YOV knowe Romannus, if so you re­member, that through a meere acci­dent, or rather a determination of God about Easter was 12. moneths, you and I did meet; when after some words of controuersie, wee fell into a discourse touching my beeing a­broad at that festiual time, which oc­casioned some further matter touch­ing a scruple in my mind then vttered vnto you, my not re­ceauing of the Communion, neither then, nor at anie time before.

Indeed Tuberius, I remember it wel, as also the summe of our talke at that time deliuered; I hope I satisfied you in that point, how necessarie to salvation it is for euerie Chri­stian man to participate of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacra­ment of the supper, so that for that matter, I hope you need no farther lessons.

For the necessitie therof I am resolued; but yet by the settling therof, there is an orher question annexed to it, which I am afraid wilbee noe lesse a maine barre vnto my conscience, for not receauing now, as that other was before of doubt, whether I might receaue at all or not; the former of the thinge, this other of the beleife of the thinge! For not to hide from you anie thinge, which maie breed my disquiet, but to acquaint you therwith, since my last being with you, I did light into other companie, where talking of questions of saluatiō, I related vnto them so much of our conference, as touched the maine point of necessitie of receauing that sa­crament, and was told by them, that I did verie wel in appre­hending so hie a point in the worship & seruice of God; But when Irelated, what manner of man you were, in laying o­pen [Page 2]vnto me, what a sacrament was, of the dignitie and worth of that sacrament, and lesse that I had, the while that I abstained, and other instructions therto belonging, as at the latter end you did, they perceiued what you were, and were noe lesse an­gry vvith me for attending you therin, then offended with you for instructing mee that waie. They called themselues Catholikes, of others they are vsuàlly stiled Papists, but what­soeuer they be in name, me thinkes their care ouer me is ve­ry good, that I should enter the right waie touching my bee, leife in that sacrament.

Why? what perceaued they by my wordes of that sacrament?

They take you to hold not Catholiklie of it, nei­ther as our Lord and sauiour jesus Christ did first institute it, nor as the ancient times of 1500: yeares, by Fathers, counsels, and Doctors did; and therfore they wished mee to make a stand, and pause, before I ioined with you therin; For you teach, that they who receaue it at your hands receaue only a peece of bread, One of Hard­ings slanders and a draught of wine, not worth anie thing and so call it a sacrament of the Lords institution, wheras he gaue his bodie, his reall substantiall bodie, & so his disciples did eate him reallie, and substantiallie, and dranke his verie blood, and to beleiue this is healthful, holy, & religious, and they that receaue it so, receaue it, as Christ instituted it, and they who doe otherwise, Rhem. I. Cor. 11. fol. 453. in fine paginae. Magnus nuga tor magno co natu magnas nobis nugas parit. receaue noe sacrament, but prophane bread, as they called it; This they did saie of you then, touch­ing the difference betweene them and you in that question; and that in all other things, al antiquitie & consent of al ages were for them & nothing for you.

I doubt not, but they are verie bitterly eloquēt a­gainst vs, when opportunitie is offered of a fit audience, their tongues & pens are miserablie valiant. But me thinketh Tu­berius, you are remember, that both Christ himselfe, al ages, and all Doctors & counsells doe make for them against vs; ordinary [Page 3]abilitie cannot comprehend this in so short time; much like vnto a sillie gentlewoman with whom of late I talked also, who being not aboue one quarter of a yeare from her freinds returned home, with arguments as strong as yours in defence of her new obtained religion, shee could talke what a good booke the Rhemists bible was, she could saie the Scriptures were written in Greeke and Latine, For the Rhe­mists testamēt For Hebrew & Greeke. I saie not that they did teach her so simply, but simply she re­mēbred what they said. Laur. Vaux ba­chelot of divi­nity, in his ca­techisme. ca. 3. taketh awaye the 2 commā ­demēt of gra­uen images, & insted of that teacheth them Greeke Written in la­tin by Gasper Loarte, doctor of divinitie & translate dinto english fol. 76. would haue vs beleiue con­trary to that which the gospel expresseth. and therfore people shold praie in latine; naie she could distinguish betweene an Idoll and an Image, obseruing that the second commandement, was onlie directed against Grauen Idolls, as she tearmed them and not against Grauen Images. And yet nether before shee went, nor now can she read english; to such a method vvas she brought to too quickly, to knowe what she said. I doubt not but she had bin so instructed, but not by M. Vaux, for he to make sure worke, hath taken that commandement who­ly out of his catechisme (as remouing a block as belike stād­eth not in their waie, which noe wise man will euer bestowe anie labour about) recompencing his breuitie in that point, in telling the vse of certaine Greeke words, Latria, Hyperdulia & Dulia: where a learner is taught to worshipp anie creature in heauen or earth, and commit (as he thinketh) noe I dolatry but noe otherwise then if a grand theife should teach a puny to steale by precept, and when hee had committed the fact (that is, had stolen in deed) saie it were not the deed, and so leaue him to the gallowes. Or if it had bin her luck to haue bin schooled by him that composed the instructiōs and adver­tisements how to meditate the misteries of the Rosary, hee would haue taught her a more compendious waie to haue defend­ed it by, or anie other point, then by a distinction, which is, although the commandement forbid vs the worshipping of anie Image, yet wel for our parts maie beleiue and doe otherwise. For so hee saith plainlie in an other question, though not of that waight, yet of that clearnes, where speaking al in honor of our blessed Virgin Mary, doth not sticke to sale, that our Lorde & redeemer did presentlie after hee was risen vp visit [Page 4]his most holie mother, vvhom we maie vvel beleiue to haue bin the first, albeit in the Gospel, there be noe mentiō made therof; For, saith he, if (as the Evangelist reporteth) our Lord did, Luc. 24. after he was risen vp appeare to S. Peter that had earst denied him, whie should not wee beleiue that hee appeared first to his blessed mother that neuer denied him? Here is a plaine lesson, a graunt that the Scripture teacheth so and so, & yet vvee maie beleiue otherwise. Thus as their affections lead them, either to the things or persōs wherof they speak, so doe they in their conceipts bend the course of their argu­ments; Other amongst them, ad those of the greatest doe referre this appearing of our Lord to Saint Peter, De rom. pont. lib. 1. c. 20. fine. for S. Peter, aboue al the disciples. reckoning it amongst his prerogatiues, as Bellarmine, whoe affirmeth that Christ rising, appeared to S. Peter first of al his disciples, con­firming it by S. Lukes Gospel, and the witnesse of S Ambrose, who saith that of the men Christ appeared to Peter, for be­fore (saith he) Christ had appeared to Mary Magdalene, and that he further confirmeth out of S. Paule, howe that Christ rising the third daie, was seene of Cephas and then of the Eleuen, 1. Cor. 15. Abdias Apost. hist. l. 6. fol. 188. Hard. cont. Iu­ell art. 1. fo 25. Ei primum omnium. vt & Ma­riae Magdale­nae & Petro apparere vol­uit. Reyn. confer. with Hart c. 8. diu. 2. Sutc. cont. Bel. de rom. pont. l. 2. c. 6. Rhem. Marc. 16. v. 1. Mat. c. 28.1. afterward of more then 500. brethren, and after to S Iames. On the other side Abdias (described to be an anci­ent writer, first Bishop of Babylō, who was the Apostles scholler, and saw our sauiour in flesh, and was present at the passi­on and martirdome of S. Andrewe, and S. Mathewe) speaking in the honor of S. Iames, doth saie that our Lord woulde ap­peare to him first of all, as he did to Mary Magdalene, and to Peter; vvhich indignitie of these men against the Gospel, & graclesse exposing it vnto the worlde as vertue, is not only taxed by our learned writers, as being dealt iniuriously with­al, but their owne Rhemists both confesse according to the truth of the text, that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene & Mary of Iames & Salome, called by S. Mathew the other Ma­ry, and acknowledge it by their note, That she first before al o­ther & they next, saw him after his resurrectiō. But the Rhemists seeing the Scripture hath giuē this prerogatiue of appearing [Page 5]from Peter to the woemen, will stretch hard, but euen tou­ching that, some what in it, shal be his prerogatiue; for when the weomen are bidden to telis to the Disciples & to Peter they say Peter is named in speciall (as often elswhere) for prerogatiue. It is said of Midas, that he wished every thinge he did touch, might be gold, I thinke they are as so manie Midasses, every thing they deale in maketh for Peters prerogatiue; a simple prerogatiue I thinke it is for him to bee named after all the Disciples.

Here bee shrewd accusations indeed, they accuse you, and you accuse them, on whom shal I & such other that stand in doubt betweene you, relie? They are very famous for their learning and paines taken in defence & iustification of their cause, their volumes and bookes are many, and it maie be your replies & answers are as large, but here is the doubt who saith true.

Iuell to the reader in the def. of the A­pologieIndeed it cannot chuse but pitty everie good mā in behalfe of his vnlearned brother, to see his conscience thus assalted this daie, with so contrarie doctrines of religion, especially when there is a zeale to followe, and men knowe not what, and would faine please God, and cannot tell how, or if they finde not themselues armed with Gods holie spirit, not are able to discerne their meat from poison, nor to wind thē selues out of the snares, for Sathan transformeth himselfe in­to an Angel of light; 2. Cor. 11. the wicked are more watchful & vehe­ment then the Godly, and falshood is oftentimes pointed & beautified, & shineth more glorious then the truth. These be the things which as S. Paule saith worketh the subversion of the hearers, and by meane wherof, 2. Tim. 2. Mat, 24 as Christ saith if it were possible, the very elect of God shoulde bee deceaued. Not­withstanding, God in these daies hath so amazed the adver­saries of his Gospel, and hath caused them so openly and so grossly, to laie abroad their follies to the sight and face of all the world, that noe man now bee hee neuer so ignorant, can thinke he may be iustly excused; it is but tolle, lego. take vp & [Page 6]read, read and vnderstand by Gods assistance. But the indis­cretion of manie in the world that doe stand doubtful of the truth betweene them & vs, is equivalent and semblable to that answere which I once hard a Master giue to on that had bin his Factor, (or rather indeed his fractor) in a case not vn­like to this, about some difference between them of accoūts, the Factor pleaded his innocencie and truth, by the plaine­nesse of his proceedings, in deliuering his bills and reckon­ings to his Master from time to time to be examined; his M. replied, you haue so done indeed, but you knowe that I nei­ther did nor would looke on them, It is noe base­nesse for the greatest to de scend & looke into their own estate. Bacon sE. of expēce. nor examine thē, I foūd by that answere, that the reason whie the Master would not nor had anie liking to veiw them, was, because hee woulde haue libertie at anie time as occasion serued to say he could not tell whether his man deceaued him or not. Wheras if hee had but taken the paines to haue examined his mans dealings, hee might haue bin assured, to haue found how he had behaued himselfe towards him, whether true or false: so fareth it in these daies with vs, painfull workes there are enough, some of great volume, some slighter, al concerning the truth of our cause, which all men maie see and read, but that which galeth vs, and most tieth our adversaries to themselues and their er­rors is, that they who condemne vs, knowe vs not, whether we be white or black they neuer obserue, Albi an atri si­mus, nesciunt. who say we are he­retickes & dispisers of the Church, and yet neuer read what we hold, nor examine vs in any thinge that we doe, as pub­likely complaineth a great scholler of our side, D. Doue of Recusancy. c. 2, and I my selfe haue oft had experiēce. And therfore in few words between them and vs, I can saie as the ancient father Arnobius said a­gainst the Gentiles; whē they accused the christians of those things, wherof themselues were guiltie; even in the verie en­trance of his conference he testifieth roundly to the world, Arnob. contra Gentes lib. 1. in princip. in these words Efficietur enim profecto rationum consequentium copulatu, vt non impij nos magis, sed illi ipsi reperiantur criminis es­tius rei, qui renuminum profitentur esse cultores at (que) inveteratis re­ligionibus [Page 7]deditos. It shalbe proued (saith he) by the ioining of our reasons to gether, that we are not so wicked, as they lay to our charge, but that themselues are founde guiltie of that wherof they accuse vs, who doe professe themselues worship pers of the Gods, and only retainers of the anciēt religions. But if you or any other wilbe amated with anie streame of words to beleiue that part, without looking into the matter, reasons proofes, drifts and arguments of al sides, wherby you maie rightly iudge indeed, the same Father telleth you againe Quid est enim quod humana ingenia tabefactare studio contradic­tionis non audeant? Arnob. Ibid. l. [...] fol. 102. what is it saith he that the witts of some mē dare not ruinate with the studie of cōtradictiō? yea although that which they studie to ouerthrowe, be pure and clear and hedged with truth on everie side, and who cannot (saith hee) dispute with arguments of great liklihood, yea although he defend a manifest vntruth & lye? The roote of this error & vaine consequēce he toucheth in the next words following Cum enim sibipersuaserit quis esse quid aut non esse, amat quod opi­natur asserere. When a man hath perswaided himselfe, that a­nie thing is so, or not so, he then loueth what he apprehend­eth, and desireth to excell others in sharpnesse of wit, especi­alliy if the matter which is dealt in be remote, hid, or darke. But God be thanked those learned diuines & reuerend pre­lats before mentioned, and a number other in this age, with their infinite toile and paine haue threshed and winnowed for vs the doctrine and differences of the Church of Rome, and this of England, they haue performed the first part of the Apostles speech which willeth to trie all things, 1. Thess. 5. [...]1. the latter part resteth vpon vs to followe, that that which is good bee kept; nether can there be a keeping of that which is good, without a triall of all things doe goe before; so that I dare pronounce there is none who maie not if he will, see on which side the truth is, Epist. 105. M. & to this purpose I doe remember a sentence of the Godly and learned father S. Augustine, which is Ignorantia in cis qui intelligere noluernut, sine dubitatione peccatum est. Igno­rance [Page 8]in them which are notwillng to learne, without doubt it is sinne, in them which cannot learne, a punishment of sin; in both there is noe iust excuse, but iust damnation.

It sinketh not into my head, that men otherwise learned and verie religious, should so wilfully hood wincke themselues against the truth; as in this last declaration it seemeth you meane they doe; for besides their owne words (and few of their bookes haue I yet seene) in iustification of themselues; I see a famous Catholike Church of theires I meane Rome, who hath bin and yet is renowned for suc­cession of Bishops, This hath bin and yet is, maketh all the er­ror. Iulius Cae­sar was once faithful to the Romans: but affecting Soue ranitie he cō ­tinued not so: so the Church of Rome was agreat church amongst the rest: But now it beareth witnes of it selfe, as Simon Magus said That hee was some gre­at mā Act 8.9. Their vsual ta­bles in writing which they giue to their freinds containing a Cata­logue of the Bish. of Rome. and continuance of Apostolike doctrine, vvhose gouernor & head is the Pope, vvho keepeth it in the same integritie, and soundnesse of doctrine, that S. Peter our Lords cheife Apostle vvhose successor hee is, did, vvhen hee sate, and ruled there as he doth now. I tell you I haue a table of the Bishops of Rome from S. Peter to Climens the eight, vvho latly deceased as the speech was. You cannot shew me the like of any Church in the world, but of that. Al churches saue a fewe of late yeeares, haue ever acknowledged that Church for the mother and head of them al, and whatsoeuer was amisse vvas thither referred and determined, & therfore if you will oppose your selfe against them or their religion, you had need bringe sound arguments, or else they wilbee quickly confuted.

See now, you require that of mee already, vvhich you cannot performe your selfe. To enterinto the discussing of the points of doctrine vvhich concerne either side, you haue nether abilitie nor iudgment, by reason you are but newly begun to be tutered by them; And then if I shoulde of my selfe discourse of them vnto you, you vvould in the end say of my labour therin, as a merrie fellow in Wilteshire said of an hare in a course with his dogge: when my dogge was let slip at the hare (quoth he) she went forth right, & was before my dogge some foure acres bredth; But my dogge fetcht her and gaue her a turne, and awaie she goes againe, & [Page 9]then he gaue her another, and did beat her, so that she had many turnes & wrenches; but in the end (quoth he) the hare went awaie, and had nether turne nor wrench: so if I should shew vnto you the vnsoūdnes of the doctrine of the church of Rome from scriptures, Fathers, Counsells, & Doctors, yea & of the intrusions of Bishops into that sea, which you (from them) call succession, you would giue me the hearing, & how soever I did beat the hare, in giuing her manie wrentches & turnes, yet you would saie she went from me in the end, and had nether turne nor wrentch. I am not ignorant in what painted Cyphers, In the 1. petition to his Maiestie Adde fidem dictis. Ovid. Me­dea. Ias the Catholikes did of late a greable to your report of them, set forth their religion, calling it venerable for antiquitie, maiesticall for amplitude, constant for continuance, irre­prehensible for doctrine; inducing to all kind of vertue and pietie, dis­suading from all sin & wickednesse; A religiō beloued by all pri [...]tiue Pastors, established by all Oecumenicall counsells, vpheld by al ancio [...] doctors, maintained by the first and most Christian Emperours, recor­ded almost alone in all Ecclesiasticall histories, sealed with the blood of millions of Martyres, adorned with the vertues of so manie con­fessors, beautified with the paritie of thousands of Virgins so conform­able to naturall sence and reason, and finally so agreable to be sacred text of Gods word and Gospell. Of which speech of theirs I will saie noe otherwise nowe, Cor. Tac. hist. l. 2. c. 27. then Tacitus doth of Ʋitellius the Emperour of Rome in these words. The daie following (saith he) as though he had spoken, before the Senate and people of a strange Citty, he made a glorious speech of himselfe, ex­tolling his owne industriousnesse and temperancie; when as they vvhich hard him, of their owne knowledge, vvere wit­nesses of his lewd actions, & al Italy besides, through which he marched for drowsinesse and riot notoriously infamous. Two pillars wherof the Papists must rest. Whitak. cont. Dureum l 9. de Sophia. There are two notable pillars which vphold the Church of Rome in al her buildings, vnknowen to you yet, (but heraf­ter better may be) against which if you leane, they wil surely deceaue you; on is. The Church of Rome cannot erre whatsoeuer it teacheth, the other The Bishop of Rome ought not to bee accused [Page 10]what soeuer he doe. Vpon such pillars as these they maie reate what vvorke they wil; and so they doe, but it fareth with thē as it was wont to the false Prophets, One buildeth vp an mud­dy wall, Exech. 13.10. and others dawbe it over with a rotten plaister. But because it hath pleased God to bringe vs againe thus luckely to ge­ther, I wil bend our conference for this time to some good purpose, that you goe not altogether awaie without profite. Will you graunt mee but so much, as common humanitie will afford anie man, or the meanest courtesie of freindes al­lowe?

I wil alowe you any reasonable graunt, whereof if you doubt, you doe me wronge; it may be you deeme me so affectioned, that I wil neither heare nor read anie thinge a­ganst my humor. I would not haue you so thinke of me, that were more beast like to follow the first of the heard, then ac­cording to anie Christian course; and if anie should wish me to it. I should the sooner mistract them, and grow the weari­er of them.

You say well, and my request shalbe yet more rea­sonable then you would deeme it to be, you are you saie vn­able to dispute of the points of doctrine betweene them & vs, vntil you be further instructed in them.

I confesse it, I haue only hetherto heard their our report, without either their proofes, or your acceptions.

Why then this I saie (which you or anie man be­ing neuer so vnlearned maie vnderstand) if all their points of their religion be good & sound. Catholike & according to Scriptures, Fathers, Counsells, Doctors. & histories, viz. their Masse, their sacrifice, their reall presence, their meritinge of heauen; their free wil in good and holy things; their praying to Saints their seruice in an vnknowen tongue; The points in con rouersie betweene vs. the forbid­ding of the lave people to read the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue. The Bishop of Romes authoritie, worshiping of I­mages: and a number of questions else; What need then is there, for the Doctors of that side, such as haue written in de­fence [Page 11]& proofe of their cause, Harding, Dorman, Saunders, Stapleton, Allen, Cope. Bellarmine, Rhemists, Dureus, and manie o­thers, to misaleadg any, Doctor, Counsell, Historie, or Father either by corrupting of the text, The Doctors that defēd thē The manner of handling them. or quoting of places not to be found; to vse any vaine and foolish shifts in answere, such as any may perceaue to bee feeble & weake to deliuer their mindes so doubtfully, that an English man in the English tongue shal not vnderstand vvhat they meane; to be so con­trarie and opposite on to an other; and many times each frō himselfe, to dispute for that which they confesse, is not so ancient nor so good, as the contrary. It is an olde saying, a rich man need not bee a theife, and a good cause at their handes cannot bee lost for lack of pleading, only that which want­eth is the truth of the cause, they haue bin fashiōing of it these many yeares, & euer & anon there comme some experter masters than formerly, vvith some fresher vernish, but noe better prose; some tast of this dealing I gaue the readers be-but a more larger euidence and veiw shal follow after, in di­uers of the points mentioned, that all the vvorld shal see & confesse, that the popish religion, at this day taught and pro­fessed, by the verie confused handling of it, is nothinge lesse then accient, catholike, and true, which shalbe so faithfully col­lected, that they shal not be denied, to be their owne, and so plaine for vnderstanding, Peruium cun­ctis iter Sence in Oct. art. 2. that although you conc [...]aue little or nothing of the questions thēselues, yet you shall perceaue the weaknesse of their side, by the manner of laying downe their proofes and defences.

When I shal see that performed substātially, which you haue here promised confidently, I wil surly stay my hād from subscribing, & my harte from consenting to anie such doctrine, as shal stand vpon such proofes.

By the grace of God I wil not faile to shew it you you shal not take any thing vpon report, you shall see and read their owne bookes and discourses themselues, and since now you are the man vnto vvhose conscience I appeale for [Page 12]your consent to our side; let me shew you the dutie of a rea­der in a case of controuersie betweene two, noe otherwise then D. Harding in his Reioynder against B. Iuell touching them both doth lay it down to you and me, and al men else. To the reader The dutie of a reader. Consider I require thee (saith he) what is thy duty. Remember thou be not partiall towards either of our persons. Let all affection be laide aside. Let your conscience be the rule of both loue & hatred. Let nei­ther hope nor feare haue place in your hart, to win or loose by either of our fortunes, yea if you can so conceaue let our bookes represent vnto thee, not Iuell & Harding, but two men Iohn & Thomas departed this worlde, to noe man liuing knowen to haue liued. And when you haue left of all affection touching our persons, then study to discharge thy minde of all blind parciality towards both our doctrines abandon­ing all humane likings and carnall phantasies & with a single eie, & simple hart, behold & imbrace what is good & true, only for loue of God, and for the truthes sake. Being thus desposed, commend your selfe vnto God with praier, beseeching him to lighten your vnder­standing & by his holie spirit to lead you vnto the truth. This done with an humble hart, read both our Treatises and iudg: yet this much I saie in case of necessitie, not to all in generall, but to certaine, such as by other meanes will not bee induced to consider of the truth; The reply, is that which B. Iuell wrot a­gainst him. for o­therwise I acknowledge, that both the REPLY, and all other here­ticall bookes by order of the Church, without speciall licence, bee vn­lawfull to be read, and are vtter he forbidden to bee read or kept, vn­der paine of excōmunicatiō. Remember I saie the part of a iudge is, to iudge (as the Lawyers speake) secundum allegata & probata, that is to saie, as things be alleadged & proued: Beware everie thing is not proued for which authorities bee alleadged, Nota bene. neither is all made good, which by probable arguments seemeth to be concluded. Allega­tions must be true, plaine & simple, neither weakned by taking awaie, nor strengthened by putting to of wordes, nor wrested from the sence they beare in the writer; else they bewraie the feeblenesse of the cause for proofe whereof they be alleadged, & also the great vntruth of thē that for furtherance of their purpose abuseth them: if they haue cor­rupted their witnesses, or brought in false witnesses, if they haue vn­truly [Page 13]reported their Doctors, & shamfully falsified their sayings, thē ought you to giue sentence against them, then is their honestie stain­ed, then is their credit defaced, and then is their challenge quiet da­shed. Thus farr D. Harding. Mat. 27.24. And Pilate tooke water and wash­ed his handes before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the bloud of this iust man: euen so cleare is M. Hardinge and his fellowes frō misreporting the Doctors, or falsifying their sayings, or in not committing any thing wherof they would seeme to be most free, as anon shal appeare.

Me thinketh, by these words of D. Harding & by your request made before vnto me, that both parties on both sides, require nothing more then that al their readers should ponder & waighe the allegations, & proofes both of the one side, & other, and then iudge of the truth accordingly, but I feare he meaneth nothing less, because he saith that both the REPLY, & al other hereticall books, by order of the church without speciall licence, bee vnlawfull to bee read or kept, By hereticall bookes hee meaneth the protestants writings. which inference abridgeth the libertie of reading, & conse­quētly of iudging by any indifferent way or meane, to come to the knowledge of the truth: For the heathen Poet could deliuer a good speech to that purpose, by the very light of naturall discourse

He that not hearing either part, ponounceth his decree, Vnrighteous mā accounted is, though right his sentence be.

I did includ so much in mine owne speech vnto you before, but that perhaps you wil sooner approue of your owne obseruation, then my collection. And to tel you truly which you shal certainty find by conuersing more with thē, they doe not suffer the common laitie amongst them to see or read or heare any thinge without speciall licence, & so much and such parcells, as it shal please them▪ But those that they knowe are so stiffe and obstinate that nothing will a waken their vnderstanding, perhapps they will giue some small li­bertie [Page 14]of reading, the better to colour their denial to others: And this doe they not only touching the vse or reading ei­ther of the holy scriptures, or of the protestants bookes, Hard cont. Iu­ell art. 2. fol. 56. In the counsell of Basil the vse of the cup was grāted to the Bohemiās: be­cause that cus­tom was then amongst them Geneb Chro­nic. l. 4. f. 1067 Hard. art 15 read the whol but especially fol. 195. Ibid. fol. 198. b Freder. Staph. In Apol Mat. 7.6. Swine & Doggs. Hard. Reioind fol. 63. Diuis 7. fol. 14. but they forbid the vse of part of the sacraments without their leaue; For the same Doctor in other places of his workes a­voucheth the Church, hath libertie to take away the vse of wine in the administration of the Lords supper from you of the Laitie, and to restore it againe, vpon their liking & con­siderations. And in an other Article, he limitteth you so that you shal not reade the holy bible, without licence and leaue obtained; beecause as hee saith God by speciall prouidence kept the vulgar people of the Iewes from reading the old te­stament That precious stones should not be cast before swire, that is to say, such as be not called therto, as being for their vnreuerent cu­riosity & impure life, vnworthy.

Staphilus an other of that side commended by D, Harding for a man of execllent learning, & on of the Emperours coū sell that then was, did not sticke likwise to abuse a place of scripture to that purpose Giue not that which is holy vnto dogges. so by D. Harding the Laitie are accounted Swine, and by Sta­philus Doggs. In which respect D. Hardinge needed not in his Reioynder, to haue charged the reuerend Bishop his adversa­ry for reporting his words falsly & dishonestly, as hee saith hee doth, when in the first article of the reply, the Bishop hauing said that by some of them (that is of that side) the common people are said to be Doggs, & Swine (quoting the 15. article. fol. 155. of. D. Hardings booke, meaneth not that M. Harding did vse both those tearmes of Doggs & Swine, but that hee vsed one of them; & some others of his fellowes the other; M. Har­dinge not content so to vnderstand him, maketh an vndis­creet noise, and biddeth read the place who will, & hee shall finde M: Iuell an vtrue reporter, & himselfe cleare of that odious saying: (as if it were so capitall a crime; to put both them wordes on him that shall vse but one of them) For in that place (saith he) is not so much as the name of Doggs. but there is of Swine say I: & [Page 15]so you haue from M. Harding the same answere in effect, that a simple fellow gaue to those that asked him, howe hee had sped against those that would haue begged him, because of his vnsufficiency to gouerne himselfe & his affaires: I haue done wel enough with them (quoth hee) for where they thought to haue proued me a foole, the best was, they coulde finde me but an Idiot.

Neither are Staphilus & Harding the first who haue made such account of the people of God as to account thē Doggs & Swine; their masters before them Peter Lumbard & Thomas of Aquine, hath refered that text of Iob Bones arabant, Lumb. sent. l. 3 dist 25 b. Tho. Aq. 2. 2. quaefl 2. art. 6. sed. cō tra. Iob. 1.14. Minores signi ficabantur per asinos, debent in credēdisco­herere mai [...]l bus qui per boues signifi­cabantur vt Gregor expo­nit. 2. moraliū & a­sinae pascebantur iuxta eos, The Oxen were ploughing, & the Asses were feeding in their places, to the Preists & people; taking the Oxen ploughing to signifie the Preists reading of the scripture, & the Asses feeding, to be the people not tro­bling their heads with such matters, Credunt enim quae igno­rant, habentes fidem velatam in mysterio, For they beleiue they knowe not what (saith Lumbard) hauiug their faith foulded vp in generalities. Thus doe some of thē cal the Laity Doggs, some others Swine, & others compare them to Asses. O that they would wipe their faces from these spots, before they call vs black or ill fauoured!

If we that be of the Laitie, bee noe more account­ed of by them, then you haue laid downe out of their owne bookes, our knowledge & iudgment shalbee lesse then they are, if they can tell howe to keepe vs vnder: And I perceaue they can tell wel enough if they maie deterre vs from read­ing the word of God by such collections, as those which you haue recited.

Hic fige pedem. Doe but here staie your footing, & I wil shew you far more abhominations thē these. Ez [...]c. 8.6.15. The wres­ting & rocking of such places of scriptures as these, some to one purpose, & some to an other, Polid. Virgil. deinvent. rerū l 4 c. 9. f. 337. 338: did make Polydorus Virgili­us a verie great papist who liued here in Englād in the reigne of Henry 7. to giue but an homly censure of them. For intrea­ting [Page 16]of the antiquitie of Cardinalls at Rome (he saith) there bee some who haue deduced the originall of them from the Hebrewes more corum qui cum obscuri sint inani nobilitatis nomi­ne sibi blandientes, The originall of Cardinalls. alius ad Achillem, alius ad Aeneam, alius ad Namam Pompilium suum genus referunt; as those are wont whoe beeing base of themselues deriue their pedigree some from Achilles, some from Aenas, & others from Numa Pompi­lius. And so did one Siculus Andreas Barbatius, who to get in fauour with Bessarius the Cardinal, put forth a Commentary to that purpose, But saith Polidore because I will not wearie my selfe any further with quoting of the man, you shal heare how he beginneth himselfe, Ipse iam incipi at suum narrare commentū. According to our english translations. 1. Sam. c. 2. v. 8 Hostiensis a most famous popish doctor. writing of that matter. Occurrit inquit illud quod 1 Regum cap. 2. pulcherrimè scriptum est. Domi­ni enim sunt cardines terrae & posuit eos super orbem. That saith Siculus is further to be remembred which is excellently written, in the 1 booke of the Kings, & 2 chap, The pillers of the earth are the Lords, & he hath set the world vpon thē: which text of scripture Hostiensis the great Doctor doth referre to bee meant of Cardinalls. For as the dore is turned vpon the heng, so is the Church of Rome gouerned by the Colledg of Cardinalls. Thus far Barbatius. Now followeth the mislike of Polidore, Polydore mis­liketh the pa­pists for rack­ing the scrip­tures in that manner. for their handling of holie scriptures so prophanely vide non secus isti Iurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sacras literas quò volunt, acsutor [...]t sordidas solent dentibus extendere pelles. See (saith hee) these same Canonists or Lawiers doe diuers times wrest the holy scriptures whether they list, as shomakers doe wrest & retch their leather with their teeth.

Surely the comparison of Polidore is more cleanlie, then their dealing with the scriptures is tolerable; Be these they that pretend such holinesse & zeale to the holy scrip­tures? It appeareth not by their dealing they doe so; Laie mē would carrie a more religious and more reuerend regard of those sacred Oracles thē such church men doe for ought that I see. But I perceaue they keep the Laitie from reading, bee­cause they should not vnderstand, their interpretatiōs if such [Page 17]wrestings may be tearmed interpretations.

Now iudge you, how cā their questiōs be testified and proued out of the holy scripture, when the sentences of holy scripture are so far of from them, Qui pote est habere idoncā id, quod sequi­tur causam, cū ipsum illud primum à quo defluit sēcun­dum inanissi­mum esse repe riatur & vacu­um, & nulla so liditate firma­tum? Arnob. cont Gent. l. 7 fol. 268 Arn. ib. fol. 278 Sed quid face. repossumus cō siderare nolē ­tibus penitus res ipsas secū ­ (que) ipsos loqui? frō which they would drawe the truth of their assertions? If the foundation bee not settled, the building wil euer totter. I doubt not but many amongst them, see the confusion of their cause euen at hand nay I dare apply that speech of Arnobius against thē which he did against the Gentiles, Non nobis est sermo cum hominibus rationis expertibus, ne (que) quibus non sit communis intelligentiae veri­tas. We spend not our talke with men who are void of reasō, nor with those who haue not a common simplicity of vnder standing; you haue wisdome, you haue sence verum (que) nos di­cere apud vos ipsi inter iore iudicio scitis & you knowe in your most innermost thoughts thet we saie true. But what can we doe to those, that wil not sift the truth themselues to the quick, & dispute euē with themselues; you doe that which you see done, not that which you iudge ought to be done, veri­ly because Custome hauing noe reason with it, doth more sway with you quam rerum inspecta natura veritatis examinatione pō ­derata, then substance of matter examined according to the waight of truth. Now to goe a little further, touching that sentence of Polidors mislike of their racking of the scripture to shew that they would make sure worke, if they could tell how; & since I cannot lay too much to their charg that they deale against vs, as against their owne consciences; I wil tel you how they wil deale with their own Polidore: They rea­ding that sentence in his booke, to make against them, Corrigenda: sunt at (que) de­lenda. doe commande that it bee corrected & put out, as by their Index expurgatorius appeareth.

To be corrected and put out, as by their Index ex­purgatorius appeareth, what meane you by that? I vnderstād you not, is it a booke, or what is it?

It is a little book gathered together in manner of a table or index, with warrant enough by the decree of the [Page 18]Tridentine counsell, by the authoritie and commandement of the Catholike Kinge Phillip the second; and by the ad­uise and furtherance of the Duke of Alba. The drift of it is this, Iuxta sacri cō ­cilij Tridenti­ni decretum; Philippi 2. re­gis catholici iussu & autho­ritate, at (que) Al­bani ducis cō ­silio a ministe­rio in Belgia concinnatus. anno. 1571. Where there are diuers volumes & bookes (for the vse of schollers both Protestants & Papists) as Fathers & doctors diuine and humane, because they wil haue nothing come to their schollers sight, that shal make against the Church of Romes doctrine, by the paines of diuers men, they haue run ouer a number of writers Diuines, Lawiers, Phisitians, Philoso­phers, Mathematicians, & humanists, & haue quoted the pla­ces that offended them in this Index, & tould their schollers that they must either correct them in the bookes, or wipe thē out, if they doe chance to studie anie of those bookes there named, dash them out with a pen; doe anie thing with them, so they rise not vp in iudgment against them. Amongst all which authors, Polidore Virgil is one, in whose poore booke they haue willed to bee mangled & blotted out aboue an hun­dred seuerall places, of all which it seemeth they are fowly ashamed. Instāces I could produce manie, but that it is not material in a case so cleare, one or two maie suffice. In an o­ther place, speaking of the cheife heads of the Commandemēts he reckoneth this for the second, Nullius animalis effigiem co­lito. Thou shalt not worship the liknesse of anie liuing crea­ture. Po [...]. Vir. de inurer l 5. c 9. fol. 435. The collectors of the Index, doe command that sentēce to be wiped out: and not to be read at anie hand. If they bee not afraid that the second commandement against grauen Images is directly against them, whie doe they takeit out of their Catechismes as Ʋaux, and wipe it out as they doe here? Their index doth yet more miserablie bewray them, Vt Liber Ber­trami Pre. byt. de corp & sāg domini tolera riemendatus queat fol. 11. 12. in Indice. for in shewing how the anciēt Treatises of on Bertrame a priest which teacheth as we doe, of the sacrament of the altar, may be suf­fered to passe for good, if it be amended, doe testifie to the world. That they can by some desised shift, denie whatsoeuer errors they finde in the ancient fathers, & extenuate them, and deuise an apt sence to anie of their testimonies, when they shal be vrged by the [Page 19]adversaries in disputations and conferences; Non videmus cur non eandē aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus Ind. ib. Senec. in Herc Oeti. Act, 3. Geneb. Chron l. 4. fol. 790. Nonnulla ta­citè corrigens quae de ea quaestione Bertra­mus Presb. paulo ante minus scitè & cōmo­de ad Carolū Calvum rescripserat. & they see noe rea­son, whie they should not vse that equitie & diligence tow­ards Bertrame, as towards the rest of the Fathers, Scelera quae quis (que) ausus est, hoc vicit malum. This dealing passeth al that cā be imagined. They that gather the Index confesse that this Bertrame was verie famous and beloued of two Emperours; Charles the great & Charles the Bald, And Genebrard incert­eth, that about the yeare of our Lord 877. a question beeing made in the sacrament whether the eating be corporallor spiritu al, Paschasius the Abbot wrot therof learnedly; And covertly corrected manie things, which Bertrame the preist had writē therof a little before vnto Charles the Bald, not so fitly and so skilfully as he should: so wee maie perceaue by Geuebrard aswel as by the gatherers of the Index, that Bertrams booke is a great block in their waie,

If this booke doe so manifestly discouer their tre­chery, as by your report it appeareth it doth; would they suf­fer it, to come in sight to be knowen of you, who they knewe would accept against it, and also make a great historie of it?

Noe I warrant you, they never ment it should be seene of anie Protestant, they were sending it to their owne Vniuersities & schooles of learning beyond the seas, Ex officina Christophori Plant. an 1571 Iun. in epist ad illustrissimum principem Io­annem Casimi rum. Hunc foetum genuerunt illi sed nascentem inter genua sua presserunt & as it was a going was intercepted; The verie Authenticall booke of their owne impression singulari numinis prouidentiâ by gods prouidence was brought to a great Protestant, who toke the pains for thē to send it by copies, vnto al Protestāt Churches in Christendome, so that that birth of theirs, which like ano­ther monster they were diuers daies and nights in bringing forth, & thought when they had brought it forth, to haue stifled it between their knees, doth now liue in good liking, through good cherishing, but to the perpetuall in famie of the parents. An other helpe like vnto that before in effect, they doe also vse to make their schollers to thinke that the ancient Doctors of the Church doe all make for them. The elder schollers and those that read vnto the rest, take paines [Page 20]most in the controuersies, & hauing found what liketh thē to confirme their doctrine doe write it in breife & deliuer it in notes to their schollers, out of their written sheetes, ne­uer suffering them to looke into the doctors originalls thē ­selues; so that whensoeuer it please the Masters to coggorly either by adding or abating the text which they finde, the schollers are deceaued & abused, thinking such & such au­thorities doe make for them, when if the grounds bee look­ed into, they shew nothing lesse, then they quote them for: which dealing of the Masters with their owne schollers, cau­sed a faithfull teacher of this land, Reinolds con­ference with Hart. c. 1. diuis. 1. fol. 4. to wish his Concumbatāt for his owne good, to looke into the originall books them­selues for proofe of that which he was to dispute of, because he knewe hee would otherwise bee deceaued, if hee trusted those on whom he meant to relie, which was the greatest & freest liberty, that could be graunted to anie man.

