A Defense of the Catholic Faith

CHAP. I. The occasion that moved JAMES the first, King of great Britain to write his book, with the judgment on COEFFETEAV his book.

I T happeneth often, that the Lightning falling upon a man without hurting the flesh, breaketh the bones, because they only in the body do make resistance to it; and herein the lightning, which GOD sends from above imitates the nature of him that sendeth it, who bruiseth the proud, and such as withstand him; but taketh mercy on the humble, which bow under his judgments, and tremble at his word. But the fulminations of the Bishop of Rome, are of a contrary nature, for they hurt none but such as fear them, nor break none but such as bow under them; but he that sets them light, is neither endamaged by them, nor breaketh his sleep for them, but they fall like the Thunder-bolt into the Sea; nay they rather draw from God a blessing upon the heads of those, that are thus threatened, according to that of David: Though they curse, yet wilt thou bless.

The happy reign of the late Queen ELIZABETH will furnish us, with a fair example thereof, who notwithstanding the excommuniations of Pope Pius the fifth, by whom England was interdicted, she long time enjoyed a Peace without any disturbance or interruption; and a prosperity almost beyond example. And finally, when it pleased God to take her to peace, and to gather her to his rest: many supposed, that the end of her life, would be a beginning of troubles, and confusions in England; and thereupon the opinions and fears were diverse, according to the diversity of men's desires. For the English that were of the Roman Church attentive and heedy to all occasions, had conceived hope of some great change, whether it were that they were led into their hope upon false grounds, or that after the death of a sovereign Prince better things are ever expected from the succeffor; or whether that such as are discontented are ever desirous of a change; so it was that in this Crisis of humors, the spirits of the English waued and floated betwixt hope and fear, till by the happy arriuall of JAMES the first, the lawful Successor; all things were appeased and cleared; even as by the rising of the Sun mists and fogs are dispersed and scattered.

He in the sweetness and fairness of his own nature, inclined to give content unto all his subjects with free liberty of conscience: But this his in clination was over-ruled by necessity, when his wisdom entered into consideration, that the matter now in question was not only Religion, but the peace of his estate, and the security of his crown, for that it was a thing dangerous to permit public Assemblies of such persons, as had taken Oath to others then himself; who hold that the Pope may pull down Kings from their Thrones, and dispense with subjects for the oath of their alleageāce. Moreover he called to his remembrance the kings his predecessors, whom the Popes had reduced to extreme servitude, so far as to make England parte of the Popes Demaines; and in Fee to the Church of Rome; and further to make it pay impost, and to cause the King to go beneath his Legates, and to give up the Crown into their hands. These are considerations that one cannot square or apply to those of the Reformed Religion, which live under a Sovereign of a contrary profession; for they take oath to no other, but to their Sovereign Prince. They cast their eyes upon no Forrainer, they maintain that it belongs not to the subject out of the Religion of the Prince, to frame occasions of disobedience, making piety the match and kindler of rebellion. We are ready to expose our lives for the defense of our King against whomsoever, though he be of our own Religion; and whosoever should do otherwise should not defend Religion, but give way to his own ambitions, and should draw a great scandal upon the truth of the Gospel.

Notwithstanding his Majesty hath used his subjects of the Roman Church in such sort, that excepting the liberty of public exercise, he desired to have them in like and equal condition with others, being unwilling to have them disturbed for matter of conscience, knowing well, that Religion is not by force but by persuasion to take impression; and that in this case men will rather follow then be drawn, and that persecutions begin when Arguments are at an end.

Notwithstanding this gentle proceeding, those of the Church of Rome now fallen from great hopes, which they had imagined, turned their despair into choller and indignation; and thereupon plotted an enterprise, that should have enfolded the King, the Queen, their children, his Majesty's Council and the Parliament, in one and the same destruction; the plot was to make a Mine under the house of Parliament, and so to send the King and his royal family, with the chief of his Country to heaven by a new found way.

Hatred is an ingenious Mistress of invention, for neither ancient nor moderne Histories can parallel this with any example: The Prince of the world reserved to our times, which are the very sink of former ages, something more exquisitely cruel and horrible, then ever before hath been mentioned. In the mean time, through all their houses, there was a certain form of prayer prescribed by the Priests and Jesuits, for the happy success of this enterprise; to whom the complices did mutually bind themselves by oath, sworn upon the holy Sacrament, both for secrecy and perseverance in the design. The Mine was already finished, and the Gun-powder laid ready, and nothing wanting but the execution; when God, who (as he is himself a King) so consequently he is the protector of Kings, whom he hath established; miraculously discovered this treason; the conspirators being taken, suffered according unto law, and amongst others two Jesuits Garnet and Ouldcorne; who are now inserted into a catalogue of Martyrs, imprinted at Rome, which is the Spring-head and Forge of all such enterprises.

Less cause would have sufficed an impatient King to have exterminated all their complices, and to have let loose the rains of his just anger, but he with a rare example of clemency, suffered punishment to pass no further, then to the principal delinquents, inventing and framing to himself Causes and Reasons how he might pardon: he considered that Superstition might alter, and stir up the mildest spirits, and was desirous by pardoning the wicked, to make them become good; and though he could not find cause in them why to pardon, he found it in himself; for though they no way deserved mercy, yet he shown himself worthy of his greatness, in doing good to those of so evil demerit.

He considered that God, whom he represents; sendeth rain upon the Briars and Thistles, as well as on fruit Trees, and makes the Sun to rise alike to the good and to the evil; or else it may be that his clemency was accompanied and assisted with a neglect of his enemies; esteeming many of them not worthy of his wrath.

But for the better preventing of such conspiracies in future times, the Parliament, together with the King, framed a form of Oath, to be administered to all his Majesty's subjects, which is to this effect: That they acknowledge JAMES the first, King of great Britain for their lawful King, and that the Pope cannot by any right whatsoever depose him from his Kingdoms, nor discharge his subjects of their obedience to him, nor give them license to bear Arms against him: Also that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excōmunication made or granted, or to be made or granted against the said King & his Successors, they will bear faith and true allegiance to him, his heyrs & Successors, & him and thē will defend to the uttermost of their power against all attempts & conspiracies whatsoever: And that they will reveal all treasons and traiterous Conspiracies, which they shall know or hear of, against him or any of them. And that they do abhor, detest, and abjure this damnable position, that Princes which be excommunicated by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects: And that they believe, and in conscience are resclued, that the Pope hath no power to absolve them of this Oath, or any part thereof. And renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary. And that without any Equiuocation, mental Euasion, or secret Reseruation whatsoever, they do sincerely acknowledge and swear all these things, and do make this acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truly. So help them God.

This Oath being offered to those of the Romish Church, diverse of them took it without difficulty; and amongst the rest Blackwell the Arch-Priest, who then was, and still remains in England.

These things, being come to the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome, Paul the fifth, that reigns at this present, he dispatches presently for England, a breue, or as they term it, letters Apostolic bearing date the two & twentieth of September 1606. by which he declares. That this Oath cannot be taken with good conscience, exhorting them rather to undergo all cruel torments whatsoever, yea Death it self, rather then to offend the Majesty of God by such an Oath; and to imitate the constancy and fortitude of the other English Martyrs, willing them to have their loins girt about with verity, and to have the Brest-plate of righteousness and to take the shield of faith: That God that hath begun this good work, might finish it in them, who will not leave them Orphants, &c. And finally willeth them exactly to put in practice, that which is commanded in the Letters of Clement the eight his Predecessor, written to M ^r . George Black well the Arch-priest of England: by which Letters all Princes of any Religion contrary to their own, are excluded from the kingdom of England.

These Letters being come into England, were not received by those of the Romish Church, with such respect as the Pope expected; for many judged them ridiculous, as exhorting them to suffer Martyrdom for ill doing, since none can be a Martyr, but for having done well: As also for that they declare, that this Oath is contrary to the Catholic faith, without telling why or wherefore; as likewise for that the exhortations of holy Scripture to shun vice, and to persevere in the profession of the Gospel, and to resist the Devil, are in this Papal breue drawn to a contrary sense, to kindle sedition, and to incite subjects to disobedience. And above all, for that these Letters, engaging the subjects to revolt, do necessarily pluck upon them persecution and the just anger of their natural Prince, who being unwilling to require any caution of them in anything contrary to their belief, demandeth no more of them but fidelity and civil obedience.

For these considerations some part of the Priests and Friers of England said, that these Letters of the Pope were shufled in by their Adversaries, and forged by the Heretics (for so they of their goodness are pleased to term us) to kindle the anger of the King against them, which was already provoked by the plot of the Powder-mine, which only fell out to ruin the undertakers. By reason whereof, the same Pope being advertised, that through these doubts, whether they were true or feigned, the Authority of his Letters were infringed; he writ others more expressly, bearing date the three and twentieth of August, 1607. In which he seemeth to wonder that they any way suspect the truth of the Apostolic letters, that under that pretence they might exempt themselves from his commands; and therefore declareth unto them that those letters were written not only upon his proper motion, and of his certain knowledge, but also after long and weighty deliberation, and therefore again enjoineth them fully to observe them, for such is his will and pleasure.

To these letters (giving the Alarums to rebellion) for their greater confirmation, were added the letters of Cardinal Bellarmine to George Blackewell the Arch-Priest. In which after he had put him in mind of their ancient acquaintance, he greatly blameth him for taking the Oath, the which under color of modifications hath no other aim or drift, but to transfer the authority of the Pope, the head of the Church, to a Successor of HENRY the eight, & by the examples of his Predecessors he exhorreth him constantly to defend the primacy of the Pope, whom he calleth the head of the faith.

But he showeth neither what words or clauses in this Oath are contrary to the faith of the Romish Church, nor wherefore this Arch-Priest should rather choose to die, then to oblige himself by Oath, to be loyal to his King in things merely civil, and which no way meddle with the Primacy of the Pope: and yet this is the only thing, whereof question is made, and whereof proose is expected. These letters, both of the Pope and Cardinal, being fallen into the hands of his Majesty might well have kindled the anger of a very patient Prince and have armed and stirred him up against those with whom these Papal letters were of more power, then either their faith to their King, or their obedience to God. For what Prince can permit in his Kingdom subjects that acknowledge him not, or that to retain their fidelity to the Pope, think themselves bound to disloyalty towards their King.

And yet notwithstanding his Majesty herein contained himself, and would not; that his mercy should be surpassed, by their wickedness, so far that he hath rather choose to take in hand the pen, then the sword, and hath studied to instruct those, whom he might justly have destroyed, desiring more to convince them by reason, then to overcome them by force Maluit sanguinem suffundere, quam effundere.

What would not he do for his faithful subjects, that lets himself down so low to his enemies? that lays aside the quality of a Judge, to become an Advocate: but he whom God hath lifted up to a Sovereign greatness, never exalteth himself higher then by humility.

This King then to refute these Papal Letters, and to justify what he had done, made a book, entitled, An Apology for the Oath of Alleageance, but not setting his name thereunto, for it was nothing to him under what title the truth appeared; so that his enemies might come to the knowledge of their fault. This was no combat of the ability of wit, but a mere manifestation of his innocence: But the style of a King is hardly disguised, for Kings being in more eleuated places, receive nearer at hand the inspirations from heaven. Their conceptions are as much above the vulgar, as their conditions, this only thought, that they are GOD'S Lieutenants, and that they exercise his judgments, quickens their spirits with an extraordinary life and vigor: besides if it so happen that their youth hath been dressed and ordered by study, and their judgments polished by experience, as it hath happened to the King of great BRITAINE, why should anybody wonder, if their their spirits fly a pitch above ordinary?

This Royal Apology having then been known (as a Lyon by his claws) stirred up certain English-men, and Italians to write against it, who (as this King elegantly said) have cast lots upon his book, for that they could not part it, for the reasons thereof are inseparably weaued together, but they not being able to bite his work, bark at his person with an incredible impudence, so far some of them, as to equal themselves with so great a Prince; and to compare him to Julian the Apostate. Such are the flowers of their devilish Rhethorique; wherewith their writings are adorned, on whom the Apostle S. Peter in his second Epistle, giveth this judgment, calling them brute beasts, led with sensuality; that despise government, which are presumptuous, and stand in their own conceit, and fear not to speak evil of them which are in dignity; whereas the Angels which are greater both in power and might, gave not railing judgment against them before the Lord. Then if it be ill done to speak ill of a Pagan Prince, such as in those times all Monarchs were; how much more of a Christian King; and if Angels forbore ill speaking of Princes, how much more would it beseem men, and most of all their own subjects?

But no more then the Moon is turned out of her course by the barking of Dogs, that look up to her; no more was the tranquility of his Majesty's spirit, by these outrageous injuries disturbed, nor his resolution diverted from doing good to those which bore him hatred. It is a poor and mean thing to tread upon worms. There is no glory in overcoming such people, of whom he is sufficiently revenged, by the grief, and displeasure which they sustain in seeing that God hath blessed him, and highly exalted him. He would therefore have contemned their slighting of him, & would have abstained from refuting their calumnies by a second writing, had it not been in regard, not of them but of his people, and of his neighbors, and above all of the glory of God; for God having honored him with the true knowledge of him, his Majesty would not permit that the enemies, as well of the Gospel, as of his Crown, should find in his persō any subject or color to defame the true religion: He is then by an admirable example constituted the advocate of God's cause, & by a second book, made in form of a Preface to his former, hath fully and thoroughly justified himself. In which book he discovereth the flights and backeturnings of his enemies, representing the vniustnes of their proceedings. He likewise maketh confession of his Religion conformable to the holy Scriptures, and with a happy boldness figures, and depaints the Bishoppe of Rome and his Sea with lively colors, borrowed from the Apocalypse, and the Apostle S. Paul.

Never was Table drawn with a more exact hand, or in liuelyer colors. Such is the Torrent of his eloquence, such is the weight of his reasons, such is the linking together of his discourse, such the variety of his learning, and such his Majesty in all things, as he may best judge of it, who shall compare them with that puffed-up weakness of the Popes letters, and with the writing of his Adversaries. Oh happy eloquence, which being armed with power, is become the hand-maid of God's word; the source and spring whereof, falling from high, are like to the waters of Silo, which water the City of our God. He doth truly exalt his Scepter, which layeth it down at the foot of the Cross, and that placeth his height and greatness beneath the reproach of the Son of God, he sanctifieth his house, making his Cabinet a Temple for Divinity, and a retrayt for holy Meditations. Then as in ancient times, the earth was more fruitful, when it was labored by Kings, as though she had taken pride to bear a crowned Plough, and to be tilled with a Triumphall Coulter. So it is to be hoped that Religion and Piety will abundantly increase, since Kings are become laborers in the Harvest.

This latter book then being come to succor and help the first, did diversely stir men's spirits, some with joy, some with fear, some with hate, but all generally with admiration. The book being little, it was given out we should have it answered within three days, and sure their good will was not wanting, but they found it a harder matter then so, and that they were fain to take more time. For it was eight months after it was published, before the first Answeres came forth; and what kind of Answeres they were, God he knoweth.

One Coeffeteau was the first that like an Infant perdu of the Romish army, advanced himself. This Seraphical Doctor, of the order of the Iacobins, or preaching Friars, one of the most remarkable amongst the Sorbonists, is of late through his companions negligence become the defender of the cause. And he now after eight months being in labor, hath brought forth a book, which is not like to live, because of the untimely birth; and indeed it had been already extinct and dead, had not the greatness of him against whom he writes kept it alive; wherein he shown a point of skill to address himself against a person so illustrious, that he might receive some luster from his reflection. But those that desire to make themselves known by the greatness of their Adversaries, are always such as have little in themselves, why the world should take note of them. This Doctor in his book, handleth the King of great Britain, as a Nurce doth her nurce-child, who after she hath dandled it, beats it, mingling curstnesse and flattery: For in humble terms he wrongeth him, and giveth him respectful lies, flatters him with injuries, accuseth him to speak upon trust, and that he busieth himself with quirkes and subtleties, and says that he makes S. Paul an Interpreter of the Apocalypse.

This is the form of his writing: as for the matter and substance of his book, I find, that he hath ill measured his own strength, and that with the weakness and meanness of his skill, he hath made the strength of his Majesty's reasons more manifest. Giants are not to be overthrown with a breath, neither is a Lion to be fought against with a Festue. Other kind of forces are necessary to make resistance to so exquisite a doctrine, that is ever abundantly sustained by the truth. And indeed he clearly confesseth his weakness in this, that he never citeth the Text of the Kings book, but only reporteth the sense thereof disguised and weakened, that he may give himself greater scope and liberty, forming to himself Chimera's, which he impugneth with other Chimera's of his own, as will sufficiently appear, by the examination of his book, to which we now will enter. God herein enlighten us, since that which we say is for his truth, which is the light of our souls.

CHAP. II. Certain Remonstrances of COEFFETEAV his judgment, touching the Treasons and attempts upon the life of the King of England.

A RISTOTLE in the second book of his Rhetoriques, saith, that the Country people use to have their speeches very full of sentences, but folly is more sufferable then unseasonable wisdom: Coeffeteau beginneth his book much after such fashion; making to the King of great Britain many sententious Remonstrances, interlaced and mingled with threats and commendations. But whilst he representeth to Kings their duties, he goeth beyond his own, for S. Jerome forbids Monks to be teachers, saying in his book against Vigilantius: Monachus non docentissed plangen tis habet officium, wishing Monks rather to bewail and be sorrowful for their own faults, then to reprehend those of other men. But chiefly his Remonstrances are ill employed to a King, that is better read in the Bible then he is in his Missal; and that hath carefully put in practice the commandment of God in the seventeenth of Deuteronomy; where he commands Kings to read the book of the law all the days of their lives. The exhortation that Luther often used by his Letters to Pope Leo the tenth, to renounce the papacy, and to live of his own, and to come and do as he did, had more grace with it, then this of Coeffeteau; for it is more probable of the two, that the Pope was the likelier to have followed Luther's counsel.

This Doctor having thus employed the seven first pages of his book in these exhortations, which have no other fault, but that they are ill applied, comes to those motives, which estrange and keep the King of England from the Roman Religion; supposing the conspiracies that have been against his person, to be the causes of it, thereupon protesteth; that the Roman Church no way approveth such attempts, but condemns them as parricides, and wisheth to Princes secure government, victorious arms, obedient people, and faithful Council: And after addeth, That for these considerations the head of the Church (which is the Pope) cannot disaproue the courses that your Majesty holaeth; to secure your authority and person, against the miserable enterprises, so that they be not repugnant to that Religion which he is bound to descend.

To this I say, Coeffeteau hath been very ill informed, for the conspiracies against the King of England's life, have not withheld or kept him from Popery; since even from his Infancy he hath made open profession of the true Religion, and before this conspiracy had published the confession of his faith conformable to that which we profess.

And whereas he condemns such attempts, as are made upon the lives of Kings, we greatly commend him for it; and thereby suppose that he no way approved the enterprize of James Clement, who was domestic with him and his companion: From thence I likewise gather, that when the Jesuit Mariana in the sixth Chapter of his book De Regno, praiseth the Act of James Clement, saying that he was persuaded, and induced thereunto by Divines, with whom he had confer'd: I gather that Coeffeteau was none of those Divines, and that when this Parricide Saint, and Coeffeteau went a begging together, he made him not acquainted with his secret. And further it is no small virtue in this Doctor, that he feareth not in so just a cause to condemn many Jesuits, who were complices or instigators of this last conspiracy, and have been executed for it. Nay more, it showeth a magnanimity in Coeffeteau, that he dares so courageously oppose himself to the Pope and Bellarmine, who (by their letters before mentioned) incite the English to rebellion, which could never take effect so long as the Kings life should be in safety. By the same means he likewise condemneth the Authors of the Legend of S. James Clement, which we have seen with our eyes, but not without much wonder and admiration. The success of things have grudged him this honor; and men have been nothing favorable and propitious to this Saint, otherwise doubtless he had before this been put into paradise. It is likewise a cause of just joy unto us, to see that a Doctor of the Sorbons dare approve the sentence of the Court of Parliament against John Chastell, though the Pope of late hath newly censured it; By which it doth also follow that he doth not think it well done, that Garnet and Ouldcorne Jesuits, and parties in the gunpowder treason, are at Rome inserted in a roll of Martyrs. Whosoever praiseth and approveth an act already done, will questionless counsel and advise the doing of it; for that which is wicked in the undertaking, cannot be good in the execution: But the Pope in his breue before mentioned, calleth the punishment of Treason and rebellion by the name of Martyrdom, which is a dangerous speech, & able to make Kings tremble, when the people shall be taught by Murders and Treasons to seek the Crown of Martyrdom, An abhominable and detestable doctrine: can there be any so cold and frozen zeal, that will not hereby be warmed, and moved to a just anger, that this so sacred name of Martyr, so much reverenced in the Church, should in such sort be prostituted, that whereas the holy Scripture calleth them Martyrs, which suffer for the testimony of the Gospel; now a days those which have their hands stained and soyled with the blood of Kings should be honored with that Title? It is not the suffering but the cause that maketh a Martyr; otherwise the devil might likewise have his Martyrs, but such pains are crimes, and are not only unworthy of praise, but are likewise unworthy of pardon, and such pains and torments, as are again to be punished with future torments. Is it then fit that the holy squadron of Martyrs, where S. Stephen marcheth first, and S. James near unto him, and after them the rest of the Apostles; followed by so many of the faithful, who have been prodigal of their bloods, but careful and thrifty of the glory of God: Is it fit amongst them to find Incendiaries and Parricides with fire and sword in hand; not like unto S. Paul and S. Lawrence, that is to say, not representing their punishments, but as testimonies of their crimes, not to signify the death by which they died, but to declare the manner how they murdered? Vnhappy age, that styleth villains with title of virtue: and that by the corrupting of words and names, depraveth the things themselves, and so by a new kind of Grammar introducteth a new kind of Divinity. But God be praised, that he hath not permitted the Pope by his skill and art, to plant this persuasion generally in the hearts of the people, but that even amongst our adversaries themselves, there are very many that no way approve this seditious and bloody doctrine: Amongst which number I would willingly place the Doctor Coeffeteau, because of his protestations, were it not that he allays them with such modifications and restrictions, as gives us cause to doubt of them: And which testify that those Kings, with whose lives and Crowns he would not have meddled, are only such Kings as are obedient to the Bishop of Rome, for he saith, That the Church of Rome wisheth to Princes an assured Empire, victorious Arms, and an obedient people. Now it is most certain that the Pope desireth not, that those Kings which condemn him should be victorious, or that their people should remain in their obedience, since he deposeth them from their Thrones, and dispenseth to their subjects the Oath of their Alleageance. And a little while after he saith, that he speaketh of such estates, wherein the Church (meaning the Church of Rome) subsisteth, which is as much to say, that where it cannot subsist, there he approveth this rebellion and murder, which he more clearly showeth after Fol. 6. pag. 1. where after these words: That the Pope cannot disapproue the courses that you hold to secure your Authority and person: he addeth, So that they be not offensive to that Religion which he is bound to defend. So that hereof it followeth, that if the Roman Religion do receive any offense in England: Then the Pope doth no longer approve the courses, that the King holdeth for his conservation. But he giveth after more certain proofs of his intention, the which we will remark in their due places. Besides we doubt not, but a prudent person knoweth how to fashion himself to the times, and to reserve his bloody propositions for fitter occasions. And many times enterprises are only blamed because they are not successful, and vices are turned to virtue by happy events. Multa sunt, quae non nisi peracta Laundantur. And the judgments of those, whose malice is accompanied with doubt and fear, are framed according to the success. But in respect of our friendship, I am rather inclined to think well of him, and to free him of this suspicion.

I will therefore conclude this Chapter with an observation, which I think not fit to be omitted; and it is, that in the time of S. Paul Nero was then Emperor, which Monster God either for the scorn of men, or for their punishment had placed in the Empire; who by his example declared to what height, absolute and exquisite wickedness, assisted with Sovereign power could ascend; who likewise was the first that stirred up persecution amongst the Christians. Had the Christians ever greater cause to rebel? Or served they ever under a more unworthy Master? Now I would demand of my Masters the Papists, if S. Paul should have made a Myne under his house, or under color of salutations should have stricken him to the heart with a Poniard, or had been taken in any of these enterprises, and so put to death for them; whether had he been a Martyr, or whether had his death been acceptable, or tended to the edification of the Church? But because this is a question full of difficulties, it is fit we should leave it undecided, and that we expect some resolution from the Doctors, or some decision from his Holiness.

After this Coeffeteau Fol. 6. speaketh by the way, of the Popes power over the temporality of Kings, and promiseth afterwards to speak more at large. We therefore to avoid the repetition of things twice, will set aside that subject till he cometh to the place where he fully handleth it. And now let us hear what he saith of the dignity of Cardinals, Fol. 8.

CHAP. III. Of Cardinals.

F Orasmuch as Bellarmine under the name of Tortus compareth the dignity of Cardinals to the Majesty of Kings, That is to say, the Cardinals Cap with the Regal Crown, the charge of a servant of the servant of servants to the dignity of the ruler of Nations: The King of great Britain speaketh thus in his Apology: I was never the man, I confess, that could think a Cardinal a meet match for a King, especially having many hundredth thousands of my subjects of as good birth as he. As for his Church-dignity, his Cardinalship I mean, I know not how to rank or value it, either by the warrant of God his word, or by the Ordinance of Emperors or Kings, it being indeed only a new Papal erection tolerated by the sleeping Conniuence of our predecessors (I mean still by the plural of Kings.)

To this Coeffeteau maketh a mild reply, entreating his Majesty to judge more favorably of the intentions of so modest and learned a person as Bellarmine is, beseeching him to remember that Calvin acknowledged that the Cardinals flourished in the time of S. Gregory, which is one thousand years since; and that even in the Council of Rome, under Sylvester the first, there is mention made of the seven Deacon Cardinals, as of no new Institution then: And addeth, that their charge was to instruct the people, and to minister the Sacraments. And since, they having gotten unto themselves the election of the Pope; and being always near about him, their glory is grown and increased, by which the Church hath received much ease and furtherance: the head of the Church having always about his person, his Council in affairs of greatest importance. He likewise saith, that Kings reverence them; but they are so far from making themselves equal with Kings, that Princes find none that bear themselves with more respect towards them, then these great ones do. And so he endeth his amplification with the praise of the Cardinal of Perron.

Now to begin with these which he opposeth unto us: I do acknowledge, that these two Cardinals, carried along with the current of the time and course of affairs, have by their wills and abilities much helped the defense of error, they have employed their vessels of gold and silver, which they brought out of Egypt, to the making of the golden Calf: and Coeffeteau hath little in his writings that he hath not filtched from them. But I know that they disagree in many things, and that the Cardinal of Perron loveth his King too well to assent with Bellarmine, that the Pope may either directly or indirectly deprive him of his Crown, or dispence to French-men the obedience they owe him.

As for the thing it self, that is, the antiquity, charge and modesty of Cardinals, it requireth a longer discourse. Men dispute of the original of Cardinals, as they do of the head and source of the river Nile. The greatest antiquity that Coeffeteau is able to produce, is the testimony of the Roman Council, held (if we may give credit to the impression) under Sylvester the first since the Counsel of Nice. But it is easy for us to convince this of falsehood, being forged by some shallow brain that wanted learning to lie with skill and dexterity. This Counsel is found in the first Tome of the Counsels reduced into twenty Chapters, whereof the first saith, that in this Counsel there were 139. Bishops, as well of the City of Rome, as of other places near about it, which is well known to be impossible: In the last Chapter Sylvester prohibiteth the Emperor and Kings to be Judges of the Bishop of Rome. Now it is strange how this should be, since at that time, there were no Kings in all Christendom; there he likewise saith that Constantine, and his mother Helena, subscribed to this Counsel, but Constantine was never at Rome under Sylvester, since the Counsel of Nice▪ and women never subscribed to the Counsels at all. He further addeth, Actum in Traianas thermas, as though this Counsel had been fain to hide it self in the Stoaues: In the same place Constantine is called Donnus Constantine instead of Dominus; but in those times the Latin tongue was not become so strangely corrupted, besides, amongst the Romans this very word Dominus was then odious, as attributed to tyrants. And lastly he saith, that this Counsel was held Constantino Augusto tertio (he meant to have said) tertiùm, & Prisco consulibus: which is a most apparent untruth; for we find in the Chronicles of Cassiodorus, and in the Fasti of Onuphrius and Annian Marcellinus all the Consulships of Constantine, but it cannot be found that either Priscus or any of the family of Augustus were companions with Constantine in Consulshippe; and further, in the page before this Counsel, Sylvester writeth to the Counsel of Nice, and deteth his letters from the seventh time of Constantine's being Consul. And yet see this goodly Counsel which was held since, and yet beareth date from his third Consulshippe. It is likewise to be proved that both Sylvester and Helena were long afore this deceased.

These untruths are very easy to be discerned, and any ordinary judgment will discover them, but to Coeffeteau, who hath no great skill in any good learning, any proofs will serve his turn; It had been very fitting, that so royal a work might have had a learned adversary, was there not in France some more able and sufficient man, that might have seduced with a better grace? or could have found better pretences and colors to have opposed the truth? Certainly it is much to the disgrace grace of our nation. But these are briefly his proofs of the antiquity of Cardinals.

Cóeffeteau doth further add, that Calvin acknowledgeth that Cardinals did flourish in the time of Gregory the first, which was six hundred years after Christ: and this is likewise another untruth; Calvin saith indeed that there was then the Title and name of Cardinal, but not the charge, and that in that age this word CARDINALL, signified nothing less then what it doth now a days, and the substance being changed, the word hath still continued; even as we see in the Apothecaries box, though the ointment be gone the inscripion remaineth: Also Calvin speaketh not of their flourishing but of their being: Gregory indeed in the eleventh Epistle of his fifth book, speaketh of a Cardinal Deacon: And likewise in the four and twentieth Epistle of his eleventh book, he speaketh of a Cardinal Priest, which is as much to say as principal: in the same sense and nature as we say the Cardinal winds, or Cardinal virtues, which signify only the chief and principal. But of any Cardinal Bishops, neither he nor any of his time, nor long after made any kind of mention. A Cardinal Priest then had no other signification, then the Parson or Vicar of a Parish hath now; neither was this title only used in Rome, but in all other great Archiepiscopall Cities, as namely in Millane, where Sigonius towards the end of his seventh book, saith, that there were then two and twenty Cardinals: but there being then in one Parish diverse Priests, he that was the first and chief was called principal or Cardinal, for they signified both one thing; as Pandulphus Pisanus, and after him Onuphrius teacheth us. For Bellarmine in his first book de Clericis Chap. 16 is mistaken, where he saith, that in the fourth book of Gregory's Epistles Chap. 88. there are subscriptions of diverse Cardinal Priests, bearing the same title, which is altogether untrue; for there is no mention made of Cardinals, and by Priests of the same title is meant simply in that place, Priests of the same Church or Parish: He likewise there allegeth the Counsel of Rome false and counterfeited. And he also speaketh of Cardinal Bishops, which were neither in the time of Gregory, nor long after: so that in few lines he committeth three gross errors: This then standeth thus; that the Cardinal Priests were no more but the principal Priests of every Parish: and of this there remaineth to this day some shows and traces, for that every Cardinal Bishop or Priest, beareth the title of some Church or Parish of the city of Rome, which doth more plainly appear by the form of the reception of new Cardinals, as it is set down in the first book of the holy ceremonies. Section the 8. chap. 12. where the Pope after he hath put a ringe on the finger of the new Cardinal that kneeleth before him, saith unto him, To the honor of God, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of such or such a Saint; we commit unto you the Church of S. Sabina, or of S. Chrisogonus, &c. that is, he committeth to him one of the Parishes of Rome, which is nothing but a bare formality, and words without substance; for after this ceremony, this new Cardinal returneth home (it may be) into France or Sapine, without ever setting his foot again into the Church, of which he bears the title: And from thence it grew, that for a long time, there was in Rome but eight and twenty Cardinal Priests, according to the number of the ancient Parishes in Rome, which was seven Churches under everyone of the four principal and Patriarchal Churches of Rome: as for the fifth, that is the Church of Lateran, where the Pope made his residence, that was above the other four.

This number of eight and twenty Cardinal Parishes (that is to say) Parsons of Parishes continued in Rome, until the time of Honorius the second, father of the Cordeliers, in the year 1125. as Onuphrius showeth; since which time, the number hath increased or lessened, according to the pleasures of the Popes, who were at that time in the height of their glory; And the dignity of the Bishops of Millaine and Rauenna being decayed, (which before were held equal with the Bishop of Rome: ) Since that there hath been little speech, but only of the Cardinals of Rome. As touching Deacons, the custom of the City of Rome was to have only seven; following the example of the sixth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, whose charge was to keep and distribute the alms, and to carry the Eucharist in the Church to the faithful, and to remove the holy table, and to cause those which were not yet fully instructed in the Christian Religion, to go out of the Church before the communion, and to read the Gospel, &c. S. Laurence that suffered Martyrdom under Decius in the year 252. was one of those seven Deacons, as Prudentius testifieth.

Likewise in the time of S. Cyprian there were but seven, as appeareth by the Epistle he wrote to Cornelius in the sixth book of Eusebius, chap. 42. which agreeth with the twelfth Canon of the Counsel of Neocaesaria. Now when the Church was grown to be in peace and quiet, peace bringing plenty, and plenty pride: these Deacons became proud and insolent; of which S. Augustine complaineth, in his book of questions of the old and New Testament, saying, That one called Falcidius, lead by folly, and following the arrogancy and vaunting of the City of Rome, would equal the Roman Deacons with other Priests: and a little after saith, that The Deacons of the Church of Rome seem to be a little too impudent. Pride was then in blooming, but it is now full eared, which showeth that Harvest is at hand.

In the succeeding ages the number of Christians being greatly increased, it is to be presumed the number of Deacons increased likewise; amongst whom those which were the chiefest, were called by the name of Cardinal Deacons, which is as much to say, as principal.

It is not to be omitted, that the election of the Bishops of Rome was long after this made by the voices of the common people and Clergy: the first mention of any Pope that was elected by Cardinals, that I can find in Platina, is in the life of Nicholas the second in the year 1059. And yet a little after he joineth with them, both the layetie and Clergy. Onuphrius saith that Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand, in the year 1072. and yet Platina affirmeth that he was elected, not only by the Cardinals, but also by the whole Clergy in the presence of the people: So that the custom which reserveth to Cardinals only, the elections of the Popes, is of a new constitution: as likewise those goodly uses they now have to shut the Cardinals into the conclaue, to put their meat in at a hole, to serve their drink in clear bottles, and their bread cut into little morsels, to make them dyne everyone alone by themselves prohibiting them to serve one another, diminishing every day their allowance: and when the name of a new elected Cardinal is declared out at the window to the people, to run home to his house and rob and spoil it; as likewise that custom by which the elected Pope giveth to whom he list his place and Cardinals hatte, as Pope Julius the third did in the year 1505. who bestowed his place upon a little boy called Innocentius, who kept him an Ape. But chiefly that corruption by which every Cardinal selleth his suffrage, receiving from Princes great pensions to give their voices with one of their faction. Now after this bargain and sale, we must yet believe that such a purchased Pope cannot err in faith.

By what which is already said, it appeareth that the Cardinals now a days have no more resemblance of those of former times, then the Pope hath of S. Peter, or the Mass of the Lord's supper: first, the ancient Cardinals were Pastors or Deacons of the Parishes of Rome, to teach and to administer the Sacraments; but the Cardinals now neither teach nor have any cure of souls: secondly, then the Cardinalship was a function, now it is a dignity: thirdly, then a Cardinal was not made but upon the death of some other, because that the Parish might not remain without a Pastor. But now the Pope createth when he pleaseth, and as many as he pleaseth; by which it hath happened, that the Pope being careless thereof, the number hath been so strangely diminished, that when Urban the fourth was elected, there were only two Cardinals; so contrary to this, Leo the tenth created eight and thirty in one day: fourthly, Then the Roman Cardinals were only in the City of Rome, whereas now they are everywhere else, and rule the Counsels of diverse Kings. It is likewise to be presumed, that in ancient time election was made of Cardinal Priests of the Inhabitants of Rome, and such as were of most sufficiency; but now the Cardinalshippe is bestowed upon Infants, and Princes children that are altogether unlearned, as likewise upon others, at the request and entreaty of Kings, in recompense of their services. Then the title of Cardinal Priests did not lift him up higher then his fellows, but only in some kind of precedency in order, as Onuphrius saith: Nihil dignitatis aut praeeminentiae illis dabat antiquitus esse Cardinales. But now the Cardinals look down from a greater height upon the rest of the Clergy, who are very many degrees beneath their greatness. There was in those times no speech of Cardinal Bishops; and if any Cardinal Priest of one of the Parishes of Rome became a Bishop of any City of Italy, he retained no longer the name of Cardinal, no more then a Parson that is made Bishop now, reteyneth the name of Parson still; but it were now to go backewards, and to stoop very low, for a Cardinal to become a Bishop, and leave his Cardinalship. Then he that was made Cardinal was tied to one certain Church or Parish, but now it is clean otherwise, for by the contrary he that is now created Cardinal, is loosed and discharged from the Church that was his cure, as appeareth by the form of the nomination of the new Cardinals, contained in the the first book of the holy Ceremonies; in which the Pope speaketh thus: By the authority of God the Father Almighty, and of the holy Apostle S. Paul and S. Peter, and likewise by our own, we discharge and free James Bishop of such a place, of the bond by which he was tied to his Church or cure, and admit him Carainall Priest: Also by the promotion of a Cardinal, all his Benefices are held void, if he obtain not a new grant of them from his Holiness. In those days likewise there was no such thing known, as to receive a ringe, and a red hat at the Popes hands after they had kissed his feet, nor the new trick of opening and shutting their mouths, nor of carrying of four red hats at the end of a staff before the Pope in solemn procession, as saying like to the Doctor, whereof it is spoken in Saint Luke, Chap. 4. ver. 6. All this power will I give to thee every whit, and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will give it. Aunciently the duty of the Cardinal Deacons was to carry the Table, on which they celebrated the Lord's Supper: but since their office hath been to carry the Pope upon their shoulders. For which Innocent the third in the first book of the mysteries of the Mass, giveth this reason: saith he, It belongeth to the Levites to carry the Ark of the Covenant, which is often in the Scriptures called Euerlasting.

