio (if at least that be his book) he continues the same distinction, as it were of jeremy's two baskets, the one full of good and wholesome figs, the other most sour and most distasteful (as commonly it comes to pass, that the corruption of the best proves the dismallest) so of Monachi, qui verè Monachi sunt, & Virgins, quae verè Virgines sunt; that is, of Monks which are Monks indeed, and Virgins which are chaste and Virgins indeed. Neque enim locus desertus, saccus pro vest, etc. sed caeteris omnibus perditiores se produnt. And, His tectus involucris sublitet animus valde mundanus. And he expounds to the same sense, Saint Paul's words even as we do, Bodily exercise profiteth little, viz. that of the Monasteries: and that Satan transformed into an Angel of light, deceives the simple, with lying gloss, and shows of sanctimony, quum intus madeant spiritualibus vitijs, whiles inwardly they lie soaking in spiritual corruptions. Sibi tamen atque aliis habentur pij: Yet they bear a name, as if they were holy, as they did in Popery. Then, Talis erat justitia Pharisaeorum. And, Itasunt & Virgins fatuae, foolish Virgins, or stinking nuns; which was the place that we set out from, alleging chrysostom. And do we marvel now, if King Henry voided such a Camarine? Or shall we say they were Monks whom he dislodged, unless Monks indeed? nuns and Virgins, unless Virgins indeed? Was this to dissolve Monasteries, or to disperse brothelhouses? Yea, would the Fathers formerly cited, have been offended at such proceedings, though themselves had sat by, and looked on? But let us hear S. chrysostom, and how he finishes his tale, where the Cardinal makes us believe that he praises Monasteries so monstrously. Hom. 8. in Matth. is the place. How many things hath he there, which Bellarmine durst not mention, for fear of spoiling his Monks, whiles he sought to grace them all he could, with a detorted testimony? Of their labouring with their own hands, and of S. Paul's labouring with his, that we may much more expect that from a Monk, which the Apostle blushed not, and so great an Apostle, in his own person to practise. And indeed the old saying was, that a Monk which worketh not 
Tripart. hist. lib 8. cap. 1. V●●●ento aequali●.  with his own hands, is no better than one that robs by the highway side. Epiphanius compares the godly Monks, labouring 
Pa●ario.  with their hands, to bees that hum and make honey both together: so they at one and the same time, work and toil for the use of men, and withal sing Psalms and praises to God. A flower in their hands, and a song in their 
Thymum & hym●…m.  mouths both at once. He that will not work, let him not eat, says the Apostle. Yours were all for eating, no body at working, not so much as the easiest works or tasks. And the Egyptians, says S. chrysostom, that in former times were of all men most given to gluttony, (whereupon I suppose it is, that Orus Apollo Niliacus thus reports, that at the burial 
In Hieroglyph.  of their dead, they tear in pieces the belly or the maw, of the party deceased, and cry over it with great detestation, Thou art he that cast this man away, thou hast undone him, etc.) but as I was saying out of chrysostom, it is his observation of the Monks that lived in Egypt, that the nation which was formerly most infamous for intemperancies, was now become the most abstinent of all other. Do we marvel, if the Cardinal left out this? Or would this agree with Popish Monks? He says again, that Palestine had the prerogative of seniority touching true religion, and the worshipping of God, but that the Egyptians have gone beyond them for all that, though their punies in time. And would this make for Captain Bellarmine's turn, that stands so much upon his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. chrysostom here calls it, that is, vaunts of his antiquity, and the matrix Ecclesia? T hat the Egyptians rejoicing in the faith of Christ, pity their forefathers, that lived and died under error, and prefer the truth, though but lately revealed to them, before the damnable impieties that they were bred and brought up in. Would this become a jesuits mouth? Lastly, that where Pharaoh once ruffled in his tyrannies, there the Monk Antony now flourishes in holiness, and in all manner of Christian and divine virtues, prophesying also of Arius, and his execrable heresy to overspread the Church, which came to pass but even too truly. Does not this show the force of Popish Succession? But omitting by-matters, hold we close to the point: that Bellarmine's Monks, and Chrysostom's Monks, are no more like one another, than jeremy's two baskets were between themselves, in regard of the fruit that they contained. Which alteration also came to pass, I say, in S. Chrysostom's time, though afterwards it grew to more intolerable excess, during the Popish superstition, as if hell had broke loose, and the channels of the round world had been discovered, the Catarractes broken open, or the Angel of the pit had done his office, as it is in the Revelation, casting smoke, and sending forth Locusts. These things being so, what marvel now, if he that had formerly so admired the Monks, (whiles they kept their first standing) turned his style, and changed his judgement, upon their so base and dishonourable turning? When the gold became drossy, and the wine was mixed with water, and they that were clad but even now with scarlet, embraced the dung; that is, vicious beastliness. I mean the Nazarite, and the Eremite, whiter than the snow, purer than the Saphires, in times past; but now scarce to be known as they go in the streets, the most recreant of all men, no mark, no note of their ancient continence, which made them venerable. And were they not Monks, trow you, that would have burnt S. john Chrysostom himself (to fill up the measure of his other miseries in banishment) as himself declares in his Epistle ad Olympiadem of that matter? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Epist. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (saith he,) a fit name for such a rude rabble. Many bulls (might he say) have compassed me about, and would see fire to me alive. Not unjustly this I grant, if there may be any just cause of their persecution and vexation of so righteous a man. Whom he had stung both otherwise, more than in one place, and especially in his books ad Demetrium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he thus writes. All Monks (saith he) now a days, have this song in their mouths, and nothing but this; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: That is, A place of rest, a place of rest, or sweet repose, (the blessing of Issachar) this is the first and the last of the Monk's wishes, the total of their desires, etc. And if then so, what since shall we think? How hath the Locust sallied to and fro, with his heavie-gated body, devouring the fruit, corrupting the pastures? As I doubt not but divers countries under heaven have felt (for the noise of them it gone out into all worlds) but ours without compare, in each coast of which, you may trace the Monks, and the impression of their feet, or rather the wallowing of their carcases, unto this very day, both by the freshness of the air, and the fatness of the soil; though it hath been observed by some, that in the choice of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Being their own choosers (which beggars should not be) for constitutions of Monasteries; and is forbidden by the Council of Calchedon aforenamed, Can. 4.  their seats, like egregious belli-gods, and fulfillers of that verse, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die; they preferred rich soil even before good air, and the satisfaction of their lusts (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) before the prolonging of their lives.  
§ 32. Sed facilis materia (as Tully says to Antony) in te 
2. Philipp●….  & in tuos dicere. And these are Antonians, but rather like that gorbelly, than the godly Monk known by that name. Or howsoever that be, yet it is easy declaiming I say, against such viperous companions, whose very sent, though they be gone from us, like the vermin of Egypt after they were dead and laid, infects our minds as it did once our coasts. The Adjoinder nevertheless wants not his Apology, I know: Ad haec omnia opponitur praeclara defensio. They should not have 
numb. 25. 26.  been dissolved (says he) for all that. What then? Reformed, and let stand. Shall we hear S. chrysostom once more? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, 
— Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est etc. And, Mittendum 〈…〉 ras. Good for nothing but the dunghill.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Gen. c. 18. hom. 42. Desperate diseases admit no cure (Hypocrates himself forbids it.) An unredresseable evil is the harbinger of destruction, without any hope of recovery. What says our Chawcer? When physic will not worch, Carry the coarse to Church. This was as much as I told you 
There is but one place of objection more against our State, concerning the dissolution of Monasteries (which the Adjoinder 〈◊〉 seems thought not of) viz. the seizing of the goods of the Abbeys, etc. into their hands. But we answer with S. Austen, & alias saepè, & lib. 1. contra Gaud. c. 38. Labores impiorum justi edent Sap. 10. Also, Non rapina concupis●…tur, sed error eve●titur. And in one word, Verùm de his pecuniarijs laboribus further causae est. Yet that with the malcontents weighs more than all.  before, that King Henry the eight, did but as he should, not only when he turned begging Friars a begging, but dead men out of doors, dead in sloth, dead in pleasures, a very burden to their biding-places. And lest you think I have misapplied those sentences of chrysostom, they are spoken by him of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Whose case for aught I see, might stir as much pity in passionate minds, as the Abbeys and the Monasteries doth in some women and fools, even to this day. For can we imagine them to have been any better, then as the paradises of God, when we lament their desolation and vastation most? Yet desperate diseases and uncurable maladies, were the causes (says S. chrysostom) that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, which cities (says the Scripture) were as the paradise of God. So happily the Monasteries for their surpassing pleasantness, and delightfulness. The Council also of Ephesus implying as much in those words, Can. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, universal diseases need the more [effectual) remediés. There was nothing left now, but to pull down the house, whose very walls and posts the leprosy had infected. A violent mischief, a violent medicine; and an universal canker, an universal caustique, which King Henry applied, and Queen Marie herself was not able to take off. So the Pardon-mongers, and Indulgentiaries, were not reform, but extinguished, in your late Council of Trent, as the Reverend Bishop here most effectually telleth you: because the abuse was such as was thought to be incorrigible. Nulla amplius spes relicta● Sess. 21. cap. 9 What says the Scripture? Faciam huic loco sicut Silo, jer. 26. Should your privileges be more, when your enormities were no less? Nay, alas, what comparison? And S. Hierome Epist. ad Sabinian. Diaconum, Propter peccatum filiorum Heli constuprantium matronas, locus tabernaculi ipse subversus est, propter vitia sacerdotum, dei sanctuarium destitutum. I looked, says the Psalm, and his place was no where to be found, not only himself (the notorious sinner) but his very place was gone. Which Livy himself 
De●. 1.  reports to have been the fashion in those times, to abolish the very monuments of place and seat, where treason was contrived, (why not then, where treason with divers more abominations?) as jericho might not be built again (and no more may the Monasteries) like Abimeleches sowing the cornfields with salt, to keep out inhabitants, and to doom the grounds to everlasting barrenness. But let the 
De vita & Gestis S. Caroli Borr l 1. c. 18. per Franciscum Reniam Decanū●…ae.  Popes own practice hardly decide it, and no mean Popes, but even Pius quintuses himself, that mirror of piety. He dissolved the order of Fratres Humiliati, and extinguished it clean, for the treasonable conspiracy of one Hieronymus Farina a priest, (you have many Priests eiusdem farinae,) though Bellarmine would excuse your Antistites from murders, 
Apolog.  whereas Queen Mary's Chaplain laid wait for her life, (if we believe Florimundus) a priest in all likelihood he, 
Lib. 6. de orig. haeres. c. 10. § 3.  and a Popish priest. But Pius quintus, I say, extinguished the whole Order utterly, (humbled those Brethren, not yet HUMBLED enough) for ones man's fact, for discharging a dag at Cardinal Borromees back, as he was praying in his Oratory. And the reason that pricked forward this miscreant to such a wickedness, was nothing but the Cardinals too great severity, in reforming certain vices of a loose Brotherhood, which this wretch could not endure, with three more of the principal, that set him on work, and hired him, (as the Story says,) quadraginta argenteis, with forty silverlings, as if so much preciouser than our Saviour Christ. For this cause Pius quintus played King Henry the eight, and reform them after the sort that you cannot hear of with patience, plucked them clean up. We read in the same book of no less than twelve Abbeys at this cardinals 
c. 24.  devotion, and one of them at Arona, which was hereditary to his house, propria familiae Borromeorum. So as 
c. 11.  Cardinals can engross monasteries, we see, as well as Kings; and the first that laid the axe to the hewing down of those trees, was our Cardinal Wolsey, if Polydore say true. Which King Henry finding to have a good sound, went on with the work. Whom shall we blame?  
§ 33. But, if the Bishop grant that the profession of Monks was ever lawful, though it were but for an instant, he grants that which all our Divines deny, viz. vows of poverty, chastity, and of obedience. Also Counsels Euangelioall, etc. So you think; but it follows not. For vows may be without Monkery, and Monkery without vows; and poverty, chastity, obedience, constantly kept without them both. As for Counsels, they are yet further off then so: viz. although all the foresaid were admitted, yet Counsels distinct from precepts no way follow from thence, which diverse of the very Papists (not only of the Fathers) have disclaimed. See Gerson, de Consil. evang. Tractat. toto. See him again, in Propositionibus oblatis Cardinali Veronensi, p. 1. Anselm, de Concep. Virg. cap. 1. No man can give God as 
News potest red. dear Deo quantum debet, praeter solum Christu n.  much as he oweth him, (much less supererogate, unless it be in sins:) or flying light above the Commandments, tower aloft in Counsels. Gulielmus Parisiensis, lib. Curio Deus homo, cap. 7. Creatura nihil portare potest praeter ipsa onera mandatorum, etc. The Creature can do no more than bear the burden of the Commandments, (if at least of them, which S. Peter 
Act. 15. 10.  says are importable) but not exceed in Counsels. Alexander Hal. part. 3. Quaest. 56. membr. 7. Lex est universalis, (quoth he) & perfectae justitiae regula. That is, The Law comprehends all, the Law is a rule of absolute righteousness, or, of all that may be well and lawfully done. As we read to the Philippians, chap. 4. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all virtue, and all praise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are bid to do them, therefore they belong to the observation of the Law, the Law being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lex factorum, the law of deeds, as it 
Rom. etc.  is often called. Can any fly over this, not a mud wall, but a wall of diamond, with his wings of Counsels, and voluntary observations, though never so nimble and swift otherwise? Gregory Nazianzen, is of the same mind, (to omit other Fathers) Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Indeed the Papists do so. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Against Counsels likewise.  that is, Let no man bear himself more legal than the Law, more lofty than the commandment, more strait than the level or rule itself. Therefore let there be no Counsels, as additaments to the Law. No, though vows and Monkery, in suo totali, were granted, in all the whole substance of it, in poverty, chastity, and obedience. For as here we hear, all is comprehended under due: whatsoever it be, all is no more than our debt to the law, Monkery itself with the appurtenances. But again, many observe chastity, poverty, and obedience, without the Vow: which, perhaps, makes chrysostom, find Monastical accurateness 
a Comment. in Epist. Pauli saepius.  and strictness so often, even in populous Cities, villages, and towns. 
b Tom. 7. Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 13. initio ipso. Idem habet in Gen. hom. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nec opus passeri fugere ad montes. Idem Nazianz. ad Heronem philosophum. Quòd solitaria vita, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Two great faults.  This is not (says he one time) a doctrine only for them that lodge abroad in the fields, or in the tops of hills, and steep mountains, etc. as the people supposed, fond crying out (as the Adjoinder doth here) that such perfection as he exhorted them to in his Sermon, was for Monks only. In another place; Abraham had wife and children, says he, yet perfecter than any Monk, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more accurate of his ways, more exact in his courses, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they which at this day have taken up their lodging in the tops of the hills: at this day, says he, and yet we heard before, how resplendent the Monks were in his time, like Angels incarnate, ex hom. 8. in Matth. Of another manner of stamp, I wisse, than the Abby-coynes in Popery, I mean their Friars, longè diversi commatis: of whom we read notwithstading, that they had vera monetaria, 
Rog. Hoved etc. Item Rossaeus concls. ad ordines Reip. Gall. de 26. curribus plenis auro ex uno Monast. (Cantuar.) aggestis: nec tamen opulentissimo, nec vel sic expoliato. Pro quo citat & Sanderum de Schisin.  true mints, to coin money in. Had Chrysostom's so? or could this have been heard of without horror then? Lastly, that Monks may be without these three, viz. poverty; chastity, and obedience, I will not say as I might, for that yours have been so; Famous for faction first; so as Contention, if she were lost, must be found in the Monastery, 
Inter superbos semper sunt iurgia. Sal.  (Ariosto'es' device) where was obedience all this while? For poverty, so as you heard even now, insomuch as they had 
* Which Rossaeus counts inter potiora Regalia. p. 342. de justa. etc. So as now a King & a Monk all one.  mints, and are they for poor folks? As for chastity, I will spare my pen, and not triumph in your shame, as I might at large, nor unkindly gall the Readers modesty: suffice it that true Monkery, unreprovable Monkery, may be without these, not only your counterfeit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) as the ensuing show.  
§ 34. Athanasius ad Dracontium, of his times. Multi Monachi sunt parentes liberorum. And, Quisque ubi volet decertet. That is: Many Monks are fathers of children. Let every man try masteries, as his own mind serves him. Making it first free to profess Monkery, or no, and in that profession allowing the liberty even of getting children. S. August. de Haeres. cap. 40. Catholica Ecclesia plurimos Monachos clericosque habet utentes uxoribus, (that is more than eoniugatoes, that by the way I may note somewhat for Ministers marriages) & propria possidentes. In English thus: The Catholic Church hath many Monks and Clerks in it, (meaning Ministers) that both use their wives, and possess goods in proper. Of chrysostom I told you before, Hom. 8. in ad Hebr. that if marriage and Monkery may not stand together, all is spoiled. Therefore your Church hath spoiled all, or there is nothing left un-spoild in your Church, that hath divided these. As for the Canon that forbids Monks to marry, Calched. Concil. can. 16. it is a great deal younger, and we search truth by the original times. Besides, how gently doth that Canon censure them? And so likewise the Virgins that marry after profession or dedication. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is kept for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The liberty of courtesy or relaxation is reserved for the Bishop of the place. So as still the Monk may keep his wife, and the Virgin her husband. As for Poverty; Alvarus Pelagius de planctu Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 46. Abdication of propriety is not essential to Monkery. For in Egypt and Palestine, the Monks there usually both bought and sold. Yea, Paulus ille summus Monachus, proprium habuit & testamentum fecit: Paul the Arch-Monke, had somewhat proper, and made a will. This speaks Alvarus of the Monks of Egypt, which were those whom chrysostom so praised even now, and from whom Bellarmine would commend his own. And for Obedience, which is the third, Caietane makes such a divorce between perfection, and that, in 2. 2. Quaest. 86. art. 5. that he prefers the Bishop there afore the Monk, though the Monk lives in far more obedience than the Bishop, as we all know. Finally, cannot the Pope dispense with his own self for continence, poverty, and obedience? Hostiensis 
De voto & redemptione voti. And another, The Pope may renounce his cal●ing, though he have sworn o● vowed to the con●… Sylu. V●…apa. § TERTIÒ. ex Archidiac. & Aug. de Anchat.  will tell you so, no man disagreeing from him. Nay, how rare a thing is it for the Pope to obey? Yet you know the Pope cannot cast away the height of his Pontifical perfection by any means. Yea, he dispenses with others too, as well as with himself; and you approve the practice. Therefore these are not linked in so near a band, as you would make folks believe; but are separable from one another, the vow from Monkery, (ask but Solomon of this, Ecclesiast. 5. or David, Psal. 119.) and Monkery from the vow, and Perfection from them all, while your evangelical Counsels appear no where.  
§ 35. Which things being so, why should you traduce our men so bitterly, in your numb. 26. 
Bruno Carthus. serm. 9 de Ornatu Ecclesiae. Eunuchi qui fiunt ab hominibus sunt qui custodiuntur in monasterijns, etc. (so as this comes but ab hominibus, and is not of God's ordinance. I mean, the discipline of Monasteries, for sub disciplina is his word) ●hen he adds, Talis castitas quiae non est spontanea, non habet magnam retributionem. The secular man's chastity may be mere rewardable than the Monks. Yet Bruno called the Paetriarke of Monks.  for abandoning the Monasteries, (that coop of infamies) and taking to them wives? May the Pope do this out of the liberty of his fancy, though materia voti be the same it was at first; and shall not these be borne with, whom the dangerousness of the times, and the reformation of their judgements, and the exigence of the cause acquireth from your slander? Read Theodoret l. 4. c. 26. Ecclesiast. histor. of Aphraates the Monk, abandoning his cell, and going abroad into the world, to intend preaching. Whose answer to the Emperor challenging him for it, may be ours to yourself, in defence of those men, whom you carp so virulently. But you allege Dionysius unto us, de Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 10. and you say, he lived in the Apostles times, and boldly you call him S. Paul's disciple. Thus you think you may persuade your scholars within the grate, doubly captived, (that have neither mind to study, nor opportunity to search, nor yet judgement to discern) that the doubtful Dionysius is a man of such authority. Who suppose he were most absolute and most authentical, what says he even as you relate him? That 
Numb. 22.  the Monks of his time, made a solemn promise and covenant before the altar, to renounce the world, and to embrace the monastique life. For these are your words. And suppose all this. Doth this prove that Monks may not marry wives, or possess goods, or decline your doating-moaping obedience? For we renounce the world in Baptism all of us, and yet all do not bind themselves in these three vows; not only ours, but not yours. Have you not many that are baptised among you, and yet no Votaries? It rema●●es then you prove it, by those other words, that the Monks of that time made a solemn promise to embrace, as you say, a Monastical life: Ergo, Monkery includes the three vows, of poverty, chastity, and obedience. But is this a sound sequel? Or is it any thing but the Elench of Petitio principij? For shame E. T. bind your broom-stickes together better, or be advised that you are not for this trade of syllogizing. When I look in Dionysius, I find there only a promise to forsake vitam dividuam, or vitam distinctam, unà cum visionibus; which some would rather construe of a vowing for marriage, & against the single contemplative life; specially they that were troubled with no more learning or Latin than yourself. But whatsoever it be, there is no vow in Dionys. no not of that which we vow in Baptism, nor again of Monkery in him that turns Monk. And yet how small a thing were that, if it could be evicted? or what would that make for the three vows, which you say Monkery necessarily importeth, we deny? Doth this show at all wherein Monkery consists, if the initiate vow, at the time of his admission, to observe and embrace a Monastical life? For that he will turn Monk, 
Ne dederis os tuum (●c. per votum, ut exp.. Hieron. & Gloss.) ut peccare facias ca●… tuam. (sc. per incontinentiam, cum contrarium pron●iseris) Eccl. 5.  that he vows perhaps, and yet but perhaps: but after what fashion he is to observe his Monkery undertaken, that he mentions not, that is as questionable yet, as if nothing had been said. Are you not ashamed then to bewray your dullness so grossly? For these are not things of any deep mystery, but the blockishness of your brain lets you from conceiving them. I say finally, Dionysius mentions no vow at all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another; and yourself dare not expound 
Greg. Nazianz. in Carmin. seems to condemn all vowing, and supererogating, yea meriting, in one. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The one against one, the other against the other.  it by any other name, than promise or covenant, which comes short of Vow, when you have done all you can. Vows are to God, promise and covenant may be to man. And so is that to be understood, of prima fides, 1. Tim. 5. which here you clap on too, only to make up measure. What if I should say, it were like primus amor, revel. 2. 4. or prima opera, ibid. 5? The first faith, like the first works; or the first faith, like the first love. Is it not meet expounding one of these by the other, that are so near in nature, and to be near in subject? But I stand not upon that, I admit the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the prima fides, to be an obligation, or profession, before the company, to attend upon such an office, without vowing to God. But our question is of vowing chastities. And there the widow must be threescore years old, that was to give her fidem, or to make profession, also to have been married first, to some husband or other. You stand for the vows of young striplings 
Dionys. Carth. in locum Apost. ad Tim. Ne requiral votum continentiae à talibus (n● à viduis quidem, nisi admodum vetulis) Talium enim sanguis feruet, nec lubricae aetati facilè est credendum. This law was first a little stretched in Conc. Trull. c. 40. But since that, the Papists have kept no measure. Also Dionys. ibid. expounds Fidem, by promissionem, not by Votum.  and young damosels, neither formerly married, and God wot far off from threescore years of age. And will you censure these with the same damnation? But so much may suffice to have answered of this matter.  
§ 36. As for the sentences of Luther that you quote out of him (a nosegay, as you think, of somewhat unsavoury flowers) they have been explained over and over by our Divines; they import no such beastliness as you would wrest them to. Who knows not Luther's manner of delivering his conceits? As Socrates is said to have had his pi●gues similitudines. And S. Paul, being to make opposition against the Law, which the jews so magnified, turns every thing into a Law: Lex peccati, Lex mortis, etc. sparing no words, giving the rains to his liberty. So Luther. Whereupon Harding charges him, with denying magistracy among Christians, because he says in one place, Inter Christianos magistratus nullus est, or some such thing. Which is no more than chrysostom hath, Rex & subditus apud Christianos nomina mera sunt, Orat. 2. in Babylam: King and subject are but mere names among Christians; namely, in matters between God and the conscience. For, I pray, what difference is there when once it comes thither? Does not the King as well as the subject beg pardon of God? And I have observed even the Fathers, to couple marriage with other natural necessities, which here you carp Luther for. I hope the Physicians will not greatly be against this, whom your Medina appeals to, in the trial of this question, lib. 4. de Continentia sacrorum hominum, controu. 4. and we are not afraid to follow him. But these flim-flammes would soon vanish of their own accord, if you would but leave cavilling to disgrace the person, and indifferently look into the interpretation of our meanings. I have read another of you that exclaims against Luther for those words, wherein he confesses of himself in the bitterness of his soul, that he takes more delight in eating, drinking, and sleeping, then in the passion and resurrection of our Saviour Christ: Behold an Epicure, saith he, by his own confession, a belly-god, etc. And I remember a good Gentleman, that was stumbled with these words (cited as it seems in one of your Pampheleters) and thought the collection to be very sound. No, God knows: but as Anna said to Eli, Ego foemina tristis cord; so he, I am a man sad at the heart, deploring his sinfulness, and aghast at his own wretchedness, which the Papists are none troubled with, specially the Jesuits, that view their face in the glass of flatteries. As we read in another place also of the same Luther, where speaking of the good thief, and his noble confession of Christ upon the cross, he sticks not to say, Certain ego non facerem, Surely this is more than I should have done, if I had been in his place: Lo, new matter for you to cavil at in Luther.  
§ 37. Now to draw to a conclusion. As for Bucer, he is so far from denying that we may pray to God for chastity, yea maidenly chastity (though you quote his Commentary upon Matth. 1. and Matth. 19 as containing such conceits, but most injuriously) as you shall now hear. Upon the 1. of Matth. his words, (if any to that purpose there at all) are but these: Discendum nobis est, ne privati quicquam nobis in vita deligamus. Praecipuè autem ne calibatum arripiamus temerè, hoc est, ad istud vivendi genus non certo Dei jussu vocati, etc. That is, [We must learn to choose no private [vocation] to ourselves in this life, and especially that we do not betake ourselves to the state of single life rashly, that is, not called thither by the certain appointment of God.] Does Bucer say here, that we may not pray for continency, or rather that we must not rush upon it against God's appointment and command? As the wise man says, Wisdom. 8. Desirous to be continent (not only as they that observe perpetual maidenhead, but in any degree) I besought God, and it was a piece of Wisdom, that I knew even that, that I could not be continent, unless God gave it me [by special gift.] Which if Bucer had but said, F. T. would have cavilled him, for saying we might not pray to God for continence, though that be the very thing, which he professes here he prayed for. And does not Bucer add, Vt nihil privati deligamus nobis? sc. invito Deo: We must choose no private course at all. By this reason than he forbids us to pray to God for scholarship, for skill in music, in navigation, and the like; which who would collect, but such a Huddibrasse as this Adjoinder?  
§ 38. Now upon Matth. 19 he repeats the same again. Diligenter perpendendum quod Dominus ait, Non omnes dicti huius capaces sunt, sed quibus datum est. And after a few words between, thus: Non igitur nostri arbitrij erit caelibes vivere, ac non stulc●… modò caelibatum vovere sed & impium. Debet enim quisque sua vocatione suoque dono esse contentus, etc. But the core is at that, where answering the Papists fond objection, Quòd autem pontificiae castitatis assertores, aiunt, precibus posse impetrari ut detur unicuique caelibi vivere, Christo contradicunt, qui ita pronuntiat, Non omnes sunt capaces huius dicti, etc. Note that same cuique. But I will English the whole. [Where the Papists say, that by prayer every man may obtain the gift of single life; they contradict Christ, who thus affirmeth, That all cannot receive this saying.] And he shows there are many things which we may well strive for, and wish, and welcome if we have obtained them; but not formally pray for them; as immunity from sin, the possession of heaven before our time, etc. Fidelis enim oratio pro eo tantum est de quo animus orantis certus, etc. I am Deus non vult omnes calibes vivere. Non igitur CVIVSque caelibatus ad gloriam Dei faciet: Quare neque OMNIBUS pro eo orandum est. That is, It makes not for God's glory, that all should be continent (I think a Papist will scarce deny this, unless he means such glory as belongs to the world to come, when generations 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phys. 2. c. 1. Et mundus absoluitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Gen. & Corr. 2. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de Gener. c. ult. etc.  shall cease, and nature be at an end, etc.) Then, Wherefore all are not to pray for it, or, none is to pray that all may be continent. What will they mislike in this speech of Bueers? Or does not the word all sufficiently acquit him? Insomuch as if I might defend Bucer, from one exception of theirs by endangering him in another, I would say that he encouraged us to prayer but even a little too much, and that pro externis, for outward things, among which it is apparent that he reckons virginity (viz. as divided from the essence of salvation:) yea, and lastly, for others as well as for one's self. You shall hear his words upon Matth. 8. a place which he refers us to in his before quoted upon Matth. 19 An antidote belike, that he foresaw would be of use against a Sycophants tooth, though it were F. T. himself. In omnibus precationibus pro rebus externis pius addet, Veruntamen non mea sed tua voluntas fiat. Si ad gloriam tuam facturum noveris, sana me, pelle hoc aut illud malum, & nequaquam absolutè, Libera, sana, etc. Quòd si spiritus huc impellat, ac velut incogitantem rapiat, ut certâ fiduciâ exorandi quid externi vel tibi vel aliis oars, sicut Apostoli multis aliis dona certa spiritus sancti orarunt (marvel it is if Bucer would deny continency to be one of these dona, at least Medina so reckons of us, the continent, sacror, hominum, l. 4. controvers. 3. cap. 14.) indubiè exorabis quicquid id fuerit, quia fide orabis indubia. Credenti autem omnia possibilia, Marc. 9 23. And again a little after: Sic sese habebit quaecunque ex Dei spiritu profecta fuerit pro re aliquâ externâ precatio, ne de orando quidem deliberabitur, nedum de exorando aliquid haesitabitur, sed spiritus certus, etc. Quacunque autem de re id exploratum non habuerit, absolutè eam nullus petet, sed adijciet, si ita Domino fuerit probatum, & ad ipsius gloriam momentum aliquod habuerit, etc. To me this doctrine seems stranger than the other; I mean about the Spirits instigation of us to prayer, then that which the Adjoinder falsely imputes to him. If Bucer be no more amiss in his opinion of prayers infallibly speeding upon such an instigation of the Spirit, then for certain he forbiddeth not our praying for continency in this place, he is right every way. And so much of him, and of the matter of Monkery.  
§ 39 THE next point is about the name Catholic: In which I might be short, and show the invalidity of the argument that they use, to prove themselves Catholics, because they are called so, or rather because they call themselves so; as the Scripture saith of the name Christian, (another kind of name then the name Catholic) that not the Christians called themselves so, but were called, yea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 11. 26. they were called as from God, or by divine oracle; but no way by themselves, etc. the name that notes us, being to come from him, of whom we hold by dependence. As S. chrysostom notes most excellently, 
Hom. 19 in joh. 1. & alias, Rom. 5. Sawl. Inde● Adam nomina impos●…ris, quia domin abatur iis.  both otherwise in God, changing names unto divers, and namely, that the King of Babylon bestowed new names upon the three children his captives and servants, in token of their reference hereafter to him, and his dominion over them only. So unless the Papists would be owned by themselves, & not by God, their denomination must come from God, and not from themselves. It is he that calls the stars all by their names, suppose you the generation of God's 
Psal. 145. 4. Stelleaerationales. Philip. 〈◊〉. 25.  children, (which shine as stars in a perverse nation) that is in effect, the Church of God. And so once again, the Papists should not be called by themselves, after the name that they would be known by; but as we are bidden, to neglect what men say of us, or by what name they call us, Matth. 5. so not to trust to the title that ourselves shall give to ourselves neither, though with general consent, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle says, by compact, or covenant, which is the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Si votet v●…, Quem pen●s est, etc. Horat.  greatest strength that names hold by, being but arbitrary when they are at best, and subject to variation. They shall cast out your name, Luk. 6. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as evil; but never a whit the more evil for that I warrant you. For Christ still calls his sheep by their names, joh. 10. 3. (as he did the stars before) whatsoever nicknames the lewd world gives them; either to their persons or their profession, calling that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 24. 5. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 14. of the same chapter. But, quam dicunt isti, which these men call so, (whose tongue 
Psal. 12. 4. Magnificabimus linguam.  is their own, as they say in the Psalm, with it they will prevail,) and no otherwise. And that with wise men weighs but little.  
§ 40. S. Leo Epist. 83. Ecclesiae nomine armatiestis, & contra Ecclesiam dimicatis. You may think he spoke it of the Papists themselves, and of these times. You arm yourselves (quoth he) with the name of the Church, and therewith fight against the true Church. Mutemus clypeos, say they in Virgil, and then,— Dolus, an Virtus, quis in host requirat? Frustra nobis plaudimus (said S. Salvian anciently) communione nominis 
De Gubernat Dei. l. 7. & dicit bis codem ferè ●oco, Quid prodesse nobis praerogati●… relligiosi nominu potest. quòd nos Cathol●… dicim●… etc.  catholici: In vain do we flatter ourselves with our part, or fellowship, in the name CATHOLIC. Which with the Papists prevails so much, as if they would keep possession with that, when they are otherwise lawfully ejected out of all. Like Hesiods bird, that only stayed behind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— or lob's servant, Only I am left to tell thee: or as we say at sea, a floating vessel and abandoned by her mariners, comes not into the Admiral's power to be seized on, as long as there is any quick thing in it. So the name Catholic preserves from wrack and final vastation, 
The [very] name Catholic hath always been peculiar to the true Church: If we believe the Adjoinder here, numb. 34. Aug. de Manich. l 3. confess. c. 6. — si credere dignum est. S. Austen says of the heretics, that they make birdlime to themselves, and gummy compositions, out of the sweet names of our Lord jesus Christ, to catch simple and unstaid souls: Viscum sibi faciunt, ex commixtione syllabarum nominis Domininostri jesu Christi, ad decipiendas animas simplices, etc. And 
* lib. 1. c. 30. Pro irritament● nomen Christi. Nisi velit dicere illectamentum; ve qui Graecè for●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad●…candos s●. simplices. Quod & sic quadiat vel magis.  Irenaeus says, that the heretics, they oppose the name of Christ to such as they are offended with, by way of provocation only, as it were to anger them, and to vex them. Whereas the Papists, they practise the like subtlety upon such as they have to deal with, by mentioning or opposing to them not the name of Christ so much, (whom they are not so interessed in, even by their own confession) as of the Church, the Church: as the foolish jews were wont to cry out of the material Temple, Templum Domini, Templum Domini, (but 
jer. 7. 7.  no regard to Dominus Templi) so these of the mystical, and the name Catholic appertaining thereunto, by usucapion forsooth, by plain prescription, as Campian dreameth. But 
Rat. 5.  what are names? or where does the Scripture lead us to build our faith upon names, or to direct our judgements by the breath and talk of fantastic people? O thou that art named the house of jacob, Mich. 2. 7. Named, he says, but belike means not that they are so indeed, but degenerated from jacob; from the seed of judah, into the seed of Canaan; or Jacob's in claudicatione, but not Jacob's in benedictione, as S. Austen distinguishes of the counterfetters in religion, 
De praedest. sanct. c. 16.  which is the Papists guise, that can halt with the Fathers, but will not go right with them. And Esa. 47. 1. Thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate, spoken (as Forerius notes upon that place) 
Vide & Esa. 48. 1. ex tralat. 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quod per exprobrationem dicitur.  because courtly parasites flatter young ladies, with pleasant words and honey titles, persuading them that they are delicate, and soft, and tender, and not fit to tyre themselves with too much labour or pains-taking. But the principal party that they are there intended to, is Babylon; or rather, as S. Hierome well observes upon that place, not so much Babylon as Babylon's daughter, daughter Babel, as the texe hath it, that is, young Babel. Which besides the Papists, 
Rhem. in 1. Pet 5. 13. & alij passim. Comm. loci.  catching at the word with all eagerness elsewhere, to range their Peter within the gates of Rome, S. Hierome also himself interpreteth to be Rome, and none rather than the Rome that now is; who as in many other points she resembleth the ancient Babylon not unfitly, so herein most suitable, that she hath jesuits and parasites in her, which call her Catholic, call her Apostolic, though she be never so bastard and degenerate. But what says the Scripture before alleged? Thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Ecce tu cognominaris judaeus, saith S. Paul, Rom. 2. Thou art called a jewe. And so we to the Papists, Ecce tu cognominaris Catholicus. But is he a Catholic that is called so? Or does not sound faith rather, especially if 
2. Tim. 2. 19 Discedat ab iniquitate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, much more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Jesuits. The characters of Christianity, being not names, and notions, but as it is in the same Epistles, 1. Tim. 1. 19 Faith and good conscience: or, Faith and love, 2. Tim. 1. 13.  it be conjoined with virtuous life, characterize a Catholic, as S. Austen tells us, Quaest. in Matth. c. 11. not every correspondence with the Church of Rome, as F. T. would persuade us in his num. 29. or the idle taking on of the name Catholic upon them, which none so recreant and heretical but may do? Innaserat in nomen Caij Marij, says. Tully in his 2. Philippie. of a certain runagate varlet, cuiproinde etiam uncus meritò impactus est: and diverse other rebels both here and abroad, that have counterfeited the names, and withal the persons of their deceased Sovereigns, to win authority among the multitudes. Even Barabas was 
Origen Tract. 2●. in Matth. 24. Di. cebatur & jesus: sed erat latre, ●…bil habens jesu praeter nomen. Baraba● the first jesuit, for whom the people refused Christ. So now.  called by the name of jesus, if we believe Origen, gathering it out of the Gospels, not without some probability. Which not only touches the question now in hand, about the name Catholic in general, but is a fair warning to our gentlemen Jesuits, not to trust too much to their usurped denomination, though they were called, not from the name (as they are) but by the name itself, and title of the Lord jesus. Who hath not heard what glorious titles the heretics of old times have usurped to themselves? Were they ever a whit the better accounted of for that? Or did they prosper the more in their damnable heresies? Gregorius Presbyter in the life of Gregory Nazianzen, of some that would needs be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the height, or magnificence, that they arrogated to themselves (not unlike the Adjoinder that contemns our Church, and calls it abeggarly Church, num. 36. his own no doubt so rich, no less than the Merchants, that are confederate with it, revel. 18.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says S. Gregory. The vile wretches call themselves the Loftyes or the Magnificoes. The Phrygians, or Montanists had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Perfect men and greatest of all, Concil. Laod. c. 8. the Novatians their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very best of all, Concil. 1. Constantinop. can. 7. Of the Angelical and Apostolical, (so entitled,) heretics, who hath not likewise heard? The Manichees had their Perfecti, and one a father of that sect interpreted his name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as dropping pure Manna, (a kinsman of the Author mentioned by me before, num. 5. of this chapter.) At ille (says S. Austen) fundebat insanias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meram: The Manna was mere madness, which came from the Manichee: contrà Faust. l. 19 cap. 22. The same heretic was so insolent, that when he wrote but a letter, or an Epistle to his friends (wherein the Pope now imitates him in his Breves to his followers) his inscription was wont to be, Manichaus Apostolus jesu Christi, Manichaus the Apostle of jesus Christ (like Apostolicam benedictionem in the Breves aforenamed) witness S. Austen in the aforequoted work. S. Peter himself 2. Pet. 2. 1. foretells of false Prophets, that should arise in the new Testament, to whom he ascribes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, feigned speeches, or forged speeches, framed no 
vers. 3.  doubt at their own will and pleasure; and what rather than the names of holiness that they pretend, whereof we are now speaking? though their cunning I grant reaches a great 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  deal further; but by those they shall buy and sell souls, says S. Peter, or make merchandise of them, as now with the Papists, it is not their meanest inducement they have to their error, that they are called Catholics. Yea our Saviour himself, Matth. 7. 15. forewarns us of Wolves, that should come in sheeps clothing, which how if we should extend to the appareling even of names, especially if we join with it S. Paul's like prophecy, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 20. 29. that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he speaks else where, 1. Thess. 2. 7. Mighty Wolves, or Wolves in power, or in authority, which fieldome want in the Popish prelacy; and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rising by succession out of your own selves, v. 30. And yet for these and many more now, no such covering as the fleece taken from the sheeps back, the name Catholic. I have said nothing of the Cathari (a name near to the Catholics) yet voluntarily taken by some heretics upon themselves, (as may appear by the Canon of Constantinople last 
Cassand. Consult. ad Art. 7. pag 56. Proprium est schismatis, sibi sole nomen & proprietatem Ecclesiae arrogare. Yet the Jesuits are so confident there, that. Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit. Camp.  quoted) wherein they jump with the Papists, whom we call not Catholics as of our own head, whatsoever Bellarmine & the Adjoinder retort upon us, but apply our speech to their usual fashion, and speak as we would be understood by them. On the other side, did not the heretics miscall the Catholics, and strip them, as much as in them lay, of that glorious name? The Pelagians, says S. Austen, they called us Traducians'; the Arians, Homousians; the Donatists, Macarians; the Manichees, called us Pharisees; and divers other heresies diversly nicknamed us. Lib. 1. poster. contra julian Pelag. And was the Catholic cause ever a whit the worse for that? No verily. For as Theodoret notes most excellently, lib. 3. Histor. cap. 21. of julian's madness (I mean julian the Apostate) going about to change the name Christians, into the name of Galileans, most preposteiously, sith the name Christian cannot be abolished, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says S. Luke, which we read not yet of the name Catholic,) that nothing could be more frantic than such a project, considering that if he effected it (as there was small hope) yet there could grow no disparagement to the Christian sect by the change of their name, no more than if Nireus were called Thersites, or Thersites Nireus, the one should be the fairer, or 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Idem Theod. Com. in Philip. 4. Non quicunque se sanctum nominat, sanctus est, sed qui credit Domino jesu, quique vitam ex eius legibus instituit.  the other more deformed, than he was before: or as if Homer were called Chaerilus, or Chaerilus were called Homer, there would follow any change of their veins in Poetry: so here. But as Eucherius says of the honours and preferments of this world (in his Epistle paraenetical, ad Valerian. fratrem) when they are crossly and unworthily (as often) bestowed, that the thing which was invented to distinguish desert, is made to shroud it & to confound it: so fares it in this Metaplasme of names many times: Dignos & indignos non iam discernit dignitas, sed confundit. And as he had said before in the same book, Alij nomen usurpant, nos vitam. Where, the height of the title without substance answerable in the party owning it, is but as the light of a candle (as Marius says in Sallust) that discovers blemishes, but creates no beauty, in an ill favoured visage, presented to it. Shall we hear what the holy Ghost says, prophesying of the times which were then to come, and which now have overtaken us in all likelihood, (of which I may say with S. Hilary, changing but a 
Lib contra Auxent.  word, Malè ves nominum amor cepit, or malè partium, (as he says parietum) malè Ecclesiam in vocabulis veneramini.) Thou hast a name that thou art alive, but indeed art dead, spoken of the Church of Sardis, revel. 3. ver. 1. And revel. 2. ver. 9 they say they are jews (spoken of certain miscreants) but are not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and 
We have Abraham to our Father, joh. 8.  jacob, as they allege, but representing nothing less in their forms of life. What else do the Papists, I wonder, at this day, entitling themselves Catholics, & non sunt, though they are nothing less, either in their life, or doctrine, specially if we hold to Lirinensis his touchstone, of, ubique, Semper, & ab omnibus receptum: Whereas they now would confound Catholic and Roman, because they have much Roman which they cannot prove Catholic. But we have also further mention in the place aforesaid, of the Throne of Satan, erected among the faithful; a Metaphor belike taken from the Episcopal throne, as if Satan might get into that too, ver. 13. concerning Pergamus. And ver. 9 concerning the Church of Smyrna, having spoken of some that called themselves jews, that is, true worshippers of God, and are not (as was said before) the holy Ghost opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Synagogue of Satan. As who would say, They go for Ecclesia, but are indeed Synagoga, and pretend Christ, but belong to Satan, which is the reproof that we charge our adversaries with, and I think not causeless. Yea in the second verse of the same chapter (because the Pope in all haste would be Apostle or Apostolic, for he claims the term, and counts it his inheritance) you shall read that some said they were Apostles, and were not, (whom the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying, afore she would trust, as S. john also bids us to try the Spirits, 1. joh. 4. 1. and soon after he censures the prating Dietrephes, 
Evil life evil doctrine: which is Nilus his argument too, against the Pope. cx 1. ad Tim. c. 1.  and brings him to his trial, He that doth evil hath not seen God, 3. Epistle, ver. 11.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How fit was this to be premised before the rest of S. john's doctrine, throughout the whole mystical book of the Apocalypse, describing Antichrist such as now he appears? Lastly ver. 23. of the said chapter of the Reu. The Churches are to know, that it is God, which searcheth the hearts and the reins, (as not carried away with names or glorious titles) unless it be nomen cum fide, the holding of his name with the not denying of his faith, ver. 13. of the same Chapter. Whereas the Papists leaving to be called by his name, (the name Christians, which the Scripture only recordeth) may well be suspected to have renounced his faith too, given him over clean. For the holy Ghost we see couples them both together.  
§ 41. Yet the Adjoinder is peremptory, num. 32. that the name Catholic cannot be usurped by heretics, but, is a most true and proper note of the true Church, and num. 33. that the name and the thing expressed by the name, do always so concur, that they are never separated. And again, num. 34. that heretics, or heretical congregations, never did or could usurp the name Catholic, but the same hath always been and ever shall be peculiar to the true Church, and that the name and the thing signified by the name, do ever concur. Thus he. But what such privilege I wonder hath the name Catholic, supra omne nomen, above all names else, or why should that only cleave to truth, and the truth to it, whereas all other names may be divorced from it? May the name Christian be rend from the Church, by the furiousness of julian labouring to extinguish the whole body of Christians, and yet Christianity suffer no disparagement thereby, as Theodoret witnessed in most plentiful manner a little before, and cannot the name Catholic be borrowed of the Church, by the hand of some crafty intruder or other, but the Church shall no longer be herself? Yet the name Christian implies Christ in it, which is the head that we hold by, and the Prince of our Congregation. Secondly, Scripture recordeth it: and thirdly, it seems given by divine inspiration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Neither of which agrees to the name Catholic. No, nor yet to the Gnostics, a high name too, and from the abundance of knowledge, which they attributed to themselves. Whom S. Paul is thought to twit, 1. Tim. 6. 12. giving us withal to understand, that there may be falsehood in names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the falsely called Gnostics. Of Apostolic, Angelic, and if there be any other, I might say the same. Why should the name Catholic be more sacred 
Unless they mean, that Catholic implies multitude, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the scripture speaks when it would express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic. lib. judith. But that is refuted elsewhere.  than they, why less exposed to heretical usurpation? For Catholic and Apostolic, either draw in an equality, or at least Apostolic is not inferior to Catholic: Angelic one would think were above them both. And if the name Catholic still goes where the true Church goes, how are the Catholics themselves not Catholics, or not known by that name, as sometimes it fared, witness S. Austen, but transformed into the titles of certain new-fangled sectaries, 
Suprà allegat.  the Traducians', the Macarians, & the rest of that rabble before rehearsed? Is it like that the heretics will not call themselves Catholics, as the Adjoinder pretends, when they take from Catholics the very name Catholic, and clothe them with other of their own devising? Though S. Austen most directly, contra Epistol. Fundamenti, cap. 4. (the book that the Adjoinder himself here quotes) says, that omnes haeretici se Catholicos dicivolunt, all heretics would be called Catholics, and Lactantius Institution. lib. 4. cap. 30. that all heretics suam esse potissimùm Catholicam putant Ecclesiam, they think themselves Catholics, and the Catholic Church theirs, in a prime degree. How then shall we believe that of cyril of Jerusalem, (for we will suppose it to be Cyrils for this once) which Bellarmine first alleged, and the Adjoinder here refers us to, that no heretake will presume to call his sect Catholic, or to point to his own faction, if the question be asked of the Catholic Church, as if that word were such a scare to him? Does not this show, that the Bishop most advisedly answered to those authorities, when he answered in the words which the Adjoinder carps here, that De nomine lis nulla inter nos intercedit, sed utripotiùs è re nomen habeant? We stand not upon the name (it hath been showed in the precedents, that there is no cause to stand upon names,) but which of us hath the most right to inherit the name, the glorious name (as S. james says) quod invocatur super nos, by which we are called? As for S. Austen, he might say, that 
2. 7.  tenet me postremò ipsum nomen Catholicae, reckoning the name Catholic among the last arguments, which persuaded 
Note that S. Austin's last is Bellarmine's first. de not. Ecc. c. 4.  him to continue in the unity of the Church, and preferring like enough diverse forcibler before it, or else this would have moved him but little. Nay, when the Bishop tells you that in case it were granted, (for he doth but grant it, we believe it not) that it is true as you say, when search is made after the Catholic Church, we point to your Church; yet you cannot deny on the other side, but if the Catholic Reform be asked after, a man will point to ours, and not think of yours for any such mention: does not this abate your lofty swell, as much as the other fond supposal served to prick you up in pride? For Catholic reform is a more tolerable addition, and more agreeable to all good rules of reason, and of faith, than Catholic Roman is at any 
Cathelica Catapolica, ut praeclarè Episcop.  hand; which is your monstrous contradiction in adiecto (as I may so call it) even within two words. And as Catholic to Christian, by the verdict of Pacian (which you are wont so to stand upon,) or Apostolic to Catholic, in the most Orthodox style, and some ancient Creeds, Credo sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam: So Catholic to be determined by Reformed Catholic, after that such a sea of corruptions hath flowed in (even by your 
Ad●… in Institut Cheregati Legati sui ad Commit Norimberg. Vide Fai●…. ●…m, etc. S●… in hac sede (non s●… Ecclesia) aliquot tam annis, multa abominanda fuisse, abusus in spirituali●…, excessus in mandat●, & OMNIA denique in peruers●m mutata.  own confessions,) I pray what repugnance hath it either to sound reason, or to ancient custom, or to any good ground and principle of the Church, or how doth it not justify our Church, above yours, to be that Vbi cubas, which we so seek for?  
§ 42. But Satyrus being cast a shore (you say) amongst a company of schismatics, asked if they agreed, with the Catholic Bishops, expounding himself to mean, the Church of Rome. Where, first you see the prerogative is not the Bishops of Rome, but the Churches of Rome, if any be. Else why doth he fall so suddenly, from the mention of Bishops, to the mention of a Church, but that he means a Church 
The Church of Rome was mentioned by S●…rus 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 infall blunesse, but for her ●●t●…sne●.  containing in it many Bishops, and therefore not the Sea of Rome precisely, as now it is taken? But as for the point in hand, whether the Roman faith, and the Catholic be all one, because Satyrus interpreted his meaning in that sort, me thinks the Bishop most completely answereth him, and so untieth the knot that you would feign tie us in, as he yet tieth you fast enough in a far tougher knot, at the same instant. Sciebat enim, etc. For he knew (says the Bishop) that the Bishop of Rome was then a Catholic, a Catholic, protunc, and at that time punctually; but neither afore, nor after, very immediately. Will you hear what our Adjoinders reply is to this? Having repeated the Bishop's words to the effect aforesaid, he thus commenteth, Num. 29. So he. Wherein he granteth consequently, that the Pope is supreme and universal Pastor of the whole Church; for that must needs follow of his grant, seeing it is evident, that he who then was Bishop 
Must needs follow.  of Rome, and whom he alloweth for Catholic, had, and exercised, a supreme and universal authority: To which purpose it is to be considered, who was Bishop of Rome at that time: Whereto the Bishop himself giveth us no small light, signifying presently after, that Liberius was Bishop a little before him; and sure it is, that Damasus succeeded Liberius, and reigned many 
Damasus reigneth.  years, who therefore must needs be the Catholic Bishop that the Bishop meaneth. Perge porrò. Num. 30. Now than what authority Damasus had, and exercised during his reign, (I pray you, let it be observed here, the reign of King Damasus. For all Jesuits think so in their hearts; but some only speak 
Damasus his reign.  it with their mouths, as the Adjoinder here twice in his inconsiderate zeal. And yet by this they exalt the King above the Pope, though it be against their wills; because purposely amplifying the Papal style, they call it Kingdom, as ashamed of Popedom, and Priesthood, the inferiors to it. So as Baronius in his Annals, reckons the years of the world by the Annus of such a Pope, as Pius, or Clemens, or Anacletus, or the like. Which, in other Chronicles, were wont to be reckoned by the emperors only; by the Popes either not at all, or but accidentally. Insomuch as the Holy Ghost himself, Act. 11. 28. describing the famine that was over all the world, calculated the time by the Emperor, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under Claudius 
So, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under Pontius (Caesar's deputy) 1. Tim. c. 13. 10 as not only the years are counted by the Caesars, but Christ himself is subject to Caesar's deputy. For the Rhemist, themselu●s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under, in this place. And it appears by his mother's being taxed, Luk. ●. (for Partus sequitur vent●●) that Christ was under Caesar in the very womb. The least and the greatest subject that Caesar had. jesus inter omnes scriptur sanctificat omnes. Orig. hom. 11. in cap. 1 & 2. Lucae.  Caesar. But perhaps Peter was not then come to Rome. I go forward with the Adjoinder.) Now than what authority Damasus had, etc. it appeareth, saith he, sufficiently by that which I signified before, concerning him & his supremacy, in the fourth Chapter, where I showed that the same was acknowledged, not only in Africa, by the Bishops of three African Synods, who in a common Epistle to him, gave clear and evident testimony thereof, but also in the East Church, even by the chief patriarchs thereof, to wit, by Peter the holy Bishop of Alexandria, who immediately succeeded Athanasius, and being expelled from his Church by the Arrians, fled to Pope Damasus, and by the virtue and authority of his letters, was restored to his seat, as the Magdeburgians themselves do relate, out of the Ecclesiastical histories. And in the Church of Antioch, his authority was acknowledged, by Paulinus the Bishop thereof, receiving instructions and orders from him for the absolution of Vitalis the Heretic. Also afterwards, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and S. chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, were suiers to him, to obtain pardon for Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, as may be seen more particularly in the fourth Chapter of this Adjoinder, where I have also set down the clear testimonies of some Fathers, who lived at the same time, and evidently acknowledged his supremacy.  
§ 43. Numb. 31. So that the Bishop granting that Pope Damasus was a Catholic Bishop, and that the Church of Rome was in such integrity under him, that S. Ambrose had reason to hold none for Catholics, but such as held union therewith, it must needs follow, that the supreme and universal authority, 
It must needs follow.  which Pope Damasus had, and used, was not usurped, but due to him, and his Sea, and consequently to his successors. And whereas the Bishop signifieth, that the Roman Church, and Bishops, were not always in the like integrity, that they were at that time, to wit, neither a little before in the time of Liberius, 
Honorius and Liberius, not their raigue, but their time.  nor shortly after in the time of Honorius, because both of them subscribed to Heresy (as he saith) I will not now stand to debate, etc.  
§ 44. This is the laconical brevity of this Thom: To whom we answer in a word (as for the repeating of his brave feats exploited in the fourth Chapter, we remit him to our answer thereunto in the precedents, touching every particular;) That, if Damasus had exercised such an exotic jurisdiction, as he fond dreameth, (and the allegations do nothing prove,) yet this could not prejudice his being Catholic, or he might be an usurper notwithstanding Satyrus his judgement of him. First, because Satyrus meant only in opposition to the Luciferian schismatics, whose cause was not the cause of Ecclesiastical Supremacy. Secondly, Satyrus perhaps might not discern the error, though the Pope had laboured of it, as diverse other good men also gave way to it, unwittingly. Thirdly, a Pope may be right in his belief, though he be erroneous in his practice, and so may any body else. For the thief himself doth not think it lawful to steal, nor the man-queller to murder, and yet they both commit the wickedness. Even so the Pope may be Catholic, though he should turn cut-throat, I mean Catholic for his faith, as the Papists take it, and speculations only. Else we know, that S. Austen requires more than faith, to make one Catholic, & gives bad livers but a censerivolunt, they would be accounted Catholic, but are not. By which also we may collect the Apostasy of the Church of Rome, her falling away from the faith Catholic, by the contagion of evil manners that swarm in her, & non secundum evangelium, 1. Tim. 1. 11. As Nilus his argument is out of the same chapter, ver. 19 that they that put away good conscience from them, quickly also make shipwreck of their faith. Though the Adjoinder holds, that the Church and her title cannot be severed, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which the Fathers so couple) the Papists think it no disparagement to their Church, to have them parted. Fourthly and lastly, I say, Damasus exercised no universal jurisdiction, nor coveted after it, for aught the Adjoinder hath demonstrated. The less Catholic therefore, 
See Answ to his 4. chap. before.  the more Catholic Pope Damasus, whatsoever become of Liberius and Honorius, the one afore him, the other after him, not so currant both.  
§ 45. There followeth presently after (saith the Adjoinder Num. 32.) a large and liberal grant of the Bishop right worth the noting. In fine, what trow you? That the Bishop saying, Fatemur omnia, nec de nomine lis, sed utri è re nomen habcant, he by that confesseth, that they have the true sign and note of the Church, and we not having it are heretics or schismatics. As if we forsooth refused the name Catholic, or the Bishop implied any such thing in all his speech, which not the desperatest wretches but censeri volunt, witness S. Aust. et si sanari nolunt, 
lib. 20. contra Faust. c. 23.  they would be called Catholics. As Dioscorus said in the Council of Chalcedon, Eijcior cum Patribus, Catholicis no doubt, I am cast out with the Fathers (saith he) he means Catholic Fathers you may be sure. And, Qui profitentur fidem Catholicam, says S. Austen, homil. 10. in Apocal. speaking of Antichrist and his lewd company. Of whom also he adds, that, Imago eius (the Image of the beast) simulatio eorum est (is their counterfeiting and hypocrisy) qui fingunt se esse quod non sunt, etc. Lo, the mark of the Church, as the Adjoinder counts it, is the Image of the beast, as S. Austen construes it, when it is falsely pretended, namely the name Catholic. Shall we not rest then in the Bishops most grave ponderation, Vtriè re magis nomen habeant, which of us two best deserve the title? And turn the Adjoinders witty descant wherein he doubles upon the Bishop, with, Ex ore tuo 