Thus much haue I bin willing to shew by the way at first, Sic. habent principia sese Ter. in. Phor. Act. 3. scen. 1. touching their politick (but not religious) courses, in astoni­shing the world, vvith that religion, vvhich only is boulstred out, by manie indirect courses, perceaued euerie day more & more. I wil now according to my first intent goe forward to set before your eies, the manie differences and implications, which they vse in expressing their minds in that question of the sacrament, betweene them & vs, remembring here noe other thinge then that which themselues doe euer giue in charge, In the explica­tion of the true catholike faith in the sa­crament. f 4. b Then is the doctrine of the Church of Rome not the truth, as shall manifestly appeare hereaf­ter. to be regarded & advised vpon, & to be ioined with that good counsel of D. Hardinge set down before. Amongst manie other proofs (saith Gardiner) wherby truth after much trauaile in contention at the last preuaileth & hath victorie, there is none more notable then when the verie adversaries of truth, (who pretend never the lesse to be truthes freinds) doe by some euident vntruth bewraie themselues. For on that part ever is the truth where al sayings & doings appear vniformely, consonāt to the truth pretended; And on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest maie be iudged after the [Page 21]same sort, for truth needeth noe aide of lies, craft or slight, NOTE WEL wherwith to be supported & maintained. So that in the intreating of the truth of this high & ineffable mysterie of the sacrament, on what part thou seest craft, shift, slight, or obliquitie, or in anie one point an open manifest lie, there thou maiest consider whatsoeuer pretence bee made of truth, yet the victorie of truth not to be there intēded, which loueth simplicitie, plain nesse, direct speech, without admixture of shift or colour. Thus farre Gardener.

To this purpose also speaketh D. Saunders, Protestantium inter se dissensiones certissimam fidem faciuat doctrinae veritatem non penes illos, verum penes ecclesiam Romanamesse. Devisibili mo­nar. l. 7. f. 627. The dissentions amongst the Protestants (saith he) doe make evident proofe, that the truth is not on their sides, but altogether on the Church of Romes, wherin amongst the beleiuers, there is one hart, one soule, & on tongue, vnder one Pastor the Pope Now, if (notwithstanding their braggs of truth, & evidence of truth, & nothing but truth on their side) there doe fall out in searching of their bookes that they doe nothing lesse thē further that, which they most extol, I hope you will not laie the fault & blame on me, that doe but shew that so they doe but rather on them, whoe deliuer such matter. Si illum obiurges vitae qui auxilium tulit, Terenc in. An­dr. act. 1. scen. 1 quid facias illi qui dederit dam­num aut malum? saith the Poet, If you blame him that shal further your health by his best indeauour, what wil you doe to an other, that shal seeke to bring you into danger? But indeed all their clamours against vs or petite glozes in de­fence of themselues, or faire admonitions to their read­ers, Actor. P Clo­dius aedilis Reus, sui que patronus Cice ro acta in sen. anno. Cicero­nis 51. vrbis. 697. de harus­picū respōsis. to beware of vs, are but as that accusation of Publius Clo­dius against Tully, who hauing himselfe sacrilegiously abused certaine holy things appertaining to the Temple; and fear­ing least Tuily would accuse him in the senate, first complain­ed of him that all religion, was prophaned in his house.

I both perceaue what you would saie, as also what you are willing I should conceaue touching their dealing in [Page 22]these matters: Goe to the question of the sacrament I pray you, because in that they pretend most perspicuitie & clear­nesse.

I knowe they doe, In confidence wherof, on that was great amongst them once said, Camp. rat 2. Adhuc durissimae partes Caluini sūt, nostrae faciles & explicatae. Moreouer the Protestāts are verie harsh in this question, but our arguments are cleare & expedite, which whether it be so or noe iudge you. The counsell of Trent (which they al follow; Conc: Trid. less. 13. can. 1. & on whom they al depend in this and all other points) hath thus defined therof Si quis negauerit &c. If anie man shal denie that in the sacra­ment of the holy Eucharist, there is not contained vere, reali­ter & substantialiter, truly, really, & substantially, the body & blood together with the soule, & diuinitie of our Lord & sa­uiour Iesus Christ, & in that respect whole Christ, let him bee accursed negauerit (que) mirabilem illam, & singularem conuersionem totius substantiae panis in corpus or shal denie that maruelous & only conversion of the whole substance of the bread, Can. 2. into the bo­dy, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the showes of bread & wine only remaining, which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation; let him be accursed▪ Can. 8. gaine, if anie man saie, That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist, to the intent to bee eaten spiritually, & not also sacramentally, & really, let him be accurs­ed. Not to speake heare, how blasphemous & contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper, the verie manner of their handling, & seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious, & yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors.

For first, it must follow of their words, if the whol substāce of the bread be turned into Christs body, then is the body of Christ made of bread; as is verified in the decrees, which saith The bodie of Christ & his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance, De Cons. dist. 2. can. vtrum sub figura. of bread and wine. Then will it follow, that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh & blood [Page 23]of the virgin Mary. Hard. cont. Iu. art. 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of mak­ing our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies, both avoi­deth his own authorities, & ouerthroweth his Transubstantia­tion: for thus he saith, Where the bodie & blood of Christ is said to be made of bread & wine, beware thou vnlearned mā, thou thinke not them therof to bee made, as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine, nether that they be made of bread & wine as of a matter: but that where bread & wine were before, This is noe trā substantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie & blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary: To say where bread was before, there is the bodie of Christ, as M. Harding saith: is a departing, or anni­bilation of the bread, a comming of it as it were to nothing, & not a transubstantiation, a turning of the substance of the bread in­to the substance of the bodie of Christ, as the Trent fathers define. Againe, if bread be made the body of Christ, or is the bodie of Christ, as they are willing to grant; why shoulde it not be said, to be made of bread as of a matter? If it bee made of the substance of bread, why not made of bread, as of a matter? Againe, They themselues teach vs, Lumb. l. 4. dis. 1. b. Alan. de sac. in gener. l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat. 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iu­ell art. 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal. l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac. l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont. haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge, or a visible signe of an invisible grace; so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our cō sents: Now least there should be anie, strife what those two things are, they teach moreouer, that the on is earthly, & the other heauenly, so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father; who saith this being not commō bread, but the Eucha­rist after consecration, consisting of two things, earthly, & he­auenly, what that earthly thing is, al men may vnderstād that wel, to be verie bread, the substance of bread, except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted, that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents, that is, the tast, colour, waight, show, sauour, & fashion, of bread. What earthly thinge the tast. colour, shew, waight, and sauour of bread can bee, I appeale to anie indifferent iudge. So that to say as the Trent fathers saie, that [Page 24]noe substance remaineth after consecration, Transubstanti­ation ouer­throweth the nature of a sa­crament. They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other. Tons l. 1. f. 30. & 48. b. ex. cā conc. Nicen. considera di­vinā vim quae in aquis latet. Step. Gardin. fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament; and to take awaie the earthly part of it, & instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ; putteth the Person of Christ God & man in the roomth.

But see how they retaine the true nature & definition of a sacrament in the one, & destroy it in the other. They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water, & the invisible grace of the spirit; the holy Ghost commeth down & halloweth the water; there we cōsider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water, there wee consider our baptisme, not with the eies of our flesh, but with the eies of our soules. And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh & drinke his verie blood to cō tinue & augmēt the life receaued; so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme, In both sacra­ments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl. l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body & drinking of his blood, & in both sacraments giueth, dispenseth, & exhibit­eth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements. In both sa­craments the blood of Christ is included; the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme, is nothing but that the soule be washed & rinced with the blood of Christ. If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme, if Christ can giue & exhibite himselfe (as he doth indeed) vnto vs, with­out anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the e­lement of water, we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper, Lumb. l. 4. dist. 9. a Torren. l. 3. c. 6. parag. 3. fi­ne vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh, & drink his blood, without anie transubstantiation of the bread, & wine; Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that, Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants, & other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum, Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the bo­dy & blood of Christ, when in baptisme he is made a mem­ber of Christ, & that he is not without the fellowship of that [Page 25]bread & the cup, although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup, he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie, for he is not made frustrate of the commu­nion and benefit of that sacrament, whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament. If infants and o­ther faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme: I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar, without any transubstantiatiō of the bread into the body of Christ? Vt ante can. 8. sacramentally & really; are a tearmes con­trary & yet cō founded. More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally & re­ally; which two tearmes (as they vtter them) are very opposit; for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall & substātiall body of Christ, what is eaten sacramentally? Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally, & is eaten sacramentally, by his spirit present, & by his grace, as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme, & that is properly sacramentall.

Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament, Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramen­tally. they say there be three sorts of Receiuers: some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners; others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith, thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally & spiri­tually both together. Which three waies may bee taken for sound & Orthodoxall, 2. Spiritually. who cannot for the time communicate. if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally. If by sacramentally they mean really, fleshly, and substantially, as at the first they treated of his presence there, 3. Sacramentally & spiritual­ly who doe cō municate as they ought. Ioh. 6.54.56. Sacramentally & Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons, doe eate his verie flesh, and drinke his verie blood, as they saie they doe; since the worde of life it selfe, that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said, He that eateth my flesh, & drinketh my blood, hath eternall life, & I will raise him vp at the last daie: And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & I in him? And by the third waie described, that those eate him sacramentally, & spiritually, who doe duly prepare themselues, & puting on the wedding garmēt, doe come vnto that holy table, doth breed an other scruple [Page 26]how sacramentally can stand with spiritually, vnderstanding by sacramentally, Really & sub­stantially may stād to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really, fleshly & substā ­tially, those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants, who say the wicked doe eate sacramētally only, that is the sa­crament of his body and bloud, & the godly sacramentally & spiritually, that is bread and wine with the hand & mouth & the body & blood by faith, and noe otherwise, which are the right vse of the words sacramentally & spiritually; Againe, I may demand of them, why they doe not describe the pre­sence of Christ to be spiritual & sacramental, aswel as describe him so to be eaten? they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good & bad: and to al men good & bad they describe him presēt really, truly & substantially body & soule diuinitie and al, & yet eaten only sacremental­ly & spiritually: now it is not possible to be thought, but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament▪ excludeth the cor­porall; as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall; nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule, as al men knowe; And therfore if they will dissent from vs & not from themselues also, they must dispute either of a cor­porall eating of the flesh of Christ, De manducati one corporis domini, sit ne illa vera, antropica, sensi­bilis an insensibilis, modo corporeo an spirituali. l. 4. chron. fol. 790 Fallacia alia a­liā trudit. Ter. in And. act. 4. scen 4. De sac. euc. l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. & l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only (as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since) & not to a corporall to adde a spiri­tual, of one & the same thinge; nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall, spirituall, & reall. Againe (it is alwaies seene, one absurditie draweth on an other) I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily & properly eaten in the Eu­charist by our body, & sent frō the mouth into the stomake; that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the com­municants, and is verily receaued by the mouth of the bo­dy; small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth & belly; Faith must haue other food; if it were so, it should not be said Crede & manducasti, beleiue & thou hast eaten: but lay hold with thy hand, & thou art safe.

[Page 27]The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Ro­mish Cathechisme, gathered by their decree, Catec. Rom. p. 1. art. 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right sēce of the article, ouerthroweth Transubstan­tiation. & published by Pius quintus the Pope. The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen, and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie, doe say the right sense of that article is, that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue, that Christ, the mysterie of our redemption being per­fected and finished, vt homo est, in coelum corpore & animâ as­cendisse, as he is man; is ascended in body and soule into hea­uen. For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence, Vt qui diuini­tate, sua loca ominia cōpleat The causes why hee ascē ­ded. ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascenti­on. ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie. And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen, one is bee­cause by ascending (say they) hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection: and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen, they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit. that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen, & inflameth them with a diuine spirit, for it is truly said, There our harte is, Marc. 6. where our treasure is, & surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis no­stra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu & consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations, would be placed in the looking & maner of him, & we shold behold him only as man, becaus he had don so great things for vs; But ascending into heauen, it maketh our loue heauenly, and causeth that whom wee think of be­ing absent, him we worship and loue as God; which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of Transubstantiatiō, Catec. p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ; that same that was borne of the Virgin & which is ascended, and sitetth now (& euer shal) at the right hand of his father in heauen, to bee transub­stantiated into bread, & to bee contained in the sacrament, Ibid. fol. 187. & this to be done without mutation or change of place, or a­ny strange creation, which they doe so much abiure. If since the mysterie of our redemption wrought and finished, Christ [Page 28]as man bee ascended into heauen, and thither in soule and minde we ought to mount and goe after, and that it be good for vs that he ascended, and bee there; as agreeing to the scripture which saith seek those things which are abous, where Christ sitteth one the right hand of his father they doe teach; Is it not earthly and grosse to seeke him in the earth, and substantial­ly and fleshly to haue him? And is it not a great hinderance to the spirits of our minds, and bringeth it vs not into earth­ly cogitations which are euer to be shunned? If they say true in the one assertion, Omnis contradictio est ad i­dem. they erre in the other, for both cannot be true. At one & the same time, they make the same Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of his father according to the dimensions, parts, and proportions of a true body, & the same Christ at the same time in the sacrament without dimē ­sions, parts, or proportions of a true bodie, which is wholy to ouerthrow the truth of his body, and vtterly to disanull our beleife therof, a part wherof is, that he is in heauē with those dimensions, and distinction of parts wherwith hee liued on earth, and wherwith he was crucified, and so died, was buri­ed and ascended.

The Rhemists in their testament followe the same stepps. They say it is plaine by the scripture, Rhem. Heb. 9. v. 20. & 10. v. 11 that the blessed chalice of the aultar (at their Masse) hath the verie sacrifical blood in it that was shed vpon the Crosse: the like they affirme in other places of the body. Now as the Trent fathers Catechisme, & Rhemists, are found to speake impieties and contradictions in this first question of the presence of Christ in the Eucha­rists vsing some tearmes, As. 1. Really 2. Substātially. 3. Sacramētal­ly. 4. Spiritually. Of the Sacri­fice of the Masse. as may be easily yeilded vnto, as be fore is shewed; And some others which repunge their owne grounds, and be altogether different from them; so before I goe to others of them, I wil shew how these goe about (& in­deed it is about) to make their Masse a sacrifice, that is to say to offer the reall, fleshly, & substantial body of Christ to god his father; the same which he offered on the Crosse for the sinnes of the world. They cannot tell in this what tearmes to [Page 29]vse but veile their meanings with such words that furthereth neither their cause, nor hindreth ours. Conc. Trid. sess. 22. in pref. de sac. missae. On the Crosse on sacrifice that was bloo­dy. Cap. 1. The counsell preten­deth to intreat of the sacrifice of the Masse quatenus verum & singulare sacrificium est: so far forth as it is a true and soueraigne sacrifice; Christ therfore our Lord although hee was to offer himselfe once on the aultar of the Crosse, & that with death to work there our eternall redemptiō, yet because the pre [...]st­hood by his death was not to be extinguished, he did leaue to the Church his most beloued spouse, at his last supper the verie night hee was betrayed a visible sacrifice, wher in that bloody sacrifice, which was to bee donne but once on the Crosse, might bee represented, and that the memory of him should be continued to the worlds ende: and therfore he be­ing a Preist after the order of Melchisedech, offered his body and blood, vnder the formes of bread and wine, to God his Father. And further they saie, because in this holy sacrifice which is performed in the Masse idem ille Christus continetur & incruente immolatur, the same Christ is contained, Cap. 2. The sāe Christ offered vn­bloodily. Apropitiatory sacrifice. Can. 1. & offered vnbloodily, whoe did offer himselfe once one the aulter of the Crosse bloodily, the holy synode teacheth that this sacrifice is trulie propitious, & that whosoeuer shal say that in the Masse is not offered to God verum & proprium sacrificium a true and proper sacrifice, let him be accursed.

So by the Trent Fathers we must beleiue the Masse to be a true soueraigne & propitiatory sacrifice, & the same which Christ offered on the Crosse. But marke their tearmes; In the sacrifice of their Masse is represented the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse & there is he offered vnbloodily; these tearmes they shal haue of vs; we say the Lords supper is a sacrifice, as it is the passiō of Christ, that is, a thankful rememberance of Christs passiō, and that Christs blood is shed in a mysterie. But with them, how is Christs sacrifice represented, if the same Christ be really offered, who offered himselfe on the Crosse? What need the same thing to be a remembrance of it selfe, and in the one to offer himselfe painfully & bloodily, and in the other-same-sacri­fice, [Page 30]to be offered nether painfullie nor bloodily If hee be offered but vnbloodily in the Masse, Nec cruentè nec paenali mo do Allē de euc. sac. l. 2. c 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot. heb. 9. v, 20. The very blud in the Chalice Allen de sac. euch. l. 2 c. 11. realis imm ola tio. Rhem. annot. heb. 9.1. v. 25: Christ offered vnboodily. Rhe. Mat. 26. v, 28.2. mysti­cally. [...]. In a sacra­ment annot. Luc. 22.19. fol 205. Camp. 2. rat. Sacramentalis mactatio c. 14. fine how agreeth it with a reall offering and reall pre­sence. how saie the Rhemists that the very blood which Christ shed on the aultar of the crosse is in the Challice, at the time of the Masse? Or D. Allen that there i [...] a reall offering of the body of Christ, as there is a real presence; so that I see not, if they meane as they speake, whie they mince the word vnbloodily as they doe. Would they say that blood is shed? let it be shed; let not blood be shed vnbloodily, they knowe not how.

If the Trent Fathers & Rhemists, by their tearme vnbloodi­ly doe meane mysticallie, as they saie in an other place, wee a­gree with them they shal haue vs reasonable. It is shed in a mysterie, not executed indeed, and that is rightly tearmed a mysterie; & not as they saie in a mysterie, that is really: Or he is now immolated or offered (as they are driuen to saie) in a sa­crament, which wee saie also; but not in a sacrament, that is re­ally and substantially; Omne aenigmaticum, omne offusum caligi­ne loquendi. Al this is darke & couered with mists. D. Allen stil ouerthroweth himselfe and them too; for hee saith againe, that in their Masse there is onlie a sacramentall killing or sheding of blood; which we also wil neuer denie; for in the Lords supper we haue the death of Christ in a mysterie, in a figure, or sacrament. Christ is there killed sacramentally, for there we see the death of the sonne of God, there wee see that hee tooke our heauinesse, and bare our sorrowes, was wounded for our [...]ffē ­ces, and was rent and tormented for our wickednesse, and in this respect the ministration of the holie communion is of the learned fathers called a sacrifice, because therin wee offer vp vnto God the father thankes & praise, for that great sa­crifice once made vpon the Crosse. But for the same sacrifice that Christ offered with blood, that same to be offered daily in the masse without blood, or how blood shoulde bee shed there vnbloodily as they inferre, noe age of the Church ne­uer yet knewe, since Christs time, but the petite deuisers of late:

[Page 31]Saint Augustine that ancient learned Father could in few and plaine words describe vnto vs the perfect signification of the sacrifices of the old law, Tom. 6. cont [...] Faustū Mani. l. 20. c. 21. fine. Camp. rat 9. de Sophis. ec­cum quos gy­ros, quasrota [...] fabricat Rhem. Annot. heb 9. v. 25. Marke S. Aug. words before he vseth none of these opposite ill fauour­ed tearmes to expresse the sacrifice of the Church after his ascention his sacrifice on the Crosse is frequented by a sacramēt of remembrāc saith he. Praeter hoc i­gitur & ante hoc sacrificiū mortis, aliud pridie institu­it & fecit ipse id (que) nec cruē ­tè, nec paenali modo, Allen l. 2. c. 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot. heb. 9. v. 12. & of our sacrament now, and what relation they both haue to the sacrifice of Christ, with­out any such obscure or obtuse tearmes as these men vse. Hu­ius sacrificij caro & sangnis ante aduentum Christs per victimas similitudinum promittebatur. The flesh & blood of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of Resemblance, the same was performed indeed in the time of Christs passion, post ascensionem Christi per sacramentum memo­riae celebratur, but after Christs ascension, it is frequented by a sacrament of remembrance. And to this of Augustine they shal haue the whol Church of England subscribe, & therfore let them take home the slaunder they lay vpon vs, in that wee vse circular turnings or windings, in our disputs and aunsweres with them. That the Rhemists are as dark and obscureas any other of them in this question, it wil appeare to any that will read their notes, which more at large I will nowe shewe. As Christ neuer died but once, nor neuer shal die againe, so in that violent, painfull, and bloody sort, hee cannot be offered againe, nether needeth he so to be offered any more, hauing by that one action of sacrifice vppon the Crosse made the full ransome, redemption, & remedie for the sinns of the whol world, Ne­uerthelesse as Christ died and was offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the law & nature, since the beginning of the world, al which were figures of this one oblation vppon the Crosse; so he is much rather offered in the sacrifice of the al­tar of the new Testament incomparably more neere, diuin­ly & truly expressing his death, his body broken, his blood shed, then any figure of the old law, or other sacrifice that e­uer was, as being indeed (though in hidden sacramentall and misticall and vnbloody maner) the very selfe same blessed body & blood, the selfe same host, oblation & sacrifice that was don vpon the crosse. Againe they saie, noe one of the sacrifices; nor al the sacrifices of the old law, could make that one ge­nerall [Page 32]price, ransome & redemption of al mankind and of al sinns, sauing this one highest Preist Christ, and the one sacri­fice of his blood once offered vpon the Crosse, which sacrifice of redemption cannot be often done, One only sacrifice on the crosse the re­dēption of the world, and on only preist Christ the re­deemer therof The Masse a commemota­tiō of Christs sacrifice. This sort. because Christ could not die but once, though the figures also therof in the law of nature & of Moses were truly called sacrifices, as especially this hie and marueilous commemoration of the same in the holy sacrament of the aultar, according to the rite of the newe Testament is most truly and singularly (as S. Augustine saith) a sacrifice; But neither this sort. nor the other of the old law, being often re­peated and done by many Preists could bee the generall re­deeming & consummating sacrifice &c.

You would thinke that in these two verses of their anno­tations, they had handled that text as though they had mēt, that Christ dying but once, had need neuer to haue died a­gaine. Noe more shal he saie they; for in that violent, painful and bloody sort (as hee died on the crosse) he can neuer bee offered againe; here they exclude his dying againe, or often; but not his offering againe, or often: It is maruaile they did not deuise how he might die againe, so it were not in that violent, painfull, & bloody sort as his death was on the crosse; as wel as deuise such an offering, as shalbe neither violent, pain­full, nor bloody: so where they should lay their reasōs, to proue either a reall offering or not; a reall dying or not, they leaue it in the halfe & come in with manners & respects, altering cleane the nature of the thinge; For nether coulde Christ himselfe (much lesse any mortal man) offer himselfe often without dying often, as is most plaine by the Apostle in the 4 last ver­ses of that 9. chapter, so their fumbling here, is with as ill suc­cesse as D. Allens before cited, whoe maketh a reall offering (which they stick at, vnlesse they will haue it neither violent, painfull, nor bloody, and then wherin is it reall) & a sacramentall shedding of blood. Againe they saie that that one action on the Crosse made the ful ransome for the sinns of the world; what need any more sacrifice for sinns then, as their is? But being [Page 33]the same that his was, whie doth it not redeeme as his did, euen as a generall price & ransome, or let them shew wherin the defect is, that being the same Christ, Heb. 10.12. it should not haue the same effect? Christ saith S. Paule after hee had offered one sacrifice for sinne, sitteth for euer at the right hand of God.

Furthermore, that reall immolation which D. Allen speaketh of, foundeth more then this hidden, sacramentall, & mystical of­fering or immolation, which they speak of here, otherwise they maie speake of a reall betraying, a reall crucifying, a real sheding of his blood, & powring out of it on the ground now, & then qualify them with a hidden, sacramentall, and misticall maner. But what caused them in this 12. verse as before set downe, to cal their Masse a commemoration of Christs sacrifice, & when they haue spoken of the Iewes sacrifices, & of Christs, But neither this sort nor the other of the law. &c. to cal their masse by an other name This sort? Doe they take their masse to bee a different sacrifice from that of the crosse? a commemoration of it, as they call it, & not the same, but of an other sort? D. Al­len hath manifest words to that purpose, making that which Christ did at his last supper, and that of the masse now, to be of an other sort, & of a different kinde from that of the Crosse; Cap. 8. 9. &. 10. Allen de euch. sacrif. l. 2. c. 22. fol. 594. 596. Illa [...]sse diuer­si generis. The oblation of him in the supper, & ours in the Masse [...] but one obla­tion, the same [...]acrifice Hard art. 17. f. 206. [...] the fountaine referred to the fountaine: or the same to the same. For aunswering to our obiections, that the same exceptions which serue S. Paul to the Hebrews, against the Iewish sacri­fices, wil also serue against their sacrifice of the masse, saith, It is to be noted, that it cannot be denied, that the same opposition maie be almost set betweene the oblation of the supper, & the oblation of the Crosse, since it is certaine they are of a di­uers sore, the one being an absolute, & indepēdēt sacrifice, the o­ther commemoratiue, & significatine, as were the Iewish sacrifi­ces; So againe faith he, if any christian should bee in such an error, as to thinke that the sacrifice of the Masse were an abso­lute & independent sacrifice, & that it need not to bee referred to the fountaine of al sacrifices the death of Christ, hee might be almost confuted by the same arguments of S. Paule, how soeuer ours doe far exceed theirs. This is plaine both against that of the supper, and theirs in the Masse; nether must the [Page 34]Rhemists any more in culcate that they offer the very selfe same body in number, Annot. Heb. 10. v. 11. euen Christs owne body that was crucified, except they wil make Christ inferiour to himselfe.

The Next vnto these before which I meane to bringe in, Locor theol. l. 11. fol. 427. a. is Melchior Canus, a great scholler, and an acute disputant; He reproueth vs mightily, because we gather si cucharistia exem­plar & image est, non esse illam ver [...] & propriè sacrificium, That if the Eucharist be a samplat, and image, it cannot properly & truly be a sacrifice; the collection, saith he, is very ridiculous, for what can be more foolish then to say that the hosts of the old law were noe sacrifices, because they were samplers of the true? Cap. cum Mar de celeb. miss. And thervpon he telleth vs, that Inuocentius the 3. Pope of that name doth laught at vs for such inferēces. First touch­ing Innocentius, his authoritie cannot be much in this case, be­cause we knowe not that his definitiue sentence passed out of his chaire against vs in this point; but only that he so wrot as a priuate man: L. 6. c. 8. f. 205. because Canus himselfe telleth vs that Inno­centius the 4. did make commentaries vpon the books called Decretalls, & if in them he wrot an error, it is to bee imputed vnto him that he erred as a man, & not as a Pope. And D. Har­ding by name refuseth this same Innocentius 3, Reioynder. fo [...]0. in the matter of al waightie matters the waightiest, euen in the question of Consecration, when it should be done, saying, what if Scotus & Innocentius tertius doe thinke consecration to be done, by other then our Lords wordes, is not the catholike church agre­ed herein? Thus we see a good matter if we wil; The Catholik Church maie bee resolued, with the Pope a good hear­ing. in any point I hope aswell as in Consecration: and therfore I hope they will not presse the Popes authoritie, though hee bee against vs in this, to haue the Eucharist the image & the thing, & so make one thing, both an image and the truth. Indeed wee say with S, Angustine, Epist. 23. ad. Bonif. Epise. If sacraments had not a liknesse and similitude of the things wherof they are sacraments, properly and right­ly, they should not be called sacraments; But if any thing be­come the same, it hath not any liknesse to it any more, but [Page 35]passeth wholy into that wherof it shoulde bee a liknesse: Alioquin si ea­dem essent om nia, iam non exemplaria di cerentur, sed ipsae potius res de quib us agi­tur viderentur Cyp. in. Symb. as saith S. Cyprian.

To come to the argument which he saith is foolishly gathered, wil it please their wisdomes aswel to hear what fooles can saie further in defence of their folly, as to controule without cause what they haue wel said; we tel him that his example from the Iewish sacrifice cōmeth not neere, where he would haue it reach: For wil hee compare his sacrifice in this point, with those of the law? Theirs of the law did prefigure Christs sacrifice, & were true sacrifices in that kinde, because they were truly and really done vpon slaine beastes, whose blood was shed. But were they so far forth true sacrifices, that they were the same too, vnto which they had relation? Did the Preists in the law, offer the same body, that Christ offered, as they say they doe in their Masse? If they did not, then for those to be granted to bee verie true sacrifices wil profit him nothing at al for his. The Iewish sacrifices were also samplers for the perfect & absolute sacrifice, was not thē come; but wher­of should their Masse bee a sampler or remembrance, since they sacrifice Christ present; for that which is sacrificed must be present, that which is represēted and remembred is absēt: Christs bodie being therfore represented in the Eucharist, cannot bee then and there really offered. And by this aun­swere also the Rhemists are discharged whoe borrow Canus his argument, who say that this. Luc. for a commemoration. cap. 22. v. 19. Masse of theirs is noe lesse a true sacrifice, because it is commemoratiue of Christs passion then those of the olde testament were the lesse true, because they were prefiguratiue of the same. For those sacrifices were not the same sacrifice, or thing wherof they were prefigura­tiue, noe more can their Masse being commemoratiue (and though it were a sacrifice as they would haue it) it could not bee the same thing, wherof it is commemoratiue.

But come to Canus, as to the rest for the manner of offer­ing, hee goeth backe to a mystery and to a figure. In the Crosse (saith he) it is plaine the host was bloody, and done without [Page 36]mysterie; but in the aultar it is hid darkly & mystically, yet the same host is on the Crosse & on the A [...]. On the Crosse suffering, In altari occul­tè & mysticè obscondita. Ibid fol. 436. b on the aultar hid in a mysterie [...]ce concludeth in the sacrifice of the Eucharist Christ is offered mystically, & vn­bloodily, & therfore there is an host, where in other sacraments there is none. I speake properly, saith hee, for by a kinde of speech Baptisme also is somtime called an host. Ibid. fol. 438. b And who euer called the Eucharist a sacrifice properly, as the nature of the word soundeth? or said it was the thinge it selfe, & not a figure sampler & similitude, since Gregorie Nazianzene, as D. Tonstall quoteth him vnto vs, In sanctū pase l. 2. fol 66. Figura figurae. speaking of things done in the old law The arke, or the Pascall Lamb, saith Pascha legale, audenter dic [...], figurae figura erat obscurior, the Easter Lamb in the law I speak boldly was an obscure figure of a figure, that is a figure of the Eucharist. So that touching any substance of matter, the Eucharist is noe more the body, then the sacrifices & sacramēts in the law; all, both theirs & ours being referred to Christ on the Crosse. To proceed to the obiection made our of Saint Paule Heb. 9.16.25. That the host which is sacrificed by of­fering must of necessity be reall offered and slaine, Canus ibid. ob. fol. 404. ex Cal ui: Instit. l. 4. c. 18. par. 5. f. 475 if then in euerie of their Masses Christ be offered in sacrifice, in euerie of, their Masses he is also slaine; therfore ether S. Paules argu­ment is frustrat where he saith Otherwise he ought to suffer oftē from the beginning of the world; or if Christ be offered in sacrifice he dieth verily and indeed: but they al confesse they offer Christs liuing body & impassible; Can us ibid. fo 421. hee doth. well to set the obiection and answere so far a sunder. At corpus viuū & spirans non offerimus idē enim in Euc­haristia est at (que) in coelo. so at the most they find an oblation, they cannot finde a sacrifice. To this obiection he seoffingly saith, that wee haue found out wherwith to main­taine our counterfeit opinion; but hee cannot finde how to ouerthrow so weake an argumer. We wil grant (saith hee) to those that argue against vs, that to the perfect offering of the eye ature, there must be the death and end of it, if it bee truly sacrificed. But we offer not a liuely ond breathing bodie; such a bodie is in the Euch [...]rist & in heauen; yet although the body of Christ in the Eucharist be a liuing body, & the blood bee in the bo­dy, [Page 37]yet wee doe uether offer the body, because it is aliue, or the blood because it is in the body; but the body in regard it is slaine, the blood because it was shed on the Crosse.

Thus by this answer of his, wher before the distinctiō stood with them of offering the same body which was offered on the crosse, (and that that body was in the Eucharist) but after an other manner, then on the Crosse, vnbloodily, or in a mystery now he confesseth they offer not a liuing body but because it is slaine; then there must needs followe death▪ nor the blood as it is in the body, but because it was shed on the crosse, whie then are they afraid to call their sacrifice bloody, but vnbloo­dy, if the host be slaine? and this argumēt of Canus haue the Rhemists borowed as they did the former, for in their first conflict about this sacrament they professe That they conse­crate the seuerall elements, Rhem. 26. mat. v. 26. shew the sence or meā ­ing of this note in anie writer ancient & take the whole. Dicth in a sa­crament, & i [...] presēt indeed. not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or is now in heauen, but the br [...]ad into his body a part, as betrayed, broken and giuē for vs, the wine into his blood apart, as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes, in which mysticall and vnspeakable manner he would haue the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily, & he in mistery & sacrament dieth, though now not only in heauen, but also in the sacrament he bee indeed (by sequel of al his parts to each other) whole, aliue, & immortall:

Thus monstrously doe they teach, now they thinke, they haue gotten a sacrifice into their hands, But how they offer, without blood or with blood, whether aliue or dead; whe­ther ther same that Christ did, either at his supper, or on the Crosse, that they cannot tel, nor with any wordes explaine? Their descriptions in these, are like that of Syrus in the Poet, when he sent one brother to finde an other, Teren in Adel. act. 4. Scen. 2. Perplexa de­scriptio but by the de­rection taken, he neuer knewe where to finde him. Pr [...]teri­to hāc rectâ plateâ sursum, vbs eo veneris, cliuus de [...]rsum, vorsum est. Passe right through this street to the ouer part, when you come there, there is a steepe place towards the lower ende therof, run downe this way; after that there i [...] on this hand a Chappell, and there fast by in a narrow corner. A speech ful [Page 38]of perplexitie. That they should violate or alter the holy or­dinance of God touching Christs sacrifice which was as they say themselues violent, The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse. The sacrifice of their Masse. painfull, & bloody; into a sacrifice reall, true, yea and propitiatory, which shall bee neither violent, painful, nor bloody, and yet sacrifice his body, as betraied, broken & giuen for vs; & the blood as shed out of his body; & that very blood which was in the vaines of his body, and yet for him to die in a mystery, & in a sacrament. & all to bee done vnbloodily, & so change the nature & substance of that sacri­fice which was the purchase & redēption of the whol world, as it is blasphemous for them to teach; so haue they brought such phrases and wordes as none can vnderstand, vpheld by none but themselues. God neuer intended that his sonne should offer himselfe anie more but once, and that was with shedding of blood & death, & so must hee be offered, or not at all offered. Re [...]d 7. 8. 9. 10 cap. to the He­brewes. if we wil speake of a reall offering and areal sa­crifice; a reall presence, and a reall offering, & a real death cā ­not be seuered.

If the anciēt Church of God had deliuered their doctrine & opinions, Aug. Epist. 23. fere finè. Christ is nowe offered not in substance, but in asacrament or representa­tiō of his death D. Allen is out with his owne Catholikes, be cause they cā ­not bring this place of Aug: handsomly to Ierue their turne. de sac. Euch. l. 2. ca. 11 in such confused tearmes as these men doe, wee had bin as much to seeke what had bin their mindes in this case, as wee are of these men nowe; But they were expedite & cleare, as by their discourses appeareth. Nonne semelimmo­latus est Christus in scipso? Was not Christ (saith S. Augustine) once offered in himselfe? And yet in a sacrament hee is of­fered for the benefite of the people, not every Easter on­ly, but euery day; Nether doth hee lie when the question is asked, answereth Christ is offered daily vnto the people. For if sacramēts had not a certaine similitude of the things wher­of they be sacraments, they should bee noe sacraments at al, ex hac autem similitudine plerum (que) etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. And by reason of this similitude, they vsually take the names of the things themselues. This is without glose or ambiguitie Christ (saith S. Augustine) was once offered in himselfe. And is offered daily in a sacrament: & for that the [Page 39]speech should be vnderstood, how once & how daily, it is ad­ded in a sacrament, and in himselfe. And why, when it is done now but in a sacrament, may it yet be truly said Christ is offered? because sacraments haue the names of the thinges them selues, for a certaine resemblance that is betweene thē. This doth the words immediatly following shew. Sieut ergo secun­dum quendam medum, Therfore after a certaine manner of speech the sacrament of Christs body, is Christs body, & the sacra­ment of Christs blood, is Christs blood, & the sacrament of faith is faith. & this he illustrateth afteriby the sacramēt of Baptisme out of S. Paule, Rom. 6. whoe saith by Baptisme wee bee buried with Christ into death, he saith not we signifie buriall, but he saith plainly wee bee buried: so that the sacrament of so great a thinge, is not called but by the name of the thing it self. Cip. tom. 2. de vnct. Chris mat. fere fine. Thus far Augustine. S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certaine hū dreds of yeares; hee telleth vs without any scruple, or bone cast in of doubt, both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the crosse, in sound words & few: Dedit dominus no­ster in mensa. Our Lord at the table wherat hee receaued his last supper with his disciples, with his▪ own hands gaue bread & wine; But vpon the crosse, he gaue his own body with the souldiers hands to be wounded. This is by S. Cyprian the sa­crifice of the table, & the sacrifice of the crosse; at the one he gaue bread & wine; vpon the other he gaue his body; Here is noe vailing of him vnder formes and shewes of bread and wine, nospeaking of quantitie [...] & qualities without substāce, nor offering vp of him to God his father. In an other place he saith in most plaine words. Tom. 2. de bap tism. Christi & manif. trinit. fine. Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deū It neuer repented God (saith he) of Christs preisthood; For the sacrifice that he offered vpō the crosse, is so acceptable in the goodwil of God, & so standeth in continuall strength & virtue, that the same oblatiō is noe lesse acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father, then it was that daie when blood & water ranne out of his wounded side, & semper re­seruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium & obedieu­tiae [Page 40]donatiuum requirant. And the skarrs teserued stil in his bo­dy doe suffice for the redemption of man and doe require a fauour because of the obedience. This is plaine according to the scriptures, Heb 7.23.27. &. 10. v. 12. & 9 v. 28. that once Preist, by one sacrifice once offered, that is our sauiour by giuing himselfe to death vpō the Crosse hath reconciled vs to God, & sanctified vs for euer; & cuteth of their many Preists, to offer oftē, as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin, or his pretious blood were of noe greater value then the blood of Bull: & Goates which were offered often, because they coulde not purge sinne.