All that then which was in the time of Gregory being compared with that which now is, hath no manner of resemblance of it, but even as when wanton verses are graven in the bark of a young tree, the letters grow together with the tree:

Even so, that which was amiss in these Cardinals during the weakness and minority of the Sea of Rome, since they were glued and fastened to this Sea, they have grown up together with it: And as it happeneth that in a body generally swollen, some parte is more troubled with the swelling then others. So this part of the body of the Roman Church is swollen more then the rest, and a prodigious deflux is come unto it.

The which will be more apparent, when I shall have examined the truth of that which Coeffeteau saith, affirming that Cardinals are most respectful to Princes, and that they desire not to go upon even terms with them: I speak not to touch any that are living; but as it may well be, that a man may dislike of his Cloake because it is too gorgeous, so it is likewise possible that many of those which have been advanced to this degree, do think that there is too great pomp and glittering in this habit: we will therefore speak only of the rules and general customs of the Roman Church, which questionless do equal Cardinals with Kings; for mark the titles which Pope Pius the second giveth them in the sixth Chapter of the eight Section of the first book of the holy Ceremonies: Being called to the Apostolic College you shall be our Counselors, and with me shall judge the world; you shall sit about the Throne as the Successors of the Apostles you shall be Senators of the City like unto Kings, being the true kings of the world, on which the door of the militant Church must turn. But it is not much to equal them with Kings; for they are often preferred before them, they are not tied to hold the bridle or the stirrope of the Pope when he getteth to horse-back, neither are they bound when the Pope is carried by men, to give the assistance of their shoulders as Kings and Emperors are. In the public actions and solemnities at Rome, Kings are under the Cardinals: as for example, In that Papal feast which is made after the Coronation of the Pope, described in the first book of Ceremonies, Section the third, there is set down the order that is to be held at the table: The first Cardinal Bishop sitteth highest on the right hand of the table. If there be any King there, he sitteth beneath the Cardinal: And if there be diverse Cardinals and diverse Kings there, then they intermingle them: placing a Cardinal, then a King, and then another Cardinal, and so another King; as for the sons and brothers of Kings, they either serve the Pope at table, or else sit amongst the meaner sort of Deacon Cardinals; but the eldest son of a King hath place next after the first Cardinal Priest, so that all the Cardinal Bishops and the first Cardinal Priest, are all before him. And when the Pope washeth his hands, all the laietie of what degree soever kneel down, but all the Prelates stand: and not to seek for examples further off, it is not unknown to the King of England that Cardinal Wolsey contested with HENRY the eight. And we shall hereafter hear what authority Pandulphus and Otho, Cardinals and Legates took to themselves in England, so far as to take place of the King himself: and if any Cardinal now a days beareth himself with fitting respect unto his King, this is to be attributed to his particular wisdom and discretion, but not unto the orders and Constitution of the Church of Rome.

The College of Cardinals succeeded the Senate of Rome, being made in imitation of it; and we have seen thereupon that the Pope calleth them the Senators of the City. Also they have their right of consecration and Canonization, as anciently the Senate of Rome had: the habit indeed is differing, for the Senators had somewhat a long Mantle, called Latus Clauus, which was a Mantle bordered with large flowers of purple and scarlet; but the Cardinals have taken a habit all of scarlet, such as the Roman Pontifices, and the Priests of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus were wont to wear; of whom Caecilius in the Dialogue of Minutius Felix speaketh, complaing that the Christians Sacerdotum honor • s & purpuras despiciant ipsi seminudi, do despise the dignity and purple of Priests, they being themselves half naked, like to that which Ovid saith in his fourth book de Fastis.

For which cause I cannot but much wonder, that the Popes, who have so artificially, and with such dexterity established themselves, have not with the same advise and prudency, taken a habit of some other color, for fear least it might be thought, that in him and his Cardinals, the Prophesy of the Apocalypse were accomplished, Chap. 17. ver. 3. So he carried me away in the spirit into the Wilderness, and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, and the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold, &c. which prophesy had been the obscurer, were it not that it is said in the ninth ver. The seven heads are seven Mountains on which the woman sitteth: and in the last verse, The woman which thou sawest is that great City, which reigneth over the Kings of the earth. The Pope Paul the second, was the first that gave scarlet to the Cardinals, as well for themselves, as for their Mules, to the end that this prophesy which agreeth in general with the Sea of Rome, might likewise appertain particularly to everyone of the pillars of the said Sea, which is, to be set upon a scarlet coloured beast.

CHAP. IIII. Of the Jesuits.

T HE Jesuits now follow in their rank, who by this their unaccustomed title have taught us, that Jesus and Christ are two diverse things, since that now a days it is one thing to be a Jesuit, and another to be a Christian.

The King of great Britain saith in his Apology, that the principal of the Jesuits were dealers in this treason, whereof some fled, others, as Garnet and Ouldcorne were apprehended and executed.

Hereupon M ^r . Coeffeteau with a good grace exhorteth the King of great Britain, to have a good opinion of these fathers, and saith, that the Jesuits would give their lives for his conservation; affirming that they are unjustly calumniated, and for their full justification, allegeth the testimony of the French King, who since he hath come to the true knowledge and understanding of them, hath called and received them about his person. And as for such as have attempted against his Majesty's life; he saith, that if they did amiss (yet not confessing that they did so) all their society should not be liable to the reproach of their offense.

This Discourse being thus sweetened, doubtless cannot but much please the King of great Britain; for now he may hereafter sleep in security, since the Jesuits are become his so sure friends, as to be ready to die for his conservation; neither is it a small point of charity to hasten a Prince, and send him the sooner to Paradise. The Patron of their order (which was a Spanish Captain) gave it them in their Institutions, to be faithful and true hearted towards France and England: and doubtless the general of their order (which should always be a Spaniard) nourisheth them in that good • nclination: and men do them wrong, that say, they enterprise anything against Kings, that are excommunicated by the Pope, since it is a Tenent amongst them, that after such excommunication, they are no longer Kings; as also, they do them wrong, that say, they encroach upon the temporal, since what they have, by their having of it becometh spiritual: And by this it is likewise to be presumed, that when the Court of Parliament by pronounced sentence of all the chambers there assembled, declared them to be Heretics, perturbers of the Kingdom, and corrupters of youth: it is to be presumed, that this was done by the advise and plotte of the Ministers of Geneva, as likewise those Jesuits which have been executed in England, are not to be blamed, since they were led and carried to these attempts by a Catholic zeal; and that at Rome, where Saints are made, they have been matriculated into a roll of Martyrs: And indeed John Castell in his examination (whereof the original is yet to be seen) confesseth, that he was put into a Chamber of Meditations all full of pictures of Devils, into which they shut the greatest sinners, there making them to become wild & fierce with fasting and darkness: And so having cracked & turned their brains, imprint and fix in them these desperate resolutions. But now we hope that they being made gentle & mild by peace & prosperity, will employ these chambers for grammar Meditations: and for this I do not think that the other Jesuits do approve that which the Jesuit Mariana the Spaniard writeth in his book, De Rege & institution Regis, in the 6. Chap. where he greatly commendeth the paricide of James Clement, & saith, that he was incyted thereunto by the Deuines: & the same Jesuit (as it were correcting of himself) saith, that he (in his meat or drink) alloweth not the poisoning of a Tyrant (for so he styleth all Princes that the Pope approves not) but wisheth that this be done by the impoysoning of his garment or chair by some violent poison; neither is that of the Jesuit Immanuel Sâ in his Aphorisms of Confessions in verbo Clericus, by the advise of the rest of his fellows, where he saith, that the rebellion of a Clergy man against his King, cannot be treason in that he is not subject to the King, which agreeth with that which is written by the Jesuit Saunders in his second book of his visible Monarchy, whereof the King of great Britain in his first book citeth many passages. Now whereas the Jesuits of France did make a book, entitled The defense of the truth against the pleading of Anthony Arnold: In which they maintain at large, that the Pope may as Judge, deprive Princes of their temporalties. This is wholly to be imputed to the times; for then it was fit to speak in that manner; but now they reserve those Maxims for fitter seasons: Divinity is to be applied as occasions serve; and we are now in an age, that if we would know how we were to teach and move the people, we must first look into the A • minake, and accommodate our selves to the affairs of the Common wealth; and therefore it is to be hoped that such passages of Bellarmine that do make the lives and Crowns of Kings subject to the Pope, will be mended in the next Edition. And as for the troubles and seditions which these Fathers have stirred in Polonia, which hath cost Demetrius his life: and as for the causes which have moned the Venetians to banish them out of their estate: this a thing wholly to be imputed to the Climate, or to the strange humors of the Country, which is far differing from France. All this being considered, it is to be hoped that the King of great Britain following the counsel of Doctor Coeffeteau will take them to be near about his person.

The other Reasons which are brought to recommend them, seem not to me of any great weight: It is said that they carefully instruct youth: if it be so, how cometh it to pass, that since they have undertaken to teach, learning is so much decayed? I would willingly that one could show me in France any of their Disciples, that were of exact and exquisite learning: or whom have they in their society that may be compared with those that were the Scholars of Turnebus or of Cuias? Who are yet (as many of them as are left) the very lights and ornaments of the Court; where is now the University of Paris, which had wont to have in it thirty thousand scholars? but hath declined towards barbarism ever since this kind of people have undertaken to teach by their abridgements and Epitomies; the which have been framed and composed by a rabble of Pedants that teach all by rote, instead of drawing their instructions from the Fountaines of the Greek, and instead of • etling their judgments by the course of ancient Philosophy. And as for human learning, Scaliger, Casaubon, Passerate, Lipsius, and diverse like unto them, were they brought up in their schools? Or indeed whom have they brought up comparable to them?

But Coeffeteau saith, that the most Christian King is served by them, dealeth well with them, and taketh them near unto his person: our condition is too low, and our understanding too weak, to search out the Counsels of so great a King, whom God hath endued with an incomparable wisdom: but yet I think that this serves not to justify them; for who can tell whether his Majesty doth this only to put in practice that rule of the Gospel, which is, To do well to those that hate us? Or whether he endeavoreth by his goodness, to master and overcome their wickedness, and so by that means to bind them to fidelity? Or who can tell whether his Majesty herein imitateth the example of God, who employeth the wicked spirits for such causes, and to such purposes, as are best known to his divine wisdom? Or who knoweth whether in this, he doth like Vlisses, who for avoiding of tempests, would keep the winds with him shut up in a leather bag. This great King whose pains and industry procureth our general repose, whose vigilancy makes us to sleep securely, who bereaveth himself of himself, and bestoweth himself on the public, and who maketh peace to flourish under the shadow of his victories: Long may he enjoy that quiet and repose which he hath brought, even to those that hate him. Let his Counsels be ever blessed with happy success, his life with safety, his subjects with fidelity, his Crown with glory, and his Kingdom with prosperity.

CHAP. V. Of the power of the Pope over the temporalities of Kings; and that he cannot take from Kings their Crowns, nor free subjects from the Oath of fidelity. And thereupon the reasons of Bellarmine are examined.

T He King of great Britain in his Apology complaineth of two Breues or letters Apostolic of Clement the eight, sent into England a little before the death of the late Queen ELIZABETH, which were produced at the arrainment of Garnet the Jesuit; by which the said Pope excludeth him from the succession of the Kingdom, by a general debarring of all such as were not of the Roman Religion. This thing being so notoriously unjust, and so public, yet notwithstanding Coeffeteau saith, that there hath been a wrong interpretation made of this Popes intentions; and that it hath been some particular men's drift, to put it into his Majesty's head, that he went about to hinder his establishment in the Kingdom. These are insurious speeches, to say that the King of great Britain hath been circumvented, and that men have only made him believe things; but that he hath not seen any such Breues, but speaketh this only upon trust.

There likewise, turning to the side of Kings against the consent of the whole Romish Church, he speaks thus: It is a thing without doubt, that if the Pope would invade Kingdoms, and give them in prey to whom he pleaseth, deuesting the right possessors of them, he well deserveth that Princes should stand stiff against his viosence, and should jointly run upon him as upon a robber and spoiler of their inheritances. And a little after, The Popes pretend nothing over the temporalties of Kings, & are contented only to make their authority appear over the crimes of men, which he bindeth or looseth without stretching of it, tyranically to dispose of their possessions, otherwise then such as are fallen unto him: what causes here moved Coeffeteau thus to favor Kings, and to pare the Popes nails so near, I will not inquire: But I well know that in other times and in other places, he would for these words have been sent to the Inquisition. For he opposeth himself against all the actions of Popes, and the judgment of the whole Romish Church. The examples fallen out in England shall be most pertinent to this purpose, and such as shall represent unto his Majesty of England how far the Pope had set footing upon the temporalties of his predecessors, and how much dishonored their Crown. Matthew Paris a Monk of the order of S. Bennet at S. Albans in England, and a diligent Historian, witnesseth that in the year 1170. HENRY the second being reconciled to THOMAS BECKET Archbishop of Canterbury, he twice held the bridle whiles the said Archbishop got to horse; what submission then should he have yielded to the Pope himself, seeing that one of his Prelates and the King subjects would mit that his King and Master should make him so servile a submission? The same Author testifieth, that the aforesaid HENRY was scourged by way of penance, upon his bare flesh by a company of Monks, some of which gave him three stripes, others five. The Pope not content therewith, amerced him to keep two hundred soldiers in pay, for the wars of Palestine, and to suffer that his subjects, of what quality or condition soever might thenceforward euoke their suites out of his Courts and appeal to Rome. Of which punishment Michauel in the first book of his story of Florence, dedicated to Pope Clement the seventh, speaketh in this manner: Le quali coscfurono da Enrico accettate, & sattomessesi a quel giudico vn tanto Re che hoggi vn huomo priuato sivergognarebbe a sottomettersi: which things Henry yielded unto, and he so great a King submitted himself to that censure, which a private man now a days would be ashamed to undergo. And further addeth, that the Citizens of Rome scornfully used and curbed that very Pope, who did thus domineer in England, and would not suffer him to dwell in their City; and thereupon he taketh up this exclamation, tanto le cose che patono sono piu discoste che d'appresso temute, that things did appear more to be feared far off then near at hand.

After this HENRY succeeded RICHARD whom the Pope sent into the Leuant; and he being dead, his brother JOHN came to the Crown. This JOHN complained that the Pope drew more money out of England then out of any Country on this side of the Apples; and because he therein withstood Pope Innocent the third (who covered his tyranny under a title of The liberties of the Church: ) he was by the said Pope in the year 1212 declared to be fallen from the Crown, and his Kingdom given in perpetual title to Philippus Augustus the French King, and his successors, with condition that he should conquer him; granting him thereupon remission of all his sins, and causing the Croisade to be preached against the said King JOHN of England: by means whereof he was brought into that perplexity, that he was constrained to undergo all the conditions which Pandulphus the Popes Legate imposed upon him; as namely, that King JOHN to obtain remission of his sins, should render up his Crown into the Legates hands, and should give up his Kingdoms of England & Ireland to the Pope; that he should yield faith and homage to the Pope, as holding his said Kingdoms in fee from the Church, as parts of the Popes Demaines, and of the patrimony of S. Peter; and in acknowledgement hereof, he should pay yearly to the Pope a thousand Markes in money, to be paid at two several times; besides the Peter -pence which were paid by the pole. All which was executed accordingly, and the homage solemnly and formally done: the King himself tendered the money in all submission, which the Legate trod under his feet in token to Lordly dominion; following the custom which the Pope began then to put in practice over the Emperors of Germany, to wit, that they should be bound to come and take the Crown at his hands, and after three lowly curtesies on the knee, and kissing of the Popes feet, the Emperor was to lay down at the Popes feet sitting in his Throne, a mass of gold, thanking his Holiness humbly upon his knee, as it is at large set down in their holy Ceremonies, Lib 1. Sect. 5. cap. 3. The like is reported by Polydore Virgil in the fifteenth book of his Story, and by Blondus, Decad. 2. lib. 6.

Howbeit the abovesaid King JOHN bare this yoke very impatiently; His Barons also hated him for having enthralled his Kingdom, and England was so far exhausted by cruel exactions that the said King JOHN out of extreme despair resolved to cast himself and his Kingdom into the hands of the Mohammedans: and to that effect he sent Ambassadors to Morocco in Barbary to Amiral Murmelin King of Barbary and of Granada, to make him offer of his Kingdom; but the Barbarian would not accept it. Whereupon the Pope made his yoke more grievous upon the King and his land, the Oath of subjection was renewed and engrossed in writing, the instruments, which before were only sealed on wax were now sealed on gold, and instead of one thousand Markes, the King was condemned to pay twelve thousand Markes. Since that time the Popes have called the Kings of England their vassals, and England their Demaines. Upon which consideration, Ann. 1216 the Pope sent letters of inhibition to Philip Augustus and Louis his son being then at Lions to forbid them to pass over into England: but Philip answered the Popes Nuncio in these terms: England neither is nor ever shall be the patrimony of S. Peter. A King cannot give his Kingdom without the consent of his Barons: And thereupon all the French Nobility cried out, that they would fight to the death in that quarrel.

JOHN being dead, his son and successor HENRY the third did homage to the Pope, and paid the accustomed tribute. Shortly after the Pope sent into England a new Legate, one Otho a Cardinal; before whom the King bowed himself so • low, as to touch the Legates knees with his head; which Cardinal behaved himself more like a King then a Legate. This Cardinal being desirous to have entered into Scotland, the King would not receive him, saying, that he had never seen Legate in his Kingdom, neither had he need of them. But in England he was his own caruer, cutting and paring away at his pleasure, even so far as that he presumed to sit at table in the Chair of State above the king, as he did at a feast which king Henry the third made at Westminster, as Matth. Paris witnesseth: which Author also, Ann. 1241. speaking of his Legates return, saith, that according to the account then made, he carried away more money with him, then he left in all the kingdom besides, having rifled and spoiled it like a Vine, brouzed and trodden down by wild Boars: yea all the Historians of England do complain of the pillages and exactions of Rome, which sucked the Englishmen to the very blood. And as I understand, Cardinal Bellarmine hath lately made a book against the king of England, wherein he maintayneth that the Pope is direct Lord of England and Ireland; and that these kingdoms are the Churches fee Farms, and the King the Popes vassal or feudatary: Things which I thought good to represent at large, to the end that his Majesty of England may know and acknowledge, how much the Crown which God hath given him, is beholding to the purity of the Gospel; the preaching whereof hath broken that yoke, and hath made liberty to spring forth together with the truth, dissipating at once both superstition and tyranny. Jesus Christ saith, John. 8. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free: which saying may after a sort be applied to this purpose: for there our Lord speaketh of the servitude of sin, and here we speak of the slavery under the man of sin: there our Lord speaketh of the freedom and deliverance from the bondage of the father of lies, here we speak of being enfranchized from the thralldom of the son of perdition; and indeed that temporal servitude of the Crown of England, came from the spiritual bondage of the conscience. For the Popes laid this subjection upon men, as a means and condition of obtaining remission of sins. Then England enjoyed the happy golden age, in which every man for his money might enter into Paradise: but Jesus Christ overthrew this bancke of money-changers set up in the Temple, and detecting the abuses, sheered asunder those invisible chains of Custom and Opinion, which held men's souls ensnared in and unjust servitude. Certainly then the doctrine of the Gospel is the settling and establishment of Thrones, and that which exalteth & raiseth Kings, seeing that it doth: not subject their Crowns to any man living, and further stoppeth up all ways and access to rebellion and disloyalty.

Now out of that which above hath been said, it is evident that Coeffeteau (telling the king of great Britain that the Pope doth neither expose kingdoms as a prey, nor pretend anything upon the temporalties of kings) thought the king a stranger at his own home, and one that knew not his Genealogy nor the story of his own house; or else deemed him blind, and bereft of sense, when he complaineth in his Apology, that Bellarm. writing against him, doth importunately inculcate this position, that the Pope may depose kings, in that he may excommunicate them. It must needs be then (if we believe Coeffeteau ) that the king of great Britainecy there did not read, or else understood not the book of his Adversary.

If we would seek out examples of the like cases besides these of England, we might fill a just volume. How many Germane Emperors have been degraded from their Empire, by excommunications and Papal fulminations, and their Imperial Diadem given in prey to him that could catch it? Did not Pope Julius the second, Anno 1511. take from king John of Navarre his kingdom, and give it to Ferdinand king of Castile? Did not Pope Alexander the sixth, Anno 1492. divide the Indies between the Portugals and the Spaniards, allotting the west Indies to the Spaniards, and the East to the Portugals: whereat Atabalippa the poor king of Peru asked who the Pope was, that gave that which did not belong unto him. To omit the confusions and hurly-burlies of later times, which of fresh memory have blasted and singed our kings with the lightnings of excommunications, and almost burnt them to powder, and have made the people to rise in rebellion against their sovereign Prince, the soars do yet bleed, neither is the wound yet soundly cured.

Now if experience be not strong enough to enforce the certainty of Papal usurpations over kings; let us hear the Popes themselves speak; and let us learn what their intent is, rather from their own mouths then from the fearful and doubtful terms of this Iacobin. Clement the fifth being in the Council of Vienna, speaketh thus: We as well by that Superiority which we have over the Empire, as by the power whereunto we succeed the Empire being vacant, &c. As it is contained in the Clementine Pastoralis. And in the Chapter Fundamenta de Electione in 6 Pope Nicholas the third, saith that Constantine hath granted to the Bishops of Rome both the one and the other Monarchy. And in the Chapter Venerabilem de Electione, Innocent the third maintayneth, that it is in him to advance to the Empire whom he pleaseth, and that it was the Apostolic Sea that translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans. And that we may spare to produce the clauses of Sixtus Quintus his Bull, Anno 1585. (which was the first thunderclap that caused all the confusions in these later times) and which speak more arrogantly and insolently then all this that hath been said: Let us appeal to Cardinal Bellarmine for Judge. These are his words: The Pope can change Kingdoms; he can take them from one and give them to another, as a Sovereign spiritual Prince, when it shall be necessary for the salvation of souls. Of which necessity he will have the Pope also to be Judge. Consonant whereto one Alexander Pesantius, a Doctor of the City of Rome, hath written a book of the immunities of Ecclesiastical persons, and of the power of the Pope, dedicated to the now-Pope Paul the fifth, where he saith, p. 45. The Soueraine Bishop hath by Divine right a most full power over all the earth, as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Civil; adding in the margent, Papa iure diuino est direct Dominus orbis: The Pope by divine right is directly Lord of the world. Yea within these few days there have been certain Theses printed and defended at Naples: in which were figured the Turks Turbanes, the Imperial and Regal Crowns, and the Coronet of the Dukes of Venice to hang in labels from the Popes Miter, and wherein the Pope is styled Vice-God, Monarch of the Christian world, and defender of the PAPALL OMNIPOTENCY: where the Pope hath accepted the bargain which our Savior refused at the Devils hands, Mat 4.9. Which was, to become Monarch over all the Kingdoms of the earth. Thus is the Church become an Hierarchy, and the spiritual kingdom converted into a temporal Monarchy. In witness whereof the Popes triple Crown is called by no other name then Il regno, the Kingdom. And the last Lateran Council calleth the Pope in the first Session, Prince of the whole world; in the third Session, Priest and King: and in the ninth and tenth Session his charge is called His Holiness Empire. Who will now make any doubt, but that Coeffeteau pleadeth the Popes cause upon good warrant, and approbation? And he goeth about to teach them more modesty in speech, then they are willing to learn, unless that perhaps to tumble down a Prince from the height of his Empire with flashes of lightning, or to skim away the whole wealth of his Country, be not to be termed a touching of their temporalties: And indeed there is some reason for that, for temporal goods when they come into his Holiness hands, they become spiritual, according to the style which this witty age useth, who by a Bishops spiritualties understandeth the rents and revenues of his Bishopric. The misery of Princes in this case is, that if the Pope for their sins impose this penance upon them, to lay down their Crowns, and to give place to another, yet this Penance once done, is never followed with Absolution: for he that seizeth upon their place by a right of conueniency, doth never quit or forgo it but by force. There be steppes and degrees indeed to clymbe up to a kingdom, but there is no other descent then a headlong down-fall. It is a thing seldom seen, that a Prince should suruiue his kingdom, or that he should save life or liberty after he is diuested of Majesty. And that which is more, Coeffeteau having taken from the Pope the power of disposing of the temporalties of Kings, pag. 13. Doth he not in the next leaf following restore it to him again, in these words? If Kings depart from their Duty, and instead of defending the faith, seek to ruin it, then it is in the Popes power to reclaim them, being in error, and to bring forth his just censures, to the end to turn away the mischief which threateneth Religion. Now these censures are, the degrading of the Prince, the absolving his subjects from their Oath of Alleageance, and interdicting his Kingdom. And to show that he ought to proceed forcibly, and by way of fact, Coeffeteau addeth, That the Pope ought to oppose himself herein even to the peril of his life: And if we will exactly weigh the words of this Doctrine, fol. 7. we shall easily find, that where he saith that the Pope doth not pretend anything over the temporalties of Princes, he meaneth all the while Romish Catholic Princes, who obey the Pope, that is to say, that if they be not such as are now a days called Catholics, the Pope may deprive them of their Kingdoms.

True it is that he reporteth upon us by way of recrimination, That those Princes who have shaken off the yoke of the spiritual power of the Church, (that is of the Pope) see themselves exposed to the rigor of their Ministers, whom by way of honor he calleth Tyrans. I looked all the while when he would produce examples of Ministers, who had either degraded or murdered their Kings, or who had been trumpets of rebellion or fire-brands of sedition, or who had skummed a Country of their money, or punished sins by the purse: Or who after the example of Innocent the third, have given to those who have armed themselves at their commandment, a degree of honor in Paradise above others, who have nothing for their reward, but bare life everlasting. But of all this he could allege no one example. For unto us agreeth that commendation which Tertullian giveth to the Christians, we never were, saith he, of the league and conspiracy of Albinius, Niger, or Cassius, but those rather who sware by the life and Genius of the Emperor. The faithful Pastors having stripped themselves of all this tyrannical pride, have only reserved to themselves the censuring of men's manners, by public and private reprehensions, and in case men stand out and rebel against the word of God, after many rebukes they have reserved only the power of excluding them out of the Church as Pagans and Publicans, until such time as by true humiliation they have made their repentance to appear. These sentences of bindeing and loosing in the mouth of the Pastors are inlocutorie Decrees which God doth ratify in heaven, till that himself in the last day pronounce the Definitive sentence. They be the keys which depend upon the word of God, and are annexed to the Gospel. Keys which open the Kingdom of heaven, that is, open to the penitent sinner, an entrance into the Church, which in an hundred places in the Gospel is called the Kingdom of heaven. Keys which the Pope hath not at all, seeing he hath not that whereupon they depend, to wit, the true benefits of Jesus Christ, contained in the Gospel: and if he had them, yet can they not serve his turn, seeing he hath changed the locks, and hath made other gates to enter into the kingdom of God.

Being then sufficiently cleared in this point, touching the Popes pretences, and Coeffeteaus intention, it were nor amiss, a little to hear their reasons. Every man knoweth, that in the year 1301. Pope Boniface the eight wrote very arrogant letters to Philip the fair, containing these words: I will that thou know, that thou art subject to me in temporal things, they that maintain the contrary, we hold them madmen: we know also how this vigilant and courageous King handled the Pope. This Pope hath made an authentic Bull, which is amongst the extrauagants, and beginneth with V nam Sanctam: wherein he reproveth the Popes Souerainty both over the Spiritualty and Temporalty by certain passages of Scripture, brought in by such an extravagant by as, that we should think it ridiculous, were it not the Pope that speaketh it, who hath all law in the Chest of his breast, as himself saith, cap. Licet. De Constitutionibus in 6.

These then be his Texts and Quotations: I beseech the Reader to lend his attention.

1. The Apostles said to Jesus Christ, Here are two Swordes, and Jesus Christ did not answer, that is too much; but that is enough: Therefore the Pope hath the Spiritual and the Temporal Sword.

2. Jesus Christ said to S. Peter, Put up thy sword into thy sheath.

3. S. Paul, Rom. 13. saith, that there is no power but is ordained of God. It must needs then be that the Temporal sword be subject to the spiritual.

4. God sending the Prophet Jeremiah to preach and prophesy to diverse people and nations, saith unto him, cap. 1. I have set thee this day over people and Nations. This is a prophesy (if we believe this Bontface ) which giveth to the Pope power over the Temporalty of Kings.

5 S. Paul, 1 Cor. 2.15. speaking of all the faithful (whom he calleth spiritual, to oppose them to the Carnal man, of whom he speaketh in the former verse) he saith, that the spiritual man judgeth and discerneth all things, and he is not judged of any. This spiritual man is the Pope, the sovereign Judge, and who cannot be judged.

6. Jesus Christ said to S. Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind in earth, shall be bound in heaven. Therefore the Pope is chief over the Temporaltie.

7. He addeth, that to acknowledge two Sovereign powers is to be a Manichee.

8. That there can be but one beginning, and one chief Sovereign, because Moses saith in the beginning of Genesis, not, In the beginnings, but in the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

By all these Scientificall Demonstrations, he proveth that the Pope is chief over the Temporaltie as well as over the Spiritualty; and thereupon admiring himself in his own plumes, he concludeth by a new Article of faith: We declare, affirm, define and pronounce, that it is altogether necessary to salvation to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.

I would refute each of these reasons, were it not that I am persuaded, that the Pope did but mock when he thus spake, and had no meaning to be believed. For surely Shamgars goad, or Gideon's bottles may as well prove the Popes Empire over Kings as any of the former places. And indeed Bellarmine, who commendeth this Bull in general as holy and good, hath been ashamed to produce these goodly reasons in special and by retaile, it is confutation enough for them only to have proposed them. For to dispute by Scripture against them, were to unsheath the sword of the Gospel against a filthy dung-hill. Such reasons be fit to be proposed but with the sword in hand; for they are not received farther then he that proposeth them is feared. And to very good purpose the King doth here apply the Fable, that when the Lyon would have the Asses ears to be horns, the other beasts were bound to believe it. So these fooleries must pass for verities, because his Holiness will have it so.

Such a like May-game do we find in Bellarmine, and in all their late Divines, who willing to cloak this their foul fact, have invented new terms to express the same thing. They say that the Pope, as Pope, hath not this power over the Temporalty directly but indirectly, and so far forth as it is available for the spiritual good. But a King despoiled of his Throne cannot take a few distinctions for a sufficient payment; for what is it to him whether he be deposed directly or indirectly, seeing that he looseth his Kingdom, be it in what sort soever: it is as if a man should comfort one upon the scaffold, going to his execution, telling him, thou shalt not be beheaded with a sword, but with a Fauchin. And indeed who doth not see that this distinction is but a mere contradiction? For that which is in it self evil, being done by a direct course, cannot be done justly by an indirect course. If a subject be forbidden to wrong his Prince directly, shall it be lawful for him to hurt him indirectly? Surely that which I ought not to take away directly, I may not filtch away indirectly and by wrongful dealing, seeing that the thing can no ways belong to me in what sort soever. Furthermore Bellarmine by this distinction hath no meaning to contradict the Popes, whom we have produced, who speak of Kings as of their subjects, and term themselves Sovereigns in temporal affairs, so that this cometh all to one.

It bootes not to dispute of the excellency of the spiritual power above the Ciuil, by comparing (as did Innocent the third) the Pope to the Sun, and the Emperor to the Moon; for albeit this were so, yet doth not the excellency of one thing above another necessarily import that one must therefore govern another: for if I say that the faculty of Divinity is more noble and more excellent, then the care and custody of the Kings Treasure, must it needs therefore follow that Divines and Clergy men must sway the Kings Exchequer? And as little to the purpose is it to allege that the temporal power is subject to the spiritual; for the question is not whether it be simply subject unto it, but whether it be subject to it in temporal things, and with what punishments the Pastor of the Church may punish the Magistrate when he forgetteth his duty, to wit, whether by depriving him of his estates or by fingering his purse; this is the point of the question which Bellarmine was to prove and not to suppose. For what authority soever God hath given to faithful Pastors over the Magistrates as they are Christians, yet do they not let for all that to be subject to the Magistrates as they are Citizens, and make a part of the Common-wealth. A king that is sick, is for the time subject to the government of his Physicians, and yet they nevertheless remain his subjects. As then the Temporal government doth not impose spiritual punishments, so the spiritual government cannot impose temporal punishments, unless it be sometimes by miracle, as S. Peter did upon Ananias and Sapphira; for ordinary power he hath none to do it, neither doth the word of God give him any.

Now if the Pope by virtue of his keys (of which he so much boasteth) could dispossess a King of his Kingdom for any fault, whether it be true or pretended, it should thence follow, that he hath a greater power over Kings then oner private and particular men, from whom he cannot by way of Penance pluck away their lands or houses to give them to their neighbors: for if it were so, the Pope should be the direct Lord of all the lands and possessions of Christendom. And seeing it is generally confessed, that the Heathen Emperors were not subject to the Bishops in temporal matters; can it stand with reason that Princes by being become Christians, should become less Sovereigns then they were before, and that the faith of Jesus Christ should diminish their Empire?

I am not ignorant that the Prince ought so to administer temporal things, that the spiritual administration be not thereby impeached I know also that if Princes offend God, it belongeth to the Pastors not to be silent, but to oppose themselves against that evil, by all those ways & means which God hath permitted, which are courses full of all respect and far from any rebellion and sedition. The faithful Pastor that shall least of all flatter the Magistrate in his vices, is the man that shall carefully retain the people in their obedience towards the Magistrate, and shall keep that golden mean which is between flattery and sedition. As he must not be a dumb dog, so must he not be a furious beast that had need to be tied up.

And to the end that you may know, that these two kinds of subjection do not justle or shoulder each other as incompatible; I say that the Princes and the Pastors in a State, are as the will and understanding in the soul of a man. The will commandeth the understanding with an absolute command, which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Lord-like, enjoining it to study or to learn this or that thing. But the understanding on the other side leadeth on the will by suggestion without command; the one is done by authority the other by persuasion. So Princes command Pastors, Pastors solicit and entreat Princes: The respect which Princes owe unto them is not to their persons, but to their charge and calling, and to the word or message which they bring, for they be not the candle it self, but only the Candlestick on which it is set, sent, as our Savior saith of S. John, not to be the light, but to bear witness of the light: Howbeit this comparison taken from the understanding and the will doth halt in more then one point; for the will cannot contstrain the understanding, but Princes may compel Pastors to obey their laws, and to punish them corporally when they do amiss. Again the understanding is to guide the will in all things, but the Prince in an infinite of business may do well enough without the help and counsel of his Clergy, especially in affairs that are temporal and merely civil. Again the will doth never teach the understanding; for it consisteth wholly in motion and action; but many Princes have reformed their Pastors, and brought them back to their duties; as did Constantine who in the Council of Nice stifled and smothered up all quarrels among the Bishops by casting their diffamatorie libels into the fire: as did David, who erected new orders in the Temple: and as did Solomon who deposed Abiathar from the Priesthood, being attainted of conspiracy against him. And likewise Hezekiah and Ichosaphat, who cleansed the Temple and set up the purity of God's service again. In this sense, a Synodal Epistle written to Louis the Courteous, calleth him Rectorem Ecclesiae, governor of the Church. And Louis his young son being at Pauia, took an account of the lives of the Bishops, and of their diligence in their charge, as Sigonius witnesseth in the year 855. The same Author saith in his seventh book that Adrian conferred upon Charlemaigne the honor of gouerneing the Church, and of choosing the Bishoppe of Rome; not that he might change the doctrine of the Church at his pleasure, but only to hold a strait hand for the execution of the things which were enjoined by the word of God.

But Bellarmine addeth for a second reason, That if the Church (that is to say the Pope) had not the power to dispose of temporal things it could never attain to perfection, but should want necessary power to arrive at her intended end: For, saith he, wicked Princes might without fear of punishment entertain heretics to the overthrow of Religion. This is a reason without reason, and full of impiety, for it accuseth the Church which was in the Apostles times of imperfection; which then had no power at all over the Temporalty, all things being then in the hands of Infidels. Add hereunto, that Kings might use the same reason, and say, that their power could not be perfect unless they had the means to dispose of spiritual things, for that otherwise wicked Bishops might without fear of punishment be vicious, mutinous, Necromancers and firebrands of sedition against Princes: of all which enormities the Sea of the Bishop of Rome can alone furnish a multitude of examples; yea, after Baronius, Coeffeteau himself doth confess, that many monsters have sitten upon that seat▪ The Churches perfection doth not consist in a strength, able by force to defend it self, but in the purity of prescribing the wholesome means of salvation. No otherwise then the perfection of Philosophy doth not consist in having a strong house, or a good sword able to repress those that should hinder her from being taught and professed; but rather in the certainty, perspicuity and sufficiency of her Demonstrations. God who hath never suffered that his Church should be extinguished by false teachers which infect the souls, will not permit that it shall be abolished by wicked Princes which offer violence to the bodies; for whatsoever necessity any man can allege why he should pluck the Crown from a lawful Princes head, yet can there be no necessity of doing anything contrary to the will of God; as there is no necessity that doth bind a man to be disloyal, there can be no dispensing with the law of God. God saith by the mouth of his Apostle, That every person ought to be subject to superior powers for there is no power but of God: Where it is clear that he speaketh of Princes and temporal Lord's, because he addeth, that they bear the sword, as being the Ministers of God, ordained for justice: And a little after he commandeth to pay them tribute and customs. Now at the time when the Apostle spake this, neither the Bishoppe of Rome nor any other did either carry the sword or receive any tribute. Who is he then that can dispense with so precise a commandment? Or what thing can be more necessary then to obey God? And note moreover, that if the Pope be the Judge of this case of necessity, for which Princes ought to be dispossessed, it will be easy for him at any time to say, that it is necessary that this or that King be degraded, to the end to make himself by that means King of Kings and disposer of their Crowns.