Num. 34. & Num. 37.  te judico (because we call them Catholics) to, Non ex ore tuote, because his neighbour's word, is to be heard, before-his own, justifying himself? But of these things hitherto. The ship Euplaea retains her name, though encountered 
Athenaeus.  with all cross luck at Sea, to the laughter of the beholders, standing upon the shore. And notwithstanding the name, yet she is the game of the tempests. Right so is the case, when Petri celox (as Bembus calls it) jets in her titles 
De Guido V. baldo, etc. H●…our [her] before the people.  of magnificence up and down, after her other scandals so palpably laid open. Not the badge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (though prognosticating a calm) but S. Paul's piety, preserved the ship, sailing to Rome, Acts, 28. as it had the mariners before, Acts. 27. in despite of the sea. In like sort here: Badges and ensigns, titles and terms, protect not Churches, but inward worth and divine grace.  
§ 46. IT follows in the Adjoinder, Num. 35. And the like I may also say concerning his grant in another matter, to wit, that our Bishops are true Bishops, and that the Protestant Bishops of England had their Ordination from ours, yea from 
* He that says three, dents not they were ●●ure, but shows that he loves to speak within compass.  3. of ours (for so he giveth to understand) whereupon he also inferreth that he and his fellow Superintendents have a true ordination and succession from the Catholic Church, whereas the quite contrary followeth upon his grant. For if our Bishops be true Bishops (as having a true succession from the Apostles,) and that the Protestant Bishops have no other lawful ordination but from ours, two consequents do directly follow thereon; the ore, that we have the true Church and doctrine, if the Bishop his fellow and friend M. Barlow say true, who in his famous Sermon (mentioned by me elsewhere) affirmeth the successive propagation of Bishops from the Apostles, to be the main root of Christian society (according to S. Augustine) and the main proof of Christian doctrine (according to Tertullian) as I have showed amply in my Supplement; and proved thereby, that M. Barlow and his fellows are heretics and schismatics. The other consequent is, that if the English Protestant Bishops had no other lawful ordination then from the Catholics, they had none at all; for that at the change of Religion in Queen Elizabeth's time, they were not ordained by any one Catholic Bishop, and much less by three (as the Bishop saith they were) but by themselves, and by the authority of the Parliament, as I have also declared at large in my Supplement. Then, Num. 37. Whereupon I infer two things; one that they have no Clergy nor Church; for having no Bishops they have no Priests (because none can make Priests but Bishops) and having neither Bishops nor Priests, they have no Clergy, and consequently no Church, as I have showed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome. The other is, that the Bishop and his fellows are neither true Bishops, nor have any succession from the Catholic Church (as he saith they have) nor yet any lawful mission, or vocation; & that therefore they are not those good shepherds which (as our Saviour saith) enter into the fold by the door, etc. 
Euthymius and Theophylact. upon joh. 10. con strue this door to be the Scriptures. For by them (saith Theop●.) we are brought to God, as through a door he is brought to speak with a man, that hath an errand to him. To the same purpose Euthym adding, that Christ was the true shepherd, and entered by the door, quia utens Scriptures, & secundum eas gubernam. Whereas, the clamberer up another way, who but the Pope?   
§ 47. I answer in one word to his redoubled collections, & multiplied observations, beginning with the first of his two inferences, & concluding with his ground from which he sets out, as false as they, and more too. No Bishops no Priests, says he, because only Bishops can make Priests, & without both them, without all Clergy, & consequently without a Church, as I have showed in my Supplement out of S. Hierome. For still we must hear of the Supplement in any case, or else it is no bargain. But as for Hierome, we may oppose Tertullian to him, that, Quod quis accepit 
Lib de Baptism.  & dare potest, whatsoever a man hath received, he may give again (if occasion be offered) in Ecclesiastical passages. And so our Saviour sets the Date, against the accepistis, instructing 
Matth 10. 8.  his Apostles about the use of their gifts, which they had received of him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith S. Peter. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let every body communicate a gift as he hath received: and, As good stewards of the manifold grace of 
1. Pet. 4. 10.  God. Though ordinarily it is reason, that the treasure should be only in the Bishop, keeping, as the faithfullest depositary, to avoid evil dealing. 1. Tim. 5. 22. Nemini citò manus imposueris. And we know jurisdiction is so restrained in Bishops, by the Adjoinders own confession, in diverse places of this book; yea in Priests too, who are limited to their quarter for 
Adjoind c. 2. Num. 50. Every Pastor ought to have, not only as much care of the whole Church, as every other man, but also much more than others, by reason of his function and office, which doth extend itself to the whole Church, it being evident, that what authority soever any man hath in any part of the Church, it is given him for the good of the whole, and finally tendeth thereto. Again. Numb. 52. Whosoever is Pastor in any one part of the Church, is capable of Pastoral inrisdiction in any other, though he be restrained & limited to a certain part, to avoid confusion: in which respect the Priests in every Diocese are Priests throughout the whole Church, and may minister Sacraments any where in cases of necessity; and a Bishop in any place is every where a Bishop, and one of the Magistrates and Pastors of the Church, and therefore hath a voice & right of suffrage in all General Counsels, though they be held out of his Diocese, etc.  their ordinary service, though their power conferred upon them originally in their ordination, extend to every member of the Church. But I speak what may be done in casu, as I said, and upon an exigent only. Which if ever it was presented, then for certain when all was so out of frame in the Roman Church. Though I might quarrel him also for that, where he infers again thus; No Priests, no Church. Their 
* Rhem. Test Annot. in Luc. 22. v. 19 & Mat. 26. ver. 20.  Rhemists' note, that our Saviour Christ made not the Apostles Priests till his last Supper. And yet, I hope, Christ and his company were a Church before that time, and a Church of the new Testament; or else more incongruities will follow, I believe, than the Adjoinder will salve up in haste. S. Paul calls philemon's house a Church. Yet himself was a lay man, as the Fathers hold; which perhaps would not have been, but that 
Ambnin locum, & alij qui cum sequuntur.  a Church figurative may be without a Minister. Why not then a true? I would but fish their judgements, I am to sift some things for disputation sake. For though Archippus 
Com. in Epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.  was a Minister, and philemon's son, (as some think) yet their houses were distinct, as appears by S. Hieromes Commentary upon this place. Ambiguum est, utrum Ecclesiam quae in domo Archippi sit, an eam quae in domo Philemonis significare velit Apostolus, cum dicit se scribere Ecclesiae quae in domo eius est: sed mihi videtur non ad Archippi, sed ad Philemonis referendum esse personam, etc. Yea Haymo says directly, 
Com. in Epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.  ask why S. Paul salutes no Bishops, Priests, or other Clergymen, writing to the Galatians, as he does when he writes to other Churches, Quia nondum habebant neque Episcopum neque Rectorem aliquem, ideoque facilius sedici potuerunt. And yet Galatia a Church; or many Churches in Galatia; as it is, cap. 1. v. 2. But so much may suffice to his first collection.  
§ 48. Now to his second. That the Bishop himself and other his colleagues here of the Church of England, are neither true Bishops, nor of any succession, mission, or vocation, viz. because they enter not in by the door, that is, are not ordained by Popish Bishops, in whom alone the stream of succession runs along, as he surmiseth; though to this last I shall speak more distinctly by and by: Yet in the mean while to answer to his wise illation, juxta prudentiam hominis, as Solomon bids us: Pope Nicholas their first was of another mind, as it may seem at least, by his answer ad Consulta Bulgarorun, c. 14. where, when the people of that place would have had a certain Grecian too have lost his ears, to have his nose slit, and other such disgraces, for preaching Christ, though to the benefit of the people, yet without any lawful ordination; the Pope dissents from them, and qualifies the matter by these words of the Apostle; Sieve occasione, siue QVOCUNQVE 
Philip. 1. 18.  MODO Christus praedicetur, non laboro: yea he concludes thus, even of the general question, out of another Pope's mouth his predecessor, (a Pope you see quoting his predecessor Pope, and the Apostle S. Paul too:) Non quaerite quis vel qualis praedicet, sed quem praedicet: It is no matter, who, nor what kind of man it is that preacheth, but whom he preacheth, viz. whether he preach Christ or no. Which last words are as strange to me, as contrary to the Adjoinder in this place. And so perhaps is that perverting of the Apostles sentence before cited. For when we say, Non interest quis praedicet, vel qualis; we are not to mean it of moral idoneity, or moral sufficiency, but of Ecclesiastical, as the School teaches. So is the Pope to the Adjoinder, and the School to the Pope, and hard but the truth to them all, contrary. In the 16. chapter of the said Responsa, it seems the people had executed their wrath upon that poor caitiff that had feigned himself Priest, and cropped his ears, and done him the despite which afore they travailed with, but questioned whether they might do it lawfully or no. Belike the Pope's answer had not come to their hands, or else passion was deaf to milder advise. Whereupon in reproving their hard usage of him, he proceeds thus, to excuse the matter: Si David esse se furiosum finxit, ut suam tantum salutem operari posset, quam noxam contraxit, qui tot hominum multitudinem QV OQV O MODO de potestate Diaboli & aternae perditionis abstraxit? In English thus, [If David feigned himself mad, only to save his life; what fault was he in, that plucked so many men out of the power of the devil, and from eternal perdition, IT IS NO MATTER HOW?] Is this good divinity? Or may you plead so, and not we?  
§ 49. As for that which he produceth out of Bishop Barlowes Sermon to fortify this point yet a little better against us, it is merely ridiculous; because when Bishop Barlowe speaks of the succession of Bishops to be the root of Christian fellowship, and the proof of Christian doctrine, he means as Irenaeus takes succession, cum charismate veritatis, with the gift 
Iren. l 4. c. 43. Charisma veritatis certum.  of truth, which in you is wanting; in your hands, in your mouths, is found nothing, as the Psalmist speaks. Do we not read in S. Austen, that judas judae succedit aliquoties, Com. in Psal. 141. and, lupi agnis, id est, Apostolis, Act. 20. 29. or nox dici, as Gregory Nazianzen speaks, and, morbus sanitati, that is, one bad man suceedes another, and good men 
Panegy●, in Athanas.  are succeeded by the bad many times, 
〈◊〉 Single succession is a simple thing. Huge Card. in 2. Thess. 2. Deficient à fide; Non successions locali, sed tamen mentali, & corruptions doctrinae.  neither of which successions avail you any thing, or are to be gloried in? Neither again are we heretics, for dissenting from them of whom we took our ordination, as you rashly imply in your numb. 35. For the power of ordination is not taken away, de facto, from an heretical Bishop, unless he be sentenced 
Vide Sylu. V. Ordo, & alios.  and inhibited by authority. And after that too perhaps, the orders are good that he confers, though himself do amiss in perverting discipline, and violating the commission of his superiors. Fieri non debuit, factum valuit, as the common saying is.  
§ 50. But to come at last to the third point, which is the ground and bottom of the other twain, and so an end of this matter, and in the next of the whole, if God say Amen. You say, Our Bishops in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, ordained themselves by mutual compact, being destitute of other help from Welsh and Irish, which in vain they solicited. And you produce your author, 
Others reckon of a Grecian Bishop used in this consecration, Eudoem. Parall. p. 243. But so do liars agree between themselves. Doth not this also increase the credit of our Register: For that is constant, while the impugners of it are at variance.  one 
* Homo nihili.  Thomas Neale, a worthy wight, no doubt, though no more be said in conmendation of him. Yet you add, that he was Reader of the Hebrew Lecture in Oxford afterward; it may well be. And thus you have approved (as you think at least) that our men were not consecrated by lawful Bishops and lawfully called, I mean ordained of them that yourselves call Catholics. From whence what flows? That Clergy we have none, nor Church none, and the Bishop is no Bishop against whom you write, etc. But these two inferences we have discussed before: how well they follow out of the premises, though they were granted. As for the Bishop in particular, that reverend Prelate, the object of your envy, and the subject of our controversy, I might say much, and yet convince in short; that the defect of oil, cannot hinder his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Philosopher said wittily, that it was not possible that 
Laert.  Hercules should be debarred heaven, because he was not initiate; so, that the Bishop should be no Bishop for lack of Ordainers. But the greater his worth, the more my silence; and his scorn of these reproaches, à magnitudine animi, non à superbia, as Tully saics of Socrates,) bridles me, even dumb. The sum is; that when we say, our Bishops were ordained by yours, we mean by such as were first ordained by your Bishops, though not persisting in their Religion happily. They were yours by Primitive ordination, not yours by constance of profession. And this was enough to make good their act. For the power by them received through imposition of hands, makes them fit ordainers, not the steadfastness of their faith, or keeping close to the doctrine: or else every faithful man might be a lawful ordainer, which you are loath to grant to every faithful Priest, and much more to Laymen. It were not hard to show who consecrated the first Bishop in Queen Elizabeth's time, which was Archbishop Parker. Bishop Barlow (I trow) was one, first Bishop of Bath and Wells, then of Chichester, who was made both Priest and Bishop in the time of King Henry the 8. And therefore you may be sure, by men of your Religion, and by Popish Bishops. Bishop Scory Bishop of Chichester first, and after of Hereford, was another, who was made Priest in King Henry's time, and Bishop in King Edward's. Bishop Hodgkin Suffragan of Bedford, made Bishop in Queen Mary's time. Miles Coverdale Bishop in King Edward's time, etc. So as neither did our Bishops consecreate themselves, by compact or playing booty, as you maliciously slander them, and the other Bishops that were used in their consecration, were partly made Priests, partly Bishops, in former Princes reigns, & those Popish, but all before the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I might add much more here, as I have read it taken out of the original Archives of the Church of Canterbury, about the judgement of 6. Doctors of the Civil Law, who all subscribed, that the Commission for their consecration granted by the Queen's Majesty to the persons abovenamed, was justifiable 
N●te that in the Register there is mention of two more Bishops, to whom the Commission was directed, then were present at the consecration. Which to me seems to argue the sincerity of the Register, against the Adjoinders ●●al●…s exceptions. For el●, why might not this odds have been silenced? And yet the absence of two doth not invalidate the business, sith the Commission is content with any four.  and lawful: viz. William may, Robert Weston, Edward Leeds, Henry Harvey, Thomas Yale, Nicholas Bullingham. I think, your Neale himself, if he had been of the profession, and not reading his Ebria, or addicted to lies, rather than to the laws, would not have dissented from the opinion of so many sages. Marry, if you mean of Bishop Cranmer; his consecration is more pregnant yet, and confirmed by sundry Bulls of Pope Clement the seventh, as if need were might be specified at large. The first whereof was to King Henry the 8. two other to the elect himself Thomas Cant. the fourth to all the brethren and suffragans of the Church of Canterbury: the fifth to the Clergy of the City and Diocese of Canterbury. And so divers more which here I omit for brevity sake. He was consecrated, 1533. ann. Reg. Henrici 8. 24. March. 30. by john Bishop of Lincoln, and john Bishop of Exeter, and Henry Bishop of Asaph. The same day also, accepit pallium. Yea he paid the Pope 900. ducats in gold for his Bulls. But as far as I perceive, you cavil not the consecration of Archbishop Cranmer, but only them that were made in Queen Elizabeth's days, viz. Archbishop Parker, and the rest. And the reason to me seems to be this, because the Pope had a fleece out of the ones consecration, & none out of the others, nor never since. Certamen movistis 
Lucan.  opes. All your stirs are for Peter-pences, and smoak-pences, and golden ducats, and such were,— irritamenta malorum.  
§ 51. This which I have affirmed of the consecration of these two Archbishops, not only Mr. Mason, of his exact knowledge, will justify to your head, or any of you all, notwithstanding your brave Appendix at the end of your Adjoinder (than which I never saw a more silly plea) but almost any novice in the Church of England. And if my leisure would permit, or that were now my task, how easily might I detect the sundry absurdities that your Appendix containeth? First, Num. 4. you allege a statute of Ann. 1. Eliz. cap. 1. and Dr. Stapleton urging it against Bishop Horn, That no Bishop should be held for a Bishophere in England, without due consecration before had, etc. Yet you argue in the same place, but more importunately soon after, Num. 9 that both Stapleton and Harding would never have pressed Bishop jewel, and the rest, with want of due consecration, if this Register had been true, or any such thing to have been showed in those times. But if Stapleton and Harding be so authentical with you, that whatsoever they once urge us with, is strait unanswerable, than I confess we are in a woeful case. And yet to say somewhat in defence of them too, without granting your slander of our first Bishops in the Queen's time, what if the mislike that they had to those consecrations, was because they were not consecrated by Popish Bishops, (for Protestant Bishops is of your putting in into Mr. Hardings words, num. 11.) and not such as were ordained by the Popish? Are you not ashamed to confound these things so grossly, and utterly to mistake the state of the question? If Harding and Stapleton therefore were so considerate men, that a false imputation could not proceed from them, their meaning was this, What Bishop consecrated you, that is, what Popish Bishop or Catholic Bishop in your sense? But if they meant that they rushed in, either without any consecration, or basely agreed to consecrate one another (a devise meeter for boy-Bishops, such as Popery aboundeth with, then for godly and grave Prelates of the Church of England) they were doubtless inconsiderate; and if never before this time, or never in any any other matter, (which is more than the fame that goes of them) yet for this one part justly to be so censured. Unless their absence from their country, and not consulting of the Register, might plead their pardon; in tanto, I grant, not in toto; but howsoever it be, this is a strange argument of yours to confront a Register with, the life of things past, the image of truth, the memory of times, the light of memory, that Harding and Stapleton would never have been so bold, as to contradict it, if it had been so. Nay then, why should Queen Elizabeth provide by Statute (as yourself here tell us) and her grave Counsellors devise under her (which counsellors you may be sure neither wanted foresight, and were most faithful to her in all her proceedings,) That no 
Adjoind. in Append. num. 4. Citing Stapleton● Counterblast against Bishop Horn, fol. 301. And therefore you are indeed no true Bishops, neither by the Law of the Church, neither yet by the Lawer of the Realm, for want of due consecration, expressly required by an act of Parliament renewed in this Queen's days, in Suffiagan Bishops, much more in you.  Bishops should go for Bishops here in the Church of England, which wanted due consecration, if she meant shortly after to set up and authorize, a generation of Pseudo-Bishops in the same Church, herself? Had not this been to kill the very life of her intents, and to alienate the people from embracing the Religion, that she was minded to promote with all her power? For this Act of Parliament you say was, Ann. 1. of Q Elizabeth. But both the Archbishop, & the other Bishops, were not consecrated, till about the beginning of the second year of the Queen's reign. Bishop Parker in December, Bishop jewel in january, etc. Now then let me ask you (a rat tracked to death, by the apparent evidence & impression 
Who is the scorpion now that carries the remedy against his own poison about him? The Adjoinders sweet compatison, cap. 10. num. 70.  of your own marks: for I assure you, but for your own text here, I had never considered of this statute of Queen Elizabeth) let me ask you, I say, Is this good Logic? Harding and Stapleton (though pricked with passion, and envying other folks good fortunes) would never have accused Bishop jewel their adversary, if the case had not been clear; And is not this much more forcible, Queen Elizabeth, and her sage Counsellors would not have forbid that thing by act of Parliament, which shortly after she meant to licence, and to put in practice, in the open view of the whole world? But what should I stand arguing with such a beastly jangler, that calls Bishop jewels answer to Hardings question, concerning his consecration, ambiguous and irresolute, etc. (Numb. 10. of his Appendix) because he says, OUR Bishops are made as they have been ever: Not, WE were made, or I was made? Does he not show that there was no difference between his making and others, when he says, they were made as they have been EVER, and so defend himself, as withal to defend all, because the quarrel was not his (blessed man that he was) but the whole Churches of England, which he maintained as zealously, as any champion would his own? Nevertheless you tell us again, Num. 11. (as if you could never say it enough, because indeed you have nothing else to say) That it is not to be imagined, D. Harding would be so inconsiderate, as to demand expressly of M. jewel, what three Bishops in the Realm laid hands upon him, if there were four, as M. Masons Register hath it? Send over your Page then, or your Squire at arms, or if you will your Desk-creeper, as it is Num. 13. to peruse and search the Register of the Office, which M. Mason avoucheth. You shall find Bishop jewel was consecrated by these four, Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund London, Richard Ely, john Bedford; and the consequents and the antecedents (which you are so doughty jealous of in your Num. 14.) will prove M. Masons Register, to be a true Register, not disprove it. Though I doubt not but these things are known to many, before M. Masons book saw light. And I confess for mine own part, I had my instructions long since, ex alio capite; albeit I derogate nothing from his worthy pains.  
§ 52. I See I must end as I began. The Supremacy of Princes, and namely of His Majesty, is the thing that the Adjoinder most maligneth. That is their first, that their last, if they be well looked into. I am well content with it for my part, Sis T V militiae causa, modusque meae. I know not how my pen can be employed better. And it were hard if our pens should be slack to plead his right, (his most due right, Deo, & Angelis, hominibusque plaudentibus) that bears the sword (with the jeopardy of his life, & the envy of Nations round about) to preserve our lives, and whatsoever we hold dear or precious in this world. A word therefore or two that we have prepared for the KING.  
§ 53. Though in truth the Adjoinder here plays two in one. Not only his Rebel's part, but the plagiaries. He 
The Bishop's prevaricating about the Supremacy, yea his extenuating, abasing of it, as the Adjoinder dotes now in the latter end of his Book.  would both steal the Crown of independent Supremacy from the King's head, and withal rob him of one of his best Subjects; his faithful Counsellor, his diligent watchman, his unweariable champion, the B. of Elie. No marvel if he give his assaults there (meaning ill to his Majesty,) where he knows a great part of the strength lies (like that Worthies in his locks) which he endeavours to purloin and divert another way.  
§ 54. The recriminations are diverse, which I will answer briefly, setting them down in their order, and so conclude. For there is no moment in any of them; but hungry malice sets the pen on work, which were better quiet, if it knew his own good: ay fuge, sed poteras tutior esse latens. Yet the Adjoinder is so absurd, as (to deface the Bishop, and crop his garland, chevut frustrà?) to censure, after 
Numb 71. The opinion of learned strangers concerning the Bishops etc. Adjoind. Hesiod.  all, his very manner of writing (himself such a writer no doubt:) but wot you what's the cause? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The Bishop's book scorches them without a firebrand, to the very bones; torments them in an invisible mystical rack; his words, his matter, his form, his substance, all vexes them, and wrings them, and they dare not say how, but the tears stand in their eyes, and they pretend by-matters; they cavil with his style. I come to particulars.  
§ 55. The first instance: Because Supremacy is said to be no article of faith. I answer in one word. The persuasion of it is most wholesome, but the range is not properly within the range of the Creeds, or the pale of faith. Whereas, articulus ab arctatione, quasi quid arctatum, says their own Altenstag. Lexico Theolog. V. articul. And the word of faith, is both propè, and breve; that, Rom. 10. 8. this, Rom. 9 28. Yea, 2. Tim. 1. 13. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doubly distinguished, in ip sit terminis; not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only of faith, but of love, and charity, or dutiful observance. Such is the Supremary. S. Paul himself may witness for us; who, 1. Tim. 6. 2. calls obedience to infidels, (even to infidel masters, how much more to Princes?) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of the wholesome words of our Saviour Christ, (the Commenters think he respects to that word, Date Casari quae 
Sic Anselm. & Dionys. Carth. in locur. Bruno etiam, & Glossa, apud Lyran & L●●ich. Had●mer: Papist. Theophylact, refert ad Discite à me quia mitis & humilis, item ad lotion 'em pedú Diseipulorum. Euthymius, fire is est Oecumenius, vocat quide in doctrinam fidei. Sed intellige vel lato nomine fidem, repote revelationem omnem divinae voluntatis, vel in reductione ad fidem.  Caesaris sunt) yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For if it be Christ's, it binds howsoever, whether it be of faith, or of love; and in Christo jesus, says the Apostle in both places; both 2. Tim. 1. 13. and the 1. Tim. 6. 2; he fetches it from Christ. Yet the Adjoinder thinks that we are free to all things, if they be not of faith; that we may choose whether we will conform to them or no, though the morality that they imply, be never so ghostly. What then says he of not stealing, of not committing adultery, of doing no murder, and diverse such like? For Idolatry, I think, they acknowledge none, it is so promiscuous in Popery. Are not these things morum, and not fidei? Themselves so distinguish them, at other times. Bellarmine by name, de Port. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 5. Decreta fidei, and Praecepta morum, are two with him. Also Valentia (quoting Thomas for it) will have heresy itself, to be in certain propositions, which cross 
Tom. 3. Disp. 1. Q. 11. punct. 2.  not with the Creed, but with other truths of Divinity notwithstanding. How then if the subjection that we owe to Princes, be but as safe and sacred, as one of these? and grounded upon the Law first, either moral or judicial; as Honorapatrem, Honour thy father; much more patrem patriae, the father of the 
To confirm this argument; We are to think that when Solomon censures the despisers of their Father and Mother, Prov. 30. 17. he means the civil Magistrate by those names, because he awards death and eradication to the offendor: (for the birds pick out the eves of none but carcases) which is somewhat too heavy for private faults, and children's errors, though authority of Parents did stretch thither; as with with us it doth not. Also that when S. Paul in the new Testament, composes houses & families so carefully (componit 〈◊〉 jam solerti cura, says S. Austen, contra Faust. l. 5. 〈◊〉 9) which is evident to observe in sundry his Epistles, he doth it as a well-willer to the good ordering of Commonwealths too, and governments of State: (for the house is a little Kingdom, and the whole Kingdom is but a great house, etc.) As for his pressing the duties of Servants to Masters, whether carnal, or converts, that enforces for Supremacy even of Infidell-Princes, a great deal more; à Potiori.  whole Country. (My children, saith Ezekias, speaking to his subjects, and not the worst of them, but to the Priests themselves, 2. Chron. 29. 11.) though it appears not among the articles of the Apostles Creed? Doubtless we may say, Non est omnium fides, 2. Thess. 2. 3. and not only subiectively, but obiectively: it being one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Bishop most accurately, and most profoundly distinguished, howsoever our shuttle-pated Adjoinder think of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not all one, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in our Church. I say in ours; for with the Papists every thing is come now to be 
b Suarez would have the very moment of time, wherein he imagines that Christ was borne, to be de fide: Com. in Thom. etc. The point now in hand about the Pope's ptimacie, and his succeeding of Peter in the government of the Church, what more de fide now a days then that? Yea to Bellarm. it is caput fidei, Epist. ad Blacuel. Yet Canus acknowledges, that quidam viri & docti & pij, have contradicted it. And again, Quidam fideles malunt favere hareticorum opinionibus quam Catholicorum, about that point: lib. 6. loc. come cap. 7. Cardinal Contarene also, lib. ad Nic Theupolum De Potestate Papae: Non sunt veriti viri quidans in omni disciplinarum genere celebres, ac in Christianae Theologiae studijs illustres, in magno hominum conventu asserere, ius hoc Pontificis humanum esse, etc. Great men, and in a great assembly.  de fide; either what their Church once ventes, that same 
* Esa. 18.  cymbalum alarun, (si 
c None but knows the Popish Church's presumption in this kind, which was not wont to be so. The Church (saith Vincentius Lerinensis, cap. 32.) does no more than make, ut quod anteà simplicitor credebatur, hoc idem posteà diligentius credatur, etc. Not new articles, as the Adjoinder would, cap. 3.  declarat Ecclesia,) or some addleheaded Friar and Sophister doth but dream.  
§ 56. Nevertheless the Adjoinder turns merry with us; and says if it be so, it may well come into our Pater noster, but never into our Creed, this doctrine of the Supremacy. As if first there were nothing between the Creed and the Pater noster, that if it lodge not in the one, it must needs be thrown off to the other. How if it pitch upon Moses his Law (as I said evennow) either the judicial, or the moral, part thereof? Did not the Adjoinder complain very lately himself, that the Bishop was to blame for deriving it from thence? As 
See cap. 1.  who would say, It appears there indeed, & there is no denying; but the Bishop was not to take the advantage of that place; of none, I trow, but only the Creed. Else, this is not a matter of bare speculation, or naked apprehension, as the points of faith may seem to be; but ends in action, and in observation. The more likely therefore to come of the Law. And is Moses Ordinances of no force with him, in good earnest? Or is not that of validity, that descends of the Law? Of the Law, I say, whereof one jot or tittle is not to fall to ground (as he said truest, that kept it best, and in the point of subjection, above all other:) no, though heaven 
Matth. 5. 18. Luk. 16. 17.  and earth should pass away, and the whole frame of nature be dissolved. But in truth it results out of every part of the Catechism, as I shall briefly show, occasioned by the Adjoinder, 
The Supreme authority of Princes results out of every part of the Catechism 1  and his jolly descant here, that would make it a point not of our Creed any longer, but only of our Pater noster. And first out of the Creed, (I mean only consequentially, but sure effectually enough) both in Natus de Maria, and Passus sub Pontio, as hath been showed heretofore, and may quickly be convinced again. See pag. 94. huius, in marg. and again, pag. 481. It was Christ's first and last theme that ever he established, and much also in the middle of his giant race, (as the Psalmist calls it, Psal. 19) yet not like a giant, be ●lando cum dijs, that is, cum Regibus. For he never declaimed against King in his preachings; though no doubt, it would have been passing popular with the jews; but refused the Kingdom when it was offered him, paid tribute to Caesar for Peter and himself, exhorted others to do the like of duty; Reddite Caesari, not Date; and not vestra, or gratuita; but qua Caesaris sunt. So in many other things he allowed the heathen Princes to dominari eorum, to lord it among their subjects (only he set a bar in his Apostles way, Vos autem non sic:) he allowed them that wait upon Princes, to go in mollibus, in soft clothing; he called his Church by the name of a Kingdom, himself often by the name of a King, implying his Supremacy; which he would never have done, but that he was most loyally and reverently affected to regiments, and a great favourer of the Royal estate. But this was in the middle of his course, as I said. Of life and death, beginning and ending, we shall see anon. In the mean while, to conclude out of the Creed against him, and to enforce the argument last proposed; I demand of the nimblest jesuit of them all: Forsomuch as the Creed recordeth the suffering of our Saviour Christ, under Pontius Pilate (an infidel Magistrate) and by his authority; whether it was well and wisely done of Christ, to yield to such tyranny proceeding from an heathen; and whether it contain our instruction or no? And although they dare not for horror say, that our Saviour did unwisely, or any 
The Wisdom of his Father: And, In whom are all the treasures of wisdom, Coloss.  way unbeseemingly, in submitting himself to the authority of an infidel, from whose power he was doubly protected, as they conceit; both by the sanctity of his religion, and (which we deny not) by the dignity of his person (if he had been pleased to use it:) yet it is plain that they think so, unless they will allow us to practise the imitation; which they will not, they spit at, they endure not at any hand. For wherein are we better than Christ? Thou art no better than Israel, says God in Esay, Esa. 17. And are we better than 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homil.  he, qui venit ex Israel, & factus est Immanuel, as S. Austen says? Why should not that become us which mis-became not him? Quod decuit tantum, quid tibi turpe putes? Does not S. Peter call us directly to the imitation of him, in this point, 1. Pet. 2. 21. 22? But they 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  will say he was forced, and then they give us leave to do the like, viz. to obey when we cannot choose. A sweet kind of obedience, no doubt; which the Reverend Bishop hath most divinely refuted in his Tortura Torti; but in the mean 
Pag. 160. Add S. Prosperum de vita contemplate. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉. Servi dominis it a deserviant, ut voluntatem non dominorum solum, sed etiam dei, hoc ipsum iubentis, efficiant. Non ergò recte servitur, si ingratijs servias. Quod Papistarum dogmaest.  while, what a blasphemy against our Saviour Christ, that he would not have suffered, if he could have resisted? Yet S. Peter says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he threatened not, he reviled not. Yet, that he might have done, although he was destitute of vires temporales, which are the Jesuits god. The most forlorn may threaten and revile, we know. But, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dedit locum irae, he gave place to 
Rom. 12. 19 undè sequuntur illa divina. Rom. 13.  wrath, he confronted not the Magistrate, but recommended the issue of his cause to God. Monstrous are the blasphemies which the Jesuits are driven to in this cause. Could not he have resisted? Who first had whole legions of Angels to rescue him; who overthrew them that came to take him with a single word, with Egosum; and lastly promiseth in plain terms of himself, that he lays down his life in whose hands he pleases (he made choice of an infidel:) and no body takes it away from him perforce. But of this enough; let them look to their answer. In the life of Campian, set out by a jesuit, (one Robert Turner as I take it) we read, that he desired to have the Creed rehearsed by the people at his death. But why so I wonder? For what article of the Creed did Campian die, when they would charge us most? Where is Rome in the Creed, where Peter, where the Pope, where any of those things about which they jangle now, and keep a stir? Rather as we read in another place of the same book, that their Priests being suddenly discovered in a bay-mow, and eftsoones to be surprised, they confessed 
At one Yates his, in Warwick shire. Vita Camp per Turner.  to one another (as their manner is) and enjoined a very gentle satisfaction, to say thrice over with greatest zeal, that petition of the Pater noster, Fiat voluntas tua, Thy will be done; referring now all their fortunes to God, and resigning the sum of their desires to his will, when they could avoid the force of civil authority no longer. May not we rather fetch Supremacy from hence (which those wretches in extremity could not but acknowledge, that we are not to provide for the safety of the Church, vijs & modis, as they traitorously reach, and upon that ground disclaim the authority of infidels, but to commit our cause to him, that judges justly, etc.) Does not the point, I say, in hand about the Prince's Supremacy, spring a great deal clearer from these words; especially being exemplified by our saviours practice, and explained, as of late, by S. Peter's commentary, (that we 
Vide & S. Cyprian ex eodem capite praeclarè argumentantem in eandem sententiam, tum in Tract contra Demetrian pag 27●. & 272. Gryphian. tum p. 366. 367. & 368. eiusd. edit. de Bono Patientiae.  must not repugn the infidel Magistrate, nor fly to any higher tribunal in earth, but commit our cause to God only) than Campians rebellion can be patronized by the Creed, which he so vainly desired to have rehearsed at his death? That so we may fetch it not only out of the Creed, which you see how well we may, without crossing the Bishop, and yet wring the Adjoinder when he thinks he is safest, but out of the Pater noster too, which is the second part of Catechism, wherein now we are. As for the Commandments and the Law of Moses, to them I have spoken sufficiently already, and the Adjoinder denies it not. Also he seems to grant it of the Paternoster, though we should not evict it, as we have. The Sacraments only remain, which are the fourth part of Catechism: shall we see how this truth appears from them too, that the scoffing Adjoinder may be concluded every way for all his descants? First then, as we are not baptised into the name of the Apostles, Paul or Cephas, 1. Cor. 1. 13. nor any of their successors, but into the name of Christ, and the obedience of the doctrine which he brought, Math. 28. 20. which we have showed already how favourable it was to Princes; and therefore Baptism speaks for their supremacy, not for the Popes: So in the other Sacrament, which 
〈◊〉  is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in which we are to preach the Lords death until he come, 1. Cor. 11. 26. we have a far clearer glass of the aforesaid assertion; for so much as his death was nothing but his submission to the Civil Magistrate, who unjustly persecuted him to the very death. Which Saint Paul thinks worth the noting, when he fashions his scholar Timothy, lest he should turn aside to faction, and to jesuitical garboils, 1. Tim. 6. 13. Or else what needed S. Paul to name Pilate in that place? But it is reason that the Supremacy should be confirmed from every place. Yet our saviours obedience ended not in death, no not the death of the cross, mortem autem, Phil. 2. but there is a step after death, wherein also it was most eminent. In that joseph of Arimaethea begged his body of the Magistrate, (by his inspiration no doubt) and adventured not to usurp upon it, no not for the use of burial when he was dead, without leave. See we what a subject we have of our Saviour? what a proclaimer of the Supremacy belonging to Princes? Both in womb and tomb, both an embryo and a corpse; both afore birth, and after death; and strait afore 
Straight after birth, he fled from Herod conspiring his destruction, not resisted, but fled; which was another token of his submission. And immediately afore death, he acknowledged pilate's power to be given him from heaven, joh. 19 All the parts, all the acts of our saviours life and death, were full of this practice; full of Reverence to Princes: whom the Jesuits under. value; yea, undermine when they can.  death, and strait after birth; an early beginner, and a most constant perseverer, even somewhat beyond the term prefixed; for usque ad mortem, was wont to be the last, revel. 2. 10. if any man can go further, let him. Shall we see what follows now in the Adjoinder?  
§ 57 Marry Sir, if the Supremacy be not a matter of faith, (and yet we have seen how near of kin to the Creed, though nothing is truer than the Bishops saying, that it is not an article, nor de fide, properly) but what then does the Adjoinder infer, think you? First, that we may not swear to it; then that it is not to be gathered out of Scripture, neither expressly, nor by consequence; also that we may choose whether we will believe it or no: and a great many more such idle collections, for want of 
Adjoind. Num. 39 yet he repeats it again (sick of follies) Num. 4●. and that twice together. How can he approve that men should be compelled to s●… unto it, when nevertheless by his own confession it is no matter of faith? Also soon after, It is not to be ratified by solemn oath, as if it were one of the A●… of our Creed.  setting out from a right ground. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says the Poet in Suidas: that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So here; All falls to ground, because his ground fails. For, shall we swear to nothing, but to the articles of faith? How many oaths are taken in Courts daily, both assertory and promissory; yea and without the Courts too, that are no way so much as bordering upon the Articles of faith, and much less of the rank of them properly so called? Insomuch as this one place, if there were none other in the book, is of force to show the toyishnesse of our Adjoinder; or else his sottishness, or for certain his egregious impudence and boldness, that dares abuse his Readers in such vile sort, as to persuade them that they may not swear to the King's Supremacy; because the Bishop said it is no article of faith. Does not the Bishop say, it is a point of persuasion (though it be short of faith,) and that not waveting, but firm, & steadfast, and undoubted? Therefore also he proves it by places of Scripture; though we may swear to many things which are not evident by the Scriptures, and we swear so daily. Shall I not swear that King james is lawful King in his Dominions, and also Supreme to all persons of the same, as it follows in the oaths both of Supremacy, and of Allegiance, unless I read it in the Creed, or else in Scriptures? But, the Divines and the Canonists hold 
Adjoind Numb. 39  him guilty of sin, that swears to a thing which he doth not certainly believe. What? unless he believe it by the Christian faith, or the Christian belief, properly so called? Like as the Incarnation of Christ, his passion, his resurrection, his ascension into heaven, with the rest of those mysteries, which either the Godhead in Trinity, or his blessed person containeth in itself? You see what a dizzard either the Adjoinder is himself, or forswearing all shame, chase away the blood, he would make his Readers. For faith being 
Valen. Yom. 〈◊〉. initio ipso. citans Setum, Haelensem, Gabriesé, Vegam, Medinan, etc. super Polysemo fidei. Can l. 12. Loc. Hebr. 11. 1.  a word of diverse significations, as Canus and Valentia, and the whole crew of them can tell him, he distinguishes not the faith of intellectual verities touching the mystery of salvation revealed by God, from that which is a certain persuasion of the mind, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the truth of things, (which 
* Greg. l. 4 Dialic. 1. & 7. Sinefide [sc. humana, satis tamen stab li] nec infidelu vivit. Et adducit exemplum de muliere praegnante atque in carcere enixa etc. Quo eodem modo, nos quoque de parentibus nostris credere diet pössumus: fide quidem vel firmissima, extrà revelationem tamen, extràque Scripturam. Item de aliis q●àm multis, quos nunquam novimus— 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Odyss.  S. Gregory can tell him, that we have of many more than come into the Creed, yea or the main Scripture either) or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the lawfulness of any action which we are to perform; Of which kind it is said, Whatsoever 
* Rom. 14. 23.  is not of faith, is sin; that is, whatsoever we do with a perplexed conscience, wanting full resolution; but not, Whatsoever falls not within the compass of those principles, by which the Christian religion differs from the heathen, and are comprised in the Creed. By that means we might not swear upon the Pater noster neither, (if we may swear to nothing, but that which is Creed) which the Adjoinder meant to leave us, I dare say, of his honesty, when he had taken away the other. And yet oaths de credulitate also, are daily taken in Courts, notwithstanding his mustering here of his Canonists to little purpose; but the oaths de credulitate perhaps in matters of fact, when the case is doubtful; to the oath of Supremacy we have evidence enough, which respects not fact, but is the averring 
Both assertion & promise in the oath of Allegi 〈◊〉, which admits not of credulities, but is every way of assurance, & steadfast resolution.  of our judgements, concerning his majesties justest title to the Imperial Crown, and the rights thereof; with promise on our parts, not only not to oppose, but to assist him and to abet him to the utmost of our abilities.  
§ 58. As for that he adds moreover, that if it be not of faith, the Scriptures no where contain it, neither expressly, nor by implication, etc. what more rude and more unlearned, just like all the rest? Would the Bishop be so contradictory, doth he think, to himself, (from whom I hope they will not derogate the praise of so much judgement as to heed his own methods, though most maliciously they deprave him otherwise at pleasure,) as to allege diverse Scriptures for the King's Supremacy (and yet not impertinently, as he here cracks, and says he hath answered them, but most sound and most seasonably, as we before have showed) and then conclude it is no point of faith properly so 
See Chap. 1. from Sect., 6. etc.  called, but of persuasion only (yet most grounded persuasion) if he had not well perceived the unrepugnancie of these two, and how compatible they are between themselves, which the Adjoinder cannot skill of? But so I have heard of an old plodder in Logic, that to his dying day could never conceive, how the accident of blackness might be separated from a Crow, so much as in cogitation: and another that was as hardly brought to digest, that every thing either is, or is not. So here the Adjoinder, as if his wits were be-breecht; If it be not of faith (says he) than it is not in Scripture; neither directly, nor yet implicitly. Belike not Paul's cloak, or Peter's scabbard, 
convert gladium in vaginam. For it may be they will say it is de fide that he had a sword. But the truth is, that Peter's sword had a scabbard. Whereas S. Paul talks of the King's sword as always naked, never couchant. Rom. 13. etc.  both revealed in Scripture, and yet neither of them of faith. And to defcend a little lower to their other kinds of Scriptures, Tobyes' dog, I ween, or rather his dog's tail, which 
Tob. 6. 11.  the Text says he wagged, and Campian your Martyr made such mirth with in the Tower, proving thence the very point which you now deny, that all is not de fide which is comprehended in Scripture. But he petulantly and profanely enough, as his guise was; yet with you a grave disputant in matters of religion, or a mortified man drawing on to martyrdom. For though nothing be of faith which is not revealed in Scripture, (as we hold, though you deny;) yet there are many things in Scripture which are not of faith, as neither we deny, and yourselves hold, at least when you are not captious, as now it seems you are, to cross yourself, rather than you will not carp another. I say, some things are not the fide, which are contained in Scripture; not but that we must believe all to be most true which the holy Scripture containeth: but some things are so without the circuit of our faith, as it is no prejudice to us, though we take no notice of them; as Paul's cloak perhaps, as Peter's net and sword-sheath; or if you will, as Tobies dog, and the like: others most necessary and most wholesome to be received, as our duty to Superiors, our deportment to Ethnics, and them that are without, our discreet and laudable conversation towards all, which the Creed is no rule of (that narrow verge) though the Scripture in her latitude, think no scorn to be. It 
See Rom. 12. Eph. 5. item 〈◊〉. Coloss. Tit. Timoth. stuffed with such like theorems, sanae doctrinae, but yet not fidei. So is solutio decimarum, so pensitatio tributi, and divers more. S. Paul himself enforcing Supremacy by this last, Rom. 13. yet not as of faith, but of godly morality. For the Infidels did it as well as the Christians.  remains therefore, that the Bishop might argue for the Supremacy either from Moses Law, or Moses his practice; though it be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, not a matter of faith, but of firm persuasion; which yet is more than Bellarmine's Pie credimus.  
§ 59 Nevertheless to infringe the Bishop's argument, 
To the Adjoind. Numb. 41.  you say, Moses did not lay aside his Priesthood, but Aaron and he remained Priests together. So as from thence we can draw no proof for the Temporalties pre-eminence above the Clergy, in what degree soever Moses stood to Aaron. But who ever heard of two high Priests together? viz. Moses and Aaron, both at one time? Or how could they both be the High Priests, that is, each of them supreme to all Priests? What greater corruption was in those declining times, when Anna● and Caiphas both possessed the seat, if at least 
Luc. 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide Comm. & Ios.  such corruption than were? But when covetousness and ambition prevailed most, and drew them most aside into degeneration, what greater deflexion, I say, could there be then this, from the original institution? Yea, how could the Priesthood of our Saviour Christ be typically shadowed and prefigured by two, whereas he is our one and only High Priest, without copartner? How the Pope's sole-regencie be deduced from thence, as Bellarmine would, and diverse more? Unless they mean to admit multitudes into the chair; and then where is Monarchy? Sure, Theodoret in Numer. Quaest. 23. calls Aaron the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the root and fountain of Priest and Priesthood; which how could he be, if Moses were equally participating with him in that preferment, and the Priestly of spring of succeeding ages, to derive their pedigree as well from the one as from the other? Where is the unity now that the Papists so hunt after? Where the reducing of all particular propagations, & spreadings Ecclesiastical (as they speak) to one original and primitive head? May we not say that the Adjoinder was dreaming all this while, in bicipiti Par●●sso, of a double head of Priesthood, in Moses and Aaron? For as for the word Cohen, Psalm. 1. 18. it signifies not the 
Mor●e. & A●… in Sacerd●… 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  Priest only, but a principal man, such as Moses and Aaron might be both at once, though in diverse kinds. So as Caietan in his exposition of Psal. 100 says only thus, Aaron fuit summus Sacerdos, & Moses fons sacerdotij invenitur, dum ipse consecravit Aaron. Where we may note three things. First, that he does not give the name of summus sacerdos, the [standing] high Priest, to Moses at all, but to Aaron only. Secondly, that Moses was fons sacerdotij. Yet not to cross with Theodoret, who said a little before, that Aaron was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but rather that we may hold Ecclesiastical jurisdictions to be derived after a sort from the temporal Prince; of which hereafter. For it should seem he esteems Moses here as a temporal governor, having given away the name of high Priest to Aaron. Thirdly and lastly, he makes Moses priesthood to be resigned again, and laid down, in that he uses the word dumb, Dum consecravit Aaron; which the Adjoinder says, is to make it like a jerkin, or a jacket, Numb. 41. this is his merriment; but we proceed.  
§ 60. To the authority of S. Austen, lib. 3. in Leuit. Quaest. 
Adjoind. ubi prius.  23. I see not what S. Austen could say more for us, if he meant to plead our cause most, but that the Adjoinder presumes all to make for him, which he can but finger with Midas. S. Austin's words are, Caepisse ab Aaron videatur summum sacerdotium, the high-priesthood may seem to have begun in Aaron. Therefore if Moses be high Priest in ordinary, he is Aaron's juniour, and so subject to him. Yet the Adjoinder would have Aaron to be under Moses, as High Priest, I trow, under the higher High Priest. Once, there is no difficulty in my opinion, neither in S. Austin's words, nor at all in the question about Moses priesthood, if we will be ruled by S. Austen. Quid putamus (says S. Austen) fuisse Moysen? si non fuit sacerdos, quomodo per illum omnia illa gerebantur? si autem fuit, quomodo summum sacerdotium ab eius fratre coepisse definimus? So that you see it is definimus with him, not only videatur. S. Austen hath laid it down for a sure ground, that the high-priesthood began in Aaron. And as for Moses his priesthood, it is a matter of question with him, Fuit, an non fuit? was he a Priest or no? As for that which follows; Ambo ergò tunc summi sacerdotes erant, Moses & Aaron,. i. Both of them were high Priests, both Moses and Aaron; I have answered it before, that they were both Cohenim, that is, both excellent, but in a distinct kind; the word sacerdos agreeing to them both, but not univocally. Concerning the next clause (which the Adjoinder vaunts in) Aaron vero sub illo, Aaron was under Moses, it makes for us, who hold the High Priest to be subject to the authority of the Temporal Magistrate; S. Austen guiding us as it were by the hand, to that opinion, in the words immediately following, Aaron quidem summus [fortè] propter vestem Pontificalem, 
S Austen still dispute● Moses his Priesthood. Resoluts not of it, but in an equivocal sense.  ille verò propter excellentius ministerium. That is, Or was not Aaron the higher for the garment that he wore [that is, by way of Priesthood,] but Moses his better in regard of a more excellent function that he discharged? correspondent no doubt to the Regal with us. For he is called a King without any more circumstance, Deut. 33. 5. 
Bellarm. idem docet (p●aeter locum ante citatum) l. 5. c. 9 de Pont. Rom. Moses fint summu● Princep● temperalis, that is in effect, King. As for that he quotes out of Greg. Nazian. Orat. ad Greg. Nyssen (quoted also by Genebrard in Psal. 98) that Moses was Principum princeps, & Sacerdotum sacerdos: (though Genebrard leave out the Principum princeps, which is most material, and only insists upon Cohen Hacconehim, out of Aben Ezra:) I answer two ways, that either the latter is but coincident to the former, and by that to be interpreted, (two words and one thing) or Sacerdos sacerdatum in regard of his Regal inspection and chiefedome; which is the thing that we now attribute to Temporal Princes; as Constantine is termed Episcopus Episcop●…um by Eusebius.  And indeed what higher calling after the Priesthood then that? The Kingdom then to S. Austen is excellentius ministerium, if we compare it with the Priesthood. So as neither Moses was Priest, and yet superior to the Highpriest, by the doctrine of S. Austen; which is the doctrine of our Church, concerning Supremacy.  
§ 61. The Adjoinder hath almost brought his tale to an end. There are but two more accusations of the Reverend Bishop, and those very ridiculous; yet suitable to the shop that the rest were forged in; we will dispatch them in a word. One, that he dissents from the doctrine of Protestants; the other, that he agrees not with our acts of Parliament, describing the Supremacy.  
§ 62. For his brags between, I hold not worth the replying to. A Thraso and the Supplement must be in every leaf of him, or else he is not himself. In his Numb. 42. The place in Deuteronomie for sooth, is nothing to our purpose. Nay, all clean contrary, and that he hath showed in his ninth Chap. Let the gentle Reader resort to 
The pitiful suit of the Adjoinder to the Reader. I have charged both the Bishops with evident abuse of this place of holy Scripture in divers respects. And therefore I beseech thee good Reader, to take pains to review what I have said there, if thou dost not well remember it, etc.  the Answer, if he think so meet, in the 9 of this, § 26. 27. etc.  
§ 63. Num. 43. Once again you would swear he were a Master of the fence, an only Myrmillo. What wonderful prizes hath he played in his Supplement? But hear you sir? Ad populum phaleras— If you be ready with your dance, behold your stage: Ecce Rhodus, ecce saltus, begin when you will. Does your skill fail you as Adjoinder, that you run to your Supplement, to shroud you under the talk of what you have done there? If the examples of Solomon, Ezechias, and josias, be nothing to the purpose with you, than S. Austin's arguments 
Epist. 50. Item vide supra Cap. 1. Sect. 38.  be nothing to the purpose, nor Charles the great, nor diverse more. By name S. Cyril's of Alexandria: See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad Theodos. in Concil. Ephes. pag. 229. editionis 
To the Adjoind, Sect. 44.  per Commelinum, 1591. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
a King's to remove profane Churchmen, is a matter of necessity, (that is, of duty) and brings advantage, not danger to them.  It was also profitable and necessary in certain other respects to your royal Majesty, that he should be banished from the holy altars that had profaned them. And how banished? I will tell your Majesty, alleging what is recorded in holy 
b The Scripture is to determine this Controversy.  Scripture, for your more assurance sake. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Israelites upon a time contemning the Ordinances of that wisest Lawgiver Moses, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But after that Ezekias, a holy man and a good, came to reign over them, he 
c Reformation of Church-abuses, will stand with the office of godly & virtuous Princes, without usurpation of others right. 2. Chron. 29. 5.  reform things which were amiss, and after that he had purged the Temple of God, consequently offered such oblations to God as were due by Law, and belonging to him. Furthermore it is thus written of him: And Ezekias reigned, and bespoke the Levites, saying: 
d Godly Kings lay their commandment upon Ecclesiastical persons, to do the duties of their holy calling.  Harken to meye Levites, make you now clean, and hollow the Temple of the Lord your God, and cast forth all uncleanness out of the holy places, etc. And the Levites rose up and gathered together their brethren, and purified themselves, 
e Sic & paulò post Cyrillus. Ezechias recusavit templum ingredi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT OF THE KING, to the end that they might cleanse the house of the Lord, etc. And in the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end of all, and they went in to King Ezechias, and said unto him; We have made clean all things in the house of the Lord, etc. But what is this to Theodosius, or to Christian Kings living under the new Testament? Nothing at all, says the Adjoinder; their date is our. Let S. Cyrill be judge: 
f Cyrill. (like David's Psa. 2.) Et nuoc Roger intelligite The Adjoinder says, Non nunc (whatsoever they d. d of old) as if grosser now than then  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 
g Kings Christian, & loving Chrill, are called to the same work of reforming their Clergy, that Ezechias was.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
h The Christian sacrifice is offered by Kings as well as Priests. See Heb. 13. 1●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
i King's repress the slanders fastened upon Christ by pernicious heretics, while they enjoin Bishops and Priests their duties.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
k No dishonour to Kings, to meddle in Church affairs; but a triple crown of honour belongs to them therefore, with God, with men, with An●ets.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is: Consider from hence, O godly king, etc. Yea, your sacred Majesty hath already done the like thing to the glory of Christ. For it is your custom and fashion to offer sacrifice in the Churches, and with plentiful hand to contribute always something to the glory of God. But it was necessary they should first purge the Temple, and clear it from all scandal and filth, and so you to sacrifice at your due time. Now the dishonour that is offered to our Saviour Christ, is a slander more heinous than any pollution whatsoever. But you commanded your Priests 
l Cyrill says twice that the Emperor con●… d●… Priests.  as I lately said, and lo, they have purged the Church of such filth against your entrance, that you might inherit the more glory, both with God, with Angels, and with all mankind. Now let the Adjoinder expostulate with S. Cyrill, for urging Theodosius with the example of King Ezechias, nothing to the purpose.  
§ 64. To his Numb. 44. He bids us show by what Commission (as he calls it) the Supremacy of authority in Ecclesiastical affairs was translated to the Kings of the New Testament, etc. But why should he task us, to show when this Translation (as he calls it) was made (unless first he show a Commission for himself, to enjoin us such trifling piece of work) rather than he or his fellows prove, if they can for their blood, that the old authority was ever taken from Kings, and given to Churchmen: he calls them Apostles here, but his meaning is, Popes, and Termagaunts, and Hildebrands. Yet the new Testament, I can tell him, is no backe-friend to Kings, whatsoever he think of it. This hath partly appeared out of that which hath been said. And 
The Adjoinders objection answered.  if Kings be Sovereign by the right of their place, Constantine shall not lack it because Nero hath abused it, but Nero shall have it, though Constantine only employ it as he should; 
m Petrut per abusum gladij sui, ius eiusdem gladij non anusit. [Nec Caesar egitur] Saunder. lib. 3. cap. 11. de clavae David.  leaving the other to his judge. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Cor. 5. 13. God judges those whom man may not judge; which is so much the terribler, as S. chrysostom notes well upon that place.  
§ 65. The more excellent priesthood, that he would feign 
Adjoind. Num. 43.  coin, and setup in the new Testament, to defy Kings with, is a most excellent fancy (as he aboundeth with many of them) vulesse he measure excellency by no vulgar ell. Which the Jesuits will not; Dextra mihi Deus est, & telum— They call the Church indeed a spiritual body (as this prater doth soon after, Numb. 50.) but their cubit 
* Vide Sòzom. l. 1. c. 8.  is not Christian, nor their sickle of the Sanctuary; their arm is mere flesh that they trust to finally. So was not the Apostles, (under whose name they march;) of whom he that said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 2. Cor. 3. 8. says soon after in the same 
Vide patres suprà citatos ad longum, Car. 3. huius. Sect. 11. etc. p. 138. etc. Quibus add. S. Prosperum, lib. 1. de Vita Contemplativa, cap. 25. Sacerdos Sanctus nihil gerat ex imperio, etc. Item, Si infirmitates fratrum viventium carnaliter, curare non polest verborum medicaminibus, sastineat virtute patientiae. So that a Minister may not go ultrà verbum. Vide cundem. lib. codem, cap. 21. complaining of the Clergy, quòd perverso ordine non tam pascunt quam pasci volunt à grege suo. Et, Vendicamus nobis dominationem tyrannicam in subiectos, etc. Item, Tam à nobis nonnulli graviter fatigati depereunt, quam à potentibus huius mundi. Ibid. The true effects of Popish insolency.  Epistle (understanding his calling, which these are strangers to) c. 10. v. 3, 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If they hold to the first, let them take in the second. The spirit joins them, who shall separate them? And now lastly to his Numb. 45. & 46. where he 
* The Crocodile quotes the Bishop for it: Id tantum audemus facere (circà Invocationem scil. Sanctorum) etc.  dares do nothing without a precept of Scripture for it (so tender conscienced he is waxed of late;) Scripture wants no precepts of submission to Princes, even in the highest Clergyman, & that (a) concerning the most sacred duties; but Malchus & venture amiseruns aures, Sloth and Surlynesse have no ears to hear with; they will not suffer them to hear what 
(a) See in fine bu●… ex Chrysan 13. ad Rom. Sed & Cyrill. sic nuperrimè Adjoind Num. 48. Cap. 10.  the Spirit saith unto the Churches. Returning into our way, I think it long till I dissolve his last cavils.  
§ 66. Where, seeking to make the Bishop to contradict our Divines about the extent of Supremacy, he yields him such testimony of consent with them all (in his very first words) even those that seem to be furthest off, as none greater shall need for this time, to show how much at odds he is with himself, that would feign set enmity between the Bishop and others. I make no doubt (says he) but all the Puritans of England and Scotland, will subscribe to this, etc. To what trow you? To the Bishop's declaration and defence of Supremacy, God grant it I beseech him, if our sins hinder not. Wherein is it short then? what halteth, or what faulteth, the Bishop's judgement about Supremacy? First, he makes it external; then, tantum ut nutritis, only as a foster-father, a tutor to the Church; to cherish it and to defend it. But more than external government who hath of it, saving God alone, and his holy Spirit? Who can work upon our inward man? The very Minister & Bishops pierce not hither, with their Sermons, their Censures, their Sacraments, or what you will. The well is deep, and they cannot reach it, without another manner of plummet than their own. Ego vox, saith he, and that is all; even the Baptist himself, the most stout in his generation. Till Christ came, they caught nothing, though they fished all night. Nemo pugnavis in valle Terebinthi, donee 
S. Austin's observation against man's industry, if God be away. Ex 1. Sam. 17.  Davidveniret ad praelium. What is Paul, or what is Apollo's? 1. Cor. 3. 5. and they are made to be just nothing there, ver. 7. that is, Nothing but Ministers and external instruments, working so far as God shall give leave, nay grace rather, and concurrence with their labours; else they are but blunt, and nothing can be effected. On the other side, if God concur with the Magistrate, and join the internal hand to the external, (the sword of the Lord to the sword of Gedeon) no less is done then by the ministers tongue, or whatsoever more wholesome service he may perform; yea that which the Minister cannot do with his tongue, the Magistrate ofttimes with his hand brings to pass. Os gladij, enters farther than gladius oris, with the wantoness of this world, that have set shame far from them; Ebal, than Gerizim, prevails more; if that mortify thousands, this ten times as many. Quia meliores quidem sunt quos dirigit amor, sed tamen plures quos timor corrigit. See S. Austin's report of 