There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esntēces, Vide Genebr. Chron l. 4. an. 1159. fol. 932. P. Lumbard. or Longobardus (who collected a breife of doctrine out of the Greeke & latine Fathers) ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent, Allen, Canus, or the Rhemists, and before any Protestant (if they saie true that are accusto­med to lie) who liued in the yeare of our Lord Bishop of Pa­ris anno. Paris. 1160. vpon whose bookes, suruey hath bin made, & although they haue gathered noe Index vpon him, as they haue done vpon others, yet they haue noted him in manie places where they misl [...]ke him with a non tenetur, the master is not allowed here. Magister hic non tenetur. This Catholike Doctor much renowned amongst them taught euen as the Protestāts doe, in this quae [...] stiō of the sacrifice of Christ in the Masse, & yet hath escaped frō amongst them, without so much as an item for it, which manifestly sheweth that though they haue vs offenders in that matter they haue their cheife Master also a ringleader therin & themselues or brethrē accessary therto, because they haue not taxed him therfore. And howsoeuer we maie be faultie, (the case standing as it doth) our aunswere is the same with the womans in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè, Terenc. in Eu­nueh. act 5. scen. 2. Senec. in Me­dea▪ act. 3. at tu indignus qui faceres tamen. For although I be ne­uer so wel worthy to be so spitfully handled, yet were you no meete man to doe it (saith shee) And as Medea saith to Iasō Omnes coniugem infamem arguant, solus tuere, solus insontem voca. [Page 41]Tibi innocens sit, quisquis est pro te nocens. Let others defame me with infamie, yet doe thou only take my part; doe thou call me iust & vndefiled, let him be an innocent to thee, who for thee doth transgresie. The words of Lumbard are these, Sent l. 4. dis. 12 parag. 7. Christ is not now really of­fered, but the memorie of his sacrifice is celebrated. Post heac quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie immolatur, vel semel tantum im­molatus sit. I demand (saith he) whether that which the preist doth be properly called a sacrifice, & an oblation or not; and whether Christ bee daily offered, or else were offered only once. To this (saith he) our answere in breif is, that that which is offered, & consecrated by the Preist, is called a sacrifice & oblation, because it is a memory & representation of the true sacri­fice, & holy oblation which was made on the aultar of the crosse. Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibi (que) immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Crosse, & there was he offered himselfe, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, but hee is of­fered daily in a sacrament, because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once don on the Crosse. And this is not Peter Lumbardes opinion only, but his strong proofe & collection out of all the Fathers Greeke and Latine, noe one of thē euer dreaming of sacrificing the sonne of God to his father, or of making the same sacrifice vnbloody, which Christ made bloody, or to haue the sacrament, both the thing it selfe, and a remembrance of it selfe, & al at one time.

Wherfore although the sacrifice be a true, & proper, & so­ueraigne propitiatorie sacrifice, as it is defined by the Trent Fathers, yet that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. yeares before those of Trent spake of, was not so cal­ed properly, & according to the rigor of the word: with them the celebration of the Lordes supper is called an oblation, for that it is a representatiō of Christs death, & sacraments haue names of the things which they signifie, & because the me­rits & fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirit devided & bestowed on the faithful receauers of these my­steries. Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit [Page 42]with them then the Master of the sentences, Acutè diuus Thomas vt omnia▪ Cam [...]. rat. 9. argutissime. Canus. l. 12: to 408. Melius di­uus Thomas vt omnia dixit, Allen, fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art. I resp. dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest. 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had bin killed & sacri­ficed to God his father (as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11) he needed not to haue hand led it as here he doth Camp. rat. 5. Duraeus ea [...] fol. 265. Art. 17 cont luel. fol 206. b. & 207. a. though in time later, the Master is not euer allowed by them, but Thomas, they saie hath done all things acutly & well: & yet hee saith as we say in this. In two respects (saith hee) celebratio butus sacrae­ments dicitur immolatio Christi; the celebratiō of this sacramēt may be called the sacraficing of Christ; First because as S. Au­gustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things, wherof they are resemblances & therfore the celebration of this sacrament is a certaine representatiue I­mage of the passion of Christ, which is his true sacrificing; Secondly touching the effect of Christs passion, quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis, because by this sacrament wee are made partakers of the fruite of the Lords passiō. This of Thomas were ceaue against their reall, external, & corporal kinde of offering the liue flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Preists handes vnder the formes of bread & wine, as now they teach they doe. With what facilitie of language D. Harding & D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also shew you: and the rather because Campian, & Dur [...]us both, doe highly commēd D. Harding & his worke; he hauing spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, done with shedding of blood in his owne person, as the scripture witnesseth; commeth to shew how he is handled in their Masse, saith; Sacramentally or in a mysterie Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church, vnder the forme of bread and wine, truly, & indead, not in respect of the maner of offering, but in respect of his very body & blood really present. And after recitinge the words of the Evangelists ( Luc. 22 how that Christ at his last supper took bread gaue thankes brake it, & said take eate this is my body which is giuen for you, and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sinnes) out of which he would proue his sacrifice, saith they are wordes of sacrificing & offering, they shew and set forth an oblation in act & deed, though the tearme it selfe of oblatiō or sacrifice be not expressed; & therfore belike seeing nether [Page 43]any tearmes nor words to make for it there; afterwards vpon more deliberation, he peeceth out the Euangelists & S Paul, for Christ said, Doe yes this in my remembrance, he readeth doe yee or make yee this in my remembrance. Reioynder. f. 283. & 305. Tully de na­tur. deotum. l. 1. fe [...]e fine. Elephanto belluarum nul­laprudentior, at figurā quae vastior? Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser then the Elephant, in shape none more deform­ed. M. Harding was thought for that time, to haue dealt sub­stantially against his aduersary; in substance of matter none more weake. Who can explaine how Christ is offered really in their Masse, & yet not in respect of the manner of offer­ing? what manner & what respect is this? Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ vse at his last supper, with­out any tearme of oblatiō & sacrificing, Hoc non est considera­re, sed quasi sortiri quid loquare. Tull. ibid. This is not to speake with dis­cretion but as it were by lot & hap-hazard.

But the truth is Christ vsed noe word, tearme or act of sa­crificing, at his last supper. we maruaile not then though M. Harding say hee expressed it not by any tearme. Yet the far­thest of from al truth is, Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Chri­stian doctrine & yet without al manner of Religion. that which in the prosecution of this article he deliuereth, which is, that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himselfe on the Crosse with shedding of blood, we must vnderstād (for a necessary point of Christian doctrine) that he offered himselfe invisibly (as concerning man) in the sight of his heauenly father bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God; with that thorne prickt, naile boared, speare perced & other wounded, rent & torne body for vs. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one. The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper, the same Christ on the Crosse, the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heauen, & the same Christ sacrificed in the Masse. How M. Harding can bring Christs sacrificed in­to heauē without his tormentors is hard to conceaue. A [...]as Caiphas, Iudas, Pilate, & the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches, Christs blood was not shed, and without shedding of blood there is noe remission of sinne: [Page 44]Where M. Harding shold euer findany such doctrine deliuer­ed before him I cannot iudge, Heb. 9. l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in cae lis fecit. In his expli­cation & assertion of the true catholike faith. l. 5. fol. 144 b. Noe iteration of Christs sa­crifice, except he did allight vpon it in Melchior Canus, who amongst other idle & vaine discour­ses of their Masse insinuateth such a thinge, speaking of an vn­bloody sacrifice in heauen, offered there by Christ.

Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester, a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposly of the sacrifice of the Masse, beginneth wel, saith it is agreed & by the scrip­tures plainly taught, that the oblation & sacrifice of our sa­uiour Christ, was & is a perfect worke, once consummate in perfectiō without necessity of iteratiō, as it was neuer taught to be iterate but a meere blasphemy to presuppose it. This is sound & Catholike, if he would abide by it, but within two leaues after, hee saith wee must beleiue the very presence of Christs body and blood on Gods board, and that the Priests doe their sacrifice, and bee therfore called sacrificers. If the Preists doe there sacrifice, Ibid. fol. 146. b verie sacrifi­cers. thē doe they either iterate Christs sacrifice or haue an other. An other they wil not say they haue & then must they needs iterate Christs, which indeed (as he saith) is blasphemous to thinke on. And againe he would in­ferre out of Lumbard, Ibid. 148. b. that the same most precious body and blood is offered daily, that once suffered, & was once shed. And yet in the next page he saith. Ibid. 149. b. The Catholike doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christs most precious bo­dy & blood to bee an iteration of the once perfected sacri­fice on the Crosse, Ibid. 149. b. Of the vertue of the sacri­fice of the Masse and of Christs on the Crosse Gard. Ibid fol. 149. b. Christs sacri­fice on the Crosse was & is propitiatory but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, & sheweth it also before the e [...]es of the faithfull, and re­fresheth the effectual memory of it. What should any coc­kle doe amongst this corne? why should he presently insert that the catholike doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in Esse [...]c that was offered on the Crosse once. Come to the comparison betweene the sacrifice of the Masse, and that of the Crosse, of the strenght vertue & force of the one and of the other, they knowe not what to say. The offering on the crosse (saith he) was & is propitiatorie & satisfactory [Page 45]for our redemption & remission of sinnes, Note well. Ibid, 150. a. The masse is propitiatory, also, so they make 2. propi­tiatory sacrifi­ces, which can noe more stād together, thē if they should make 2 almighties. wherby to destroy the tyranny of sinne, the effect whereof is giuen & dispenced in the sacrament of Baptisme.

The daily offering (meaning the Masse) is propitiatory also but that it is not in that degree of propitiation, for to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must haue an vnderstand­ing that signifieth not the action of the Preist, but the pre­sence of Christs most precious body & blood, the very sacri­fice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory & satisfactory for all the world. And yet not ten lines after in the same page, he saith that the act of the Preist done ac­cording to Gods commandement must needes be propitiato­ry & prouoke Gods fauour, and ought to bee trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God.

Tantae molis er at Romanā cōdere gentē. Here any man may see what a businesse & hard worke it is, to patch these popish doctrines together, what absurdities they fal into therby. One while hee saith that the act of the Preist must needes bee a sacrifice propitiatory. And now to haue an vnderstanding for the same, hee is driuen to a very shamfull shift, that he must either say cleane contra­ry, that it is not the action of the Preist, but the presence of Christ: or else that the action of the Preist is noe otherwise satisfactory, then al other Christian mens workes be, for so he averreth that all good workes, good thoughts, and good me ditations, may bee called sacrifices, and the same bee called sacrifices propitiatory also. D. Allen hauing shewed by some reasons that both the sacrifice of Christ at his last supper, and that on the crosse stand well together, De euch. sacrif l, 2. c. 10. f. 544 Quam hodie cuiuslibet sa­cerdotis sacrū in ecclesia. and are in their na­tures very commodious, addeth (but it is saluo meliori indicio) according to his own opiniō; that that sacrifice which Christ himselfe offered at his last supper, had not any other effect or greater strength, then the Masse of euery Preist performed in the Church now hath, wherby without quesion is confir­med the action of the Preist, or else Gardiners staggering is in vaine.

[Page 46]And yet me thinketh, Ibid. post c. 23. fol. 596. Allen himselfe stumbleth at this againe, when he would haue the sacrifice of the masse to be held, not an absolute and independent sacrifice, but to be re­ferred as all the Iewish sacrifices were, to the only fountaine of sacrifices the death of Christ, why should it not be absolute & independent? since you say that Christs sacrifice at his last supper had noe greater effect then that of your masse done by the Preist: & that of your masse being the same in essence with that of the Crosse, what blasphemy is it in Allen to cō ­pare it with those sacrifices of the Iewes; & r [...]ferre it to the fountaine, that is to it selfe? Againe is it any maruaile if Gar­diner shew himselfe vnconstant in these kinde of questions? Mirum vero, impudenter mulier, si facit meretrix. Ter. in And. act. 4. seen. 4 Gard. ib. 151. b 152. a. The pure sacrifice of the Church (saith he) is there offered for the effect of the increase of life in vs as it was offered on the crosse to atcheiue life vnto vs. And yet in the verie next page out of Cyrill, he wold haue the sacrifice of the Church to be vinificum, a sacrifice giuing life. And yet he addeth which is more woūderful, that that cā be only said of the very body & blood of Christ so that one where he deuideth our redēp­tion betweene the Preists sacrifice & Christs, Intollerable blasphemy. the one to giue life, & the other to increase our life, & that is noe lesse then flat blasphemy; For al Christians doe beleiue, that the sacri­fice made on the crosse doth both giue vs life & also increase & continue the same, & the Priests oblation doth neither of both, for our redemption & eternall saluation standeth not only in giueing vs life, but in continuing the same for euer, as Christ said that hee came not only to giue vs life, but also to make vs increase and abound therin: Iohn 10. Gal. 2. And S. Paule saith the life which I now liue in flesh, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who loued me & gaue himselfe for me. And therfore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ, & the other by the oblation of the Preist, then deuide we our salvation be­tweene Christ & the Preist, & shal haue our saluation & re­demption, as much by the sacrifice made by the Preist, as we haue by that of the Crosse done by Christ himselfe.

[Page 47]If any man rescue him by saying he referreth vinificū that sacrifice gyuing life to the body & blood of Christ, whether on the Crosse or sacrificed in the masse, then ouerthroweth he his owne distinction made before of giuing and increasing life, & maketh the masse an independent and absolute sacri­fice, which Allen wil none of. Thus haue you a breife of what Gardiner hath said touching the sacrifice of the masse, where you see he runneth too & fro so astonied & amased as if hee were at his wits end, & knewe not what to say. For one while the Preist maketh a sacrifice propitiatory, an other while he doth not; now hee giueth life, now hee giueth none; nowe is Christ the ful sauiour & satisfactiō, now the Preist hath halfe part with him, & againe the Preist doth all.

Bellarmine treating of this same question, De missa, l. 2. [...]. 4. fol. 776. of the sufficien­cie of the sacrifice of the masse▪ deliuereth according to his maner certaine propositions & distinctions of his own only making, without confirming them either by the holy scrip­tures, ancient Fathers or doctors, and hauing that liberty hee were very simple if he could not make a bad cause shew wel, Hooker prae [...], ad lib eccles. pol. fol. 24. The masse is of value finite If this reason of Bellarmine bee good, a­gainst the va­lue of the mass in the behalfe of the sacrifice of the Crosse: it ouerthrow­eth the whole masse & esta­blisheth that of the Crosse. The sacrifice of the Crosse is of infinit valu [...] especially to those that wil take any thinge for good at their hands vnto whom they beare stronge affectiō. For commō ­ly such is our forestalled mindes, that whome in great things we mightily admire, in them we are not willingly perswad­ed that any thing is amisse. His fourth proposition therfore is valor sacrificij Missae finitu [...] est. The value of the masse is fi­nite, that is, the masse is not of infinite worth or price. And this saith he is the common opinion of the diuines, & is pro­ued most plainly by the vse of the Church. Marke his reasōs For if the value of the masse were infinite it were needlesse to haue many masses, especially for the obtaining of one thing For if one masse were of infinite value, it would suffice to ob­taine al things, & therfore why should we haue other? And this is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Crosse, which for noe other cause was one, nor neuer is repeated, but only because it is of infinite value, & obtained a ransome for all sinnes past [Page 48]and to come: But saith he, although the masse be of value finite; which is verje true in it selfe, yet the reason howe it cometh to be so is not so sure; For it may seeme strange, C [...]r valor sa­crificij huius fit finitus cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis, A great mar­uaile. why the worth of this sacrifice should be finite, since it is the same, with that on the crosse which was infinite, & whē there is the same host, The offeringe & the offerer, is one in both and the same Christ offering himselfe, which are infinitly accept [...]ble to God.

Bellarmine might adde further of his own, if it pleased him A maruaile it is, how the sacrifice of the masse should be in­feriour to that of the crosse, since that of the masse is a most true sacrifice, euen one of the tearmes he gaue before to the sacrifice of the crosse. And maruaile it is, that the sacrifice of the masse should not bee of the same value with that of the crosse; seeing as he saith one where there is the the same offer­ing & offerer Christ in both, Ibid. l. c. 25. fol. 749. &c. 3. in principio. infinitly accounted of by God; & otherwher that the sacrifice of the masse is a most true sacrifice so in a third place, he grāteth that in the sacrifice of the masse it may most truly bee said that the blood of Christ is shed there. Take into these, Ibid. fol. 49 in fine paginae. the word propitiatory which the Trēt fathers giue to the masse to, & then if al these to gether serue not the turne, Iuel cont. Hard art. 1 druis. 33. touching Am­philochius fo highly renow­ned by M. Hardinge. to make a great maruaile, why the sacrifice of the Masse should be of value finite, & that of the crosse infinite, wee may say as one said in an other case, nothinge I trowe will serue the turne: For grant those things of the masse, & it cannot but be of infinite value & price, aswel as that on the Crosse: but they knowe that none of those thinges are true of the masse, and therfore Bellarmine playeth a desperate mans part in giuing such reasons as cannot proue the masse inferiour to Christs sacrifice, Virg. Aeneid. l. 8. inde repē ­te impulit, im­pulso quo max imus insonat aether prima exparte hostiae quae offertur. except hee in euitably ouerthrow the masse it selfe, as Hercules in the Poet ouerthrew Cacus his den, whē heauē rebounded with the noise.

His reasons (salue moliore iudicio) are 3. The first is drawen frō the host which is offered. For in the sacrifice of the crosse Christ in his naturall being was there sacrificed & destroyed [Page 49]in the forme of a man, but in the sacrifice of the masse hee is destroyed in his sacramentall being, In his sacramē tall being? you say that Christ hath there a real & substā ­tiall beeing. the Protestāts say he is slaine and his blood shed in a sacrament. Ipsa hostia & offerens Chri­stus. but his naturall being is more noble & more precious then his sacramentall. This rea­son thus drawen from the nature of the host or thing offered is very friuolous & absurd, especially seeing Bellarmine deli­uered before that the host in both was one, where can he finde a defect in that? In flying from his naturall being on the crosse to his sacramental beeing in the masse, hee ioyneth with vs, for we acknowledge he died sacramentally in his last supper because a sacrament of his death & passiō was iustituted; & so when the Lords supper is now administred we say he is sa­crificed, beecause the memory of his sacrifice is celebrated. 2. ratio sumi­tur ex parte of ferentis Ipsa hostia & offerens Chri­stus. The second reason is drawen stronger (as he saith) from the party that offereth; for in the sacrifice of the Crosse, the party offering is the person of the sonne of God; but in the sacri­fice of the masse the offerer is the sonne of God by a minis­ter. did he not lay it for a ground in the same page of the leaf (to take away an obiection) that Christ is the offerer as well in the Masse, as on the Crosse? 3. Ratio sumi­tur ex ipsa Christi volun­tate, nam eti­āsi posset Christus per vnam oblationem sacrificij inc [...]u­ēti, siue per se, siue per minis­t [...]ū oblati, quae libet deo & pro quibuscū ­ (que) impetrare, tamē noluit perere nec impetrare, nisi vt pro singulis oblationibus applicaretur certa mensura f [...]uctus passionis suae, siue ad peccatorum remissionem, sive ad alia b [...]ne f [...] ­cia, quibus in hac vita indigemus. And hath he not disabled him selfe, & his fellowes of a great excuse, which they were wont to make in that behalfe? for when we obiect the persō of the Preist, taking vpon him contrary to the scripture, so great an office, not called thervnto, as to offer vp the sonne of God to his Father, they had to say that it was not the Preist that did it, but Christ that offered himselfe by the mynistery of the Preist: end yet now Bellarmine would disable the whol masse as though it were lesse worth that Christ should offer himselfe, were it but by the hand of a minister. The third of Bellarmines reasons is drawen frō the will of Christ. For saith he, although Christ could obtaine by one oblation of this vnbloody sa­crifice, offered ether by himselfe, or by his minister, whatsoe­uer he would for whomsoeuer, yet would he nether aske nor obtaine of God any thing but that by euery oblation in the [Page 50]masse there should be applyed a certaine fruit of his passion, All the appli­cation in the Gospell nowe of Christs sa­crifice commō both to Preist and people is that of the A­postle. Let vs drawe neere with a true hart in assur­ance of faith. Heb. 10. v. 22. Bellar. de miss. l. 1. c. 25. f 748. H 9.17,20. The Lord, supper or Eucha­rist is this tes­tament or seal of Godes pro­mise exhibit­ed to vs. The matter testa­mentary, or which is testi­fied, is the sa­c [...]ifice of Christs death as Christ saith this cup is the new testamēt, in my blood. Missa non est noua testamēti Christi institu­tio sed est repetitio illius eius dem. Ib: c 25. f. 740. Ne (que) vnquam repetitur. ib. c. 4. l. 2. fol. 776. ether for remission of sinnes, or obtaining other benefites which in this life we want.

Thus haue wee the ful of Bellarmines reasons to proue that the value, and strength of the sacrifice of the masse is finite, wheras hee confesseth the sacrifice of the Crosse was infinite, so that by his owne grant, the difference betweene them is, as between finite & infinite, which is disproportiō enough, whervpon wee may safly conclude, the Masse is not the sacrifice of Christ. And thus hath Bellarmine like an other Hercules clē sed Augeus stable of a number of filth. For would he would bringe, not three but three skore reasons to proue that the sa­crifice of the Masse is inferiour to that on the Crosse, hee should willingly be heard. I wil follow Bellarmine in on note more about his masse, and so giue an ende to this part: Wee obiect the confirmation of a Testament dependeth on the death of the Testator, therfore the confirming of Christs te­stament dependeth on his death; Or thus, Where a sacrifice is, the testament is confirmed, but where a testament is, there is death, therfore the masse is a new testament, yea there are so many testaments as there be masses, & Christ must so oftē die as there be masses to ratifie & establish them. Bellarmine answereth, that the masse is not a new feting forth of the te­stament of Christ, or is not a new testament, but a repetition of his owne, which he did & confirmed by his death, so a lit­tle before hee called the masse an iteration of the oblation of Christ.

Thus is Bellarmine content to make his masse a repetition and iteration of Christs sacrifice, which a while after hee will not allow. For (as before is rehearsed out of him) speaking of the sacrifice of the crosse, he saith it is only one & cānot be re­peated. So saith Gardiner very confidently. That Christs sacrifice was and is perfect without necessitie of iteration. If Bellarmine will stand to this that his masse is but a repetition and iteration of Christs testament, it may very wel bee demanded where the [Page 51]Rhemists wil finde their masse or sacrifice done daily vnbloodily, Annot. Heb. c. 10. v. 11. that was once downe bloodily made by the same Preist Christ Iesus, though by his ministers hands, & not many hosts as those of the old law were, but the very selfe same in number, euen Christs owne body that was crucified.

I haue obserued you with attention in your dis­course, wherin you haue shewed the diuersities of handlinge one and the same thinge. It seemeth they cannot tell them­selues what they woulde say, if you haue laid downe their wordes rightly without falsification. For in this of the masse they teach the offering vp of the sonne of God to his father, which assertion had need (because it is a matter of the great­est waight) to be strongly confirmed by holy scripture; They teach a true sacrifice a perfect & reall, but when they come to confirme, that which first they lay downe, they speake of the formes of bread and wine, destroying the truth of Christs naturall body. They make it bloody and vnbloody. They knowe not howe farre the Preist worketh in it, nor whether they were best to say it is the same that Christ did. Articles sub­scribed vnto by the Church of Englād. art 31. Redempti­on. act. 20.28. Rom. 5.6, Gal. 3.13. 1. Cor. 6.28. 1. Pet 1,18. Propitiation. Act. 10.43. Rō. 3.25 Heb. 9.12.28. 1. Iohn. 2.2. 1. Ioh 4.10 Satisfaction Io. 1.29. 1 Pet. 3.18. 1 Io. 1.7. Gardiner. Saunders. Hardinge. Their dis­courses herein are me thinketh vnprofitable and vncomfor­table.

Vnprofitable and vncomfortable said you? you neuer iudged righter in all your life. For where the offeringe of Christ once made on the crosse is that perfect redemptiō, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both original & actual, there being noe other sacrifice for sinn but that alone, they in stead of that brought in sacri­fices of Masses wherein they offer Christ for the quick & dead to haue remission of paine & guilt, & haue handled the proof as before is set downe: wherby you may obserue the boldnes & impudencie of them in defence, & liking of their cause; who are not any whit a hashed to bid the readers sift, try, and examine, & waigh without partiallity their reasons and ar­guments, and then to iudge, which who soeuer doth, shal as­suredly finde noe sincere dealing, on their parts, but shifts, [Page 52]cauills, and base trigiuersations, a sufficient proofe wherof is gone before and more shal now presently followe, in conti­nuing their seueral declarations of the maner of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament (which I hindred before in discoursing so largly of their sacrifice) which I did reserue to this place because we are to examine the force of every word in the institution of the Lords supper, and their manner of contriuing them for their purpose.

The sentēce of holy scripture, by which they wold proue both their sacrifices & reall presence in this. The reall pre­sence of Christ in the sacra­ment. Mat. 26.26,27 Marc. 14.22. Luc. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.23.24 When they were eating, Jesus, when he had taken the bread, and giuen thankes, hee brake it, & gaue it to the disciples, & said take yee, eate yee, this is my body. And when he had taken the cup & giuen thankes he gaue it them, saying, drinke yee all of it, for this is my blood of the new testa­ment, that is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes. By this nar­ration of the Euangelist you see both what Christ did and said at his last supper, He tooke, he blessed, he brake, he gaue, and said Take eate this is my body, Doe this in remembrāce of me. Now I aske you this question, what thinge was it which Christ tooke? all men agree, The words of the institution examined. This bread is my body. it was bread. What blessed hee? bread. What brake he? bread. What gaue he? bread: & then said, take, eate this (what? bread) is my body. We say by this it is cleare, that when Christ said, Take eate this is my body, he spake of the bread as if he had said, Take eate this bread is my body. One the other side they expound it, Take eate this (nothinge) is my body, wee knowe not what. Or this invisible thinge, Or this thinge I haue in my hands; but in noe case this bread is my body. For you must vnderstand, that in the triall of this one word, standeth all our whole controuersie both of the reall presence, Transubstantiation, & the sacrifice of the Masse; if Christ spake of the bread when he said, Take, eate this is my body, This reason hath his force in nature con­fessed by al mē both they & we are agreed that the substance of bread remaineth, & so nothinge on their side wil fal out right, the reason is, one contrary thinge (as bread & body) cannot bee spoken of, or be said to be an other thinge, but in and by a fi­gure [Page 53]so that to say of the bread this is my body must needes intend a figure. And because they woulde avoid the figure, they doe violate the eternall law of Reason, which intendeth that if a man say take this, hee must meane somthinge, which he giueth or hath in his hand;

The evidence of this is so cleare, that I could confute thē diuers waies, but according to my first institution, I will opē ­ly shew, by their owne darke & perplexed speeches, that did they not striue to vphold a thinge once apprehended, they might more easier yeild then defend their errors. Iuell. art. 24. The Reue­rend Bishop of Sarum made this one of his questions at Paules Crosse publikly enough, whether the people were e­uer taught to beleiue that when Christ said This is my body, the worde this, pointed not the bread, but somthinge in ge­nerall, they knewe not what. M. Harding who seemed to say somthinge to every of those articles denied by the Bishopp, said least of all to this, which argueth he had not what to an­swere, least he should haue runn himselfe vppon on shelfe or other, there is so many diuersities of opinions amongst them in this. How this worde Hoc in that saying of Christ is to bee taken and what it pointeth, Hard cont Iu­el. art. 24. f. 2 28 we knowe (saith M. Hardinge) who haue more learnedly, more certainly and more truly treated therof, then Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Cranmer, P. Martyr, We knowe. or any their ofspringe. We knowe saith he. But what hee knewe touching this point, nether he whilst he liued, Gard. in his explication. fol. 39. b. referreth the word this to the inuisible substāce. In his detectiō of the deuills sophistry fol. 29. b. Now it demonstrateth the bread. nor his freinds since he died, would neuer let vs knowe, vnkinde as they are Freindlier yet hath D. Gardiner dealt with vs in this same case, who hath yet giuen vs words, though we knowe not his meaning. When Christ said this is my body, there is noe ne­cessity saith he that the demonstration this should bee refer­ed to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. what outward visible matter, & what in­uisible substance is there? Is Christs body that invisible sub­stance? Then the speech will bee This body is my body: yet was not the same man alwaies of the same opinion (though hee [Page 54]would be called Marcus Constantius. Allen de euch sacrif. l. 1. c. 34. fol. 420. Disparata sūt opposita quo­rum vnū mul­tis pariter op ponitur sic ho­mo, arbor, la­pis & ciu smo di res infinite, dis­parantur, nec eadem res po­test esse homo arbor lapis. Ra mus de dispa­ratis. Ib fol. 419, 421 Hoc demōstrat corpus. vt sit sēsus, hoc cor­pus meum est corpus meum. This is it in­deed that mo­ueth vs. Bread & wine are there in­deed. Vagè & inde­finite nec per sehocaut illud exacte demō strare donec compleatur o­ratio, AEneid. l. 4. Staplet re­turne of vn­truths against M. Iuell. art. 1. fol. 16. b. For before he had thus written: Christ spake plainly making a demonstration of the bread, when he said, this is my body. If it be plaine, why are they so obscure. For they dare not say what it meaneth nei­ther one thinge nor other. A third of theirs, & a country mā of ours reprouing the Protestants for referring the word this to the bread, saith it is absurd, both in philosophy & diuinity that two thinges different & distinct in nature & substance should be affirmed & spoken the one of the other.

It is true it cannot be without a figure So Dureus Quid ob­secro, stultius, quam disparatorum, vt dialectici appellant, alterum dies de altero? ac si lignum esse lapidem, aut murem Elephantum de­ceret. What is more foolish I pray you saith hee, then as the Logitians vse to speake, that one contrary should be spoken of an other, as if a mā should saya peece of wood were a stone or an mouse an Elephant. These men (to avoid the figure) rectifying what is amisse in vs, haue made that crooked which before was straight. Allen saith the word this demon­strateth the body. But saith hee, if there be any man whome it doth trouble how the word This can demonstrate the bo­dy & blood which are not there present, when the worde This is spoken: Or that they should not shewe the bread and wine, which are there indeed, let him read not the scriptures, (for those ouerthrowe you) Guimūdus & Thomas, who haue larg­ly, elegantly, & subtilly treated of these things. To amend al he saith, the safest & best way is to take the worde THIS in the beginning of the sentence wandringly, & without any certainty, & nether to signifie this thinge or that, exactly vn­till the speech be ended.

Stapleton is as variable as the best; we need not so much re­member the Poet, varium & mutabile semper foemina, a womā is an vnconstant and changable creature, as maruaile at these Doctors in their vncertaine speches. Now M. Iuell (saith he) doe you thinke it an vntruth to say, that in Tertullians time Christian folke or the olde Fathers called that bread, the bo­dy [Page 55]of Christ, & so consequently our maker & re deemer? By Stapleton here, Christ spake of the bread whē he said this is my body. But what saith our sauiour himselfe in the Gospell? Doth not he saie of that bread which hee tooke into his hands which hee brake & blessed This is my body: Doth not he in these wordes call it his body? To this we agree, we desire noe more, let him stand to this & the controuersie is ended. We say as Stapletō saith, that Christ did say of that bread which he tooke in his hands, which he brake & blessed This is my body. Staptlet: ibid. art. 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this, he goeth from it in the examination of the second article, for there he reasoneth after this manner. The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum, this is my body which this M. Iuell? Can you say, this bread is my body? you knowe Hoe this, is the neuter gender, panis bread, is the masculine. Was it not bread which he blessed. Then what this? This forsooth which Christ had blessed, & made saying This is my body. Thus far Stapleton. Doth not his secōd affirmation frustrat his first, & his first the second? In the first he is plaine, Christ spake of the bread which he brake & blese sed [...]n the second he wrangleth about the genders, and mak­eth interrogations, when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet, that said Sed quid hoc? pner herclè est, Ter. Andr. act. 4. scen. 4. 1. Reioyn. fol. 304. 2. Tonstall. fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac. euch. l. 2. [...].6. fol 155. 4. Dureus con­sur resp. Whir­rat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont. Iuel. art. 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de mis­sa. l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread.

M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it, he telleth vs out of Ireneus, that Christ tooke the creature of bread (or that which by creatiō it bread) & gaue thankes saying this is my body. Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus: did not thinke writ­ing so plainly as he doth, that Christ spake of the bread whē he said this is my body. And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery, they brake & distribute al­so vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commō bread. I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall & fleshly bodie of Christ; & breake bread they doe though heauenlie. & heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called, when it is sanctified & made holy by the word of God and prayer, put [Page 56]apart for that holy vse; Dureus cont. whit. rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto. art. 1. fol. 12. Reioyn. fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread, as of which the substance of our flesh is increased & consisteth, as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also. I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy, as to say that our substantial & naturall bodies are augmented & doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ. Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake & meant the bread when he said this is my body; Quam vter (que) est similis sui Teren. in Phor act. 3. scen. 2 & act 1. scen. 5. & such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see fur­ther, how like they are in this one to an other, Ecce autem si­milia omnia, omwes congruuni, Vuum cognoris, omnes noris, all fea­thers of one winge, knowe one & knowe al, Tradunt mutu as operas. They help one an other, but bringe their causes to noe good passe.

Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread. Gratiarū actio Fractio pa­nis bene dicti. This conuinc­eth plainly he spake of the bread. L. 7. fol 629. Now hee can­not tel what to make of it. Nec ad visibilē corporis Chri­sti formā nec ad hunc panē velut qui ma­neat panisnec simul ad hune panem & hoc corpus nec&c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy, treating of the sacra­ment, saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nondū acceperant dixit. Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body: & then he handleth his giuing of thankes, & after commeth to the breaking of the conse­crated bread. which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body. And a little after the words of our Lord (saith he) in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements, for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread. This is my blood to the Cup. But after (yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe) in the same worke treating of the same mat­ter, he hath these words. Disparata sunt panis triticens & Cor­pus Christi. Bread & the body of Christ are (saith hee) two se­perate & diuers thinges; so that wee iustly saie that the pro­noune hoc this cānot be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread, as it should remaine bread, nether to the bread to gether with the body, nor to the whole action of the supper, but only to the body of our Lord, iam tum de substantia panto factum, euen then made of the substance of bread, & exhibited vnder the forme of bread.

Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall [Page 57]bodies, one visible their present, & the other made of bread & to that body there made of substance of bread hee refer­reth the worde this, in the sentence this is my body: so hee maketh the sence thus, This body made of the substance of bread is my body, which is a very vaine speech & to noe purpose, For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of cōsecration were pronounced, & so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration, or rather there should be consecration before consecration, & so consecratiō with­out consecration. And a little after he saith At nunc pronomē hoc. But now the pronowne hoc this, which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shew­ed, What thinge? you are afraid to call it any thing. doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ, not remembring what hee said in the first booke, as I even now recited; that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued, when he said This is my body. If he spake of the bread, he spake not of his bodie, if he spake of his body, hee spake not of the bread, and yet Saunders a­voucheth both. Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofes­seth the bles­sing came be­fore the break ing. In an other place going about to proue that the word this cānot be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem, & benedictionem interpositam, Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene, did breake and giue to his disci­ples saying, take & eate this is my body, it is cleare by the or­der & course of the sentence, that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue, & which hee commanded his disciples to eate; in somuch that in the deliuerie of the cup he said Drinke yee all of this for this is my body, In vaine therfore after the cō ­mandement of drinking, had hee added the word for, Two bloods one in the veines of his body, & the o­ther in the chalice. if the blood which hee then shewed; had bin beleiued to haue bin then only in the vaines of his body, & not exhibited & giuē to haue bin drunke.

In this last sentence of the 4. thinges in the supper which Christ did that is his taking, blessing, breaking, & giuing, Saunders seemeth to allow 3. of them to appertaine to the bread tak­ing, [Page 58]blessiag, Deinde cum Christus sub­iunxit hoc fa­cite: non solū praecepit, vt id ageremus, quod illepanē accipiendo, be nedicendo, frā gendo & distri­buendo egit, vetum etiam vt opus quod­dam relinque. remus in men­sa domini post nostras actio­nes finitas. fol. 634. Saunders com meth to the di­stributing of bread, & then must they needes eate bread Ibid fol. 637. The substance which I shew? what substāce. This is my bo­dy that is be­hold my body where are the wordes which make the chang? Ibid fol. 639. This is my bo­dy worketh the Change. Note. & breaking, but not his giuing, & their cating: yet in the next leafe he commeth som what nearer, for hee confes­eth that Christ did not only commande that we should doe that which hee did by taking the bread, by blessing the bread, by breaking the bread, and by distributing the bread, but that wee should leaue a certaine worke done at the table of the Lord after we haue finished all. So commeth hee now to the distri­buting or giuing of bread, & what should they eate, but what hee distributed, which was euen bread. After this, findinge the ill conclusions of some of his owne speeches, where hee referreth the word this to the body there presently made he doth deny that they resolue the sentence thus hoc corpus me­um ost corpus meum, this body is my body, but thus, the sub­stāce which I shew is the substāce of my body; as if it should be said, Behold the substance of my body, or Behold my body vnder these accidents of this bread. Why mince you so finely with sub­stantia quam demonstro the substance which I shew, what sub­stāce is that? if the bread, thē Christ spake of the bread, which once you affirmed; if the body, then the speech must needes bee (maugre al gaine saiers) This body is my body: which nowe you denie. Take your foote out of which fetter you will, our of both you cannot.

Againe, where he resolueth or expoundeth the words of Christ, this is my body, as if hee should haue said, behold the substance of my body, or behold my body vnder these acci­dents. I demande where are the words of Transubstantiation, or that turned or made the bread, the body of Christ? For ac­cording to Saunders opinion here, these wordes this is my bo­dy, are but demonstratiue, as if hee should haue said. Behold the substance of my body: & then of necessitie the wordes that made it so must goe before. But where? nether they nor he can tell. But to my seeming he falleth vpon his old Bias a­gaine which he did before, where he saith Ita (que) olla verba Hoc est corpus meum, therfore those worde; this is my body being directed to the bread taken & blessed, doc change the sub­stance [Page 59]of bread into the body of Christ, If they bee directed to the bread, the speech must be, this bread is my body, This bread is my body. how can they bee directed to the bread else. And if it remaine bread till those wordes of this is my body, come, what neede they feare to say he gaue bread, for those words cōe last of al yea after giuing & eating. He tooke (saith he) at first, Ibid fol. 645. Accepit eni [...] ab initio, non quidē corpus suum sed panē velut materiā & elementum &c. Saunders Ibid. fol 658. 659. He breaketh bread, thē the reall body is not there. not his body, but bread as it were a matter & element, whervnto his worde was to bee ioined, that it might be made a sacrament: did he not speake of the bread then, when he said this is my body? Furthermore going about to proue, that the body & blood of Christ are in the eucharist, although it bee neither eaten nor drunken, he beginneth with S. Paule, who saith. 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not a partaking of the blood of Christ: and the bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the body of Christ? and inferreth, we break the bread before we deliuer it, or giue it to be eatē For the breaking is both to reuiue the memory of the passi­on (wherin the flesh of Christ was rent & torne with whipps, nailes, and speares) as also that to every communicant a part & morcell.