Howbeit let us a little weigh and consider what this necessity may be, which carrieth on the Pope to pluck from a King his Scepter, and to give his Crown to another. Bellarmine allegeth but one, to wit, if it be necessary to salvation. As in case a King be an Heretic, an Infidel, or a persecutor of the Church, or a favorer and upholder of error. But he would fain hide and conceal from us that the Pope doth as well intrude himself to dispossess Kings that are of his Religion, and no way in fault. So in the Decrees of the Romish Church in the 15. Cause, Quaest. 6. in the Canon which beginneth Alius, the Pope speaketh in this manner: Zacharias the Bishop of Rome hath deposed the French King, not so much for his iniquities, as for that he is not fit for, nor capable of so great a power, and hath set up Pippin the faher of Charles Emperor in his place, and hath discharged all the French-men from their Oath of fidelity. 〈◊〉 Julius the second could not accuse Louis the twelfth, nor John King of Navarre of heresy: nor yet Sixtus the fifth the late king Henry the third, who notwithstanding were by the Popes thundering Bulls declared to have been fallen from their kingdoms.

I freely indeed confess, that in an Electiue kingdom, when question is made of choosing a new king, they to whom that charge belongeth, ought in no wise to choose a king that is an Infidel or an Idolater. But it is one thing to speak of a king who is chosen by his subjects; and another, of a king who is a lawful inheritor, and who is beholding to his birth for his Crown, and to whom, over and above, his subjects have taken the Oath of Alleageance. And therefore the Argument which Bellarmine draweth from the one to the other, to prove that Subjects are at no hand to endure a king that is an Heretic or an Infidel, doth not follow upon good consequence. It availeth not to say that the danger is like both in the one and the other; for it may so fall out that two things may be alike dangerous, whereof the one may be bad, and the other not: as for example, for a man to receive in his body the shot of an harquebuse from one that did aim to hit him, & from another that did it by chance is alike dangerous, but not alike wicked. And indeed even in human policy, and without any relation to the commandments of God, it is not expedient that subjects should shake off the yoke of their Prince which is of a different Religion: for this were the next way to estrange Princes and Monarchs from Christian Religion, and to make them to have it in detestation, as that which counselleth and persuadeth to rebellion, and maketh piety the cause of mutiny. Moreover the question here is not of the danger, but of the duty, nor yet what may arrive, but what ought to be done; we must not do evil that good may come of it. Many things are lawful which are not expedient, but there is nothing expedient which is not lawful When we have done what we ought to do, then God will do what pleaseth him; and he will do nothing but for the good of his Church, which he cherisheth as the apple of his eye: he hath bought it too dear, that he should be of the mind to destroy it. Now if this rule of the Cardinal be necessary: that it is not permitted to Christians to suffer a King that is an Heretic or an Infidel: Saint Paul was very much mistaken in giving commandment to obey Nero an Infidel and a persecutor, and the Christians then did not as they ought to have done, in that they did not stab him, or make a mine of powder under his house: Bellarmine answereth, that they might justly have done it, but that they wanted forces, that is to say, that if they had been able, they would certainly have done it, but that they feared to provoke this Emperor against them, & to have drawn persecution against the Christians. O blessed Apostle, how fitly to the purpose dost thou stop this evasion, & furnishest us with an answer that cutteth off all difficulty? for he saith, That we must be subject to Princes not only for wrath, but even for conscience sake. He will that we obey Princes, not only for fear of incurring their displeasure, but also to satisfy the conscience and our duty towards God. And S. Peter in like manner, in his first Epistle and second Chapter, Submit yourselves to all manner ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as to the Superior, &c. This then is to be done, not only to stoop and yield to the present necessity, but also for God's sake. And to say truth, could not S. Peter at whose word Ananias and Saphyra gave up the ghost, and S. Paul, who in reasoning with Elymas the Sorcerer struck him with blindness; could not they, I say, by the same power have crushed this monster Nero, or have throne him from the height of the Capitol.

But what will they say if we produce ages, wherein Orthodox Christians were the stronger party, and yet did they abstain from the life or Crown of the Emperor. Constantius was an Arian, against whom Liberius Bishoppe of Rome did not cast forth his lightnings, neither did he attempt to dispossess him, but upon the Emperors command he went into banishment. After his decease Julian the Apostate mightily labored to restore Paganism, at what time almost the whole Empire was Christian; and that which is more, his Armies were composed of Christian soldiers, as Ruffinus witnesseth in the first book of his Story, cap. 1. Theodoret, lib 4. cap. 1. Socrates, lib. 3. cap. 19. And indeed when the Armies after his death conferred the Empire upon Jovinian a Christian Prince, they cried with one voice, We are Christians. What could there be more easy then to have thrust this Apostate from the Empire? And if God hath given to the Bishop of Rome this power to degrade Monarchs, why was he then wanting to this his duty when there was such a pressing necessity, and so great a facility to have done it? There lived at that time Gregory Nazianzen, the ornament of his age, who in his first Oration against Julian, saith, that the Christians at that time had no other remedy against the persecutors, save only their tears. But if our Popes now a days had then lived, and might have been believed, they would easily have furnished other means. S. Austin upon the 124. Psal. speaking of the obedience that the Christians yielded to this Julian, They made a difference (saith he) between the Lord eternal and the Lord temporal, and yet they were subject to their temporal Lord, because of the Lord eternal. Such a like example we have in the Emperor Valens an Arian, and a persecutor, whose officers and people were for the most part faithful believers, but their Religion never brake out into rebellion: The Emperor Valentinian the younger was infected with Arianism, as we see by the 33. Epistle of S. Ambrose, where Valentinian sendeth his Colonels and Captains to dispossess the Orthodox Christians of the Temple in the City of Milan, & to put in the Arians. Ambrose & the Christian people withstood him, but with modesty, saying, Rogamus Auguste, non pugnamus. Non timemus, sed rogamus. Whereat Valentinian was so much offended, that he called S. Ambrose tyrant. At the same time one Maximus a Catholic Prince rebelled against Valentinian, and made him to forsake Italy, taking in hand the defense of the true faith against an Emperor that was an Heretic. What did the Christians then? Did S. Ambrose or the Bishop of Rome command the people to obey Maximus, and to rebel against Valentinian? Nothing less: nay rather Valentinian by the help of Theodosius and the Orthodoxes, was re-established in his authority, which greatly served to set him in the right way. To be short, we find in the ancient Church many Bishops banished and chastised by Emperors, but never any Emperor dispossessed of his Empire by the Bishoppe of Rome. So then Cardinal Bellarmine doth accuse the ancient Bishops of Rome, for that during the oppression of the Church, they used not those means and remedies which they had in their hands, in that they drew only the spiritual sword, whereas our new Popes skirmish with both hands, and flourish both swords, besides all other dexterities.

Yea futher if the ancient Bishops of Rome were in doubt to provoke the Emperors, for fear of being cause of much slaughter and confusion; why did not this fear with-hold the late Popes from thundering against the Emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry the fourth? Why did they draw on those horrible confusions which filled the west Empire with blood, sacked many towns, and caused threescore main battles to be fought?

It is then a manifest corruption of the Scripture, when in the same place he produceth the Epistle of S. Paul, saying to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 6. that rather then they should go to law before ungodly men or Infidels, they should erect those who were of least estimation in the Church, Judges amongst them: Then he addeth, Is it so, that there is not a wise man amongst you, not one that can judge between his brethren? From this Text Bellarmine maketh this collection, that the Corinthians might establish new Judges. This is to take the Scriptures clean contrary to the meaning of them. For first S. Paul doth not speak of deposing Magistrates; secondly, he doth not speak of erecting new ordinary Offices in the Common-wealth, but to choose out from among the faithful some persons, to compose their differences by arbitrement & peaceable means, rather then to draw blame upon the Church by bringing their suits and quarrels before Infidels. This is the exposition that Theodoret and Chrysostom give upon this place, and Lyranus and Thomas upon this Epistle. Now if the Cardinal maintain, that S. Paul doth speak of forsaking the ordinary Judges, to institute new in their places, let him produce some examples hereof; let him show us the practice of it. There he is silent, and for good cause; for who maketh any doubt but that the Christians, if they should have set up ordinary Judges in place of Imperial Officers, should have been held culpable of Leze-majesty.

The danger which he pretendeth to be intolerating an heretical King, cannot bear skale against the commandment of God. Add hereunto, that this reason is but weak in the mouth of a Jesuit, who holdeth that a Pope, be he never so wicked and a destroyer of the Church, cannot be deposed no not by a general Council; and yet there is greater apparent danger in this, then in the former.

That which Bellarmine addeth, seemeth to have been written by him being asleep, and is nothing else but a quippe to make men laugh. He proveth that a faithful people may free themselves from the yoke of a Prince that is an Infidel, that is to say, may rebel against him, and that by the example of the believing wife, which by the judgment of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. is not bound to abide with an husband that is an Infidel, when he will not dwell with her. Whereunto I answer, first that Similitudes are no proofs: Secondly, this Similitude being rightly taken doth not hurt us: for as a believing wife is not bound to follow her husband when he forsaketh her, and will no longer co-habit with her; so I will freely confess, that subjects are not bound to acknowledge a King, that abandoneth his subjects, and will no longer be King over them, but renounceth his Realm: and this is all that may be drawn from this Comparison. Thirdly, this Similitude is aduantageous unto us; for if we admit the Comparison between the condition of a wife and of subjects, then will it definitively determine our Controuersie, and make us gain the cause. For as while an husband that is an Infidel will abide with his believing wife, she may not forsake him, nor shake off her yoke: so while a King that is an Infidel will retain his sovereignty over believing subjects, they may not abandon him nor rebel against him. The words of the Apostle are directly to this purpose: If any woman have an unbelieving husband, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not forsake him.

All that which Bellarmine addeth, is nothing else, but as his manner is, suppositions without proofs. We grant him that Princes who against their promise, do war against the true faith, deserve to be deprived of their Kingdom; but we deny that this power of depriving them is in the Pope. We must reserve that judgment to God, seeing it is he that hath established them, and that (as Tertullian saith) they are inferior to GOD alone.

As touching these words spoken to S. PETER; Feed my sheep, to omit for the present that which S. AVSTIN saith in his book of the Christian combat; that Jesus Christ, saying to S. Peter, Feede my lambes, spake the same to the rest; as all the ancients with one accord do say, that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Apostles, and to the whole Church in the person of S. Peter, to omit this, because I will treat of it in his proper place: I only say, that albeit this had been spoken to the Pope, yet might he not for all that chastise Princes with deprivation of their estates, or by raising a commotion among his subjects, or by imposing fines and amercements upon his countries. This is to enterprete the word Feede, too licentiously, we had need of new Grammar for this new Divinity: for the word Feede, which in times past signified to teach and to guide, doth now a days signify to blast whole kingdoms with the lightning of excommunications, to overthrow great Monarchs, and to suck and draw out the very substance of the poor people. Bear with our simplicity herein; for so great an abuse in words maketh us to fear a greater in the matter it self. To speak barbarously were an evil somewhat tolerable, were it not that Barbarismes do sometimes pass into Heresies, and incongruities in words into incongruity in faith. Thus the Bishop of Rome calleth himself the Pylot and Steer-man of S. Peters Ship, but he employeth that bark to traffic his own gain, and S. Peters nets to fish for Princes Crowns, and to entramell whole States and Common-weals. His keys now a days serve only to open Cofers. His power of loosing only to loose the bonds of fidelity, through a mutinous piety, and a factious Religion, which maketh itself Judge over the consciences of kings, w ^ch even hateth their Religion because it hateth their rule & government, and maketh, that to be a good subject, & to be a good Christian, are things that cannot subsist together.

Bellarmine's reasons having been very feeble, the examples which he produceth in the Chapter following are less currant. He saith that Osias king of Judah was driven out of the Temple by the High Priest, and depryued of his kingdom. The text of Scripture is direct to the contrary. It is said 2. King. 15.2. that Osias began to reign in the sixteenth year of his age, and he reigned fifty two yeates: so that he lived threescore and eyght years: whence it appeareth that he was King even until his death. In the fifth verse Jotham his son during the time of his fathers separation, because of his leprosy, he is not called King but governor of his house. And ver. 7. the beginning of the reign of Jotham is reckoned only from the death of Osias his father.

The example of Athaliah driven from the Kingdom by Jehoiada the high Priest is as little to the purpose. For we speak here of lawful Princes deposed, and he brings us an example of a woman th • t usurped another's Kingdom by force and tyranny, in which case every man is allowed to employ himself to expel the usurper, and to preserve the Kingdom to the lawful King.

The example of S. Ambose Bishoppe of Milan, who would not receive the Emperor Theodosius to the communion, by reason of that great slaughter which his soldiers, at his commandment, committed at Thessalonica, maketh expressly against the Bishop of Rome. For would the Pope now a days endure that a Bishoppe of Milan or Colleyne should intrude himself to excommunicate Emperors, and to declare them to be fallen from their Empire without his permission? Did Ambrose this by the counsel or commandment of the Bishop of Rome? And were it so that Ambrose had been, that the Pope now saith himself to be, where will Bellarmine find that Ambrose did degrade the Emperor, or that he dispensed with his subjects for the Oath of fidelity? Let a man read his three and thirtieth Epistle, and he shall see with how great humilty he submitteth himself to an Arian Emperor, so far from preaching any revolt of his subjects from him, that indeed he willingly offered to die, and to suffer persecution, if such were the will of the Emperor. As touching the law which Theodosius imposed upon himself by the Counsel of S. Ambrose, which was that from thence forward he would stay the execution of any sentence of death until the thirtieth day. I cannot see how this can serve to give unto the Pope power of deposing Princes; For if Theodosius would not have followed the counsel of Ambrose; there had been no harm done. But this good Emperor did of his own accord yield unto it.

After him followeth Gregory the first; at the end of whose Epistles is found a privilege granted to the Abbey of S. Medard, which hath this clause for the burden of the Song: If any King, Prelate, Judge, or secular person whatsoever shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolical authority, and of our commandment, be he of what dignity or greatness soever he may be, let him be deprived of his honor. I might say that this is only an imprecation against Kings, and not a Decree of deposition. But we need not busy our selves about the sense, seeing that the Epistle is false. It is a privilege indeed unto which the name of Gregory is put, to win the greater credit and authority. The falsehood of it appeareth first in the Barbarism of the style; for men did never call, neither at Rome nor in Italy, farms or possessions by the name of Mansos. It is a word which is found in the Chapter of Charles the great, and of Louis, which showeth that this privilege was first composed in France, and not written at Rome. Which thing also appeareth in this that he useth these words: Tusiacum & Mortinetum fiscos regios. To call the lands of the Kings Demaines, Fiscos regios is a Barbarism that may easily befall some French monk; but at Rome this would not have been understood: and you espy the French vain in these words very often repeated, Dominus Medardus, Monsieur S. Medard. Add hereunto that this privilege is absurd and unjust; for it forbiddes to depose the Abbot of S. Medard howsoever attainted with crime, unless it be after the Popes pleasure known, and after a Council assembled, wherein there shall be found a dousen witnesses, besides the accusers. Now to break this goodly priueledge is thought to be a crime, for which a King ought to loose his Kingdom. The chief point is, that the humor of this Gregory the first, who called himself servant of servants, doth very much disagree with these so arrogant terms; & which cut after the style of an earthly Monarch. For writing to Mauricius the Emperor in his third book and sixth Epistle: But I the unworthy servant of your goodness. And a little after, Now I speaking these things to you my Lord's, what am I but dust and a very worm? And the King of great Britain hath wisely observed in his first book, that the Emperor Mauricius had commanded this Gregory to publish a law, which Gregory himself condemned as unjust; and yet to obey his Master, he published it. I, saith he, as one subject to your commandment, have sent these same laws into diverse Countries; and because they do not agree with God Almighty, I have by these my letters signified it to my Lord's and Masters. How well this Gregory knew to keep his rank, and could not find the way to draw this temporal sword, which yet stuck fast in the scabbard. For an upshot of falsehoods; so at the end of this goodly privilege the subscriptions of the Bishops of Alexandria and Carthage, who never knew the Abbey of S. Medard, especially the Bishop of Alexandria, who never saw Gregory, and who beside that signeth his name very low among the thronge of ordinary witnesses, albeit he never thought himself inferior in anything to the Bishop of Rome. After all signeth King Theodoret as inferior to all the Bishops.

After this Gregory, we are brought down to Gregory the second, the great puller down of Images. If we may believe Cedrenus and Zonaras great adorers of Images: this Gregory went about to hinder the Italians from paying their tributes to Leo Isauricus, who had demolished Images. But Platina who hath most carefully searched out the story of Popes, witnesseth the contrary, and saith in the life of this Gregory, that upon order given from the Emperor for the breaking down of Images. The people of Italy were so much moved, that it wanted but little, but that they had chosen themselves another Emperor: but Gregory employed his authority to hinder that matter. Nay further he never for all that, declared Leo fallen from the Empire, he did not translate his Scepter to another, he did not dispense with his subjects for their Oath of Alleageance: And yet the Emperor at that time did only hold a third part of Italy, which was a very small portion of the Empire; so that his tributes of Italy were unto him of very little value.

As for Pope Zechariah, when they report in the year 750 to have taken from Childeriche the Kingdom of France to give unto Pipin; and likewise Pope Leo the third, whom men say to have translated the Empire of the Greeks to the French by giving the Empire to Charlemaine. I could convince all this of falsehood, and show that the practice and custom of Popes is to give unto someone, that thing which he cannot take from him; Or after having incyted someone to invade the possessions of his neighbor, to vaunt afterward, and to reproach him; that what he got by rapine he now holdeth by his Holiness liberality; or as if in the Sacring of the Emperor, because he hath put the Crown on his head, he should say that he hath given him the Empire; as if in the sacring of a King he that hath inaugurated him by performing the Ceremony should brag that he hath given him the Kingdom. By this reason the Bishop of Ostias, who hath had for a long time the right of consecrating the Pope, should have been above the Popes: and the Bishop of Milan should give the Kingdom of Italy to the Emperor, because from him he is to receive a Crown of Iron: but this belongeth to another discourse, neither is the proof of it necessary to this purpose. For had these Bishops done much worse then this, yet could not their example serve for a rule, unless it be shown where and when God gave them this power. For is it credible that the Bishops of Rome could have had in their hands this power near eight hundred years together without enploying it? or that they suffered this temporal sword to hang rusting on a pin, without ever making use of it, until that after many ages this Zacharias bethought himself of putting it to service in an action which the Church of Rome it self confesseth to bevniust? Seeing that the Canon Alius, before aleadged, saith, that Childericke was not deposed for any crime, but because Pipin was more capable of government then he. How many Emperors and Kings unfit to govern were there before this Childericke, whose Crowns the Popes never touched? But this Pope flattered Pipin to the end to be succoured by him against the Lumbards, who kept him in servitude.

Now to shut up this whole matter, seeing that the Pope doth challenge to himself this power over Kings, who is it that hath given it unto him? Is it from the unwritten word? Is it a custom authorised by the time? or suffered by Princes? or slid it along by the favor and sleepiness of an age that lived in darkness? Or if God hath given him this power, let him produce his Title, let him show the clauses of this Donation.

2. Again, If Christ left a Successor or Lieftenant here on earth, it is certain that he can exercise no other charge then that which Jesus Christ did, being in the world. Now he did never degrade Kings, nor translate Empyres. Nay how is it like he would have done that, seeing that he could not be entreated to become a Judge between private men in a Controuersie that was of civil nature. He that teacheth us to yield tribute to Caesar is it likely that he would have left a Lieftenant that should make Caesar himself tributary.

3. If it be so, that S. Peter or any other Apostle had this power over Kingdoms: where doth it appear that ever he exercised it? And to what end serveth an authority without the execution? Or where did this power of the Bishops over the temporality of Kings lie couring all this while, that it should need to be roused up some eleven hundred years after Jesus Christ?

4 Moreover, It is God that giveth Kings and Princes their power, as Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar though an Infidel. Thou O King art a King of Kings, because the God of heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, and power, and strength, and glory. And the Apostle, Rom. 13.1. hath told us that all powers are ordained of God. Now that which God giveth, man cannot take away. Let the Pope take away if it please him, that which himself hath given: let him take his Cardinals red hattes, Archbishops pals, if ever he gave any without money; Let him give out against them that hold Benefices from him, that their Benefices are deuolted unto him by lapse, but let him abstain from the Crowes of Kings, let him not touch the Lord's annointed.

5. Add hereunto those passages which the King of great Britain hath learnedly observed in his Apology, by which he proveth, that God willeth that his pleople yield obedience to Kings even to Infidels. So in the 27. of Jeremiah; Submit your necks under the yoke of the King of Babel, and serve him and his people: and cap. 29. Seek the peace of the City whether I have carried you, and pray for it; for in her peace you shall have peace This was far from moving them to revolt. Thus did the Israelites obey Pharaoh: And even then when the Kings of Judah were Idolaters, as Ahaz and Manasseh, yet did the High Priests never for all that incite the people to Rebellion. The Emperor Nero was a prodigious monster for all kind of wickedness, notwithstanding S. Paul would have men to obey him for conscience sake, and for fear of offending God. But we now a days stand upon better terms: for if we ought to obey a Prince that is a Pagan, even for conscience sake in Civil causes; how much more one that is truly a Christian? And if a Tiger that hath climbed to the top of the Empire, how much more a Prince that is wise and merciful, who preserveth the lives of those that desire his death? And if we may not obey any man that leadeth and commandeth a mutiny and treason; how much less ought we to obey the Pope, whose Empire is founded upon the ruins of the Gospel, and who being prodigal of the blood of those who are his, draweth persecution upon them, to the end that they for him may loose goods and life, yea and life eternal?

Now if any man unwilling to enter this list, shall say that this is a matter of policy, and that we prye into matters of State; such a one by his tergiuersation will more overthrow the Popes power, then if he had expressly fought against it. For if this power be a point without the compass of Religion, it followeth thereupon that it is not sounded upon the word of God: And if God had spoken of it in his word, it were a point of Religion to believe it. The Pope then is to blame for making such brags of his keys in this case, if it be nothing but a matter of policy, and such as hath no spark of Divinity in it: which thing Pope Clement the fifth, doth covertly confess in the extravagant Meruit: where he declareth that he doth not understand that the extravagant Vnam Sanctam of Boniface the eight, which giveth to the Pope sovereign power over the Temporalties of Kingdoms as well as over the Spiritualtie, could bring any prejudice to the Kingdom of France, to make it more subject to the Church of Rome, then before it was, but reintegrateth the said Kingdom into the same estate that it was before the abovesaid definition of Boniface, and that in acknowledgement of the merits of King Philip the fair, albeit he had somewhat rudely accorded matters with Boniface. Let the Reader weigh and consider this point advisedly. For in this extravagant (which Bellarmine doth approve and commend) Pope Boniface foundeth his pretensions over the Temporalties of Princes, upon many passages of the word of God. He meaneth then that his right is by the law of God: where against King Philip hedoth maintain, that in temporal things he is subject to no man. Within a while after Clement the fifth passed it so, in favor of the King, and exempted him from the rigor of this Bull; the Pope then made bold to dispense with the law of God: or if on the other side it be nothing else but an human positive law, then Boniface dealt very wickedly in seeking to ground it upon the holy Scripture. But why shall France alone be exempted from this yoke and other Kingdoms shall be enforced to bear it? Could Philip's merits dispense with him for obeying the word of God produced by Boniface. These Popes make a Religion of wax, depending upon the conditions of the times, and the train of their affairs, and make it a prop of their Dominion: they stretch it and shorten it like a stirrup leather, fitting not their wills to Religion, but Religion to their will. Now if Philip had been Master of Rome and absolutecommander in Italy, the Bishops of Rome would have thrown themselves on their knees before him, as did Pope Adrian in the second Counsel of Nice, 2. Act. and would have called themselves worms, dust, and his petty-servants as did Gregory the first, writing to Mauricius.

CHAP. VI. Of the Clergy and of their Liberties, and Exemption.

C Ardinall Bellarmine cap. 28. of his book De Clericis, saith, That Clergy men may not at any hand be punished by the politique Judge, or be drawn before the judgment seat of the Secular Magistrate. He saith also that the chief Bishop having delivered Clerks from the subjection of Princes, Kings are no longer Superiors over Clerks. In the same place also he maintayneth that the goods as well of the Clergy as of secular men, are and ought to be exempted from the tax and tribute of Secular Princes.

Hereunto the King of great Britain, speaking to the Emperor, to the Kings and Princes of Christendom, saith in this manner: And when the greatest Monarchs amongst you will remember, that almost the third part of your Subjects and of your Territories, is Church-men and Church-livings; I hope, ye will then consider and weigh, what a feather he pulls out of your wings, when he denudeth you of so many Subjects and their possessions, in the Popes favor: nay, what briars and thorns are left within the heart of your Dominions, when so populous and potent a party shall have their birth, education and liuelyhood in your Countries, and yet owe you no Subjection, nor acknowledge you for their SOVERAIGNES? So as where the Church-men of old were content with their tythe of every man's goods; the Pope now will have little less then the third part of every Kings Subjects and Dominions.

To these words, so full of weight and evidence, Coeffeteau answereth very softly and sillily. He saith that Catholic Kings, do not apprehend any such calamity, seeing that amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons live under their Laws and acknowledge their authority, even the Pope himself being aware of it: That in France the Cardinals and Bishops perform unto the King, the Oath of Fidelity; commendeth the Kings for having givē to Clerks great immunities, notwithstanding which he saith that they do not let to be bound to civil Laws.

These words are full of timerousnesse and lurking ambiguity. [Answer.] He saith that Clerks indeed live under the laws of Princes, but he doth not tell us, that in case of disobedience the King may punish them; for otherwise there is no subjection. He saith that the Bishops yield the Oath of Fidelity, but the question now is not touching fidelity, but touching subjection and obedience. He speaketh of immunities granted by Princes, but he doth not tell us what these immunities be; for this is one (as Bellarm. witnesseth and we will show hereafter) that Clerks are no longer subjects to Kings, & that the King is no longer their Superior. Thus can we learn nothing of this Doctor.

So that indeed his Majesty's complaint is so just, that if we hold our peace threin, the cause will proclaim it self: Every man knoweth what a Diminution to the Crown and greatness of Kings, these immunities of Clergy men do bring; all which they cover and rabble up under the Title of the liberty of the Church, unworthily transporting this sacred name of Christian liberty, which signifieth in the word of God the deliverance from the curse and malediction, and from the yoke of sin, and from the heavy burden of the ceremonies of the law; to civil pretences, and dispensations with that natural duty which we owe unto our Prince, under whom we had the happiness first to behold the Sun.

This is a thing that belongeth even to the law of Nations: and besides that is authorised by the word of God, that every person be subject to the Sovereign Magistrate. But here now see, how in one kingdom, as in France, there will be found above three hundred thousand persons, who under the title of Clergy-men have shaken off the yoke of the Princes authority; yea even children that are entered Novices into that Body, exempted from all obedience towards their parents:

This body of the Clergy hath its Judges and officers & their prisons likewise apart. Their causes are not called to be answered before Royal Judges; but receive hearing and determination in the great State chamber at Rome called La Zuota or in the consistory.

There is a third parte of the Lands of this kingdom in the hands of Clergy men to the great prejudice of our kings. For it often cometh to pass, that the proprietarie owners and possessors of lands do sell their inheritances; whence accureth profit to the Prince, by the Kings fine which ariseth of every first part, or first prime, of such fales and other rights belonging to the chief Lord; which Rights are lost when once immovable goods, enter into the possession of the Clergy. The king doth also lose his right of Aubaine, which is an escheate to the king of all such goods, as any stranger dying in France is possessed of, also the right of confiscation, and in case of desertion when a man doth quit his own estate. The Clergy being a body that never dieth, that never confiscateth, and in which body inheritances die by Mortmaine: Upon whom the secular persons confer every day new Donations; but we never see the sharing of Ecclesiastical goods made to the profit and behoove of any Lay-man: for goods find many gates open to enter into the Clergy, but never a one to get our from thence, like those footings of the wild beasts, which all turned inward towards the Lions den, but there appeared no trace of any that ever returned from thence. And hence it cometh to pass, that as in man's body, the thighs and arms grow less and less by how much the bigger the belly swelleth through excess: so in the body of a Common wealth. The Nobility and the Commonalty, who are as the arms and legs of that State, they are brought low by the increase of the Clergy.

To this end also they have obtained that the Church shall always be held in non-age and in her minority, that if she shall at any time have made promise or contract, that may turn to her disadvantage, she may under that pretence be relieved. And whereas in common course of law, thirty years are sufficient to keep possession by way of Prescription: Against the Church of Rome, and against the Templaries no Prescription can be of force under one hundred years; which is in effect as much as that against them there is no Prescription. The other Churches and Orders have forty years Prescription.

This ought also moreover to be added, which is a thing that doth greatly redound to the weakening of the power of kings. And that is, that all Fee-farms and lands of the most noble Tenure, as soon as they enter into the Possession of Ecclesiastical persons, they become exempted from all charges and payments, as well in regard of their persons as of their goods, being no longer bound to that personal service, which the possessor formerly owed unto the Prince. Whence it came to pass that our ancient kings were able within less circuit of Country, to leuie Armies of an hundred thousand men, whereas now a days within a far larger extent, fewer troupes are gathered, because there is a third part of the lands of France, which contribute nothing to public necessities. And yet notwithstanding, natural reason requireth that they who enjoy the fruit and benefit of peace, should contribute toward the war; that those that live at case, should cherish and relieve them that fight for their conservation. Wherefore then whiles the Nobility and the third State, do oppose themselves to the invasion of strangers, whiles the King doth fortify his Frontiere Towns; doth entertain Garrisons, doth appoint Officers as well for civil government as for discipline of war; why should not Ecclesiastical persons, who by these means do quietly enjoy the fat and best of the Kingdom, why should not they, I say, contribute to the public necessity: why should their increase be a deminution to their Princes forces, who watcheth over them for their quiet?

Furthermore no man can be ignorant but that this is a thing greatly threatening the damage and impoverishing of the Kingdom, that a third part of France should be tributary to a stranger, under a title of Annates, Dates, Dispensations, Absolutions and cases of marriage. Against all which biting extortion our ancient Kings provided by the Pragmaticke Sanction; being angryed and aggrieved to see the fair pence of the Kingdom to pass over the Alps under a Religious kind of pillage, and to enter into the purses of those who made a mock at our simplicity.

But above all, this is that which is most pernicious to Kings and their estates, that so many persons are exempted from justice, and from the arm of the secular power. For by this means if a Clerke do himself undertake, or do abet another to attempt against the life of his Prince, if he coin false money, set fire on a town, or entertain secret intelligence with strangers; or if he infect the common people by the example of his lewd manners. The Prince for all this cannot lay hands on him without leave from his Bishop, and he shall not dare to touch him, until he be first degraded, in such sort that the King hath in his kingdom an infinite number of persons, who are Lord's of the fairest and best choice of his Country, and who are not his subjects, but do acknowledge another for their Superior out of the kingdom.

This is verily one of the boldest wiles and the subtilest sleights of the mystery of iniquity, to have found out a means whereby to make a king by sufferance to give way to another, to establish an estate within his own estate, and in the end to thank him for it too: and to think himself beholding to him for the same. Who will then marvel hereupon, if the king of great Britain whom God hath freed from so heavy a yoke, do look with compassion upon those other kingdoms, who yet do groan under this burden, and as standing safe on the shore, giveth advise and counsel to his brethren whom he seeth weather-beaten with these surges, and carried away with the current of an old inveterate custom.

Now here I protest again, as heretofore I have done, that I do not speak of the persons, but of the rules and orders of the Church of Rome. I know that in this great body of the Clergy there is a great number that would willingly die for the service of their king: in whom their Priestly character of shaving, hath not made them forget that they are borne subjects. In whose spirits nature hath more force then their habits, and the love of their Country more then the Maxims of Italy: but they are beholden to their own good dispositions for this, and not to the rules of the Church.

Some to color this abuse, say that Clerks are exempted from the power of Princes not by God's law, but only by man's positive law: whereunto I say that first they contradict not only Bellarmine himself, who in his book of the exemption of Clerks, he doth exempt them by God's divine Law: but also Pope Boniface the eight, who speaketh in this manner in the Title, De Censibus in Sexto: The Churches and Ecclesiastical persons & their goods, let them be exempt from the exactions of secular persons not only by man's law but also by God's Divine law.

Secondly I say that it little importeth Princes under what title men take away their dues, seeing that they are either way alike riffeled and despoyled. And it goeth against the heart of him that hath been robbed to pay himself with a destruction, certain it is that if this be granted, that the exemptions of Clerks is founded only upon man's laws: yet if a Prince should go about to clippe the privileges of Church-men, and should continue on, to draw those rights and dues upon their lands which he had upon them whiles they were yet in the hands of secular men; such a Prince I say, shall be never a whit the more excused: nay, rather he shall be cursed and banned as black as a coal, and shall be ground to powder with hot excommunications, as a persecutor and diminisher of the liberty of the Church. And if any Jesuit should come to suffer death in any such quarrel, he should be put in the Kalendar of Saints and Martyrs, as was Thomas of Canterbury, who suffered only for this very subject.

And indeed it is a thing very easy for us to prove that Clerks have exempted themselves from Taxes and Subsidies and Contributions, and from subjection to the secular sword, not only without all law, both of God and man, but directly contrary to God's Divine law. For S. Paul, Rom. 13. will have every soul subject to the higher powers. He that will exempt Clerks from this rule, saith by a consequent that they have no soul. Now if they be subject, then do they owe Tribute: for S. Paul addeth, that this subjection consisteth in paying of tribute: For this cause (saith he) you pay tribute, because they are the Ministers of God. Whereupon Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary on that place speaketh roundly to the purpose; The Apostle (saith he) enjoineth this to all, even to Priests and Solitary Monks, and not to Seculars only. And that which is yet more, he addeth, Be thou an Apostle, be thou an Euangelistor a Prophet, or whosoever. Whence appeareth that if the Pope be an Apostle (as indeed he calleth his charge an Apostleship) notwithstanding by S. Paul's rules he should be liable to taxes and rallages, and subject to the civil Magistrate.

Now because some perhaps may use this exception, That Christian Clerks were forced of necessity to be subject to Paynim Princes, to pay them tax and tribute, to appear before their Civil and Criminal Judges for fear of drawing (by such their refusal) persecution upon the whole Church: but under a Christian Prince Clerks ought to be exempt from this subjection. The same Chrysostom addeth in the same Sermon, That if the Epostle established this law, at what time Princes were Paynims; How much more then ought this to be under believing Princes? Likewise S. Bernard in his two and fortieth Epistle to the Archbishop of Sens: Give honor to whom honor belongeth: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; if every soul, then yours also, for who can except you from that which is universal? Si quis tentat excipere conatur decipere. He would daceiue you that would except you. This worthy personage had a sensible feeling of the excessive abuses which, alleged in his time, were grown up in these exemptions. S. Ambrose in his Oration of surrendering up Churches, saith, If the Emperor demand Tribute, we do not refuse it. In the fourth book of Theodorets Story, cap. 7. Valentinian the elder, writing to the Bishops of Asia, he saith, That the true Ministers of God are subject to the laws of Emperors. And it is in the very same Emperor, who being joined with Valens, made that law, of which S. Jerome speaketh in his Epistle to Nepotian, which did forbid Ecclesiastical persons to receive any heretages, or to take anything from women: which law is found in the Code of Theodosius, in the title De Episcopis & Clericis: Whence appeareth that the Imperial laws did in those days subject Clerks to many things; from which the seculars themselves were exempted. Which was not reckoned any Tyranny, seeing that S. Jerome saith in the same place, that he doth not complain of that law, but rather of the Avarice of the Clergy, who had worthily deserved to be curbed and repressed by that law made. What shall I say more? Pope Urban and the Roman Decree, in the Cause 23. Quest 8. in the Canon Tributum, speaketh in this manner: The Church payeth her tribute of all her outward goods. Again, We must pay to Emperors in recognisance of the peace and quiet, in which they ought to maintain and defend us. Let a man read the Canon Quoniam, and the Canon De Capitulis, in the tenth Distinction: and there a man shall see how much the Popes do acknowledge themselves subject to the Emperors, and bound to obey no other laws then the Imperial, in temporal affairs.

In Sigonius his fifth book, Ansbert Archbishop of Pauia crowned Carolus Caluus King of the Romans, saying unto him, We have chosen you with joint consent, Protector, Lord and King, and we yield our selves your subjects with all our bearts.

As touching the punishment of crimes it is found at large in the Code of Theodosius, that about the year 315. Constantine discharged certain Clerks from public functions which they had executed in person, and yet without discharging their possessions. But as well he, as his successors retained and reserved to themselves the punishment of crimes: For in the twentieth chapter of the first book of the Story of Theodoret, he sent Eustathius Bishoppe of Antioch into banishment. The Emperor Maximus put certain Bishops to death; for having been infected with the Herefie of the Gnostics, contrary to the counsel of S. Martin who did not approve that cruelty. But S. Martin doth not reprehend him for having set in his foot over the Clergy, or for that he had thrust himself in injuriously to the judgment of their crimes: yea about the year 1560 the Emperor Justinian established a law, by which he permitted Ecclesiastical persons in civil causes to proceed before their own Bishop: but in criminal matters his pleasure is, that they should undergo the jurisdiction of secular Magistrates: the indulgence of the succeeding Emperors hath exempted them from all secular jurisdiction, contrary to the dignity and security of the Empire, yea and contrary to the rules and examples of the word of God it self.

Under the Law the Levites had no prisons apart, nor Judges apart; they were subject to the Kings, who sometimes chastised the high Priests themselves, as Solomon deposed Abiathar from the Priesthood Jesus Christ appeared before the judgment seat of Pilate, and he gives this testimony that it is given him of God, to be Judge in this cause. S. Paul did not appeal to S Peter, but to Caesar, Act. 23 11. and he doth it by the counsel of the holy Ghost; to the end that men should not think, that it was an evasion, which he followed out of necessity, without approving it as lawful. S. Paul himself doth subject every soul to the powers that bear the sword, and by consequent he doth subject them also unto corporal punishments.