Epist. 48. ad Vincentium, Quens multi ex ipsis n●… nobiscum, etc. Et Epist. 167. ad Festum.  this, found true by experiment (to spare the enlarging of farther doctrines) and S. chrysostom in the Appendix at the end of this Chapter: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as the needle is said to make way for the silk. So that hitherto the Magistrate is not excelled by the Minister in that which they call internal government. The Adjoinder says, God hath communicated this to man, but I rather think he hath reserved it for himself, to be the Lord of hearts, and Bishop of souls, fingens sigillatim cordaeorum. But if he mean by the internal government of the Church, the administering of Sacraments, the preaching of the word, the inflicting of censures, etc. herein I grant the Minister is sole conversant, the Prince meddles not with the execution; but what derogation is this to the Supremacy, or who ever of our Divines went farther than so, in this point? So as hitherto there is neither error (against the truth of God) nor yet singularity (against the judgements of men) in the Bishop's doctrine about the Supremacy.  
§ 67. Now for that, that he calls him ●…itium, a foster-father, or intorem, a guardian, or whatsoever of the same kind; why, he calls him as the holy Prophet before had called him, and entitled him by that name, when he promiseth the greatest benefit that ever befell the Church (I mean of mediate and external benefits still) Erunt Reges nutritij tui, & Reginae nutrices tuae, Esa. 49. King's shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens (whom you contemn; what marvel when Kings?) thy nursing mothers, etc. Is this a small authority over the Church, think you, which the Apostle S. Paul borrows of the Prophet Esay, to notify his affection towards the Thessalonians by, 1. Thess. 2. 7? affection, and yet not void of authority and ruie; rule and authority, and yet loving and fatherly, not tyrannous, not insulting. What is more in the Pastor, then in the Nutritius; in, Feed my lambs, then, in Nourish my children? And yet, 
Not but that Pasce belongs to temporal Princes too, (is Piulus hath confessed, and the Bishop convinced Wide supra Cap. 1. Sect. 36. id est pag 32. etc. To whom add 〈◊〉, lib. 6. cap 3. acknowledging them to be capita, heads of their people, ex A nos 6 & 〈◊〉. King 15. A. lib. 4. cap. 2. He denies not but bare authority makes a member of the Church: by which claim an infidelt King may challenge headship, though the Adjoinder storm at it. quam diu aliquit Reipublicae minister est, eiusque authoritate & potestate fungitur, tam divillius pars dici & potest & debet, Can.  Pasce implies such a Supremacy with you, as there needs none greater; Nutricare is nothing, because the Bishop uses it. Unless you think that Peter may rule them like beasts, because of Pasce oves meas, the King's government being more civil and human, because Erunt Reges nutritij tui, (for you cavil the Bishop here, for praesidium bumanum, as well as externum:) Which should provoke our men, me thinks, to embrace the King's government rather than the Popes, if they be men indeed; sith the one professes violence and borishnesse of himself, the others mild proceedings are acknowledged by his adversary. Though again we might say, that our Saviour never meant so vilely, or so basely, as to set his Prelates over us, like keepers over beasts, whom he would not have to govern, as common Princes do their subjects, Vo● autem non sie, but rather more gently. And yet if any list to strain the metaphor to these rigours; perhaps Nutri (when we have done all) is as much as Pasce, and enforces as absolute a government as that: a child at those years not much differing from a beast, nay verily short of it; both for want of judgement, and so easy to be overruled; and out of lack of force, or bodily strength, to defend assaults, and so as easily kerbed and subdued.  
§ 68 Lastly, I dare affirm, that if the Adjoinders malice had but lain that way, he would as soon have cavilled the Bishop for amplifying, as now he does for depressing beyond due, the Supremacy of Kings, by the consequence of those words. He makes but a pupil, nay a perpetual babe (would he have said) of the Church. And, He will have Kings to take upon them, like governors or foster-fathers', over a young child in the cradle. Though we have showed before, that for so much as some read, Erunt Reges dispensatores tui, in that place of Esay, the Dispensator though he were no King, is of singular authority over the pupil whosoever, though happily he be of the Royal breed, (as Ausonius boasts in a certain Epigram, that the Princely imps were subject to his seruler) the Apostle testifying as much, Gal. 4. 1. 2. that the heir himself differs not from a servant (though he be Lord of all,) whiles he is in his nonage; but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, under dispensators (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, until the time appointed by his father.) This is that which S. chrysostom says, in 13. ad Rom. (and yet not meaning to mock) that the Priest hath a primacy indeed, but in altero saeculo, in the other world; if the 
See S. Chrysost. his words at the end of this Chap.  Pope could be content to tarry for it so long. But howsoever that be, I hope the Nurse herself may waken the child as well as lull it asteepe; chide it and sneb it, as well as give it the dug; yea correct and chastise it, as well as dandle and hug it; which is all that we strive for in this question, that the Prince may censure the offending Churchman, and reduce him into order; a thing that F. T. cannot abide to hear of, and yet complains that the Bishop minceth the Supremacy. Whereas Supremacy without this cannot stand for certain, nor yet Defence of the Church, which he allows to Kings, Numb. 48. but this granted, they are both safe, as much as we desire.  
§ 69. Yea, but the Parliament goes further (saith the Adjoinder) & yields much more to King Henry the 
* Patres ipsi Niceni can 7. excusant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patrata. Vide & Can. 11. ubi excusant de temporibus Licinij. Ezech. 19 6.  eight, than this comes to. To whom, mark I pray, what I answer briefly. Suppose it did. Let the Lawyers be consulted that were the authors. We study not States-matters, as the youth of Rome may do, under the famous conduct of P. R. and F. T. their leaders; seasoning their lyonets with such morsels even betimes, and swearing their Hannibal's, scarce twelve years old, at the Altars, to disturb their country's peace in time. Besides, the Papists contest against the gracious government of the KING'S MAJESTY that now is, and exclaim upon the Supremacy that he now challengeth; which we also defend. What is that to the times of King Henry the eight? or what are King Henry's times to us?  
§ 70. And yet to answer him a little more strictly, in ipsis terminis: It was ordained (says he) ann. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. in these words. Be it enacted, etc. that the King our Sovereign Lord, his heirs, and Successors, Kings of this Realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed, the only Supreme Head of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all Honiars, Dignities, pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, Privileges, Authorities, Immunities, Profits, and Commodities to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the same Church belonging. Thus far belike the Statute. And what from hence gathereth Mr. Adjoinder? I will set down his words. So saith the Statute (quoth he) which must needs be understood to give spiritual authority, when it giveth all that power, Dignity, and jurisdiction, which belongeth to the Head of the Church, etc. Much for sooth. This spiritual jurisdiction haunts them terribly, you see, every where scares them. But why so good now? For seeing that the Church is a spiritual and Ecclesiastical body, it must needs be governed by a spiritual and Ecclesiastical power, residing in the Head thereof, etc. Observe his elegancies: Ecclesia est corpus Ecclesiasticum, The Church is a Church-bodie first. Is not this delicate? But then again, The same Church is abodie, and yet a spiritual body, to Mr. Adjoinder, in his most curious descriptions. And yet, I hope, not like S. Paul spiritual body, after the Resurrection, 1. Cor. 15. which is called spiritual, because it is pliable and obedient to the motions of the Spirit, (as we are taught by S. Austen in his Enthiridion) but as it shall please his wisdom at more leisure to interpret. In the mean while, if the Church because it is a spiritual body (as he speaks at least) must therefore have no Head, but one that is endued with like spiritual authority, consider the consequents, and mark what a confusion they would bring upon life, while they wilfully pervert our meaning in the question. For how many are heads and principals to others, which yet partake not of the faculty that they deal in? And good reason. For the persons of men living and conversing in such or such a Commonwealth, are subject to the governor thereof, and he the Head of them; without any reference to their particular trades or professions that they follow. Else how shall a woman be Queen over soldiers (as the Papists will not deny but in temporalibus she is) and yet no soldier, nor fit to bear arms? How is a King the Head of Philosophers, living within his Dominions, whether Platonics, or Peripatetics, or whom you will, though he be neither Master nor Disciple of their sect, no way engraffed into their society? How is the Pope himself head of heretical and Apostatical Priests, and yet not combined with them in their heresy or Apostasy? How of the jews in his Dominions, of whom he is Head, at least as Temporal Prince, as you conceive? Are there not divers Superintendents of whole Universities, and Scholastical congregations throughout the world, which never were trained in the scholarship or learning of those places? And yet they may proceed against the Divines that are therein, in matters of Christianity; as for omitting of Sermons, of Theological Disputations, also false doctrine in them, etc. though they themselves be no Priests, and the others are. Yea, why may not KINGS bear authority over Priests, and Spiritual persons, though themselves be none, as well as there be divers Rectors and Governors of particular Colleges throughout the Realm (and that also perhaps according to the ancient Statutes) who being no Priests, nor Spiritual men themselves, have authority nevertheless over the whole company, and among the rest over the Priests too? So as first, the King by virtue of his place, may exercise power over them that are Spiritual or Priestly persons, though himself 
Patres 6. Synodi, Epist. ad justinian. Imp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Irenaeus apud Antonium in Melissa. l. 2. orat. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed & Ambros. Valentiniano's iuniori (apud Theodoret. Hist. lib. 5. c. 13.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suadet.  be none, (and yet the sounder Antiquity hath seemed to descry some such thing in Kings) but then the law of God ordaining him moreover a Nursing-father to his Church, that is, a defender and provider in all points for the blessed and happy estate thereof, (as the Reverend Bishop here most godlily argueth, and most stoutly averreth, though the Adjoinder think him cold in the cause;) he is not only a Head, but a kind and loving Head, one that knows joseph. And practising this, Almighty God will reward him accordingly; if otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him thank himself, as the Canons speak. For God will not hold him guiltless in judgement, though the impatience of men may not wreak their quarrel. The Adjoinder 
Numb. 47. 48. & 49.  says, the Catholics (meaning the Papists) will not deny this, but that they affirm and teach that Kings are for the nourishment and defence of the Church, as much as either the Prophet Esay, or the Bishop of Ely himself, etc. Which if it be so, I see not but the question, (even by that which hath been said) may be already at an end.  
§ 71. But so is not our labour, thank the Adjoinder for 
Adjoind. Num 50.  it, who mingling his Parliaments here together with his paralogisms, thus goes forward. It is further yet enacted (says he) by our Parliaments, that King Henry the eight, might not only visit all Ecclesiastical persons, and reform all kind of errors, heresies, and abuses, in the Church of England; but also assign 32. persons to examine all manner of Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances, Provincial and Synodical. And further, to set in order and establish all such Laws Ecclesiastical, as should be thought by him and them convenient to be used and set forth within his Realms and Dominions, in all spiritual Courts and conventions, and that such Laws and Ordinances Ecclesiastical as should be devised and made by the King's Majesty, and these 32. persons, and declared by his majesties Proclamation under his great Seal, should be only taken, reputed, and used, as the King's Laws Ecclesiastical, etc.  
§ 72. Then, Numb. 51. Furthermore, King Henry made the Lord Cromwell his Vicar general for the exercise of his Spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by virtue whereof the said Lord Cromwell ordained Ecclesiastical Laws and Injunctions, and published them under the Seal of his Vicariate, directing them to all Archbishops, Abbots, and the rest of the Clergy. And albeit Queen Elizabeth did not use in her style, etc. Thus he. 
A fable of the Adjoind. that Q. Eliz. refused the title of Head, and retained of Governresse As if they are not all one. Neither was Governresse the title that she delighted in. In the Records of the Kings Coll. in Cambr. I find Q Marie styled Head of the Church, etc. So far was Q. Eliz from rejecting it.   
§ 73. And what of this? Or how does this show that King Henry the eight assumed unto himself any Ecclesiastical authority, or jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, which is the sum of the Question between you and us? For as for the assigning of persons to examine Canons, and Constitutions, Provincial or Synodical, and to set in order and establesh all such Laws Ecclesiastical as should be thought meet, etc. I redemaund in one word; What if those persons were Ecclesiastical men? What inconvenience was in that? Sure nothing to the contrary appears by your writing, and much less by the Act of Parliament here quoted. Name 
a Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the King's conusance in a Churchman's matters, and those matters of the Church, see Act. 25. 21. Item Psal. 72. Domine da JUDICIUM tuum Regi. Which Procopius quotes upon Esa 49. in this sense.  & quibus non licet cognoscere per se, licet tamen cognitores dare, saith the Law. It might be so here then. Though suppose it were otherwise: Did you never hear of 
b Epist. ad Nicomedient. Vide Gelas. Cyzie. Siquis Episcoporum tum●…tuatus fuerit, ministri Dei, hoc est, mea executione, illius coercehitur audacia, etc. Item Hieron. in 49. Eta Reges & Principes, quicquid in pedibus Ecclesiae terreni operis adhaeserit, suo sermone (let the Adjoinder choose whether censorio, or concionatorie, but one of them it must be) tergunt atque delingunt. Where I would take sermo, for juridicus processus; as verbum it res, or negatium, to the Hebrews. But by this the King hath coercive power over the Church. Also Canutus King of this Island (apud I●gulphum f. 508) minatur Episcopis severissimam ●…m, ni pareant mandatis su●…. Cath Divine. f. 146.  Constantine, threatening the Bishops in his own person, & that about their courses in ecclesiastical affairs? What he did by himself, why might not others from him, by his appointing? direct Injunctions to the Archbishops & Abbots & the rest of the Clergy, which you take in so ill. part here at my Lord Cromwell's hands, that he should presume to do, though King Henry deputed him, and the Act of Parliament, which you quote, allowed him? Did not Emperors ordinarily command Bishops? Remember Mauritius 
c Epist. 32. In Serenissimis jussionibus suis Dominorum Pietas. Et, ego qui in Serenissimis Dominorum jussionibus. Add quòd & legem, quamvis sibi displiceret, de mandato tamen Imperatoris promulgavit, etc. lib. 2. epist. 61. Indict. 11.  to your great S. Gregory, remember Marcian, and diverse more. You heard but even now what cyril says to Theodosius, that he commanded the Priests, and in an Ecclesiastical matter, to purge the Church from impieties and blasphemies, and till that was done he would not enter. And if they by themselves thus, why not by others, such as they please to appoint for them? Neither was that the meaning of the Act of Parliament, that no Canons should be Canons. without the Kings. authority (as you would feign wrest it, to augment your cavils) but that 
* justinian. Novel. constitut. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et paulò post, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But without justinian, they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Canons should not be forcible in the nature of Laws, without the King's consent, as reason is, and practice hath ever been, and the words themselves import as they are quoted by you, viz. that such Laws and Ordinances Ecclesiastical, should only be reputed as the KING'S LAWS, which himself, or they for him, had ratified and approved, etc. What more equal?  
§ 74. And what marvel now if Queen Elizabeth claimed as much as her father King Henry did before her, and the Parliament was not nice to assent to her in that behalf? For of all the grants that were made to that Queen, there is nothing unnatural, nothing uncivil, nothing that we should blush for at this day. Yes, power (say you) to reform, correct, etc. 
* Visitation is restrained to Coactiva by the ●…ewing.  That is, in foro externo, or power coactive, vindicative power, which is only the Princes, not the Spiritual man's. For so it 
S. Austen grants Censure to Kings against stubborn heretics in the external Court. Non enim poterat victor & resistentes Regia censura contemnere, etc. Epist. 167. ad Fest.  follows, Any authority that hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used, for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical state, for ORDER, reformation, correction, etc. Here is nothing but the object Ecclesiastical persons, that you should be so scandalised with in this period; (for that same any, is any compulsive Power, which is propriagladij, witness Bonaventure, 
* Vbi nota quòd cum Bellarm. faciat potestatem coactivam inseparabilem à judice controversiarum, (De Interpret. verb. Dei l. 3. c. 9) & nos ante à probaverimus ad longum, non esse vim coactivam nisi penes Civilem Magistratum, omne judicium controversiarum nullo modo restringendum est ad Clericos, excluso Magistratu Civili.  and not clavium, in 4. Dist. 18. qu. 3. Resp. ad penult.) whom nevertheless we have proved, and are ready to prove, that they are censurable by Princes and their subordinate officers, though the beast gnaw her tongue for anger.  
§ 75. The same I say to the Statute of King Edward the 
The words of the Stat. That all authority of jurisdiction is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty, etc.  6. (mentioned by the Adjoinder Numb. 53.) Ann. 1. cap. 2. that the meaning is, de foro externo, wherein the Priest can do no more than the King will permit him; though it is true, that any act which the Priest exerciseth, whether external or internal, it descends altogether of the King's jurisdiction, in regard of patronage and protection, who else might trouble him and molest him for it, if he were disposed, (though unjustly.) 
And sometime justly; if the Priest be male, pert or erroneous.   
§ 76. As for giving licence that Bishops may be consecrated, that is not all one with consecrating Bishops. The first of these is Imperial, and Christian Kings have practised it, even in the best times: the other ours never did, never mean to do.  
§ 77. Now for granting of Dispensations, Lycences, Faculties, and the rest of that good ware, which was wont to be set at the Court of Rome, (as the Statute here insinuates, or rather plainly tells us) may we not be glad that we may have it somewhat nearer hand, and at a cheaper rate, if we should chance to need them, and save our labour of trudging to her, whom the voice from heaven bids us to go forth of, if we belong to God? And why may not Dispensatores 
revel. 18. 4.  give dispensations, by which title the Prophet Esay called Kings (as you may remember) but a little before, and they that understand the Hebrew text, acknowledge as much, even your own men? Or where is Peter made the unicus 
Ferer. Lusti. antè citat.  Dispensator, that all these things should come from him, or by his means only, (though the Pope were Peter)? Are not all God's ministers called Dispensators alike, 1. Cor. 4. 1? And what if the King be one of them Transcendent (in his Kingdom at least) whom the Scripture is not wont to style so basely (whatsoever you do) but that it calls him God's Minister, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as Constantine of himself almost at every word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man 
Apud Gelas. Cyzic. in Act. Concil. Nicen.  of God? Besides that if the Parliament gave the King this right, and the Clergy among others belong to the 
a The Adjoind. confuted by his own allegation, out of the Acts of Parliament.  Parliament, what think you? may he not exercise it even by virtue of such a grant at least, and again delegate it to whom he please? I wisse, better than your Besses, or Abbesses in their Cloisters, to whom you have made over the spiritual jurisdiction now in ordinary. And Baldus says, the like may be done by the Pope to any Layman whatsoever, as I have quoted before out of the Catholic Divine in his Answer to the Reports of my L. Cook. Sometime also to 
See pag. 100 huius.  Knights that wear the spur, as the 
b Register of the Templats, and Order of S. john of Jerusalem: quoted by M. IV Cambden in his Britannia, Cornavijs.  Templars of Balshall (a commandry of theirs in Warwickshire) gave to Roger Mowbray (a temporal Knight, but their bountiful benefactor) power of pardoning whomsoever of the brotherhood (belike spiritual men and all) in case they had offended against the Statutes of that Order. Whereas pardoning of faults, (which are, if any thing, de fore interno) is more than giving 
c He that hath licence for doing, incurs no fault at all: but the breach even of human laws (undispensed) is a sin in conscience; by the Papists doctrine.  Lycenses or Faculties ad extra, either for eating of flesh, or marrying out of season, or neglecting residence, or if there be any such like. But we ground not the Supremacy upon the Acts of Parliament, which belongs to the Prince by more original right: It is enough for us, that you can neither foil it by them; and that you are foiled there, where not withstanding you think to foil us most.  
§ 78. You again deny, with like boldness as before, 
Adjoind. Num. 54. & 55. 2. Sam. 15. 17.  that Saul was head of the tribe of Levi, though the text say plainly, he was caput tribuum Israel, head of the tribes of Israel; unless Levi be no tribe. But, Non omnes Israel qui ex Israel, with you perhaps, Rom. 9 6. All are not Israel that are of Israel. Not as with the Apostle, according to the mystery of divine election, but according to your absurd conceit of exemption; as if Saul had had no power over the tribe of Levi, whom you heard Ezechias conjuring so lately, and commanding them, and setting them about their work. Is not all Israel given to Solomon, 1. King. 11. 38? Yet your reason for exemption is, because the Levites were given to Aaron. By the same reason therefore they are exempt from Aaron, and only subject henceforth to Solomon. As for the title of Headship, what can be more pregnant than Esay, 9 15. that the prime in honour being the head (which is the King without all question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Levite is so 
Rom. 13. Tit. 3. & 1. Pet. 2.  far from the Supremacy, which you talk of, yea or from immunity either and exemption, that the false Prophet (the unworthy Clergyman) is made to be the tail, by Gods own exposition of those terms in that place. In this sense therefore Calvin would not have abhorred the name of Head to be attributed to Kings; (as the Bishop most truly and most directly answereth you) no not in Ecclesiastical matters themselves; of whose judgement in that point I shall speak soon after, God willing, and avouch his credit (with many more of them, whom you maliciously call Puritans) confuting your lies and flanders against him.  
§ 79. 
* Adjoind. ubi prius.  For as for 
d Saul's guard refuse to do a wicked act at their master's commandment: yet the Guard was not exempt from Saul's authority: neither will the Adjoinder have it so. This disobedience therefore proves not but Saul was King as well over the Priests as others.  Saul's commandment to slay Abimelech the Highpriest, wherein his subjects refused to obey his will; It was because the commandment was cruel and ungodly, in which case we must rather obey God then man, and spare the lives of innocent persons, though we hazard our own; as the Matrons 
e Exod. 1.  did the young brats of the Israelites, not fearing (says the Text) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hebr. 11. and for that their name remains upon everlasting record. But whereas Doeg did that which the others would not do, I mean, slay Abimelech, whom S. Austen (you say) calls the representer of the earthly Kingdom and society of wicked men, Com. in Psal. 51; I hope, first you see by this, what Representing means in S. Austin's language, of which I have debated with you in the first Chapter more at large; not authority, but mystery; not standing for the Sovereign, but for the semblant only. To omit that in the same place he says also of David, David figuravit non Regis solum personam, fed Sacerdotis: David bore the person not only of the King, 
f David represents the Priesthood, not only the Kingdom.  but also of the Priest, because he eat of the shewe-bread, which was lawful only for the Priests to eat of. This may make for spiritual jurisdiction in Kings then, if you look not better to it. Finally, you must not think that S. Austen here means by Imperium terrenum, the government of Kings simply in it self, as if no Civil Magistrate might punish a Priest (though never so high) if he be a malefactor, but (as yourself expound it, in the words of your text, by Societas impiorum, that is, the wicked of the world; S. Austen also saying there, 
g One Doeg & many Doegs.  unus homo est Doeg, sed & genus hominum est Doeg) of degenerating Tyrannies, where base flatterers lend their hand to unmanly butcheries upon every hope of Quid mihi dabis, and good men are promiscuously massacred and made away. Wherefore S. Austen says more particularly in the same place, that 
h Doeg a figure of judas.  Doeg signified judas the betrayer of our Lord, who was a spiritual man, not a temporal, as you know. And yet the original of Christ's death proceeded from him, not from Kings, nor from Civil Magistrates, which is worth your noting. Though accomplished it could not be without pilate's faint concurrence, and the rather that our Saviour might show his subjection to such a silly one, only for authorities sake. In this sense the same Father, Com. in Psal. 1. makes earthly Kingdoms to be Cathedra pestilentiae, the chair of Pestilence, (though afterward he accommodate it to False Teachers rather, that is, to Churchmen.) Not that Civil princedom is so in it own nature, (as Mr. Sanders would gladly have it, the Clavae David, lib. 1. cap. 2. Quòd saecularis potest as non potissimum in laudando & praemijs afficiendo, 
a The sword rewards no less than punishes.  sed in occidendo & vitam auferendo vim suam ostentet, which is stark false and traitorous) but when abused to tyranny and to iniquity. It is called the Chair of Pestilence (says he,) because the pestilence is a disease that rages generally, and sweeps away whole multitudes with it, where it comes. And so this is a vice that every body is sick of, desire of pre-eminence, ambition, and vain glory, (Regis 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In burro panno purpureus animus: as Calvin himself most excellently notes, (whom they slander notwithstanding as unkind to Kings.) Instit. l. 3 c. 19 Sect 9  quisque animum habet, as the Poet could say) more Kinging & stinging then Kings themselves, if they might be let alone, though they complain of Kings. Else we are not to doubt but S. Austen is of the same mind that Seneca seems to be of, lib. 2. de Benef. cap. 20. Quòd optimus civitatis status sit sub rege justo, and that Brutus was to blame for being weary of Monarchies (who was justly therefore frighted with the apparition of a 
c Dio & alis.  black dog for his abominable assassinate.) Yea S. Austen himself acknowledges as much in plain terms, lib. 20. contra Faust. cap. 14. Ibi 
d The happiness of Kingdoms is in obedience to Kings without contradiction.  regna foelicia esse ubi omnium pleno consensu regibus obeditur; That Kingdoms are there happy, where all men obey the King with full consent.  
§ 80. To your mistaking of our Act of Parliament in your Num. 57 as if that gave more power of censure to Kings, than the Reverend Bishop in his gravest ponderation of these matters alloweth, and so the King might excommunicate, suspend, etc. I answer as before, (for you do but go over the same thing again as if we had never heard of it, though nothing be more trivial:) Excommunications are not coactions, 
Gerson, etc.  (saving only as they are inflicted contra voluntatem personae;) And the Parliament gives power only coactive to the King; though true it is, that without his countenance, their very Spiritual proceedings cannot well take place, in a wanton age, and a contemning nation. And if the Kings of our Land may excommunicate by Parliament, why never do they so? Why do they let that sword to rust for lack of use? If they may administer any Spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever (as you think they may by Act of Parliament) why do they never practise some specialties of it, at one time or another? never preach, never baptise, never consecreate Bishops, & c? For you cannot say it is for lack of leisure; for leisure they have as little to many Temporal businesses, in their world of employments. And some time at least would be set apart for these, if it were but to keep their title in ure. As for skill and sufficiency, you will neither disparaged I hope the times past, so much, but that skill there was enough to indite a Censure, (though who knows not how many that might be borrowed of?) and for the fullness of perfection in all manner of faculties that are incident to the wit of man, but especially of the Book which is delivered him upon his Throne, you may remember who governs at this day. But no doubt, Praxis & Consuetudo est optima legum interpres, & they practise none of this, no not in all their life time; It is a sign therefore they challenge none by virtue of their Laws, though Parsons, and Saunders, and the Adjoinder cry out never so loud, that they do, for want of better matter, to stuff their pages, and to abuse their Auditors.  
§ 81. THE last point of all is about the Bishops defending 
Adjoind. Num. 62.  of those whom we call Puritans, against the scandalous imputation that Bellarmine chargeth them with, of dissenting from the Supremacy. Whereunto I have spoken once before. What can be more godly than the Bishop's practice, to defend all that may be defended, even in the adversaries themselves, even in them that gather with us but in 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  half, to cherish if need be the dim light, and the drooping candle, and the smoking flax, after the example of our Saviour? As we read of Atticus Archbishop of Constantinople, that he excused Novatus, and praised Asclepiades an old Bishop of the Novatians, not for love of the sect, I think, but either to gain the parties, or as not turning from the truth, though with advantage to his adversaries, Socrat. l. 7. c. 25. But this part is handled somewhat crookedly by the Adjoinder, with cringings and wrenching, now for the Puritans, then against them, but all to bring prejudice to the good Bishop & the Truth. Howbeit, nothing is more easy, than the Answer to all. The Puritans (says he) defend as good a Supremacy as the Bishop. What then? It may be, that was the very ground of the Bishop's assertion, that the Reformed Churches maintain the same opinion about the Supremacy, all of them, that we do. What shame then can arise to the Bishop from hence? Is it not matter of praise and felicity rather, that we are all of us of one mind, in avouching the right that belongs to Kings, and oppugning the Papists the opposers thereof? But let us hear his reason: 
a Quoniam percepimus Ecclesiae & relligionis nostrae tranquillitatens, etc. juram. Scot Edit. an. 1581. quoted by the Adjoinder. Though this be somewhat ancient to prove the judgement of these times by, especially for one that takes notice of the Bishop's just exception, Dies diem docuit, etc. See Adjoind. Num. 68  For they also say (says he) that the King is to govern and preserve the Church, in externis, etc. And have we not showed before, that as no body can reach to the interna properly, by his immediate action, not the Priest himself, but only the holy Spirit of God, so the 
b Vide Chrysost. in fine huius. Quanquam loquitur it à & Synodus sexta Constantinop. in Epist. Concilij ad justinian. Imper. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Seiromaste.  King's sword is as piercing as another's to wound the soul, and to mortify vice and corruption in us, and to reform us to all piety and newness of life, the most part being readier to yield for fear, then either to amend for conscience, or for love of virtue?  
§ 82. Neither is that so small a matter as the Adjoinder would make of it, where he says the Bishop joins with the Puritans, that allow the King 
c No more power then Defensive, & yet Sanders says the Sword is Avenger rather. But these two numina, Praemium, & Poena, contain the Church, and consummate the Suprematie.  no more power over the Church, then only to maintain it, and to defend it. For whatsoever the Puritans opinion be of this matter, which they may abridge in conceit, after they have enlarged in style, no body discovering them, (at least I am not he that can dive into their secrets) the word Defender and Maintainer of the Church, will stretch to as much Supremacy as either his Majesty now assumeth, or we avow; & more by much than the Papists will grant him: yea it is that which they oppose with might and main, that results from these very words of Defence and Maintenance. For how can a King defend the Church, maintain the unity, preserve the beauty, unless he have power to reform both spiritual faults, (let me call them so for this once). I mean 
c Though S. Austen make heresies vicia carnis, as the Apostle also doth, Gal. 5. By how much more they shall belong to the King's correction  heresies, blasphemies, schisms, & the like, and that in spiritual persons too, even in the loftiest of the crew, who sting their nurse as dangerously as another, nay far more dangerously many times, both by their scandalous living, & especially by their broaching of pernicious doctrines, 
* Aug. Triumph. p. 9 citat Chrys. in Matth. in eandem sent.  Quia omne malum ex Sanctuario; and the thunderings and lightnings came out of the Temple, Reu. 16. 18. to signify that the Churchmen are the cause of all plagues, as Ribera notes well upon that place. In scelere Israel omne hoc. But the Papists think that Kings are blocks and stocks, like the Heathens images, that Baruch, speaks of, not to stir but as they are lifted, Ducitur ut neruis alienis mobile lignum: Nay not able so much as to wipe off the dung from their faces, that the little birds let fall upon them; they allow them no activity, no 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paulo ante ex Council 6.  pricking censure, which is the very nerve of Defence & Church-maintenance. Might this conceit stand, it were somewhat that the Adjoinder replies to our argument; but it is so stale and so gross, that the little boys here laugh at it, though old gray-bearded Papists, and the Adjoinder for one, are not ashamed to reiterate it.  
§ 83. But will you hear an elegancy, a quaint devise? In his Numb. 63. Though the Puritans are defective in their opinion of Supremacy, yet both they and the Papists are better subjects than the Bishop, (for you are to know, that still he is the Bishop's good friend) because all of us yielding the title of Defender and Maintainer of the Church to the King's Majesty, (the title they, if he will, but not the Thing, as I have showed before, not in due extension at least, for then there would remain no controversy between us) yet they believe it as a matter of faith, the Bishop but only as a matter of persuasion, etc. Thus does he ruminate and re-ruminate his cud again, and go over his abolita atque transacta, as S. Austen 
e De Merit. & remiss. pecc. initio lib.  speaks. But for the Puritans of Scotland, whom he quotes in his margin, I find no such thing in the words alleged by him, that they hold the Supremacy to be a matter of faith, (
* Papa potest condere novum Symbolum, & novos articulos, etc. Triumph. Ancon. p. 310.  the Papists Creed I know is not yet perfected, and they may take in what they list.) Nay, I think, it never came into their minds (good men) to trouble their brains with such a nice speculation, whether the case of Supremacy be de fide or no; but howsoever it be, I have answered it before, that our persuasion thereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; we will never be driven from it, neither by force, nor by fine words, Errore, nec Terrore, (though the Adjoinder think we will not loose sixpence for the defence of it) 
f Nec auro Pyrrhe tuo, nec elephantis. Fabricius apud Plut.  our lives (not only our livelihoods) being not dear unto us in the contestation of this justest quarrel, That the KING'S MAJESTY is the chief maintainer, chief head of the Church, chief governor and chief defender of it, in all causes, and over all persons, next under God, and his Son Christ.  
§ 84. Yea, But what the Puritans teach concerning this 
Adjoind. Num. 63.  point, you have heard in the last Chapter by the testimony of Mr. Rogers, approved and warranted by all the Clergy of England, to wit, 
g The Adjoinder adds further here (out of Beza as it seems) that Kings cannot be exempted from the divine domination of the Presbytery, etc. Forsooth, nor from Confession under a shaven Priest, with the Papists But who knows not that we have banished the Presbytery here in England, or rather never received it, not only in extension (as it reflects upon Kings,) but not so much as in single essence? And yet in France (which was Bezaes' own country) Rex causam dixit aliquando in judicio, si vera Bodinus. Was he not therefore supreme? So here perhaps.  that Princes must be servants to the Church, subject to the Church, submit their sceptres to the Church, and throw down their crowns before the Church, etc. Whereupon I gather (saith the Adjoinder) two things; The one, that the Supremacy which (as the Bishop saith) the Puritans do acknowledge in the King, is to be understood only in temporal matters: The other, that all reformed churches are also of the fame mind, seeing that they profess the same doctrine concerning the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy that the Puritans do, as the Bishop himself confesseth, etc.  
§ 85. Then Numb. 66. (for I would gladly take in all:) Besides that albeit we should grant that the Puritans and Reformed Churches do allow the Teporall Magistrate to have some power and authority in Ecclesiastical matters, yet it is evident that they do not allow them that spiritual jurisdiction and authority, which our Parliaments have granted to our Kings, that they may give dispensations, licenses, make Ecclesiastical Laws, give commissions to consecrate Bishops, to excommunicate, suspend, censure, visit, and correct all Ecclesiastical persons, Reform heresies and abuses, etc. and with this the beast breathes out his last, or almost his last. To whom I answer in order, and as briefly as the nature of such objections will permit; Princes may serve the Church and submit their sceptres, subject their Crowns before the Church, (though all supreme Magistrates do not wear Crowns, that I may tell him that by the way, and we now by Prince understand all) yea, and 
h Of the licking the dust of the Church's feet, see S. Hierome before, pag. 519. It imports small subjection; superiority rather. And yet here the Church doth not signify the Clergy; yea as some think, it is no where so taken at all in Scripture. Lastly (if it were) ye the word Church is not once named by the Prophet Esay, but he directs his speech to them that are of the Church; the believers in general.  lick the dust of the Church's feet, as the Prophet Esay speaks, and yet retain their Supremacy firm and inviolable. How so? Marry it is a shame for the Adjoinder not to see it of himself, without a guide, remembering who calls himself the servant of servants, and yet pleads for a Lordship limitless over the Church, (at least the Adjoinder will agnise him for his good Master, though he go for a Servant) but nevertheless we will help him. The one by love, by zeal, by care; by filial respect and duties of all sorts, to the great mother the Church of God, teeming and travailing here upon earth, whether the general to his power, or the particular within the territories where he reigneth and swayeth. The other by understanding the right of his place, and accordingly also executing and exercising of it, to the control of all that stands in his way, and to the purging of all scandals out of God's floor, to the banishing of sin, to the chase away of all wickedness with his very look and brow, as Solomon speaks, or whatsoever may be said in the loftiest style, for the advancing this high authority, principally destinated to the benefit of God's Church, and setting forth of his glory. Do I speak riddles? or are others of the same mind? Dominotur sacerdotibus Imperator (says S. Gregory, l. 4. Regist. ep. 15.) ita tamen ut etiam debitam reverentiam impendat: [Let the Emperor, on God's name, bear sway over Priests, but so that he reverence them as meet is.] And he adds withal, Atque hoc excellenti consideratione faciat: [And let him so do upon excellent consideration.] But though the examples be obvious, (for even joseph was a father to Pharaoh 
Gen. 41. 43.  his King, that is, reverenced by him, or much esteemed by him, and nevertheless comprehended under Pharaohs grand authority, as a Subject in the Commonwealth) yet the Adjoinder hath no place left for this consideration, as excellent as it is in S. Gregory's judgement.  
§ 86. As for submitting to the Presbytery; Though the 
Adjoind. ubi prius.  Presbytery be scarce in use, where the Monarchies are of force, at least not with us, against whom this malice is principally ●…elled, (and indeed how can the Presbyters excommunicate a King, yea or the Popes either, sith a multitude is inexcommunicable, by the verdict 
Bonavent. in 4. Sentent. Dist. 18. quaest. 3. Resp. ad ultimum. Sed praecipuè August de parcendo multitudini, ne eradicetur triticum. Totis tract. contrà Donatist. T. 7. Denique & Epist. Leodiens. Apologet. ann. 1106. apud Schard.  of the School, and every Prince is virtually a whole Kingdom, so many are agglewed to him in necessary offices, in dearest respects, in the most enthralling bands of received courtesies and favours, and so many to take his part of all sides?) Yet suppose this were possible; I answer two ways: First, that the Supremacy might stand with such Subjection; That, in the coactive and external forcible Court; This, in the internal, spiritual, and conscionable: as the example of S. Ambrose and Theodosius may show, though not rashly to be imitated, no more than Ambrose himself did hastily proceed to such a heavy censure, but provoked by Theodosius his most savage slaughter of so many thousand Christians (gravi fateor de culpa, sed tamen humana) all at one blow, as they were assembled in the Theatre. jurisdiction crosses not with jurisdiction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle alludes it, between reason and appetite, or one appetite and another, l. 3. de Anima c. 11. And albeit Theodosius was excommunicated by Ambrose, yet Ambrose remained Theodosius his dutiful subject at the same time. He that renounced not Valentinian erring in the faith, & maintaining Arianism, would much less cast off Theodosius sinning a sin of fact, though exceeding heinous as I said before. But secondly, if the Puritans admit Lay-presbyters to inflict excommunications, and such like censures, is it likely that they will exclude the King's highness altogether from spiritual government, when they take in such mean men of the lay, and not rather acknowledge his excellent prerogative?  
§ 86. And therefore, though I am unwilling (as Tully said once in another case, cuiusquam summi viri vel minimum 
Pro M. Celio.  erratum, cum maxima sua laud atque honore coniungere,) yet because I know you reckon Mr. Calvin and Mr. Brightman among the mainest Puritans, whom here you so chase and hunt up and down, (Eudoemon-Iohannes having said so 
Paral. p. 383. and 384.  much of Calvin by name, that he is Pater Puritanorum, the very Father of the Puritans) omitting other testimonies that I have cited elsewhere, for the avouching of Calvin's integrity in that point, and no way derogating from the royal Supremacy, no not in Ecclesiastical matters themselves, I will set down only one or two to acquit each of them whom I last named, and in them the whole nation (if any such there be) of the Puritans, because you commonly repute of these two as the violentest; and withal to clear our cause from that absurd scandal, which you would willingly raise of us, for the discouragement of simple souls, as if our own Divines abhorred from the oath which is ministered among us, (though still you are to know it is no matter de Eide) and above all to stop your lewd mouths, that would sow bate, and throw bones, between brethren and friends.  
§ 87. Calvin therefore thus, to Francis the first, King of France, in that incomparable Preface to his famous 
* Which Flor. Rem. says he may call the Talmud or Alcoran of heretics. Franciscus Horantius says, he wrote it by the instinct, not of man, but some foul spirit, etc. Both showing in what account they have the work, though they abliorre from his opinion.  Institutions. Dignares auribus tuis, digna tua cognition, digna tuo tribunali. He subjects the whole cause, that was then in controversy between us and the Papists, to the King's judgement and iudgement-seat. For he had said just before, describing the weight of the business then in hand, Quomodo regnum Christi inter nos sartum tectunque maneat. Unless that be no Ecclesiastical cause or consideration, which concerns the preservation of Christ's Kingdom here on earth. And yet these tall fellows would feign persuade, that Calvin would not have Kings to be governors and supervisors in Ecclesiasticis. See the rest of the judgement of that learned man (
* Flor. Rem de Origine haeres. l. 7. c. 10. Sect. 1. Calvinus in conclavi quodam (Engolismae apud Tilium) plus quatuor millibus librotum tum manuscriptorum tum typis excusorū instructo, ita se continuit (triennio) ut vel intimi amicorum aegrè ad ipsum admitterentur, etc.  learned in the judgement of his very adversaries) lib. 4. Institut. c. 11. where he handles it purposely, and plentifully enough; Non improbabant sancti Patres siquando Principes interponerent suam authoritatem in rebus Ecclesiasticis, etc. For I take up this testimony now out of his Preface, only because not marked perhaps, nor regarded by others. The like he hath again (to name one more than I thought) Praefat. Com. in Epist. Canon. ad Edward. 6 Regem nostrum. Memineris has Maiestatis tuae proprias esse parts, quò integra vigeat relligio, sinceram ac germanam Scripturae interpretationem ab indignis calumnijs vindicare. Yet Bellarm. says, Rex est accidentalis Ecclesiae, l. 3. de verb. Dei. c. 9 verb. ult. & therefore interpretations not to be looked for from him. It follows in Mr. Calvin, Non enim temerè per Mosem Deus mandal, simulatque Rex populi sui inauguratus fuerit, ut sibi describendum curet legis volumen (where we see he 
What marvel, when Tully says, de Arusp. Resp. (led by the light of nature) Nihil praclarius quam eosdem & relligionibus decrum immortalium, & sum Repub. praeesse voluisse maiores nostros, Sub init Orat.  grounds himself upon that argument, which our Divines, that defend the supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiastical, most rely upon.) And a little after, In Regio Palatio sacrum domicilium assignat Legisuae Dominus, etc. [The Bible's lodging is in the King's Palace, Almighty God so appointing.] This of M. Calvin.  
Calvin 88 And now next for Mr. Brightman. He in Cap. 8. Apocal. ver. 3. makes Constantine the great (a temporal Prince you know, and as Mr. Sanders 
Prefat. lib. de clavae David. Acberat, cum Constantinum delegantem Melciadi, cum aliis Episcopis, causam Caecilij & Donati, caput Ecclesiae vocat, donat cum titulum homini non Christiano (here.) Nondum enim baptizatus cum suit Constantinus, ut patet ex Euseb. alijsque. Christianus verò esse non potest, qui Christum quando potest per baptismum non induit. Eia. Pergite in maledicta; Quid mirum iam si Rex jacabus non Christianus Bellarmino, quamvis baptizatus?  would exaggerate, not so much as baptised, (that by the way I may tell you Sir, to your Numb. 68 & 69. in defence of Bishop Barlow, whom there you bite at, and save my labour of answering more particularly, as at first I had intended, to those your discourse: That Princes not baptised, nay nor so much as godly minded (which Constantine then was, whether baptised or no, when Mr. Saunders takes the exception to him for want of baptism) have the same supreme right to govern the Church that Christian Kings and professing the faith have, though by error and transportation they either neglect it and perish it, or perhaps evil employ it, to the afflicting of her whom they ought to have advanced and promoted most.) As for their being beads, that are no members (which is another thing that troubles you) though I have answered it before, and you have vever done with it, yet briefly thus once again; Why not so, I pray you, as well as a King the head of that company of his Commonwealth, which either professes some art that he cannot skill of (suppose Surgeons, Mariners, musicans, and the like) or practiseth the wickedness that he abhorreth from his soul, (suppose Atheists, Heretics, Drunkards, and Adulterers.) For first, he is no member neither of these damned societies last named; nor of those before, which he is a mere stranger to; and yet a head of his whole Realm, I hope, and of all the companies thereto belonging, temporal at least, and in temporalibus, even by your own confession. Therefore an infidel King may as well be head of the Church, as a Christian King may be head over them, with whom he participates not in their sins and ungodliness. 
In the rest of the words that the Adjoinder quotes out of Bishop Barlowe Sermon, it seems he says, that the Puritans allow the King to be only an honourable member of the Church. And yet the Adjoinder would persuade us but a little before, that the Papists go as far as the Puritans about the supremacy, etc. Whereas his own argument is here against certain Kings, No members. Therefore no heads But the Puritans acknowledge their King a member, in the very words that he citeth out of B. Barlow, and an honourable member, that is happily Supreme. He contradicts himself therefore. As for their denying him to be Governor, (though it appear not in their words) yet either their meaning is, he is not to govern after his own lust and fancy, against the book of God, put into his hands: or Bishop Barlow describes the Puritans by their old Problems, which they disclaim daily, as the Bishop of Ely exceeding well notes.  But now to come to Mr. Brightman, as I said. He makes Constantine to be that Angel that stands before the altar, Apoc. 8. having the golden censer of perfumes in his hand, and casting them upon the prayers of the Saints and righteous, which ascend up before God. Would this man, think you, disdain, that Princes should be interposers in Ecclesiastical affairs, or challenge the chief conuzance and arbittement of them to themselves? But I will set down his own words, because they are pregnant to this purpose. Quid ni ille INPRIMIS imaginem SACERDOTIS praeferret, in quo maximè lucebat effigies Regalis dignitatis? Rectè ipse de se in coetu Episcoporum, Et ego, inquit, tanquam unus è vobis adsum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Though not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reverence and humility, but at another time Episcopus Episcoporum. And, Ego Episcopus sum (etiam) extrà Ecclesiast. i. ubique.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nec enim negarim me vestrum conseruum esse, quo nomine ego maxime gaudeo: Socrates lib. primo cap. sep. This he. Where I subscribe not to Mr. Brightmen interpretation of the Apocalypse, but I allege it to show what it is like his opinion was of the Supremacy of Kings.  
§ 89. Now concerning other States and Kingdoms not enlarging the Supremacy so far as we do here in England, viz. to give Lyceuses, Dispensations, Commissions, Faculties, to consecrate Bishops, to excommunicate, to interdict, suspend, censure, etc. Let the Reader be careful of reading these last words as they lie in the Adjoinder, with due punctation of them, or else he may chance to fall into the Adjoinders pit-fold, which will be his great pleasure to look on and laugh. For though it run thus, to give Commissions to consecrate, to excommunicate, censure, etc. yet he means not, I trust, that our Kings do either excommunicate, censure, or suspend in their own persons, but give Commissions to Bishops, to consecrate other Bishops, and so perhaps to execute the other ensuing acts of censure there recounted, as excommunication, suspension, etc. And yet this is not avouched out of any of our records, but only nakedly imputed to us by the Adjoinder; which if it be true, as I confess I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so studied in the Laws (my profession being clean another ways) it is to be understood of 
* And this is even the worst that can be bolted out of those words of the B. so spitefully insisted upon by the Adjoind. Numb. 67. that the King's government of the Church is external, so far forth as it requires and admitteth and authority For so far he is from extenuating the King's Supremacy thereby, that his meaning is, We are to look for as much help and aid from him, and consequently to acknowledge as much authority in him, as is humans, that is incident to the power or place of any man whatsoever, and therefore Supreme without question in his Kingdom. Though he denies not, but the Church may stand without such help or countenance of authority (as in the times of persecution) God supporting it, etc. which is most true. Therefore he says, So fore forth as it requires, etc.  patronage and Princely protection, that their acts may go for currant and uncontemned of Christian people, not but that in themselves they are of validity before God, out of the spiritual power, which he hath entrusted his Priests and Ministers with, though there be no confirmation of the secular arm.  
§ 90. Though it might be referred also to the commandments and injunctions of Christian Kings, whereby they urge Clergymen to do their duties, if happily they be stack or unwilling of themselves. For which cause Mr. Sanders says, that Kings can command nothing which they may not execute, De clave David. lib. 5. cap. 5. & 6. That because we deny to Princes the execution of Priestly duties, they may take away Government too, in causes, and over persons, Ecclesiastical. Yet we heard S. Cyrill speaking plainly a little before, for Theodosius his commanding of Bishops, etc. altogether as Ezechias did the Levites, who yet might not execute a Levites charge. So Solomon sacrificed says the Scripture, that is, the Priests at Salomon's commandment; not as Oziah with his own hands, nay not as Vzzah, so much as to handle a holy thing forbidden. And because Mr. Sanders makes such a piece of work hereof, and says, there is no instance to be given in all the world, of a person commannding that which he may not execute (saving only when there is disparagement in the doing of it, as for a Captain to descend to the mean offices of the Camp, which Plato forbids; but as for the ministery, 
In Politico.  there is no disparagement in it, no not to Kings themselves (saith he) which we are content to admit) I will reckon therefore some few instances to choke him withal, and to defend our distinction between Execution and Government, which is the main thing to be heeded in the question of Supremacy. How is it else, that the Pope may command swords to be drawn in casu, and yet himself may not handle the sword, as 
* Lib. 2. c. 11. Sand. bis hoc agnoseit, & repetit idem c. 12. in initio. Negavimus cum Augustino licuisse Petro, etc.  Mr. Sanders confesseth in this book? Though it is next to a wonder to see a Temporal Prince, in his own territory at least, who at no hand may handle a sword, or strike a blow. Yet they give the Pope this authority to set other folk's swords a work, not only in his Territory, but throughout Christendom. And I might have set it yet somewhat higher. How was the judge in the old Law to put to death malefactors by the appointment of the Priest, (as the Papists would have it,) Deuter. 17. 9 who yet was not to strike, (for that was the judges office,) if no body may prescribe that which he may not execute? Neither let M. Sanders say, that to strike a blow, or to slay a malefactor, is disgrace or disparagement; which is rather the sanctifying 
Fatente & Tullio, Cat. 1. Non modo non contamtuarunt, sed etiam honestarunt.  of a good subjects hands, to kill a rebel (yea and that sometimes uniudged) if necessity so require; to omit that this conceit drives fast upon Anabaptism, to think that carrying the sword is disparageable or disgraceful, which the 
b Et Rom. 13. & alibi sape, describens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab insigni gladij. Et, Dei minister 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nisi divina ministeria cui qua sordeant; quod ne de Pontifice quidem concedendum est, quamvis excelso. (Nec sibi adeò placeat) Sander●● tamen in have sententiam multa stultissimè, quasi ex Augustino, & de omnibus Apostolis 〈◊〉 far glad●●●, nee tamen permissis educere. Lib 2. de clavae David cap. 11.  Scripture speaks of with all honour. As for a Prince in his own Territory, and therefore bearing the sword, to whom notwithstanding it is a disgrace to use the sword, it is a monster as I said, and if he be ashamed of the one, let him renounce the other; as the poor woman said to King Philip, Si non vacat andire, nec regnare vacet: So here, Si percutere dedecori est, principari magis. But how much more will the Pope now think that disparageable 
3.  to him, to sweep Churches, to ring the Saints-bell, to wait upon the chalice, yea to baptise, to preach (for this offends him more than any thing else) and yet, I trust, he may command all these things to others, to his inferior Clerks, and Levites, and demie-Clerkes. Yea how 
4.  may he 
c For Preaching is actus jurisdictionis to the Canonists. And the Scripture gives it so 11. Tim. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Connexa sunt. Doctrine genus 〈…〉. Med.  exhort every member of the Commonwealth, every petty artisan, to follow his trade, (which he may do for certain, if he may but preach, for what more necessary argument than this for the pulpits?) May he therefore moil 
* 2. Tim. 2. 4.  himself in those dusty affairs? tan, weave, make tents, & c? And yet it is not disparageable; for S. Paul. and S. Peter, as good men as he, and better too by his leave, have done it before him, and that after their Apostleship, which is his false feather, and usurped flower of title, at this day. Nay verily, by the same reason Ministers might not exhort 
5.  either Kings and Princes, or other civil Magistrates, to do their duties, to govern well, to administer justice, to hear causes unpartially, to cut off malefactors, to root out traitors, to suppress sin by dint of sword, because all these things are unlawful to them, repugnant to their vocation; and yet the Ministers voice is a kind of commandment, speaking from the pulpit, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Orat. 5. in Oziam. Et. 2. Cor. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et tertiùm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Planissimè tamen ad Philem. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, Mr. Sanders himself might not exhort his Irish soldiers to fight against Queen Elizabeth by this reason, and yet for what other cause came he thither?  & in God's stead, as was noted before. (6.) What should I say of calling of Bishops to 
e We must be ready to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (even Churchmen and all) at the Prince's commandment. 'tis 3. 1. Therefore Priestly functions are either not good (let M. Sanders choose) or the King may command and enforce to them.  Synods, of setting them on work to explain the faith, and to confute heresies? May Christian Princes either not do the first (which the stories are so full of in the best times) or shall they practise and bear a part in the second, (which the Papists never will admit?) How did Theodosius dismiss Flavianus (after so many Popes had in vain assaulted him) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 23.  commanding him to depart and do his duty upon his Bishopric, if no body may enjoin but that which he may execute? (7.) Lastly, if a Priest should deny to baptise a young infant that were sick (whose salvation therefore were emperilled, and as we grant, in the ordinary, but as the Papists think, in the extraordinary way and all, without any hope of future recovery) if a Priest were so frampoll, I say, as to refuse to baptise a poor infant in that case, shall not the King compel him by force; and punishment, and terror of his Laws? We read in the book of Martyrs, of a certain Knight in Popery, that put a Priest into the grave alive, because he refused to bury a corpse that was brought to Church, where there was no mortuary to be had: such was their covetousness, Yet alas what comparison between burying of the dead (which our Saviour makes so slight of, Suffer the dead to bury their dead) and the administering of Christ's Sacrament, for the saving of a poor soul from everlasting destruction? It is therefore not the unworthiness of the ministerial duties, (as Mr. Sanders by his Syllogisms would feign drive us to say, or else to let go our distinction between Injunction and Execution) not the baseness of our office (for we magnify our ministery, and the Angels are thought to tremble at the weight of it: Quis ad haec idoneus? said he: viz. neither heavenly nor earthly abilities put in one;) but the mere distance and disunion of the two callings (I am loath to say repugnance, though that also after a sort) which will not permit a Prince to do Priestly offices, though his power extend to the commanding of them to be done; yea punishing and correcting if they be not done. Cursed be he that does the Lords work negligently, said the Prophet of old. And the heathen Poet assumes,  Pectora nostra duas non admittentia curas. 
Invenal.  
we cannot do Gods work and the worlds too. Therefore God will have his work done by such only, as shall intend nor do no other work then that. For this cause, government remains with the King, without any intermeddling in the execution of our offices; the execution is ours without any right in 
* Vide cap. 4. Sed & Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 6. D. H. Savilij. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;. i. If I should say to thee, Go and reform a King offending, wouldst thou not say I were mad? viz. reform him in the coercive kind. Else, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as there it follows. A minister may do it concionatoriè. But a private man, not so much as in words.  Governing or Compelling. And so much to Mr. Sanders why the King should have 
a S. Austen acknowledges jurisdiction in the King's Sword; namely in regard of Government and compulsion. Adversus Epist. Parmen. 1. c. 8.  jurisdiction (as the Parliament here speaks) or Superinspection, without administration or execution; which it seems the Adjoinder is no less troubled with then Mr. Sanders, though he prosecute it not so vehemently. I return to him; who is now at his last casts.  
§ 91. COncerning then our extending the privileges of Supremacy beyond the custom and fashion of other nations, he brings no proof of it, and therefore I might contemn it with the same facility that he objects it. But first he is to know, that the grounds which they hold by (either from Scriptures or from Fathers) in the avouching of their Supremacy, are the same that ours, and import as much, and extend as far, including the same privileges, if they be thoroughly scanned, though happily so much appear not unto them all at first. Or it is the wisdom of Kings, to temper their government with such moderation, as the condition of their people will best bear for the present, more as there shall be more opportunity afterward, — sic fortis Hetruria crevit. To omit, that for so much as others exercise these acts in those Kingdoms, though they derive not their authority so literally from the King, yet the King's permission is their deputation, and so the Supremacy still remains in himself. Even the Pope's Supremacy is not the like with all, nor of the like extension. We know what narrow bounds the French have set to it, with their Pragmatical Sanction. And the Sorbone of Paris hath evermore curtailed it. Few that amplify it as fully as the Canonists. Bellarmine himself goes not so far as Carerius. The 
a As, Bulgaria, Cy●…s, Carthage, justinianea, etc.  Bishops of some places were freer than others; in 
b Hieron. ad Huagr. & Aug. in Quaest. vet. & Novi Test. Quaest. 100LS. Quidam Falcidius, duce stultitia, & Romanae civitatis iactantia, etc.  some the Deacons stepped afore the Priests. And 
c Concil. Nicen. c 18. Concil. Ancyr. c. 13. item c. 18. Concil. Neocaesar. c. 13. etc.  diverse things belonging to the quality of each order, are determined by Counsels in process of time, rather than acknowledged by all at first. Doth this therefore prejudice either Bishops, or Priests? No verily. And so all that dissent about the bounds of Supremacy, are not strait to be reckoned for enemies to the Supremacy. God forbid. For I will not say as I might, (and yet without flattery) that we of the ENGLISH may the better enlarge the KING'S majesties privileges, as far as possibly may stand with God's word, because we are more sensible of his highness liberalities then any others, and his extraordinary favour hath abounded towards us. We may say as the jews did to the Apostle S. james, (witness Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 23.) Obsecramus te; Obtemperamus tibi; Tibi omnes obedimus. Etenim omnis populus testificatur de te, quòd justus sis, nec personam accipis. And, which never any of Peter, Quot quot credebant, propter JACOBUM credebant (Propagatorem fidei, Malleum haeresum.) As for that which follows, Sta ergò super pinnam templi, ut conspiciaris ab universis, & verba tua omnes exaudiant; I need not add it, since God hath done it; I mean exalted his MAJESTY to the top of Sovereignty, even of Temple and all; from whence the Nations farthest off attend his answers, and the world round about craves his resolution in greatest matters.  
§ 92. AND so beseeching ALMIGHTY GOD, to give us as large a heart to understand our own good, and his majesties rare favours and charities towards us, as he hath enlarged the heart of his most EXCELLENT MAJESTY to all Princely wisdom, and possible virtue; but especially to over-cherish his dear spouse the CHURCH: Let us thank him also for the occasion of these two labours of the right worthy Bishop (though in itself it was not so expetible) and make much of the two pignora that the Church hath from him; two radiant lights, two lasting pillars; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as S. chrysostom 
Tom. 5. Edit. Eton.  says of the mother of the Maccabees,) or 
* Pythag. apud Laert. l. 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the two doors of the Sun, (as the Philosopher calls a man's eyes in his body) to let in knowledge and erudition to us; concluding of them, either with justine Martyr, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or with Clemens alexander. (fine Protreptici,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  To GOD only wise, immortal, invisible, be all praise and glory, through JESUS CHRIST our Lord, for evermore. 
AMEN.   