Hee distribut­eth the bread in peeces, the real body of Christ is not yet there thē. Prius ergo quā iste panis▪ frangatur▪ &c.At the first then when the bread is broken, it is the par­taking of the body of Christ; for the blessing causeth that the bread bee the partaking of the body of Christ, the bles­sing I saie of the Lord, wherby he giuing thankes said This is my body, and commanded vs to doe it, in his remembrance. Here is a gallimaufery of fustiā tearmes, wouen Lincy-wolsy fashion. He speaketh of breaking, & distributing of bread, & yet the reall body must be there according to his accompt, bee­fore the breaking come, for that is his drift here: and then will he say, it is the reall body of Christ? Noe by his own confessi­on, it is but the breaking panis benedicti, of the cōsecrated bread as he calleth it before. Againe he saith, the blessing is don by sayrng this is my body, but the order of the Evangelists is con­trary, they place that blessing last of al. The wordes are, Hee tooke bread & blessed it, & after the blessing commeth the [Page 60]breaking, He tooke. 1. Hee blessed. 2. He brake 3. He gaue 4. & after that, the distributing; & then this is my bo­dy. So that except he wil interrupt the narration of the Evā ­gelists and confounde those tearmes which are distinct, and refuse that for a blessing, which the Gospel pointeth & cal­leth a blessing, & on the other side, call that a blessing which the Gospell doth not, Instit. l. 5. c, 3. he can neuer iustifie his report. Haec est mendaciorum naturae, vt cobaerere uon possint. This is saith Lacta [...] ­tius the nature of lies that they cannot agree to gether. & cap. 6. Ʋa­let enim visua veritas,, but the truth doth preuaile of her own force whosoeuer resisteth.

If one or two of them did thus dote or dreame in their discourses it might be excused by the insufficiency of the mē but since amongst thē al, there is noe one that standeth sure either to himselfe or to his fellowes, it must needes bee iudg­ed the weaknesse of the cause which they maintaine, Con [...]ut, resp. Whitak. rat 9. sol. 601. that cause them thus to stumble. Dureus the Iesuite comming to handle this matter against D Whitakers saith, If Christ testi­fied that which hee gaue to his disciples was his body, assur­edly it could not be bread, from whence it necessarily com­meth to passe, that the bread which Christ took into his hāds was changed into his body by the force and vertue of his di­uine wordes? [...]oc (totam ni­mirum quam manicus tene­bat substantiā demonstrans) est corpus me­um. Accipit [...] (inquit Christus) & comedite. Take saith Christ & eate. Quid tandem? what then? This (shewing al that substance which he had in his hands) is my body. Why how now Dureus,? why walke you in these cloudes? why doe you not tell vs what substance that was which Christ had in his handes. Bread, or noe bread, the bodie or noe bodie. That which Christ tooke, he gaue, although you deny it, saying pa­nem in manus accepisse fatcor, Dureus rat. 2. fol. 94. dedissenego. That Christ tooke bread in his hands I confesse, that he gaue bread I denie: but was not the bread which he took, that substance which you saie he shewed, hauing it in his hands, it cannot be otherwise for the words of chang as you saie, this is my bodie not come yet. If Dureus aunswere (as hee will) that he spake not of the bread which he tooke; let him yet resolue vs what inbstance [Page 61]that was which he had in his han des & shewed his disciples when he said Take eate this is my body. Fecistis probèi incertior sum mul [...]o quā du­dum. Teren in Phor. act. 2. scen. 3. Si verò quen­quam illud ad. huc moueat quomodo pro. nomina in sa­cramentalibus verbis possint demonstra re corpns & san­guinem, quae adhuc non sūt cum ca efferū ­tur: aut quo­modonō plane in dicent panē & vinum, quae reuera tum ex istunt-Legat. &c. Allē de sac Euch. l. 1. f. 42 [...] Bellar. de sacr. Euc. l i c. ii f. 83 This, doth not demonstrate the bread; nor the body. ac­cording to Thomas. It doth not de­monstrate the bread precisly Sic tamen vt demonstratio proprie ad species perti­neat. Sed in obliquo, hoc modo. Ibid fol. 85. Ibid. fol. 88 This Ens this thinge, or this substance. If he resolue not this, he resolueth not our doubt, but leaueth vs more vncertaine thē before; for this is it that troubleth vs, how the word this can demonstrate the body and blood, which are not there when the word is spoken; & not demonstrate & point the bread & wine, which certainly are there then; as saith D. Allen: And if the bread & wine be there then, euen when the wordes this is my body are spoken; then are they there both at the breaking and giuing, as they vtterly woulde denie. S [...]ll Bellarmine the mouth of their senate conclude the cōtrouersie? yes say they we al agree: Heare him thē, a mā of a polished wit. Although (saith hee) the Catholikes doe agree in the thinge, yet doe they not agree in the manner of explaining what the worde this should demonstrate.

Two famous opinions there are amongst them, one that the pronoune this should demonstrate the body, which opi­nion he refuseth as not consonant to the truth, howsoeuer Allen and Saunders as you heard before, did so teach. The o­ther is of Thomas Aquinas, & others verie manie whoe haue followed him that the pronoune this, doth not demonstrate the bread precisely, nor the bodie, but a substance in common which is vnder those formes; yet so that the demonstration appertaineth properly to the formes, but not that the fence be This, that is these formes are my body; but thus, on this sort this is my body, that is vnder these formes is my bodie. So that the word This doth not demonstrate the bread, nor the body of Christ, but that which is cōtained vnder those forms Therfore we doe not say (saith he) this, that is this substance or as Scotus this Ens: but This, that is the substance contain­ed vnder these formes. Here in Bellarmine you haue al that art or falshood can deuise, to darken the truth with all. Doth anie man yet conceaue by them what the word This, poiuteth [Page 62]vnto? but for very shame he wold saie it pointed to the bread he denieth it but in part, he saith it doth not preciselie point the bread, & therfore I say he doth not precisely denie it. His fellowes before him wil in noe sort haue it so: But hee vtterly denieth that it pointeth to the body, yet is he more out then they, when hee saith the demonstration this doth properly belonge to the formes, and yet the sence must not bee These formes are my body. But not withstanding his deniall it must be so, if he sai [...] true, For if you referre the word this to the bread the sence wilbe, This bread is my body. This body is my body. The [...] formes are my body. [...] bread it my bodie, & therfore they de­nie it. If it be referred to the body, the sense must be, this bo­die is my bodie which Bellarmine denieth; And what should let, but if he saie it pointeth to the formes, it should bee These formes are my body. But he wil haue it thus; That which is con­tained vnder these formes is my bodie; And what with him & them too is contained vnder those formes, but the body of Christ? Bread they saie there is none: so according to Bel­larmine, the sense wilbe This body vnder these formes is my bodie; or otherwise to tel vs directly what it was, that was contained vnder those formes. In the chapter next beefore, reciting out of S. Bellar de euch sacra. l. 1. c. 10. fol. 69. & Allen de Euc. sac. l. 1. c. 15. Rhem an not. Mat. 26 v. 26. parag. 7. Refertur ad materiam, quae erat in mani­bus. Luc. 9. Marc. 8 Luc. vlt. Resolue me in this and I will yeild the whol Markes Gospel the order of the Evāgelists he saith it cannot bee doubred, but Christ hauing taken the bread, blessed it, brake it, & gaue it to his disciples: but as the breaking and giuing is referred to the matter which was in his handes, so his blessing too, should bee referred thither which was to the bread.

We grant him (if so that wil pleasure him) that Christ bles­sed the bread; and that Christ neuer vsed to blesse or giue thanks, but at some notable memorable worke, as at the multiplying of the loaues in the Gospel, and blessing of his disci­ples is read, & here in the institution of the supper. But did Bellarmine euer read, that the blessing of any creature, sensible or insensible was the changing & transubstantiation of the substance of it, so that it was not the same substance after, that it was before; if he cannot proue this, he commeth short [Page 63]of his purpose, to take needlesse paines to proue a thing not denied: For both he & al others of his side, when they speake of blessing of the bread, meane only a turning & change of one substance into an other, such a change as blessing nether can, or euer did work, & yet Bellarmine must remember, that in the institution of the supper, the breaking followeth after the blessing, so that here is a doubt what is brokē, bread there is none, & the Body of Christ I say must not be brokē, which consideratiō maketh Bellarmine salue himselfe an other waie by saying To be broken agreeth not to the body of Christ but in the forme of bread, Bellar. de mis. l. 1. c. 12. f. 699. To be brokē a. greeth not to the body of Christ, but in the forme of bread. Allen de Euch. sacra l. 1. c. 15. &c 16. & Bell. de sac. euch. l. 1 c. 10. Rhem. annot Mat. 26 v. 26. parag. 7. what need hee saie, in the forme of bread? why the body of Christ is not there, but vnder the forme of bread therfore by him there is as very a breaking of the body of Christ, as there is a verie presence; a presēce vnder the forme of bread, & a breaking in the forme of bread.

D. Allen in two seuerall chapters goeth about to proue; First that Christ did blesse or Eucharishze the bread & wine & that with certaine words; next that those wordes Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, are the words of Consecration, & that those two are both one; first frō the nature of the worde benedicere to blesse, he discourseth wonderfully both in Greeke & Latine: of the strength & vertue of it, Fol. 291 Quanquam totam ceremo niam ordinem non narrent nec plura ver­ba quibus ea seu [...]ucharisti [...] seu Eulogia facta est. Ver bonè an sola voluntat [...] aut impositio­ne manuum fol. 294. Luc. vlt. & the vse it hath in holy scripture, & in the Doctors, & yet hath not brought a­ny one example neere his purpose. For how can he say, that that blessing vsed by our sauiour was the blessing of the cre­atures & elemēts, an actiue blessing, a powerful blessing, see­ing he confesseth himselfe, that the Evangelists doe not re­cite any order of the blessing, nor expresse any more wordes, that belongeth therto, but only the words blessing, & giuing thaukes: and also doubteth whether Christ did blesse by auie words, or by his intent and will, or by laying on of hands, For we read not (saith he) what Christ did or said in the blessing of the things: Notwithstanding this, hee is so far in loue with his owne conceipt of blessing by certaine words, that he bring eth the bread for an example, which Christ blessed at Emaus, [Page 64]when the two disciples knewe him, (which saith he, is taken of many of the ancients to bee the Eucharist) although the Evangelist recite no wordes in forme how it was done: No words of consecration, mentioned. so that we may see whatsoeuer he is disposed to proue, be there scripture or be there none, all is one with him, he wil aduen­ture to perswade what liketh him best. Allen eodem lib post. c. 45. fol. 480. And yet the same mā a farre of, in an other part of the same booke speaking of the same matter, as hauing forgotten himselfe, saith, That the text of S. Luke cap. vlt. and all the order of the narration doth shew that the whole action was like to the consecrating of the Eucharist, Now it is the Eucharist. hee tooke (saith the Evangelist) bread, he blessed it, he brake the bread and reached it vnto them. If this action here done, be like to the order of consecration vsed at the Eucha­rist, then there may be consecration without addition of This is my body: which hee professeth to proue to bee al one, or to be the words of blessing it selfe, yea & without receauing at al for there is no commaund of eating.

Allen trauer­seth here this example to proue the cō ­munion in one kinde lawfull for the lay people.But I would not wish D. Allen or any papist of them al, to liue by the losse, for although they thinke to gaine by the practise of Christ there in drawing it to confirme their de­faulking of one part of the sacramēt, from the lay people, be­cause there is no mention made of the wine, yet will they lose by it (if the exāple were stronge enough for one kinde) because there is no mention of any consecration, & where no consecration is, there is no reall presence, and so they shall lose Transubstantiation & all: And can it bee the Eucha­rist without these? But howsoeuer D. Allen woulde haue vs beleeue that it is the opinion of many of the ancients, and of great druines, that that is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist; yet Bellarmine who is more freer of his report saith, De sacrā ieuc. l. 4. c. 24. f. 563. that tou­ching that place there be two opinions amongst the Catho­likes themselues. The one is of Iohn of Louaine & others, that it was the Eucharist, the other of Iansenius, that it was not the Eucharist, & both these great men with that side.

But to returne to D. Allen (from whom I haue a little di­gressed) [Page 65]& to follow him in his Blessing & Consecratiō. Allen vt ante de euch. c. 15. fol. 294. Qua re credē. dum est, Chri­stum benedi­cendo panem verbo aliquo vsum fuisse, & non solo tactu aut virtute eū sanctificasse. Et cum eodē verbo quo be­nedixit, conse­crasse putetur ab antiquitate & pene ab om nibus theolo­gis licet pauci quidam negēt cum (que) hic, vt saepe docuimus cōsecrare ma­teriam sit con­ficere sacra­mentum sequi tur idem illud verbum bene­dictionis esse formam huius sacramenti vt idem sit beney dicere & vti verbis conse­crationis, seu applicare ver­ba consecrati­onis ad elemē ta proposita. To blesse & to consecrate is al one. He commendeth this opinion with great reasons & yet he refuseth it. Ibid. 295. 1. He tooke bread. 2. He blessed. 3. He brake & gaue. 4. This in my body. Tho. Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. saith the order should be. Wher­fore (saith hee) it is to be beleeued that Christ by blessing the bread, vsed some word, & that he did not sanctifie it, only by touching it, or by his power. And since it is iudged by anti­quitie & almost by all diuines (although some few denie it) that Christ consecrated by the same word wherby he blessed, & that to consecrate the matter, is to make the sacramēt, it follow­eth that that same worde that is the blessing, is the forme of this sacrament, insomuch that it is al one to blesse, & to vse the words of consecration, or to apply the words of consecration to the elements set before vs: Notwithstanding this (saith he) it must not be dissembled, that there are some diuines amongst whom is Bonauenture, Caietane, & Dominicus Soto who affirme that Christ did not blesse by the wordes of Consecration, & therfore to blesse the bread, and to consecrate the bread was two diuers things in the action of Christ, & so the chāge was not made by the blessing, but after by the sacramentall wordes. Which opinion (saith he) although it may probably be defended, & may seeme to be agreeable to the vse of the Church, which nowe blesseth the bread by the signe of the Crosse, before it vse the word of Consecration, and may lesse trouble the order of the Evangelists, who after the mention of blessing doe put the breaking & distributing, & then in the fourth place the word of the sacrament; it bringeth also some reuerence to the sacrament, for if bread should bee broken by Christ after it were consecrate some small mites, of the cō ­secrated host, might by likely hood haue fallen away.

These reasons (saith he) although they be waighty yet the safer opinion & more agreeable to antiquitie, and in euerie Church almost allowed, & which the Tridentine counsel doth in their catechisme follow, is, that whē Christ blessed, he conse­crated the things set before him. That we ought so vnderstād, [Page 66]that Christ blessed by saying This is my body, 1. Hee tooke bread. 2. Blessed it said. 4. This is my body 3. He brake & gaue. Cicer. offic. l. 2. although the Euā ­gelists by an inverted order of the speech, or seting that after which should goe before, doe put the distributing, & the breaking be­tweene the blessing, and the forme of the sacrament, which as it is very likly was done after the consecration or else euen as Christ did speake the words, Facta omnia celeriter tanquam flos­cule decidunt. This trecherie and deceipt cannot any lōger be hid, it is apparent to all mē; Neither is it any maruel, that they who make of the Gospell as a thing made, to bee handled as they thinke good, should lose themselues in the labarinth of their owne druises, as if reason had euen purposly forsaken them, who of purpose forsake God the author therof, For haue they these 1605. yeares been mounted on the stage of arrogancie, out brauing a better cause then their owne, and crying the Gospell, the Gospell, & you Protestants heretiks both denie & depraue it; & now doth D. Allen tell vs, freely and vnconstrianedly, that the Gospell will not serue their turnes, as the Euangelists haue deliuered the order of the Lords supper? What shall now become of Campians bragge Agedum pagella scripta superiores sumus, ac sententia scripticon­tenditur, Camp. 2. ratio. Goe to saith he, we haue the better of it by the writ­ten word, now we must debate the meaning: No saith Allen the Gospel is not for vs; And I say, nether the writing nor the meaning of the writing, is any for you. And therfore Christo proprior, ab hac lite remotior, that age or antiquity which is nearest to Christ, is farthest of from thē in this controuersy And for that one hand washeth an other, & they both wash the face, & often one foote strengthneth an other, and they both stay the body; so the testimonie of Cardinall Caietane in this case shall stay D Allen that hee be not vtterly ruinated because of his large graunt which they both haue yeelded in confirming the truth. Caiet commēt super Tho p. 3 q. 75. art. 1.

Caietane in his Commentary on Thomas Aquinas vpō this question, whether in the sacrament there be the body of Christace cording to the truth of it, saith, that touching that present de­maund [Page 67]& the rest following for the more manifest & cleare vnd erstanding of the difficulties in them, it is to be conside­red, that touching the being of the body of Christ in the sa­crament of the Eucharist, there is nothinge writtē in the ho­ly scripture but the words of our sauiour This is my body, and those words must be true. And because (saith he) the words of the scripture are expounded two waies ether properly or fi­guratiuely, Vel propriè vel metapho­ricè. the first error about those wordes, is, of them that did interpret them figuratiuely, which both the M. of the sentences, & Thomas doe proue in this article, Ft consistit vis reprobationis in hoc. & the strēgth of the reproofe resteth in this, that the words of the Gospell are vnderstood of the Church properly. I say of the Church, bee­cause there is not any constraint in the Golpell to cause vs to take them properly, ex subiunctis siquidem verbis, There is no­thinge in the Gospell to cō ­straine vs to take these wordes pro­perly & with­out a figure. De lapsis ser. 5. Cont. haeres. l. 3. c. 11. fol. 237 Parisijs anno. 1545. Allen vt ante. l. 1. c. 16 Reciteth 4. se­uerall opiniōs amōgst them, touching the words of con­secreation. The iudgment of that Pope is refused, who determined transubstanti­ation for thē. for truly by the words following which shalbe giuen for you in remission of sinnes it cannot bee concluded euidently, that the former wordes This is my body are to be vnderstood properly.

So here be two cardinals Allen & Catetaine, who say that not the Gospel but the Church maketh for them. Is there a Church where the Gospel is not? Non iungitur Ecclesia qui ab Evangelio separatur, he is not ioyned to the Church (saith S. Cypriam) who is separated from the Gospell. S. Ireneus saith, Columna & firmametum ecclesie est Evāgelium & spiritus vitae. The Pillar and stability of the Church is the Gospel, and the spirit of life. But the truth is, there is on their side in this que­stion, neither the Church nor the gospel, nor any antiquitie, at all. To proceede with D. Allen, in the other Chapter spe­cified before by me (wherein he laboureth to proue that the words of Christ This is my body, are the words of Consecrati­on,) he is further willing to let vs knowe, what differences there hath bin amongst their schoole diuines (who euer haue bin the vpholders of popery) about the words of Consecratiō which they should be.

The first opinion is of Innocentius(the third who called the great councel of Lateran and decreed Transubstantiatiō) who [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 66] [...] [Page 67] [...] [Page 68]said that Christ did consecrate by his divine power when he blessed, and vsed therein the power of his might, doing that without forme of words, which we cannot do without a pre­script order, so that after he had consecrated he deliuered to vs these words, This is my body, by which words the Church should euer after consecrate. This opinion of the Pope is re­proved by Thomas Aquinas, as beeing directly against the words of the scripture, and by Allen as being vntrue. The se­cond opinion is of some, who thought that Christ when hee blessed did consecrate, 2. but with other words, thā those where with he taught vs to consecrate. But that opinion (saith he) cā scarsely be excused from heresie now. 3. The third opinion is of some who thought, that Christ did consecrate twise, once secretly whereby he did consecrate, and then openlie for the Churches instruction. But this saith he is most absurd of all. 4. The fourth and last opinion (saith he) is the common opi­nion, The 4. & last opiniō, is their owne now, & How many a­mongst them, haue denied, that Christ did ether breake bread or gaue bread? Quanquam propter narra tionem Marci adducor in eā sententiam vt putem potius priorem com­mentarium es­severū & Pro­thusteron esse. Multò melius D. Thomas (vt omnia) dixit. Allen. fol. 419. & without question Catholike, which, although in the explaining it be two fould, yet this in generall, it teacheth, That Christ did then consecrate when he blessed, & with the same words once spoken before the breaking & giuing, or which (as Aquinas thinketh) were spoken either before the brea­king and giuing, or (which hee thinketh) to bee more agreeable to the texte) at the very breaking and distri­buting, that so blessing, breaking and giving bread, hee saide, This is my body. Although (saith Allen) by reason of the order of S. Marke, I am brought into the minde to thinke rather, the former exposition to be true, & that it is not in order. For S. Marke saith, & when he had blessed, that is, after he had blessed, he brake; and so it seemeth not, that he did breake and cōsecrate at once, or altogither.

Thus haue you seene in briefe the discourse of D. Allen proving against his fellowes their consecration; But with such difficulty and hardnes, that in the conclusion, he leaueth the chiefest of his pillers Thomas Aquinas of whom afterward he [Page 69]giveth a definitiue censure; that he saith althings better than his fellowes. Bonaventure, Caietane, & Dominicus a So [...]o, thought that Christ did not blesse by the words of consecration, and that therfore with Christ it was two things to blesse the bread, and to consecrate the bread, & that there was no change made by the blessing, but after by the sacramental words. This opi­nion of his fellows, he confesseth, hath good matter in it, in­somuch that it seemeth to be agreeable to their owne vse, & doth not disturbe the order of the Evāgelists, & doth bring revence to the sacrament, and that these bee weighty rea­sons for them so to thinke; And yet as being Lord of himself, he chuseth such an opinion, as is most absurd in it selfe, & o­verthroweth the order and whole narration of the Evange­lists: For thus saith the Evangelists,

• 1 Christ tooke bread.
• 2 He blessed it.
• 3 He brake it and gaue it saying.
• 4 Take eate, this is my body.
  Tho. Aquin. 3. p. 78. q. art. 1. ad. 1.

They pervert the order, and say,

• 1 Christ tooke bread.
• 2,3. He blessed it, said Take eate This is my bodie.
• 4 Hee brake it and gaue it.

And yet to see the miserable straights that these mē bring themselues into, they are faine to cleaue to the former opinion against themselues, for so in effect they say the breaking was evē as he did consecrate it: as who shoulde say the breaking, blessing, and cansecration were done at once, because indeed they cannot tel what he brake whether his body, or the bread. So saith Gardiner, Gardinerve. ante. fol. 97.2. Though the words sake eate, goe before the words, This is my bodie, we may not argue, that they took it and eate it, before Christ told them, what he gaue them, & al these rehersals of bread, with, he tooke bread, he brake bread, and blessed bread, and if you will held bread: all these induce no consequēce, He brake bread. he gaue bread, why? They doe manifestly argue that hee gaue bread, & not his reall body.

If we may examine the Master in this point, we shal finde [Page 70]him as vnready as the schollers, Sent. Lumb. l. 4. dist. 12. b. Diuersities of opinions tou­ching the breaking. I meane in this matter, of what is broken in the sacrament. It was wont (saith he) to bee inquired touching the breaking & partition which seemeth to be there, whether it be a true breaking or no, and if there be a true breaking indeed, then wherein it is, and in what thing it is made; 1. And seeing there is no other substāce there, than the substāce of Christ, it seemeth to be made in the bo­dy of Christ, but that cannot be, since the body of Christ is incorruptible, (because it is immortall and impass [...]ble. There­fore it pleaseth some to thinke, 2. that there is no breaking, as it seemeth to be, but it is said to be broken, because it seemeth to be broken: 3. some others say, That as the forme of breade is there, & there is not that thing there, wherein the forme re­maineth, so there is a breaking, which is in nothing, because nothing is there broken, which they say is by the mighty po­wer of God, that there should be a breaking where nothing is broken: 4. Others deliver that the body of Christ is essential­ly broken, & yet remaineth whole and incorruptible which opinion they gathered frō the confessiō of Beringarius, who confessed before Pope Nicholas and others, that the bread and wine which are set on the Aulter, after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but also the very body and bloud of Christ, and that they are sensually touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and torne with the teeth of the faithfull, not only in a sacrament, but also indeed and truth.

But the more probable opinion (saith he) is, that because the body of Christ is incotruptible, [...]. it cannot be said, that the breaking and partition is in the substance of the body, The breaking is in the forme of bread sacramentally. but in a sacrament that is in shew; in the forme of bread sacramen­tally: Neither may we insult or marvaile that the accidents of bread seeme to bee broken, seeing they are there without a subiect, Accidents of bread brokē. although some say they be in the aire. There is a true breaking and division which is made in the bread, that is in the shew of bread: As the Apostle saith, the bread which wee breake, because the show of bread is broken and divided, [Page 71]Thus far Lumbard.

If any thinge were euer dreamed & not done, this doc­trine is only deuised in shew without substāce what a break­ing is here, & no breaking? bread brokē in shew, & the shew of bread brokē, & this to be a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs, for so S. Paule saith, 1. Cor. 16.16. Is not the bread which wee breake, a communion of the body of Christ, & if nothinge be brokē but in shew, let them shew me what is the communion of the body of Christ. Againe, were it not strange if whitnesse should be broken, & yet nothinge broken that is white, yet so it must be if they saie true. Steph. Gard. vt ante f. 13 [...]. b Stephen Gardiner wil not haue the accidēts to be broken, I would (saith hee) in other tearmes aunswere thus, That thou seest is broken, & then if any aske further, what that is, I would (saith he) tel him, the visible matter of the sa­crament. O marvailous matter! you said plainly before, that the bread was broken: Gardiner, darke & con­trary to him­selfe. Detection. fo. 15. b. Answere to M. Iuell. art. 23. f. 227. Allen de euch. sacra l. 1. c. 37. fol 435. will haue somwhat broken besid [...] the body of Christ. Christs glori­ous body min­gled with our sinfull flesh. And in the detection of the Deuills sophistrie you confesse contrarie to your selfe in both these places That the forme of bread only is said to be broken, which do­ctrine D. Hardinge taking to be the sounder relieth vppon, & saith, The forme only of the sacrament is broken and chewed of the receaner.

D. Allen forceably & as it were against the haire, erecting a new opinion touching this breaking wherof we now speake faulting many Catholikes, for saying that the accidents only are chewed, broken & seene; affirmeth himselfe, that not only those things doe properly & truly agree & appertaine to the body of Christ (which did before agree vnto the bread) although by meane of the formes: But also by the meane & seruice of those formes & acci­dents, wee handle the body and bloud of Christ truly, eate him, carrie him about with vs, & mingle his body and bloud with our flesh, teare him with our teeth, & can place him in this or that vessell, and can shew by the small peeces where he is, here, or now: & can sacrifice him sensibly in the accidents, & can propose him visibly to the eie to be ado­red, &c. All which things whether they fall out (saith hee) to the body of Christ in the sacrament in respect of it selfe or by [Page 72]meanes of the accidents it skilleth not; so wee firmly beleeue that these things are truly and properly done to the body of Christ, no lesse then if he were in his owne shape, & forme, & no lesse, then they might be done to the very bread indeed. Although saith hee I am not ignorant, that Thomas Aquina [...] followeth an other opinion (especially touching the very sight of Christs body in the Eucharist) granting that the verie bodie may be touched and not the accidents only, P. 3. q. 80. art. 4 ad 4. Allen lea­ueth Aquinas. but that the ac­cidents & formes are onlie seene, and not the body of Christ, But as this mans opinion is not cleare, & by no meanes agree­able to reason, for it is most certaine that the body of Christ is no more obuious, & comprehended by meanes of the acci­dents of one of our senses then of an other: so is the doctrine & teaching, of other some schoolmen, touching the mouing, sight, place, breaking, & eating of the body of Christ, ful of curiosi­ty & danger. De motu, tac­tu, vi [...]u, loco fractione, & comestione.

Here you haue from D. Alten, that what the rest of his fel­lows haue fearefully doubted to affirme, he doth not sticke positiuely to deliver, affirming every action and thing to be done verily and really to the body and bloud of Christ, vn­der the shew of bread and wine after consecration, as coulde be verised of the bread it selfe before consecration, yea that the bodie of Christ should be mingled most groslie with our flesh. Corpus & san­guis Christi carninostrae immiscentur. L. W [...]nton. di­alo. against the lesuits p. 4 fol. 770. 771. A position, as voide of all religion, so without all warrant, saue theirs that deliuer it, and not to sinke into a wise mans head, that euer they would deliuer such doctrine. A positiō which maketh our bodies to be fed and nourished, with the natural and substantial body of Christ, as we are with other meates. A position that ioineth the body of Christ with our bodies, in one and the same substance, For foode doth go into the substance of that thing which it nourisheth; and besides D. Allen, Hard. Reioyn. fol. 150. Rhem. annot. 1. cor. 10. v. 16. Harding averreth, That the flesh of man, is fed & nourished with the body and bloud of Christ, and what more Caparnaitical? So the Rhemists say, That we are made a peece of Christs body & blood. But denied vtterly and expresly by the fathers. Nostra [Page 73]& Christi coniunctio nec miscet personas, nec vnit substantias: Cypr. de cae [...] domini. sed affectus consociat, & confoederat voluntates. The coniunction (saith Cyprian,) that is betweene vs and Christ, neither win­gleth persons, nor vniteth substances: but ioineth affections, & knitteth wils. The mixture of his bodily substance with ours, Hooker. l. 5. pa. rag. 56. eccles­polit. is a thing which the ancients disclaime. Yet the mixture of his flesh with ours, they speake of, to signifie what our very bo­dies through mistical coniunction receiue, from that vital ef­ficacy which we know to be in his, and frō bodyly mixtures they borrow diuerse similitudes rather to declare the truth, than the maner of coherence betweene his sacred and the san­ctified bodies of Saints: but this is sundry other waies perfor­med besides than by the Eucharist, as by his taking our flesh on him in his nativity, and by our regeneration in the water of baptisme, by faith, and the word preached; so that you see when Allen wrote as before is set downe, he thought to out­bid those former schoolemen, whose doctrine hee taxeth with curiositie and danger; verifying that of the Poet, O [...]l­lo scelus credibile in avo, quod (que) posterit as noget, That no age, Senec. in Thy­est: act. i. & 4. iā nostra sub it stirpe turba quae suum vin­cat genus ac me innocentē faciat, & in au­sa audeat. De sacra. euch l. 1. c. 2. fol. 28. contrarieth D Allen. e­ver saw the like, and whereof posterity wilbe ashamed, ma­king those that haue gone him even innocent, as Tautalus said of his nephewes.

But see how it happeneth to those, that so peremptorilie and by their only authority abate the credit of others, even their credits wilbe againe abated. Bellarmine handling the same matter, affirmeth that it is a doubt of certaine amongst themselues, whether those things that are verified of Christ by reason of the accidents, may be spoken of him truly and pro­perly, or by a trope. Some there be (saith he) (and it may be se­cretly he meaneth Allen, though he name him not) that will haue all those things verified of Christ truely and properlie in the same manner, as they might of the bread, if it were pre­sent: For the bread is verilie and properlie seene, handled and bro­ken by meanes of the accidents: so will they haue Christs bo­dy in the Eucharist, to be verily and properly seene & hand­led [Page 74]by meane of the accidents, Then those that Allē chec­keth did teach well. Peraliquem tropam. But the common opinion of the divines doth teach the contrary, that is, that those things cannot be spoken of the body of Christ, though by meane of the accidents but by a trope. Now if by a Trope, Bellarmine meane a figure, a signe or tokē, as the Eucharist is, we willingly agree with him, and with Allen too, that whatsoeuer may be veri­fied of the bread and wine before consecration, may be said also of the body of Christ: that we see it, feele it, breake it, cate it, and that it encreaseth the substance of our bodies, Chrisost. de sa­cerd. l. 3. quo­ted by the Rhem Heb. 9.20 Hard. art. 6. fol. 137. Toa­stall l. 1. f. 71. Dureus 2. rat. fol. 118 Bellar. de eue. sacra. l 1. c. 2. fol. 27. 29. & l 2 c. 22. fol 220. tū ve­ro turbam cir­cumfusam precioso sanguine in ting [...] ac ru­befieri. They borrow each others names. and feedeth them, and that Christ is seene there, by all the faithfull, and hand­led with their hands, as the Rhemists, Harding, Tonstall, Dure­us, and Bellarmine do quote S. Chrysostome, & the rest vnto vs; so as they will take withall, that which the same Chrysostome saith in the same place, that the people stāding about (to receiue) are besprinkled and made redde with that precious bloud: and that we are not then conversant in earth among mortal men, but transla­ted into heaven.

If all this be too hard and harsh to affirme of the body & bloud of Christ, let them consider it is spoken by a trope or fi­gure, and verified actually and really of the bread and wine, which speech & the like are vsed of the fathers, only to draw their hearers from fi [...]ing their mindes below on the earthlie elements, but to mount vp to heaven, and their seeke Christ. For as the bread in the Eucharist is called the Lordes body, but in plaine and simple manner of speech is not fleshly and really the Lords body: so is the body of our Lord sometime said to nourishour bodies, and feede vs, because the sacrament of his body feedeth vs, and this is done in respect of the Enter­change of names; the sacraments bearing the names of the things, whereof they are sacraments; and the things having attributed vnto them, which is due only to the signes. If Bel­larmine meane any other thing by the word Trope, than I haue expressed, he falleth from the vse of the word, and hath not satisfied the question, nor rectified his fellows error.

But it is a worlde to see into what streightes the want of [Page 75]consideration in these pointes hath driven the adverse part, proving their discourses to be hungry and barren, & hether­to without fruit, because they proclaime war against the ge­neral edicts of nature & reason. Bellarmine againe, De sacra. euch. l. 1. c. 14. fol. 117. 118. to avoide the grossenes of Allens and Hardings opinion of the mingling of the flesh of Christ with our bodies, saith, That the body of Christ going into the mouthes of the communicants, passeth into the stomacke, & then the outward formes being corrup­ted and gonne, The Eucharist is no meate for the body, & yet goeth in at the mouth, and into the stomacke. the body of Christ without any detriment to it selfe ceaseth to be there, and that the body of Christ, ea­ten by the faithfull, is not for the nourishment of the bodie, but of the soule. Here is the rule of Christ, and difference be­tweene the body and soule of man quite antiquated and con­founded. Our saviour decideth that nothing can enter both the hart and the belly, and yet Bellarmine will haue one & the same thing, enter in at the one, & yet feed the other. If our soules be nourished, and not our bodies, as hee saith then must our soules eate it and not our bodies; Can our bodies eate, and our soules be nourished by it? What more contrary to al Re­ligion? Eating, digesting, and nourishing, be consequent and coherent actions, and therefore they must al three be either corporal, or spiritual; If the soule be nourished, the soule must eate and digest that which is eaten; If the body eat, the body must digest and be nourished by that foode. Eating is there­fore in vaine without nourishing; If then Christs flesh do en­ter our mouthes it is vtterly without profit to vs, if it nourish not our bodies. Thus are the wits of the greatest amongst thē even snared in their owne gins. They handle therest that follow as vngainly as those before, which lest I should cōsent vnto by silence, I will also set downe vnto you, & then iudge you of all.

To the question, what it is in the sacrament that nourish­ [...]th our bodies, (seeing generally, they deny it, One is hungry & an other is drunken. 1. con 11. 21. of the body of Christ) and taken immoderately after consecration will make a man drunke (as S. Paule reproued the Corinthians for their [Page 76]abuse that way Thomas Aquinas the father of all popery, Comment in 1. Cor. 11. lect. 4. in fine. and most acute disputer amongst them, leaving the grossenes of the one, & absurdity of the other opinion before, saith; 1. That some amongst them haue saide, That those things are not wrought by any conversion, but by an alteration of the senses of a man by the accidents of bread and wine, which remaine after consecration, for men haue bin accustomed to be com­forted by the only smel of meate, and to be overcome, and as it were made drunk, by the abundant smell of wine. 2. Some others haue said, That the consecreted bread and wine, may be conuerted into an other thinge, & so nourish because the substance of bread and wine remaineth with the substance of the body & blood of Christ: but this saith he is against the scripture; 3. Some others haue said that the substantiall forme of bread remaineth, which worketh the operatiō, & so it no­risheth, as the bread should nourish. This he refelleth. 4. Some haue said, that the aire roūd about is conuerted into the sub­stance of that which is nourished, or into some such thinge. But this saith he cānot be; 5. And therfore some haue said, that by the power of God, the substance of the bread & wine, is restored againe to the intent that the sacrament might not be found in such like conuersions; But that is vnpossible. 6. The acci­dents & shews of bread can nourish. De euch. sacra. l. i. c. 37. f. 432. How can you seuer the naturall properties of a thing frō the very thing it selfe. Part. 2. q. 33. f. 189. His own conclusion is that the accidents & formes of bread and wine can nourish & make drunke, as wel as if the substance of bread & wine were there. So D. Allen (although he bee loth so to say) The formes & accidents of bread and wine are able to nourish, make drunke, & performe all the offices & duties naturall, that the bread & wine could when their substance was there. So the Romish Catechisme. Why is it called bread after consecration, say they? Aswel because it hath the shew of bread, as also the natural property of nourishing & feeding the body, which is proper to bread. Is it called bread be­cause it hath the shew of bread? by what figure? Hath it the naturall properties of bread, & yet is it not bread? say againe, & say truly, it is called bread, therfore it is bread. It hath the [Page 77]naturall properties of bread, feeding, nourishing, as also the ac­cidents sauor, waight, tast, colour and al, and therfore it hath the name & is indeed very bread.

They are so farre remoued from the center of trueth in these points, that rather then they wil leaue their wils, & shut vp the streame of their owne affections, they will leaue all hope of a sound beleefe. What eateth the mouse, if she (or he I know not whether) chance to catch of the cōsecrated host? Lumb. l. 4. dis [...], 13. a fine. Aske the schoolman (it becommeth their grauities to treate such questions) It cannot bee said (saith Lumbard) that the body of Christ, is eaten of bruite beastes, although it seem­eth so to bee, when the mouse eateth then, what eateth hee? Deus nouit God knoweth that, and hee that saith otherwise, God knoweth that. is adiudged an hereticke. How then escapeth the Ange­licall Doctor. Quidam autem dixerunt. 3. p. 80. q. art. 3 ad. 3. Some haue saide faith hee) that as astone as the sacrament is touched, by a Mouse or a Dogge, the body of Christ ceaseth to be there; But this derogateth from the truth of this sacrament: neither must we say that a bruit beast doth eat the body of Christ sa­cramentally but it must bee saide that the Mouse eateth by chance, Ibid. fol. 24. 2. as a man that shoulde eate the consecrated host vn­knowne vnto him. Now Gardiner saith contrary, that no cre­ature can eate the body and bloud of Christ, but only man.