Some perhaps will say; I grant you that the Clergy have now a days many more exemptions then they have had in former times. But the Emperors and Kings have given them immunities and freedoms which now are irrevocable. I answer, that if Kings have given to Clergy men such immunities, they may take them away from them again, when they shall see it to be necessary for the preservation of their State. So, all that men are wont to allege out of the ancient Councils, authorising these exemptions, may serve indeed to exhort Clerks to address themselves to their Bishops to compose their differents in Ecclesiastical matters. But now a days to exempt Churchlands from paying tax and Subsidy; nor to take from the Magistrate the power of punishing any Clerke that is a wicked man, and attaynted of some crime which is punishable by the law.

Secondly, I say that Clerks cannot be judged by the validity of their own exemptions, seeing they are made altogether in favor of them, and to their own profit. And being Judges and parties, they will take heed, I trow, of condemning themselves.

I say further; for I maintain this truth, That Princes cannot free Clergy men from their civil subjection and obedience, seeing that God himself hath subjected them thereunto. So a father cannot free his children from that due obedience which they owe unto him: Neither can he by any damnable induldence and facility toward his children, loose those bands of nature which God moreover alloweth and authorizeth in his word. That good indeed, or that good turn is injurious, that byndeth a man to do ill, or that exempteth him from well doing. And not to speak but of Magistrates only, I say, that God having commanded the Israelites to subdue the Canaanites and Amorrhites, and to make them their servants: They should have offended God if they had let them go free and at liberty.

I leave this also to any man's judgment, whether a Prince may take any Donations, by the which both himself and his Successors may loose the third part of their Dominion. If any man be an angryed with his money, he may give it away, and make havoc of it if he please, but he cannot bind his posterity to the like humor. Neither can his personal liberalities make vniuerfall Laws: Especially when by experien • e it is known to be true, that those persons on whom the good deeds have been done, do wax the worse by them, and the benefits extended towards them, corrupt in their own bosoms. For, not to speak of those manyfold vices which have thronged in at this gate by troupes, Clergy-men are become very ill acknowledgers of those good deeds which Princes have conferred on them: For now they maintain, that these immunities belong unto them by God's law, and by Divine right; and that they hold all this from God and not from man, and that the Pope having exempted Clergy-men from the subjection of Princes, they are no more their subjects, neither are Princes any longer their superiors. This doctrine is constantly upheld in Rome, and maintained by all the Doctors that are of any mark in that Church. But about all, by the Jesuits; diverse of whose testimomes, touching this point, we have heretofore produced.

Out ancient Kings never heard of any such propositions in their days. And without doubt that which now-a days is called in our law, Le droit de Regale, and L'appell comme d'abus, and likewise the Inhibition of the Annates, by the pragmatical Sanction (of which there remaineth no more now-a-days then the bare name) these are the relics of the ancient power of our Kings, by the which they did dispose of Ecclesiastical men's goods, as well as of Secular persons. But now-a-days after a lamentable manner of speaking, and iniuri ous to our Kings, these things are called Privileges of the Gallicane Church. As if for a man not to be robbed or riffeled, were a privilege unto him. Or as if it were a special grace granted by the Pope, that a man should have power to be Master in his own house, Non est Priuilegium sed prauilegium. And yet this privilege is not observed.

And hereupon I beseech the Reader to consider how handsomely Cardinal Bellarmine doth carry himself in this point, who in the eight and twentieth chapter of his book of Clerks, to the end to gratify Princes with something, he will, that Clerks should conform themselves, to civil laws in certain menial small things, as in the buying of any Merchandize, or not to go abroad in the night without a Lantern. But within a short space after, he plucketh back, all that which before he had given, willing them to be subjects indeed, Obligatione non coactiua sed solum directiua: by Obligation of direction, not of coertion. That is to say, that they may be commanded, but not constrained to yield obedience: they shall obey as far as themselves list: and this is not to be a subject in any regard. That law is no law that only hath reference to their discretion for whom it is enacted. A law that wants his annexed punishment, is ridiculous, and should be called an entreaty, or good counsel rather then a command. And farther observe, that the matters wherein he maketh the clergy subject to the law, are trifles, and things of no moment. But to be vigilant for the safety of his sovereign; or to maintain the peace of the Country, or to shun private intelligence with forrayners, or to be punished for robbing, or ravishing, or for treason, are matters wherein he doth not subject them to the power of Kings. So he dazzles the eyes of Princes with School-distinctions, of Directiue, and Coactiue, flatly denying the while, that Princes have superiority over their Clergy. And he maytaines that Kingdoms are not held by a Divine right, that is, are not immediately appointed by God, nor established by God's ordinance: directly crossing the Apostle Saint Paul, saying, That there is no power but of God, and the powers that be, are ordained of God. By this means taking from subjects all religious regard due to Princes, whom in a wicked disdain he calls Profane persons; toward the end of the second Chapter of his book of the exemption of the Clergy, in these words: Is there any that dares aver, that ••• rophane man hath any power over matters that deser •• to be styled Sancta sanctorum, that is, most holy? He gives also this title to Ecclesiastical goods; so that if the money of a Kingdom be swept away under color of Indulgences: If sins be leuyed upon the Curtyzans of Rome: If any of the common people do rob their children to enrich the Friars, this wealth, and these possessions are the holy of holies, things most holy. O gross abuse, and open mockery! O enmity with God himself! Thus is our simplicity seduced. These then are the men, that to shake off the yoke of Kings, call them Profane persons. Kings, who are the anointed of the Lord, God's image upon earth, the noursing fathers of the Church, the Princes of the people of God, of whom the very Angels speak not without reverence. Well may their glory be advanced, and the kingdom of the son of God established in their government; but let all those be cast down, that scandalize their sacred persons, or exempt themselves from their authority.

CHAP. VII. The authority of Emperors and Kings over the Bishop of Rome, that they have elected, degraded, and censured them, that Princes have had authority over their Bishops, and their temporalties: The first beginning of Popery in England.

W Ho so desires to see more proofs drawn out of ancient Histories, by which it is made evident, that the Bishops of Rome acknowledged themselves subjects, and vassals of the Emperors, let him read the place of the King of great Britain's Apology, where he answers the first Breue of Paulus Quintus, whereunto we may adjoin the words of Pope Adrian writing to the Emperor Constantine son to Irene in the letters inserted into the second Council of Nice. We in the mean time with fervency of spirit beseeching your Grace, and as if we were present fall before you on our knees, and prostrate our selves at your feet, both myself and my brethren. In those days Popes kissed the feet of Emperors. Long before King Theodorick employed John the first, Bishop of Rome in the nature of an Ambassador to Justinian the Emperor, and after his return kept him in prison till he died. Platina in the life of Agapetus the first, saith, that King Theodat sent Agapetus his Ambassador to Constantinople. Soone after Pope Vigill coming to Constantinople at the Emperors command, he caused him to be whipt, and drawn with a halter about his neck through the City. Oh that they had had the grace in those days to have thundered against the Emperor, and by authority of the See Apostolic to have given away the Empire to some other! as touching the election of Popes, they were commonly chosen by the suffrages of the people and clergy of the city of Rome: but this election continued doubtful till the Kings of Italy, or the Emperors had confirmed them: who did often also establish the Bishops by their own absolute authority, not regarding the voice of popular assemblies. In the year 535. Agapet the first was chosen by King Theodate, who elected also Syluerius after Agapet. Syluerius being deposed by Betisarius a captain, the Emperor Justinian surrogated Vigill into his place. In the year 581. Gregory the Archdeacon was sent to the Emperor Tiberius to make an humble excuse, for that Pelagius was elected without his approbation; the incursions of the Lombards, and the great inundations of waters having cut off their passages. The same Gregory being soon after chosen Pope by the common people, wrote humble Letters to the Emperor Maurice, not to confirm his Election, in the year 679. Pope Agatho besought the Emperor Constantine to forgive him the tribute, which the Bishop of Rome did usually pay for their consecration; as the King of England hath learnedly observed; being far from enforcing the Emperors upon the day of their consecration, to lay down a sum of money at the Popes feet for tribute in token of their subjection, as the Almaine Emperors were afterwards, constrained to do: Bellarmine, saith, that Constantine the fourth gave over this power of choosing the Popes to Benedict the second, but he maliciously hath omitted, that the Emperor instead thereof, sent thither his soldiers, which he ordinarily kept at Rome: which continually occasioned Faction and Sedition in their Elections; witness the election of Canon the first, and of Sergius the first in the years 686. and 688. by which they were driven to have recourse to the Exarches, the Emperors Lieutenant in Italy.

The title of the Empire of the West, and the Royalty of Italy being fallen into the hands of the French, Charlemaine seized both the Soueraignty over the City of Rome, and the power of electing Popes into his own hands. The form or nature of this authority is faithfully reported by his Majesty of England, just as it is inserted into the Romish Decree, in the 69. Distinction, in the Canon Adrianus: Leo the the third yielding to this authority sought, and offered him some presents to be confirmed by him: Soone after Paschal the second send his excuse to Louis le Deuonaire, because his election was dispatched before his pleasure was known. Some allege hereupon that Louis did at that time freely disclaim his authority, and to produce a Declaration to that purpose; but the practice of that time proveth the contrary: for a little after in the year 827. Gregory the fourth would not enter upon his charge, till his election was confirmed by Louis, as Sigonius and Platina testify. In whom you shall find a like example in the life of Benedict the third, which is he, whom Platina and a whole score of other witnesses make to succeed next after Pope Joan. In the year 867. the Ambassadors of Louis made head against Pope Adrian, because they had not been called to his election; the people having tumultuously forced him to take the Papacy upon him. The wars of the Normanes came then suddenly upon them, which set the Emperors about other business: and the Sea of Rome began then to grow to that overflowing and disorder, that for the full space of two hundred years, there was nothing to be seen but slaughter, theft, adultery, forcery, and one Pope degrading and thrusting out another: in which time by Coeffeteau's own confession many Masters sat in the Pontifical chair; and it is pleasant reading to peruse the Council of Reims held under Hugh Capet about that affaire. During which hurly-burlies, the Church of Rome was in the year 898. constrained to sue unto Berengarius King of Italy, to interpose his authority in the election of the Popes. And a while after Otho the first, Emperor of Almaine having subdued Italy, seized upon the same authority, and chose Pope Leo the eight, and after him John the fourteenth, and after that Benedict the fifth, as Sigonius, Platina, and others do affirm. In the year 995. Otho the third keeping the same custom, chose Gregory the fifth without any regard to the voices of the common people. Sylvester the second, who (as Platina, Stella, Fasciculus temporum, and sundry others do write) attained the Popedom by bargayning with the Devil, about the year 997. was established by the Emperor Otho the second, who had been his Scholar. In the year 1024. the Earls of Tusculum, which then were grown mighty, advanced John the one and twentieth, who was a Lay-man to the Popedom In the year 1047. Henry the second deposed Benedict the ninth, Seluester the thirteenth, and Gregory the sixth from the Papacy; who by Platina are called three Monsters; as the King of great Britain doth truly observe. The same Emperor renewed the Oath unto the people, that they should not offer to choose their Bishop without his commandment. After which Leo the ninth, Nicholas the second, & Honorius the second were elected according to the same rule. Sigonius in the year 1064. saith that Hanno the Archbishop gave Pope Alexander a check for entering upon the Papacy, without the penalty of Henry the Emperor, Quam sedem multos iam per annos nemo nisi a rege probatus ausus esset attingere; unto which seat none (saith he) for these many years hath presumed to approach without the Kings approbation. The same Hildebrand which was called Gregory the seventh, the scourge of Emperors was confirmed by Henry the fourth in the year 1075. who having first dared to incite the Almaines and Italians to revolt from the Emperor, and infinite wars being kindled thereby under this Henry, and his successors, it would be over-long to reckon up how many Popes have been degraded, and how many Anti-Popes created by the Emperors. By which confusion and warlike broils, continuing for one hundred or six score years, the Papacy grew to a far greater greatness then it maintains at this day: for it is within these two or three hundred years fallen well-near half way from the height and State wherein it stood.

The King of great Britain having alleged some of these testimonies; M ^r . Coeffeteau makes after his fashion a superficial answer, and saith, That in the beginning it was not so. And he saith well: for in the beginning the Bishop of Rome meddled not with the election of the Emperors: he did not pull down Kingdoms: he imposed no Annates, or tyrannous impositions upon the Clergy: he intermeddled not with temporal affairs, neither did his Ecclesiastical authority extend farther then the Churches and parishes in the Suburbs; that is, no farther then the Prouost-ship and Jurisdiction of the City of Rome: he was not called the Monarch of the world, nor the head of the Universal Church, nor God upon the earth, nor did he wear a triple Crown, nor made the Kings to kiss his feet, nor did he vaunt that he could not err in matter of faith: but as fast as the Emperors did fall, so fast did the Popes rise: and I assure myself, that the Pope would rather renounce his succession of S. Peter, then the Donation of Charlemaine.

Secondly, Coeffeteau saith, That in the first ages the Christian Emperors did not enterprise such matters, no not the Constantine's, or Theodosij. Here then we must learn him some skill in history. Between Constantine the great and Theodosius the first. Valentinian was Emperor, whose royal assent concurred in the election of Ambrose Bishop of Millaine, a Prelate more reverenced at that time then the Bishop of Rome: Ruffinus speaks plainly in his second book, the eleventh chapter. The desire of the people being reported to the Emperor, he gave commandment that their desire should be accomplished. Socrates hath the same, Lib. 4 cap. 25. The Emperor Theodosius chose Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople: for (as Sozomen. testifieth) he commanded the Bishop to write down in a paper their names, whom they thought worthy, reserving the choice unto himself: and having cast his eye over the list of such as were named, among all the rest, he made choice of Nectarius. Now we are to understand that the Bishop of Constantinople was not then inferior to the Bishop of Rome in any respect: Of which we could produce 780. witnesses; to wit, those hundred and fifty Bishops which were in the first Council of Constantinople under Theodosius; and the six hundred and thirty Bishops in the Council of Calcedon, in which Councils there are express Canons to that purpose. The third Canon of the Council of Constantinople speaks in this tenor, That the Bishop of Constantine's City hath perogatives of honor next after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome. Which Canon attributing to the Bishop of Rome priority of rank, not in respect of the See, but in regard of the chief City, is expounded at large in the Council of Calcedon in these words, in the eighteenth Canon: Our Fathers have very rightly given the preeminence to the See of ancient Rome, because the City was the Seat of the Empire. So the hundred and fifty Bishops of the Council of Calcedon, beloved of God, moved with the same reasons have transferred the same preeminence to the seat of New-Rome, thinking it reason that the City honored with the Empire, and with the presence of the Senate, and enjoying the same privileges as ancient Rome being the Seat of the Empire did, and being after it the next should in matters Ecclesiastical have equal advancement: For then the See of Rome had the precedency without any authority or Jurisdiction above the rest, just as one Counselor of State goes before another, that is equal in Commission with him. This excellent Canon hath been shamefully falsified in the Roman mane Decree, in the Canon Renouantes, the two and twentieth Distinction; where instead of Etiam in Ecclesiasticis, our Adversaries have thrust in Non • amen in Ecclesiasticis. Hereupon I conclude, that if Theodosius being at Constantinople, had a hand in the election of the Bishop of Constantinople, he might as well meddle with the election of the Bishoppe of Rome, in case he should be present in Rome. And indeed Coeffeteau confesseth that the Emperor Constantius meddled both with the election of Felix, and with the deposing of Liberius Bishop of Rome: but he saith that he was an Arian, and that S. Hilary called him Antichrist: which notwithstanding disables not the authority of this example: for if Liberius had been then an Arian, as he became afterwards, no man could have thought it strange, that Constantius had expelled him, and advanced another of the Orthodox faith into his room. S. Hilary blamed him, not because he meddled with the deposing, or election of a Bishop, but because in Liberius he persecuted the truth: which may be as well said of the Kings of the Goths, favorers of Arianism, which made and unmade the Bishop of Rome at their pleasure: And it is principally to be considered, that the Emperors took less heed to the choosing of the Roman Bishops as long as they preached the Gospel themselves, and were contented with the office of being Pastors of the City of Rome, and did not thrust their Ecclesiastical sicle into the temporal harvest. But as soon as they began to speak big, and to meddle with civil affairs, and that when matters were doubtfully balanced, they were like a great stone in one of the scales, who can wonder if the Emperors b • gan then to look about, that none of an adverse faction were brought in to that See against themselves?

That which Coeffeteau subioyneth, makes nothing to the purpose, to wit, That the Emperors of the East continued the usurpation of the Goths, out of a base coueteous humor: for it makes not, whether their proceedings were tainted with avarice, or no: someone in the prosecution of his right, may mingle his particular vices. Now if this custom be not, then are the Popes, and Councils worthy of blame that have adjudged them both just, and necessary; as Adrian the first, Leo the eight, and others which vnrequested did voluntarily refer this choice to the Kings of Italy, and to the Emperors. And indeed Sigonius Anno 963. saith that Leo the eight was of opinion, that Adrian the first had cause to refer the honor of governing the Church, and choosing the Pope unto Charlemaine, and that when liberty was given to the popular Assembly for the election of the Pope, things greweuery day from bad to worse. It is here more remarkable that Coeffeteau doth a little after contradict himself; for after having condemned this electiue custom, as as an unjust usurpation of the Emperors, a little after he saith, that the Emperor did not usurp this right, but received it from the Pope. If then the Emperors did not usurp this power, he doth unjustly call it usurpation. And if the Popes gave this authority, the fault was only in the Popes. And if it be a Right, as Coeffeteau calls it, it can be neither wrong, nor injustice, not usurpation. The fear of the Lombards should have been no motive to the Popes to injure their own See, to p • ssesse the Emperors of that which appertained not unto them.

Touching that which he adds, that Louis the son of Charles disclaymed this right; I have already disproved it, as untrue. The Canon Ego Lodouicus, in the 63. Distinction, is of the same touch, and as true as the Donation of Constantine.

It is also untrue which he saith, that the Popes acknowledged Louis for a benefactor of this See; and that they should think themselves obliged to him, and other Princes, which have bestowed on them the temporalities which they possess. For first the Popes would not acknowledge any such obligation to this Louis, nor to his predecessors, notwithstanding all their gifts unto them, having forged the Donation of Constantine to obliterate the memory of this benefit, and cast an immaginary Conduit-pipe, that might from others of farther distance derive this bounty unto them. Besides their abusing and thundering their storms upon our Kings, and robbing their Kingdoms is their fair acknowledgement of this good turn; like him that having gathered the fruit, and refreshed himself in the shadow of a tree, doth with his bill-book lop off the boughs and branches for recompense.

Moreover we deny (notwithstanding anything Coeffeteau saith) that the Popes held their temporal possessions of Pipin, or Charles, or of Louis, or of any King or Emperor. I am not ignorant that these Princes have exceeded in their liberalities to the Bishop of Rome, which they have performed to their hindrance: but they ever did, as Princes unto subjects, reserve the Soueraignty over the Donce.

To examine the matter by auncienter proofs and better, Sigonius in the History of the year 687. saith, that the Exarches sent Judges unto Rome, to administer justice unto the people. Platina hath the fame in the life of Sergius the second, who was the first that changed his name after his election, because he was formerly called Hogs-snout. In the division between the children of Louis le Debonaire, Lotharius the eldest son had for his part the City of Rome, with Italy, &c. Platina in the life of Eugenius the second, saith, that Lotharius coming into Italy, established Magistrates at Rome to judge the people of the City. Above all, we have express testimony of Sigonius in the seventh book of the History of the Kingdom of Italy: Ann. 973. Then (saith he) the Bishop of Rome held the City of Rome and Rauenna, rather by another's authority then their own command Because these Cities acknowledged the Bishop as a Prince in the Common▪wealth, but did ever look toward the King as their sovereign Lord, paid him tribute, and to him yielded their obedience. And yet it was a long while after, ere the Emperors came to Rome, to take their Crowns which they held not of the Pope, who had only a hand in the Ceremony, but of the people of Rome. So that all that which the Pope doth at this day hold in the nature of a sovereign Prince, is a mere usurpation over the Empire, and he cannot exhibit his titles, nor show us the beginning of his Princely Soueraignty.

Coeffeteau goes on, and condemns the Emperor Otho for deposing John the thirteenth for his irregular life; and Henry the third for deposing three Popes in a short time, and saith, that in this proceeding he shown a zeal, but no knowledge. Whereunto I answerre, that this John being maintained by an Army, and a very potent faction, he could not be expulsed, but by the power of the Emperor: nor is it zeal without knowledge to apply unto an extreme malady, the only and most necessary medicine that can possibly the provided.

Our Doctor doth further add that Constantine did show much more Religion, when in the Council of Nice he acknowledged, that it belonged not to him to judge of the faults of Bishops. But these were but words of his gracious respect unto them, such as the same Prince used, when he said, that if he should find a Clergy-man offending with a woman, he would cover him with his cloak: but before in the sixth Chapter we saw, that the laws of Constantine did not privilege the offenses of the Clergy from the civil authority; no not the laws of Justinian which were made more then two hundred years after. And indeed Theodoret, lib. 1. cap. 19. allegeth an Epistle of Constantine to N • comedians, in which speaking generally of all sorts of men, he saith that If any one will rashly and inconsiderately maintain those pestilent assertions (speaking of the Arians) his audatiousnes shall be instantly curbed by the Emperors execution, who is God's Minister. I do plainly confess, that they caused them to be very often deposed by a Synod, but yet they ceased not to have sovereign authority over the Bishops before their deposition, or to have power of inflicting corporal punishment upon them: but of this we have spoken at large before.

Thence doth Coeffeteau proceed to the Example of Henry the fourth; which he saith cannot be alleged, because the times were then troublesome: but the example suits very well to our purpose, for that the Popes were the only instruments of raising those troubles, to exempt themselves from the Emperors subjection, and to subject the Emperors to themselves, even in services more servile then seuuitude it self; stirring up the son to seek the life and Crown of Henry his father, who died being deprived of his Imperial dignity by his son, the Popes instrument therein; who vouchsafed not his father so much favor, as to cause his body to be buried. Frederick Barbarossa being come soon after into Italy to be Crowned Emperor, the Pope enforced him to hold his stirrope, when he took horse. But this Emperor little-skilled in these services, putting himself forward to hold the left instead of the right stirrup, was adjudged to practice the same submission the day following: and howbeit he performed it very mannerly, yet in conclusion the Pope sought to pull his Crown from him. And in the same degree of pride did Alexander the third tread upon the said Frederickes neck, upon the stairs of S. Markes Church in Venice: the History is reported by many writers, and alleged by the King of great Britain, in his confutation of Bellarmine about the end of the book: and it is painted at Venice in the hall of del Scrutinio & del grand Constiglio; the Maps and Tables thereof are reckoned up and expounded by Girolam Bardi, in a book expressly written of that argument.

In the sequel of his discourse Coeffeteau falls into that reckless negligence, that he accuseth the King of mistaking the History, not alleging so much as one passage for his confutation. And sure it is not Platina that doth alone record the deposition of these three Popes by Henry the fourth; for Stella a Venetian Monk, who hath written the lives of the Popes, hath the same in these words; Henricus Caesar habita Synodo Benedictum praedictum & Syluestrum, & hunc Gregorium abdicare se Pontificatu coegit.

To this doth Coeffeteau make no other answer, but that these contentions were only for temporal matters; and that Philip or Louis, or the faculty of Sorbonne, or the Kings Advocate, desired not to prejudice the Popes authority in any regard, as he is head of the Church; so that here, he answers well to the King of England's question; whose aim is only unto matters temporal, and to the usurpation of Popes over Monarchs. Touching the title of Head of the Church, which is an abuse more intolerable, he reserves that for an after-discourse. Now if so be, the dissention between Philip and the See of Rome continued not many years, as Coeffeteau observeth, it was because the Pope gave way unto him: and Benedict the eleventh was very glad to give Philip absolution, which he granted of his own accord, because the other might have been well without it.

That we may close up this point, the King of great Britain draws many examples out of Matthew Paris, and out of the Records of his Kingdom to this purpose; as William Gifford whom King Henry the first invested with his Bishopric, and Rodulphus whom the same King invested with the Archbishopric of Canterbury by his Ring and Crosier-staff: and Thurstan nominated to the Archbishopric of York, deprived by the King of his temporalties, for corrupting with bribes the Popes agents in the Council of Reims. The said King allegeth many examples of Abbots, Bishops and Deans in England, that have either against the Popes will, yielded obedience to their Sovereigns, or have been degraded, censured and imprisoned by their Princes for their disobedience in adhaering to the Popes And which is more considerable, these are late examples, such as have happened while the Papacy domineered most: How stood the case then, when the Bishoppe of Rome had nothing to do in England, with matters either temporal or spiritual? The Kingdom of France doth furnish us with examples of more pregnancy. The Synod of France is of special note to this purpose, which is to be found in the third Tome of the Councils of the Colleyn Edition, pag. 39. where Carolomanus qualifying himself as Duke and Prince of France useth this speech, By the advise of my Clergy, and others of principal esteem of the Realm, We have ordained Bishops in the Cities, and have established Boniface Archbishop over them. The Council of Maurice holden under Charlemaine, Anno 813. beginneth thus: Carolo Augusto verae religions rectori, ac defensori sanctae Dei Ecclesie: and the first Council of Mayence under Louis le Debonaire: Ludouico verae relligionis serenissimo rectori. And these, I trow, should have been accounted irreligious Titles now-a-days.

And here let it be principally noted, that Coeffeteau trusts more to his heels, then to his hands: for he buckles only with the first of these examples; and all his answer is, that Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury opposed this course. But to this I reply, that for this opposition he was forged both to forsake England, and quit his Bishopric. The contradiction of one of the Popes pensionary Prelates opposing his Sovereign, is of small moment in this behalf; for Anselm was accounted the Popes, not the Kings subject. Nor is it any greater wonder if Matthew Paris, who so often magnifies this King Henry, do now and then cast some imputation upon him: in as much as he was a superstitious Monk, and lived soon after: who in every passage complaining of the tyranny and exactions of the Popes, doth yet sometimes restrain himself for some idle respects, in which he oftener gropes for the truth, then he doth see or find it.

We must also observe, that the principal quarrel between the King of England and the Pope being for investing men with spiritual promotions, the Pope hath bestowed very glorious Titles on those persons, that suffered for this quarrel: as if he should write Rubarbe, upon a pot of Rats-bane. So hath he placed this Anselm in the Calendar of Saints, and Confessors; and Thomas of Canterbury in the Catalogue of Martyrs, that lost his life, not for the profession of the Gospel, but for a Controuersie of Prebends, and the right of Inuestiture.

Coeffeteau doth here add, That the Kings of England in the matter of ordination of Priests have never violated the Discipline of the Church: And I suppose that he had not vouchsafed the reading of the book, against which he writes. For the Kings book saith that Henry the first, invested an Archbishop in his Archbishopric with his Ringe and Crosierstaffe, without the Popes leave, which is flat repugnant to the discipline of the Church of Rome. And besides the now Pope Paul the fifth doth pretend that the Venetians in punishing the criminal offenses of their Clergy do derogate from the liberty of the Church. Edward then the first and second by inflicting corporal punishment upon the Clergy, that would hold a dependancy from the Pope, have by this reckoning derogated from the liberty of the Church.

To conclude, our Doctor saith, that Henry the first did in other things submit himself to the laws of the Church; that in the Records of England, most of the monuments speak of yielding obedience to the See Apostolic: that his Majesty embraceth a Religion which his Predecessors never possessed, but have ever acknowledged the authority of Rome in all matters depending upon matter of conscience.

First, I answer, that this is to wander from the question, for here is nothing questioned but the Popes Supremacy over Kings in matters temporal: Secondly, that barely to affirm, and to confirm nothing, especially writing against a King, doth either discover much weakness, or argue over-much neglect: and indeed his whole allegation is untrue. Concerning Henry the first, I confess, that he ascribed too much honor to the Church of Rome; for he lived in a dark & ignorant age, and in the height of the Popes tyranny, to which England of all Countries was most enthralled: which cannot be proved of the times more ancient. It may well appear, that the City of Rome, being the seat of the Empire, was by consequent the resort of all nations; by which means the Church of that city, how poor and miserable soever, might have aduertisements from all parties, and have intelligence with all the Churches within the Empire, and consequently which is the Church of great Britain; which was originally planted by some of S John. Disciples that came thither out of Asia: whereof we have this proof, that even to the time of August. w ^ch was sent into England by Gregogorie the first about the yere 596. the Church of the Island, did keep the feast of Easter, according to the custom of Asia, upon the 14. day of the month, which if it had been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, no question but it had abrogated that custom, when Victor, in the year 200. did excommunicate the Churches which made any precise observation of the 14. day. Helene mother unto Constantine. was of the Island, and held no points of Papistry maintained at this day. Pelagius was also of this Island, and saving the points of free will, and original sin, dissented not in any opinions from S. Augustine. Now S. Augustine received no Popish opinions now defended; as we have proved in the 20. chapter of my book of the Eucharist in another place, that he died excommunicate from the Church of Rome The first Christian King of great Britain that can be remembered, was Lucius, that possessed a part of the Island in the time of Marcus Aurelius: who, questionless had commerce with the Bishop of Rome, for he had been at Rome, and held correspondence with the Emperor: but that he should be subject to the Bishop of Rome, or acknowledge him the head of the Vniuersal Church, admits no manner of proof. In the year of our Lord 530. that Warlike Prince Arthur reigned in great Britain, of whom being a Christian it doth not appear, that either he depended upon the Bishops of Rome, or that they intermeddled in the election, or investing of the Britain Bishops, during the reign of Arthur, or his Successors. In the year 596. soon after that the English Saxons (being Almaines, and at that time Infidels) had invaded Britain, then did Gregory the first send Agustine into this Island, a man full of faction, and arrogancy, to plant the Christian faith; although the Christian Religion had been planted here more then four hundred years before. But by the Christian faith, these men do now understand the authority of the Pope. This Agustine was strongly and stoutly opposed by the Christians of that Country, who refused to change their ancient form of Religion, which they had received from such as were Disciples to the Apostles. They had seven Bishoprics and one Archbishopric; the seat whereof being first errected at Carleon, was afterward translated to S. David's, as it is recorded by Rainulphus Cestrensis, lib. 1. cap. 52. for the Archbishop of London was of a later foundation: besides they had a College of 2100. religious persons at Bangor, who about the year 550. when the Order of S. Benet began to flourish in this I will, were called by the new name of Monks: Men that adicting themselves to the study of Divinity, got their living by the labor of their hands; not being tied to the rigorous observation of a Vow: whereunto no man by the ancient Order of S. Benet is obliged. This Agustine then found means to insinuate himself into the familiar acquaintance of one of the petty Kings of the Country, called Ethelfred King of Northumberland, who was an enemy to the ancient Christians of that land, and had invaded their Country, and wasted many Churches: with this Agustine then he combined against the Christians, and both together massacred the poor religious men of Bangor, and flew no less then 1200. of them: The same Ethelfred assisted by the petty English Kings to despite the Christians inhabiting the Country, removed the Archiepisopall seat from London, and translated it to Canterbury, where ordinarily he made his residence. Now the principal difference between the Christians and the Romish faction was about the day of Easter, the single life of Priests, and the Church-music processions and Litany after the order of Rome: consider further that some of the people were Pelagians, for there was no speech then of transubstantiation, nor of the Popes grand Pardons and indulgences, nor of the Sacrament under one kind, nor of such heresies as were hatched in the after ages: Whereof we have sundry witnesses, as Amandus Zirixensis in his his Chronicle. Beda in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History of England: Mantuan in fastis, and Polydore Virgil: but especially observe the words of Geffery of Monmouth in his eight book de Britannorum gestis. In the Country of the Brittànes Christian Religion flourished, which never failed among them from the time of the Apostles. For Agustine being arrived there, found seven Bishoprics and an Archbishopric in their Province, all furnished with very religious Prelates, and Abbots, men that lived by the labor of their hands.

The King of England produceth also the Statute of Richard the second King of England, by which all English-men were forbidden to hold, or sue for any Benefice from the Pope, which was in the height of the Popes usurpation: and this as the greatest part of the book doth Coeffeteau pass by, being content to scratch where he cannot bite.

CHAP. VIII. That they which have written against the King of great Britain's book, do unjustly call him Apostate and Heretic.

O VR Adversaries are as open-handed in bestowing titles upon us, as they are niggardly in giving any reason of their doings. Bellarmine's book under the name of Tortus, saith, that the King of great Britain is no Catholic; but shows neither in what sense, nor for what reason: and as unjustly doth he call him an Apostate: for an Apostate is one, that having followed doth again doth forsake the true Religion. Now his Majesty of England hath not forsaken the true Religion, inasmuch as he still maintaineth the same: and should his Religion be as heretical, as it is sound and holy, yet could he not be called an Apostate, because he never professed any other Religion. He that hath always done evil, is not a backeslider from virtue: and no man can forsake that which he never had. Now grant that he had been baptized in the Church of Rome, yet it follows not, that he therefore received their faith that baptized him; for the Church of Rome conferring anything upon him that is good, binds him not to follow her in that which is evil.

But because it may be presumed, that the Queen his mother being of the Church of Rome, might have given him some impressions of that Religion, his Majesty therefore meeteth therewith, and testifies, that she adhaered not to the grosser superstitions of Popery; and that in the christening of the King her son, she charged the Archbishop that baptized him, not to use any spittle in the Ceremonies, saying, that she would not have a rotten and pocky Priest to spit in her childes mouth; that at her entreaty the late Queen ELIZABETH, who was an enemy of Popery, was his God-mother, and christened him by her Ambassador; that she never urged him by any letters to adhaere to Popery; that even her last words before her death, were, that howbeit she were of a diverse Religion, yet she would not press him to change the Religion he professed, unless he found himself moved thereunto in his conscience: that if he led an honest, and a holy life, if he did carefully administer justice, and did wisely and religiously govern the people committed to his care, she made then no question, but he might, and ought to persevere in his own Religion. By these Demonstrations doth his Majesty of England prove, that this great Princesse had no sinister opinion of our religion.

Hereunto M ^r . Coeffeteau saith, he will give credit for the respect he beareth unto the King, although it will with great difficulty be generally persuaded that some Princes allied unto his Majesty, could show some letters to the contrary. Which is as much to say, that although that which the King says be false, yet to do him a pleasure, he will believe it, and so gives him the lie very mannerly; as if he should spit in his face, doing him reverence: like the Jews that cried all hail to our Savior, when they buffeted him: His Encounter should have had some coulerable matter at the least: for what can argue more weakness in him, then to mention letters that no man ever saw? Or what strength hath it to weaken the testimony of a King concerning his own mother? For to whom should she have opened her mind more familiarly then to her son? Or what words are more serious, or more vndissemblingly spoken, then such as are the last that dying persons do utter? For then doth the hand of necessity pull off the mask from the deepest dissemblers: then is it no time to hide themselves from men, when they must m • ke their appearance before God. But especially she then speaking to her only son, with whom to have dissembled, had been a most injurious dissimulation, and an unnatural skill: which if it be blameable in a mother in any part of her life, how much more at the time of her death?

His Majesty of England being thus cleared from the crime of Apostasy, he doth likewise acquit himself from the imputation of heresy, which is the ordinary wrong they do him. The word Heresy signifies a Sect, by which name the Christian Religion was in ancient time traduced: for so the Jews speak to the Apostle S. Paul in the last of the Acts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; For as concerning this Sect, or heresy, We know that it is everywhere spoken against. And his Majesty of England may very rightly say with the same Apostle, cap. 24. verse. 4. This I confess, that after the way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which they call Heresy; I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the Prophets. After which phrase of speech Tertullian and Cyprian do call the Christian religion a Sect, or heresy. In this sense therefore are we heretics and Sectaries; since that now-a-days to acknowledge no other Mediator then Jesus Christ, nor any expiation but by his blood, or any propitiatory sacrifice, but his death, nor any satisfaction of God's justice but by his obedience, nor any rule to guide us to salvation, but his Word contained in the holy Scriptures, is accounted heresy.

But more clearly to purge himself of this crime, his Majesty of England, following the commaundent of the Apostle S. Peter, which is, to be always ready to yield an account of the hope that is in us, doth set down at large a confession of his faith agreeable to the holy Scripture, and all uncorrupted antiquity. Who shall henceforward be ashamed to confess the name of God, or defend the truth of the Gospel, being thus ensampled by a mighty King? but this confession conceived in choice, and significant words, full of evidence and of power, doth worthily challenge a several Discourse. And besides it is that against which Coeffeteau doth principally discharge his choller.

ARTICLE I. Touching the Creed.

I Am such a Catholic Christian, as believeth the three Creedes, That of the Apostles, that of the Council of Nice and that of Athanasius, the two latter being Paraphrases to the former: And I believe them in that sense, as the Auncient Fathers and Councils that made them did understand them. To which three Creedes all the Ministers of England do subscribe at their Ordination. And I also acknowledge for Orthodox all those other forms of Creedes, that either were devised by Councils or particular. Fathers, against such Heresies as most reigned in their times.

To this Article Coeffeteau findeth nothing to reply, and holding his peace thereupon, he justifieth us by his silence.

ARTICLE II. Touching the Fathers in general.

A S for the Fathers, I reverence them as much and more then the Jesuits do, and as much as themselves ever craved. For what ever the Fathers for the first five hundred years did with an vna • ime consent agree upon, to be believed as a necessary point of salvation, I either will believe it also, or at least will be humbly silent, not taking upon me to condemn the same.

Here again Coeffeteau is silent, and knoweth not what to reprehend. The Reader may please to call to mind that the points in which his Majesty of England doth abstain to condemn the Fathers, albeit his belief is not bound to follow them, are either points not necessary to salvation, or opinions in which as well our Church as the Church of Rome doth condemn them. The Auncients for the most part held that the fall of the Devils came to pass by reason of their cohabitation with women. This is altogether false and a point little important to our salvation: They held also for the most part, that the souls shall all be purged by the fire of the last judgment, in the expectation of which day, the souls as well of the good as of the bad, are shut up in certain receptacles. And in this point they are neither followed by us nor by our Adversaries.

ARTICLE III. Touching the Authority of the Fathers in particular.

B Vt for every private Fathers opinion, it binds not my conscience more then Bellarmine's; every on of the Fathers usually contradicting others, I will therefore in that case follow S. Augustine's rule in judging of their opinions, as I find them agree with the Scriptures: what I find agreeable thereunto I will gladly embrace: what is otherwise I will (with their reverence) reject.