The thirteenth to the ROMANS expounded by S. chrysostom, so far forth as it concerneth the SUPREMACY OF KINGS, and the Subjection of all persons to their authority, of what sort soever; remaining in their Dominions;  
Which I thought good to annex here, not only as a strengthening to divers passages of this Book, and namely to the last of all, consisting in the defence of his majesties ROYAL SUPREMACY, against the Adjoinders peevish cavils; but as an opening of the main controversy about the oath of Allegiance (which hath given the occasion to all these labours, as the Powder-plot gave just cause to that) viz. that we are to observe it by the Laws of CHRIST, and his Apostles, towards our King and Prince, of whatsoever religion, or profession, they shall be.  

VER. 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers.  
THe Apostle insists much upon this matter, 
Chrys. Hom. 23. in 13. ad Rom.  not only in this; but in other Epistles, planting subjection in Subjects towards their Princes, as well as in Servants towards their Masters. And this he does, by showing that Christ gave no Laws with the intent to subvert Commonwealths or States, but directed all to their better government, and taught us not to rush into superfluous garboils, and unprofitable attempts. For 
Hear this ye jesuits, complainers of persecution & molestation.  in very truth, the trains that are laid for godly men, and the dangers that await us for the truth's sake, they are enough of themselves, and we ought not to augment them by superfluous tribulations, contrived by our own ill-deseruing. Consider also how seasonably the Apostle makes his mention hereof in this place. For he exhorts to this, when? After he had required passing accurateness and strictness at their hands, after he had made them tractable both to friends and foes, both to them in prosperity, and them in adversity, to them in want and them that felt no want, to all in general; after he had settled a kind of life among them more fit for Angels then for men; after he had purged choler, and rebated pride, and every way smoothed over their dispositions most handsomely; then, I say, he brings in this exhortation. For it stands to reason, that if we may not requite them with cross dealing and evil turns, that have iniutied us first, much more ought we to yield obedience to them that are beneficial and kind towards us. But this string the Apostle touches not upon as yet, till towards the latter end of his exhortation. In the mean while, he stands only upon such reasons and arguments as may seem to claim it for a duty at our hands. And insinuating that he gives this precept to all, not only to temporal men, but to Priests and to Monks, his very first words import as much, saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, [viz.] 
* Yet the Pope is not above an Apostle, I hope, at the highest.  Though thou be'st an APOSTLE, though an EVANGELIST, though a PROPHET, or whosoever thou be'st. For this subjection 
b The cause of religion doth not acquit from subjection.  is not repugnant to religion, [whatsoever they talk.] Neither says he barely, Let them obey; but, let them be subject. And the first justification of this his precept, and that which worketh most upon godly minds, is because God hath so commanded it. For there is no power (saith he) but from God.  
What sayest thou Paul? Is every Ruler and Magistrate appointed of God? I say not so (quoth he,) neither speak 
This is against Usurpers & intruders only.  I now of particular Magistrates, but only of the matter of government in general. For that there should be a Magistracy, and that some should bear rule, & others be subject, and that all things should not be hurried at adventure up and down, people raging like waves rolling in the broad Sea, to and fro; this, I say, is a work particularly proceeding from God's high wisdom. And for this cause he said not, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vt hae● sit legitemè succedentium in regnum: ille autem & invasor esse alieni iuru queat.  For there is no Magistrate but from God; but he speaks of the general, and frames his speech thus, For there is no authority, or no power, but from God. And the Powers that are, are ordained of God.  
So, when the wiseman says, [Prou. 19] That a wife is prepared for a man of the Lord: he means thus, that God appointed marriage in general, and not that he is the author of each particular copulation between man and woman. For we see many that marry nothing auspiciously, many also that come together against the Laws of marriage, and we must not lay the fault hereof upon God. But that which Christ pronounced, Matth. 19 He that made them at first, created them male and female, and said; for this shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, this and no other did Solomon mean in that place of the Proverbs. For, for so much as parity induceth to strife and dissension oft-times, 
Government is necessary.  God therefore hath ordained many relations of governments & of subjections, as between the man & the wife, between 
Parity begets contention.  the parent and the child, between the ancient and the novice, between the servant and the freeman, between the Magistrate and the subject: and [lastly also] between the Scholar and the Master. And why shouldest thou wonder, that it is so in men, when thou mayest observe the same in the creation of thine own body? For God hath not made all the members of it equal between themselves, but one meaner, another better; and this member to govern, and that to be governed. Likewise, a man may discern the 
Government is natural.  same, in the very bruit beasts and unreasonable creatures. As not only in Bees first, but also in Cranes, and in flocks or herds of wild cattle. Neither is the Sea a stranger to 
Monarchy is natural, that is, most agreeable to Nature.  this good order, but even there also divers kinds of fishes are ranked and regimented under the conduct of some one fish, and so make their long voyages. For, want of government brings inconvenience every where, every where confusion [both at sea and land]. The Apostle therefore having showed of whom government comes, infers in this wise,   