I let passe the rest of Aquinas prodigious & base discour­ses touching some other cautels, belonging to this sacramēt, Ib. q. 83. art. 6, ad. 3. as if a spider should fall into the consecrated wine or poison should therewith be mingled, which although with warrant good enough I might lay thē before you (Tuberius) because I am by al honest & direct courses, to warne you to beware, you drinke not at that fountaine, The maine scope of this treatise & dis­course. whose fairest Streames are so filthy and loth some: yet I will omit him now, & returne to some hand somer discourse, and shew you that as they are found to faulter touching the particular drift of every word in the institution of the Lordes supper as the blessing, breaking, & This is my body: so if those were granted vnto them to bee [Page 78]as they would lay thē downe themselues, & that we should agree and say with them that the reall, and substantiall body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, yet can they not tel you neither the manner of the presence, Art. 5. cont. Iu­ell. fol. 127. b. Christ gaue his diciples the same body which suffe­red on the crosse, & the same body is there corpo­rally, carnally and naturally, but not after a corporal, carnall, or natu­ral wise, but in visibly, spiritu­ally, diuinly, & by way to him onlie knowen. The maner of his presence is not locall; or natural, but such as God only knoweth Art. 6. fol. 136. Corporally & yet spiritually Carnally & yet diuinely. Naturally and yet supernatu­rally, and by al these waies, & yet by none of these. God only knoweth the way. nor according to what body that presence is, as whether according to that wherein hee lived heere in earth, or whether as it is now qualisfied and glorious in heaven. Whe­ther with parts or without parts, neither are they agreed how hee is eaten. D. Harding saith it is cleare by many places of holy scripture, that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples his very body, even the same which the day following suffe­red death on the crosse, which haue ministred iust cause to the godly & learned fathers of the Church to say that Christs body is present in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, and naturally, by vse of which adverbes, they haue ment only, a truth of being; so that we may say that in the sa­crament his very body is present really, that is to say indeed, substantially, that is in substance, and corporally, carnally, & naturally, by which words is meant, that his very body, his very flesh and his very humane nature is there, not after cor­porall, carnall, or naturall wise: But invisibly, vnspeakeably, mira­culously, supernaturally, spiritually, divinely, and by waie to him onlie knowne.

Againe, Concerning the māner of the presence (saith he) & being of that bodie & bloud in the sacrament, they (that is the fathers) & we acknowledge and confesse that it is not locall, circumscriptine, definitiue, or subiectiue, or naturall, but such as is knowen to God only. In the next article, The body of Christ (saith he) is made present in the blessed sacrament of the Altar vnder the forme of bread & wine, not after a grosse & carnal maner, but spiritually & supernaturally, & yet substan­tially, not by locall but by substantiall presence, not by maner of quātitie or filling of a place or by chāging of place, or by lea­ving his sitting on the right hand of God, but in such a man­ner as God only knoweth, and yet doth vs to vnderstand by faith, the truth of his very presence far passing all mens capacities [Page 79]to comprehend the manner how. Historia maxima nascitur do nihilo. If M. Hardinge knowe not how, it was in him an idle di­ligence to bee so copious in striuing to expresle the manner how. Hath not he told vs? He hath expressed our beleefe, & his owne two: which is more then the manner how, Corporally, Carnally, naturally saith he, spiritually, dininely say wee. And yet he saith all, confounding substantially & spiritually. God doth vs to vnderstand (saith he) by faith the truth of the presence. What need faith sale I? It is taken into the hād, from the hād conferred to the mouth, & there they fasten their teeth, Bellar. de sac. euch. l. 1. c. 2. f. 28. 29. and from thence to the stomacke.

The senses of sight, & feeling haue their offices here, faith hath none, nether is it hard to comprehend all, this and more two. Here is also one, & the same Christ with proportion of body & members distinct, each from other; & also without distinction of mēbers & parts which ouerthroweth the truth of a naturall body; and yet so they make him at one and the lame time: at the table and vnder the shew of bread, not by local but by substantiall presence, not by maner of quantity or filling of a place: and yet the same mā did saie before, Art. 5. fol. 130. b. Put & laid. Fide intelliga­mus situm in sacra illa mē ­sa, agnum illū dei sunt verba magni Niceni Synodi ex Cut Tonstall lib. 1. de euchar. fol. 40. & Bellarm. de sacra. euch. l. 2. c. 10. f. 183. Step. Gard. f. 21. b. that the reall body of Christ is on that holie table put and laid the better to signifie the reall presence. Put and laid (as all men knowe according to the natural signification, require scitua­tion of place and bodily description. How doth hee not fill a place, when he is put & laid there? Stephan Gardiner is as far at odds with his owne reason in this matter as D. Harding: Whē we acknowledge by faith (saith hee) Christs body present, al­though we saie it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we saie our senses be not priuie to that presence, ne the maner of it but by instruction of faith, and therfore we say Christs body is not locally present, nor by maner of quantitie, but in visib­ly, and in no sensible maner, but marueilously in a sacrament, & mysterie truly, and in such a spirituall maner, as wee cannot de­fine & determine, and yet by faith we knowe his body pre­sent, the parts of which be in themselues distinct one from an other, [Page 80]in their owne substance, but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of vs. What M ^r. did Gardiner follow in this? Christs body is not locally present, and yet hath distinction of parts. Christs bodie hath distinction of parts, and yet not by circumscription of severall places to be comprehended of vs. Thomas of Aquine denieth this, The determinate distance of parts in a natural bodie, P. 3. q. 76. art. 3. ad 2. Distance of parts is in the true body of Christ. but not in that bodie which is in the sacrament. is in respect of the dimensiue quā ­titie such a distāce of parts (saith he) is in the true body of Christ but according to that distance of parts, he is not in this sacra­ment, but he is there according to the manner of his substance. Here, besides the disagreemēt of Thomas from Gardiner, Tho­mas hath framed such a Christ, as indeed is no Christ, hee hath nether quantitie nor proportion, of body, nor distance of parts: yet he confesseth that his true body in heauen hath so; and if his bodie in the sacrament haue not so▪ then e­ther he ouerthroweth the truth of Christ body, or else it will Ineuitably follow without any qualifications, ifs, or ands, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. Gardiner saith The body of Christ is there in no sensible maner as before, Allē saith Corpus Christs est sensibiliter in sacrament [...]. The body of Christ is sensibly in the sacrament. Allen vt ante fol. 435. Againe within three pages doth Gardiner contradict himselfe twise verie directly. In the first he saith Christ in the sacrament giueth truly his flesh to bee eaten, Fol. 87. b. the same which he tooke of the Virgin. Next wee receane not in the sacrament Christs flesh that was crucified, being so a visible & mor­tall flesh, but Christs flesh glorious, incorruptible & impassible, a god­ly, & spirituall flesh. And yet, so constant is he, in the very next page, Fol. 89. a. he striueth to proue out of S. Ierome & others, that they doe not meane that we eate the flesh of Christ as be sitteth in hea­uen raigning. Some Ioseph or Daniel must expound these dreames. First, wee receaue not the flesh, that was crucified, Lastly we receaue him not as hee sitteth in heauen raigning and is glorified. So by this reckning nether first nor last, doe we receaue him at al. De Euch. sac. l. 1. c. 2, fol. 24. How can Bellarmine saie, and saie trulie, That the body of Christ hath his naturall maner of being in [Page 81]heauen, but in the sacrament it hath not his naturall but sa­cramentall (which we also say) and yet that sacramentall maner to be expressed by the word substantially? And againe to saie That whersoeuer the bodie of Christ is, Ibid. l. 3. c. 7. f. 317. 320. there hee hath his forme & humane shape & scituation of parts & order which he hath in heauen, and that he is in the sacrament aswel as in heauen, & yet in the one to fill a place, and haue distinction of parts; And in the other to fil no place, and yet haue his di­mensions & distinction of parts: which is verie hard. Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. fo. 26. 27. A gaine he teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is, verū, veale, naturale, animatum, quantum, coloratum, &c. A true bodie, reall, natural, hauing life bigge or greate, & coloured; & yet we maie not saie that it is sensible, visible, to be touched, stretched out, although it be so in heauen.

Bellarmine in this controversie is like Turnus in the skir­mish with Eneas petit aequor a Tornus, he traverseth the field, Virg. in. AEnei l. 12. as though he would do much; but incertos implicat orbes, but his turnings and rounds fore-shewed his ill successe, nam perfidus [...]sis frangitur in modi [...] (que) ardentem des [...]ritictu, His treacherous sword brake and left him burning in rage in the heate of the conflict: so doth Bellarmines owne wordes confute his cause. Hath the body of Christ wheresoeuer it be, his forme & hu­mane shape and scituation of parts, and yet may we not saie, it is extensum, extended into place, and yet may we say, that he wanteth not his dimensions nor is without shape & coun­tenance in the Eucharist? Nos non dici­mus Christi corpus in Eu­charistia dimē sionibus aut facie carere. In sermone de sancto Marti­no twise cited by Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. fol. 27. & l. 2. c. 11. f. 186. What should hold in the extensiō? Allen alloweth the word sensibiliter sensibly, Bellarmine refu­seth it; and so doth he corporally, which Harding and some of the rest vseth. Bellarmine holdeth the word spiritualliter spiri­tually, as a man holdeth a wolfe by the eares, where there is danger in holding him and danger in letting of him go; Hee confesseth that S. Bernard vseth it, and opposeth it to carnali­ter carnally, speaking of the sacrament, tamen non videtur hac vox multum frequentāda, yet that word (saith he) seemeth not much to be vsed, because there is danger in it. Thus must [Page 82] Bellarmines conceipt be the modell, whereto our faith must be framed.

He saith further, That the counsel of Trent expressed the maner of Christs presence in the sacrament by the word Re­aliter really, Really, & sub­stantially vsed by the Trent Counte▪ & op­posed against the tearmes v­sed by the Calvinists. opposing it against the counterfeit terme of Cal­vin, who will haue him so present, that he be apprehended by faith (and so S. Bernard saith also, in the same place Bellarmine quoteth vnto vs) And that they vse the word substantialiter substātially, against the Calvenists also, who teach that the body of Christ according to the substance is only in hea­uen, but I know not (saith hee) what vertue and power they deriue from thence to vs. Will they stande to this? Strange it were, they should sup vp their owne wordes againe, so plainly delivered. Ibid. fol. 20 a. & 21. b & Har. vt ante. 136. How oft doth Gardner tell vs, that, but by faith hee knoweth not howe Christ is present in the sacrament. God doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of Christs presence. And Bellarmine himselfe within fowre howers reading after, Athanasius v­seth the word spiritually. answering to the ancient father Athanasius (who saith the flesh of Christ is our spiritual nourishment, and spirituallie distribu­ted) is driven to say that it is most rightly called our spirituall foode, Christs body is food for the spirit and not for the body. Bellar de sacr. euch l. 2. c. 11. fol. 186. because it is given for the food of the spirit, and not of the bodie, and distributed spirituallie. And that Christ made men­tion of his ascension to shew that his flesh is not to be eaten as o­ther meates are, which was the carnall vnderstanding of the Caparnaites sed spirituals quodam modo but after a certaine spiri­tuall maner. Is not Bellarmine come to that terme which hee was so much a fraide of? If the Caparnaites were grosse and fleshly in thinking that Christs flesh was to be eaten more a­liarum carnium, as other flesh is; I am well assured Bellarmine is a Caparnaite also, & he hath as grosse a conceipt of Christs flesh, Bellar vt ante l. 1. c 2. fol. 28. & 2. c. 8. f. 163. & l. 1. c. 11. fol. 92 most grosse absurditie. as they could haue, for hee saith the flesh of Christ is transferred from the hand to the mouth, & from the mouth to the stomacke; which I vnderstand to be as the manner of other meate is, and this he inculcateth more than once. And if Really be opposed and set, to exclude our terme by faith, as [Page 83] Bellarmine saith it is, let him shewe why it is not opposed a­gainst spirituallie, and spirit, and spirituall manner, which they and he vse also. We say it is receiued by faith, he saith it is meat for the spirit, and not for the bodie, most absurdly sutting that thing out, from being meate for the body which is taken in­to the hand, mouth, and stomacke; and making that a spirituall food and nourishment, and which is receiued after a spiritual manner, and apprehended by faith, to goe into the mouth and downe into the stomacke, by humane & natural instrumēts, as the hand, tongue, and palate. And then againe hee doth most strangely leaue himselfe in ioining the hand, mouth, tongue, pallate and stomacke, in the eating of the body of Christ, Attritio denti. bus facta. Bellar. ib. f. 29. and yet deny the chewing or grinding of the teeth which necessarily accompanieth the rest, especially having told vs before, that infigimus dentes carnichristi, we fasten our teeth in the flesh of Christ. Neither is this Bellarmines case a­lone when he is pressed with any authority of the fathers, to fly to our very termes and to vse our phrases, but al others of thē also do the like. Vt ante ratio 2. fol. 106. A spirituall kind of eating a naturall and substantiall thinge. If reall be vsed in oppositiō to spirituall, how can real, inter. pret spirituall, as Dureus saith. Dureus being vrged with S. Augustines authority, touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament, saith that S. Augustine accounted it an horrible thing to eate the flesh of Christ as we do other meates that are solde in the shambles, and that therefore he calleth vs from that kinde of eating ad spiritualē alium, to an other kinde that is spiritual, & such an one, as is agreeable to that sacrament, but yet a true and reall eating. Here he both commeth to our terme spiritu­all, and yet confoūdeth it with reall, which S. Augustins whose minde he interpreteth neuer vsed: & which Bellarmine saith, the counsel vsed in opposition to that other. A third Iesuite is mightily busied like a builder of the tower of Babel vsing a contrary language to that, Torrens: conf. Au l. 3. de sacr. Euch c. 4. fol. 318. b. in gloss▪ Carnē christi sacramento panis valetā. with which he began his work, for being troubled as his fellow Iesuit was, with answering to S. Augustine (a father who is most plaine against them) is fain to expresse that manner of eating which S. Augustine [...]spea­keth of to be done, dentibus fidei, with the teeth of our faith, [Page 84]but the body is hid vnder the shewe of bread, which latter clause S. Augustine never vsed, to shew the maner of Christs body in the sacrament. That is only the Iesuits couler to a­voide S. Augustine, With the teeth of our faith with the eies of our faith. Lud. Granat. de freq. com­mun fol. 100. vt ante f. 20. a. 21. b. 55. 40. 41. & 72. a. But in a spiri­tual maner. I knowe by faith, that I haue it in my hand. A grosse & dull speech. The presence is only spiritu­all. and no part of his meaning. The teeth of our body, cā & doth as they say eate Christs flesh in the shew of bread, what need we vse the teeth of our faith, or the eies of our faith either, to see it there, as an other of them saith, if hee be really and substantially present in the host, the same flesh that the Virgin Marie did beare, and the Iews crucified.

Stephan Gardiner as is before noted vseth the same. I knowe by faith Christ to be present; we acknowledge by faith Christs bodie present. Christs bodie there is present but in a spirituall manner. It is called a spirituall maner of presence. And yet in receiving that sacrament, men vse their mouthes and teeth, being by faith instru­cted that they doe not teare, consume or violate that most precious bo­die and bloud. Onlie faithfull men by faith can vnderstande this mi­sterie of eating Christs flesh in the sacrament. And, the manner of presence is onlie spirituall. What need faith? What need spiritual manner onlie? What needes faith to bee the instructor, when the Councell as Bellarmine saith hath deuised those strong & a­ble termes of truelie, reallie, and substantiallie, and opposed thē against our imaginary termes, of spirituallie and by faith, which imaginary termes they vse also. Tom. 2. trac. 2. c. 3. & 5. annex­ed to the 1. p. of Tho. Aquin. & sōtime to the 3. The body of Christ is taken spiritually in the Eucharist. Cardinal Caietane in excuse of those divines who drew the forme of Beringarius confessiō which was most grosse, touching the eating of Christ in the sacrament vseth no other word but spirituallie, and saith it is most false to affirme, that they held, that the body of Christ is taken corporallie, for it is taken spirituallie in the Eucharist by beleeing, and not by receiving it. Againe he saith, They eate the true body of Christ in the sacrament, not corporally but spiritually. The corporal eating is but of the sacramētal signes, but the spiritual eating, which is performed by the soule, ob­taineth the flesh of Christ which is in the sacrament. If Bellar­mine abridge Caietane of the word spirituallie, he leaueth him never an other to expresse his minde by.

[Page 85]Now to drawe towards an end in this point, Trent counsel. Caietane. Bellarmine. Allen. Hardinge. Gardiner. let vs laie in breefe what wee vnfolded more largly. Our Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ God & man is truly, really, & substantially contained vnder the forme and shew of bread and wine. He is transferred from the hande to the mouth, we fasten our teeth into his flesh, and from thence he goeth into the stomacke, and is mingled with our flesh, &c. And compare them with these of the same men in the same matter. Christ is in the sacrament spiritually, the maner of his pre­sence is only spirituall: he is eaten after a certaine spirituall manner The flesh of Christ is meate for the spirit, & not for the body: It is a spirituall nourishment. By faith we vnderstand he is there. Wee see him with the eies of our faith, & eate him with the teeth of our faith by beleening & not by receaning. If euer there were a difference betweene the body and soule, heauen & hel, light and dark­nesse, sweete and sower, ioye & paine, fire and water, North & south, & whatsoeuer may bee imagined to bee contrarie, then is there a repugnancy in those their wordes expressing their meanings in the matter of the sacrament. They will haue both true, and yet our opinion must bee false and he­reticall in vsing the later stile to expresse our meaninges. But as wee and they are most opposite, in the question, so are one sort of their tearmes which they vse against vs, vnto an other, and such as can neuer verifie the truth of their assertion. If they can reconcile all, and prone vs heretikes, I saie they maie vndertake any thinge, yea though it be to the making of a black horse white, or a white horse blacke, as that cunning Grecian Autolycus did. Of whom it is said, Ovid. Met. l. 1 [...]. Candida de nigris, & de candentibus atra facere assuene­rat. Although it hath beene a long time thought, that they could doe much, y I hope they can make no contradic­torie propositions both true where euermore if one bee true, the order wil be ineuitably false.

I assure my selfe, so much as you haue said, out of their owne bookes & writings wil make anie reasonable mā astonied to thinke, with how faire & plausible tearmes, they [Page 86]wil plead their religion, as though there were agreement no where but amongst them; & disagreemēt everie where saue with them; where if your collections & quotations stand true & sound, I see not but they maie haue leaue to goe aside, & pen a new forme of wordes, wherby to expresse their mean­ning in this point, for the old wil not serue them.

Yea and a new Gospel too, Allen Caietane. for Allen & Caietane, confesseth both against themselues, the one that the order of the Euangelists is peruerted, and standing as it doth wil not serue their turne. The other, that there is nothing in the Gos­pell that doth binde vs to take those wordes in the proper signification as they sound, to make the reall and substantiall body of Christ present vnder the shew of bread. In explica­ting of which their opinion, you may now call to minde the grossest of the figures which they vse, and let passe a many of others, Figures vsed by them in the sacramēt. in those few words of Christ at his last supper.

First they saie 1,2. Christ tooke bread, he blessed, that is he transub­stantiateth, or changeth it, he brake, not the bread, but the ac­cidents, or shew of bread, he gaue not the bread, but his own bodie. 3. How they expound the word (This) in the sentence This is my body, you haue heard before. This, that is, that which is contained vnder these shewes is my bodie. 4. 5. Againe, where the words lie in the Evangelists Take eate this is my bo­dy, they haue deuised an hideous figure of figures which is called Hysteron Proteron the Cart before the horse, and say it should be This is my dody, take eate. 6. Christ blessed (saie they) by saying This is my body, although the Euāgelists place it not so in order. 7. How manie figures & how often are they out, in the breaking, some saying one thing and some say an other. 8. And in the wordes of consecration which and where they should be. 9. And of the accidents being there in nothing, that is whitnesse and nothing white, Roundnesse and nothinge round, colour, and nothing coloured, and an hundred monsters & dif­ferences else amongst them, hath this one monster Transub­stantiation begot. The antiquity of Transub­stantiation. But when was the monster himselfe begot­ten? [Page 87]It was holidaie at Rome then, he is not so old by 1200. yeares and more as you haue by told & made beleeue.

Our countrie man Tonstall telleth vs it was concluded in the coūsel of Lateran, L. 1. fol. 46. de [...]rit corpor. & sang. 3 Opinions touching trā ­substantiation held vnder Innocentius the third Pope of that name. Before which time (saith he) there was 3. opini­ons concernning that matter, some thought that the bodie of Christ was there together with the bread, as fire in a peece of flint, which waie it seemeth Luther following held the Con­substantiation. Others thought that the bread was gon & cor­rupted. Others, that the substance of bread was changed, in­to the substance of Christs bodie which waie Innocentius fol­lowed refusing the other two, although no fewer miracles (he should say grosse absurdities & contrarieties in nature) naie more, seeme to bee builded vpon the opinion which hee did chuse, then one the other which hee refused. For before that time it was left free to euerie man to thinke as himselfe liked. Now for the antiquitie & credit of this Lateran counsell, wee may consult with Andradius, Defenc. Trid. conc. l. 2. f. 427. Genebrard. Chro. l. 4. fol. 955. rekoneth in for the 12. generall, so doth Bellar. l. 2 c. 5. de conc. & eccles. the late defender of the Tridē ­tine counsell, and as great a Doctor in his time as Bellarmine is now, and therfore his testimonie may not bee denied; In or­der it was the ninth generall, for place it was held in the pal­lace Lateran in Rome, for time it was held in the yeare of our Lord 1215. twelue hundred & odd yeares after Christ. It was called together (saith he) rather to amend the ill man­ners, that then raigned, then to decree anie matters of faith, nether did they much trouble thēselues, to expoūd any hard places of scripture or open anie mysteries, such good heed was taken to establish so high a point. Thus hauing the re­ceipt, you maie distill the water, I meane hauing these things brought to your hands so plainly, you maie learne those two points of wisdome, so much spoken of, Be sober & distrustfull. Amicus Plato amicus Aristo­teles, magis a­mica veritas. Let Plato bee your freind, Let Aristotle bee your freind; but the truth, let it be more your freind; for he that betraieth the truth, betraieth his owne soule.

I craue no more of you but that you examine both doc­trines [Page 82] [...] [Page 83] [...] [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86] [...] [Page 87] [...] [Page 88]before you yeeld your free assent to either, if you haue me anie way in suspision ether for my iudgment in conclud­ing against them, that I peruert their meaning, or that I tre­cherously abuse their texts, I wil if you wil, take the paines, to shew you every quotation, & make your selfe iudge in both.

I thanke you for your free & open offer. It were hard to suspect him who yeeldeth such libertie, I wil at my further leasure repaire vnto you, for such of them as I shall thinke, I may most directly charge them with al.

You cānot chuse amisse chuse where you wil, they be all true and not one of them, but maketh against them, in one point or other. Al bewraying the weaknes of that cause, which that it might be quite ouerthrowen, lacketh but to be throughly sifted by wise and iudicious men, such as woulde but try and examine, it must not bee those who thinke it a tempting of God to read or heare any thinge, that shal make against them. And as I haue giuē you testimonie of their dea­ling in this point of the sacrament, so if you wil but harken to that more, which I shall deliuer I will shew you, that in other things as in that, they deale absurdly, confusedly, weakly, & doe euen goe from their owne grounds, & although like thē ­selues in all, yet not like such as they would make the world beleeue they are. And will verie clearlie & plainly proue vn­to you (without sending you to their quotations when they cannot be found, as they doe in most they doe (that it is on­ly true against them, which they plead against vs, that there are with them, Iesuita Torrē ­sis in epistol. dedicator. in conf. August. no principles but those of Protagoras which was, that that should be true which euery one would allow, and that there is no rule amongst thē, but the leaden Lesbian rule which will turne euerie way.

And because I wil giue you as little breath as I can, I will begin with the Iesuite himselfe first, who so chargeth vs, and ether proue his ground false, and his tongue too too lauish, or els [...] his freinds verie vnfreindly towards him, who wil not let his word stand, but disanull it, and make it of no force. In [Page 89]the preface of that worke of his, which hee hath intituled S. Augustines confessiōs (as though al that he had there laid down were indeed S. Augustines both for the bookes named, Iesuit vt ante. Praises giuen to S. Augustine by the Iesuite. and the questions handled) hee hath wonderfully praised that ancient father (as indeed hee did deserue verie much in the Church of God) euen so much that (to drawe it into a breese) he saith, whatsoeuer S. Augustine doth deliuer, was not the doctrine or teaching of any one prouince or kingdōe alone, but the vniuersall consent and approbation of the whole ca­tholike Church; and which did not continue allowed for the space of three or foure hūdred yeares, but hath bin receiued & stood firme in the world these thousand yeares. Hee was, (saith he) a sincere and true witnesse of the Catholike faith, Omni excepti­one maiorem, & qui non de sua tantum sed & de communi antiquorū pa­trum & Apos­tolicae ecclesiae constanti at (que) stabili conses­sione nos bo­na fide reddat certiores. beyond al exception, & one that did not only deliuer, what was his owne iudgment in anie thinge; But what was his, was also the common consent of the ancient fathers, & Aposto­like Church; and who was free from parciallitie touching ei­ther part in whatsoeuer he wrot.

The Church had a Pastor and Bishop of him, in the dex­teritie of whose wit posteritie did wonder, at the soundnes of his doctrine, at his knowledge in the holy scripture, at his subtiltie in disputing, at his constancie in maintaining, at his wisdome in iudging, at his holinesse in liuinge, at his singular faith & industrie in accomplishing. In the end he admonish­eth his reader to repaire to S. Augustines bookes, as to the fountaine, and draw from him the confession of the true faith and Catholike Doctrine. Be it vnto Torrensis & al those, that so loue S. Augustine, as he hath said; I wil say nothing now to the cōtrary. More you see cānot be said of the mā. But what if these very men, who so much praise him now in a general­litie in a good mood, doe when they are vrged with his opi­nion in a particular point of doctrine, with the same breath blow hot, and cold; are these men not like our common slan­derers in these daies, that hold no man for honest, any longer then he pleaseth them, when indeed the more a man doth [Page 90]please them, the more dishonest he is, which consisteth only in following their brutish and beastly affections, no more sa­uouring of Christianitie thē their stables and dogge kennels doe of Ciuet or perfume. An instance against the Iesuite I will giue presētly. S. Paul writing vnto the Corinthians, speak­ing of the Iews in the time of the law, saith they did eate the sāe spirituall meate, 1. Cor. 10.1.2.3. vers. The same spiritual meat. and did drinke of the same spiritual drinke for they dranke of the spirituall rocke that followed them and the rocke was Christ. Now the question is, whether S. Paule meant, they dranke of it, amongst themselues, or, that they and wee had one in common betweene vs, The Iewish sa­craments and ours in sub­stance al one. which is Christ. We say that the Iewish sacramēts were in effect & substance all one with ours, and that the spiritual meat of theirs, was Christ the Mes­sias to be crucified, the outward signes differ they had Manna, and we the bread of the Eucharist, which is plainly S. Paules drift in that place; & not to speak of what they had amōge them­selues, but only that they & we had one Christ in diuers dif­ferent signes.

The Rhemists offended at this, Annot. 1. cor. 10. verse. 3. yet knowing not how to amend themselues but by railing (for quotations should not haue wanted; if they could haue told where to haue founde them) doe saie that it is an impudent forgery of the Calvinists to write vpon that place, that the Iewes receaued no lesse the truth and substance of Christ and his benefits in their figures, The Iewes a­mong them­selues did all eate of one spiritual meat. or sacraments, then we doe in ours: and that they and we eate, and drinke of the selfe same meate and drinke, the Apostles saying only that they amonge themselues did all feed of one bread & drinke of one rocke. This say they, turning the Apostles wordes and meaning, to a cleane contrarie sense. But how shal it be knowen (besides the text of S. Paule) who interpret that place truly, they or we.

The Rhemists name not one anciēt father, who interpre­teth that text as they doe.First you see they haue not so much as named anie anciēt father, who may bee imagined to leane towards them; which is one manifest argument there is none, nether vndoubtedly is there any, for considering their intollerable ambition in o­ther parts of that booke, how they tally vp fathers by skores, [Page 91]when they can but pretēd their names, they would not now haue omitted them, if they could haue told which of them, did but looke that way. Now for our parts, vvee can name & doe daily read, in the volumes of that great Doctor so much renowned by the Iesuite euen S. Augustine, Super Ioan. tract. 26. that he doth inter pret that place as we doe. For after he hath recited the text of S. Paule, he saith, verilie the same spirituall meate, but the corporall was other, because they did eate Manna, and wee another thinge: Where are the Rhemists now, & where is Torrensis, & where are they al? Hath shame and grace so left them that they are past blushing. Periere mores, [...]us, decus, pietas, fides, & qui redire, Senec. in [...]ga. act. 2. [...]um perit, neseit pudor. All right religion honestie good maner, yea and that which knoweth not how to returne when it is once gone, shamfastnesse, are cleare cassired by them, euen as though the safest way to stop one mischiefe were to fall into many enormities. This is so cleare out of S. Augustine, Per celera sē. per tutum est sceleribus iter that those diuines amongst them, who gathered the booke of ser­mons, & homilies set out by the decree of the Trent fathers, doe charg S. Augustine in that point, with a violent interpreta­tion. Which is both an iniurie to that ancient father, Opera Laurē ­tij cum dij Ita­li, & post obitū eius à Francis­co Gerardo Molan [...] Ludg. anno 1588. in tertio tomo f. 279. violenta interpretatio ponitur in margine eius­dem libri. & deep­ly ingrosseth the Rhemists amongst them who thinke that bookes will not blush, whatsoeuer faces will; and assureth vs that our interpretation is true and consonant to S. Paules meaning, and the Papists in generall are ouerthrowen in that whole question: For if the ancient Iewes could and did eate the same Christ that we doe; & that the same substance was in the Israelits sacraments that is in ours, and that a good Iew is a good christian; It must needs follow, that we eate him no more really & substantially in our sacraments, then they did in theirs, and for them to haue him really and substantially in theirs, 2000. yeares before he was incarnate was impossi­ble, therfore nether haue we him so. I could shew this matter more largly out of S. Augustine, if I would stād about it. It suf­ficeth me, first to haue found Torrensis so praising S. Augustine as I haue set down, then the Rhemists most shamelesly deny­ing [Page 92]our interpretation, & lastly S. Augustine charged by thē with vsing a violent interpretation in the holie scripture, and that in that interpretatiō he is ours: Bellarmine himselfe hād­ling that question giueth ouer S. Augustine, Bella. de effec. sacram. l. 2. c. 17. fere fine. plainly by name, & saith he wil preferre Chrisostome before him in that. Where is Torrensis now, who said, that S. Augustines iudgment, is the iudgment of the whole Church, & that his witnesse is with­out exception? Doth not this plainly shew that they will allow of nothinge, to further then it shal make for thē? Doe not they shew that they haue no rule but the Leaden Leshian as Torrensis calleth it? In his discoue­rie of our translations. c. 19. Doth not Gregory Martin chide the Protestants in gene­ral for following S. Augustine, in reading a text of Scripture as he doth, and saith they followe him against all antiquitie? Why? if Torrensis say true, he is as good as al antiquity. For his testimonie is the testimony of al antiquity. De eccles. hier. l. 3. c. 4. fol. 153 &. c. 5. fol. 163 D. Augustinus varius & incō ­stance in scrip­tutarum expo­sitione. Mat. 16. Doctrin. prin­cip. l. 6. c. 3. Vt ante. fo. 82. 83. Allen. vt ante l. 2. c. 5. fol. 517 Mel. Can. vt ant. l. 12. c. 12. fol. 411. The prophesy of Melchy. c. 1. 11. for the cal­ling of the gē ­tiles and what manner of sa­crifice they should offer.

Albertus Pighius, an other great, but late procter for the Church of Rome, imputeth as much infamy to S. Augustine, as euer Torrensis did vertue & as much in constancie, and per­plexitie in change of doctrine, as euer the other did constan­cie. Augustine (saith he) was constant in nothinge, but what did please him now, did anone displease him. And this is, be­cause S. Augustine is against them, in expounding Christ to be the rocke vpon which the Church is builte, and not vp­on Peters person as Pighius and the Papists would haue him say, Mary D. Stapleton censureth that verie fault in S. Augus­tine somwhat modestly, caling it lapsus humanus, an ouersight proceeding of ignorance. Yea Torrensis himselfe doth gnaw at S. Augustine for so interpreting that place, of Christ; & not of Peter; although hee will not much defile that neast, which he tooke such paines to beautifie; D. Allen & Melchior Canus doth both confesse S. Augustine to be ours in an high point of difference betweene them and vs, and namely in expoū ­ding the words of the Prophet Malachy (From the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same my name is greate amonge the Gentiles, and in euerie place incense shalbe offered vnto my name, [Page 95]and a pure offering, for my name is great amonge the heathen saith the Lord) of the sacrifice of praise and thankes giuinge, as wee doe, & therfore not of the sacrifice of the Masse, as they doe. And thus doth S. Augustine by their owne confession stande with vs against them, in the most principall differences be­ [...]eene vs and them. Now I doubt not the later Masters wil [...]ther condemne the Iesuits fraud, for commending him, whom they doe not loue, rather then at that composition, giue ouer the questions which he holdeth with vs, wholy in­to our hands: But though they doe abate their Iesuits credit we wil yet hold the questions in despite of their cunnings, to wrest the veritie of them from vs. But leauing them mired in these▪ I wil proceed to other things, to see if they be there any clenlier.

Of generall councells.There is a great question betweene them and vs, whether generall counsels, gathered together for the benefit of the Church to appease questions that arise therin, touching mat­ters not only of life, but of doctrine and faith also, may nor can erre. They affirme that touching matters of fact, ceremo­nies, or things belonging to discipline or manners, that such a councell may erre in such things, but not in concluding matt [...]s of doctrine. On the contrary side, wee hold (in few wordes) that they may erre in all, hauing no more assurance from aboue, for the one then for the other. For confirmation of which our position we alledge S. Augustine, who speaking both of the priuate writings of Bishops and of councells, held in particular regions, and of generall counsells gathered of the Christian world saith Etipa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel prouincias fiunt, Tō. 6. de bapt. con. Donat. l. [...]. c. 3. plenariorum conciliorum authoritati quae fiunt vx vniuerso orbe christiano sine vllis ambagibus ceder [...] ▪ And euē those counsells which are held in euerie region or prouince, without al doubt must giue place to generall coūsells, which are gathered of all the christian world, and that euen the gene­rall counsells themselues, are often corrected the former by the later, when by any triall of things, that is opened which was shutt [Page 92] [...] [Page 95] [...] [Page 92] [...] [Page 95] [...] [Page 94]vp, and that is knowen which was hid, without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, without any stiffe necke of arrogancy, without any contention of malitious enuy, with holy humi­litie, with catholike peace, with Christian charitie. Here wee haue a plaine place, that only the holy scripture cannot erre, that all other writers may erre, that all prouinciall counsell may erre; and last of al, generall councells themselues may be corrected, the former by the later, therfore without question they may erre. They agree with vs in this text of S. Augustine but the meaning of the words (not withstanding they be ve­ry plaine) they doe deny, framing the text to as many fashi­ons, as possible they may. They seeme by their answers vt­terly vnacquainted with the occasion of S. Augustines dis­course in that place, as though it were a very hard thinge e­ther to see the originall, [...] hauing seene it, to iudge of it. But the multiplicitie and crokednesse of their shifts doth plainly shew, that the authoritie maketh against them and for vs.

Andradius the defender of the Tridentine counsell, Andr. defeal. conc. Trid. l. 1. fol. 51. 53. They may be explaned or vnfolded, is the first shift. saith, that S. Augustine seemeth to him to say no more but, that la­ter counsells maie with clearnesse vnfold those things, which the for­mer had overslipped. And that S. Augustine insinuateth so much, where hee saith, when by triall of things that is opened wh [...]h was shut vp, and is knowne which was hidden. This glosse of Andradius will soone eate out, the bowels of the text. S. Augustine saith a generall councell may be amended, & therfore corrected, which is more then to be explaned or vnfolded. And the op­position that S. Augustine makes between the holy scriptures, which is not to erre, & all other authorities must needs stand firme, & that must be inferred vpon generall coūcels which cannot [...] spoken of the scriptures; but the scriptures may be said to be vnfolded, explaned, or enlightened, but not corre­cted: therefore S. Augustine meaneth more of generall coun­cels than so, Advers. haer. l. c. 8. fol. 17. a. leaveth out the principall member. evē plainly that they may erre. Alphonsus a Ca­stro, alleadgeth this of Augustine by the halfe, For where S. Augustine saith, and even generall cou [...]cels are often corrected, the [Page 95]former by the later, he breaketh it of, and saith nothing of it, & alleadgeth the former part to proue that provinciall councels may erre, as though S. Augustine had gone no farther and not spoken of generall also. 3. Locor. Theol. l. 5. fol. 185. b. ad 10. Non videtur loqui de emē ­datione fidei sed legum. Melchior Canus comming to answere this place of Austine deviseth a new shift. That S. Augustine there speaketh not of any amendment in a matter of Faith, but of Lawes, which are to bee referred to things either done already, or to be done. A strange kinde of harmony these men make in opening one poore place in this ancient father. But they do herein as theeues indicted for robbery, they wil confesse nothing, because they know they are guilty, but must haue all things proued against thē. He speaketh plaine­ly of the question of Rebaptization as by and by I wil declare when I come to Bellarmine.

The Rhemists glaūce at this text of Austine▪ in their notes on the new testament, 4. Annot. in 15. Acts. v. 13. of accidentall & changable things. Tull. offic. l 3. and do therein exceedingly giue the world to vnderstand, that when they compiled that worke they aimed only to vphold folsehood, and not to open anie truth. But as Tully said of falshood in oaths, Fraus distringit non dissoluit periurium. Deceipt bindeth but doth not discharge the oath, so let them huddle & shuffle, cloake & hide, glose and doe what they wil, the text of Augustine is open for all men, and there may they most be discouered, He speaketh (say they) of circumstances accident all which require alteration and not of essentiall points of doctrine when he saith the former generall or plenary counsells, may be amended by the later: Quasi matri­monio habet dotatam rem­publicam. Ci­cero Octauio. 5. Bellar. de con. author. l. 2. c. 7. fol. 119. Why cannot Bellar. mine tell. wherof S. Aug. speaketh. quasi matrimonio habent dotatum Augustinum. As though S. Augustine were giuē to them in marriage, and all men else shut from him, and so they vse him. The Iesuite Bellarmine according to the man­ner of his aunswering commeth in with two or three fortès, peraduenture he speaketh of this, & peraduenture he speak­eth of that; and yet neuer hitteth the right peradventure.