Doctor Coeffeteau doth yet approve of all this for good, seeing he saith nothing to the contrary. He acknowledgeth then that the Fathers often disagree among themselves, and that they do not always accord with the word of God, neither must we settle our selves always upon what someone Father hath taught. And indeed his Majesty of England saith this with just reason: for not we alone, but also the Church of Rome doth not allow the opinion of Pope Clement the first, who would that men's goods and their wives should be common among Christians. Neither doth the Church of Rome approve the opinion of Ignatius who in the Epistle to the Philippians, saith, that to fast on the Saturday or on the Sunday, it is to be a murderer of Jesus Christ: nor the doctrine of Justin Martyr, who saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon, That God in the beginning gave the Sun to be adored. Nor the opinion of Athanagoras in his Apology, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That second marriage is but a handsome Kind exercise of Adultery. Also the Church of Rome doth not believe with Origen, that the Devils shall be saved: Nor with Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth book of his Stromata, that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy. Nor with Arnobius in his second book, that God is not the Creator of souls: And that the souls of the wicked are reduced to nothing. Nor with Irenaeus, that the souls separated from the body have feet and hands. Justin was a Chiliast; Tertullian a Montanist; S. Cyprian an Anabaptist. Saint Hilary in his tenth book of the Trinity, mayntaineth in diverse places, that Jesus Christ in his death suffered no pain. And that he did not eat because his body had need of sustenance, but only by custom. Chrysostom alleged in the Canon, Hac Ration, in the Cause 31. Question 1. he saith that S. Paul commanding second marriages, hath spoken against truth and reason, and that is truly fornication. Saint Austin in his fifth book of his Hypognosticks, and in his Epistles 93. and 106. held that the Eucharist is necessary for young children newly borne, that they may be saved. And in his book De Dogmatis. Eccles. cap. 11. He saith, that the Angels are Corporeal and in his book of the Christian combat, cap. 32. he saith that our bodies after the Resurrection shall be no longer flesh nor blood, but an heavenly body. Gregory of Nyssa, in his first Sermon of the resurrection, teacheth a prodigious error; namely, that the soul of Jesus Christ was already in the grave, even then whiles he celebrated the Eucharist, and that his body was already dead. Lactantius in his fourth book and fourteenth Chapter doth formally deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ: and in his seventh book and one and twenty chapter, he saith that the souls of men, as well good as bad, In vna communi{que} custodia detinentur, are detained in one common prison. Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon of Baptism, willeth, that unless it be in case of urgent necessity, the Baptism of young children be deferred until such time as they may be capable to answer, and to yield account of their faith. Himself in his Epitaph upon Basel, doth prefer him before Enoch, and compareth him to Abraham. Saint Jerome in his first book against Jovinian, often calleth marriage an unchaste state of life, and an ignominy, and that the fruit of it is death; and that a woman that doth marry the second time, ought not to participate of the Alms, no nor of the body of the Lord. The Church of Rome doth no longer believe the Purgatory of Gregory the first, which he placeth sometimes in Bathes, sometimes in the wind, sometime in the water. Nor the opinion of Honorius Bishop of Rome, who was a Monothelite: the Epistles whereof are inserted in the fifth and sixth general Councils. For all these good servants of God were subject to mistaking, and had their faults and vices like warts in a fair face; to the end that in reading them a man should have always in his hand the Compass of the holy Scripture, and the rule of the word of God. And that a man should believe that which they have well said, not because they have said it, but because it is found in the word of God: if they err in anything, Antiquity cannot authorize an error. There can be no prescription against the truth. And a time there was when these Fathers were no Fathers; and before they wrote, the Christians were ruled by the word of God.

As touching that which the King of great Britain saith, that they do contradict one another: the verification of it is easy. For every man knoweth the contentions between Chrysostom and Epiphanius; the Disputes between Cyril and Theodoret; the sharp Epistles, and full of gall of Saint Jerome to Saint Austin. And S. Austin speaketh far otherwise of Free-will, of Predestination, and of the gift of Perseverance, then all the Greek Fathers of his age. He that will have a clear mirror of this their discord, let him compare the Commentaries of S. Austin upon the Psalms, with those of Saint Jerome, and he shall scarcely find them to agree in two verses together.

It is then with very just reason that Coeffeteau doth grant this to the King of great Britain, and doth acknowledge the faults and contradictions of the ancients, whom notwithstanding we ought to love and honor as great lights in their times, and worthy servants of God, who having combatted Heresies in their life time, do yet beat down Popery after their deaths.

For we maintain, against whosoever he be, that in the four first ages (and yet we might descend much lower) there shall not be found out any one man who hath had a Religion not so much as approaching to that of the Romish Church now-a-days. And in this challenge I will lay down my Ministers cloak, ready to be frocked and clad in a Monks-cowl, if I shall find a man that will satisfy me in this point.

And to the end to express myself more clearly, I say, that between us and our adversaries, there be two kinds of Controuersies: for some there be upon which they are wont to produce some passages for proofs. But either they be quotations altogether false, or maimed and curtalled, or of no use to prove the point in question, or else places taken contrary to the authors meaning. Yet being a thing ordinary with these Messieus to put the ancient Fathers upon the rack to make them speak in favor of an untruth. Such is the question of transubstantiation, of praying for the dead, or Purgatory, and of the Sacrifice of the Mass. But there are other Controuersies no less important, and more in number: In which they are clean destitute of all authority of the ancient Church; and upon which being interrogated, they answer besides the matter. For changing the question, they endeavor to prove that which is not demanded of them. See here some examples:

• 1. They cannot show that any ancient Church did celebrate the eucharist without communicants as it is done ordinarily in the Church of Rome, yea and sometimes also without any assistants.
• 2. They cannot show that any ancient Church hath excluded that people from the communion of the cup or chalice.
• 3. Or that in any ancient Church, the public service was done in a language not understood of the people.
• 4 Or that any ancient Church hath hindered the people from reading the holy Scripture. As it is no way permitted in those Countries where the Pope is absolutely obeyed, without special privilege.
• 5. Or that in any ancient Church they have made Images of God, and representations of the Trinity in stone or in picture.
• 6. Also they cannot prove unto us that in any ancient Church the people hath been instructed to pray without understanding that which they say, speaking in a tongue not understood of himself that prayeth.
• 7. Or that any ancient Church did yield worship or religious service to the Images of creatures, kissing them, decking them with robes, kneeling before them, and presenting them gifts and offerings, &c.
• 8. Or that the ancient Church hath believed, that the Virgin Mary is crowned Queen of the heavens, and Lady of the world, as this is painted throughout all their Churches.
• 9. Or that the ancient Church hath given to the Saints diverse charges, as to one the command ever such a country; to another the cure over such a malady, to a third to be Patron over such a trade and mystery.
• 10. Or that the ancient Church hath believed that the Pope can give and take away Kingdoms. And dispense with subjects for the oath of their allegiance. Can canonize Saints, and dispense with Vowes and promises solemnly made to God, &c.
• 11. Or that in the ancient Church the Pope by his pardons did distribute supererogatory satisfactions of the Saints, for the remission of pain and punishment of other men's sins.
• 12. Or that the Pope did then place his pardons in one Church and not in another; In one Town and not in another, and that sometimes for an hundred, and two hundred thousand years of pardon.
• 13. Or that the ancient Church hath believed the Limbe of little children.
• 14. Or that the ancient Church hath adored the host, which the Priest holdeth up, with the worship of Latria, which is done to God alone. And to this end the Priest hath caused the Eleuation of the Host to be used at the Mass.
• 15. Or that the ancient Church hath held the books of Maccabees for Canonical.
• 16. Or that the ancient Church hath believed that the Bishop of Rome cannot err in faith.
• 17. Or that the ancient Church hath believed, that Jesus Christ by his death and sufferings did clearly discharge us of the pain and punishment of the sins that went before baptism. But as touching the pain of the sins committed after baptism, he hath only changed it from eternal to temporal, and that it lieth in us to satisfy the justice of God for the same, which is indeed the most important point of all Christian religion.

For he that would descend to smaller things and demand of Coeffeteau, if in any of the ancients there be mention made of Jubilees, of Agnus Dei, or holy Graines, consecrated Medals, of Cordelier-Friars, or Iacobins, or Jesuits, and an infinite sort of religions and new devotions I believe he would find himself terribly puzzled. In all this as in those other seauenteene points before handled, they receive not the Fathers for Judges. Those ancient Doctors were not yet arrived to any so high point of learning: But these messieurs our masters supply and support their ignorance in these matters. In other controversies they admit and receive the Fathers for Judges, but with this caution and condition that themselves may be Judges of the Fathers. They allow the ancients to be interpreters of the Scriptures; But themselves will be the interpreters of the ancients, to the end to make them speak things contrary to the Scriptures.

ARTICLE IIII. Touching the authority of the holy Scriptures.

I Think also that no man doubteth but that I settle my faith and belief upon the holy Scriptures, according to the duty of a Christian.

Hereat Coeffeteau holdeth his peace, and by his silence approveth the confession of the King of England. For he doth not allow of the blasphemies which his companions disgorge against the sacred books of the word of God. He hath not dared to say with Bellarmine, that the Scripture is but a piece of a Rule, and not the whole entire Rule of faith. And that it was not properly made to be the Rule of our faith. It may be also that he doth not approve of Bellarmine's saying, who in his fourth Chapter of the fourth Book of the word not written saith, that a man cannot know by the testimony of the Scripture, that there be any books of divine inspiration (albeit the Scripture doth say it) and his reason is, Because we read as well in the Alcoran of Mahomet, that the Alcoran was sent from heaven. It may be also that Coeffeteau hath not dared in this place to use the terms of Doctor Charron in his book called La troisiesme verite, where he saith that the Scripture is a Forest to forage in, where Atheists lie in ambushments, and that by reading it a man becometh an Atheist. Thou believest, saith he, because thou readest so, thou art not then a Christian.

It is clear then that his Majesty of England doth yield a thousand times more respect to the holy Scriptures then the Church of Rome, or the Council of Trent, which ordaineth in the fourth Session, that Traditions be received with like affection of piety and reverence, with the holy Scripture, equalling men's Traditions with God's divine ordinances. For the Pope hath letters of credit. And we must presuppose that besides the new-Testament Jesus Christ hath made a Codicill or little book which the Pope hath in his private custody, whence he draweth the ordinances that are not contained in the Scripture.

Yet this is but little. For Bellarmine goeth farther and saith that, Sunt quaedam Traditiones maiores quod ad obligationem, quàm quaedam Scripturae. That there are some traditions greater in respect of obligation, then some partes of Scripture. That is to say, to which we are more bound to adhere. Having good hope that in the end we shall see God to become Disciple to the Bishop of Rome.

ART. V. Touching the Canonical and Apocryphal books of Scripture.

BVt even for the Apocrypha; I hold them in the same account that the Auncients did. They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches. I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the Canon, we account them to be secundae lectionis, or ordinis ( which is Bellarmine's own distinction ) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonical Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffinus (who is no Novelist, I hope) that the Apocryphal books were by the Fathers permitted to be read; not for confirmation of Doctrine, but only for instruction of the people.

Here Coeffeteau begins to put himself into the field, we expected him long ago. He bringeth only two testimonies of the ancients, and they are both false, howbeit not through his fault, for the falsification was made by others before him; The first testimony is of S. Agustine in his second book of Christian Doctrine cap. 8. where he maketh an enumeration of the Canonical books almost agreeably to the Council of Trent. To this testimony he adjoineth the third Council of Carthage, which also putteth Judith, Toby, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees, among the Canonical books. He saith that it is not just nor fit to allege the opinions of particulars, where question is of the public faith testified & avouched by this Council.

In saying so little as this he spendeth three leaves, [Answer.] and yet he contradicteth himself, and condemneth himself of injustice by alleging S. Austin who is but one particular. If he say, that S. Austin doth but report that which was the common belief? I answer that those particular witnesses whom he rejecteth do report the same also. Again, it is false that S. Agustine doth relate the common belief, for a little before he had said, that there are some books among the Canonical, which were not received for such, of all the Churches. Moreover, Coeffeteau hereby contradicteth the Church of Rome, who doth not hold the Councils of Carthage for general Councils, nor their Canons for the public belief of the universal Church.

• 1. To clear this matter then, the Reader shall observe first, that these books, to wit, Toby, Judith, the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, they are not found in the Hebrew tongue, and consequently they are not in the original of the Old Testament, wherein there are but two and twenty books.
• 2. Secondly, we ought also to know that the Church of the Old Testament never acknowledged these books, nor received into the Church, as witnesseth Josephus in his first book against Appion.
• 3. Thirdly, it is also very considerable that Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles, who alleged upon every purpose Texts and passages out of the Old Testament, never named any of those books, nor never drew quotation out of any of them.
• 4. Fourthly, the chief and principal is, that in these books there be many faults, as well in the Doctrine as in the Story, whereof we have elsewhere produced many proofs. But let us hear the testimony of the ancients.

S. Jerome in his preface upon the books of Solomon, speaketh of Ecclesiasticus and of the wisdom of Solomon; As then the Church doth read indeed, the books of Judith, of Toby, and the Maccabees, but doth not receive them among the Canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to confirm the faith of the Church. He saith the same in his Prologus Galcatus, and mark by the way, that he saith that it is the belief of the Church.

Amongst the works of S. Cyprian, there is a Treatise (which seemeth rather to be the work of Ruffinus ) touching the exposition of the Creed. There he reckoneth up the books of the old and the New Testament. Then he addeth: * These are then the books which the Fathers have included in the Cannon or Rule, and from which are drawn the proofs of our faith. Notwithstanding we must know that there are other books which the ancients have not called Canonical, but Ecclesiastical books, as is the wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Toby, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees▪ Then he addeth. All which they would should be read in the Church, but that they should not be produced to confirm the authority of the faith.

S. Athanasius in his book entitled Synopsis, nameth all the books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Bible. Then he addeth: Besides these, there are yet other books of the Old Testament not Canonical, which are not read but to the Catechumen or Novices, newly taught and catechized, such are the wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, &c.

Melito Bishop of Sardi, as witnesseth Eusebius in his fourth book of his Hystorie and the five and twentieth Chapter; Origen in Eusebius sixth book and four and twentieth chapter: S. Hilary in his Preface upon the Psalter: S. Gregory Nazianzen in his verses of the holy Scripture: Eusebius, lib. 3. of his story, cap. 10. Epiphanius in his book of measures: Damascene himself, though long after, in his fourth book of the Orthodox faith, cap. 18. And diverse other Fathers make an enumeration of the books of the old Testament: and yet do they not put in neither Judith nor Tobite, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor the book of Wisdom▪ nor the Maccabees; But rather all with one consent and accord say, that there are but two and twenty books in the old Testament, as many as there be letters in the Hebrew Alphabet.

And yet further to convince Coeffeteau, let us hear the very judgment of him whom they most honor of all the Popes: And this is Gregory the first, in his twenty six book of morals upon Job, cap. 29. where being desirous to allege the book of Maccabees in the fact of Eleazar, he excuseth himself in these words: Of which thing we speak not out of reason, if we produce the testimonies of books not Canonical, but written for the edification of the Church. This ought to suffice to represent what was the heleefe of particular men, who being assembled together are equivalent to a generality. Howbeit for the more store and the better supply, let us hear the Councils.

The Council of Laodicea, which was almost about the same time, with the first Nicene Council, setteth over the last Canon, this inscription 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is to say, How many books there be of the old Testament that men ought to read. Then it reckoneth up the number of them as far as two and twenty, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Hester, the Kings or Samuel, two books; of Kings two books; Paralipomena or the Chronicles, Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah Baruch, or the Lamentations and Epistles, Ezekiel, Daniel. But of Toby or Judith, or the Maccabees, &c. there is no news. Above all it is a thing to be be noted, that this Council of Laodicea is confirmed by the sixth general Council: at the end of which Council, the Fathers assembled together in the Palace, made one hundred and three Canons, in the second of which it is said, We do confirm and ratify the sacred Canons, made by our holy Fathers at Laodicea of Phrygia. And this was now in the year of Jesus Christ, 684.

I add the fourth Council of Carthage, which in the Tomes of the Latin Councils, which are horribly mangled and falsified, hath been very ill handled. For we have not these Councils in Latin, but by the means of the Church of Rome, who hath delivered them unto us, such as she would her self. But she hath not had that power over the Greek Copies, where there is no speech at all of the Maccabees. Read the Greek Canons of the Councils, printed at Paris in the year 1540. with a Praeface of John du Tillet, and the Canons of Balsamon, and you shall find that which I say to be true But Coeffeteau being content to write, as Hunters break their Fast, that is, tumultuarily and in hast, hath not had this curiosity.

It remaineth to examine the place of S. Austin, of which everyone that hath a quick smell, will acknowledge the corruption and falsification: First of all, because it is not credible that this holy Personage would oppose himself single to the whole Church of his time, and to all the Doctors that went before him, and namely to the Council of Carthage, whereat himself had been a present assistant. Secondly, because it is not credible that S. Austin would contradict himself: for in the six and thirty Chapter of the eighteenth book of the City of God, he speaketh thus: The supputation of these times (since the building up of the Temple) is not found in the holy Scriptures, which are called Canonical, but in other books, among which are the Maccabees. Is it possible to say in more plain and express terms, that the Maccabees are not holy Scriptures nor Canonical books? But here we admire a pretty pleasant folly and stupidity of a tail handsomely fastened and sowed on by some Monk: for after all this, they make S. Austin to add, Which books not the Jews, but the Church boldeth for Canonical O gross Imposture! After that he had simply set down that the Maccabees are not holy nor Canonical Scriptures, would he say that the Church receiveth them for Canonical? By the same fraud, this other place of S. Austin which Coeffeteau allegeth, hath been falsified. Let us add hereunto that S. Austin, cap. 23. of his second book against Gaudentius, answereth thus unto Gaudentius, who served himself with the example of Razis, who killed himself, whereof mention is made in the second book of the Maccabees. The Jews do not hold this book in the same rank with the law, the Prophets, and the Psalms to which Jesus Christ beareth witness, is they that bear record of him. But this book is received by the Church, not unprofitably, if men read it soberly: principally because of the sufferings of certain Martyrs. Who feeth not that he doth weaken the authority of these books, in that Jesus Christ doth give no testimony unto them? And if these books have not been reckoned for holy Scripture, amongst the faithful of the old Testament, I marvel when they became holy Scripture?

It is also a point very considerable, that in this place of S. Austin produced by Coeffeteau, Ecclesiasticus is put among the Canonical books; in which book it is said, cap. 46. Samuel prophesied after his death, and declared unto King Saul his death, lifting up his voice out of earth. An opinion which S. Austin doth condemn in his book of Questions on the Old Testament, in the 27 Question, saying, that it is a great indignity to believe it, and maintaineth that it was an illusion of Satan, who to deceive many, feigneth to have good men in his power. And in his book of the care that men ought to have of the dead: after having spoken doubtfully, he saith, that men control the book of Ecclesiasticus, because it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews. And in his book of the eight Questions to Dulichius, Quaest. 6. he canuasseth this Question by way of Problem, leaning notwithstanding to the opinion, that it was a mere fantasme or vain apparition. See hereupon the Canon Nec mirum in the Cause 26. Quest 6. where also S Austin is alleged; maintaining that this was done by enchantment: Whence I conclude, that S. Austin should contradict himself, if after having refuted the opinion of Ecclesiasticus, he should afterwards put him in the role of the Canonical books.

These falsehoods having not been acknowledged by Cardinal Cajetan drove him to find out another evasion. Be not astonished or troubled, O thou who art but a Nouice in Divinity, if sometimes thou find either in the Councils or in the Doctors, these books to be counted among the Canonical. For they are not Canonical to prove the points of faith; Notwithstanding they may be called Canonical for the edification of the faithful.

ARTICLE VI. Touching the memory of Saints and of their Feasts and holy days.

A S for the Saints departed; I honor their memory, and in honor of them do we in our Church observe the days of so many of them, as the Scripture doth Canonize for Saints; but I am loath to believe all the tales of the Legended Saints.

These passages which he allegeth are in part false, partly they are of no use to prove the Question. Let us begin with the falsehood.

First in alleging out of Eusebius the example of the Church of Smyrna, who buried the bones of Polycarp with honor, and celebrated his memory Anniuersarily every year, there is no mention made of his Feast or Holy-day, but only of a day dedicated to the commemoration of his Martyrdom; which thing was done without any precise necessity of making it holy-day.

Secondly, he doth maliciously dissemble the excellent words which go before, where the Church of Smyrnaspeaketh in this manner: They are ignorant that we never leave Christ, who died for the salvation of them of the world, who are to be saved, and that we can yield service to none other but to him: For him we adore as the son of God, but we love the Martyrs as his Disciples and imitators. Words which show to what end, and in what manner the Smyrnians honored the memory of Polycarp.

So is it also false that S. Basel recommendeth the Feasts of S. Iulitta and the forty Martyrs, for in those two Homilies there is no speech at all of Feasts.

But the falfest piece that he produceth is the Oration of Gregory Nyssene in praise of the Martyr Theodore, which was ridiculously framed by some Greek Monk, in the time that the Scythians, otherwise called the Huns and Tartars over-ran Galatia, Cappadocia, and Armenia; which In Rhodes began in the year 520 as both Cedrenus and Zonaras teach. For about the ende of this Oration the Author entreateth this Martyr to defend his Country against he incursions of the Scythians: of which there was never word spoken in the time of Gregory Nyssene: for they fell out about one hundred and twenty years after. The whole story also of this Martyr is euedently fabulous. The Author saith that he was of Job's Country, and consequently an Arabian, whereas Theodorus is a Greek name. Within a little while after, contradicting himself, he saith that he suffered at Amasia, a City of Cappadocia, and that the place of his death was also his Country. He saith that he was a Soldier in the Roman bands: But at that time (to wit, under Dioclesian and Maximinian ) the Romans did not entertain the Arabians in service. Moreover the Story of his Martyrdom is plainly fabulous. Being interrogated and examined by his Paynim Judges, with all gentleness and mildenes, he answered at the first day with injurious speeches, comparing the Godddesse whom they served to an hare, or to a sow. All this notwithstanding the Judges sent him away, and gave him time to bethink himself advisedly; he instead of retracting anything, set fire on the great Temple of the mother of the God's: and being called for, again by the Judges, confessed the fact: thereupon the Judges flatter him even so far, as to promise to this simple soldier (which was a ridiculous thing) to make him Bishoppe. But this Theodore burst out a laughing for a long time together, mocking for that the Emperors took upon them the title and purple of Bishops. The Angels singe melodiously with him in prison, and lighten all the Town over with Torches. But he that knoweth how under Dioclesian they burnt whole Christian Towns without any form of process; and that this monster made a butchery, a slaughter and channel-house of the whole Empire, will acknowledge the falsehood of this Story, which hath been forged by some worshipper of Images and Relics about the time of the second Council of Nice.

I put not in among his falsifications, that Coeffeteau hath put in the margent the eighteenth Oration of Nazianzen for the fifteenth: he that borroweth his Allegations, and writeth upon trust, is easily deceived.

Now to his falsehoods let us add the unprofitableness of his impertinent quotations, which surely do not touch the Question: For if the Church of Smyrna did celebrate the feast of Polycarp, or the Church of Caesaria that of S. Iulitta: what is that to England, who did no more then, then nowadayes it doth celebrate those Feasts, no more then do the Churches of Spain or of France? And why should England be more bound thereunto now at this day?

Secondly, to what purpose is it, to speak of the Feasts of the ancient Christians, and of the solemnity of the Martyrs; to establish the Feasts of the Church of Rome, which are clean different, and have no community with them. See here the differences.

• 1 This commemoration of the Martyrs in the ancient Church, was done in the Church-yards and upon the Tombes: Upon which the Christians did often celebrate the Eucharist, and then fell to banquet upon the same Tombes, where oftentimes the Christians committed many abuses and excesses, even so far as to drink drunk, and to bury their reason upon those Sepulchers, as witnesseth the Author of the book of Double Martyrdom, attributed to S. Cyprian; and S. Austin in his first book of the manners of the Catholic Church, cap. 34. And against Faustus Manicheus, in his twentieth book, chap. 1. where namely he saith, that he was constrained to tolerate this custom. The Church of Rome hath left this abuse of the ancient Feasts.
• 2 The commemoration of the Martyrs was done in times past, in every Church according to the ordinance and appointment of the Bishops and Pastors of the place, without attending the commandment or advise of the Bishop of Rome thereupon, who at that time did not Canonize Saints. For now-adays to be held a Saint, a man must have the Pope to be favorable unto him, and his cause must be pleaded in the Consitory: If it be judged that he ought to be acknowledged for a Saint, then his Holiness doth ordain a Feast or Holy-day to this new Saint.
• 3 Then this solemnity carried with it an Anniuersary commemoration, but did not bring with it any necessity of keeping Holy-day; whereas now-adays there be many Saints Feasts which they keep Holy-day with more scruple, and are celebrated with more solemnity, then the Sunday it self.
• 4 Again, then these days of commemoration of Martyrs were few in number, instead that now there is scarcely any day in the Calender which doth not carry the name of some Saint. And there is such a number of Feasts to be kept holy, that many poor people cry out, they are famished. They make them devout whether they will or no, for they be kept and hindered by this superstition from working to get bread for their children, having their hands bound with a scrupulous slothfulness, and a forced idleness.
• 5 Then also men were ignorant of so many new-made holy-days, as the feast of the conception of the Virgin Mary, which S. Bernard saith to have been instituted against reason, and the ancient Tradition: the Feast of the Assumption: the Feast of S Peters Chair: the God's feast, otherwise called Corpus Christi day; to give him contentment. For seeing that every Saint had his Feast, it was just and reasonable that God should have his also.
• 6 Then they sung no Masses in honor of the Saint, whose Feast they celebrated. And these Masses carry now a days the name of the Saint. There is the Mass of S. Geneuiefue: the Mass of S. Roth: the Mass of S. Anthony, &c. Amongst which Masses, we see in the same rank, the Mass of the Holy Ghost, to testify that the rest are not of that stamp.
• 7 Then they did not diuersifie the furniture and preparation for their Masses, in singing great or lesser Masses according, to the greatness of the Feast. Men were ignorant also of the distinction of high and low Masses; Drie Masses, and running Masses. Masses in white or in green. There is nothing so pie-bald and new-fangled. The Apostles understood nothing in a manner in all this.
• 8 Also in those times, men knew not what it was to ground Feasts upon an Allusion of Sillables. As nowadays the Feast of the Mat-makers which they call Nattices, is the day of the Nativity of our Lady: the Feast of Fel-mongers is, Magdalene tide, La Magdalaine, because they make L'amas de Laine an heap of wool: the Feast of Cook-rosters is the Assumption of our Lady, because assum is Latin for roasted: The Feast of the Tylers or Slatters is Ascension day, because they ascend and climb the tops of houses. So in the Physic Alga aduersus querquerum, as Apuleius speaketh; You must give Seaweede or Sea-ore to one that is in a shiuering cold fit of the Ague: Or to give to a man that is hard bound a bunch of Keys because there is nothing more opening. Oh what a good time have my Masters the Prelates had, and how have they dallied with Religion at their idle hours?
• 9 But I would willingly know, how it cometh to pass, that those ancient Patriarchs; such excellent personages, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel; to whom there will not any be found comparable, of all that have lived within these fifteen hundred years; how they notwithstanding all this, have no Feasts in the Church of Rome: that no man prayeth in particular to Moses, nor Samuel, &c. that no Temple beareth their name: that it would indeed seem a thing ridiculous to say S. Moses, or S. Daniel, or S. Jehoshaphat, seeing that for a man but to bear the name of Isaac, or Daniel, or Abraham, is enough to make a man to be suspected, as a mark of Heresy.

If a man demand whence cometh this great multitude of Feasts? I say that avarice hath hatched them, and that ambition hath bred them up: for the more Festival holy-days that there be, the more often men go to the offering, and the pardons are more frequent: when artisans and tradsemen shut up their shoppes, then the Priests open theirs. The Prelates also are herein much honored, for it is a great honor to these great Masters, that at their commandment the traffic ceaseth, the shops are shut up: the Sessions of the Justices and of the Priuy Council are by them broken up. And therefore when they are among themselves, they gaude and mock at the simplicity of the people. For indeed they live upon their blindness.

Let them then set up the ancient simplicity again; let them restore to the Churches the liberty of governing themselves herein according to the exigence of the time and place, and we will not condemn their Feasts. For indeed we do not condemn this celebration of the memory of Martyrs and of Saints. We like well the custom of the English Churches, who have certain days affected and applied to the commemoration of the Apostles: for they are done without imposing necessity of keeping strict Holy-days, and without opinion of merit, without commandment of the Pope, and without condemning the French Churches, who hitherto have feared to assign any Feasts to any man, because that living in a Country where superstitions do swarm, their people would easily be drawn into abuse, and attainted with that running and over-spreading contagion which is to attribute that to the creature, which belongeth to the Creator: Mean while we let not to celebrate in our Churches the memory of the Saints and Martyrs, but without any set day. And we hold this rule for inuariable, that God having said in his law, in express terms: Six days shalt thou labor, he opposeth himself against God, who saith, Thou shalt not work six days, but thou shalt keep holy those Feasts on the week days which I command thee. Now if in the Old Testament there be found any solemnities or Feasts, besides the Sabbath day, they are very few in number, and ordained by God himself, who as he can give the rules, so also can he give the exceptions: Or if there be any feast found, that was instituted by men: you shall never be able to prove, that it was held unlawful to travel upon that day.

There should yet remain to speak somewhat of Legends; but I see that Coeffeteau is ashamed of them, and would cast the blame upon some particulars. Legends nevertheless, which have been for a long time, & yet are both in Italy and Spain the subject of Sermons; yea very France is not exempt. And those very miracles of which Coeffeteau is ashamed, are those which we see painted on the walls, and in the hangings of the Church: As at Paris in the Cloister of S. Geruase, an Ass worshippeth and adoreth the Hoste: near thereto adjoining, the Bees build a Chapel of wax, for an Hoste which they found in the fields. In the Temple of S. Paul, behind the Choir, on the left hand, after the miracles of S. Roche painted, promise is made unto the people, that they shall be healed of the swelling of the plague, by adoring his precious body: at S. Benedict or S. Benets Cloister we see the said Saint tumbling himself stark naked amongst thorns, and stopping the dogs with the sign of the Cross. In the forefront of the Church, called Des Billettes, an Hoste being pricked and stabbed by a Jew, bleedeth with great drops, and being cast into a seething Caldron, became a man in his visible greatness, that is to say, Jesus Christ boiling in a Caldron. An infinite company of such things are so public, that Coeffeteau cannot condemn them, without opposing himself to the whole Church of Rome; Fictions that were built up by the favor of the night, whiles they put the holy Scripture, the only light of our souls under a bushel. And indeed very lately there have been composed two great Tomes of the Chronicles of S. Francis, which challenge all the Legends, and give place to none of them for lies. Insomuch that S. Dominic, Coeffeteaus Patron, will henceforward be nothing in comparison of S. Francis.

ARTICLE VII. Touching the Virgin Mary.

A ND first for the blessed Virgin Mary, I yield her that which the Angel Gabriel pronounced of her, and that which in her Canticle she prophesied of her self: that is, That she is blessed amongst women, and, That all generations shall call her blessed. I reverence her as the Mother of Christ, whom of our Savior took his flesh, and so the mother of God, since the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confess, that she is in glory, both above Angels and men, her own Son (that is both God and man) only excepted. But I dare not mock her, and blaspheme against God, calling her not only Diua but Dea, and praying her to command and control her Son, who is her God and her Savior. Nor yet can J think, that she hath no other thing to do in heaven, then to hear every idle man's suite, and bufie her self in their errands; whiles requesting, whiles commanding her son, whiles coming down to kiss and make love with Priests, and whiles disputing and brawling with Devils. In heaven she is in eternal glory and joy, never to be interrupted with any worldly business: and there I leave her with her blessed Son, our Savior and hers in eternal felicity.

Here Coeffeteau playeth the sugitiue, and that little which he murmureth in flying, are partly falsehoods, partly disguisings of the belief of his Church. He granteth to the King that she ought not to be called Goddess, and rejecteth with him, a thousand ridiculous things, and the false honors which superstition hath invented. Now I cannot divine, what Religion it is that giveth to the holy Virgin ridiculous or excessive honors, save only the Roman Religion. It is only the Roman religion that calleth her Queen of heaven, the gate of Paradise, having rule and dominion over the world, they are the Titles which are given to her in the prayer that Sixtus the fourth, hath willed to be said before the Image of our Lady of Loretto, with grant of eleauen thousand years pardon: I myself have seen in the great Miss • lles of Paris before the late Popes new plastered them over, these Sapphicke verses barborously elegant.

It is also in the Church of Rome, that throughout all the Churches, the Virgin Mary is painted, lifted up and assumed into heaven in body, and solemnly crowned Queen of heaven, and of all the world, without being able to produce any witness of worth for the same. Seeing there is none that ever came back from heaven that had said that he had seen it to be so; And God saith nothing of it in his word, neither doth the Auncient Church speak of it.

It is the Church of Rome also which maketh the Virgin Mary much more inclined to procure our good, then Jesus Christ; even so far, as that she must appease the wrath and indignation of her son against us, as they sing upon the Feast of Alhallowes, or Al-Saints.

And so Pope Innocent the third speaketh in the Hymn of Christ and the Virgin, to which he addeth great indulgences.

This Church of Rome who in her hours, Rosaries, and Letaines calleth the Holy Virgin, Mother of mercy, Gate of Heaven, our Salvation, She that hath bruised the head of the Serpent, as also Genesis 3.15. this property of bruising the Serpents head, which is there given to the seed of the Woman, in the vulgar translation is attributed to the Woman by a wicked falsification.

In a word, for the top of all abuses, there are in the Church of Rome two Psalters of our Lady, one of which is called Saint Bonaventure Psalter, which is nothing else but the one hundred and fifty Psalms of David, in which they have taken away the name of God▪ and in it's room have put the name of Mary, which having been printed an infiuite number of times in Latin, hath since been translated into French and printed at Paris, with priuilede and approbation, of the Sorbonne. The other Psalter is digested into fifteen Demaunds, with like approbation of the Doctrines: In which the Virgin Mary is called, the first cause of our saluatiō, the finder out of grace, that turneth away the indignation of Jesus Christ by uncovering her paps unto him, The Rose by whose smell the dead are raised up, who by the fair Lilies of her face, made the King of Heaven in love with her, who at the last day shall moderate the sentence of the Judge, even so far have they proceeded, as to place her before Jesus Christ in these words. Glory be to you, O Virgin, and to Jesus Christ, &c. It would do well to report the whole book.

Moreover everyone knoweth how in Italy they speak with much more respect of La madoma, then of God; whom they call by a term full of mis-regard, Messer Domene Dio, Of whom also Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor saith in his exposition of the Canon of the Mass, That God hath divided his Kingdom at halfs, with the Virgin Mary, having reserved Justice to himself, and left mercy unto her.

Now these things are not drawn out of any obscure authors, but out of their own Missalles Letonies, and public prayers, out of the writings of their Popes, and Psalters publicly allowed; to the end that Coeffeteau may know, that in condemning these things, he warreth against the whole Church of Rome, and cometh no longer with a cold dissimulation to disguise his own private belief.

Which shall serve for an answer to that place of Cyril w ^ch he allegeth, where the virgin Mary is called the singular ornament of the world. A lamp that never goeth out, the Crown of Virginitie, &c. For in all this, there is not any one of these titles wicked (such as are those which we have before represented) no nor the title which Coeffeteau giveth her, calling her the Spouse of the Father, which is a title, which the Scripture giveth to the whole Church, & not to the Virgin Mary. It is not for us in things of so high nature out of jollity to forge new terms, w ^ch are to the weak occasion of error or of stumbling.

The passage which he allegeth out of Saint Cyprian is altogether disguised and clipped, and is nothing to the purpose. Saint Cyprian speaketh to the faithful who assailed with contagion, had seen their Fathers, their brethren, their children, die before them, and enter into Paradise before them, He saith then unto them, our Fathers, Mothers brethren, and Children wait for us in great number, and a great troupe doth desire us, being assured of their own, immortality, but in care of our Father. To what purpose is this to defend the seruiceand titles which they yield to the Virgin Mary. To what purpose is the general mention of the Saints deceased, seeing that he speaketh only of them who have known us in this life And though he should speak of all the Saints, what doth this make against us, who have never denied but that the Saints do desire our salvation, and pray for the Church in General although they do not know the necessities, nor the prayers of particular persons.

This falsehood of Coeeffeteaus is followed with another of the interpreter of Irenaeus, who speaketh thus. Even as Eve was seduced to turn away from God, so Mary was counseled to obey God, to the end that the Virgin Mary might become advocate for the Virgin Eve. The very reading doth make the place to be suspected, so little comeliness hath it and less sense. It was in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vt fieret consolatrix, that is to say, to the end that Mary might be the comforter of Eve. For God having condemned Eve, gave her this seed of the Woman, which is the Virgin Mary for a consolation. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in S. John ca. 14.26 signifieth a comforter, is also us ed by Saint John, 1. John. 2.1. to fignifie an advocate. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have an advocate with the Father. The same Ambiguitie deceived Tertullian Cap. 9. of his Book against Praxeas, where he thus rendereth the words of Jesus Christ, John. 14.16. I will pray unto the Father and he shall give you another advocate. The same fault is found in the book of Nouation of the Trinity cap. 28.29.

After these, come other two false pieces, namely the Liturgies of S. Basil and of Chrysostom, which all the learned acknowledge to be forged, yea so grossly, that even in the Liturgy attributed to S. Chrysostom, there is mention made of the Emperor Alexius, who was borne some seven hundred years after Chrysostom. Moreover there is prayer made for Nicholas Pope of Rome, which was never the custom of the ancient Greek Church.

Nay further, the fashood is double; for not only the parcels alleged are false in themselves, but also it is falsely said by Coeffeteau, that in the Li • urgie of Basil, the Virgin is invocated, It is one thing to pray unto her, another to make a commemoration of her.