VER. 2. Wherefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  
Lo, how high he fetches this matter, and with what he fears them, and how he shows that subjection is mere debt and duty. For least the faithful should say, Why Paul, 
The Jesuits objection against Paul's subjection,  thou debasest us, and makest us vile & contemptible; dost thou subject them to civil Magistrates, that are in the way to enjoy the Kingdom of heaven, and eternal salvation? [lest any one should reply thus, I say] he shows that in exhorting 
Answered by himself.  us to be subject to Magistrates, he subjects us to God himself, and not to men only. For he that is subject to the Magistrates, obeys God therein. Nevertheless the Apostle says not in plain terms, that he that obeyeth the Magistrate, obeyeth God in so doing, but he terrifies them with the danger of the contrary practice covertly insinuated, and frames his argument much more artificially, saying, that he that obeys not the Magistrate, confronts God, who hath ordained the Magistrate. And indeed this is his 
Subjection is duty in the very best, not courtesy.  project every where, to show that we yield not obedience to Magistrates, as a matter of benevolence, but of mere duty. For he knew that by this means, he should the rather toll both infidel Magistrates to embrace religion, and Christians to yield their obedience to those Magistrates. 
e The Apostles called traitors; but their doctrine refutes it, not only their practice: whereas the Jesuits both practice and doctrine confirms it.  For there was much bruit then, and many rumours were spread, as if the Apostles had been guilty of sedition and treason, and as if all their doings, and all their sayings, had tended but to the subversion of the Laws, and weales-publike. When the Apostle therefore could show them, that Christ their common Master, gave all his followers this in charge [that they should establish Magistracy, and encourage to subjection] it was both the easier stopping of slanderous mouths that 
f A true Apostle need not fear to preach the mysteries of his Message, before any Infidel-governour: but a jesuit may, lest there be LUPUS in fabula, as they stick not to call him.  exclaimed against them, as traitors to the State, and himself might proceed in his course of preaching, and delivering to his auditors, the other doctrines of Christianity, with so much the more confidence and liberty. Be not therefore (saith he) ashamed of this subjection [whosoever thou art]. For God hath appointed it, God hath ordained it; and he is a sharp revenger of them that despise it. Neither will he content himself to take a mean punishment, or [small] 
Heavy disasters fall upon Traitors.  revenge of thee, but an exceeding sore one; neither shall any thing be of force to rescue thee striving against it, but both thou shalt endure most grievous penalties among men, and none shall once so much as take thy part; and thou 
God and men take part against the Traitor.  shalt be sure to have God thy heavier enemy than whosoever else. All which things the Apostle implying, adds thus, and says, But they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.  
After this he shows what benefit comes by preserving 
Other arguments [ab utili] of being subject to Magistrates.  obedience, as formerly he had showed them the danger of resisting, and persuades them by discourse in this wise,   