To the authoritie I answere, first, (saith he) Perhaps S. Au­gustine speaketh of vnlawfull councells which are amended, by others after that are lawfull, as it hapned to the 2 Ephesine [Page 96]counsel, 6. De questioni­bus facti non iuris. which was amended in the Chalcedon. Secondly, it he spake of lawfull counsels, then (saith hee) hee speaketh of matters of fact, and not of right, in such kind of questions it is out of doubt, that a coūsel maie erre, for the principal questiō of the Catholike with the Donatists, was about one Caecilianus whether hee had deliuered the scriptures into the handes of the heretikes, or not? And it may bee aunswered by a thirde waie (saith he) if our aduersaries contend. That S. Augustine speaketh generally of al questions when he saith That former councells may be amended by later, that then he speaketh of pre­cepts of maners, and not of questions of Faith, for precepts are changed according to times, places & persons, and those chan­gings are called amendings, not that the thinge was before ill, but that it began to bee ill the circumstances being changed. And both these answeres are confirmed by the words of Au­gustine, when he saith that then Counsells are amended, when by some experience that is opened which was hid, questions of matters of fact, or of maners, & not al questisō of right are opened by experiment. Thus far Bellarmine wherin I cannot chuse but maruaile at his grosse and poore shiftes in a case so plaine, so taken, so knowen of all men. What deuises? What impostures? What weaknesse hath he shewed in his ghesses? As though hee had neuer seene nor read the place. Doth S. Augustine speake of vnlawfull counsels? Doth hee speake of deliuering ouer the books of holy scriptures to the heretiks? doth he speak of matters of fact? Doth he speake of precepts of maners? Or doth he speak of all of these? Or of any one of these? Nether of any one of these doth he speake, nor of all of these. But because it appeareth by these ghessing answers of theirs, that the cōtrouersie would sone be at an end, if the oc­casiō which drew those words frō him, were rightly & truly deliuered, because al mē agree Intelligentia dictorum ex causi [...] est assumendi dicendi. Apolog. Thes. Rey. de sacra. scrip. fol, 215. The vnderstāding & true sence of words must bee fetched, from the occasion that gaue the speech: which was this. In that ancient father S. Cyprians time a coū ­sell [Page 97]was held in Carthage, Cyprian being president therof, wherin was concluded an error of faith that such were to beere-baptized, as had bin baptized by heretikes. The Donatists vr­ged that decree together with S. Cyprians authoritie, against S. Augustine, S. Augustine as he refused the opinion (holding no rebaptization although heretikes had baptised) and the authoritie too, answering that only the scriptures could not erre, but all other both Bishops writings, prouincial counsells, yea & gene­rall too might erre, and therfore bee amended. And this is plainly to be seene both in the first chapter of the first booke, Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. l. 1. c. 1, &. lib. 2. c. 1. where he saith he will diligently handle that question of Baptisme in the bookes following, which elswhere he had omitted, & proue it too against all those, qui non studio partium cacati iudi­cant, who iudge not according to parts taken. And also in the first chapter of the third booke, where hee reciteth the verie state of the questiō, which he was to handle against the Do­natists, and that decree which was vrged, wherin was concluded that al heretikes & schismatikes, that is to say, all that are out of the fellowship of the Church, haue no baptisme, and therfore whoso­euer being baptized came from them to the church, were to bee bap­tized againe.

Vnpossible it is that either the Rhemistes, or Bellarmine, or any other writer amongst them, should be ignorāt of this. But when malice shadoweth mens minds they doe verie re­ally lay open themselues. Hardly can any of them saie, that this question of Baptisme was a matter of fact, & not of faith, or of maners and not of doctrine, vvhē it is of so high a point as baptisme by heretikes, whether we ought to baptize those a­gaine, who haue by them bin baptised first. He that mistrus­teth what I haue said herein, let him ether read S. Augustine; Confer. in the tower 2 day. Annot, in 15. act. v. 13. Praelect. Whi­tak. co [...]t. Bell. de con. q 6. f. 318. & that shall best resolue him, or the learned writers of our age, D. Fulkes second daies conference in the Tower with Cawp [...] ­an. And in his answere to the Rhemists. 15. acts. v. 13. D. Whita­kers in his tract of counsells against Bellarmine, set out since his death, Or D. Reynolds in his Apology of his Thesis, and [Page 98] Whitaker s against Dureus. Apol. thes. Io. Rey. de sacra. scrip. fol. 225. Whitak. cont. Dureum. l. 4. de conc. f. 291. Bellarm. testi­fieth against himselfe. that S. Aug. spake a­gainst. rebap­tisation, which I hope hee wil not say is a matter of fact. Bellar de. cōc, auth. l. 2. c. 3. f. 111. & de cōc, & eccles▪ l. 1. c. 10. fol. 46. 47 all which doe mightily discouer the folly of their adversaries in this point. Compare their con­cord in this question with the inconstancie of those on the other side. But see the high impudencie of Bellarmine against the witnesse of his owne conscience, and against al the ex­cuses, and deuises before set downe, to darken the place in question. He doth scarsly full foure leaues before, say plainly, in praise of generall counsells, That S. Augustine did excuse Cyprian frō heresie, only because at that time there had bin no generall counsell held, quo definiri potuisset questio illa de baptis­mo haereticorum. Wherin that question of the baptisme of he­retikes, might haue bin defined, & quoteth Aug. lib. 1. de bapt­c 18. And could Bellarmine tel that in the first booke & 18. Chapter Augustine spake of baptisme by heretikes, and that that was the Donatists case, and his; They alleadging, and he excusing S. Cyprian, & could hee not tel that it was the same which Augustine spake of, in the 2. booke and third chapter being the place in questiō with vs: but foure chapters of? But wee may thanke the truth for Bellarmines confession against himselfe, as Tully said of it, O magua vis veritatis, quae contra ho­minum ingenia, Tull. pro. M. Coelio. calliditatem, sollertiam, contra (que) fict as omnium infi­dias, facile se per seipsam defendat. O the great strength of the truth, which will easily defend it selfe, against the wits, craft, suttelty & all deuises of men whatsoeuer:

As before you haue seene their seuerall obseruations tou­ching that authority of Aug. so wil I yet more plainly disco­uer their pretēded right to a Canō of a great & anciēt coun­sel, Can. Nic. cō. 6, Iuell, reply to Hard▪ art. 4. di. 7, fol. 240. Reyn conf. with Hart. c. 9. diuis. 2 f. 573. Defenc. of the Apology. p. 2. c. 3. diuis▪ 6. fol. 214. the first generall, held at Nice in a question betweene the bishop of Rome and vs, we saying the Canon maketh for vs and they for them. The canon goeth thus, Mos antiquus per­duret in Aeg [...]pto, Libia & Pentapoli, vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatē quandoquidem & Romano Epis­copo parilis est mos. Let the ancient custome remaine through­out Egipt, Libia, and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexan­dria haue the goverment ouer al these, because the bishop of [Page 99]Rome hath the like order. Likewise also in Antiochia & in other provinces, the priviledges are to bee kept to the chur­ches. Which canon of the councel is acknowledged by ours, to be plaine for the purpose it was written, viz: that the Bi­shop of Rome, hath no soveraignty ouer other patriarches, but only a fellowship and equallity with the rest, to walke carefully within his owne division, as others were bound to do within theirs; For the councel groūded themselues on the custome of the bishop of Rome: that as he had preeminence of al the bishops about him; so Alexandria and Antioche should haue of al about them, and likewise other Churches (as the Metropolitan) each in their owne provinces, doe shew, that the Pope neither had preeminence of al through the worlde before the Niceene councel, nor ought to haue greater rule (by their iudgment) than he before time had. This is the true and genuine sense and meaning of that councel and canon. The contrary part are diuided in this, and yet not divided. Divided touching the original text of the canō, Ekius ench. de loc. cō. f. 58. Hard. in conf. Apol. p. 2. c. 3. diuis 6. f. 114. Saūd. de visib. monar. lib. 7. fol. 220. 228. 288. 332. Staplet. ret. of vnt. against lu­ell. art. 4. fol. 38. b. Andrad. defē ▪ Trid. conc. l. 2. fol. 234. 1. Instead of the Bishop. of Rome, he rea­deth Metropo. litane. some of thē saying it is vnperfect: And againe not diuided, in that they al claime by it, not respecting the vnperfectnes of it.

A strange sentence it were, that coulde both extol the bi­shop of Romes authority oueral churches, and yet limit him to his scantling, as wel as other bishops, and serue this turne both when it is perfect, & when it is vnperfect, & wanteth. Friar Ecchius in his booke of common places, doth read the canon word for word as we do without any adding or dimi­nution. So doth D. Harding in his confutation of the Apolo­gy of the church of England. Sanders in his visible monarchy, doth fowre times iut vpon this sixt canon, evē as we read it, without any addition in words, saving a sinister interpreta­tion sometime. Andradius confesseth the canon as before it is read, and yet he hammereth fowly about it, bringing in in­steed of, because the bishop of Rome hath the like order or custome, these wordes, because the Metropolitane hath the like custome. And so insteed of the bishop of Rome, he readeth the Me­tropolitane. [Page 100]Mary this was out of an old Latine coppy which he standeth not much vpon, because the canon it selfe was written in Greeke. But saith he, where the Niceene synod speaketh of the like custome to the church of Rome, yet doth not make equal the church of Alexādria to the church of Rome, but confirmeth the prerogatiue of the church of of Alexandria to the iudgement of the church of Rome, and saith it is the custome of the Church of Rome, that the Church of Alexandria should bee taken for the primate of Egipt. What? by the iudgment of the church of Rome? as though the Church of Rome allotted it to be so. To take his iudgment, [...] He expoun­deth his cus­tome to be his iudgment. for his Custome were an hard interpretation, & flat against the text, for both their limits are grounded vpon old customes, and not one vpon the others iudgment. Dureus goeth more exactly to worke and setteth downe the canon in Greeke and Latine, even as we read it without alteration: But addeth that nothing coulde haue beene spoken more plaine & cleare, Dureus conf. resp. Whitak. rat. 4. fol. 170. for establishing the authority of the church of Rome, ouer all charches: For those fathers (saith he), bring the custome of the church of Rome for an argument wherby they limit the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, & ther­fore the church of Alexandria dependeth on the Church of Rome as on [...] mother, and receiueth all shee hath from her.

Which glosse of his, is the farthest frō the text that may be imagined, Dureus expo­sition. his exposition standeth thus, Let the bishop of Alex­andria gonerue the Churches of Egipt and the rest of the Metro­politanes in their provinces doe the like because the bishop of Rome hath i [...]r [...]sdiction over all churches, what coherence, hath one part with an other? Panffoote. fo. 91. Antioche & Alexandria▪ were cheefe patriarchall churches. If the bishop of Rome had power overal, why did not those fathers expresse that they bestowed his charge vpon others, & that with some dependency on him? And how is it, that they themselues tel vs, that the churches founded by S. Peter and namely Antioche and Alexandria▪ haue bin named the chiefe patriatchal churches, and did goe [Page 101]before al the others in the counsels? Hardly then can Dureu [...] tel vs, when Alexandria depended on Rome as on a mother: But Dureus saith further that we might learne the meaning of the canon, from Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the coū ­sel of Chalcedon, where he recited that sixt canon thus, The Church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacy. Tre centorum decem & octo patrum sextus canon quod Ecclesia Roma­na semper habuit primatum. The sixt canon of the 318. fathers, that the church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacy. Wel may this be the preface of the Popes Legate, before he came to the Canon, but the canon it could not be in cōmon sense and reason; But Dureus hath broken the Ise & set in his foot and Bellarmine must finish the rest. This of Paschasinus, but the church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacie was spokē by him 120. yeares after the canon was made, and yet Bellarmine is come to this, that those words should be the beginning of the canon, and that the canon wanted a beginning til nowe of late, where it is plaine that those were but the Legates words in fauour of the sea of Rome and no part of their mea­ning.

Fowre several times doth Bellarmine assay this canon to make it serue his turne. 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont. l. 1. c. 24. fol. 151. 2. l. 2. c. 13. fol. 221. 3. l. 2. c. 17. fol. 250. 4. l. 2. c. 18. fol. 266. In the first, hee alloweth the canon only as we read it, without claiming any addition to it. In the second hee handleth it roughly, but yet confesseth against himselfe, that as the canon is extant in the cōmon prints, the beginning lacketh, which is, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit pri­matum, mos autē perduret. The church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacie, let the ancient custome remaine, &c. For so (saith he) did Paschasinus read it in the counsel of Chalcedō: If it be so, then doth Dureus abuse his reader, for he saith, The Church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacy. Ruffinus ex­poundeth the canon as we [...] doe. Paschasinus read it thus, The sixt canon of the 318. fathers, That the church of Rome hath, &c. why doth Bollarmine suppresse the word That? but to make vs Beleeue, the recital of the ea­non, is the canon it selfe. But Bellarmine doth freely confesse that the ancient father Ruffinus for more than 1200. yeares since, expounded the canons as we do, that is; That the bi­shop [Page 102]of Alexandria should haue the care of all Egypt; as the Bishop of Rome hath of the Churches neere about him. But Bellarmine saith that this expositiō is false, as also that of The­odoret Balsamon a greeke borne, who doth also to that effect interpret the Canon; who, howsoeuer hee displeaseth them now, Cope dial 1. f. 166. yet doth Alan Cope confesse him to bee a learned di­uine. But that exposition amongst many that pleaseth Bellar­mine best is, That the bishop of Alexandria should gouerne those prouinces allotted to him, because the bishop of Rōe is so accustomed, that is, because the bishop of Rome before a­ny definition of any councell did accustome, to permitt the gouernment of Egypt, Libia, and Pentapolis to the Bishop of Alexandria, or was accustomed to gouerne those prouin­ces by the bishop of Alexandria. Oratio pro Muraena. Iacerent in tenebris omnia nisi literarum lumen accesserit saith Tully; Althings had lien buried in darknesse, had not the light of good letters awaked them. How doe these men, with the knowledge of good letters in­volue althings into more darknesse, then if they were redu­ced to the first Chaos? There is none of them al but knowe, that the canon about which they keepe so much stirre is di­rectly against them. The verie recitall of it, is a sufficient con­futation of the argumēts brought to the contrarie. They on­ly desire to force their witts to vphold their wills. If the be­ginning of the canon hath bin wanting so long time as Bel­larmine maketh account it hath, how did Eckius, Hardinge, Saunders, Andradius, and Dureus, make it serue their turne a­gainst vs when it was wanting are they so good workmē that any tooles wil serue their turnes, whether they bee blunt or sharp, wil any thinge against the Protestants serue? But pope­ry was neuer fully cloathed in all hir colours til the late Iesu­its set it to sale. How or by whose means that peece was wāt­ing so long, or how it came to be wanting▪ or how to be foūd Bellarmine doth not shew. What record maketh mention of it ether counsell or father, or Doctor, or whoeuer said so but he, he is taken with, maner, and vntill he doth manfully acquite [Page 103]himselfe, he must slād charged with the wrong don to those 318. fathers, whose words he hath falcified, If hee bringe out an other Iesuite, elder then himselfe to testifie with him; it may not serue, the intelligence shalbee but as betweene an incendiarie and a robber, the one to fire the house and the o­ther to rifle it There was a time when the shewing of this ca­non (if it doe make for the bishop of Romes authoritie) wold haun greatly pleasured the Roman bishops, namely in their great and longe conflict with the Bishops of Aphrica, even touching superioritie and command, du [...]ing the full time al­most of three Popes Zozoman, Bonisacius, & I [...]ocentius 1. pre­sently after the Nice [...]e counsell, who contended with them & denied it them. Then or neuer had that canon beene to bee shewed, had it bin at all, and fitter oportunitie to haue found it was neuer offered▪ But none of the Bishops of Rome, euer hard of the making of it, which is an vndoubted argument there was none such. On the other side wee haue testimonie both for the Canon, ever since it was made, that it was neuer altered, and beside the evidence of the truth in the verie lan­guage of it, we haue Ruffinus for 1200. yeares agoe, expound­ing of it, as wee doe.

But let vs compare their new patch, with the whole cloth, Mat 9.16. Contraria in­terse apposita magis eluces­cunt. The right ca­non as they al agree. and see whether that that should fill it vp, do not take from the garment, and so the breach be worse; Let the ancient cu­stome be kept thorough out Egipt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alaxandria haue the goverment of all these, for the bishop of Rome hath the like order. Likewise also in Antiochia and in other provinces the priviledges are to be kept to the churches. After their forgery we may read it thus. The sixt canon of the 318. fathors That the church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacie, Dureus vt ante let the an­cient enstomes remaine, &c. After Bellarmine thus. The church of Rome hath alwaies had the primacie, let the auncient customes remaine thorough out Egipt, Libia, Bellar. vt ante and Pentapolis that the bishop of Alexandria governe those provinces, because the bishop of Rome is accustomed so to do; that is because the bishop before the definition [Page 104]of any councell accustomed to permit the gouerment of Egipt, Libia, and Pentapolis to the bishop of Alexandria; or accustomed to go­verne those provinces by the bishop of Alexandria. Hauing this li­berty to do and say what they list, to adde or take away whē they wil, they were to bee reckoned as simple and childlike, as now they are found fraudulent, and base; if they would e­ver yeeld to any authority, that is alleadged against them. But yet they shal not loose their labors, it shal be with them as with the Grecian artificers cos aulados esse, Cicero pro L. Muraena. orat. 23. fol. 750. qui citharaedi fieri non potuerint. Who were taken to be pipers when they coulde not attaine to be good plaiers on the harpe; and they shal be accounted Coblers and botchers, for faire and good worke they set vp none. I could cloy you with proofe against them in this kind of dealing, but I wil only adde one or two more, and so an end. Antwerpiae ex cudebat Ioan­nes Crinitus. anno. 1541. Cypr. de simp­praelat siue de vnit. eccles. Al the Apostles were equall.

The ancient father and martyr S. Cyprian who liued aboue 1300. yeares agoe within 250. yeares of Christ, hath this sen­tence, Hoc crant vti (que) & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, pa­ri consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. Verily the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, indued with like fel­lowship both of honor and power. From which the Prote­stants argue that S. Cyprian knew no rule or dominion that S. Peter had ouer the rest of the Apostles, for saith he they were equal both in honor and in power: Iuel con Hard. art. 4. diuis. 6. fol. 239. Caus. 24. q 1. loquitur domi­nus. Caiet. de rom. pont. instit. tō. 1. tract. 3 c. 3. & de author pa­pae & conc. tō. 1. tract. 1. c. 2. Saund l. 7. nū. 46. fol. 262. and so hath shut out the bishop of Rome from hauing that soueraignty over the rest of the bishops of the church. Bishop Iuell in his time without any mistrust, thought this authority of Cypriās strōg enough (amongst others) to shew the ancient fathers mindes in that point. Gratian who compiled the decrees, hath recorded this sentence of Cyprian, even in this forme that we lay it downe: Cardinal Caietane eiteth it twife in two seueral tracts writing of the Popes authority, even as we do without any addition at al to it.

Saunders also in his visible monarchy argueth vpon this text of Cyprian for Peters supremacie over the rest of the A­postles, [Page 105]but quoteth the text as we do, without the late addi­tion added by the Iesuits; so that for our warrant wee haue al the ancient texts of Cyprian. The decrees of Gratian, the testi­mony of Caietane, and the allowance of Sanders. Nothwith­standing which testimony & witnes, they haue of late found out a piece belonging to this text of Cyprian, which shall not only contrary the true reading, but even palpably & groslie cause him to confound & overthrow his own former words. They read it thus, Hoc erant vti (que) & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pariconsortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis, Bellar. de. rom. pont. l. 1. c. 12. sol. 103. lege & lib. 4. c, 23. sol. 591. Et primatus Petro datur & the primacy is giuen to Peter is added to Ci­prian by thē. sed exerdium ab vnitate proficiscitur, & Primatus Petrodatur, vi Ecclesia vna monstretur, The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, indued with like fellowship both of honor & power, but the be ginning cōmeth from vnity, And the primacy is given to Peter, that the Church might be shewed to be one. Et prima­tus Petro datur, and the primacy is giuen to Peter, hath been added vnto Cypriā of late becuse they saw the former words did quite overthrow them, and so in adding them they haue overthrowne vs and Cyprian too. Wil they haue any man to thinke that S. Cyprian would say first. The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, indued with like fellowship both of honor and power; and to adde presently, And the pri­macie is given to Peter. How were they the same? how were they indued with like fellowship both of honor and power, if Peter had the Primacie? Vnlesse such a primacy be ment, as notwithstanding wil leaue them the same that he was, & so the same, that they shall be like in honor and power: such a primacy I hope they haue wit enough to discard, and yet a­ny other primacy shall contrary Cyprian, and proue them for­gers.

They are Masters of the presses beyond the seas, they cō ­passe sea & land to make a proselite, they spare no cost, shal we think that if the aunciēt manuscripts of Cyprians text, had had that clause, that the first printed copies would haue wā ­ted it? Would Gratian haue omitted it, in his decrees or Ca­ietane [Page 106]or Saunders, Dial. dial. i.s. 123. Rhem: annot. Ioh. c. 21. f. 280 Dureus. rat. 6. fol. 286. Fulk against the Rhem. lo lo citato. Rey. cōf. with Hart c 5 diuis. 2. fol. 165. Whit. cōt [...]ur. l. 6. fol 433. not haue seene the very words, that should point out the supremacy, it is hard so to thinke, & against for­mer experiences. And yet doth Alane Cope in his dialogues, The Rhemists in their testament. Dureus against Whitakers, in defence of Campian, al which go along in that stringe, and holde in that addition, but most crookedly in so straight a cause. Doth not this iustifie the complaint of our mē against them, who lay it soundly to their charge, that they from be­yonde the seas haue twenty such devises as these, to make their religion go currant, among their novices here in Eng­land? You haue seene in the former examples of the Nicene counsel, and S. Cyprians authority, how bold (without shame) they haue bin to adde vnto their texts, that which the origi­nal bookes had not; Nowe will I shew you with how great shew of diligence, they can handle other authorities when they do but seeme to make for them. The thing is this. The Ecclesiastical histories of Socrates & Sozomene, Eccles. histor. Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. do make mē ­tion of certaine troubles, that befel vnto Athanasius, Paulus, and Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius, al Archbishops of great places in the East, who being expulsed from their churches, fled vnto Rome where Iulius was bishop, who bestirred him­selfe as wel as the time would giue him leaue, to see them re­stored to their seas, if possible it might be. This authority & record seeming to make for the bishop of Romes power and dominion, is garnished with glorious titles, and often alled­ged with great pompe, as if the matter were cleare, and to be received without further examination, that the bishoppe of Rome had supreme power on earth over all other bishops.

Bellarmine alleadgeth it fowre several times, Bellar. de rom. pont. l. 2. c. 15. fol. 237. vnder fowre seueral titles, and in al fowre agreeth with himselfe; That A­thanasius & the rest being deposed frō their seas fly to Rome, where Iulius for the dignity of his place, gaue them comfort and reliefe, and in plaine termes restored thē to their bishop­ricks. 1. By the wit­nesse of Greek fathers. First he alleadgeth it in the Chapter of proofes for the Popes monarchy, by the witnesse of Greeke fathers: because [Page 107]the historian Sozomene who reporteth it, was a Greciā. Next, 2. Bell. vt ante. l. 2. c. 18. by his authority ouer other bishops. 3. Bell vt ante l. 2 c. 21. by ap­peales made vnto him. 4. Bel de conc. auth. l. 2. c 17. The first re­porter of this is Socrates Ec­cles. histor. l. 2. c. 11. You shall read before that they fled to Constantinus the younger, l. 2. c. 2. Loco contu­meliae. Cap. 14. Constans Em­perour of the West. Cap. 16. for the authority which the bishop of Rome exercised, over other bishops, because hee wrote to the Easterne bishops a­bout them. Then in the chapter of appeales, because they came from the East into the West for succour. In the fourth place, he bringeth it in for the Popes authority over coun­sels, because the Easterne bishops had deposed the other in a coūcell. It is a signe that Bellarmine would play the good hus­band with the whole peece, that can doe so much with such smal rags. The first reporter of this is Socrates a Greeke wri­ter, aswel as Sozomene & before him in the history; He shew­eth how that Athanasius, Paulus, Asclepas, Marcellus, and Lu­cius being depriued of their churches came to Rome the princely citty, and cettifie Iulius of their troubles; Iulius by reason of the prerogatiue of his church vphelde their partes, writing his letters into the East, which they trusting vnto, go euery man to his owne home, and send the letters accor­ding to their seueral directions. But those of the East tooke the letters of Iulius in skorne, & wil not be directed by him. After this the Emperour Constans writeth to his brother, in the behalfe of them, desiring him to send those thither, who might render a reason before him of the iust causes of their deposition. His letters tooke none effecte, in so much that they make humble suit that an other counsel might bee cal­led, wherin both parties might be the better known. By the commandement of both Emperours a general counfell was proclaimed at Sardice a citty of Illirium: by the better part of the counsel is Paulus Athanasius and Marcellus restored to their bishopricks. Notwithstanding these things, Edicitur con­cilium genera­le, id (que) de sen­tentia duorū Imperarorum. Constantius Emperour of the East. Cap 18. Constantius the Emperour of the East deferred from day to day, the ex­ecution of his brothers request concerning the deposed bi­ships, wherefore he gaue him in choise, either to restore Pau­lus and Athanasius, and so accompt him for his friend, or else to heare the proclamation of open warre and so finde him as his deadly foe. The letters he sent were to this effect. There [Page 108]remaine with me Athanasius and Paulus who as I am credibly giuē to vnderstand are persecuted for godlinesse sake; The letters of constance, to his brother Constantius. If thou wilt promise me to restore them to their seates, & to punish severely such as haue iniured them; I wil send the parties themselues vnto thee; But if thou wilt not accomplish these things as I require; I will that thou knowe, that I will come thither, and whether thou wilt or no, restore them to their seats. Constantius vnderstanding this, assembled many of the Easterne bishops and demanded of them what were best to be done. They did not cōclud thus vp on the Bishop of Romes. let­ters. In fine episto­lae lulij Roma­ni episcop. ad clerum & po­pulum Alexan­drinum. They answere, it were farre better to restore A­thanasius, than to raise deadly and mortal warre. Wherefore the Emperor restored Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, Asclepas and Lucius, every one to his bishoprick againe, so that by the Emperours edict they all receiued their own seas, the citties were commanded to entertaine them, with willing & cheer­ful mindes. Thus much briefly out of Socrates concerning the troubles which befel on Athanasius & the rest of the Catho­like bishops.

What Sozomene reporteth (which is all the shew that Bel­larmine hath) of this matter, Sozomene of the same mat­ter. l. 3. c. 7. His reports of this same mat­ter. shal as breeflly follow as the rest is gone before. In his third booke & seauenth Chap. he mē ­tioneth the same matter that Socrates did, in his second book & eleuenth Chap. That is the flight of Athanasias & others from Alexandria and other places, to Rome, Iulius his writ­ing letters in their behalfe, which he calleth his restoring of thē (euen as in an other place he saith they deposed Pope Iulius, who yet was not deposed) Their answering of Julius letters rethorically and ironically, telling him withal, that although Rome from the beginning had bin famous and the Metro­polies for religion & godlines tamē authores religionis Christia­nae primū, Christian reli­giō came first out of the east ex Oriēte eò veaeissēt yet the authors & foūders of the christiā religiō came first out of the East thither, & that Iulius in doing that which he did, had brokē the laws of the church in medling with those that they had dealt against. In the meane time new accusations were coined vnto Constantius, which Iulius vnderstanding thought it not safe for Athanasi­us [Page 109]to like in Egipt, but sent for him to Rome, Cap. 8. &. 9. And wrote a­gaine to the bishops of the East, who met at Antioche reply­ing to the letters, and found fault with them that contrary to the faith of the Nicene counsel they had vndertaken new matters, and contrary to the lawes of the church, they had not called him to the counsel: For saith he, there is a law be­longing to the honor of Priesthood, which taketh those acts for voide, which are enacted without the consent of the bi­shop of Rome, the matter commeth to this issue, Cap. 19. He is the issue of what Iulius could doe. He brought the matter into the Emperour hand. when Iulius saw that those things for which he wrote tooke none effect, causam Athanasij & Pault ad Constantem retulit, hee bringeth the cause of Athanasius and Paulus vnto the Emperour Con­stans, who did write vnto his brother both for the sending of Athanasius his accusers vnto him, with request (in that man­ner as before you did heare) to see them restored himselfe. The conclusion of Sozomens history concerning Athanasius and the rest, is the same that Socrates (before mētioned) was, Sozom. l. 3. cap. vlt. thus: Athanasius returned from the West vnto Egipt: so did Paulus Marcellus Asclepas. & Lucius recover their Episcopall seates, for by the Emperours letters they also had libertie to returne, to their owne home.

There is a third historiographer who is very plentifull in reporting the troubles that befel on these bishops, Theod. eccles. histe l. 2. cap. 5. and of A­thanasius comming vnto Constans the Westerne Emperour, and his putting the Prince in minde of his fathers Acts, and of the great Councel of Nice, which his father had called; & then instantly got the Emperour to write vnto his brother Constantius, wherin he warneth him to keepe inviolably the inheritance of his fathers faith. Constantius moued with these letters, appointed a Counsel to be held at Sardice, & willed the bishops aswel of the East as the West to be their present. Whereby it is plaine stil, that, as the Emperour restored them in the end; so had they power to call and summon the coun­cels, and to appoint any meane which they thought fit, for the due hearing of the matter, till their owne full sentence [Page 110]came. And this is so plaine that Sanders in his visible monar­chy saith Magnus Athanasius nihil dubitauit Constantis Impe­ratoris Catholics sidem at (que) opem contra Constantij Caesaris vim ac perfidiā implorare. L. 2, c. 4. fol. 82. ex Theod. ec­cles lib. 2. c, 5. Athanasius the great doubted not to craue and implore the trust and help, of the catholike Emperour Constans against the force & trecherie of the Emperour Con­stantius.

Now let the whole world iudge betweene our adversaries & vs, which of vs twaine haue more right vnto this question of restoring of Athanasius, and the other Bishops. The history is plaine Iulius authority was to weake to performe what he thought to haue compassed, and therfore hee appealed to the Emperour, who indeed did strike the stroake. 1. 2. 3. 4. Thus is Bellarmines Fowre fold proofe, proued to bee single sold and poore, and yet is not this his case alone but of others before him, 5. Hard. art. 4. cont. Iuell. fol. 111. b. & 117 b Hardings, 6. Dormā. cōt. Iuell. fol 64 b. Dorman, 7. Pighius ec­cles. hier. lib. 4. fol. 269. Pighius, 8. Cope, dial. 1. fol. 55. Cope, & 9. Staplet. re­turne of vn­truths against M Iuell. art. 4. fol 29. Stapleton, all of them ioining in one to suppresse the truth, & all of them alleadg­ing the storie falsely and deceiptfully, as though it had bin done by Iulius, which was only effected by the Emperour. And where, in the processe of this tragedie touching Atha­nasius, I haue opened (indeed of purpose, because the adver­saries should not cauill) that Iulius alleadged a law in he ho­nor of Preisthood, which ordained that those acts should be void, which were made without the consent of the bishop of Rome, which may seeme at the first sight, to make only for his authoritie and soueraignty, excluding all others, It may please them that shal so thinke to vnderstand withall, that over the bishops of Christendome there were constituted & appointed foure Patriarches of Rome, Constantinople, An­tioche, and Alexandria, amongst which foure the Bishop of Rome had the first place in order and fitting, when they did meete to gether, but no definitiue sentence to vndoe that which they did, or to conclude without them, and this held touching generall counsells, and somethinge for the nomi­nating of bishops, if need had bin, and not touching the bi­shop [Page 111]of Rome only but also towardes others of that fellow­ship, and thence sprange their letters of mutuall certificate each to others, touching that one faith which they al profes­sed, as Gregory the great, seemeth to insinuate when he saith Hinc est etiam quòd quoties in quatuor praecipuis sedibus Antistites ordinantur, synodales sibi epistolas viciscim mittant. Gregor. l. 7. e­pisc. 53. ex sād­vis. mon. l. 7. so. 358. & Stapl. Princ. fidei doct. l. 4. c. 20. fol. 149. Greg. l. 6. epis. 37. ex Saund. visib. monar. l. 7. fol. 220. The dignity in the 3. patriar­chal seats is e­quall. Rome. Alexandria. Antioche. Sozō. l. 6. c. 23 Sanders abus­eth this place alleadging it so, as if the cō ­sent only of the bishop of Rome were required Declaue Dauid. l. 4. fol 80. Socrat. eccles. histo. l. 7. c. 28. Noe bishop. ordained without the consent of the bishop of Cō ­stantinople. Hence it is also that oftentimes we finde that men of chelfe authoritie are appointed to rule in the fowre cheife seas, & mutually they sende synodicall Epistles each to others Cum multi sint A­postole▪ pro ipso tamen principatu sola Apostolorum principis sedes in authoritate cōvaluit, quae in tribus locis vnius est. Although there bee many Apostles, yet for the principalitie, the seate of the prince of the Apostles was cheife in authoritie, which autho­ritie in 3 places is equal: For he (Peter) exalted the seate wherin he vouchsafeth to abide, and ende his life: Hee also beautified the seate, vnto which he sēt the Evāgelist (Mark) his disciple. And he established the seate, wherin he sate se­uen yeares although he remoued from thence. And other mens consents were established by law to bee had aswell as the bishop of Rome as we may read in the same history of Sozomene that the counsell holden at Ariminum was condē ­ned because nether Vincentius nor the rest to whome it belonged aswell as the bishop of Rome (though his minde should haue bin knowne before other) had not agreed vnto it. It is moreover read againe in plaine tearmes in the diuisiō betweene Sisini­us and those of Cyzicium, they appointing one bishop and he nominating an other, Hoc ab illis factum est neglecta illa lege quae iubet nequis episcopus desiguetur abs (que) sententia & authoritate Episcopi Constantinopolis, This they did faith the storie because they neglected that law which commandeth that no bishop be appointed, and ordained without the consente of the bi­shop of Constantinople: so it appeareth if the businesse con­cerning the whole church were handled thē al their know­ledges and mindes were had and knowne in it; if it concern­ed any particular part therof, then the particular bishops of [Page 112]the prouince, 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont. l. 2 c. 13. fo. 223. ex Theodoret. ec. cles. his. l. 5. c. 9. is abused as­wel as the rest By comman­dement of the Popes letters saith Bellarm. 2. Bellar. de conc. & eccles l. 1. c. 13. f. 60. By the Popes letters they came to Con­stantinople. A most im­pudēt vntruth shamlesly a­vouched. 3. Bel. de conc. & eccles. l. 1. c. 19. fo. 83. & 87. The bishop of Constantino­ple was presi­dent. If the bishopp of Rome or his Legat, must needs be pre­sident of coū ­sells; then this counsel lacked a president, or otherwise it must appeare that Nectarius was his Legat or deputy, both which are absurd to think. and the patriarch yeilded thervnto & the Em­perour aboue alto bridle and call all to accompt.

You shal further see their sincerity in alleadging the histo­ries by an other exāple about the bishop of Romes supreme power, out of the ecclesiasticall historie also. The second ge­nerall counsell in their Epistle to Damasus, which is extant in Theodoret doe say that they came to the citty of Constā ­tinople ex mandato literarum pontificis by commandement of the Popes letters sent vnto them by the Emperour, And there also they confesse the church of Rome to bee the head, and they the members. This saith Bellarmine in his first report of that historie. In the second place, he bringeth it in for proof of the Popes authority in calling of generall counsells, Theo­porete reporteth (saith he) that the Emperour Theodosius did not so much call the counsell at Constantinople, as that hee sēt the letters of Damafus the Pope to the bishops, by which letters the counsell was summoned; For so write the bishops gathered together in the counsell, vnto Damasus the Pope, mandato inquiunt literarum supertore anno à vestra reverentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum. That by let­ters receaued the last yeare from your holynesse (meaning the Pope) sent vnto the most holy Emperour Theodosius wee prepared to take our iourney to Constantinople. Although therfore saith Bellarmine Theodosius called the counsel yet he called it by commandement of the sea Apostolike. In the 3. place hee bringeth this same example for the presidentship, and cheifty of the bishop of Rome in counsells. In the secōd counsel held at Constantinople (saith hee) it is certaine that the Emperour fat not cheife, but only sent the letters of the bishop of Rome, to the rest, by which they were called to the counsell. And it is certaine (saith he) that the Roman bi­shop was not president but Nectarius the bishop of Constan­tinople, the reasō wherof is, because the bishop of Rome was not there, nor any Legate for him, for Damasus the Pope had called the bishops of the East to Constantinople; But from [Page 113]that place he would haue had them come to Rome, that so at Rome there might haue bin a full & plenary counsell both of the East & West bishops, How bouldly are these vn­truthes avou­ched? 4. Saund. [...]. fol. 41. But if Damasus had beene there without doubt he had sat cheife, as appeareth by their Epistle to Da­masus, Ʋbi illi Damasum vs caput suum agnoseunt, & ipse filios cos vocat, wherin they acknowledge him for their head, and he calleth them sonnes; so much for Bellarmine.

Saunders in his Visible monarchy, maketh a briefe of this matter thus. The fathers that were (saith he) gathered togi­ther, in the second general counsel holden at Constantinople, when they were vrged by Damasus the bishop of Rome to come thither, amongst other causes why they coulde not so do, brought this for one, By the Popes letters they came to Con­stantinople. That by the letters of the same Da­masus written to the Emperor Theodosius, they were appoin­ted only to prepare themselues for a [...]ourney to Constātinople; And that they had brought the cōsents of the bishops who remained at home in their provinces with them of the cele­brating of that one councel. Sanders againe in an other place. 5. Sand. decla­ue Dauid. I. 4. sol. 81. The cosent of the bishop of Rome. preambulateth from the matter before hee come to it, thus. Although the consent of the bishop of Rome alwaies had & obtained, did confirme the summoning of a general coūsell, yet that in a great matter no error should creep in, it was the order that the Pope should send his letters to the Emperour touching that matter, As who shuld say the Pope commanded the Emperour to summon counsells. and then the Emperour having recei­ved those letters, did by his own letters assemble the bishops wherevpon the bishops assembled at Constantinople do write vnto Damasus in these words, you did send for vs as for mē ­bers of your owne body, by the letters of the most holy Em­perour to come vnto the counsel which is gathered togither at Rome by the wil & pleasure of God. And a little after. By the commandement of letters from your holinesse, sent the last yere vnto the Emperor Theodosius after the councel held at Aquila, wee prepared our selues only for our iourney to Constantinople. It therefore appeareth (saith Sanders) from this testimony. That there were two Councels holden at once, [Page 114]one at Rome, the other at Constantinople, and to both of them the Pope sent for those bishops by the letters of the Empe­rour. Thus much from Sanders in that place of that matter.