We will close up these false passages with a true one, out of S. Epiphanius, in his 79. Heresy, which is the Heresy of the Collyridians. Surely the Virgin was a Virgin worthy to be honored, but yet she was not given us to be adored: for even she her self adored him who was borne of her according to the flesh, but came down from heaven out of the bosom of the Father. And therefore the Gospel doth arm us against this abuse, telling us, that the Lord himself said unto her, What have I to do with thee, woman; mine hour is not yet come: To the end that no man should presume more, then he óught upon the Virgin Mary, nor should attribute to her too much excellency, he calleth her woman; as it were prophesying of the things that should come to pass in the world, by reason of Schisms and Heresies, for fe • re least some out of too much admiration of her, should fall into the dotages of this Heresy. Now he speaketh of an Herefie which offered a cake to the Virgin Mary, but yet did not yield her the fourth part of the honor which the Church of Rome doth unto her. Most singular is that above the rest which he addeth: Let MARY be had in honor, but let the Father and the Son be adored: Let no man adore MARY; I say not a woman, but neither man himself. It is to God that this mystery is duc. The Angels themselves are not capable of such an honor. And it is worth the noting, that he girdeth at this Title of the Queen of Heaven; and I beseech the Reader to observe it: Let Jeremiah (saith he) repress those odd house-wives, that they trouble the world no more, and that they may no longer have this word in their mouths, We honor the Queen of heaven. And so S. Ambrose in his third book of the Holy Ghost And for fear (saith he) least some man would derive this same to the Virgin MARY, Mary was indeed the Temple of God, but she was not God: And therefore we must adore him alone, who wrought in this Temple.

Let Coeffeteau then cease to pay us in this false coin, and let him not show us like a cozening Lapidary his counterfeit Jewels in the dark: was he not afraid to lay open his false dealing in this Theatour? Or did he think that he had to do with a King that was blind and without reading?

The best is, that all this service of the Virgin, which they call nowadays Hyperdulia, and which maketh up a good part of the Roman Religion, hath no foundation in the word of God. Only our Adversaries bring in men speaking to this point; but they put their speeches before hand in their mouths, and make them say that which they never believed. How cometh it to pass that Saint John, who served the Virgin Mary as a son after the death of Jesus Christ, and the rest of the Apostles, who loved and honored her, had yet never recourse to her intercession: they might have said in themselves, we have in heaven a Lady Advocate one that is so near unto us, and, who now is Queen of heaven: and yet nevertheless if we believe this people, they were so ill advised as not to make profit thereof; they did not value nor make use unto themselves of this advantage, neither have they counseled us to address our selves unto her: but what boldenes is this in worms of the earth, to attribute unto a creature the Empire of heaven, and of the world, without being instructed what was the will of God therein? As if the brief flies or Hornets had taken upon them to establish some man in the Popedom. Let the word of God then be heard thereupon; which is the thing that we will do in the Article which followeth.

ARTICLE VIII. Touching prayers to Saints, and the service that is due unto them.

T S for prayer to Saints; Christ (I am sure) hath commanded us to Come all to him that are loaden with sin, and he will relieve us: and S. Paul hath forbidden us to worship Angels, or to use any such voluntary worship, that hath a show of humility in that it spareth not the flesh. But what warrant we have to have recourse unto these D • j Penates or Tutelares, these Courtiers of God, I know not, I remit that to these philosophical neotericke Divines. It satisfieth me to pray to God through Christ, as I am commanded, which I am sure must be the safest way, and I am sure the Safest way is the best way in points of salvation.

Hereupon Coeffeteau confounding the Kings whole discovery, he beginneth by a complaint that his Majesty calleth Tutelary and familiar God's those lesser Saints, to whom many of the people do vow themselves in particular, and of whom they set the Images upon their Cupboords or over their Chimneyes. But his Majesty doth not intend to call the Saints familiars nor Tutelarie God's: neither doth he say that in the Church of Rome they call them so, only he meaneth, that the Church of Rome hath substituted them in place of the Tutelarie and domestical gods, and that he doth entertain them after the same fashion. For the Paynims had their tutelarie gods over every town, and over every Country. Juno was Lady-gardian of Carthage: Venus of Cyprus and of Paphos: Palace of the Country of Attica: Mars and Quirinus of Rome, &c. so the Church of Rome hath Saints that are Patrons of Cities and Countries: Saint Mark of Venice: S. Geneuiefue of Paris: S. James of Spain: S. Dennis of France, &c. and as the Paynims did distribute charges amongst their gods; so in the Church of Rome every Saint hath his charge apart. The hunters did invocate Diana, nowadays they have recourse to S. Eustace, S. Nicholas, who now is called upon by the Pilots and Sea-faring men, hath taken the place of Castor and Pollux. The good Goddess Lucina who was assisting to women that traveled in child-birth, hath now given place to S. Margaret: for so her Legend saith that the Dragon having swallowed her down she made the sign of the Cross in his belly, wherewith he burst asunder, and she came forth through the breach, which was a kind of lying in. S. Christopher with his huge body, hath succeeded Hercules: for so they make him also to carry a clubbe. There wanted yet a Queen of heaven in the place of Juno, and this holy and glorious Virgin hath been dishonored with so profane a title: yea the very habits and furniture of the gods have been transported to the Saints. The Genij or Penates household gods had a dog by their side, and so hath S. Roche: The Image of James carried a Key, so doth that of S. Peter: Jupiter a man had horns on his head, such do they give to Moses. Isis carried a Timbrell, and S. Gennasius a Violin. Those circles which you see about the head of the Saints in picture, are those Arches and shadows wherewith they covered their gods to fence them from the dust. In like manner are the Officers distributed in Paradise in a goodly order, and with diversity of furniture and provision. For his Holines and the Church of Rome have taken order for it. We are ashamed to produce these things, whiles they are not ashamed to do them: and we blush at that of which they have no shame at all. If we would prolong this Discourse, we would easily show that a good part of these Patrons and Tutelary Saints, are Saints which never were, they live without having ever been borne, and are entered into the Church, without ever entering into the world, the painters are wonted to make characters & pictures in a manner speaking, as when they paint Justice with a pair of balances: Time like an old man winged: The Friar like a lame god, because the wood doth sustain him: so the ancients did figure the faith of a believing man by a woman swollowed up of Satan, but who did get forth again victoriously, and trample the Devil under her feet. And of this Image they have made their Saint Margaret: so the Christian was painted as passing over a violent land-flood, but having Jesus Christ with him, who did burden him indeed, but yet did conduct him. This Image hath produced a new Saint, whom they call S. Christopher. Of the launce which pierced the body of our Lord, they have made S. Longis because that Lonchi in the vulgar pronunciation of the Greek tongue signifieth a Launce. Men run with incredible zeal to S. James of Compostella in Spain, where they say that he preached, and that his bones remain there: and yet in the mean time it is well known that S. James was never in Spain: Pope Innocent in the twelfth distinction, in the Canon Quis nesciat doth stoutly and stiffly maintain, that there was never any Apostle in Spain; and that neither in France nor in Africa, nor in Spain any planted Church, save they whom S. Peter and his successors sent thither. The Story also of his life recyted by John Beleth and Jacobus de Voragine great personages, saith, that he came into Spain before he was put to death by Herod, Act. 12. It must needs be then that he came into Spain almost about the time that Jesus Christ suffered: for S. James suruiued Christ, but a while after his death: His body being put on Ship-board, went of it self without Pilot or any guidance into Spain. Queen Lupa reigning then in Spain: Now it is well known, that at that time there was neither King nor Queen in Spain; and that it was wholly subject to the Roman Empire. The same is to be said of S. Denis the Areopagite, whom men say to have planted the Gospel in France; and having suffered Martyrdom under the Emperor Domitian as saith Methodius, he carried his head between his hands from Mont-Martre, as far as S. Denis, where he lieth interred. The reviving of learning and good letters hath discovered the falsehood of such inventions. For the most ancient Christian Historian that ever was in France, is Sulpitius Seuerus, who in the second book of his story showeth, that there were no Martyrdoms in France under Domitian nor a long time after; and that the first Martyrdoms which were seen in France, were under Marcus Aurelius the son of Anthony, that is to say, in the year of our Lord 162. threescore and five years after the death of Domitian: whosoever shall calculate the times, shall find that Denis the Ariopagite was then Judge in Ariopagus, at the time when S. Paul converted him: whence it is to be presumed, that he was at least thirty or five and thirty year old: which time if you extend as far as to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, he should have lived some hundred and fifty years: and also should die by torment before that he was broken by old age. We could produce others in this point, but this sufficeth to justify the King of great Britain, who though he should have called the Saints that never were Tutelary gods, yet should there not be just cause to reprehend him.

After this Caeffeteau comes to the authorities of the Fathers: surely this matter should well deserve some commandment from God: One Ordinance of God had cut off all difficulty, and had been more of value then a thousand testimonies of men. But Coeffeteau could find none, for indeed there is none: Being not able then to draw out of the Divine spring, he seeks here and there for the Cesternes of men. Our adversaries tell us that they receive the Fathers for interpreters of the Scripture: but the passages are drawn out of phrases of the Fathers, in which they do not interpret the scripture: but what will become of the matter if these quotations be to no purpose, if indeed they be false? And that is it which we are to show.

Basel in his oration of the 40. Martyrs, saith indeed that some in their necessity had recourse unto them, but he doth nor command to do it as Bellarmine will have it in falsifying this place, a man must not marvel if a people newly crept out of Paganism did retain something of their own Custom and oftentimes, the Bishops, carried away with the terrent of popular zeal, were constrained to tolerate these abuses. Saint Augustine in his twentieth book against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 21 confesseth that many drank drunk over the Sepulchers of the dead, but withal he addeth it is one thing that we teach, another that we tolerate, it is one thing that which we are commanded to teach, another thing we are commanded to correct, and which we are constrained to bear withal, until that it be amended. And in the first book of the manners of the Catholic Church, Chap. 24. I know many (saith he) who do adore the Sepulchers and pictures, I know many who drink most excessively over the dead. The good Bishops saw these maladies in their flocks, which being desirous to amend, they have been often hindered by the sedition of the people, as appeareth by the Counsel of Carthage, where the Bishops of Africa being desirous to abolish the abuse which was committed at the sepulchers of the Martyrs, they fear to be hindered by the tumult of the rude people. If (say they) men be hindered to do this by the uproar of the people, at least wise let the multitude be admonished not to assemble in these places. Coeffeteau then had alleged this to purpose if he had the general custom of the Church of those times, or some prayer to Saints, made in the public service instead of producing the misguided devotion of some particular men.

In the second place he aleadgeth the oration of Gregory Nyssen in the praise of the Martyr Theodore which we have heretofore evicted of falsehood.

After this he produceth the oration of Grogory, Nazianzen upon Saint Basel. And here again his unfaithful dealing appeareth, for he dessembleth the words, going before which serve for a solution, where Saint Gregory showeth, that that which he said to Saint Basel being deceased, is only by opinion and by conjecture. These are his words And now Basel is in the heavens, offering as I think sacrifices for us, and praying for the people, he speaketh as being assured thereof, we know also, that the custom of Orators, who speak in praise of any man, is to make Rhetorical appellation to the dead, and to speak to the absent, as to men present. The Books of the Paynims are full of these examples. See how Pliny speaketh to Ciciro; long before deceased in his seventh book and thirtyeth Chapter.

To Gregory, Coeffeteau addeth the Catechism of Cyril, which are fall • ely attributed unto him. Gesner in his Bibliotheca, witnesseth that this book is found in written hand under the name of one John of Jerusalem. Gretzer a Germiane Jesuit, in his book for Pilgrimages, page. 354. witnesseth the same. Harding in his Treatise of Accidents without subject, Section the 6. saith that in his time this book was not fou • d but manuscript and known to a few. And the foolery which is found in the 24. Catechize, when he saith, that the wood of the Cross doth increase and multiply in such fort that the earth is full thereof, showeth that this book was written many ages since, doubtless by this John of Jerusalem an advocate for Images who lived in the year 767.

Afterwards cometh a place of Saint Augustine, It is injury to pray for a Martyr, by whose prayers we on the other side ought to be recommended. This place is found indeed in his 17. Sermon De verbis Apostoli; but not in the 80. Tract upon John, as Coeffeteau allegeth it, who spake by other men's report, Now this place is not to the purpose, for he saith only that the Saints pray for us, which thing we have never denied: we do out of Godly considerations presume, that albeit they know not the necessity of particular men, yet they pray for the Church in general. But that we should for this cause invocate them, or yield them any religious service, Saint Augustine doth not avouch,

Lastly Coeffeteau addeth Saint Ambrose, who in his book of Widdowes, exhorteth Widdowes to pray to the Angels and Martyrs, whom he calleth beholders of our lives and actions. Here a man may see the humor of our Adversaries, which is to pass by the virtues of the Fathers, and to set forth nothing but their vices and blemishes, like Flies who cast themselves upon gaules and botches of bodies, rather then upon the sound parts, The Reader then shall be advertised that Saint Ambrose was chosen Bishop before he was baptized. Having thus cast himself, at the first jump, into a charge, to the which he was no way prepared, no man ought to marvel, if in his beginnings he said somthings, for which he afterwards corrected himself. The book of Widdowes, is one of his first works, wherein you may see more eloquence then divinity, and we will no other proof hereof then that place which saith, that the Martyrs if there remained any sins unto them, they purged them by their blood. what is there less agreeing with the Gospel, then to think that any Martyrs have been without sin, and that which is worse that a man may wash away and blot out his sins by his own blood. For the holy scripture doth give us no other labor for our sins then the blood of Jesus Christ. Apoc: 1.5. To Jesus who hath loved us, and hath wasted away our sins by his blood. And in the 7. Chapter, The Saints do wash their garments in the blood of the lamb, and to the end that no man should devise any other cleansing. Saint John. 1. Epist. 1. saith, that the blood of Jesus Christ doth cleanse us from ALL sin, yea Saint Ambrose himself hath not persevered in this error. But upon the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he disputeth against those who said, that they did as those who go to the King by his offices and he calleth it, a miserable excuse, and addeth, Therefore men go to a King by his Collonells and Nobles, because the King is a man, and knoweth not to whom to commit the Common-weal. But to be received into grace and favor with God, we need no spokesman, but only a devout Spirit. Himself in the oration upon the death of Theodosius. Thou ONELY O Lord oughtest to be invocated and prayed unto.

Let this be noted in general upon all the passages, that the King of great Britain, demanded authorities from the first four ages, But all these allegations are but about the end of the fourth age, we must then help Coeffeteaus memory, and bring him a little higher,

In the first age we have the Apostles, who did not only not invocate the Virgin Mary, nor any other of the Saints deceased, But who do expressly forbid us, to invocate any other then God alone.

1 S. Paul, Rom. 10. How shall they cal upon him, in whom they have not believed. He is of opinion then that a man cannot call upon any, but him in whom he believeth. Now we believe in God only. The Creed doth teach us to believe in the Father, and in the son, and in the holy Chost, but not to believe in any creature. And Jesus Christ, John. 14.1. You believe in God, believe also in me. If any man will here bring forth unto us two sortes of Religious worship; he must be pleased to prove them unto us by the word of God.

2 The same Apostle, Rom. 14.23. saith, that whatsoever is done without faith is sin. And cap. 10. he saith, that faith cometh by hearing the word of God. Prayer therefore to Saints being not founded upon the word of God, it is without faith, and consequently is sin.

3 S. Peter, Act. 1. calleth God searcher of the hearts, agreeable to that which Solomon saith, 2. Chr. 6.30 that God ONLY knoweth the hearts of men. If then the Saints know not our hearts, what an abuse is it to call upon them? Must a man cry high? And how shall they know whether thou be an hypocrite or no? If it be so that they see all things in the face of God, as some say, then should they have an infinite knowledge, and by consequent should be infinite, and should know the day of judgment, which is unknown to them. And their spirit in one only moment, should apprehend and behold infinite diversity of things, which is a thing incompatible with the nature of the creature, whose life and being, and consequently whose actions are fleeting by acontinuall succession of parts: That is to say, that as the parts of their duration succeed one another: so their thoughts and action successively follow one another. They do not then apprehend infinite things in one moment. Thus is their imaginary looking-glass broken, wherein nothing doth appear but the temerity of these men, who affirm things that they cannot know; who speak of heaven, and yet have their nose in the ground, describing what is done there; as if they came but lately from thence. I further add, that this is greatly to trouble the felicity of the Saints, to make them spectators of men's affairs. An holy woman that enjoyeth the glory of heaven, would she no feel an extreme grief, if she beheld from heaven one of her children tormented in Hell, another broken upon the wheel at the Greue in Paris, another given to Art-magic, or bowing his knee before an Image, or adoring a God made and set up by men?

4 The Apostle S. Paul, 1. Tim 2. There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. In the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Vnicus Deus, vnicus mediator, Seeing that these things are thus coupled together, it is certain that as there is but one God, so is there but one Mediator. It is a coy niceness to say, that he is the only Mediator of Redemption, but not of Intercession. But this distinction is not found in the Gospel, and indeed it doth contradict it self, for Jesus Christ is not the mediator of intercession, but so far forth as he is our Redeemer: whence it followeth, that in Jesus Christ to be mediator of redemption and mediator of intercession, is one and the same thing. And that which is more, the same Apostle, Rom. 8. doth teach us, that even as touching the intercession, he is our only mediator: For he saith, Christ is he who died, nay rather who is risen again, who also is set at the right hand of God, & who maketh request for us. Now he died only for us, he rose only for our sakes, and only is set down at the right hand of God: and he alone then also it is, which maketh request for us; for the course of the words and the drift of the place doth necessarily so require it. And that which is more, by this Distinction they condemn the Church of Rome, who maketh Saints also to be mediators of Redemption, as Bellarmine teacheth in the fourth Chapter of his first book of Indulgences: and indeed the Church of Rome doth hold that their sufferings do turn to our advantage: and the Priest in the Mass, doth every day crave salvation of God, not only for their prayers, but also for their merits, as if by their good works they had merited salvation, and the grace of God for us: Let a man read all the Litanies and public prayers of the Church of Rome, and he shall find that they say, Petre Ora pro nobis, S. Nicholae Ora pro nobis. But to Jesus Christ they never say Ora pro nobis, but Miserere nobis, for they strip him of his office of intercessor, leaving him only the charge of Judge.

5 Let us add the example of the Angel, Apoc. 22. who would not be adored by S. John, saith unto him, Take heed thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant, worship God. Now S. John did not think this Angel was God, for chap. 12.9. S. John saith expressly that it was one of the seven Angels, who had the seven vials. He knew then before hand that it was an Angel: if the Angel had approved any inferior degree of adoration he would have said to S. John, thou dost adore me with a worship, which is too high for me. But he doth not receive any at all but putteth himself in the same rank with S. John, and acknowledgeth himself to be his fellow servant.

6 Some man will say, I am unworthy to pray unto God, and it is good to go unto the King by his officers. I answer, that there is not any greater unworthiness, then for a man to be the enemy of God: and yet Jesus Christ died to save his enemies: By this same bounty and goodness then he will yet more support thine unworthiness, when thou shalt pray unto him with an acknowledgement of thy myserie. And as touching the Interuention of the officers of the King, I say that he should be foolishly modest, who should follow that way, when the King himself calleth him, and commandeth him to come directly unto him. Now God calleth us with promise to here us, Psal. 51. Cal upon me, and I will hear thee. And Jesus Christ his son doth invite us to come unto him, saying in the eleventh of Matthew, Come unto me all you that are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Should we fear then to go directly to God, and to our father, who calleth us with so much sweetness?

7 If we be the children of God and brethren of Jesus Christ, need we any spokes-men to speak for us to God or to Jesus Christ? This crooked way doth savor of a servile humor, and hath nothing of a son like liberty.

8 Moreover, seeing that it is God himself that doth put into our hearts to pray unto him, and who doth stir up in us those sighs and groans of which S. Paul speaks, Rom. 8.25. what need we any other intercessors to recommend that prayer unto God which he himself hath inspired into us? Or to make that the voice of the spirit of GOD speaking in us, should be pleasing and acceptable to God?

9 It is also very considerable, how and in what sense S. John in his first Epistle, chap. 2. calleth Jesus Christ our advocate: for he is an advocate who doth not only plead for us, but doth also pay for us: who not only maketh intercession for sinners, but also of sinners maketh them just men: Those for whom he maketh intercession he doth sanctify them also. He is an advocate whom the Father doth always hear: who did already make intercession for the world, before he came into the world. Doth it not suffice us to have such an advocate? Or do the Saints love us more then Jesus Christ? seeing that the Saints have neither virtue before God, nor charity towards us, but that which Jesus Christ hath given them?

Above all, the place of the Apostle, Coloss. 2. is very express, which his Majesty of England doth produce, where S. Paul doth flatly forbid the service of Angels: Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over you by humbleness of mind, and worshipping of Angels. Coeffeteau answereth, that to invocate the Saints, is no more to turn away from Jesus Christ then when a man doth employ the living. I answer, that a man doth turn away from Jesus Christ diverse ways, either in forsaking himself flatly, or in turning from his commandment. It is in this second kind, that invocation of Saints doth decline from Jesus Christ, as we have shown. As for living men, whom we employ to pray for us; this is nothing like to the invocation of Saints deceased: God willeth that the living should pray one for another, but he hath not commanded to invocate the dead: and he who recommendeth himself to the prayers of the living, he doth not for all that acknowledge them to be searchers of the heart: He doth not fall down on his knees before them; he doth not yield them any religious service: he doth not bring them offerings, nor light candles before them: he doth not pray unto God for salvation through their merits. In a word, there is no comparison between them.

Coeffeteau addeth, that S. Paul condemneth only superstition, which adoreth Angels in the quality of lesser gods. This is a mere shift and an evident tergiuersation, and which S. Paul had already prevented in the same place, in saying that this is done by humbleness of mind, and voluntary devotion. Now to acknowledge the Angels for God's, is not for a man to humble himself, but to exalt the Angels: Humiliation is rather in him, who acknowledging them no other then servants and messengers of God, doth nevertheless humble himself beneath them by voluntary devotion. And we need here no more upon this matter then Theodoret, whom Coeffeteau allegeth in his margent against himself, whose words are these in his Commentaries upon Colos. 2. They who defended the law, induced men also to serve Angels, saying, the law was given by their interuention. Now this vice continued along time in Phrygia and Pisidia: Therefore the Synod node assembled at Laodicea the mother City of Phrygia, forbid them by express ordinance to pray unto Angels, and even at this day we yet see amongst them and their neighbors, the Oratories of S. Michael. Now this did they counsel, using humility, and saying, that the God of the whole world is invisible, incōprebensible and vnapproachable: and therefore it was necessary to to make God favorable unto us by the Angels. And that is it which S. Paul hath said in humility, and worshipping of Angels. By these words it appeareth that Theodoret judged that the Council of Laodicea did absolutely forbid prayer to Angels. Moreover that those whom he condemneth did not think the Aneglles to be God's, but that they served them as ministering spirits, whose service God had used for the publishing of the law. Now that the church of Rome hath thought that the Canon of the Coūcel of Laodicea was against her, it appeareth, for that it being in the Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Latin version which is in the Tomes of the Coun • ell hath turned it, abire & ad angulos idololatriae abominande congregationes facere, having put angulos for angelos.

Saint Jerome in the 10. Question to Algasia thinketh that Saint Paul in that place speaketh against the superstition of the Jews, if that be so, he doth not speak against those who did adore the Angels as lesser God's. For the Jews since the Captivity of Babylon have not held this opinion; And if it were so, so is it notwithstanding that Saint Paul condemning in general the worship given to Angels condemneth by a consequent that which the Church of Rome yieldeth unto them.

All that which before hath been alleged, should suffice to overthrow the invocation of Saints, For after the will of God, in vain do we wait for the testimony of men. The word of God is as strong, when it is alone, as when it is accompanied, the Law of God is not established by custom, it is full of strength and force, even from the spring, as tract of time doth not bring it any authority, so is there prescription of time against it. Howbeit let us grant this to the Malady of time, and to the depraved taste of our age which bringeth the Fathers upon the Theator with pomp, and hideth the Lamp of the Gospel under the bushel.

Tertullian in his Apologetico. chap. 30. speaking of the prayer made unto God, We cannot demand these things of any other then of him of whom I know I shall obtain it for so it is he alone which granteth, and I am he who ought to be heard, to wit, his servant who do invocate him alone.

Origen in his 2 book and second Chapter, upon the Epistle to the Romans, If the Saints who being out of their bodies with Christ, do anything to employ themselves for us, let that remain among the hidden secrets of God, neither let it be committed to prayer.

The same writing against Celsus in his fifth Tome We must address all our requests, prayers, supplications, and giving of thanks to him who is God above all, by the living word who is also God, &c. that is to say, by Jesus Christ. And a little after, we hold that we ought not to call upon them, who them selves do invocate, for that they had rather that we should address our prayers to God, whom themselves do call upon.

And in the eight Tome, We ought to pray to none but God alone, and his only Son.

And in the same place, we ought to make God alone favorable and merciful towards us, who is Lord of all things: We must seek his favor by piety, and by the other virtues: but if any man think, that beside him we ought further to seek the favors of some others, let him consider, that as the body moving, the shadow doth stir with it, in like manner when any man hath God propitious and favorable unto him, he hath by a consequent all the Angels and souls and spirits for his friends. Which is so much the more to be considered, because in that very place he saith, that the Angels have care of good men, and yet he will not that we invocate any other but God.

Athanasius and all the Fathers who disputed against the Arians, prove the divinity of Jesus Christ by that we ought to invocate him, and accuse the Arians of Idolatry, for that they adored & prayed unto him, whom they thought to have been created. Read the Book of the life of Saint Anthony and the book of the Incarnation of the word, Therefore saith he If thou adore the man Christ, because the divine word dwelleth in him, Adore by like reason the Saints, because of God who dwelleth in them.

The same Athanasius in his fourth Sermon against the Arians, Jacob did not invocate any other but God, deliver me O Lord, said he, from the my brother Esau, again, David did not call upon any other but God to be delivered. And a little after, it is a thing clear and plain that the Patriarke did not adjoin any other in his prayers with God, but he which is the word, which he calleth Angel, because it is he alone who doth manifest the Father unto us. Which hath also been practiced by the Apostle when he saith, Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from JESUS CHRIST. And a little before he mocketh at him, who prayeth thus, God and his Angel help thee. Now a days we hear no other thing then these words, to pray unto God and his mother: again, recommend yourself to God, and Monsieur Saint Rock or Saint Fiacre.

Chrysostom in the Homily of the advancement of the Gospel. Thou hast no need of advocates towards God, nor of much discourse: for albeit thou art alone, and have no advocate, and that thou pray unto God by thyself, thou shalt obtain thy desire: for God doth not hear so willingly when others pray for us, as when we pray our selves although we be full of many evils. And he showeth it by the example of the Woman of Canaan, who was not heard when the Apostles prayed for her, but when she prayed her self.

The same in his 16. Homily upon diverse passages of Saint Matthew. If thou mean to make supplicatiō to a man, thou askest what he is doing, & he perhaps falls asleep in hearing thee, or hath not the leisure, or else some servant will not deign to answer thee, But towards God there is no need of all this, but in what part soever thou be and thou call upon him, he heareth thee. There is no need of a Porter, nor of a mediator, nor of a servant, or Officer, but only say, have pity upon me. Then he addeth, this Woman saith, I know no good works in myself, I cannot repose confidence upon my good life: I have recourse to thy mercy who art the safe harbor for sinners. Tell me woman, how durst thou being a sinner and wicked, approach unto him? I know saith she, what I will do. See the wisdom of this woman: she prayeth not James, She doth not beseech John. she goeth not to Peter, she doth not regard the whole company of the Apostles: she seeketh no Mediator, but instead of all these, she taketh Patience for her companion, which holdeth the place of her advocate, and cometh directly to the first fountain. For this ende came he down from heaven for this end did he take flesh and was made man, to the end that I might speak unto him.

There are found in this Father some passages, wherein he recommendeth the intercession of the Saints, but it is of the living Saints, for the scripture in a hundred places doth so call the faithful. But our adversaries produce those places for invocation of the dead: being falsaries in this point as in others Add, that we have never denied, but that the Saints do intercede for the Church in general, but it doth not follow thereupon, that we ought to invocate them or to serve them, God having not commanded it, yea having forbidden it, and they not knowing our hearts, and besides Jesus Christ calling us unto himself.

Saint Jerome in the Epitaph of Nepotian holdeth for a thing assured, that he is in the heavenly glory. We know saith he that our friend Nepotian is with Christ and mingled among the quier of Saints. And nevertheless, he holdeth that Nepotian neither understood nor saw the things, which were said or done in the earth. For he saith, Whatsoever I shall say unto him, will seem dumb because he heareth it not. Again let us not cease to speak of Nepotian, with whom we can no longer speak. Again, happy Nepotian, who neither heareth nor seeth these things. Thence it came that many of the ancients did pray those who were about to die, to have them inremembrance, when they should be in Paradise: because they thought it would be to late to pray unto them after their death.

The same Jerome upon Ezekiel, if there be confidence in any, let us put our confidence in God alone, for cursed is the man who trusteth in man, albeit they be Saints, albeit they be Prophets.

Agreeable to Origen in the 4. Homilie upon Ezekiel towards the end. To those who put their confidence in Saints, this example may fitly be applied, cursed is the man who putteth his hope in the Saints.

There is among the works of Saint Jerome, a commentary upon the Proverbs, which whether it be of Beda or of Jerome, it containeth this sentence We ought not to invocate, that is to say, to cal towards us by prayers any other then God.

Saint Augustine in his twenty two tract upon Saint John. This is it which thy Savior saith unto thee, thou hast not whether to go save only to me, neither cannest thou go, save only by me.

And upon the Psalm 118. the prayer which is not made through Jesus Christ, cannot only not blot out sin, but it self is turned into sin: and against the Epistle of Parmenian, if S. Paul were mediator, so should the rest of the Apostles be, and by that means there should be many Mediators, and so Saint Paul should have mistaken himself in saying, there is one only God, and one only Mediator. Now it is to be noted, that he doth not speak in that Chapter, but of Mediator of intercession; for he disputeth against Parmenian who had called the Bishop Mediator between God and men: howbeit Parmenian did not understand that the Bishop was the Redeemer of the people. The same Doctor hath made a book of the care to be had of the dead, wherein he disputeth at large that the dead know not that which is done here beneath, neither do they intermeddle with the affairs of the living: his reasons are, that if that were so, his dear mother Monica, who had followed him by Sea and by Land, would not have forsaken him; but would have stood by him every night. That Abraham himself, father of the Israelites, knew not his posterity, which also complaineth thereof in Isaiah: that God himself promised to Josiah for a great blessing, that he should not see the evils denounced against that people, but that he should die before: whereupon he concludeth; The spirits then of the deceased are in place, where they see not all the things which are done, or which happen unto men in this life. How then should they see their graves or their corps, whether they lie cast out and abandoned, or whether they be buried?

And in c. 15. We must confess that the dead know nothing of that which is done here, whilst it is a doing, but that they understand it afterwards from those, who dying, go from hence unto them. Yet doubtless not all things, but that which is permitted them to declare unto those to whom it is granted to have it in remembrance, and that which is expedient for them to know. They may also learn something of the Angels, who have intercourse while things are done here below. I make the Reader Judge, how we can call upon the Saints departed, if we must stand, till someone of our friends die to report our prayers unto them, or if it be necessary that an Angel should go from hence below, to advertise them above. Observe also that this good Doctor never bethought himself of that looking-glass forged of late: for indeed he never took his degrees in the faculty of Divinity.

As touching public service, it is certain that at the celebration of the Eucharist, there was commemoration made of the Saints deceased, but without inuocating them, as S. Austin witnesseth in his two and twentieth book of the City of God, chap 10. At this sacrifice the Martyrs as men of God, who have overcome the world in confessing him, are named in their place and in their rank, but They are not Inuocated by the Priest, who sacrificeth. And to the same end the third Council of Carthage in the three and twentieth Canon ordayneth very expressly, that when they stand at the Altar, the prayer be always addressed to God the Father: not then to the Saints, as they do nowadays in many Masses.

In his twentieth book against Faustus the Manichee: We honor the Martyrs with the same honor of love and society, wherewith men honor the holy men of God, which are in this life. True it is that he acknowledgeth, that it is with more assurance, because they have surpassed all danger: but he always acknowledgeth that it is one and the same kind of honor. It is not then to invocate them or to adore them, and it is that service which is yielded to living men, which he affirmeth to be called Dulia, whence it followeth that it is not a religious worship. And therefore also in his book of the true Religion, c. 55. Let not the service, saith he, of men departed, be your religion, if they have lived holily, they are in that state that they crave not these honors. And a little after, We must honor them for imitation, but we must not adore them by any Religion.

The same Author in his manual to Laurentius cap. 114. We ought not to crave from any other, but from God, the good which we hope either to do, or to procure as a Stipend of our good works.

In his book of Ecclesiastical Determinations, cap. 81. He alone knoweth the secrets of the hearts, to whom it is said, Thou alone knowest the hearts of the sons of men.

These passages, a few amongst many, shall suffice for this time, against which our adversaries produce some places drawn out of forged books, or out of the ill governed devotion of some particular men contrary to the public belief. And if there be any examples found of some few who have prayed Ad memorias Martyrum, before or near the sepulchers of the Martyrs, our adversaries persuade the ignorant that these prayers were made unto the Martyrs, instead that they were made unto God to praise him for the assistance given unto the Martyrs, and to crave of God the like grace.

Above all it is considerable, that Coeffeteau doth touch but the half of the question, and wardeth but half the blows: for he endeuoreth to prove that we must invocate the Saints, which is but a little piece of the abuse. For the Church of Rome doth not stay there, she craveth of God salvation, not only through the intercession of the Saint, but also through their merits: Which is not to go to God by the Saints, but contrariwise to lead God to the Saints, and to represent him their merits. This is also to pray unto God with an indiscretion; which would be accounted impudent in speaking to a King: If any man should ask him a favor or benefit for the merits of another. And this so unworthy a prayer is accompanied with a superstitious iesture, when the Priest bowing himself over the Altar, saith, We pray thee, O Lord, by the merits of the Saints, whose relics are here (for every Altar is a Tomb) and generally of all the Saints, that thou wilt vouchsafe to pardon all my sins. Of such a prayer Coeffeteau hath not been able to produce any example.

No more then of this damnable opinion, which holdeth, that the merits of the Saints do serve to fill up the measure of the merits of Jesus Christ; in that being adjoined to the merits of Jesus Christ, and put together into the treasury of the Church, they are employed by the Pope for the redemption and discharge of the punishment of our sins: whence also it is that Cardinal Bellarmine saith, that in some sort they are our redeemers. How comes it to pass, that Coeffeteau holdeth his peace hereat, and allegeth not any father? and hath forgotten to excuse the Priest, who in his Confiteor which he saith at the entrance of the Mass, confesseth his sins to God, to the Virgin Marie, to Michael th'arch-Angel, and to the Saints, but not to Jesus Christ.

ARTICLE IX. Touching Masses without Communicants and without Assistants.

B Vt if the Romish Church hath coined new Articles of faith, never heard of in the first 500. years after Christ, I hope I shall never be condemned for an Heretic, for not being a Novelist. Such are the private Masses, where the Priest playeth the part both of the Priest and of the people.

If ever man turned his back and shamefully fled, it is Coeffeteau in this place: We expected from him the defense of private Masses by the word of God, or at least that he should have produced unto us the practice of the ancient Church, or some examples of private masses in the first five hundred years after Jesus Christ; seeing that the King of great Britain doth limit him to that term, but of all this not a word. But rather he turneth aside his Discourse, & casteth himself upon the sacrifice of the mass, heaping up many passages of the Fathers, who cal the Eucharist a sacrifice.

I answer, that Coeffeteau takes much pains to no purpose; for we agree with the Fathers, that the holy supper is a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice Eucharisticall, that is, a giving of thanks, not propitiatory for the redemption of souls, where Christ is really sacrificed; which we shall see hereafter. Yea were it such a sacrifice as our adversaries would have it, yet ought it to be celebrated with the communion of assistants, because God hath so commanded.

1 Christ Jesus saying to the assistants, take, eat, commandeth them to participate.

2 Again he addeth, Do this, that in the celebration thereof we should follow his example.

And the Apostle S. Paul, 1. cor. 10.16. defineth this Sacrament by the Communion, saying, That the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ.

4 The Apostle there addeth words that strike sure; We are all partakers of one bread: then all ought to participate.

5 Also the word supper, which he useth in the twentieth verse of the Chapter following, signifies a common supper, and importeth a communion: and we have elsewhere declared, that all ancient Writers do call this Sacrament a supper. Now what can be more absurd, then to invite people to a supper, to look on, and eat nothing? Who ever heard tell of a feast, where the inuiter doth eat alone? They reply, that at a Feast people cannot be forced to eat: whereunto I say, that if they should not be compelled, they should at least be entreated to eat: but in private Masses there are none invited, and the Priest is often alone: I say farther, that the guests should be constrained to eat; if God have so expressly commanded: and he hath commanded to take, eat, and communicate in this holy supper. It is no wonder then, if the word Supper, be grown odious, and out of use seeing it serves to discover the abuse, and that the Etymology thereof is a kind of commandment.

6 Besides, what resemblance is there between Christ set at the Table with his Apostles, distributing the bread and the cup to every of them, and the Priest that not only eats and drinks by himself, but is often alone, and grumbles some few words unheard upon the Host.

7 More especially it is to be considered, that the Church of Rome teacheth, that the Eucharist is not only a sacrifice, but also a Sacrament: whence it follows, that although the Eucharist, as it is a sacrifice, may be performed without Communicants, yet as it is the Sacrament of that Communion which we have together with Jesus Christ, so is the communion thereof among many required as necessary: which shows how impertinently Coeffeteau speaks, That it is not necessary that the Sacrifice be offered by many, and that the essence of the Sacrifice dependeth not of the Communicants, and that the virtue of the Sacrifice is still the same, both with the ceremonies and without them: seeing we do not here speak of the Eucharist, as it is a sacrifice, but a Sacrament. If any Sophister make answer, that the essence of the Sacrament consisteth not in the Communion, but in the consecration: my replication is, that it contradicts the Apostle, who defineth this sacrament by the Communion, as we have seen, and definitions are the very essence of things. Again, the communion of one bread, hath an essential reference to our Communion with Jesus Christ: which two words are relatives, whereof the former depends upon the latter. Touching the pretended consecration of the Church of Rome, it cannot be of the essence of the sacrament, for every sacrament is a holy sign, but this consecration is not a holy sign, because it doth not signify anything, nobody understands anything, or sees anything. And we have declared in it place, that the true consecration is done by prayer, and the ancients so believed.