VER. 3. For Magistrates are not a terror too good works, but to the evil.  
For because he had terrified them, & gone deep with the 
The Romans always noted of pride & contumacy to Magistrates. Bern. & alij.  knife, [in lancing their dead flesh,] he refreshes them again like a discrete Surgeon, applying lenitives, and he comforts them, saying, Why art thou afraid man? how have I scared thee? will the Magistrate thinkest thou chide thee, if thou do well? Is he a fright to them that are virtuously minded? Wherefore it follows, With thou not then be afraid of the Magistrate? [or of the power?] do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.  
See we how finely he hath made them friends? how he hath accorded the matter between the Magistrate and the Subject? Instead of a terrifier, he hath brought him about now, to be a praiser and a commender. How hath he dispersed the former clouds, and rectified conceits that were amiss?   

VER. 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good.  
He is so far from scaring thee, that he praises and commends thee; he is so far from opposing thee, that he aids thee, and forwards thee, in thy intended pursuits. Sith therefore 
Even Nero this. hearken you Jesuits; you that think the bands of all goodness are dissolved, if an infidel Prince be but endured or obeyed.  thou hast a commender, and an assistant of him, why art thou not subject to him? For whereas thou art well inclined to virtue of thyself, he will speed thee in thy courses, minister much facility to thee, both punishing wicked men [that might have been thy hinderers:] and again, by honouring and rewarding the good, [which are thy guides, or thy companions,] and generally abetting thee towards the doing of that which thou desirest, and God would have done. Wherefore also he calls him, 
* Monarches are the Ministers of God for our salvation.  the Minister of God. Consider, I pray thee: 
* The Minister is persuasive, the Magistrate may be coactive, but both of them deal in the same matters; viz. matters of the conscience. Quare idem alibi Chrysost. (vide locum paulo infra) 〈◊〉 deum tractidisse nos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et quidem non paulo magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut cum sic obiter effingam.  I out of the pulpit here advise thee to continency, to refrain from wicked lusts, and unlawful pleasures; that which I advise thee, he enjoins thee; that which I say in my Sermons, he commands thee by his Laws. I exhort thee to abandon covetousness, and not to invade thy neighbour's goods, and he sits in judgement only to sentence them that are faulty in these kinds. So as the Magistrate 
y Where are they that see nothing but a sheep in the Lay sore, of what condition soever? What lacks he of a Pastor, that is a Pastor's worke-fellow, an aider and assister of him, sent of God for that end? Nay, the one by his saws, the other by his Laws. Witness S. Chrysost.  is our worke-fellow, our helper and coadjutor, and is sent to us 
z Where are they also that say, earthly Princes are not of God, but human creatures? crept out of the dust I ween; Whom Plato makes the prime sons of God, and of the golden choicest generation.  of God, for this very purpose. In both regards therefore, he is justly to be reverenced, both because sent of God, and sent (as I said) for this very purpose. But, if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.  
It is not therefore the Magistrate, we see, that occasions this fear, but our own wickedness, our own naughtiness. For he beareth not the sword in vain.  
Seest thou what manner of person he deciphers the Magistrate, how he arms him, and harnesses 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed & alibi in sua verba constans. Tom. 5. D. H. Savile. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et, Non dicit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. bonavent. quidem in 4. Dist. 4. Qu. 3. respon. ad obiecta, notat quòd nemo unquam effûgit poenam gladij sub indicecum caetera poenarum genera miraculo effugeret. That we may see what a pre-eminence goes with the sword, & how God assists his own depositum, entrusted to the King's hands.  him, as it were a soldier, against wicked persons, making him terrible to the offenders? For he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.  
For least hearing of punishments, & execution of the Sword, thou shouldest fall back again, through faint heart, from thy lately received rule of obedience, he tells thee once again, that the Magistrate does no more than God gives him charge, he fulfils God's Law, he is the Minister of God to punish evil doers. 
c Nero nesciens sustentat omnia. Wicked Magistrates unwilling hold up the state. Where is the assistance that they challenge to the Pope, to overrule his tongue against his wit, lest he pronounce false, defining in his Consistory? Or what prerogative is that to this?  For what though he doth not know himself what he does? Yet God hath appointed & set it down to be so. If therefore both in punishing and likewise in rewarding, the Magistrate is only the Minister of God, patronizing virtue, banishing vice (which is the thing for certain that God would have done) why shouldst thou contest with him [about subjection] who both brings such a many blessings with him (as hath been lately rehearsed) and strangely promotes thine own desires? 
d See S. Prosper de vita coutempl. l. 3. c. 7. In virtutem plerumque de necessitate proficitur, etc.  For there are divers men, that beginning to practise virtue for dread of the Magistrate, afterward embraced it for the fear of God. For dull-witted folks are not so much moved with things to come, as with matters present. In sum therefore, 
e The Magistrate prepares the souls of his subjects, saith S. Chrysost. Yet the Jesuits say he must be no dealer in soule-matters. f Magistrates justly termed the Ministers of God.  he that can so frame and fashion the souls of men [committed to his charge] what by fear on the one side, what by rewards on the other, that they may be the more capable of the heavenly nurture, he may justly [I trow] be called the Minister of God.   