6. Staplet. ret. o [...] untruths art 4. fol. 139. D. Stapleton an other of that side, maintaining the Popes soveraignety, is no more abashed to abuse the history than those other haue done in the places going before, For saith hee, Those bishops of Constantinople doe write-vnto Damasus the Pope, and shewing a cause of there not cōming to Rome, do further say vnto him, That they had assembled themselues but lately at Constantinople by the late letter of your honor sent after the councell holden in Aquilicato the most Godly Emperour Theodosius, Letters from your honor. which was the reason why they could not come to Rome. Now tou­ching this present matter (saith he) the bishops here doe wit­nesse that to that counsel of Rome the Pope called them, by the letters of the Emperour, not as a warrant (they haue no such word) but rather as a meane. For they witnes he calleth thē as his proper members. Bellar. thrise. Saund. twise already. Staplet. once. 7. 8 and. de vi­fib. monar. l. 7. fol. 312. num. 145. 146. The whole masse of false­hood is diseo­uered. The Easterne bishops write to all the bi­shops of the West, and so the letters go in the plurall number. This it the sixt canvasse they haue had touching this place of Theodoret: The seauenth set downe by Sanders in a thirde place of his booke, will quite overthrow both himselfe and them, being inlighted a little by the hi­story, which they al haue most shamefully abused; For in this third place of his hee hath bewraied their shameful dealing. There he confesseth that the Bishops of the East, did write to other bishops of the West, and namely to Ambrose, aswel as to Damasus, & not to him alone, (as hitherto they al made vs beleeue they did) and there he confesseth more over, that the Easterne bishops receiued a letter from the Westerne ga­thered togither at Rome, in which letter they were praied to come thither: and that in their answere back, they declare that all the westerne bishoppes sent for them by letters from the most holie Emperour. But (saith he further) it appeareth from this place, that the first beginning of a general counsel is the bi­shop of Rome, but the meanes which the Pope vseth in that matter is to call them by the Emperours letters.

This is all their report that I finde of this matter. I would [Page 115]now but aske them this questiō whether they tell vs thus much, because they beleeue it, or beleeue is because they tell it vs? If they tell it vs as beleeuing it themselues, we can say no otherwise of them, than of him that did accustome to tel lies so fast to others, that in the end he tooke them for truthes himselfe: if they beleeue it because they tell it vs, our incredulity in this case shal do them good, in aduising thē not to beleeue that wee will any more take the reporte of any such matter vpon their words; so that if our deniall wil profit them, I assure thē, I will not credit them in any thing without due evidence of the iustnesse of it: Ter. in Eunuc. act. 2. scen. 1. Nihil. aliud quam Philu­menam volo. And therefore I giue them the councel in the Poet quoniam id fieri quod volu [...]t, non potest, velint id quod pos­sit, since they cānot haue what they would, that they woulde take what they may; But they answere they would haue no­thing but the Bishop of Romes supremacy, I say again as the Poet saith in that place, it were much better for thē to leaue that fansie, rather than by this palpable fraud to go about to perswade it. Al their inferences from that text of Theodoret, are false and merely suggested, either of the Popes power in cal­ling that counsell of Constantinople; or of their writing to Damasus, & oulie to Damasus, or that they called him their head, or that they confessed themselues his proper members; as they haue abused the history.

The writing which the bishops of the East sent to them of the West, is called, The true re­port out of Theodorete. eccles. l. 5. c. [...]. Libellus Sinodicus à Concilio Constantinopoli­tano ad Episcopas missus. The Councel of Constantinoples decla­ration sent vnto the Bishops. The superscription is, Dominis honoratissimis & cum primis reverendis fratribus ac collegis Da­maso, Ambrosio, Brittoni, valeriano, Acholio, Avemio, Basilio, et ca­teris sanct is Episcopis. To the most renowned, Reverend bre­theren & fel­lowes. and most es­pecial reverend brethren and fellows Damasus, Ambrose, Bri­ton, Ʋalerian, Acholius, Avemius, Basill, and the rest of the holy bishops gathered togither in the famous citty of Rome: The holy councell of Catholike bishops gathered togither in the famous citty of Constantinople send health in our Lord. Num [Page 116]quid nam hic quod nolis, Ter in Eunuc. act. 2. scen. 2. vides Bellarmine? Is there any thing here ô Bellarmine that thou wouldest not see? Yes, neither me nor that which I haue brought. Where do they write to Da­masus? Where do they acknowledge him the head, & they the members? Where be the letters sens frō his honor? All this, like religious and loving fathers to the Church of God they confesse each to other, because they consented in one catholike doctrine, & were of one Catholike church, (though di­vided by East and West,) whose head is Christ as S. Paule saith, Ephes. 4.5. One Lord, one faith, one baptisme. But if you wil speake of what they were in respect of themselues, and their authoritie over each other, Sozō. l. 6. c. 23. they were brethren and fellowes. And this Da­masus him selfe knew wel enough (although these men defile their consciences for him) when he and other bishops of Ita­ly, did write vnto the bishops of Illiricum, That it was meete that all the bishops belonging to the Romane iurisdiction should agree in one. Qui Romani ditioni subijci­untur. And great Marvaile it were that Damasus should be so suddenly growne potent, and masterfull over the bishops of the East, when it appeareth that Ʋrsinius durst checke with him for the Popedome; Socr. l. 4. c. 24. as Felix did with Liberius who went next before him, Sozō. l. 4. c. 14. which contention the councell of Syrmiun [...] determined willing them to be bishops both togither.

Now touching the termes of Father & Sonnes which these men catch at for Damasus behoofe; It is cleare in the letter that Damasus and the westerne bishops with him, do say of the Niceene councel, that they were their fathers, & that their decrees had armed their faith, Patres nostri. Fidem nostrā cinxêre. against the weapons of the De­vil. If the Popes Soveraignety had bin without limit, and o­ver al; it had bin a very harsh phrase to haue named the Ro­man iurisdiction as Damasus and the rest do. Againe, this same coūcel held at Rome, by Damasus, was at the same time with that other of Constantinople, & vnto which Damasus summo­ned and called those of the East, how came it then to passe, that both they could shift themselues from their obedience to Damasus and not to come; and haue their councel held at [Page 117] Constantinople, whereat neither Damasus nor any for him was present, to be celebrated by so famous a name as The second generall councell, and so remaineth vnto this day, rather then that other of his at Rome, if Damasus were so great at that time, as they would make vs beleeue he was.

Furthermore, whereas they simper so much about Dama­sus forsooth of Calling the councelat Constantinople, they cannot tell whether it was done by his advise, or by his anthoritie, or whether he did it at the Emperours request or the Emperor at his; or whither their powers were equal; so well haue they conned their leere, yet is it plaine by the Ecclesiastical histo­ry that the Emperour called and summoned it. Theodosius caled the coū ­sell at Constā ­tinople, anno. 385. Socrat. eccles. hist. l. 5. c. 8. Imperator nul­la mora interposita, concilium Episcoporum, ipsius fidem amplectenti­um, convocat. The Emperour admitting no delay called a councell of Bishops, imbracing the same faith which he did, whereby the faith of the Niceene councel might be strengthned, and a bishop of Constantinople appointed. Here is no sha­ring of authority in this point betweene the Emperour and the bishop of Rome as Sanders would make vs beleeue, The Popes deede and the Emperours al one. Ita vt prima generalis concilij causa fit Romani episcopi, hoc est, primi pastoris cōuo­catio. Moris fuit vt Papa literas de ea re ad im­peratorem daret: is vero papae literi [...], acceptis, etiā per suas lite­ras Episcopo [...] convocarer. vt ita Papae at (que) Imperatoris convocatio vna eadem (que) esset, that so the Popes summoning and the Emperours might bee but as one act.

Search all antiquity for these 1300. yeares, ever since the first famous general councel of Nice, and neuer heare of that practise, except in some petite-graund councels of their own of late yeares, such as that was of Trent. And where also San­ders in the processe hereof woulde make vs beleeue, that in those times the bishop of Rome was the first originall cause of calling councels, but the meane whereby he effected that cal­ling was the Emperours greatnesse by his summons, (as also Stapleton beareth vs in hand, in the places before cited:) is a mere abuse and absolute forgery without either sense or fa­vor. For he telleth vs presently, as if he would purposely fru­strate, al that himselfe had said, that Leo the great did write vnto the Emperour Martianus thus, Poposceram a gloriosissima [Page 118]clementia vestra, Leo epist. 44. ex Saund. de claue Dauid. l. 4 [...] 81. & de visib mo l. 7. f. 346. The bishop of Rome desired the Emperor to deferre the Counsell. Staplet. ad E­liza. reg. An­gliae in epist. praefixa ad Bedā. in Ang. serm. Bellar. de cōc & eccles. l. 1. c. 19. fol. 88 89. Leo epist. 58. ex Saund. de visib. mon. l. 7. fol. 352. Vide Stap. ret. of vntruths a­gainst M. Iuell art. 4. fol. 142. 143. vt synodum, quam pro recuperand [...] Orientalis ec­clesiae pace à nobis etiam petitam necessariam indicastis, aliquātisper differri ad tempus opportunius iuberetis. I desired of your most excellent Maiesty; that you would commande that that sy­node which you thought necessary to be holden for establi­shing of the peace of the East church, for which I also made suit might haue bin for a little while deferred to a more cō ­uenient time. And this was touching the great general coū ­sell of Chalcedon, which Martianus the Emperour summō ­ed, being often moued thervnto by Leo the Pope, and not only summoned it, but was also present; and not only presēt but sat in the first place, and sate so ad confirmanda in fidem, to confirme the faith, as before him the good Emperor Constā ­tine did. And when his Maiestie was not disposed to sit any longer, hee left certaine of his secular Princes to sit in his ab­sence. And when the counsell was ended hee willed Leo to direct his letters to al the bishops that were present, to signi­fie his confent and allowance to the Articles of faith which they had decreed, which hee willingly performed least any should take occasion to stumble through his default. If the Popes owne wil and purpose were the first & original cause of counsells, and that the Emperors duty was but to signify to the bishops, when hee had receaued order from the Pope; Then are they false that tell vs (and it is they that tel vs) that the Emperour summoned it, and that the Pope obtained so much from him by intreatie, & when the summons was gon out, his holinesse prayed it might be deferred, and could not obtaine his request. Hardly can it be said that the Emperor and Pope were equall in authoritie at this time, seeing the Pope by intreaty sought that of the Emperour, which had the matter bin as they lay it downe hee might haue compas­sed by his owne power without him. The last point touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome. Let this suffice for these.

Now for the last point wherof I intended to speake Tu­berius, which was touching the succession of the bishopps of Rome, for these many hundred yeares, of which you said at [Page 119]the beginning you had a table, Examine their succession vp­on these pointes. because I doe imagine that your table is but a bare table of names, without any touch e­ther of the doctrine they taught, or opinion they held, or of the incertainty of the order of their places, or maner of com­ming into that sea, whether lawfully or vnlawfully; you shall therfore haue a tast of the weaknes of that great pillar wherō you must leane, if you wil be a Romanist. Ex successione incer­tissima incertior fides. From an vncertaine succession, is no cer­taine trust to bee drawen, and more wisdome were it for thē to cleare the doubts of their owne evidences then to call o­ther in question for theirs. They cry nothing but succession, succession, as though their succession were as Davids sling & their bishops had been as so many choise stones in the scrip, which were able to coquere a mightie oppugner; but it hath rather proued like Sauls armour buckled to David, more cū ­bersome then safe for David to weare or for any to trust vn­to, Successores omnes cupiunt esse, imitatores pauci, Bern. in conc. Rhem. f. 361. H. vt inam ta [...] vi­giles reperirentur ad curam, quam alacres currunt ad cathedram, saith S. Bernard, They al desire to be the successors (of Peter) few to bee followers; I would they could be found to bee as watchful in the charge, as they runne willingly to the chaire. Graunt them but to sit at Rome where S. Peter sate, and for any beleife, doctrine, abilitie to teach, vertue, godlinesse, or almost common honesty, they care not for any. Cont. Iuell. art 4. fol. 113. 114. We be plain­ly taught saith D. Hardinge, that albeit the successors of Peter Christs Vicars in earth, be found blame worthy for evil life, yet we ought not to dissent from them in doctrine, nor sever our selues from them in faith. For as much as notwithstāding they be evill, by Gods prouidence for the surety of his people they be compelled to say the good things that be good, The Popes be compelled to say the good things they do say. and to teach the truth the things they speake not being theirs but Gods, who hath put the doctrine of verity in the chaire or seate of vnitie. Which singular grace commeth especially to the sea of Peter, ether of the force of Christs prayer, or in respect of place and dignity which the bishops of that sea hold from [Page 120]Christ, The Popes cō ­pared to Bala­am & Caiphas as Balaam could bee brought by no meanes to curse that people whom God would to bee blessed. And Caiphas also prophecied, because he was high bishop for that yeare and prophecied truly, being otherwise a man most wicked. And therfore the evill doings of the bishops of Rome make no argument of discrediting of their doctrine, nether ought the evill liues of the bishops of Rome, to withdrawe vs from beleeuing and following the doctrine preached and taught in the holy church of Rome. Annot, in Luc. c. 22. v. 31. Liberius Marcellinus Honorius. They knowe wel that worse thē the [...]e haue sat in that seat. Stapl. returne of vntruthes art. 4. f. 111. & 116. Bitont. in ora. Conc. Tridēt. ex Duraeo cō ­tra Whit. rat. 7. fol. 369. The Rhemists will cōfesse more of their Popes, Liberius (saie they) in persecution might yeeld, Marcellinus for feare (of death) might commit Idololatrie. Honorius might fall into heresy, and more then all this some Iudas might creep into the office, yea and al this without pre­iudice of the office and seate. We doe say that the Pope may erre (saith Stapleton) and hath erred both in faith and maners touching his owne private person. Let it be true (saith he a­gaine) that many Popes haue for saken the faith, yea and Christ too, because of their wicked liues & haynous deeds. Cornelius bishop of Bitonto, in his oration to the holy councel of Trent, spake bitterly to this purpose, Ʋtinam à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Antichristum, à Deo ad Epicu­rum velut prorsus vnanimes non declinâssent. I would to God (saith he) that they had not altogether declined from religi­on to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to An­tichrist, and from God to Epicurus, The penners of the late supplication to the Kings Maiestie: in the behalfe of the pa­pists could not hide this truth, Supplic. anno 1604. that the wicked liues of seve­ral the professors, and cheife rulers of their religion, could not hetherto, Wicked liues in the cheife rulers & pro­fessors of their religion. A manifest cō tradiction in the petition. nor shal not to the worlds ende, either extirpate or darken the visibilitie of their Church: & yet very wantonly in an other part therof, they say cleane cōtrary, that the pro­fessors & spredders of their religion were alwaies of a knowē holy life and semblable death.

Here haue they gained a manifest contradiction to them selues, or must confesse that by the chiefe vulers, and professors [Page 121]of their religion, they do not meane the Popes. Thus much you see by their own confessiō, that in extolling their Popes in general, they wil allow thē to be Idololaters, heretikes, or men of monstrous and beastly liues, so they get but into the chaire al is wel: be they like vnto Iudas, Caiphas, or to whatso­ever accursed miscreant else he is in the place they care not; as though that having once gotten thether, Qui (que) ea vitia quae à natura habebat etiā studio & atti­ficio quodam maliciea condi­visset. Cic. pro Cluentio. Furtum verris amici morbū appellarunt. Cic. l. 4. in ver­rem. he were bounde to perfect and season himselfe thoroughlie of al those vices which before he had by nature. And so make murder, adulterie, incest, coniura­tion, rapine, theft and such like, no vice but a certaine disease vncurable, to follow him that shal fit there, as Verres friendes did cal his theft, his disease, as though it had bin hereditarie. And on such Popes as these doth he that gathered your ta­ble tel you, that Christ did build his church, and to them he committed his lambes and sheepe to be fedde, euen by their owne description to foxes and wolues, traitors, and Apostataes, for, for these many hundred yeares they haue bin no other. The first of those texts in your table viz: the 16. of Mathew, where it is said, Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shal not prevaile against it: The examination of the ta­ble. Mat. 16.18 And I will giue vnto thee the keies of the kingdome of heaven, &c. is to short to reach whether you would haue it; for in the same chapter it is said by Christ to Peter againe, Get thee behinde me Sathan, Cap. ibid. v. 23. thou art an offence vnto mee, because thou vnderstandest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of mē. Now because this later rebuke should nothing preiudice the former grant, but that stil S. Peter should alone be the Rocke, and foundation on whom the Church was built, and also haue the keyes, and consequētly the Popes from him; Bellarmine bestirreth him­selfe earnestly and mainely, to purchase those priviledges, De Rom. pont. l. 1. c. 10. f. 90. S. Peter was not yet the foundation. Ob. Mat. 18.18. & yet keepe the text sound and not wronged. First therfore (he saith) that when Christ said to Peter, vade post me Sathan. Get thee behind me Sathan, he was not thē the foūdatiō, for in that place Christ did promise that, which he gaue him after his re­surrection. When we obiect the other text of Mathew ca. 18. [Page 122]for al the Apostles, aswel as for Peter, where Christ said to them al, Sol. whatsoeuer yee binde on earth shalbe bound in heaven, &c. He answereth, That nothing is there giuen to the Apostles, but that power only, promised, explaned, and foretold, which the A­postles and their successors should afterward haue and exer­cise. We reply, Reply. if neither in that place were the keies giuen to the Apostles, Ibid. c. 12 fol. 102. Whatsoeuer was promised to Peter in the 16. Matth. was perform­ed to all in the 20. &. 21. of Iohn. but only promised, in what place then are they giuen? I answere (saith he) They are given in the twen­teth and one and twentith chapters of S. Iohns Gospel. Thus hath Bellarmine confessed, that whatsoeuer was promised in the 16. of Mathew, as it were to Peter alone, or in the 18. of Mathew to all the Apostles, was performed both to Peter & to them al in the 20. and 21, chapters of Iohn, which concessi­on & free grant, although it overthrow both what he would say else where, & al other his fellowes in this question of Su­premacie for the Pope: yet doth he afterward further inlarge it thus. That the Apostles receiued al their iurisdictiō & po­wer immediatly from Christ, Bellar. de Ro­man pont, l. 4. c. 23. The A­postles had their authori­ty from Christ even▪ the same that hee had of his fa­ther. it appeareth from the words of Christ, Iob. 20. As my father sent me so send I you, which words, the ancient fathers Chrysostome and Theophilact do so expound that they do plainly say, That the Apostles were made Christs Vicats, yea that they did receiue the very office and authoritie of Christ, Cyrill addeth vpon this texte, That the Apostles, were properly created Apostles and teachers of the whole world, and that we should vnderstand that in the Apostolike authority al ecclesiastical power was cōtained, therfore Christ did adde, As my father sent me, surely the father sent his son indued with ful power. Where you see that the same thing is giuen to the Apostles by those words I send you, which was promised to Peter by those I wil giue thee the keies, & was afterward shewed by those, feede my sheepe. Thus farre Bel­larmine, by whose testimony and grant it appeareth, that the rest of the Apostles had as much power in the Church, or o­ver the Church, as S. Peter had, and consequently other bi­shops in their seueral places, wil haue as much as the Pope e­ven [Page 123]by those places of scriptures, which they would chal­lendge to make most for them. The order of their successiō. Stapl. returne of vntruths. art. 1. fol. 12. b. calleth Alexā ­der the 5. pope after Peter. & here he is the 7. L. 7. consist A­post. c. 46. ex Bellar. de Rō. pont l. 2. c. 4. f. 192. 193. 195. Damasus in Pontificiale. Tertullian. Ierome. Optatus. Augustine. Epiphanius. Ireneus l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4 & 2. & l. 4. c. 1. & l. 5. c. 6. & Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 15. &. l. 1. c. 27. Vter (que) Apostolus Romanam ecclesiam fū ­dauit et gu­bernauit. Annot. 2. G [...]l [...] v. 7. fol. 500. In their table and notes at the end of the Acts of the Apostles. & Bellarm. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 4. fol. 192. Sanders de visib. mon. l. 7. 222. 223. 224. Thus much I thought good to shew you touching the glorious title of your table. Now for the order. The first is S. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Ana­cletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Higinus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, which is the fourteenth in num­ber. By the histories and most ancient fathers, this succession is at first disordered and interrupted. Clemens, saith that S. Pe­ter when death did draw neere appointed the Romane Bi­shopricke vnto him, Dorotheus, (as Bellarmine also telleth vs) doth place Linus next after S. Peter, & yet Damasus who was bishop of Rome, and wrote thereof, saith that Linus died be­fore S. Peter. Tertullian placeth Clemens after S. Peter, and so doth S. Ierome. Optatus, and S. Augustine put Linus next Peter and Clemens in the third place; S. Augustine mentioneth not Clerus at all, but vtterly discardeth him: so doth Optatus, Epi­phanius readeth them thus Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Irone­us, who is ancienter then any of those before, both leaueth out Cletus, and bringeth Clemens after Anacletus. It appear­eth further by Ireneus & Eusebius, that they tooke S. Peter no more for a bishop of Rome thē S. Paul. The church of Rome (say they) was found by the two most glorious Apostles Peter & Paule; and so in his catalogue reckoneth them; And thē how doe you reconcile your table to Ireneus, who maketh Eleu­therius to bee the 12. but if you take in S. Peter for one; and Cletus for an other, you then make Eleutherius the 14. which is gaine said by Ireneus, in whose time Eleutherius liued, and whom by name he calleth the twelfe. To cōfirme this truth the Rhemists themselues confesse, that the Church of Rome was founded by S. Peter, and S. Paule. And further they tell vs that Prudentius the christian Poet calleth them both Prin­cipes Apostolorum princes of the Apostles, giuing that title e­qually to them both: and they themselues call them the two [Page 124]principall Apostles, and the two cheife Apostles. The like appear­eth also from Epiphanius that ancient father, Peter & Paule founded the church at Rome. who saith In Ro­ma fuerunt prim [...] Petrus & Paulus Apostoli, ijdem & Episcopi. In Rome were the two Cheife Apostles Peter & Paule, and they were bishops also, Cyrillus also calleth them Praesides ecclesiae, Presidents of the church. And touching his bishoplike resi­dence there 25. yeares, as they say hee sate, they are faine to extenuate the time, S. Peter often absent. because he was seldome found there, & say he was often absent frō the cittie. Thus is appeareth that the Church of Rome was founded aswell by S. Paule as S. Peter, and that he had the title of Principall, Cheife, & First Apostle as well as Peter. Thus much from an essay of the order of the first 12. But touching the men, The first 300. they were all martyrs. we confesse them all good & godly martyrs for 300. yeaers together, to the nūber of 30. or there about, although Marcellinus in the persecution vn­der the Tirant Dioclesian did for feare of death offer sacrifice to Idols, yet repenting he died a Martyr. Sone vpon this, it pleased almighty God to send ease to his Church in making her chiefe enemies, her dearest friends, Then began Kings to be her nursing fathers, & Queenes to be her nursing mo­thers. Then first called he Constantinus surnamed the Great to the knowledge of the truth, Esay. 49. v. 23. After the first 300. yeeres. of a Pagan becōming a Chri­stian, putting downe Idololatry, and erecting the true ser­vice of God. Vnder him and his sonnes there liued the Ro­mane Bishops Melchiades, Silvester, Marcus, Iulius, Liberius, and Felix. Strife about Felix. Eccle 1. hier. l. 4 c. 8. There is much strife in the church of Rome at this and Felix. Strife about Felix. Eccles. hier. l. 4. c. 8. There is much strife in the church of Rome at this day, about this Felix, some of them reakoning him for a Pope and some putting him out. Albertus Pighius saith, they that register him for a Pope bewray their own ignorance. Bellar­mine saith, Bell. de Rom. pont. li. 4. c. 9. fol. 509. their church worshippeth him as Pope and Mar­tyr. The strife betweene them two about Felix, groweth a­bout Liberius, who was Pope next before him; This Liberius in his banishment vnder Constantius the Emperour did sub­scribe to the Arrian heresy, and so in his absence out of the Citty, Felix was Pope in his roome. Thus much doth Bellar­mine [Page 125]cōnfesse of Liberius. And because Pighius most impudēt­ly denieth that he subscribed, Chron. l. 3. fol. 574. Ammianus Marcellinus Comes. So was Mar­cellinus mar­tired, yet he fell before. They were wont to tell vs that Christ praied for Pe­ter, but nowe they tel vs, he praied for the chaire he sit­teth on. Contra haer. l. 1. c. 4. Defen. Conc. Trid. li. 2. fol. 244. Fasc. Tempor. in liberio. Platina in li­berio. Annot. Onuphrij. Anast. Bibl. in Lib. & Feli. About the yere of our Lord. 370. A schisme at Rome be­tween Dama­sus & Vrsinus. Polid. Verg. de inven. rerū li. 5. c. 4. f. 401. Bellar. de cle­ric. l. 1. c. 18. f. 92. Aug. epist. 93. & l. 2. ad Bonif. cont. 2. epist. Pelag. c. 4. therefore he shutteth out Felix from being Pope at all. D. Genebrard cannot tel what to say directly on this Felix part. First he telleth vs that Ammianus Marcellinus in his Chronicles did passe by him as suspected of heresie, and Onuphrius (one that wished as wel to the sea of Rome, as wel might be) maketh him a schismatike, and an vnlawful Pope, for Liberius over liued him, & obtained the place alone. But other more truer (saith he) do report that he was Martired in a tumult by the Arrians. And yet in the next words he saith that Felix was appointed by Acatius the disciple of Eusebius into the place of Liberius, and held for an Arian. But such was the force of the Chaire, that it would ra­ther hold a Martyr Pope, than an heretike Pope, or one that should favor the heretikes. Thus farre Genebrard. Alphousus a Castro, maketh no question, but that Liberius was an Arrian heretike. Anàradius is content that we should cal him vncon­stant, faithlesse, or vniust, but in no case an heretike. Fasciculus Tem­porū, saith he was the first infamous Pope. If you desire more of these two Popes Liberius and Felix, read or cause to bee read vnto you Platina who wrote the liues of the Popes, and Onuphrius annotations on him; and Anastatius Bibliothecarius on the same argument, set out by thēselues not aboue three yeeres since: and you shal see diversity enough.

After those followed Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, Innocen­tius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus, Sixtus 3. and Leo the great. There was a schisme then in the Church of Rome, betweene Damasus and one Ʋrsinus or Ʋrcisianus, but Damasus obtai­ned, yet not without bloud. Siricius was the first that in the west parts forbad priests to marry, as Polidore Virgil alleadgeth out of Gratian, whervnto Bellarmine is now fairely come, That it is not forbidden by the law of God that Priests should marry. Inno­centius the first, held and taught a dangerous errour, that is, That it is necessary to salvation for infants to receiue the cō ­munion, [Page 126]contrary to Saint Paules rule, that none should re­ceiue, but those that are able to examine themselues, and contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome vnder Pi­us quartus in the Tridentine counsell which accurseth those that thinke the Eucharist is to bee given to infantes before the yeares of discretion; Sess. 21. can. 4. The bishops of Rome conten­ded with the bishops of A­phrica for su­periority. Bonifacius 1. was the sonne of lucundus a Preist as saith Platina. so was Felix 3 who immedi­atly followed, sonne vnto Fe­lix a Priest. Leo epist. 45. Fasciculus tēp Geneb. in Chron. l 3. fol. 600. Eulatius against Boni­facius an. 423. Gelasius was the sonne of a bishop called Valerius. Plat. in vit. eius. The first 600. yeares. Gelasius de­creed in 2. maine points against them now. Anastasius 2. an heretike. so that the Apostolicall seate, in one of these two must needs er. In Sozimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus time there was much cōtrouersie between thē & the Aphri­can bishops touching appeales to Rome. Sozimus began the claime, and could not make it good, he graced himselfe with warrant from the Nicene councell, which beeing demanded no canon, nor decree could be shewed. The Aphricā bishops deny their appeales thither, and so grew much turmoile. But if all Churches in al cases were subiect to the sea of Rome iu­re diuino by Gods law, as they would make vs beleeue now, very simple was Sozimus to claime by the Canons of the councel of Nice; and very forgetful of their duties were the Aphrican bishops who would put him to proue his authori­tie by an humane invention, when the high God had by his lawes subiected them vnto him before. Leo the great, yet was his authoritie so smal, that hee could not remoue Abbat Eutiches from him, but was forced to intreate the Empresse Pulcheria to vse her authoritie therin. By this time there had bin fowre schismes in the church of Rome, yet Genebrard ac­knowledged but three. After Leo, were Hillarius, Simplicianus, Felix 3. Gelasius, Anastasius 2. Simmachus, Hormisda, Iohn 1. Fe­lix 4. Bonifacius 2. Iohn 2. Agapetus, Silverius, Ʋigilius, Pelagius, Iohn 3. Benedictus, Pelagius, 2. Gregory the greate, & these rea­cheth downe to the first 600. yeares, Amongst which Gelasi­us decreed that to minister the holy communiō in one kind is open sacriledge and againe he defined that the substance of bread and wine remaine after consecratiō, both which are diametrally opposite to the doctrine of the new church of Rome. Anastasius the second was an heretike as appeareth by the histories. Wernerus saith he was the 2, infamous Pope [Page 127]he was a Nestorian heretike as before him his predecessor Li­berius was an Arrian, Vigilius vsed indirect means to attaine to the Popedōe. Huius Vigilij ingressus pa­rum legitimus suit, cum prae­tet ecclesiasti­cas regulas praedecessore suo Silverio viuente, & Pō ­tificatus ad­ministratione submoto, per vim Pontifica­tum Romanū occuparit. O­nuph. annot. on Plat. in vit. Vigilij. Agapetus and Sylverius, were both Preists sonns. Deno [...]is eccles l 4. c. 8. Bell. ibidē 303. & 304. Ibid fol. 306. Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 2. c. 26. & de conc. & eccles. l. 2. c. 18. Gregory the Great. Bellar de Rō. pont. l. 2. c 31. fol. 324. Stap. ret. of vn­truths against M [...]uell. art. 4. fol. 6. Vigilius wrought meanes with the Em­presse Theodora for the remouing of his predecessor Silverius out of the Popedome promising her, if shee would help him therto, to cal home Anthemius the heretike, whom Agapetus had banished, and so as Bellarmine saith, hee plaied the Ca­tholike at Rome and the heretike abroad, for when hee had obtained by most vnlawfull meanes what he sought for, hee kept no promise with her, by whose procuremēt he cāe into the seat: and in effect aunswered as the fore-sworne men in times past were wont. Iurauilingua, mentem iniuratam gero. I sweare with my tongue, but I meant otherwise. A very Ma­chivellian resolution. But since Ʋigilius came in by this indi­rect meanes, I demand with what face Bellarmine can make successiō of bishops in that sea, an eminēt note of the true church Al that come not in by lawfull succession and ordination are theeues and robbers. And succession takes no place, but either when bishops die, or are lawfully deposed: For the pope cannot be deposed by any coactiue power ether Ecclesiastial or ciuill which conclusions inevitably proue that Vigilius succeeded vnlawfully; Siluerius being nether dead nor lawfully desposed. And as Bellarmine saith, the pride and ambition of Vigilius droue him into those straights of periurie & shifts which hee vsed; so hath Bellarmines bad cause coloured with clenly words, made him gaine say in one place, what hee affirmeth in an other, which hee cannot doe, since there are so many eies to looke on, but he shalbe discouered. Gregory the great being the last of those I named last, vtterly denied the name of vniuersall bishoppe, and prainly said Saint Peter was neuer called vniuersall Apostle: yet Bellarmine reackoneth it a­mongst the titles of his holynesse, and the title vniversall bishoppe to be the 15. in number. Howsoeuer D. Stapleton not so soveraigne for the Pope as Bellarmine, saith plainely we cal not the Pope vniversall bishop. The Pope writeth not himselfe so but servum servorum dei, the servant of Gods servants. But [Page 128]what would he practise if he might? I leaue that to M. Do­ctors secret discussing. Thus haue you Tuberius a tast of your succession and manners of Popes for the first sixe hundred yeares. In none of the Popes of the first three hundred yeres appeared any stomacke towards other churches abroad saue in Ʋictor, Victor repro­ued by Ireneus Euseb eccles. history. l. 5. c. 23. 24. who was next to Eleutherius, who shewed himselfe earnest in excommunicating the Churches of Asia for not keeping the feast of Easter according to the maner of Rome: But he was sharply rebuked for attempting it, especially by Ireneus bishop of Lions in Fraunce, in the name of the rest of the brethren there, who would not yeeld vnto him. After Constantines time downe to Gregory the great, I deny not, but men they were tollerable enough, saving for a little ambitiō creeping in amongst them. And because men are denomina­ted vertuous, whose good gifts are many, and faults not too great, they may go al in the number of good men, euen till Gregorie, who may be said to be the last of the good, and first of the bad. And of all these passed I will say in respect of thē that follow after as noble S ^r. Phillip Sidney was wont to say of Captaines and learders in the warres, when complainte had bin made to him of some of them, S ^r Roger Wil­liams reporte in his breefe discourse of warre pag. 2. Let vs loue him for his small vertues for a number haue none at all. And so is it with those former Popes in respect of those that followed after, onlie here and there one religious amongst a number of miscreants as one R [...]scius now and thē inriching a whole rable of coun­terfeits: For intrusions into the sea, heresie, witchcraft, mur­der, adulteries, and such like, Rome was the Sentina a sinke of sinnes, a lake of all lewdnesse, which euer yeeldeth per­petual vapours of pernitious and execrable villanies. God do so and more to me, if I report them otherwise than their owne histories record. After Gregorie the great followed Sa­binianus, Bonifacius, Geneb. chro. l. 3 fol. 664. Fase. tempor. Platina in vita sabi. 3. Bonifacius 4. Deus dedit. Bonifacius 5. & Honorius the first. Sabinianus hated his predecessor Gregory, in­somuch that he burned al his bookes, he did not any good worthy of memory. This is the 3. infamous Pope, as the Pa­pists [Page 129]thēselues confesse who liued a bad life and died a feare­ful death. After Sabinianus came Bonifacius, Carion. in chro l. 4. f. 568. & l. 3. fol. 369. The first set­ting of Mahu­mets foot in A­rabia was whē the Empire began to bee de­vided by the bishop of Rōe meanes. vide Fascicu. temp. anno. 614. Honorius amo nothelite, he­retike, who held that christ had but one wil. Geneb. Chro. l. 3. fol. 675. ea est vis cathe­drae vt cogat bona & vera dicere, nō bo­na facientes, ne (que) vera sen­tientes nec su [...] docere sed ali­ena permittit. Apolog. thesiū Ioan. Reyn. de sacra. scrip. & eccles. a pag. 351. vs (que) ad fi­nem. Anno. 687. Geneb. Chro. l. 3. fol. 698. Genebi. ibid. fo. 708. 3. who obtained of the Emperour Phocas to be called vniuersall bishop, and head of all churches, about which time, when the fury of Mahumet had prevailed against the churches in the East, the bishop of Romes authority increased in Europe. And the mistery of in­iquity having before wrought did then shew it selfe. And this Phocas who gaue that title to the bishop of Rome, was he, that trecherously slew his Master Mauricius, to make him­selfe way to the Empire, & postea multa seelera addidit, and af­ter that, he cōmitted many mischeifes else. And in the end for his reward he was vntimely slaine according to that saying, Omnis q̄ acceperit gladiū, gladio peribit. Whosoever slaieth with the sword, shal perish with the sword. And the reason why Phocas gratified the bishop of Rome with such a title was, be cause vpō the slaughter of his M ^r Mauricius, he feared the fal of Italy frō the Empire, & that by the Popes means, he might keepe the West in safty. Touching Honorius 1. it is notori­ously knowen that he was an heretike condemned by gene­rall councells and witnesse of diuerse ancients both Greeks & Latins. They that are disposed to read of him or his cause may consult with A [...]dradius def. Trid. conc. l. 2. fol. 244. Canus. loc. theol. lib. 6. fol. 213. Pighius. eccles. bie. l. 4. c. 8. Bellarm. de Rom. pont. lib. 4. c. 11. And amongst vs D. Reynolds in his conference with Hart. cap. 7. diuis. 2. fol. 237. but especially his defence of his Theses in latine where hee hath answered Bellarmine and Caesar Baronius, in whatsoever they could say for the clearing of Honorius. Now from this Honorius downwards towards vs the schismes and contentions began a pace: After John 5. whoe was Pope about the yeare 687. there grew a schisme betweene one Peter, and one Theodorus, who was created Pope, and yet both of them were expelled and Conon whom your table calleth Cuno, or if you wil Zeno, succeeded. After these followed Gregory 2. Gregory 3. Genebrard putteth it vpō Gregory 3. that it was he who excommunicated the Emperor [Page 130] Leo for heresie, The Emperor Leo excommunicated and depriued for destroying of Images. Geneb. ibid. f. 720. Hee first absolued the french from their oath to Childericke. Fasc. temp an. 741. Ipsc etiam trā ­stulit imperiū a Graecisad francos. Geneb l. 3. fol. 729. Wetnerus in fasc: temp. an­no 764. If the diuell should sit there, I thinke they would say the holy ghost preserued the seate in honor & holynesse. Coelū vndi (que) & vndi (que) pōtus nothing now but stormes & schismes. Anno 800. Geneb. l. 4. f. 771. a ^o. 824. By this time there had byn 10. schismes in the Church. as he calleth it; But Fasciculus temporum saith it was Gregory 2, that accursed the Emperour Leo for distroy­ing of Images: and that the other Gregory got them approu­ed in a counsell. Next after them was Pope Zacharie, whoe gaue the kidgdome of France frō Childricke vnto Pipine. And here appeareth the iniquity of that time, when that most fa­mous kingdome of France was translated from the right hei­res to strangers. Then followed Stephan 2. who brought the Empire from the Greekes to the French: Then Stephan 3. Paulus 1. Stephan. 4. But Fasciculus temporum and Genebrard place one Constantine 2. next after Paule, who of a lay man be­came Pope, invading the sea by tyrannyl, who was throwen out againe, after hee had sate aboue a yeare in the sea. And this is the fift infamous Pope amongst so many that had passed before, and so hath the holy ghost preserued that seat in honor and holynesse saith Wernerus. And even so I heard a Gē ­tleman praising his seruant who was departed from him, to be an honest man, and an honest fellowe with iteration againe & againe, when he knew he had liued in his seruice, a blasphe­mer, a swearer, a common drunkard, & a most beastly lecher and one at whose mouth no truth could be hard: But as that Gentleman, seemed not to thinke sufficiently what honesty was, nether in himselfe nor in any other, whē he would giue so reverend a name, to so vicious a person: so did not Werne­rus care what he said of honor and holynesse when he confessed so monstrous a wretch to haue bin Pope.