8 No • withstanding, let us grant that the Communion is not of the essence of the Sacrament, doth it therefore follow that it is not necessary? Is there not validity in God's commandment to make it necessary? Is there nothing necessary besides that which is of the essence of things? then shall not the law or the Gospel be necessary for men, because they are not of the essence of men: and so shall it not be necessary for Coeffeteau to draw his breath, because it is no part of his effence, there can nothing be said more wide from the purpose.

9 Touching that which he addeth, that the chief sacrifice of the Synagogue was performed by the High Priest alone within the Holy of Holies: I do admire the negligent rashness of this Doctor, that he dares speak of the Scripture, before he read it; for had he read it, he would have found the contrary; he should have seen that the blood which the High Priest alone carried into the Sanctum Sanctorū, was the blood of a beast already sacrificed in the Court, upon the altar of burnt offerings, in the presence of the people; and there was no sacrifice more public, or more solemnly performed. Is there any such a novice in the sacred History, that ever thought that Aaron did sacrifice or offer any beast within the place that was most holy? It was then a sprinkling of blood which he made upon the Ark, as the conclusion of the public sacrifice, and was no sacrifice done in private. Read the thirtieth of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leviticus.

10 Of like stuff is that which he addeth, that Masses without Communicants or assistants, cannot be said to be private, because the Priest is a public person: this is a goodly conceit. So then if a Minister do pray alone in the Church, his prayer shall be a public prayer. And should not this Minister deserve a green coat, if being alone he should say, Attend my Masters, when he reprehended the walls? yet this is that which the Massing Priest in private doth; at which private Masses being all alone, he saith, Orate pro me fratres, Brethren pray for me: and which is more, he saith, Accipite & man ducate ex hoc omnes; Take and eat all of this: and yet offers nothing to anybody, but eats alone With like abuse doth he say, Vt quot quot ex hac altaris participatione sumpserimus, &c. That all we which by the participation of the Altar, have received: the body, &c Wherupon the question is asked, to whom the Priest speaks, when he saith, Brethren pray for me. Pope Innocent the third doth answer finely in the second book of the mysteries of the Mass, chap. 25. It must (saith he) be religiously believed, that the Angels do bear them company that pray, according to the saying of the Prophet, I will sing unto thee in the presence of the Angels. Which will also serve to resolve other doubts, presuming that when the Priest saith, Take, eat, he doth invite the Angels to eat, for they come with good stomachs. And so of the rest.

At length the place of Austin is brought, which is the only passage of antiquity that Coeffeteau can find. This Father, lib. 22. De ciuit. Dei, speaking of a place haunted with evil spirits, saith, that one of his Priests went, and offered a Sacrifice there: whereupon Coeffeteau saith, that this could not be done but privately and without solemnity: but he dares not to affirm, that he had no assistants, or communicants; which is that which he should, or else the place makes not to the purpose. And indeed we may presume the contrary, forasmuch as S Austin speaks of a great house, and of some great person of quality, that sent not for a Minister of the Church of Carthage to celebrate the holy Sacrament, to leave him alone without assistants, or communicants: and indeed Bellarmine confesseth the impertinency of this place, lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. where he acknowledgeth, That there is no express place sound, where the auncrents have offered the Sacrifice, without some Communicants.

The common excuse, and the same which the Council of Trent useth in the seventh Session, is that it comes to pass through the indevotion of the people: which speech doth both confess, and yet approve the abuse: for the same Council addeth, The holy Council doth not forbid those Masses wherein the Priest alone doth communicate sacramentally, as private and unlawful, but doth approve and commend them: which their practice doth prove; for if it be through the want of devotion in the people, why do they not endeavor the remedy? for if there be any question of casting into the box, if any business fall out concerning tithes, and offerings, they easily find the means to hold the people in the humor of contribution; neither do I find that the Cardinals, and Bishops do communicate of • ener then the people.

For the Priests hinder the people from assisting them, because they say an infinite number of Masses in private, and upon the sudden; of which they give no warning. For three sundry persons will one Priest dispatch three Masses, to everyone his own, that each of them may pay for a whole Mass And they that will have yearly Masses, do found yearly Pensions: for never was any private Mass said for him that gave nothing; they use not to make God for nothing: Masses are sold for more or less according to the provision that is made; & if one pay for one Mass, is it any reason that another should equally share with him? Yea they buy Masses for the souls of young children dying soon after baptism, which they hold must needs be in Paradise: for if Masses do no good to them that are dead, yet they profit those that are alive: Doubtless it is couereousnesse that hath hatched this abuse, and superstition hath fomented it.

These men do again reply, although but weakly: for (say they) if no Communicants offer themselves, must the Sacrifice be therefore discontinued? Let them hear S. Chrysostom thundering thereupon in the third Homily upon the Ephesians: O custom! O presumption! in vain is Sacrifice daily offered, in vain do we stand at the Altar, and none communicate. And a little after, Whosoever doth not communicate in these mysteries, is impudent and rash in standing by. And further add, that they do falsely presume, that the holy supper is a Sacrifice, in that sense which they take the word Sacrifice, as we shall presently see. Now let us hear the testimonies of the Auncients.

The ancient rule of the Church of the City of Rome, which is found in the second Distinction of the consecration under the name of Anaclet, in the Canon Peracta, is this, The consecration being ended, let all those communicate, that will not be excluded out of the bounds of the Church: for so have the Apostles ordained, and the Church of Rome observeth.

And in the Canon Tribus gradibus, of the same Distinction, Let as many offerings be laid upon the Table, as will serve for all the people to communicate: and if any do remain, let them not be kept until the morrow.

And in the first Distinction of the Consecration in the Canon Hoc quoque, the Pope speaks thus: It is ordained that no Priest presume to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass, if he have not two others that may answer him, and that the Priest be the third: because when he saith in the plural number, The Lord be with you, and that which he saith in secret, pray for me, it is apparently requisite that answer be made to his salutation.

Justin Martyr in the second of his Apology, The Deacons do disiribute the bread to everyone that is present.

Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, One loaf hath been broken to all. S. Jerome upon the first to the Corinth. cap. II. The supper of the Lord ought to be common unto all. The Reader may compare this word, the common Supper, with the private Mass.

The Author of the Constitutions ascribed unto Clement, lib. 2. cap. 61. Let everyone receive the body of the Lord. And so have all the ancient Liturgies, although they be much falsified: yea and some traces thereof are to be seen in the Mass, where the Priest, though he be alone doth always speak as unto many communicants.

Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, in the second book of his Dialogues, chap. 13. saith, that the Deacon according to the custom, crieth, if there be any that doth not communicate, let him depart. And this was six hundred years after Christ, and we could disscend lower. But this sufficeth against a man that fears the trial, who being not able to allege against the King of great Britain, any syllable of Scripture, no nor any of the Auncients that speak of private Masses, doth fly from the matter and desperately runs into the disputation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. We may let him run, seeing he betakes himself to his heels; yet let us give him this above his bargain.

ARTICLE X. Of the Communion under one kind.

A Nd such are the Amputation of the one half of the Sacrament from the people.

Before we make answer to the place of the second of the Acts; the Reader shall observe, that this is the first place of Scripture, which this Doctor hath alleged: wherein his wisdom hath failed him; for had he continued not to allege any scripture at all, an ignorant Reader would have thought it had not been necessary: but seeing him begin here to speak of the word of God, doubtless he will wonder, that in so many Controuersies handled heretofore, he hath heard nothing alleged out of God's word. And indeed the doctrine of salvation was never so profanely handled: for GOD is become suspected, and his books of faith, have now no credit in controversies. This is a great grace which they do unto the word of God, if after a Legend of reasons, and human allegations, at length some short sentence is casually produced: and not without cause: for why then is it not more favorable to his Holiness Empire? But let us hear this place.

In the second of the Acts, ver. 42. it is said that the Disciples continued together in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and in the Communion and breaking of bread. It is not there said that the people participated in the Cup; therefore they communicated only under one kind of bread.

1 This conjecture is too light by a great many grains: and which is more, it makes against the Church of Rome, which believeth, that the Pastors ought necessarily to take it in both kinds. Now in this passage it is not said that the Pastors did participate in the Cup, and they are no more mentioned then are the people: therefore should it follow that the Pastors also did not participate in the cup.

2 This also is a weak kind of Argumentation, to say, that in the second of the Acts, there is nothing mentioned beside breaking of bread, that therefore the Cup was not used. If I should say, that being invited by such a one I have eaten with him, doth it follow, that I have not drunk, although I spake not of it?

This error proceedeth from ignorance of the scripture phrase, which by the breaking of bread, and by eating of bread, doth usually understand the whole banquet, and all kind of sustenance. So Gen. 31.54. Jacob inviteth his brethren to eat bread. See Genes. 37.25. Matth. 15.2. and sundry other places.

We cannot be accused by this manner of speakking, to add unto the Scripture: the sufficiency whereof we defend against our adversaries. For if in this place there be no mention of the Cup, it sufficeth that it is spoken of in other places. And to join diverse places together, which speak of the same thing, is not to add unto the Scripture. Besides it is not credible, that the Apostles having so expressly received this commandment, to drink all of the Cup, would infringe the same. Again, when we speak of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, our meaning is not that the Scripture recyting a story unto us, doth specify all the particularities of that which happened. Only we say, that in things which it commandeth us to believe, and do, it doth sufficiently instruct us unto salvation. Now to know what is to be believed, and done in this sacrament, we must learn it out of the institution of the same, and out of the express commandments of Christ and his Apostles.

1 For Jesus Christ instituting this sacrament among his Disciples, said unto them, Drink ye all of this: That is, as saith Paschasius, as well the Ministers as the other believers. They answer, that all those to whom our Savior spake were Pastors, and therefore this commandment was given only unto the Pastors. Which if it be so, by the same reason also the Pastors only must eat of the bread: for if in these words, Drink ye all of this, Christ spake to none but to the Pastors, then certainly in these words, Take, eat, he speaks also unto the Pastors: & if this be so, let them tell me where is the commandment which bindeth the people to communicate in the bread? For to participate thereof in faith, it must be that God hath so commanded.

2 Also it is false, that the Apostles being with Jesus Christ instructing them, or administering the Sacrament unto them, held the place of Pastors; for they were as the flock, assisting him in taking and receiving.

3 Again, the words of Christ, Do this, bound them to do unto their flocks, as Jesus Christ did unto them: and therefore these words bound them to give it unto the people in both kinds.

4 But we have moreover the express commandment of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. Let a man (saith he) examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cap. Doth he not speak to the people of Corinth, and as himself saith, cap. 1. ver. 1. To all them that call upon the name of Jesus? Are not all the faithful commanded to examine themselves, 2. Cor. 13.5? Why then to drink of the Cup also, for the Apostle joineth these things together. Observe also that he saith not, examine yourselves when you will drink, as some Sophisters would have it, but he will have everyone to try himself, and being examined, that he drink of the Cup. He leaves it not at their choice, to eat without drinking after they have been examined. And if this place bind them to eat, then why not to drink also, seeing the command is equal?

5 It may not be omitted, that nothing so perplexeth our adversaries, as when we ask them, whether in the sixth of John, where it is said, If you drink not my blood, you shall have no life in you, the Eucharist be spoken of: If it be not spoken of, why do they allege this Chapter to establish their transubstantiation? If it be therespoken of, why do they deprive the people of that life, in taking the Cup from them? Neither doth it serve the turn to say, that the people receive the blood together with the Host, by a concomitancy, for he that so receives the blood, doth not drink. Now Christ saith expressly, If you drink not, &c. Furthermore he that takes the blood under the Host, doth not take it as shed for us, and with the sacrament of the effusion of his blood upon the Cross, which is the manner according to which Jesus Christ would have everyone to participate thereof: by which it falleth also to the ground, which certain Sophisters say, that Christ doth not in this place of Saint John explain the manner of communicating, but declareth the substance thereof: for if Christ in this place speak of the Eucharist, when he commandeth his blood to be drunk, then questionless he speaks of the manner of communicating: for to drink is the manner of receiving.

6 Yea it appeareth that the Church of Rome believeth not, that this commandment, Drink ye all of this, is given to the Pastors alone, seeing that Princes have their share also in this privilege: An evident proof that this Order was brought in to exalt the Clergy above the Layetie, and to make them companions of Kings, and Princes: which is a cunning like that whereby they make Emperors and Kings to be Canons of certain Cathedral Churches. And indeed as the Pope by this sleight hath desired to advance the Clergy, so hath he withal consulted to advance himself above the Clergy. For he vouchsafeth not to drink as others do, nor to touch the Chalice with his lips, no nor to touch it with his hand. But a Cardinal holdeth the Chalice covered, out of which the Pope sucks certain gulpes with a quill, and then the Cardinal doth his reverence: which fashion of sucking, having been practiced some five or six hundred years in certain places of Almaigne as Rhenanus in his notes upon Tertullian observeth, the Pope hath reserved only for himself, that he may exempt himself from the multitude.

7 And to show that the Church of Rome hath a spleen to Jesus Christ, and that S. Paul's commandment displeaseth them, the Council of Constance in the thirteenth Session, acknowledgeth: That Jesus Christ instituted and administered the Sacrament under both kinds: and that in the Primitrue Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds. Notwithstanding this venerable Council complaineth, That in some partes of the world, some rashly presume, that Christian people ought to receive the Sacraments under both kinds. That is to say, it is rashness, and presumption to follow Christ. It addeth, That the custom [of giving but one kind unto the people] being brought in upon reason, ought to be held for a law: that they who hold the contrary are Heretics and to be grievously punished, yea the aid of the secular power being desired. It wanted not much that the Council had denounced Jesus Christ for an Heretic, or sent Saint Paul to the Inqu • sition.

But Coeffeteau will persuade us that this cutting away of the Cup, is discreetely done, to prevent some irreuerend behaviors. Gerson who was present in this Council, opens their meaning unto us, and saith it is done for fear that one or other should spill the wine in the Chalice. These people are afraid to let fall one drop of the wine, but fear not to let fall God's commandment. And if so be the Chalice should be overturned, or if any having drunk should regurge it, this were enough to stir a whole Country: they run together as at the cry of fire; they lick the place, scrape the stones, adore the scrapings and the ashes and put them among the Relics: a superstition not used in the time of Cyprian, who in his book de Lapsis, reporteth a Story of a young Maid, that having drank of the Cup, did put it up again, not speaking of any such furious devotion. The said Gerson saith, that it is done for fear lest the people should wet their Mustachoes in the Chalice: for they feared that Jesus Christ should be entirely fastened to every hair, for as much as they hold that his body is wholly, and entire in every drop. But it were better that men were without Mustachoes, then want the Sacrament of the blood of Christ; and at least there is no such danger for women and young people. He saith also that it is done for fear least the wine being kept should wax sower, or grow flat: but they should be free from this danger, if they did communicate with the people in the public assembly, not reserving the Sacraments till the morrow. Expresly contrary to the defense of the ancient Church, comprised in the Canon Tribus gradibus, in the second Distinction of the Consecration, where Bishop Clement ordaineth, that so many offerings be set upon the Altar, as will serve for the whole assembly to communicate, and if any remain, that they be not kept till the next day. But how comes it to pass, that Jesus Christ being included (as they will have it) in the Chalice, doth not preserve it from taking wind, or waxing sharp? seeing they keep Aaron's rod, and the milk of the holy Virgin among their Relics unto this day without corruption? And why shall not Jesus Christ have the same virtue? To conclude, whosoever shall here pretend wisdom and discretion, desires to be wiser then Christ and his Apostles: neither can there be any inconvenience alleged, which Christ Jesus hath not prevented.

Neither is it said to any purpose that the Church of Rome would by this means stop an heresy, for we must not redress one evil by another, or reform an error by an abuse, or help the ignorance of men by disobedience unto God. Yea, we shall hereafter see, that this taking away of the Cup hath not prevented any error, but hath heaped up one heresy upon another, and to support their Transubstantiation, it hath made Idolatry against God, to serve for their tyrannizing over the people.

Touching that which Coeffeteau subioyneth, that in former times it hath been free to take the communion under one or both kinds: it is a plain shift, for he makes show, not to conceive what the King of great Britain meaneth, when he saith, that the mutilation of the Sacrament is a new invention. For he would say (and it is true) that in the ancient Church there cannot be found any ordinance, custom or constitution, that hath deprived the people of the Cup: No, nor any one man, that hath made conscience in giving the Cup to the people requiring it: No, nor any of the people that have been scrupulous in requiring it: But instead hereof doth Coeffeteau say, that it was free to take it under one, or both kinds; which makes nothing to the purpose: for we complain that it is not free to receive both kinds. And yet that which he saith, is untrue.

S ^t . Austin in the seven and fiftieth question upon Leviticus: All that will have life, are exhorted to drink the blood: none is hindered, and all are exhorted. It was not then free.

Ignatius in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, One bread hath been broken unto all, and one Cup is distributed unto all; then was none exempted. Justin Martyr in his second Apologitique; The Deacons distribute VNTO EVERY ONE, the bread, and wine with water. Observe to everyone. S. Cyprian who hath already told us of a maid, that after she had drank, cast up the wine, complains in the third Epistle of the third book, that some either thorough ignorance or simplicity, In calice Domini sanctificando, & plebi ministrando, in consecrating the cup, and administering to the PEOPLE, did it not conformably unto the example of Jesus Christ. S. Austin in the sixty five book of Questions, the forty nine Quaest. Tom. 4 The blood of Abel signifieth the blood of Christ; which the WHOLE Church having received, saith Amen. He saith, the whole Church: not as Coeffeteau. Some receiving one kind only, and some both kinds: which is either an audacious falsehood, or very gross ignorance in Antiquity: for even the Canon Comperim {us}, in the second Dist. of the Consecration, saith, that to forbear the Cup is sacrilege, and a dividing of the Mystery: and therefore ordaineth that such Ought either to receive the Sacraments entier, or to be wholly excluded from them These words Recipiant, and Arceantur, which he useth do evidently prove, that he speaks of the people, who do not of themselves receive the Sacrament, but from the hand of the Minister. And this word Arceantur signifies, that they were not admitted, when they offered themselves: therefore was it not free, as Coeffeteau affirmeth.

Who allegeth against himself the custom of those that carried home the bread, which they received in the Church, inasmuch as the Church of Rome hath rejected this custom; having well perceived that this custom of so doing, doth testify, that the ancient Church did not believe transubstantiation: for the Priest would have thought it a horrible profanation to put God into the hands of the common people, for them to put him into their pocket, to carry him home to their houses, exposing him to the danger of a thousand reproaches, and to the neglect, or contempt of the first commer. Besides by the general practice of the Church formerly declared, it appears, that if any one did carry home with him the sacramental bread, yet he communicated in the Cup with the whole Congregation.

The place which he allegeth out of Jerome, is untruly produced, for S. Jerome speaks not there in any sort of the Communion under one kind; but of those who being debarred from enting into the Church because they were thought to be unclean, were made to bring the bread for the Sacrament with them.

Touching the recrimination which he useth, that we have destroyed the whole Sacrament: we shall see in the Article following how injurious this accusation is.

ARTICLE XI. Of Transubstantiation.

T He King of great Britain doth reckon Transubstantiation also among the Nouelties brought into the Church since the first five hundred years after Christ.

Against this Coeffeteau allegeth only four places out of the Fathers, whereof the two first are false and suppositious, the third is fraudulently maimed and mangled, and the fourth is mis-understood.

The first is taken out of the Catechisms of Cyril of Jerusalem, which we formerly proved not to be Cyrils, but made by one John of Jerusalem, who lived some four hundred years after, when the superstition of Relics was in force, which made him say in the fourth Catechism, that the wood of the Cross was then so grown and multiplied, that in a manner the whole earth was filled with it.

The second place is out of the book de caena Domini, falsely ascribed 10 S. Cyprian, as are also all the Treatises. De Cardinalib. operibus; whereof this is one, to which there is prefixed a Prologue, wherein the Author saith that he hath suppressed his name: by which it appeareth, that the Author of this Treatise is unknown; yet might this book be purposely alleged had it been written by any ancient Author that had lived within the first four or five hundred years, but the style testifies, that it is newly forged, witness these words: Distribut {us} non demembratur incorporatus non iniuriatur This is the work of some prentice Frier, that meant to wrong Priscian.

The third place is out of S. Ambrose in the ninth Chapter concerning those that are newly instructed in the Mysteries, where Ambrose saith, that the benediction changeth the nature of the Sacrament, and that it is not that which nature hath made, but what the blessing hath consecrated: And to show that in this action there is a supernatural work, he brings the example of Airons rod turned into a Serpent: so far doth Coeffeteau allege S. Ambrose, but he doth maliciously omit many examples following; by which it appeareth that S. Ambrose did not think, that that which was to be admired in this Sacrament, was the Transubstantiation of the bread. For he addeth also these examples, that Moses divided the red Sea: that the River Jordan turned his course: that water issued out of the Rock: that the bitter waters of Mara were made sweet: that Elisha made Iron to swim upon the water; which were all works of God, whrein there was no transubstantiation; & which declare that he believed not that the bread became the body of Christ, so as it was no more bread in substance: which did plainly appear, for that in the words following comparing these miracles of the Prophets, wherein God changed the nature of things, with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament, he saith, That it is no less to add some new things unto things, then to change the nature of things. Auerring plainly thereby that the bread hath received some new thing, without losing the nature of bread. And we may not think it strange if he say that the bread remaining bread, hath changed it nature. For so a bit of Wax becoming the Kings seal changeth it nature without Transubstantiation, and is not anymore commonly called Wax, even as the common bread becometh holy in the Sacrament, and by this consecration is often called the body of Christ. Therefore he further addeth, It was the true flesh of Christ which hath been crucified, and buried. This then is as truly the holy sign of the flesh. The Lord himself crieth aloud, this is my body: before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified.

The last place is out of S. Chrysostom, in his Sermon of the Dedication, where in his flourishing Discourse after his manner, he heaps up Hyperbolies, to enflame his Auditory. You which come (saith he) think not to receive the Divine body of a man, but that you receive the very Seraphim of fire, with their tongues. And a little after, the spiritual fire streameth down from the table: Transported with the same zeal, he saith there, that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body. And so in the five and fortieth Homily upon S. John: We are mingled and knead with him, we fasten our teeth in his flesh: All which are hyperbolical phrases, and such as being hardly taken were absurd in the very judgment of our adversaries, which make the helps of devotion to cover Idolatry: for to know what is a Doctors opinion, we must not take his Oratorious Amplifications, nor Hyperbolical ecstasies, but out of the places in which they advisedly and expressly treat of this matter; of which you shall have here some passages.

Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, cap. 40. Jesus Christ having taken bread, and distributed it to his Disciples, he made it to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

The same in his third book against Marcion, cap. 19. God hath so revealed it in the Gospel, calling the bread his body, to the end that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to the bread to be a figure of his body.

Origen upon the fifteenth of Matthew: That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the matter, it goeth down into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, and doth not sanctify of its own nature.

Cyprian in his third Epistle of the second book, We find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mingled, and THAT WHICH HE CALLED HIS BLOVD WAS WINE.

Eusebius in the eighth book of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chap. 1. towards the end; Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the signs of the divine dispensation, commanding them to celebrate the figure of his own body. For seeing that he did now no longer receive the sacrifices of blood, nor the slaughter of diverse beasts ordained by Moses, he hath taught us to use the bread for a sign of his body.

S. Austin against Adimantus, chap. 12. The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Where we see that he expoundeth this word Body, by sign of my body.

In his three and twentieth Epistle to Boniface, The holy sign of Christ's body is after a sort, the body of Christ: and the holy sign of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ; and so the holy sign of faith, (to wit, Baptism) is faith. Certainly Baptism is not transubstantiated into faith, neither the Sacrament then of the body of Christ, into the body of Christ. Now we must note that himself in his tenth book of the City of God, and in the fifth Epistle to Marcellius, declareth that this word sacrament signifieth an holy sign.

Upon the ninety eight Psalm, Understand that which I say spiritually; you shall not eat his body which you see, neither shall you drink the blood which my tormentors shall shed, I have recommended unto you an holy sign, which being spiritually understood, shall make you live.

Himself in his third book and sixteen Chapter of Christian doctrine, Except you eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. It seemeth that he commandeth a wickedness. It is then a figure: which commandeth us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord, and quietly and profitably to lay up in our memories that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Observe how he expoundeth this Figure, to wit, that to eat the flesh of the Son of man, is to communicate of his Passion, and to ruminate and meditate thereon carefully in our memories.

Theodoret in his first Dialogue, entitled Immoueable, fol. 8. of the Roman Edition, The Lord hath given to the sign the name of his body What can a man say more expressly? And a little after, He hath called the sign his blood.

A little after, Jesus Christ hath honored visible signs with the Appellation of his body, not having changed their nature, but having added grace to nature. So many words, so many flashes of lightning.

In the second Dialogue, the Eutychien Heretic agreeth with Coeffeteau, and maintaineth the Tran • ubstantiation of the bread into flesh. But Theodoret doth reprehend him thus: The Mystical signs do not change their nature after the consecration: for they remain in their first substance and form and figure: and are visible and to be handled, as before, but they are understood to be the things which they are made: and are believed and reverenced as being become that which they are believed to be.

Gelasius above all is excellent in his book of the two natures: Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive, are a divine thing, and therefore also by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature: and yet notwithstanding, the Substance and nature of the bread, and of that wine doth not let to remain. And surely the Image and semblance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of mysteries.

What more? Let us hear the Canonists of the Church of Rome in a Gloss more ancient then the Transubstantiation, couched in admirable formal terms, upon the Canon Hoc est, in the second Distinction of the Consecration, thus speaketh the Gloss: The heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ: but improperly, and therefore it is so called after a sort, and not according to the verity of the thing it self, but by a significant mystery: so that the sense is this; it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, the body of Christ is signified thereby.

The same Text of the Canon, drawn out of S. Austin, is no less direct to the purpose: The heavenly bread, which is, the flesh of Christ is after it manner of speaking called the body of Christ, albeit in truth it be a holy sign of the body of Christ, to wit of him who is visible, palpable, mortal, hanged on the Cross.

Add hereunto the ancient customs, diametrally contrary to Transubstantiation. The ancient Christians made a feast, in which they did eat the remains of the Sacrament. It was also the custom of many places to give those residues to little children, as Euagrius and Nicephorus do witness. In other places they burnt them, as Hesychius teacheth in his second book upon Leviticus, chap. 8. They gave the bread of the Sacrament into the people's hands, and sometimes permitted them to carry it home. They did not make any elevation of the Host, neither did the people adore it. They did not speak in those days of that concomitancy, which putteth the whole body of Christ into every drop of the Chalice. Instead of a little Wafer cake which now they lift up, they covered the Table with bread and wine. To lick up the drops which fall from the Chalice, to burn the Parings, and to put them up for relics, to seek for the Host in the vomitings, to celebrate the God-feast, or Corpus Christi day, and to carry God in procession between two rouse of Tapestry, are customs of which we find no tract or trace in the ancients: who do neither likewise speak of accidents without subject, of length without anything that is long, or of roundness and nothing round: no more then of a body without place, and of a body of Christ far separated from it self, higher and lower then it self: which also they affirm to be in this Sacrament▪ figure of it self, and to be with all his length in each part of the Host, to have a length without extent, to have all his length in one point which hath no length at all. In a word, there is no mention of a thousand such like prodigious fancies, which now they believe in the Church of Rome with more respect then the Gospel, out of which Coeffeteau without doubt would have produced some proofs, if he had found any, rather then have alleged four miserable places of the Fathers, falsified and curtalled after his manner.

1 For if he had well weighed the words of the Gospel and of the Apostles, he should have found that Jesus Christ took bread, and brake it. But the Church of Rome saith, that the Priest doth not break bread.

2 He should have found that Jesus Christ took bread, and gave it to his Disciples. But the Church of Rome holdeth, that the Priest doth not give bread.

3 He should have found that Jesus Christ giving this bread, said that that w ^ch he gave was his body. But the Church of Rome doth not believe that the bread is the body of Christ, but doth thus expound these words: This is my body, that is, that which is under these forms, shall be transubstantiated into my body. For it is certain, that when Jesus Christ said This is my body, by the word This, he understood that which he gave. Now the Gospel doth witness that he gave bread: therefore these words, This is my body, do signify as much as This bread is my body. And so all the ancients do expound them. Now in that the bread cannot be the body of our Lord in substance, it remaineth therefore that it be such by way of Sacrament, and in the same sense, as in the line following, the Cup is called the new Covenant, or the New Testament.

4 He should also have found, that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Jesus Christ; It is not then Jesus Christ himself. For the remembrance of a thing, and that whereof it is the memorial, are diverse things.

5 He should have found that S. Matthew and S. Mark, say that Jesus drank with his Disciples of the fruit of the Vine: that is, of wine: it was then yet wine whilst he drank of it. For albeit there were two Cups, as appeareth by S. Luke; notwithstanding S. Matthew and S. Mark cannot call the wine of a Cup of which they do not speak at all, Fruit of the Vine.

6 He should further have seen that Jesus Christ maketh no elevation of the Host, neither do the Apostles adore it, but continue sitting at the Table.

7 He might have seen that. 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul doth give us a Paraphrase of the words This is my body. In these words, the bread which we break, is the Communion of the body of Christ. But the Church of Rome waxing wroth and angry against the Apostle, bites and snarles at every word of this clause.

First, the Apostle saith that it is bread. The Church of Rome denieth that it is bread.

Secondly, he saith that we break bread: on the other side, the Church of Rome saith, that there is no bread broken.

Thirdly, our adversaries being demanded, what that bread is that is broken, they say it is the body of Christ; and yet the body of Christ cannot be broken.

Fourthly, S. Paul saith, that this bread which we break, is the Communion of the body of Christ: whence it followeth against the Church of Rome, that the bread which is broken, is not the body of Christ, for the participation or communicating of meat, is not the meat it self.

Fifthly, it by this word Bread, we must understand the body of Christ, as our adversaries will have it, it will follow, not only that the body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament, but also that S. Paul should have mocked us in saying, that, the body of Christ is the Communion of the body of Christ, words very ridiculous and which our adversaries believe not.

Sixty, The worst is, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that there is nothing broken in the Sacrament but the accidents, that is, the roundness, color, taste, and length of the bread: and so she blaspemeth horribly, making the Apostle to say, that the breaking of colors, roundness, and taste of the bread, is the Communion of the body of Christ.

8 He should have found also 1. Cor. 11. that the Apostle saith thrice that we eat bread: and in the second and the twentieth of the Acts, the Apostles came together to break bread: where our adversaries are enforced to have recourse to strange figures, and to make (which is contrary to the Order of time) S. John interpreter of S Paul. Shifts and evasions which we have refuted in another place, and have boulted this Dispute to the very branne.

I suppose also, that if Coeffeteau had any good opinion of Jesus Christ, he would have presumed of him, that being souerainly good, he would not have taken pleasure, to deliver the Institution of this Sacrament in ambiguous terms: who will believe, that he that is the light of the world should be the cause of darkness? whence cometh it then that our adversaries bring in a kind of Mascarado into this holy banquet, when they introduce a dozen of figures & perplexed terms in the words of this Institution? Figures which we have handled and discussed in his place. And they who cannot endure that the bread should be called the body of Christ, because it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, according as S. Austin saith, that the Sacraments take ordinarily the name of that which they signify; yet themselves in the words following (which is broken for you) admit a like figure, saying, that it is not the body that is broken, but the accidents and outward signs, and that that which agreeth to the sign, is attributed to the thing signified.

Whosoever shall weigh these things without passion, will not suffer himself to be infolded in this gross error, which doth greatly abase the glory of our Savior, which maketh him to be swallowed up of his enemies: which maketh Jesus Christ to have drunken his own flesh and bones: which saith that he may be eaten of Mice and other vermin: which incloseth him in filthy vomitings, which maketh the Priest sometimes to complain that they have robbed him of his God; which giveth to a Priest, be he never so vicious, more power then to the Virgin Mary and all the Saints and Angels, who being all put together in one, cannot make Jesus Christ, seeing that he is already made, and cannot be produced a new, much less in murmuring certain words over the bread. Which doth overthrow and abolish the humanity of our Savior, and by consequent all our faith; giving him a body without length: a body which being in diverse places far a part is by consequent far separated from it self: A body without position or situation of partes, seeing that they are all together under one only point, and in every little crumb of the Host. Yea many contrary bodies, of which one is at the Table with his Disciples, the other in the stomachs of his Disciples. For the one body is infirm and weak, the other without infirmity: the one spreading his hands, the other not able to stir them: the one speaking and breathing, the other not able to speak or to breath: the one sweating in the Garden drops of blood, the other newly received into the stomachs of the Apostles, which did neither sweat nor suffer. Which of these two was our Savior? If he be but one, how is he contrary to himself? For we have shown else where that the Distinction of diverse respects cannot be but when onething is compared to diverse things at one time, as when one and the same man is poor and rich, little and great, in comparison of diverse persons. But here they apply these diverse respects to the body of Jesus Christ without comparing him to any other body, nay they oppose him to himself.

That I may not further say, that this doctrine doth annihilate the body of our Lord, by being received into the stomach: for when the forms are altered in the stomach by the digestion, they say that the body of the Lord is no longer there, neither yet is it come forth: it must follow then that either it is reduced to nothing, or changed into something else. Both the one and the other, are alike blasphemous.

ARTICLE XII. Touching the Adoration of the Host.

T He Confession of the Kings Book doth place among the new inventions of the Church of Rome.

The Adoration of the Host, and the Eleuation which is made to have it adored.

This point is important, and which doth surprise our spirits with a heaviness mixed with horror, when at the sound of a little Bell, the Priest lifteth up the bread, and every man prostrateth himself to adore it: Or when the people doth not let to kneel in the dyrt to adore their God, which passeth along the street, enclosed in a Pixe or Box. It had been greatly therefore to have been wished that Coeffeteau could have produced some commandment of God for the same, or some example of the Apostles: but that could he not do, neither hath any man done it hithervnto.

He cometh therefore to the Fathers, and produceth for the same three passages, the one of Chrysostom in his four and twentieth Homily upon the first to the Corinth. the other of S. Ambrose in his third book of the Sacraments, chap. 12. And the last of S. Austin upon the four-score and eighteen Psalm. All three exhort the faithful to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that which is more, to adore him in the Eucharist.

Never did man more abuse his Reader, and he seemeth to think that we are beside our selves: for is there anything in all this which we do not willingly grant him? Is there any amongst us who hath ever denied, that we ought not to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ? Yea who hath ever doubted that we ought not to adore him in the Eucharist? Ought not God the Father also to be adored? And what is this to the purpose to inclose Jesus Christ under forms? He that doth adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, doth not for all that adore that which the Priest holdeth in his hand, but he adoreth Jesus Christ which is in heaven.

Of these three places, that which our adversaries do most press, is the place of S. Austin upon the four-score and eyghteene Psalm, where he saith that no man doth eat this flesh unless he have first adored it. An excellent passage. For doth not S. Austin speak of the true and serious adoration? Judas then did not eat this flesh, for he did not adore it. According to this rule, the Hypocrites who partake of the Sacrament, do not eat the flesh of the Lord, for they do not adore it. Now what it is to eat the flesh of the Lord, himself hath told us, as hath been before alleged; That to eat his flesh is a figure which signifieth to communicate of his passion, and to meditate thereof in our memories. And as he speaketh in his twenty six Tract. upon S. John: To believe in him is to eat the bread of life: he that doth believe in him doth eat him.

We hoped then that Coeffeteau would here have produced the public customs, to show that it was then the custom to adore the Host which the Priest doth hold up with divine worship, called Latria: but he hath not been able to find any. Dionysius who in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, discribeth very exactly the form of the public service, which was some four hundred years after Jesus Christ: and the Apostolical constitutions of Clement, where all the Ceremony of that time is depainted; and the ancient Liturgies, howsoever foully falsified, do in no wise speak of this adoration of the Host. Theodoret saith indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the signs are reverenced. This word Signs showeth sufficiently that he doth not speak of divine adoration, w ^ch they call Cultus Latriae. For that should be impiety.

ARTICLE XIII. Touching the Eleuation of the Host to have it to be Adored.

T He King of great Britain demanded proofs out of the five first ages, or first five hundred years after Christ that is to say, as well Scripture as the ancient Doctors, by which it might appear, that Jesus Christ or his Apostles made elevation of the host. Hereat Coeffeteau holdeth his peace, and instead thereof saith that the ancient Church did show the mysteries or sacraments to the people by drawing a Vail or Curtain from before the Table: which is true: and he hath learned that out of my book of the Apology of the Lord's Supper. Chrysostom in his third Homily upon the Epistle to the Ephesians: When thou shalt see the double Curtaines to be drawn, then think that heaven doth open and enlarge it self. And Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, The Bishop discovereth and setteth out to open view the thing celebrated by the signs holily proposed. And Basil in like manner in his book of the holy Ghost, Who is it of the Saints who hath left in writing the words of the prayer, when they show abroad the bread of the Eucharist, and the Cup of blessing?

This uncovering of the Sacrament was done, (saith Coeffeteau ) to cause it to be adored: and as he speaketh this without all proof, so doth he it most falsely; and was not able to allege any one authority where mention is made either of the elevation, or of the Adoration of the host: but instead thereof he bringeth certain passages, which speak of the uncovering of the bread, and of the drawing of a Curtain.

ARTICLE XIIII. Touching the carrying of God in the Procession.

T He God-feast, or Corpus Christi day, and the walking or Circumportation of the Sacrament in procession, is of this rank and the King of great Britain doth place it among the Nouelties.