VER. 5. Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  
What mean those words, Not only for wrath? Not only (saith he) because thou resistest God, unless thou be'st subject, neither only because thou drawest divers plagues upon thine own head, both from God and men [as assuredly thou dost, unless thou obey] but also because he is thy gracious benefactor in matters of greatest 
g The conscience of a good turn, viz. received of God in his institution of Commonwealths, is that which should move us to be subject to the civil Magistrate, for conscience sake, as S. Chrysost. here expounds it.  consequence, having provided for thy peace, and to that end established the civil government. For infinite many blessings befall communities, by these manner of Magistracies. Take away them, and take away all; neither city, nor country, nor house, nor court, nor nothing else will stand, but all will be overturned, all go to wrack; the mightier [like fishes] devouring the weaker, and them that are unable to resist. So that if there were no anger, or temporal plague, following the disobedient, nevertheless thou oughtest to be subject, even so; I mean, lest thou shouldest seem rude and ungrateful to thy benefactor. [The Apostle proceeds,]   

VER. 6. For, for this cause (quoth he) you pay tribute also: for they are Gods ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  
The Apostle here, omitting the mention of diverse other more particular benefits, which accrue to commonwealths, from their rulers and governors, as orderliness, peaceableness, and also those other services, which both of pike and pen, peace and war, they continually attend for the good of the whole, demonstrates all by this one thing. For, saith he, thyself bearest him witness, that thou receivest benefit by him, in so much as thou art content to pay him wages. See the wisdom and prudence of the Apostle. For whereas their taxes were so tedious, and intolerable to them, as they were startled with the very mention of them, he brings them both for an argument of his cause in hand, and a demonstration of their wisdom, ready to yield afore he persuade, [viz. as convinced by their own voluntary practice.] For why, quoth he, pay we tribute to the King, what is our scope, what our drift? Do we not pay it him as the wages of his carefulness over us, watching for us, & protecting us [with all his might?] Whereas certainly we would not have paid them this fee from the beginning, had we not known that we were gainers by their government over us, [and received benefit.] But therefore it seemed good to our ancestors long ago, and enacted it was by common consent, that we should supply the necessities of Kings with our purses, because neglecting their own matters, they mind the public, and employ all their leisure and time, to such end, as may be most for the preservation of our particular estates. Having thus then argued from matter of commodity, he brings back his speech again to the former head (for this was the way, to work most upon the Christians, and their consciences) and again he shows them, that this is also well pleasing to almighty God; and in that he concludes his exhortation, saying, For they are the Ministers of God. And yet to note unto us their continual travel and pensiveness for our sakes, he adds moreover, attending continually upon this very thing.  
For this is their life, this their occupation, that thou [even thou] mayest live and die in peace. Wherefore in another Epistle, he not only exhorteth us to be subject to Magistrates, but also to pray for them. And yet there also he insinuates the common benefit that all men receive by them, in that he concludes thus, that we may live a quiet and a peaceable 
2. Tim. 2. 1, 3. etc.  life. For they advantage us not a little towards the constant establishment of our estates, in so much as they provide furniture for the common defence, repulse enemies, suppress mutinies, and decide and determine civil controversies. For never tell me, that this or that man abuses his 
Dispossession follows not from abuse of place.  place, but consider the beauty of this divine ordinance, and thou shalt quickly espy the wonderful wisdom of the prime ordainer of all these things.   

VER. 7. Field therefore to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour [belongeth.] 8. Owe nothing to any man, but to love one another, etc.  
Still he insists upon the same point, and bids us not only yield them money and coin [that have the government of us] but also honour and fear. But how hangs this together, that having said before, Wouldst thou not fear the power? do that which is good; here he says, yield fear to whom fear belongeth? I answer in one word; He means the fear of displeasing, or the careful and industrious fear, not that which ariseth out of a bad conscience, which in the former words he labours to prevent. Neither saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Subjection is ●●e, and not to be denied; but paid with all ●…e.  not give ye, but yield ye; not of courtesy, but of due; and he expresses eftsoons, the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, debt. For thou dost not gratify him in so doing; for it is debt and due that thou dost. And if thou dost it not, thou shalt be censured for a cullian and a wretch. Neither think thou in thy 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  pride, that it is any disparagement to thee, in regard of thy profession Christian, (though it be of the strictest) to rise 
hearken Jesuits that stand upon your nobility, either of Priesthood, or Christianity.  up in the presence of the civil Magistrate, or to put off thy cap, when the officer comes by. For if S. Paul gave these Laws, when the Emperors were Pagans, how much more should we observe them, now they be Christians? And if thou sayest, that thou dispenfest greater matters, than he, [suppose the word and the Sacraments, or other Priestly functions] know thou, that thy time is not yet come. Thou art a 
Hora tua nondum venit. The Priests So primacy, is in altero saeculo.  stranger and a pilgrim for the present. The time shall be, when thou shalt appear more glorious than they all. In the mean while, thy life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, then shalt thou also appear with him in glory. Seek not therefore thou thy recompense in this transitory life. But although thou be'st to appear before the Magistrate perforce, and that with great horror, and dread, and appallment of all sides, yet think it no disparagement to thy high nobility. For God will have it so, and it is his pleasure, that the Magistrate of his own constituting, should be also invested with his proper rights and honours. Markest thou also another thing that ensues hereof? When an honest man like thyself, and guilty of no crime, shall appear before the Magistrate, humbly, and submissively; much more will the malefactor stand in awe of authority, and thou by this shalt win credit and reputation to thyself. For they are not 
a The more we honour Magistrates, the more honourable we show ourselves; but scorning them, we are base.  subject to contempt, that honour such as are to be honoured, but they that dishonour and contemn them rather. Yea the Magistrate [though he be infidel] 
b Subjection of Christians is a mean to draw Infidels to the Faith; resistance alienates. How cross is Chrysost. (and Christ first of all) to the Jesuits doctrines, in every point? For they say, if we obey, the faith goes down, our profession is disparaged, the Infidels will insult, etc. Chrysost. omnia contra.  will admire thee so much the more, and will glorify thy heavenly Master, whom thou servest, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
De Talibus Patrum Expositionibus, sanctarum Scripturarum, intellige Canonem illum. 19 Concil. 6. Constantinop. in Trullo, (ut obiter discat & F. T. noster, Regum palatia (eiusmodi enim Trullus) locum esse non inopportunum Ecclesiastico vel Concilio de rebus gravissimis habendo:) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. divinissimè.     

The Abstract of the Contents of the second Part.  

CHAP. 6.  
1. FAith to be reposed in God only; not in Saints or Creatures. Pag. 224. & 225.  
2. S. Hierome perverted to speak for faith in Saints; Of credo in Ecclesiam. Pag. 226. & 227.  
3. Honour and glory to God and to the Saints, but in a most infinite disproportion, and therefore inferring no faith in them, no prayers to them. p. 227.  
4. The place in Genesis, Invocetur nomen meum super pueros hosce, makes nothing less than for innocation of Saints departed. p. 227. & 228.  
5. S. Chrysostom's Liturgy hath no praying to Saints in it. p. 228.  
6. Popular practice is no common place of proof. p. 229.  
7. The Adjoinder quoting the Council of Gangra for one point in hand, viz. prayer to Saints, neither obtaineth that, and is foiled in divers others by the said Council. p. 229. & 230.  
8. Prayer to God only, is the luce or de lege ipsius naturae. p. 230. & 231.  
9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Currere, is not always to run with the mind to pray unto, as the Adjoinder would. p. 231.  
10. We must run to succour Magistrates, not only against wrong, but though themselves do the wrong to private persons, if they again turn upon them. p. 232.  
11. One thing to pray to Saints, an other at the memories and Oratories of Saints. Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will bear well enough in S. Chrysostom's text, according to the learned Bishop's interpretation. p. 232. & 233.  
12. Having relics, and worshipping relics, is not all one. p. 234.  
13. Mamas his God, worshipped by the Christians, is not Mamas himself the godly Martyr. Impudent defence of a corrupt Translation against the original greek text of S. Basil, by the Adjoinder. p. 235.  
14. The like concerning Eusebius; and the cardinals best excuse is, Non putaram: that the Translator deceived him. p. 236.  
15. Adoremus for adornemus, justified by the Adjoinder to be good, because the Italian prints so have it. ibid.  
16. To embrace relics with faith, is not to worship them. p. 237.  
17. To touch them (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is not to worship them. The Adjoinders Pseudo-Criticks about this answered. p. 238. 239. & 240.  
18. We may pray to God only, and yet to Saints too: The Adjoinders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or pretty juggling. p. 241.  
19 Ephrems Tomes and Vossius his grot. ibid.  
20. Calling upon Saints militant to pray for us, is not all one with praying to the Saints triumphant. Priests and Prayers are for God only, and not for any creature, by Tolets' confession. p. 242.  
21. Ephrems divine testimony against praying to Creatures. His humble confession of inherent sinfulness, and that mortal, remaining in himself after regeneration. p. 243. (Note, that whereas the Adjoinder avouches Ephrems works (quoted by Card. Bellarm.) to be sincere, which the reverend Bishop notwithstanding excepts against as counterfeit; the Card. in his Survey of Ecclesiastical writers, confesses of himself that he never read Ephrem. It seems therefore not so worthy; else, why should he contemn him? And yet he quotes him. May we not ask him now, Quis ei laborat? his own words of the King; but better applied.)  
22. The Bishops two golden Caveats in this Question of Invocation, as it is maintained by the Fathers; One, that they be brought to speak thereof as de re ad salutem necessaria, or else not to be regarded (for such is the Papists imagination of it now) The other to respect not so much practise as sanction. p. 244. & 245.  
23. God hears one prayer of our own making, and for ourselves, sooner than an hundredth of other intercessors for us, etc. ex Chrysost. latè. p. 244.  
24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 245.  
25. The cardinals quotation of chrysostom, for Prayer to Saints, enlarged by the Adjoinder; which though all be granted, nothing is proved. p. 246.  
26. It is a clear argument of the Deity, to be prayed unto. p. 247.  
27. S. Cyril's weighty verdict, against the worshipping of Creatures; yea and of the LORD CHRIST himself, but that he is IMMANVEL, very GOD. p. 248. & 249.  
28. Maximus, prayeth not to Agnes, in his panegyric. p. 250.  
29. And much less Nazianzen to the blessed Virgin; nor yet exhorteth others. 250. & 251.   