Then was there 2. schismes one betweene Theophilacte & Paulus, and an other betweene Philip and this same bad Con­stantine, which Philip being chosen by the whole church did sit one yeare and more, and yet your table hath not that Cō ­stantine nor Philipp, nether doth Genebrard nor Saunders rec­kon ether of them for Popes, but passe from Paulus to Ste­phanus 3. or 4. they know not which comming downe to the 800. y. and vpwards I find Paschalis 1. Eugenius 2, betweene whome and one Sisinius there was a schisme Wernerus reac­koneth [Page 131]it for the eight that had bin in that church & Gene­brard for the tēth, Dame Ione a­bout the yeare 855. After Eugen. were Ʋalenttius Gregorie 4. Ser gius 2. Leo 4. & Ione the woman Pope, which your table hath not, nor do your late chronologers reckō hir, although they bestir themselues very fowly to cleare their own stories. For if they be mē of their words, they wil hold them to this, that the stories that make mētiō of her, were not of our deuising, for they say that our religion came from Luther and Calvin, and was never heard of before their times, who were certain hundreds of yeares after, the bringers of that matter to light were dead, and therefore they must be Catholikes at least, who write of it; but their labour in this is like the clensing of a sinke, the more they stir the more they stinke: And with wise men, the more frivolons excuses are heaped to cleare a matter in questiō, the more wil they stick to heare the truth. But what saith Genebrard? Post leonem quartum recentiores, prae­sertim haeretici, nominant quendam Ioannem, Geneb. l. 4. fol. 779. 8. &c. After Leo the 4. (saith he) the later writers, especially the heretiks, do bring in one Iohn. 8. or as Sabellicus saith 7. an English woman, or as other say of Magunce who in a counterfeit kinde, sate a yere and more, some two yeare, nam mendacium non sibi constat, for a lie abideth not by it selfe. This report of his owne, Is it true, men­dacium non sibi constat? & it is as true which Lactan­tius saith valet vi sua ve [...]itas. truth will o­uercome by right tenure [...] lib. 5. c. 13. Omnis in vile caput hoc ab­cat procella. Senec. in Theis. act. 5. he con­vinceth by these vncertainties. First (saith he) shee is saide to be the 7. & of some 8. Of some an English woman, of others a Moguntine, of some shee is said to sit one yeere and more, of others 2. yeres and more. It seemeth by Genebrards quar­relling about these circumstances, hee is much afraide that the matter will be proued. But al this storme wil light on Ge­nebrards owne head. Turne his booke blindsold, & you shall finde some variety for the time, or country of many his own vndoubted Popes, which his chronicles can never make e­ven. For not many pages before he bringeth in Gregory 4. ali. as Leo 4 and by and by againe, Leo 4. or 5. he knoweth not which. But Genebrardiam quic quid id est, vel sine causa, vel sera times, whatsoeuer you feare in this matter either it is without [Page 132]cause or too late. The beast is recorded. And where hee fur­ther accumulateth errours vpon her in saying shee is called Anglicus an English woman or Moguntinus, of Magunce in Germanie, malice bred that which his wit wil not proue: Ad­mitting a doubt that stories should vary, what country wo­man shee was, what saith he to his own Innocentius 1. was he not Albanus sive Scotus, Geneb. l. 3. fol. 391. one of Alba in Italie or a Scot. And Celestinus or Celestius, Campanus sive vt alij volunt Romanus, one of Campania or a Roman. Ibid. fol. 600. And of Bonifacius 6. whether he were a Tuscane or a Romane, he knoweth not; for the time he sate, Ibid. fol. 799. magna contentio inter scriptores, there is saith hee great contention amongst the writers. After a few cavils more hee cōmeth to this vpshot which is a good bragge but no proofe valeant igitur qui à niles nugas de quadam statua foeminae & sede stercoraria iactitant. God speed them wel (or let them be pac­king, or let them perish and fare ill) who bragge of their olde wiues tales, and of the sitting stoole, and of the Image of the image of the woman which they say is yet to bee seene: Read the 6. booke of Lau­rentius valla his eliganties c. 30 & Lactāt. de ira dei. c. 8. for the vse of the wordvaleo Ter. in Andria act 4. scen. 2. Saund: de vis. monar. l. 7. fol. 412. and so indeed valeant qui inter nos dissidium volunt (as the younge man in the Poet to which perhaps Genebrard alluded) saie I. God speede them well that woulde set diuorce betweene the truth and vs in this case. I will leaue Genebrard and come to Saunders, who nothinge so shamlesse as the other but of a farre more ingenious and yeelding nature in this point, doth confesse that shee is placed as Pope (by some) next after Leo the fourth. Quodita sievenisset which if it had so happened, yet because it was an error of fact, & not of right, which happeneth in the most wisest, that accident will bring no preiudice to the sea of Rome: But all thinges should be so reakoned, as if that whole two yeares wherein shee sat, the seat had bin voide. In deed wee neede not care for any good they do, Nothinge will preiudice the sea of Rome. whether the sea be empty or ful, it is al one; they be but painted sepulchres, and as dumbe Idols, not so good as old servitors who take their pēsions & leaue wai­ting, for they did once good in their liues before their ser­vice [Page 133]decaied; and the Popes spende their time before they come, how to get it, and after they haue it, how to keepe it. Alane Cope another of that brood though fully impudent in other cases, yet is hee ashamed to deny the story absolutely, Alanus Cope. dial. 1. pag. 47. but maketh a metamorphosed or changeable excuse, which no man I trow can either disproue or proue (I speake only in [...]korne of his so base deuise) which is, that she might be first a man, and after some time in the seate changed to be a woman. The change is no more vnlikely, thā that such persons after such change should beare childrē vnheard of, both which be vn­possible to al men once to thinke of, saving to those servants, who are sworne to defend such mistresses as dame Ione was. And thus hath he overthrowne the fable of Ioan. 8. Lact. instit. l. 1. c. 21. fine. Quis haec ludibria non rideat, qui habeat aliquid sanitatis, cū videat homines velut mente captos ea serio facere, quae si quis faciat in lusis, nimis loscivus & ineptus esse videatur. Who woulde not laugh saith Lactantius, at these trifles that hath any sparke of wit, when he shal see men doing those things in earnest, as if they were bereaved of their wits, whereas if any man should but do thē in sport or iest, he would be thought over wanton and lasci­vious. But to put the matter out of doubt where Genebrard and some other with him do make themselues sport, (as be­fore is said) with the word Anglicus and Moguntinus, refer­ring them to the country, as though it should bee in doubt whether shee were an English woman or a Moguntine, it is plaine to any man not preiudiced in opinion. Fascicu. temp. anno. 864. Her name was Ioan English. Fasciculus tem­porum, their owne historian saith, Iste Ioannes Anglicus cogno­mine, sed natione Maguntinus. This Ione English, by birth of Magunce in Germanie is said to be about these times: & was a woman disguised in mans apparell; shee had so profited in the holy scripture, that her like was scarse to be found, and was chosen to be Pope. But after being great with childe as shee went in procession shee fell in labour and died: Sabelli. Aene. 9. l. 1. pag. 469 aut aliter 625 aut aliter 325. shee was plagued of God for it (saith he) nor is shee put in the number of the Popes. Sabellicus an other historiographer of their own [Page 134]ancienter thā the last recited maketh mention of this Dame Lone. Nullus defunctae honor habitus. There was no honour be­stowed at her burial, the report is for the remēbrance of her filthie act saith he. They that desire further testimony herin Let them read Bishop Iuell in the defence of the Apology of the church of England part. 4. c. 1. diu. 1. fol. 380. B. Iuell. And Willet in his Synopsis Papismi. contro 14. quaest. 10. fol. 218. Andr; Willet. Presently after Pope Jone followed that vnhappy time in the sea of Rome so much lamented, in so much that Wernerus in Fasciculo tem­porum crieth out Heu heu domine Deus quomodo obscuratum est aurum mutatus est color optimus, Foscicu. temp. fol. 68. a dom. 884. & 904. quâlia contigisse circa haec tempo­ra etiam in sancta sede apostolica quam vs (que) huc tanto zelo custo­disti legimus scandala. Oh Lord God saith he, how is thy gold made darke and vnknowē. Looke what happened in these times to the sea of Rōe. The best color is changed, what reproches doe we read of that happened in these times even to the sea Apostolike which hetherto thou hast kept with so great watchfulnesse, what contentions strifes, sects, envies, ambitions, intrusions, and persecutions hath there bin. O the very worst time, wherin holynesse is wanting, & faithfulnes is fled from the sonns of men. Thē was there a monster with a doggs head, A mōster pre­sented to the Emperour. and members like a mā, presented to the Em­perour: And well might it (saith he) shew the deformity of that time, when as men wandred here and there without an head, Chron. l. 4. fol 794. anno 885 as doggs run a bout barking. Genebrard confesseth that some historians following Sigebert in his Chronicles, after Martin 2. (of some called Marinus who got the Popedome by ill meanes) place one Agapetus who was Pope one yeare; & likwise betweene Adrian 3. (who by ordinary account fol­lowed the saide Martin) and Stephan 6. or 5. (who succeeded Adrian) they place one Basill, who as they say sat 4. yeares. But we saith he follow Platina, For. 150 yeers to gether to the number of 50. popes they al revolted frō the faith. & a great part of writers. This is that time, or neere about wherin he also cōfesseth that for 150. yeeres together to the number of about 50. Popes from Iohn 8. to Leo 9. they were alout of order and rather Apostatates then Apostilicke, Amongst which infamous Popes were these [Page 135]especially playing their parts as it were on a stage, Martin 2. Stephan, Formosus, Iohn 9. Sergius 3. Iohn 12. Sylvester 2. A breife of their dealinges is this. Bell de Rom. pont. l. 4 c. 12. Formosus being a Cardinal and a bi­shop was deposed and degraded by Iohn 8. and got him out of the citty, swearing he would neuer returne and become bi­shop againe. After the death of Iohn 8. Martin 2. absolved Formosus of his oath, restoring him to his former dignity, not long after Formosus was created bishop. Stephan succeeded, & being carried with a stronge hatred towardes Formosus, not knowing or not beleeuing that Pope Martin had absolued him of his oath, decreed publikly in a counsel of bishops that Formosus was neuer lawfull Pope, and therfore his acts to bee frustrate. This dealing displeased many & therfore 3. Popes in order Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. and especially Iohn 9. called an other counsel of bishops, declaring that Formosus was law­ful Pope, and revoked the sentence of Stephan. But Sergius the thirde did in all things, as Stephan before him had donne. Moreouer Stephan tooke vp the carcasse of Formosus out of the graue. & cut of 3. of his fingers & cast it into the streame of Tiber, an inhumane and barbarous deed, yet may hee bee a saint in respect of some that follow after; Plat. Fasci. Sonne vnto Sergius the Pope. Platin [...] in vit cius. De Rom. pone. l. 2. c. 29. r. 310. Polid. Vergil. de invent rerū l. 5. c. 8. De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 12. fol. 535. ann 900. Ex lactant. l. 5. c. 16. fine de officio viri iust [...] ̄. Iohn 12. was a mō ­ster of monsters for pride, whoredomes, adulteries, symonies, sacrileges, blasphemies, in cest; murders, periuries, and such o­thers. Bellarmine saith Fuit iste Ioannes omnium pontificum ferè deterrimus. Almost the worst of all Popes, was Iohn 12. Silves­ter 2. as saith Polidore Ʋergil gat the Popedome by no good meanes, in his desire to rule, hee consulted with the diuel a­bout the length of his life. Hee did the devil homage saith Wernerus. The age wherin hee liued, was an vnlearned and vngodly age saith Bellarmine. There is no way that I see, to safe the honour of these bishops in this sea of Rome at this time, except we will aduenture to say of these bad men, in a word, as Euripides did of Good. Quae hic mala putantur, haec sūt in caelobona. Who are here reckoned for naught, are in heauen esteemed vertuous, D. Saunders maketh a digression, from his [Page 136]ordinary businesse in hand, Saund. de visib monar. l. 7 fol. 420. anno. 895. vs (que) ad 912. Rom. 12.21. The corruptiō and bad life of the Popes, is brought in as an argumēt to confirme the good estate of the church of Rome. is the sicknes in the head, a proofe of the bodies perfection? Here hath Bellarmine lost 2. of his princi­pall notes of his church, that is, The a­greement and kniting of the mēbers with the head. And holynes of life nether of which by their own confessiō was at Rome in those times: And yet hee maketh them notes & marks of the catho­like church: and consequently of the church of Rome. Bel. de notis eccles. l. 4. c. 10. & 13. Stil the ill Popes are his best proofe of the goodnes of the church. Hereby the chaire he must meane the chaire of Wood at Rome or the people liuing there if the first it is ridiculous: if the later we neuer doubted, but the christian people who are the church, may well stand & florish without such an head, as he hath described many of thē to be. in excuse of the Popes advan­ced in these times; in devoureth to proue that the church of Rome hath endured al manner of Tentations and in the end obtain­ed victory (I trow he meaneth such a victory, as those haue had who haue bin overcome of evill, & sold themselues as slaues to ini­quity) First the persecution stood (saith hee) by the heathen Emperours, then by heretike Emperours, and their adherēts and then by the Popes themselues, vnderminding that sea most of all, & doing what in them lay to overthrowe the church for ever. His words be these. Tunc enim Pontifices Romani. After (saith he) followed the Roman bishops, whose glory & am­bition mouing them, carried with a desire to crosse each o­ther, gaue manifest testimony, that no kinde of temptation was omitted, which did not indeauour to ruinate that sea. Nether without these things had that promise bin so admi­rably performed, in the eies of al, when it was said, The gates of hell shall not prevaile against the Rock, set there by Christ, whether by the gates of hell we vnderstand the tyranny of the prince of this world, or heresies, and schismes, or sinnes & lewd mā ­ners, except the seate of Peter had bin assaulted by all those means, whē yet it cold not be vtterly overthrown by al these But now after so many persecutions of the Emperours, after so many domesticall schismes, which even for the sea of Rome the Popes themselues did stirre vp and raise; after so many he­resies abroad by which the sea of Rome hath bin attēpted, tamen cathedra & successio Petrinon modo aliqua est, verum etiā stat, yet the Chaire and succession of Peter is not only some­what, but also standeth florisheth & hetherto raigneth, whē the other Patriarchal seates are fallen, Vnde iste honor Cathedra Romana? But whence commeth this honour to the Chaire of Rome? What, from the deserts of the Popes? I beleeue it [Page 137]not (saith he) For they, although for these 800. yeeres almost they haue bin very good, yet at this present, and often after­ward they deserued very ill, insomuch that if you look vnto the deedes of the men it seemeth that that church should haue bin bu­ried in perpetual obliuion. An impudentlie, for hee knoweth and they all con­fesse Liberius was an Arrian heretike and Honorius was a Monothelite heretike, if a­ny trust bee to bee giuen to generall coū ­sels, Popes, or anciēt writer. For scarse is there any sinne (but he­resie) which may bee imagined, but that sea hath bin defiled with it. And why it hath not fallen into heresie, no reasō can bee giuen but that Gods goodnesse preserueth it. For seeing heresie which is accompanied with blindnesse of hart, is ne­uer the first offence of any man, but a punishment of greater which had gon before; I doe not thinke that any more grei­vous sinns haue bin either in the seas of Alexandria, Antioche, or Constantinople, then in the sea of Rome. And therfore (saith he) seeing every man (even the bishopp of Rome also) is by nature a liar even so touching his owne person, he shall bee so ac­counted by mee: yet God in the meane time should bee so far forth credited to bee true that wee shoulde thinke (as the matter is apparant indeed) that he hath set the seate and suc­cession of Peter on a most sure rocke, How agreeth this conclusiō with those premises. Sciant igitur heretici. Esay 5.20.23. Every man is a liar. Saund. Every mā may er in the faith Alp. a Castro. adv: haeres. l. 1. c. 4. Fidei catholi­cae propugna­tor. Genebra: chr. l. 4. f. 1126. The Pope may fall into heresy. on which no false doc­trine ether of Faith or manners coulde ever allight, because Christ said to Peter I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not, &c. Let the heretiks therfore knowe, that the more & more greiuous sinnes they produce against the bishops, our faith (saith he) doth stād the stronger. Thus farre Saunders; Where any man may playnly see, that if that curse denounced by the Lord in the Prophet Esay, woe vnto them that speake good of evill, & evill of good, which put darknesse for light, & light for dark­nesse, doe appertaine, or was ever directed against any, it will fall on them who build their faith one such a foundation. A­gaine where he saith Omnis homo mendax etiam Romanus pon­tifex, every man is a liar, yea the Pope also, his old fellow Al­phonsus a Castro (a strong maintainer of the catholike faith as Genebrard calleth him) could write against heretikes such as Luther was, and yet say boldly Omnis homo errare potest in fide otiam si Papa sit. Every man may erre in the faith, yea though [Page 138]he be Pope. For it is certaine saith hee, Pope Liberius was an Arrian heretike and Pope Anastasius favoured the Nestoriās, of this whosoever hath read the histories, doth not doubt; & wheras some doe affirme that hee which erreth in the faith▪ obstinatly, is not then Pope, & by that meanes the Pope cā ­not be an heretike est in re seria verbis velle iocari, it is to trifle with words in a serious matter, for according to that reason a man may impudently affirme, that no faithful man may erre in the faith, for when he is an heretike, he then ceaseth to be a faithfull man. Nether doe wee doubt saith he, whether One man may bee a Pope and an heretike both to gether, but this wee seeke whether a man who otherwise is subiect to erre his pon­tificiall dignity doe free him: The pontifical dignity cānot priviledg him who is othe [...] ­wise subiect to erre. I doe not beleeue that there is a­ny so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope that he will say he cā ­not erre or be deceiued, in the interpretation of the scripture, for seeing it is certaine that many of them haue bin so vnlearn­ed, that they haue not vnderstood their Grammer, how is it then, that they should interpret the holy scriptures. Thus far hath Alphonsus gone, if not too farre. To conclude this infe­rence against Saunders it must not be forgotten, that he hath described and confessed the Pope of Rome who with him is Christs vicar, to be such an one indued with such qualities, as no honest, religious, vertuous, holy, faithfull, or good man, or any child of God or member of Christ was ever said to bee furnished with. S. Paule to the Rom. c. 16. 17. S. Paul gaue to the Romās, & other churches these lessons touching the holynes of their liues. Now I be­seech you bretheren, marke them diligently which cause di­visions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which he hath learned & avoid them: For they that are such serue not the Lord Iesus Christ but their owne bellies, & with faire speech and flattering deceaue the harts of the simple. Walke wisely towards them that are without, and redeeme the time, Let your speech be gracious alwaise and powdred with salt; that you may knowe how to answere everie man, Colloss. 4.5.6. Cap. 3.15. Let the peace of God rule in your harts, to the which yee are called in one [Page 139]and be yee gracious. Abstaine from all apparance of evill. And of himselfe who was a teacher he saith. Wee command you bretheren in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ, 2. Thess. 3.6. that yee withdraw your selues from every brother that walketh in­ordinatly, and not after the instruction which hee receaued of vs; for yee your selues knowe, how yee ought to follow vs for we behaued not our selues inordinatly amongst you. And to the Hebrewes he writeth thus, Cap. 13.17.18. Obey them that haue the oversight of you, and submit your selues, for they watch for your soules, as they that must giue accompts that they may doe it with ioy and not with greife, for that is vnprofitable for you, pray for vs for wee are assured that wee haue a good conscience in all things, desiring to like honestly. Hooker eccl. pol. l. 5. para. 1. Nullū ego cō ­silium melius arbitror, quā si exemplo tuo fratrem doce­re studeas, qu [...] oporteat, quae non oporteat fieri, prouo­cans cum ad meliora, & cō ­sulens ci, non verbo, neque lingua, sed o­pere & verita­te. Bern. de adu. domini. serm. 3.1. Peter: 2.6.8. Esay. 28.16 & 8.14. Now since it is no particular conceipt but a matter of sound consequēce that all duties are by so much the better performed, by how much the men are more religious from whose abilities the same proceed, Godlinesse being the cheifest top and well-spring of al true vertues, even as God is of all good things, howe is it possible that these Popes and church of Rome should hold and keepe Christs regency here on earth, to cō ­mand and appoint lawes and statutes to all Christians, and Christian churches; and be as it were, a communalty free frō all error, at least of doctrine, claiming from a text of scripture which requireth not only a not fayling in faith, but a strēgthning of their brethren that shal slide: when they themselues in the meane while shal be a company faithlesse, irreligious and vniust, yea a lothsome distressed number divorced from al piety, religion, and godlines. Is this the stone that S. Peter ment, when he said, recording the wordes of the Prophet E­say, Behold I put in Sion a chiefe corner stone, elect and precious, & he that beleeveth therein shal not be ashamed. A stone to stumble at, and rocke of offence, even to them that stumble at the word beeing desobedient, as Bellarmine implieth where he saith, Bellar. in pref. in lib. de Rom. pont. fo. 10. 11. quanquā haec verbs in Christum praecipue convenire non ignoramus, cadem tamen [...]on inepte in Christi vicarium quadrare censemus, although we [Page 140]are not ignorant that those wordes are principally meant of Christ, About the yere 1058. In Fasc. temp. Benedict was Pope 9. mōths and after ex­pulsed and throwen out. Iohn 10. hee that entereth not by the dore is a theif & a robber. Gregory 7. Benno in vita eius. If nothing bee in the Chalice but the blood of Christ, how could poisō be mingled with it? Geneb. Chro. l. 4. fol. 887. A schisme 29. yeeres. For the full truth of the history of Hē ­ry 4. Emperor & Gregory 7. Pope reade the dialogues of my Lord Winton. p. 3. f. 430. &c. The counsells accused him of all those vi­ces that Car­dinall Benno did. yet we do not thinke amisse whē we say that they do belong also to Christs vicar the Pope. A horrible blasphemy, if ever there were any. But I will leaue this and turne to their successiō againe. Leo. 9. being the last I mentioned, I am come vnto the yere 1058. about which time I finde an other trou­blesome accompt Victor 2. Stephan 10, or 9. Benedict. 9. or 10. and Nicholas 2. Touching which Benedict, Genebrard confes­seth that by some he is not reakoned for any Pope, yet doth he retaine him: Wernerus saith, hee gate the Popedome by force, and after 9. monethes gaue it over. Sanders in his cata­logue hath him not. Platina delivereth touching this Benedict that by the meane of one Hildebrand (who afterward came to be Pope,) he was expulsed, because he entred not by the dore (as the Gospel speaketh) but by force, & bribery, so much also doth Onuphrius confesse, who would not haue him rea­koned, yet doth Platina first, and Genebrard after, put him in­to the number. The table which you haue omitteth him. By this time there had bin 14. schismes, in the Church of Rome. Within a few yeeres after followed Gregory, 7. and Ʋictor. 3. The former of which two is accused by Cardinal Benno, one of the same Church and time with him, to be an heretike, a necromoncer, a seditious person, and an adulterer. The later of them was poisoned in the Chalice, by meanes of the Em­perour Henry 4. as saith Platina & Genebrard. Genebrard spea­keth of a schisme in Rome about the yere 1080. which lasted 29. yeeres, and happened thus. Rodulph the duke of Suevia being slaine, who was chosen Emperor by certain princes of Germany at the perswasiō of the Pope; Hēry the Emperor in a counsel holden at Brixia by the bishoppes of Italie, Lumbar­die and Germanie purged himselfe of those matters vvhich the Pope laid against him, & laid them to his holines charge and brought in Gilbert Archbishop of Ravenna to be Pope who was called Clemens 3. who sat 17. yeares or as some reckō 21. and yet is now cleane left out. And here againe doth Ge­nebrard [Page 141]deplore the miserable estate of the Church of Rome then. After this, about the yeare 1130. A great schism which lasted 7 years was takē vp by S. Ber­nard. a [...]. 1138. Geneb. l. 4. fo. 918. Fasc. tēp. The Cardinals got the sole e­lection of the Pope into their handes anno. 1144. Geneb. ibid. f. 932. an. 1159. Alexander 3. pontifex con­tra quem sede­bant. Victor 1. Calixtus 2. Pascalis 3. What faction had the Emperor. when for 1000. yeares after Christ, the bishop of Rome coulde not be chosen without the Princes con­sent. The Gibelli­nes, were of the familie of the Columes & the Gelph [...] were of the fa­milie of the Vrsines. Frederick. 2. The Empire was void by meanes of his deposition 28. yeeres. Geneb. Chro. l. 4. fol. 967. & 974. There was one Ana­cletus 2. otherwise called Peter who by certaine Cardinalls was chosen Pope in a schisme against Innocentius 2, and ob­tained the place 7. yeares, after his death Ʋictor 4. was creat­ed by Cardinalls of his owne faction, who when hee had sat certaine monthes gaue it over to Innocentius by the perswa­sion of S. Bernard, in compounding of which schisme hee la­boured seauen yeares. Then followed Celestinus 2. he was the first created Pope without any voice or allowance of the peo­ple, according as the lawe of Jnnocentius had ordained, by which law the people was wholy excluded from any assem­bly which concerned the Popes, & the election of them was altogether in the Cardinals, and by little & little the cheife of the clergy were also debatred, and the choise was fitted to the colledge of Cardinalls. Little more then 16. yeares after Genebrard telleth vs of an other greate schisme which lasted 20. yeares betweene one Octauianus who was called Victor. 4. against Alexander 3. which fel (saith he) by meanes of a di­vision amongst the Cardinals who were of the Emperours faction. Here hath Genebrard cast in a word, but it is a worde or vntruth, for he told vs a little before that the Electiō was wholy brought into the Cardinals hands even where they desired it. And Victor being dead Calixtus 3. continued the schisme and sate almost 6. yeeres, and then after the death of Calixtus, Paschalis 3. called before Iohannes was by certain Cardinals chosen Pope, but at length he was commaunded by Fredericke the Emperour to renounce the seate, and so the schisme ended, after he had sate seavē yeres, by this it rather appeareth that the Emperour pacified the schisme, thā that he animated it. In these times, were the factions of the Gibellines, and Gelphes in Italie brandishing their swordes, the Gibellines taking part with the Emperor Fredericke, (who was [Page 142]thrice excōmunicated by Gregorie 9.) & the Gelphes with the Popes. They wasted that country the space of 260. yeares. They began vnder Alexander 3. in the yeere 1160. & so con­tinued vntil anno 1420. This dealing on the Popes side, may rather beseeme S. Paules sworde then S. Peters keies; I haue now no memorable thinge to speake of vntil I come to the rule of Boniface 8. Boniface. 8. a [...]. 1294. Intrauit vt vul­per, regnauit vtleo, mortuus est canis. Ge­neb. l 4 f. 1000 Fascicul. temp. fol. 83. De Rom. pont l. 2. c. 1. Iohn 22. held an error. Geneb. l. 4. fol. 1045. an. dom. 1378. It was en­ded vnder Martin 5. a­bout the yeare 1417. He caled himselfe Lord of the whole world aswell in temporall things as in spirituall. Hee instituted the yeare of Grace or Iubile, from 100. yeeres to an 100. and cau­sed the first to begin in the yeere 1300. This is he of whome it is said He entred like a fox, hee raigned like a lion, hee died like a degge. A while after followed 7. Popes in order Clemens 5. Iohn 21. or 22. or as Genebrard saith 23. Benedict 12, Clemens 6. Innocē ­tius 6. Ʋrbanus 5. & Gregory 11. which seaven were al none re­sidence and never came at Rome, but abode in France, as saith Bellarmine. This Iohn here mentioned (whether the 21. 22. or 23.) held an absolute and grosse error which is, That the soules of the blessed see not God vntil the last day. A while after these began the hottest & most greiuous schisme that ever the Church of Rome endured, it continued as some of them write 50. yeeres, as some 40. as some 30. and as some a­boue al these 52. In so much that learned & quiet men could not tel to which side to leane. It held with great slaunder to the Clergy, and hurt of soules, in respect of heresies & other errors, which then began to bud, because there was no disci­pline in the church against such. And therefore during the times of Vrbarius 6. (who was next to Gregory 11.) and Boni­facius the 9. Innocentius, 7. Gregory 12. Benedict. 13. Alexander 5. Iohn 23. (or after some 22. or 24.) and Martin 5. no man can tell who was the lawfull and vndoubted Pope as saith Wernerus. In Fasc. temp. fol. 86. a. The President of the counsel was throwen out Geneb. l. 4. fol. 1059. To appease the confusion of which time, the coun­cel of Constance was gathered in Germanie ( John the 23. be­ing president at the beginning: whereat was present the Em­perour Segismundus:) against the schisme of the three Popes that then were, Iohn 23. sate at Benonia, Gregory the 12, at A­riminum; [Page 143]and Benedict. 13. in Spaine; Thē had christ neuer a vicar at that time. Lib. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 14. Counsel of Constance. Camp. ratio 4. de concilijs. The counsell vndid, what the Emperour confirmed. Bellar. de cō. & ecces. l. 1. c. 5. 6. 7. Why doth Bellarmine giue vs such a dis­tinctiō of coū ­sells which none of his fellowes ever did, but be­cause hee ever hath one de­uise which they never thought of Ter. in Phor. act. 2. scen. 2. non te horum pudet, at si ta­lentum rē reli­quisset dece [...] primus esses memoriter progeniē ve­stram vs (que) ab avo at (que) [...]tar [...] preferen [...]. which three were quite throwne out, and Martin. 5. elected the vndoubted Pope. Iohn, was accused in that counsel, as denying the life everlasting and the resurrection of the flesh. It is answered, hee was not the lawful & true Pope because there were 3. at that time, whose factions had al great favorites, and learned advouchers. The counsel pronounced of him that he was a sinke of sins, a devill incarnate. Bellarmine cōfesseth there were 53. articles proved against him, and that he was of so lewd a life, as though hee had beleeued there should be no iudgment hereafter. But see the mischiefe; This councel of Constance that thus condemned and threw out the Pope, condemned also Iohn Husse (a good Christiā) for an hereticke. In that, they extol & receiue the counsel; in renouncing the Pope they do not: Husse had the Emperours safe conduct to come and goe freely to the counsel; but the bishops nothing regarding the Emperours warrant overthrew the deed and put him to death, who put himselfe into their hands, Caesar obsignavit, Christianus orbis re­signanit, maior Caesare. The Emperor signed the warrant, (saith Campion) but the Counsel disanulled it; who is greater than the Emperour. To saue the credit of this counsel for dealing against Husse and the Pope too, Bellarmine hath devised a quadruple partition of the allowing or disallowing of coun­sels by them. 1. he mētioneth general Coūcels which he allow­eth. then general coūcels which he disaloweth. 3. he hath sōe coūsels, which are partly to be allowed, & partly to be disallowed. of which last sort of the coūsel of Constāce with him. For (saith he) touching the first sessiōs wher they did enact that a gene­ral coūsel should be aboue the Pope, it is to be disalowed: But in respect of the last sessiōs, & those things which Pope Martin 5. alowd, it is receued by al Catholiks? But what saith the Poet, Vide, avaritia quid facit? see what covetousnes cā do: no▪ Vide, impudentia quiafacit, see what impudēcy cā do. Are they not a shāed of this, now that they fle their own Pops & their own coūsels. Let vs now see how the forme of that Church stood [Page 144]after Martin 5. to whom succeeded Eugenius 4. against whō was chosen by the Counsel of Bazil one Foelix 5. called be­fore Anadaeus Duke of Savoy, The counsell of Basill depo­sed Pope Eu­genius. which Felix after hee had sittē 9. yeres, did freely giue it over againe. Then there was a new schisme began, the cause was whether the Pope were aboue a ge­nerall counsell; Fasc. temp. fol. 89. Conscientia. Conscience. Solum entia sponsā Christi guberna [...]e vi­demus. Sand. de visib. monar. l. 7. fol. 516. Eccles. hie [...]ar. l. 6. c. 2. fo. 402. or a counsell aboue the Pope. These times were so miserable touching their Popes and Church that of CON­SCIENS which before that time was somewhat, the two first syllables were abated and only ENS stocks and blocks left to governe the spowse of Christ, which is his church. This coū ­sel of Bazil is reakoned by Bellarmine amongst those which are partly allowed, and partly disallowed: And yet Sanders absolutely condemneth it as vnlawful for offering to depose Eugenius, and therfore (saith he) it gaue occasion of a great schisme. Albertus Pighius with one breath concludeth that both those counsels of Constance and Basill concludeth both a­gainst order and nature, against the cle [...]re light of the Gospell and a­gainst all antiquity, In opusc. Ca­iet. de author pap. & conc. c. 8. in princ. and against the Catholike church. Caietane is much busied also with the credit of those two counsels, the one confirming the decrees of the other, he feareth to call that of Constāce a general or Occumenical counsel because it subiected the Pope to a councell, and so opened a gappe which should haue bin shut. Defenc. Trid. Conc. l. 2. fol. 428. 429. Andradius is resolute, that the counsel was generall and may be so reakoned, and interpre­teth it, not as if they had decreed simply that the Pope should be subiected to a councel in general, The shephard renteth & tea­reth the flock. Now they praise those 2. councels. vnto vs. Hard. cont. Iu­ell twise in the 2. artic. for the communi­on in on kind. but onlie when they rend and teare Church by dissention, and making of parts to get the popedome as then they did, then for a generall councel to be stickler amongst them is not amisse. The testi­mony of these men before-prized, what shal we say to those, who do obtrude both these Councels of Constance and Ba­zil vnto vs not only in matters of fact, touching the cōdem­ning of Iohn Husse and Ierome of Prage, but also in matters of doctrine & faith, & in no smal matters nether, but for proofe of their masse, and the denying of the Laity, the vse of the [Page 145]cup in the Lords supper, Alien for the Masse de euch. sacraf. l. 2. fol. 558. & l: 1. c. 21. fol. 343, Canus loc. theol. lib. 12. fol. 416. Sand. de visib. monar. l. 8. c. 10. For the Church of Romes credit. Andrad Orth. explic. l. 7. fol. 615. Horace epist. l. 1. ad Fuscum. Arist. Vrbis amato­rem Fuscum salvere iube­mus iuris ama tores▪ hac in re scilicet vna multū dissimi­les ad caetera penè gemelli. The residue downe to our time. Alexander. 6. father vnto Caesar Borgia Duke of Va­lence. L. 6. c. 23. L. 3. &. 6. Geneb. chron. l. 4. fol. 1097. Bellica gloria quam pontifi­cia clarior. & that without any manner of scru­ple or doubt of the authority and credit of them (whereof their former fellows do dispute) but as if their decrees, were the perfect & sound oracles of Gods vniversal church, agree­ing with the sacred and holy scripture. They are in this like to those friendes in Horace who though they studied all one thing, yet they did chuse a diverse kinde of life. And so the Poet biddeth the lovers of the Coūtry life, to salut the lovers of the citty life, and though in that they were much vnlike; yet in other things they were even twins. So must Andradius, Harding, Allen, Canus, shake hands with Pighius, Sanders, and Caietane, Bellarmine crying aime, and fully consenting with neither. But to go forward from Eugenius 4. last mentioned, there are none memorable vntil wee come to Alexander 6. vnto whom these succeeded; Pius 3. Iulius 2. Leo 10. Adrianus 6. Clemens 7. Paulus 3. Iulius 3. Marcellus 2. Paulus 4. Pius 4. Pius 5. Gregorie 13. Sextus 5. Ʋrbanus 7. Gregory 14. Innocentius 9. And Clemens 8. now 2. yeers since dead. For Alexander 6. I finde no wordes aunswerable to his wickednesses; an Ora­tour may holde a scroule in his hande and not speake, bee­ing astonied to thinke what an husbande the spouse of Christ had all the while he liued, vincit officium lingua sceleris magnitudo saith Lactantius, the waight of the mischeife kept the tongue silent. He excelled in al kinde of wickednesse & mischeife; he had many bastards, one he made Duke of Va­lence, who was called Caesar Borgia, whome hee intended to haue made Lord of al Italy. Read of him and his villanies in their owne Italian historie of Guictiardin [...]. His sonne & him­selfe died of the same poisoned wine, which was prepared for certaine Cardinals, such a serpent held the seat of Peter 10. yeares, til his owne poison killed him. Iulius 2. was a no­table warrior, he moued warre against the Lords of Bonony, Perusium, and the land about, against the Venetians, Duke of Ferarra, the state of Genua, and the French king, and therfore as his owne parasite saith of him, Hee was more honourable [Page 146]in warlike prowesse, than in bishoplike practise. For the rest that follow from Iulius 2. to Clemens 8. the times are yet too young for vs to know any memorable act of theirs, they who come after vs, shall peradventure, haue their dealings also brought to light. Thus much at last I would haue you to re­member, Reade the an­swere vnto a seditious Bull sent into Eng­land by Pyus 5. anno dom. 1569: by Iohn Iuell late bi­shop of Salisbury, in the 12 yeare of her Maiesties raigne. Regnum An­gliae proscrip­fit, praedae (que) exposuit, Ge­neb. chron. l. 4 fol. 5. Vrbanus 1169. God let Queen Elizabeth see 7. of her eni­mies Popes of Rome aliue & dead viz. Pius 5. Gregory 13. Sixtus. 7. Gregory 14. Innocentius 9 Clemens 8. That Pius the fift, and Gregory the thirteenth, two of the last recited Popes did mightily bend themselues against Queene Elizabeth of blessed memory, & against the whole nobility and commons of the Realme by excommunicating of her person, and absolving of her subiects from their oath and obe­dience, and exposed the realme and state to strangers as a pray, as much as in them lay. But the great God lehova, who her Maie­stie did alwaies serue in sincerity and truth gaue her health, peace, and life, to see the decay not only of them two, but of a­litter of rowre more, whose ends shee saw, and the seaventh in beeing when God called her highnesse to her blessed sleep. Thus Tuberius haue I run over many histories in briefe to giue you a taste both howe the succession and chaire of Rome hath stood, as also a touch of the faith, life, honesty and manners of the men in the Chare, for these 1600. yeeres; yet you must not think that I haue said the hundred part, which might be by some others followed touching the inlarging of every thing whereof I haue discoursed: And touching the former part of our conference which was concerning some points of religion, do but view them againe, and consider their manner of handling them, by many falshoodes and sleights, weaknesse in arguments, & dissentiō one amongst an other, and there is no question, but you will giue iudge­ment against them, and settle your perswasion with vs: be­cause they themselues haue set it downe for a ruled case, that wheresoever there is any craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point a manifest lie, there cannot be the simplicitie of trueth; And that there is such with them let him that wil not beleeue me first view their bookes, & then confute. I pray God that you may make such vse of my labour herein as I wish and I know [Page 147]the trueth of it doth deserue.

I thanke you much for your paines, but more for your so well wishing vnto me. God I hope will incline my hearte to the apprehension of the truth of your discourse herein. And so fare you well.