CHAP. 7.  
30. THe Father's Apostrophes convince not for the hearing os Souls departed; Used by them, used by the holy Scripture, to creatures devoid both of sense and understanding. p. 253.  
31. No praying to those Saints, whose condition is uncertain: Therefore Prayers conditional are but Rhetorical flourishes; and not to be salved by Purgatory (as the Adjoinder would) a fitten by a fancy. p. 254.  
32. No danger to say the Fathers played the Orators. p. 255.  
33. And namely Nyssen (of whom see Baronius for this matter (Tom. 4. Anno. Dom. 369. Num. 65. citaritem Epist. obiurgator. Greg. Naz. ad ipsum. p. 257.  
34. Against pictures and puppets, unmeet for Churches. p. 256. 
Medina tamen l. 4. contr. 6. pag. 310. edit. Venet. Vetus pictura ingentem habet auctoritatem, (viz. ad probandas conclusiones Theologicas.)  & 257. S. Austin's authority there to be enlarged ex l. 1. cap. 10. de consensu Euangel. Non mirum si à pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt. He speaks to the Papists.  
35. Vbicunque fueris, poruerted by the Adjoinder, restored to his true sense, and the Bishop's collection upon these words maintained. p. 258.  
36. The Fathers were professed Rhetoricians. p. 259.  
37. The Bishop answering S. Ambrose by S. Ambrose, useth no derogation to the holy Father. Conjecture, under correction, of the same place. p. 259. & 260.  
38. The Adjoinders blasphemies boldly blending our works with Christ's, botching and peicing his most perfect righteousness with our imperfect. p. 261.  
39 S. Ambrose not for Merits, though he plainly condemn Motions to Saints. p. 262.  
40. God needing no relator, will have no Mediator, but only Christ. ibid.  
41. Prayer is sacrifice; therefore Gods due alone. ibid.  
42. S. Ambrose excluding all created Mediators, excludes not Christ, as the Adjoinder feareth. p. 263.  
43. The Saints not only do not, or may not, but cannot make request for us to God, as Christ doth. And wherein standeth Christ's intercession. p. 263. & 264.  
44. Adoration and prayer, the highest offices that we can perform to God himself, by S. Ambroses judgement. p. 264.  
45. The Adjoinder hunted out of his elvish shifts, wherewith he would elude S. Ambroses place brought by the Bishop. p. 265.  
46. Mistakes of memory not sonticall. p. 266.  
47. The Fathers with joint consent, define Prayer by our reference to God only; as likewise the Pater noster doth, our saviours dear depositum, which he bequeathed to his Church at the request of his Disciples, Luke 11. and is our safest platform still to follow. p. 267  
48. S. Ambrose might have cause to omit the mention of Saints praying for us, though he deny it not; but not ours to Saints, if it did concern us. p. 267  
49. Paul, Tertullian, Ambrose, against Prayer to Saints. p. 268  
50. Theodosius prayed to God only. p. 269. (Ruffinus his words of him are, lib. 2. cap. 33. Quam supplicationem pij principis, certi [milites] à Deo esse susceptam. And again, Imperatoris illam precem quam Deo fuderat. And lest we think he might pray to God at one time, & to the Saints at another, Ruffinus shows what his custom was: Proiectis armis, ad SOLITA se vertit auxilia, & prostratus in conspectu Dei, Tu (inquit) Omnipotens Deus nosti, quia in nomine CHRISTI filii tui, etc.)  
51. Churches to Saints, and Sacrifices to Saints, in the Popish religion, though they profess against it, and so condemn themselves with their own mouths for Idolaters. Gregorius de Valentia his frivolous excuses of this matter. p. 270  
52. The Papists bring no Church-decree for their prayer to Saints, when they crack of the Church most. What the authority of the Church is, presuming beyond Scripture. p. 271. & 272  
53. The pillar of truth. ibid. (upon which place S. Chrysost. says; that, Truth is the pillar of the Church.)  
54. Epiphanius compares heresy to a shrew; To be kerbed at 
Like columna Simeonis, first 12. degrees high, than 22. then 36 and more. Vide Cedrens. p. 279. Cassander, Wicelius, Tilman: Eredenbach. etc.  first, not let have her will. Most true in this matter about praying to Saints. The people once attempting it out of a semblance of zeal, the contagion multiplies to such an intolerable height, as the Papists themselves cannot choose but rue it. p. 273  
55. And yet Theodoret is not absolute for praying to Martyrs. ibid. largè.  
56. Parson's scoffing, at some Martyrs of our Church, of mean occupations. But not Theodoret so, nor the holy Scripture. p. 275  
57 Speeding upon Supplication to Saints and Angels, no good argument of the lawfulness of that practice. ibid.  
58. The Bishop not to blame about searching this question both by Scripture and Reason, which the Adjoinder himself doth by deceit; ill experiments. p. 276  
59 Prayer to Saints necessary to salvation, and again not necessary; The Adjoinders giddiness. p. 276  
60. Neither relation of Angels, nor revelation from God, such as the Adjoinder conceiteth, are of force to make the Saints always fit to be prayed to. ibid.  
61. The Scripture is the touchstone in all controversies. And it it an idle thing to prate of the Church in any such comparison. But specially for the trial of matters of this nature. p. 277. 278  
62. Practice, Custom, Multitude, how to be valued against Scripture. p. 280. (1. King. 28. Elias to Baal's Priests, Quia vos plures estis. Idem de se ipso, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum 70. Sed & Esa. 41. 14. Ne time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cui respondet Luc. 12. 32.)  
63. The Bishop's exposition of S. Austen, is defended against the Adjoinders iutricate Morosophies. p. 281  
64. Every King is SUPREME HEAD in his Dominions, (though the Adjoinder gnash his teeth at it) and that not only to English Protestants, but to French Papists. p. 282  
65. Invocation of Saints, if repelled from Sacrifice, repelled from Service, and so not to be used. p. 282  
66. Slender advantage of the burial place after death. p. 283  
67. More experiments of the Adjoinders skill in Latin. ibid.  
68 Whatsoever the burying place advantage the dead, no consequence from thence of praying to Saints, out of S. Austin's words. p. 284  
69. No Popish Purgatory. p. 284. 285. & 286  
70. Lawful to pray for things already obtained. p. 286. (Alphons. de Castro contra Haeres. V. Purgator. p. 895. Melius respondemus, non semper dubitari de illis quae potuntur, etc. in eandem sententiam, largè: where he grants we may pray for deliverance from Hell; (viz. from the jaws of the Lion, and the Tartarean lake) although we be persuaded that they are delivered already, whom we pray for.)  
71. Prayer to Saints for the just price of a new cloak: The Adjoinders needy proofs from the practice of a poor Cook. p. 287.   

CHAP. 8.  
72. THe Council of Laodicea is against praying to Angels. Accurseth them that use it. Brandeth them as for sakers of the L. Christ. And all this by Theodoret's construction of it, in his Comm. upon the Epistle to the Colossians. In which Colossians S. Paul first reproved that vice, and it remained there till the time of the Council of Laodicea, (saith Theodoret) which was held not far from the City Colossi. p. 289. 290. 291.  
73. S. Chrysostom's notable enforcing of the Apostles text for praying to God only, and neither to Saints nor Angels, whom he excludes directly. p. 292, 293, 294  
74. The Angel is Christ. (So Bellarm. himself, de Mal. 3. lib. 5. c. 1. de Christo Mediatore.) Other Angels reverence godly men, so far they are from receiving worship of them. And this by Gregory, and their own writer's testimony. p. 295  
75. The good offices and attendance that Angels perform to us by God's appointment, prove not that we may pray to them, but to God that sends them, and sets them on work. p. 296  
76. Of every man's particular Angel; (Chrysost. apud Melissam lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. facit malos mortales non habere custodem Angelum, nisi tenebrarum; & quòd quidam angeli natales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à nobis, nosve ab illis.) Molina's smart devise that several brotherhoods of Friars, have several Angels forsooth to attend them, etc. ibid.  
77. Heresy a shrew, by Epiphanius description of her; To be yoked at first, and not let have her will. She will have the last word, whatsoever come of it. ibid.  
78. Angels not our governors, specially in the new Testament. Themselves ministering spirits to S. Paul; Therefore not our Masters. p. ead. & 297  
79. The Adjoinders wriglings to shift off the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, but all in vain. ibid. & 298  
80. Worship of Angels more directly condemned by the Ancient Fathers, then of the Saints. The cause why. Yet that falling, this cannot stand, even à maiori. ibid.  
81. Theodoret violates not the Canon of Laodicea, nor his own doctrine delivered in his Commentaries. He prays not to Saints. And yet if he did, his rule were to be above his practice. p. 298  
82. The Adjoinder cavils the Bishop for oppugning their praying to Saints, by Reasons; yet himself brings most pitiful ones why we should do so. p. 288. & 289  
83. The Adjoinder so impious, as, if the Saints cannot hear us, to question how Christ himself can in his manhood. Esa. 59 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Adjoinder saith, Yea. ibid.  
84. Unlike comparisons used by the Adjoinder. p. 300  
85. The Angels discern not the secrets of hearts. ibid.  
86. The Adjoinders examples slow to prove his intents. His authorities rather more; (quoting that for Athanasius, which quotes Athanasius, quaest. 23. And yet against himself: Cordium cognitor solus est Deus. Nec enim vel Angeli cordis abscondita videre possunt. quaest. 27. ad Antiochum.) p. 301  
87. Martyrs pray only for the Church in general. p. 302  
88 S. Gregory's speculum, and how the Saints see all things in God. p. 303  
89. The Angels are not said to offer our prayers to God. ibid. & 304.  
90. The Rhemists make one Angel to mediate for another, and one heavenly Saint for another, because else they cannot construe that in the Apocalypse, cap. 8. v. 3. after their Popish sense, There were given unto him many incenses, that he should offer of the prayers of ALL Saints. p. 304  
91. Substantial service of God there must be none besides his word, though decent ceremonies be left to discretion. Caetera disponam. The Adjoinders instats to the contrary are answered. à pag. 305. ad 309  
92. The inditers of holy writ had commandment for their doing. p. 309. & 310. [vide & Irenaeum, lib. 3. c. 1. Per Dei voluntatem evangelium nobis in Scriptures tradiderunt, primò qui illud ipsum praeconiaverunt, etc. Sed & Aug. de consensu Evangelist. l. 2. c. extremo. Deus ipse scripsit quae Apostoli & Euangelistae scripserunt; Quia scribenda illis tanquam SVIS MANIBUS imperavit.] Certè autem manus si consultò agunt, nihil admodum agunt sine imperio animae; Ergò.)  
93. Baptism of young children hath sufficient grounds in Scripture. p. 310. & 311  
94. How the Church's determination stops heretics mouths, though the Scriptures are silent. p. 311. & 312  
95. The Canon of the Church of England, about the Cross in Baptism, no way guilty of the Adjoinders malapert slander. p. 312. 313. 314.  
96. A vivis ad Divos non sequitur consequentia. And what the reason is. p. 315  
97. Only Christ is mediator as well of intercession, as of redemption. p. 316. & 317  
98. The absurd blasphemy of the Jesuits, as if God the Father commended us to Christ his son; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 317  
99 The book of Daniel makes not for praying to Saints, or putting confidence in them. Origen against it. What is done for the Saints sake, is not done for their merits sake, nor to be drawn to Invocation. p. 318. 319. 320  
100 Big words of the Adjoinder, that the granting of 
The whore grows bolder.  our prayers is to be ascribed to the authority that the Saints have, not only to their suit. Aptissima muscipula ad idololatriam. p. 320.  
101. The Papists fail in their probations by the Father's touching prayer to Saints, for all their jolly cracks. More good Latin of the Adjoinders. p. 321  
102. The Adjoinders water will seethe no beef. He should have testimonies enough (he says) for praying to Saints, out of the Father's writings, but that in such and such ages very few Fathers wrote at all. p. 322  
103. The sign of the Cross hath antiquity to commend it, besides authority to command it: Praying to Saints hath neither the one to be respected, nor the other to be obeyed. p. 323  
104. Bishop's may err. (Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Episcopi vexant ecclesiam, sicut jobum uxor, & amici sui.) The safest relying (when all is done) is upon Scripture. Erunt stabula [fidelium] illic. à pag. 323. ad 326  
105. Father's scattered, miss of the validity that they have in Synods, (Vide Bell. de auct. Concil. l. 2. c. 2. Episcopos SEORSUM existentes spiritus sanctus non docet omnem veritatem; & ibid. in fine, Sine dubio SINGULI Episcopi errare possunt, etc. Vide eundem, c. 6. Alia ratio est Pastorum in Concilio congregatorum, alia vero dispersorum, etc.) p. 326  
106. Malum ex sanctuario. Sal fatuum. The Churchmen broach error. p. 327  
107. The Scripture wins the field, though the Fathers come in at triumph. And so meant S. Austen, when he charges upon julian, with the authority of six Bishops, as sufficient to convict him. Else we know six Bishops are nothing to weigh with the world of faithful beside. Original sin plain by Scripture, though the Adjoinder stone-blind cannot see it. p. 328. & 329.  
108. Once again the Adjoinders stale trumperies; from Benefits, and Miracles, to conclude for Invocation of Saints in bliss. But, Ter si resurgat, etc. p. 330  
109. Two witnesses not to be heard against Christ or his word: nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Peter's privy nip in Galat. 2. as Remigius conceives of it. But the Popes for certain, or whosoever is the prime. ibid.  
110. Corruption easily creeps into the Church. p. 331  
111. origen's wavering about Saints praying for us: &, Audivi quendam ità dicentem, etc. But peremptory that we must not pray to Saints, or heavenly Angels, but to God only through jesus Christ. à pag. 332. ad 339. latè.  
112. The Bishop's testimonies against praying to Saints, which he produces out of the Fathers, are far more pregnant than ab authoritate negatiuè, as the Adjoinder slanders him. p. 340. & 341.  
113. The Bishop's quotation of Athanasius most upright, and most authentical, though it please Mr. Adjoinder, either of blindness, or boldness, to deny that there is any such text in the book. By occasion of search, not only that, but seven more places of Athanasius are alleged, all of them near hand, and to the same effect, viz. that God only is to be adored, and prayed unto, not Creatures. p. 342. & 343   

CHAP. 9  
114. THe Bishop changes words, without changing the question, giving more light to it. He is not tied to terms, as the Adjoinder and they that have no great store of Latin beforehand. Earthly Monarchy disctaimed in show, but challenged in substance by the Adjoinder and his copesmates. p. 345  
115. Supererogation. The Bishop swerveth not from the state of the question. p. 346. 347. & 348  
116. The Sacrament not at all, Christ every where to be adored. p. 348. 349. & 350  
117. Adoration of relics. The Bishop constant to the question, though they cavil him for the contrary. Yea, so constant, that they carp him for his very constancy to the King's Apology, with the same breath. p. 350. & 351  
118. S. john was at a fault, worshipping the Angel. p. 351  
119. The Adjoinder turns all, into courting and complement, between the Angel and S. john. p. 352  
120. The very Popish authors will not permit us to worship Angels, since the Incarnation of Christ. So as the Adjoinder pleading for it, shows who is the jew, and the digger up of ceremonies, (like Sara under the Oak:) as he reniles the Bishop, but most senselessly, every where. p. 353  
121. No third kind of adoration. Therefore no religious to creatures. ibid. & p. 354  
122. Joseph's rod how worshipped by jacob. p. 355. 356. & 357.  
123. The worshipping of the footstool. Nabuchodonosors adoring of Daniel. Subjection to Infidels, is no disparagement to true virtue. p. 357. & 358  
124. Awodden reason and a wicked yielded by the Adjoinder, why it is called religious worship, viz. because done to religious persons, (But by that reason God himself should have no part in it, who bears religion to none. The Saints so let in, as God himself is shut out by our devout jesuits.) p. 359. & 360  
125. No adoration, and yet a civil adoration, makes no contradiction in the sense. ibid.  
126. Gregory de Valentia flatly denying religious worship to Creatures. p. 360  
127. The Bishop not to blame for expounding S. Hierome by S. Hierome. The Fathers more circumspect when they deal with adversaries, then when they write at large. p. 361  
128. More good Latin of the Adjoinder. Of the figure Catachresis out of Quintilian. His Rhetoric before he be perfect in Grammar. ibid. & 362  
129. Lingere pulverem is the same in effect with lambere lignum. They both signify humiliation with reverence. Save that lingere pulverem may seem to beseem Christians better. The smaller error therefore to put that for the other. S. Hieromes Epistle full of figurative speeches, which was the only intent of the Reverend Bishop in that place, and is justified abundantly. p. 363. & 364  
130. The Fathers against keeping relics, much more against worshipping of them. p. 365, 366, 367, 368  
131. The words of Gregory de Valentia more at large, condemning the religious adoration of Creatures, not only in degree, but in ipsa specie. The distinction of Dulia and Latria overthrown, and that both by the Scriptures, and by S. Austen himself, (though reputed the father of it) as touching the Popish sense. à pag. 368. ad 372  
132. Religious adoration granted and not granted to Creatures by S. Austen: not favouring the Papists, but because the word religious is equivocal. p. 369  
133. S. Ambrose is not for worshipping the Cross religiously. In Kings it is worshipped civilly, as Kings themselves are: yet but per accidens only. Else Helenaes' practice is against it, recorded and explained by S. Ambrose. Howbeit the consideration of it may [happily] excite us by way of remembrance to worship CHRISTRELLIGIOUSLY, as the Author of our redemption. p. 373  
134. The cross is not the cross, but Christ's suffering to S. Hierome, by his own explication. p. 374  
135. The Bishop answered all that was worth the answering, of the Cardinals. The Adjoinders stout arguing from Adam to Christ, for inherent righteousness and hasty perfection. p. 375. ad 378.  
136. The Adjoinder tangled in his own threads. Perfect remission of sin, without perfect exhausting of corruptions. The places of Esay and other scriptures so to be understood. p. 378. ad 381.  
137. The Adjoinder faulty of that which he finds fault with in the Bishop, though most faultless, as appeareth. King's grants are not to be interpreted against themselves. Constantine Episcopus Episcoporum to Eusebius. Neither King, nor Count, are precluded from councils, by ancient practice. p. 381. 382. 383.  
138. S. Austen hath but hearsay. Apparition proves not invocation. (Yet Athanas. ad Antioch. (the Adjoinders own author) against apparition of souls departed, for great reasons. Quaest. 13.) No trusting to Saints departed, by S. Austin's own rule, and that out of Scripture. They forget us when they are gone hence; as the Butler did joseph. His case a figure of ours. Saints merit that Angels may appear for them, if we believe the Adjoinder, and his gross conceits. p. 383. & 384.  
139. God appears in a bush rather than any other plant, because not capable of carving to make an image of, saith S. Isidore. p. 385.  
140. Calvin clipped by the Adjoinder most shamefully, even there where he cries out against false dealing. ibid.  
141. In the Bishop's book— placuisse nocet. And the best passage most spitefully depraved. p. 385.  
142. The last judgement not defeated, though merits were disclaimed. p. 386. & 387  
143. justus judex, is as much as clemens judex, in the Scripture-phrase. p. 388. (Certè Rom. 3. 25, 26. prima justificatio peccatoris (in qua nullum meritum intercedit, fatentibus vel Pontificijs) ter attribuitur justitiae Dei. Et sic fortè Psal. 62. 12. And thou, O Lord, art merciful: for thou rewardest every man according to his work. Whereas to reward according to works, comes rather of justice then of mercy. But there just for merciful, here merciful for just. Alternant enim usu Scripturae. Denique Genebrardus ipse in v. 6. Psal. 23. Sol justitiae (inquit) id est, Benignitatis.)  
144. Epiphanius worthily alleged by the Bishop. He remains peremptory against praying to Saints: also against images; and against the Excessive honour of the Blessed Virgin. She is inferior to Angels by Epiphanius account of her. Like Thecla, or like john, and no better. Epiphanius calls for Scripture, to be guided in this question. He renounces errors, though they be never so old. à p. 389. ad 394. latè.  
145. The Bishop is right in reporting the judgement of S. Gregory the great, about the fifth general Council. p. 394. & 395.  
146. The KING'S SUPREMACY sufficiently proved out of the 17. of Deuter by the Bishop. Fine foolish exceptions of the Adjoinder against it, are repulsed. à p. 396. ad 403.  
147. English fugitives to blame for depraving their country, which they should hardly discover (by the examples of Paul and joseph) though it were blameworthy. p. 403  
148. The Cardinal called Dotard. And, justly. ibid.  
149. More justly yet; because made to believe wrong tales about English Puritans, and then reports them to all the world. p. 404. & 405. (For my part I have kept the S. Mary's Church in Cambridge as diligently as another above this 20. years, and have observed so few omitting to pray for the King's Majesty in his Title, as if I should say, one, I should say more than I remember. Yet the Vniver sitie fashions the Church abroad; and one of them is glass to view the others face in.)  
150. Three Quaeres of the Adjoinder answered. p. 306. 307. 308.  
151. The Adjoinders civility towards the Bishop. The Papists hold lying in Sermons, to be lawful. p. 408. & 409.   

CHAP. 10.  
152. THe Adjoinders pageants. Poly-bombo-machides in campis Gurgustidonijs. p. 410  
153. The Bishop granting that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist, is never a whit the nearer to the Popish prodigious conceits about their Mass. p 412. & 413  
154. Suspensive wading in the matter of the Sacrament. Bellarmine himself forbids all to be spoken. Nothing surer than that Transubstantiation is rejected of all hands. ibid.  
155. To the Author of the Manna. Of S. Cyrill of Jerusalem. Nothing brought out of him, neither for Transubstantiation, nor yet for the real presence. He condemns Sarcophagy, or the conceit of flesh-eating in the Sacrament, in plain terms. à pag. 414. ad 420  
156. As much Transubstantiation in Baptism, as in the Lord's Supper, acknowledged by S. Leo. [Add thereunto S. Prosper in Epist. ad Demetriadem. His words are, Fit nova creatura de veteri, & in corpus Christi CONVERTITUR caro peccati.] S. Cyrill will not have his scholars to believe him, whatsoever he says of a point, unless the Scriptures affirm it. p. 416  
157. The Sacrament to be worshipped, neither during the act, nor yet after celebration. And yet Christ, in it. Calvin sober and deliberate in that point. The Bishop dissents not from the rest of our Divines, about the worshipping of Christ, and the rather in his Sacrament. à pag. 421. ad 425  
158. Christ is to be worshipped with the Sacrament, in a good sense; The Sacrament not in any sense with Christ. The Adjoinder throws dirt, but it will not stick. pag. 425. & 426.  
159. About the Reward, and against the Merit of good works. The reverend Bishop far from praevaricating. Their rage against him shows his integrity and sincerity in the cause. They that hold of merit, hold of [judas] Iscariot, by S. Hieromes Etymology of the name; to whom the Scripture allots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves not merit. justice proves not merit. Vasquez and others, how far they go in avouching merits, beyond that which the Adjoinder pretends to be the ultimum in the doctrine of Popery. à pag. 426. ad 438  
160. God is honoured in his servants, if they be honoured intra praescriptum. Else not honoured, but dishonoured in them. The Adjoinder is earnest for his kissing-devotion; and namely, towards Relics (where as kissing Baal is worshipping of Baal, in the language of the holy Ghost, 1. Reg. 19 18.) Origen against this fancy: Christ's spouse must not be too frank in entertaining his mates, though we should allow him sodales, Cant. 1. 7. (as the Jesuits do socios, and socias, very promiscuously) 
The first Jesuits called suij Christi, Christ's fellows, (that you may know their humbleness from their very cradle) Massaus, & alij.  or participes, Psal. 45. 7. but, prae quibus incomparabiliter ipse unctus est. p. 438  
161. The Adjoinder allows the same religious worship to God and to the Saint in all respects; so the intention do but make the odds. (By which reason we may also sacrifice, and build Temples to Saints; two things which themselves reserve as proper to God at other times.) p. 429  
162. From the Bishops most advised grant, that Relics may find honour with us, the Adjoinder rashly reasons, that we may therefore yield them corporal reverence, yea any corporal reverence. p. 440  
163. Processions. ibid.  
164. Of Miracles, latè, a pag. 440. ad 447. (The sum is; 1. That neither are Miracles requisite now (of which point see M. Sand. l. 1. c. 12. the clave David, 
Certè 2. Tim. 3. 8. Resistentes doctrinae, comparantur cum iis, qui restitere miraculis, quasi ipse iam successerit in corum locum, sibyl probatio maxima sit. Porro ostenditur invicta esse absque alio adminiculo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. At fortè parùm apertè; Imò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oppugnantium; idque velut olim sub Mose. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Denique Chrylost in 3. Tim cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. notat Christum non statim ut natus est operatum esse miracula: Serò qs●ippè post in Cana Galil. joh. 2. Et tamen sermones eius obtinebant pondus iam pueri, vide●anturque digni quos Maria cord conseruaret. Inter quos porrò fuerat, & de Patre eius Deo. Quod dogma maximum. Valet ergò Doctrina & sine Miraculis.  that SIGNA CESSARUNT; alleging it for areason, why the Pope cannot destroy with bare word of mouth (but only with sword) as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira (though fond they fain that his authority is the same) viz. because miracles are now no more stirring in the Church:) 2. And that if they were needful, we have our part in them; Insomuch as certain Jesuits in the time of Queen Elizab. being boarded at Sea by one of the Queen's ships, (set out for that purpose) and they having letters of treason about them, they tore them into pieces as small as they could, and flung them into the Sea (the wind also then being very high) purposely to abolish them. Which afterwards being recollected, and set in order again (by the industry of the Queen's agents) disclosed their designs; So as finally one of the principal of that 
A jesuite-priest acknowledges a miracle in the detection of his Treasons.  confederacy, confessed to the Lords at his Examination, that it was not without miracle, non sine miraculo, etc. See Mr. Cambden hac dear; Annal. rerum Anglic. & Hibernic. regnant Elizab.)  
165. S. Austin's miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs (if they were any) yet infer no worshipping of them; neither in the nature of the thing, nor in S. Austin's judgement. Also meliores Christiani did not then, as the many. p. 448  
166. The Adjoinders Poperio no way consequent to the Bishop's principles. p. 449. & 450  
167. Of Monks, and Monasteries: from p. 450. to 459. (To whom because the Adjoinder challengeth such perfection, add we to the rest, the testimony of Gelasius, Aduersus * Andromachum 
Sed quem alij (ut video) Andronicum.  Senatorem, & caeteros qui Lupercalia retinebant (prout extat apud Binnium, Tom. 2. Concil.) Age modò, quid vis dete? Numquid, quià in Monasterio sacro non es, in plebe sacra non es? (The Plebs is sacra, to Gelasius; Yet he adds) An ignoras totam Ecclesiam SACERDOTUM vocitatam? All the faithful are Priests.)  
168. evangelical Counsels, Vows, Monkish perfection, etc. à pag. 460. ad 469.  
169. The name Catholic. What virtue is in names. The Adjoinders objections and authorities answered, à p. 470. ad 484. (Oppone & Athenag. Apolog. (pag. 6.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; ubi scil. non respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et (pag. 5.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. etiam (ut citatur antè opera justini Martyris,) citans ipse justinum, lib. contrà Marcionem (qui iam quidem non extat) Quòd à Marcione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, invasere nomen & Christianorum. Sed quomodo? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (Vt scil. videas quatenus nominibus fidendum, cum Pontificijs nostris.)  
170. The English Clergy wants no lawful Ordination. à pag. 484. ad 494.  
171. The SUPREMACY of KINGS, both in Temporal matters and Ecclesiastical. Defence 
Quod hic obiter tractatur de Mose quòd Rex, aut Regis instar, (p. 508 in marg ut & antè p. 396.) quamuis nondum introductâ Regni formâ in populum; (etsi olim vellicatum est in Reverendo Episcopo à vesanientibus Papistis,) tamen recipit confirmationem & à S. Hieron. come. in Esa. 51. qui de Abrahamo ipso sic scribere non dubitat. Nos sumus genus domini regal & sacerdotale, qualis fuit & Abraham, qui rex appellatus est, & caeteri sancti de quibus scriptum est, NOLITETANGERE CHRISTO●MEOS  of our Acts of Parliament, as not exceeding the due proportion in their allotting of Supremacy; of the reverend Bishop also, as not defective therein; à pag. 494. ad finem usque. (For CONCLUSION of this point, and in behalf of both Nations, (now blessedly UNITED) whom the Adjoinder here severally and surly tasks, for their judgement about the Supremacy, harken what Mr. Cambden in his Annals reports, (a sufficient Author against them, though he be ours) first for the Scotchmen anno 84. (which is three years later, then that which the Adjoinder here cavilleth them by; that we may not doubt with the reverend Bishop, but they waxed, and wax daily yet, more and more conformable, etc.) Regia authoritas hoc anno in omnes subditos tam Ecclesiasticos, quam Laicos, in perpetuum confirmata: Regem sc. & consiliarios idoneos esse judices in omnibus causis; qui autem judicium declinarent, laesae Maiestatis teneri, etc. And for the English (whom he challenges as enlargers of the Supremacy too far, the Scotchmen too little in comparison of them) Anno 59 (p. 39 edit. Lond. in fol.) Cum calumniantia ingenia Reginam sugillarent, quasi titulum SVPREMT CAPITIS ECCLESIAE ANGLICANAE, & authoritatem sacra in Ecclesia celebrandi arrogarit: illa edito scripto declarat, se nihil aliud arrogare, quam quod ad Coronam Angliae iam olim iure spectavit: scilicet, se, sub Deo, summam & supremam gubernationem & potestatem in omnes regni Anglici ordines, sive illi sint Ecclesiastici, sive Laici, habere; quòdque nulla extranea potestas, ullam in eos jurisdictionem, vel authoritatem, habeat, aut habere debeat. And this is, either that which Socrates saith, Praefat. lib. 5. histor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (adeòque Synodi, atque eae vel maximae) or which, Concil. 6. Gen. Constantinop. Alloc. ad justin. Imper. Quòd POST SUPERNUM MOMENTUM, (as Hervetus translates it) [summum] humani generis suscepisset gubernaculum. Sed manum de tabula.   
Πάντοτε δόξα Θεῷ.   

 

  

  

  

 
⸫ Hugo etiam Cardin, in 1. joh. 5. Spiritus est potentia saecularis. Vim quidem haec Hugo afferens Textui non uni, sed ne putent Pontificij, Equos nostros esse CARNEM tantùm. Add Cornel. à Lap. jesuit. in 1. Tim. 3. Salimon fecit duas columnas in Templo, quarum illa jachin, id est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, siue direction ut declararet & alia, & imperium regum Israel circa regimen populi secundum pietatem, purunque Dei cultum. Altera vo abatur Bosz. i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Latin executio. Quorum utrumque Regibus ad divina necessarium. Et fuit utraque columna coronata. Denique huc alludit Apostolus (autumante Cornel) verbis iis, Ecclesia est columna & firmamentum veritatis, etc.