Hereupon Coeffeteau fearing the touch and trial maketh an honest retreat, without standing upon his defense: for he only saith, We rank among the holy customs of the Church this fashion of carrying the body of our Lord in the most solemn supplications and Processions: he tells us his opinion, and we knew it well enough before. We expected that he should have taught us not what himself believeth, but why he believeth it: when this custom began: who was the author of it: if it have any ground in the word of God, or in the Fathers. Of all this not a word: a Turk or a Jew might defend himself in like manner, we believe, we affirm. And should he then set upon a King by saying so little to the purpose?

ARTICLE XV. Touching works of Supererogation, and of Superabounding satisfactions, and of the treasure of the Church.

S Uch are the works of Supererogation, which are rightly called, the treasure of the Church.

In all this not a word of scripture, no authority of the Auncients, no example of Antiquity: Coeffeteau only telleth us his opinion. I might satisfy him with like reason, by opposing our opinion; but he shall not so lightly go away with the matter. For this is one of the Cankers of the body of the Church of Rome; one of the principal pieces of the mystery of iniquity.

The opinion of the Church of Rome, according as Bellarmine doth represent it in the seventh and eight Chapters of his book of Monks, is, that there are certain excellent works, which are called Counsels of perfection, which God doth not command, but doth only counsel; works which as they are more cumbersome, and uneasy to be done, so also being performed, they are more perfect, and more excellent then all that GOD hath commanded in his Law: more then to love God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself: Works to which a man is not bound, and if he do them not, he is not punishable, but in observing them he getteth a degree of glory above the common sort. Such are perpetual Virginity, Martyrdom, and the distribution of all his goods to the poor. But especially the vows of Obedience, of Pouerty and Chastity; which are the three vows of the Monks, whose express profession it is to do works of Supererogation, by the merit of which they shall gain in Paradise an eminent degree of glory above the popular Saints, and the Communalty of souls.

All this being but a swollen Blister of pride, we will prick it and abate it with the word of God. And indeed a man had need read this often over, before he shall find anything relishing of the spirit of God.

1 It is a thing almost incredible, that there are any men to be found which think themselves to be more perfect, then God hath commanded. Seeing that Jesus Christ, Matth. 5. doth give us this commandment, Be you perfect as your father which is in heaven is perfect. Is there any man that can be more perfect then God? For although no man can ever approach to his perfection, yet will he have us to conform our selves to his example. So that amongst men he shall be the most perfect, who shall most frame himself thereunto. Now that this is an express commandment, and a perfection necessarily required, Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge it, chap. 13. of Monks: where notwithstanding he doth maliciously loppe off these last words, As my father which is in heaven is perfect.

2 With like pride, these people will be more perfect then Jesus Christ, whose righteousness in regard of his humanity, consisted in nothing else then in doing the will of his Father. And therefore he saith, Heb. 10. Here I am, O Lord, to do thy will. And Galat. 4. He was made subject to the law, to the end that he might redeem them which were under the law.

3 All the perfection and righteousness likewise of the Angels consisteth only in executing the commandments of God, Psal. 103. You mighty Angels that excel in virtue, you that do his commandment in obeying the voice of his words, ye his servants that do his pleasure. It is not found that they do any works of supererogation. And by that reason the Angelical perfection should be inferior to the Monastical Me thinks that the Capuchins, by calling themselves Angels, Arch Angels, Spirits, Cherubin or Seraphin Friars, illuminated Fathers, &c. have done wrong to their worth and dignity, by taking names too base for them, and inferior to their Capuchine perfection.

4 I add that this word of Counsel of Perfection, is injurious against the law of God, and accuseth it of imperfection; for it is as much to say that the law is not a perfect rule of Righteousness, seeing that man, a weak and sinful creature, can surpass it, and do works much better then it commandeth. That wealth is not great which is surmounted by poverty: It is but a weak and feeble righteousness which can be exceeded by sinners. If besides the law there have been counsels of perfection, what doth thence follow, but that the law of God is a rule of imperfection?

5 But let us hear a little, what are the commandments of God. Jesus Christ, John. 13. speaketh thus: A new commandment give I you, that you love one another as I have loved you. Where is the man so much puffed up with his own merits that can surpass this love? Or love his neighbor more then Jesus Christ hath loved us? He being righteous, having given his life for sinners? The author of life for mortal men? The Son of God for the slaves of the Devil to make them his servants, yea his friends, yea his brethren, yea his Spouse, yea his body, yea one with him? These be depths that cannot be fathomed, but depths of his love and grace. All the fervor of our charity is but coldness in comparison of it, how far then from doing anything over and above it?

6 God commandeth in his law that we should love him with all our heart, and with all our strength: He commandeth all that we can do; we cannot then do more then he commandeth: to say that a man can love God more then he can, is to say that he can do that which he cannot do. Jesus Christ himself never loved his Father more then with all his strength. And here the truth is so strong that Bellarmine in the thirteenth Chapter of his book of Monks, after that he had a long time labored and sweated thereupon, is constrained to correct this commandment of God: affirming, that when God will be loved with All our heart, and with all our strength, by this word ALL we must understand a part, as if I should say, that the right side signify h the left, or that white signifieth black. Though this Prelate made no conscience to jest in this manner in the explication of so holy a sentence, and the most important of all the word of God, and such as is an abridgement of the whole law: at least he should have been afraid to bring in the devil into partage with God: for if God be content with one part of our heart, it followeth that a man may give the other parte to the devil.

7 Add hereunto the Commandment of the Apostle S. Paul, Philip. 4. Furthermore Brethren whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things pertain to love, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and any praise think on those things. I demand then of these. our Masters, whether the works of Supererogation be things just, or whether they be virtuous, or things worthy of praise: if they be not, we must not employ our selves about them: if they be just and praise-worthy, then are they demanded by the Apostle. They be not then works not commanded, or over and above the commandment of God. For he doth not say, do nothing which is not just, as Bellarmine speaketh lewdly, corrupting the words of the Apostle: but he commandeth us to give and apply our selves to whatsoever is just and virtuous.

8 Now if we cannot accomplish the law, how much less shall we be able to do more then it commandeth? If Saint Paul, Rom. 7 confess that sin dwelleth in him, and that he doth the evil which he would not do; and therefore calleth himself miserable man. If S. James acknowledge that in many things we offend All. If Saint John saith, th • t If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves. If Jesus Christ have commanded all the faithful to say every day, forgive us our trespasses: If David a man after God's own heart, say, Psalm 143. That in God's sight no man living shall be justified. How can we do anything over and above, seeing that we fail in that which is necessary? That man is very ill advised, who being not able to pay his debts, doth yet offer great gifts.

9 But I would willingly ask of these Monks, who do more then God requireth, and works more then due, whence they have received the strength and ability to do them? They answer, from God. Then say I that if God hath given them this power, it is not that it should remain idle and unprofitable, but to the end to employ it. Then are they bound to do more then the law, seeing that God giveth them strength thereunto, otherwise they should bury the graces of God, and should frustrate him of his end. Now if they be bound, it is no longer a Counsel, they are no longer works of Supererogation. For indeed how could they do more good then they owe to God, seeing that they owe themselves unto him, and have nothing but of his liberality, and that the good which they do, doth not profit God anything? For if he who should do all that God hath commanded him is notwithstanding called by Jesus Christ an unprofitable servant: let some man tell me wherein and how those men are more profitable unto God, who do many works of Supererogation?

10 For this cause also we shall never find that the Apostles or their Disciples ever made any reckoning of their works of Supererogation, and not commanded: this is that Pharisaical Leaven which puffeth up the hearts, and soureth the spirits of men with hypocrisy and presumption. For see here the words of the Pharisee. Luk. 18. I am not like other men, I fast twice in the week, I give tithe of all that I possess. Works not commanded, voluntary devotions, traditions & counsels of perfections.

11 And indeed, that we may not remove all this meniall trash of works of supererogation, as it were to make a longer Lent then other men do: or to turn over our Pater-noster beads oftener: or to have more grains then ordinary, or to carry great beads like Tennis balls after the manner of Hermits: or to live by going from door to door, and in the day time to have the street for his house: or to carry the wallet upon the shoulder full of slices and gobbets half gnawen, just after the ancient manner of the Priests of the Syrian goddess described by Apuleius in his 8. Book of the golden Ass: let us speak only of those works which seem the most specious. They place in this rank single life or perpetual virginity. But they mistake themselves greatly, for there be two sorts of single life, one which is with continency, and without being tickled with any unchaste desire & which hath no necessity of marrying: The other which boileth inwardly with heat, having much ado to contain. This so far is it from being meritorious, that contrariwise it is a demerit to condemnation. So far is it that such a Virginity should be over and above the commandment, that it is indeed against the commandment; for the Apostle S. Paul, 1. Cor. 7 commandeth such to marry. It is better to marry then to burn. And S. Jerome, who confesseth that amidds his Abstinencies did yet feel within himself the fuel of lust as an incentiue to whoredom, was doubtless bound to marry. But as touching continent Virginity, the Apostle S. Paul doth counsel us to continue in that estate, as being more free, and having less trouble and fitter for the service of God, and to study to please him. But for all that he doth not recommend Virginity as a work of Supererogation, but as a condition of life more commodious to a believing man for the time present. So if I should counsel someone man in a corrupt age, and in a place wherein vices are contagious, and virtue is become odious, to live apart, and not to entermeddle with the public affairs, to the end, that he may serve God with more facility; and to add liberty to his innocence: should it follow thereupon that I should esteem a private life, were a work of Supererogation?

Here might be a fit place to represent the inconueniencies of the Vow of Virginity, and what vices it hath brought into the Couents. Thus at Rome, from whence this ordinance doth come, public Stews are allowed and established; which Bellarmine doth maintain to have been wisely established, and compareth in this point the Pope with God. Add hereunto that this vow is undertaken many times without thinking of this matter, and of which they afterwards repent them by leisure. Many there be that enter into Cloisters and these vows out of necessity, others out of grief and discontentment: and they bear it accordingly, with impatience. Lastly, I say that in Virginity there are two things required, first, incorruption of the body; secondly, Chastity in affections. The first is not a virtue: the second is commanded of God, and therefore is not a work of Supererogation.

They add hereunto Martyrdom, whereunto if a man do expose himself without any necessity and doth precipitate himself into it without being called thereunto by God, it is not only not a work of Supererogation, but a very transgression of the commandment of Jesus Christ, who biddeth us, that when they persecute us in one City, to fly into another. It is sufficient for Christian constancy to bear the brunt when it cometh upon us without running to encounter it: to receive necessary evils and harms without posting after them. But if we be drawn to Martyrdom, as our Savior Christ said unto S. Peter, That they should gird him, and lead him whether he would not, signifying by what death he should glorify God: Then I say that Martyrdom is a work of duty, and not in our choice. But that he that should dispence with himself therein, should be a Traitor towards God, seeing that then there is no other means of escaping but only by renouncing of the Gospel. And thereupon we have the express commandment of Christ, Mat. 10. Luc. 9. to wit, that whosoever shall deny him before men, he will deny him before his Father. Whosoever then in this case shall seek to save his life shall loose it. God commandeth us to love him above all things, therefore above our lives also. And shall this then be counted a Counsel, whereunto a man is not bound, which notwithstanding if we do not follow, we are perfidious against God, and prodigal of our own salvation? True it is that many are saved without suffering Martyrdom. But so withal that there is none saved unless that he be prepared for Martyrdom: In which there are these two things: first, the pains and torments of the body: secondly, the constant perseverance in the faith. The bodily griefs and pains are not virtues, and therefore cannot be works of Supererogation. But that which is praise-worthy in Martyrdom is a firm faith and fervor of zeal, which becometh a victorious Conquer our over the flame of the fire. Now this faith and this zeal are commanded of God, and we are bound to strengthen and fortify our selves thereunto. It is not then an undue work, or a work of Supererogation • and indeed it is a subtlety of Satan to place Martyrdom amongst unnecessary works, to the end that a man should not hold himself bound thereunto.

They further add the sale of all our goods, to distribute them to the poor: and this is the only example which Coeffeteau doth produce unto us, which is the weakest of all. For so far is it from being a work of Supererogation, that many times it is not so much as a good work. The words of Saint Paul are very express, 1. Cor. 13. Though I should give all my goods to the poor, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. This is then a work which may be done without charity, and by hypocrisy. I add also that he that should be charged with a great number of children should have a charity inhumanely indiscreet, if he should give all his goods to the poor: for piety doth not overthrow nature. He that hath no care of his family hath denied the faith, and is worse then an Infidel: for instead of being charitable, he becometh void of humanity, and natural affection. A man should have his purse open, but not without bottom that will hold nothing: neither should a man give his money without reason, as if he were angry with it. We must further also take heed that our liberalities be not in the nature of thefts and larcenie, in giving that to one which is due to another. This distribution then is commendable, if it be done without hypocrisy, without superstition, and without an opinion of making God indebted and beholding unto us, and so that it do not divert us from other more necessary works.

These things considered do furnish us with an invincible demonstration against this abuse, which thinketh that for a man to distribute all that he hath to the poor, is a work more excellent then the fulfilling of the law, that is to say, more then to love God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself. For the things which are always good, are more valuable then those which are only good conditionally, and upon certain considerations. Now the love of God and of our neighbor, recommended unto us in the law, is always and in all considerations good. But the distribution of a man's goods to the poor is only good upon those considerations which I have before represented, and therefore the love of God and of our neighbor is more of value then it.

This reason is yet stronger: a thing that is good in it self is always better then that thing which is not good, but in respect of another. Now the love of God & of our neighbor is good in it self; but the distribution of all that we possess to the poor, is not good unless it be in respect of our love to God, and to our neighbor, and therefore our love to God and to our neighbor is better. Yea I say that all that is praise-worthy in that liberality which giveth all to the poor is charity, which is commanded us in the law, even so far as to love God with all our heart, and with all our strength, and to love others as our selves.

It is then in vain, that they allege unto us the commandment of Christ, Mat. 19. given unto the young man (who said that he had kept all the commandments from his youth) to whom our Savior replied, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have a treasure in heaven. For first of all our adversaries are deceived in thinking this young man had fulfilled the law, seeing that he was covetous, as our Savior showeth, Marc. 10 24. where after that this young man had left Christ, with purpose rather to keep his goods then to follow Christ, our Savior said to his Apostles, Children how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God? He that trusteth in his riches and preferreth them before Christ, transgresseth the law, and doth not love God above all things. And indeed Chrysostom in his 64 Homily upon S. Matthew, saith that he was covetous. S. Jerome upon that place saith, that he came to tempt Christ, & in that our Savior Christ loved him, it was a love of compassion, and not an approbation of his Avarice. So Jerusalem was full of the blood of the Prophets, and yet our Savior wept over it, which tears could not be without some love.

Secondly, they abuse themselves in thinking that this is a counsel given to all: for we have shown that it should be il done oftentimes, to observe it. But Christ gave this commandment particularly to this young man to discover his coueteousnesse, and to show unto him how far he was from the accomplishment of the law; of which he so much boasted: our Savior putteth his finger upon his impostume, to make him to feel his Maladie. For Christ who knoweth the hearts of men, and the things that are to come, knew well enough that he would not forsake his goods, and that he was not in disposition to follow him And indeed no man can deny but that this young man was much to blame that he rejected Christ's counsel, and refused to follow him. But according to the doctrine of our adversaries, he is not to be reprehended: for (say they) it is a counsel of perfection, to which no man is bound. In a word it is neither said there, nor else where, that in so doing he had done a work of Supererogation.

But it seemeth to me that this presumptuous doctrine is not comely in the mouth of Monks; who do not vow poverty, but rather to be rich. There be many Monks of great revenues, who live like Princes. Others are poor in their own particular and private estates, but are rich in common. Their begging and loitering is fatter to them then the people's laboring, they gather much money under the color of Pardons. They never go but to the funerals of rich men: they sing no Mass but for them that have given them before hand: they fleece and share even upon the graves, and death it self is made tributary unto them. But especially I find that their tottering faith, and the profession that they make of doubting of their salvation, doth very ill sort and agree with these works of Supererogation. But to omit for the present, this doctrine which preacheth Distrust, whereas the Scripture preacheth confidence and certainty of Faith: This doctrine, I say, which teacheth us to pray, Our Father which art in heaven, without knowing whether we be the children of the Devil, or no: And which accounteth it arrogant pride for a man to trust upon the promise of God: To omit this, I say, let us only consider, how these things can agree; that men should seek by works of Supererogation to come to a more excellent degree of glory above other men, and yet in the mean time to doubt, whether themselves shall be saved or eternally damned. Thus they tremble, seeing Hell open upon them, while their ambition stretcheth it self beyond the Kingdom of heaven. Like unto a man whose ambition a whole Kingdom or Empire will not suffice, and yet standeth in fear to be hanged the next day. Were it not better to stick to the promises of God, then to live in suspense between the fear of hell, and the hope of an extraordinary glory, balancing his spirit between Pride and Despair? Offending God as much through incredulity as through presumption? How great then must the terror of conscience, and trembling of heart be in those men, who content themselves with the bare keeping of God's commandments, and also of those that seek unto these men to borrow Satisfactions, and to buy their Merits.

All this that hath formerly been said, is not so to be taken, as though we did absolutely deny that there are no counsels in the Gospel: the ancient Fathers do acknowledge as much with us. It is a good and a wise counsel to abstain from things lawful, as from the use of meats, when our weak brother is scandalized thereby. It is a wise counsel for a Pastor or Minister to take no stipend when he can live otherwise, or when it giveth occasion to the wicked to defame the Gospel. It is a wise counsel to a man that hath the gift of continency to abstain from marriage, especially in time of persecution. But that the observing of them should be a perfection above the law, or that it should deserve a degree of glory in Paradise above the common rank of Saints, is that which we have proved to be false, and contrary to the Gospel; and a doctrine that lifteth a man up on high, to precipitate him with a greater down fall.

ARTICLE XVI. Of the baptising of Bels.

T He King of great Britain proceedeth to these words: The baptising of Bels, and a thousand other tricks: But above all, the worshipping of Images. If my faith be weak in these, I confess I had rather believe too little then too much. And yet since I believe as much as the Scriptures do warrant, the Creedes do persuade, and the ancient Councils decreede; I may well be a Schismatic from Rome, but I am sure I am no Heretic.

This answer of M. Coeffeteau is more mannerly then that of Cardinal Bellarmine's, who writing against his Majesty's book, tells the King that it is an impudent slander: he might have spoken more civilly to a King: for if we wrong them in calling their consecration, and benediction of bells by the name of baptism, this imputation should be laid upon the people of the Romish Church, which have so named it, or rather upon their Bishops and Priests, that by a Player-like profanation, have practiced the same Ceremonies upon bells, and gallies, which they use in baptism: for in the blessing, and exorcising of a bell, they give him god-fathers and god-mothers, which hold the rope in their hands: the Suffragan asketh certain questions of the bell: they cloth him in white, sprinkle him with holy water, and salt: the Bishop or his Suffragan annoints him with oil, with many signs of the Cross, praying God that he will grant power unto this bell against the secret assaults of the devil; against thunder and tempest, and for the comfort of souls departed; then after the singing of certain Psalms, he is newly marked again with seven crosses without, and four crosses within, which are made upon the Crisme with the Bishops or his Suffragans thumb, who at every cross repeats these words; Consecretur & Sanctificetur Domine signum istus in nomine Patris & filij & spiritus sancti: In all this Ceremony there is nothing wanting but the word, Baptism, save that it is done something more diversely. The same Ceremony is practiced upon gallies, when they launch them into the Sea, and for what offense they have condemned this Sacrament unto the gallies, I do not understand.

He that shall well understand the great virtue of bells, will not wonder at all, if the people of the Romish Church have thought that baptism doth of right belong unto them; since that one peal hath power to carry souls into heaven, and especially the souls of rich men: for if a rich legacy be given, all the bells in the town shall ringe a requiem for the soul departed: but the poor shall have leave to die without any sound. And it is presumed that some bells have more virtue then others; for they are not rung all at one rate. So at Paris there are bells some at four Francs, some at five, and some at six. For it is not credible, that any will buy the sound of one bell dearer then another, but upon opinion of reaping a greater benefit thereby.

It is not then without great reason that Durand in his rationale, and other illuminated Doctors do find so many mysteries in bells, saying, that the clapper of the bell is the tongue of the Preacher: that the rising of the bell is the contemplative life, and the falling down is the life active: that a ringe of Iron is fastened to the end of the Bel-rope, to show that the Crown is not obtained until the race be finished; which is the cause why Boniface the eighth, and Gregory the ninth have forbidden the ringing of Bels in proscribed or interdicted Churches, unless by special leave they be licensed to toll an Ave-maria. And these observations the Apostles would not have omitted, if they had had the keeping of the Bels in the Temple of Jerusalem: which then were not rung all the year long, but now a days they are only speechless upon good Friday, whereof there is some mystical reason, which comes not within the compass of my understanding.

ARTICLE XVII. Of the Relics of Saints.

T Ouching the Relics of Saints, if I had any such that I were assured were members of their bodies, I would honourably bury them, and not give them the reward of condemned men's members, which are only ordained to be deprived of burial: But for worshipping either them or Images, I must account it damnable Idolatry.

1 To begin then with the word of God: We read in the old Testament that the bodies of the holy Patriarchs have been enterred, and buried in the Sepulchers of their Fathers. Joseph when he died, gave order that his bones should be kept till their departure out of Egypt: for he desired that the keeping of his bones, should be an instruction to continue the hope of their deliverance: but of any worship done unto his bones, there is no mention at all.

2 When Moses died upon the mountain of Nebo, God would not suffer the Israelites to know the place of his burial: the reason being doubtless a fear, that they would have Idolatrously abused his body.

3 In the first book of Kings, chap. 13. God raised a dead man by the virtue of Elisha his touching of the dead body, the Lord intending by this Miracle to authorize the doctrine of his faithful servant. But we find not at all, that the body of Elisha was for this taken out of his grave: neither that the people did kneel to his bones, that they brought any offerings unto it, or that they kissed or carried it in procession.

[Ver. 17] 4 In the second book of Kings, cap. 23 King Josiah forbids the digging up of the bones of a deceased Prophet but will have them left in the Sepulcher. He doth not then command any transportation of his bones, or to yield any veneration or worship, or oblation or adoration.

[Uer. 12:] 5 In the nineteenth of the Acts, there are cures wrought by touching of the Kerchiefes brought from S. Paul; yet is not the linen put apart for a relique, nor is there any ceremony done vntoit. For the Miracles were not wrought by any virtue of the linen, but by the power of God, who by these Miracles confirmed the preaching of his holy Apostle.

6 Therefore, Isaiah 8.19.20. the Prophet having reproved those that went from the living to the dead sends us to the law, and the testimony, if we will have the light of heaven to shine upon us.

7 To be short, our adversaries find not one syllable in the word of God, nor any example of any religious service, or adoration of Relics. For it is untruly affirmed by Bellarmine, that the Scripture alloweth the religious worship performed to our Sauiors Sepulcher, and to the hem of his garment, and to Peters shadow, and Paul's Kercheifes. How should it approve that whereof it makes no mention at all? Why doth he not allege some passage of Scripture, wherein the worship or veneration of the linen, or shadows, or Sepulchers is mentioned? who will be persuaded, that a learned man affirming a matter so full of untruth, should have any conscience in him. So in the beginning of the third Chapter, he falsely allegeth these words out of the eleventh of Isaiah, ver. 10. His Sepulcher shall be glorious: for it is in the Hebrew, his rest shall be glorious: whereunto let this be added, that there is no word in that place of any worship performed to this Sepulcher.

Now that the point in difference between us may be understood, we dispute not whether the bodies of Saints, and Martyrs may be reserved respectively, or in case their Sepulchers were vndecently placed, or ridiculously exposed to profane insolencies, whether it be lawful to remove their bodies to some other place: for thus far we agree. And his Majesty of England protesteth that if he certainly knew any Relics, which were indeed the body of any Saint, he would honourably bury them, and keep them with respect; for if men do curiously affect the sight of the monuments of ancient Kings, or pagan Emperors, who should be so profane, as not to desire the sight of the Tombs of the Apostles, and of those sacred lights, whose glory shineth even after their death? Or who in this regard would not be touched with a loving respect to them, and their memory? But the question is, whether we must perform any service to these Relics? or must adore them? or speak to things without life, or offer unto bones, or clothes? or whether God have commanded to lay them upon Altars, or carry them in procession? For the Conuenticle held at Nice, about the year 789. which the Church of Rome reckoneth for a general Council, in the fourth Act willeth, that the bones, ashes, and the rags be adored. And Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of his book of Relics, proveth the adoration of Relics by these words of Chrysostom in his Sermon of Iuuentius and Maximus, Tumulos Martyrum adoremus: Let us adore the Monuments of Martyrs: but the words in Chrysostom, are Tumulos Martyrum adornemus, Let us adorn the monuments of Martyrs: which is a horrible falsification: but this is ordinary with the Cardinal; whereof Coeffeteau himself is even ashamed, for alleging the same passage, he translates it faithfully, Let us adorn their monuments. The same Cardinal about the end of the second chapter saith, We adore not Relics as God: then by his own confession, he worshippeth Relics, but it is with an inferior adoration.

Now we require our adversaries to show us some commandment of God, or some example out of the holy History for this adoration, and religious worship: for whatsoever distinction of worship they may produce, is always such a service and religious worship, as God hath not commanded, and is consequently comprised under that worship which S. Paul condemneth, Coloss. 2. calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, will worship, or voluntary devotion.

And there can be no Religious worship how mean so ever, but turns to an abuse, when it is transferred to a dead thing: Since that the Church of Rome doeth speak to these relics, and salutes the Napkin, the Spear, the Tears, the Cross, saying, Ave sancta facies, &c. And Ave lignum triumphale. And he that shall observe with what zeal the people is carried to the Adoration of these Relics, shall find that the service of God in comparison thereof is key-cold. At Paris, when the Caskets of S. Geneueifues, & S. Marcellus Relickes, being carried about, come to meet each other, the people are made to believe, that the bearers have much ado to pluck them asunder, they be such sociable Relics and loving bones, that they should have been lodged in one Tomb to give them contentment; In this solemnity it is a wonder to see the zeal of the people, and with what a tumult they throng and press to come near to it. All the Angels together have not the one quarter of this honor. And the Souls of Moses, Abraham, Noah, &c. are much less honored then Saint Francis breeches, or a piece of his Pilgrims staff.

It is to small purpose to say that this is done in honor of the Saints. For it should first be shown, that God hath commanded it: Secondly, we ought to be well assured, that the Saints are well pleased with this service. Add further, if a King should put off his Doublet, I think there is no man (unless he have his wits crazed) that would salute it, much less to say unto it, God save thee Doublet; as they do in the Church of Rome, where men say, I greete thee O tear; And God save thee O triumphal wood. If you salute anything in honor of Jesus Christ, or of whomsoever, it ought in reason to understand what you say.

And here we have the first strength of antiquity on our side, Eusebius in the fourth Book, Chapter fifteen of his History, speaking of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, saith that the Christians were charie of his Ashes, and that they had procured them to be buried; but he doeth not speak of any service, or Religious worship, or adoration done to the ashes. Saint Athanasius, in the life of S. Anthony, is most pregnant to this purpose, where he saith, that these were the last words of Anthony when he lay dying; Let no man carry my Relics into Egypt, for fear lest my body be honored with vain honor, for fear least Obsequies, and Funeral solemnities (which I have blamed as you know) be practiced upon myself; For I am especially returned to this place to avoid it; do you then hide and cover this poor body with earth, and observe the commandment of your aged father, that no man beside yourselves, know the place where I am buried. Out of this place appeareth, that the Christians even from that time, were excessively given to honor the bodies of the believers that died: And we must not think, that S. Anthony was afraid that the Christians would adore him for GOD after his death. For Bellarmine doeth acknowledge that which indeed is a truth; That * it was never heard that any Christians did confer Divine honors upon the Relics of Saints. The custom of the ancient Church, was to bury the bodies of Martyrs, and not to put them in Caskets out of the ground to carry them about in Procession. In the eight Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, the Christians do there bury Stephen without mention of any service done unto his body. The same was done to Polycarpus, as Eusebius witnesseth. Saint Ambrose had appointed the place, which was under the Altar or the Communion Table for his burial, as appeareth by his last Epistle; for in those days the Altar was most commonly a Table of wood, easy to be removed, so that the pavement underneath might well be broken up to lay a dead body. Victor in his third Book of the Vandals persecution, The multitude did with joy and withal diligence, lay up the bodies of the Saints in a Tomb. The Poet Prudentius, about the end of his Hymn upon Eulalia,

And in the beginning of the Hymn next following,

Theodoret in the first Book of his Story, Chapter eighteen, doeth sufficiently show, that the Christians then knew not what it meant, to yield Religious worship to Relics, in that he saith, that Constantine having recovered the nails of our Saviors Cross, set some of them in his Helmet, the rest he thrust into the Bit of his Horses bridle: That is, he put two * in his Head piece, and the other two in the Bridle. Thus did this venerable Horse chew Relics. What it was that moved this Emperor to do it, is another matter: But I say that the Bishops of that time, would never have suffered that to have been done, if they had thought that any Religious service or adoration had been due to those Nayles.

In the mean while, it is a thing to be wondered at, how these Nayles having been lost for three hundred years space, were thus found altogether so fit to the purpose. And how Helena the Emperors mother could discern them from the Nayles of the two thieves, and how the fourth Nayle was lost. For the Cross had in the middle a little boorde, upon which the feet of the malefactors to be Crucified, were set, and each foot was Nayled a part, and so also our Savior way Nayled, as Justin Martyr teacheth in his Dialogue against Tryphon: and Irenaeus lib. 2. Cap. 42. Nazianzen in his verses of Christ suffering, And Theodoret before alleged. But especially Gregory of Tours in his book of the praise of Martyrs: And therefore it was a negligence in Helen that she did not employ her self to find out the fourth nail.

It is a thing also to be wondered, how the nails were found in the same place with the Cross; Seeing that the custom of the Aunciens was to bury together with the bodies of malefactors, the chains and irons wherewith they suffered, as appeareth in Pliny's Epistles, lib. 7. Epist. 27. where he reciteth the stories of a Ghost that appeared to the Philosopher Athenodorus. And in Chrysostom in his Oration against the Gentiles. And Welserus confirmeth it in his seventh book of his Commentaries of Ausbourge.

In the mean time it appeareth by the place of Athanasius, heretofore alleged, and by the simplicity of Constantine, that this abuse began from that time to slide on and increase, which was so far grown in some places 400. years after Christ, that S. Austin in his first book de Moribus Eccles. doth greatly complain of it. I know (saith he) that there are many that adore Sepulchers and Pictures; I know that there are many that drink at large over the dead: The same Austin in the 28. chapter of his book of the labor of Monks (for in those days they had each man his trade) complaineth of some gadders up and down, carriers about of relics, which they reported to be the limbs of Martyrs: Yea, saith he, if so be that they be members of Martyrs.

The ancient Christians in the three first ages were wont to warm their zeal by the imbers of the Martyrs; And because they had no Temples, they assembled together in the Church-yardes; where the Tombes of the Martyrs served them for tables to administer the Lord's Supper; This being at the first done only as occasion and the present opportunity would permit, was afterward made a law. For in the fifth Council of Carthage, the Altars are called Monuments or Tombes: Where is to be noted, that the Council complaineth, that many such false monuments were erected upon dreams and vain illusions, and commandeth to pluck them down, if the tumult of the people shall not hinder them: which showeth that superstition was already grown strong in this point. Gregory Bishop of Rome in the first book of his Dialogues chap. 2. speaketh of one called Libertinus, who always carried about a hose of S. Honorate. In those times, our Kings planted their whole Religion in founding of Monasteries and getting Relikes together thinking by these means to be saved. King Dagobert took away all the Relics from the other Saints, to enrich the Temple of S. Denis, S. Rusticus, and S. Eleutherius; whereupon there fell out great strife and debate among the Saints, if we believe the Chronicles of France. For the Saints whom he had robbed and riffled, as S. Hilary, S. Fremin, &c. adjoined themselves to the Devils, & craved their help to carry the soul of this good King to hell; But he cal ed to the Saints, whom he had enriched, for succor, who so valiantly resisted the other Saints and the Devils, that they plucked away his soul from them, and carried it into Paradise. Now a days many superstitious persons are ashamed of their relics and mock at them; And yet for all that, it is held for an absolute and inviolable Decree, that every Altar must have his Relics underneath it, otherwise they cannot consecrate. For after the Introite of the Mass, the Priest bowing himself over the Altar, asketh of God pardon of all his sins, through the merits of those Saints, whose bones lie hid under the Altar. This greatly availeth to strike the people with a superstitious horror, and astonishment of heart, and with a trembling devotion, it being done out of singular wisdom, and upon great consideration. For it is credible that when Christ did administer his last supper, that he closely conueighed under the table, some bones of Samuel, or some tooth of Samson's Asses law bone; And if Christ did not seek salvation through their merits, it was because those old Saints were worse stored and provided of merits, then they whom the Pope hath Canonized for Saints, as S. Juniper, or S. Thomas of Canterbury, defender of the crown of England.

Concerning the Fathers, whom Coeffeteau opposeth hereunto; Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Austin, are of the mind that the bodies of the Saints ought indeed to be honored, and their sepulchers beautified and adorned. But what is this against the King of England, who saith as much. As for those miracles which were done at those Sepulchers, of which S. Austin speaketh, God by them did authorize the doctrine of the Gospel, which his faithful servants had uttered in word, and signed with their blood. Such were the miracles wrought by the touch of Elisha his body, and by the Kerchiefes of S. Paul: But it followeth not thereupon, that they adored or yielded any religious service to those Relics. Unless perhaps we must adore the shadow of S. Peters body, as Bellarmine will have it: of which shadow doubtless some piece may be found stored up among the Relics, as well as at Cour-chiuerni near Blois they keep the Labor of S. Joseph, when he cleft wood, for he was a Carpenter.

Howbeit there be two things which I will not here dissemble; the one is, that Heretics at that time, did more miracles as Tertullian witnesseth lib. 3. against Marcion cap. 3. and in his 44 chapter of his Prescript. where he saith, that the Heretics did raise the dead, heal the sick, foretell things to come. The other is, that the place in S. Austin De Ciuitai. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. is to be suspected For he speaketh of miracles done in Africa, and near unto Hippo, where he was Bishop, by touching the Relics of Saints. Whereas himself Epist. 137. saith that in some places of Italy, as at Nola and at Milan, such miracles were done near unto the monuments of the Saints: but that in Africa there were not any wrought in any place; And that which is more to be observed, is, that this Epistle was written to the people and clergy of Hippo, who would easily have controlled him, if such miracles had been wrought in Africa; What shall we now believe? Here is S. Austin who saith in one place, that many miracles were done in Africa near unto the place of his abode; by the Relics of Saints: In another place he saith there were non done at all. Surely the writings of the Fathers passed through certain ages, horribly darkened with ignorance, in which some malicious men took a pleasure to falsify them. And indeed by the course of Story of the ages following a man may observe, that by how much the more ignorance increased by corruption of doctrine; by so much the more miracles were wrought. Read the Dialogue of Gregory the first, and you shall see that Christ did nothing in a manner, & in comparison of the miracles then wrought. Gregory himself in the fourth book of his Dialogues chap. 41. wondereth at it, and propoundeth this quetion to himself: How cometh it to pass that in these latter times so many things are revealed unto us, touching the souls of the dead, which before were bidden. For then in those times, men talked of nothing but of Ghosts that appeared, which exhorted men living to give to the Church. And it was yet but the sixth hundredth year of Christ, so much had the Prince of this world gotten in short time.

That which Coeffeteau most maketh brags off, and setteth it out with fairest color, is the testimony of S. Jerome, who hath written two Epistles in defense of the Relics of Saints, against Vigilantius who did oppugn them. But there is no affinity between their quarrel and ours. For Jerome accuseth Vigilantius for accounting the Relics of Saints unclean, a thing which we never affirmed; nay the King of England speaketh of them with great respect. He saith further, That Vigilantius would have the relics of Saints cast out upon the dung hill, that himself alone though druncke and asleep might only be adored. Have we ever said so? Or is there any of us that would only be adored? But as touching the question, whether Relics be to be adored, S. Jerome in the Epistle before alleged, doth flatly deny that they ought to be adored: We do not adore, I do not say only, the Relics of Martyrs; But neither Sun nor Moon, for Angels nor Archangels: Where is to be seen that he would have it esteemed less strange to adore the Sun, then Relics. Which maketh us to suspect the place in his Epistle to Marcella, of falsehood: where he exhorteth her, Samariam pergere, & Johannes Baptistae, Helisaei quo{que} & Abdiae pariter cineres adorare: to come to Samaria and to adore the ashes of John the Baptist, Elisha, and Abdias. Howsoever, if he would have been believed, he should have grounded his saying upon the authority of the word of God: according to the rule which himself giveth upon the 23. chapter of S. Matthew. Because, saith he, this is not grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, we may as easily reject it, as they prove it.

The place of Gregory Nyssenus which Bellarmine produceth is false. We have heretofore shown the falsehood of that Oration upon Theodorus; As also that is false which he saith, that the fifth Council of Carthage forbiddeth any Altar to be dedicated without Relics. The Council doth not speak in that place, of all Altars, but of the monuments of Martyrs, which the believing Christians, assembling themselves together in the Church-yeards, used in steed of Altars. And because that for want of true monuments, they sometimes erected in honor of true Martyrs, false devised sepulchers, the Council commandeth them to be plucked down. It is a thing incredible how the works of this Cardinal do swarm with untruths. The other places which he allegeth do neither speak of adoration, nor religious worship.

But the main point is, that through tract of time, and the malice of men, the question is now changed. For in those times, while the sufferings of the Martyrs were yet fresh in men's minds, and their Relics certainly known; men disputed upon some ground and subject, how far they were to be honored: But now a days they thrust upon us feigned Relics, counterfeit merchandise, as a mere Artifice for gain: Relics which they are wont • o show in dark places, and that by uncovering them either by halfs or not at all; making the seely people to rest content by bare seeing of the box or casket, causing them to kneel unto them with troubled devotion: And if they depart out of th • se Oratories without offering, or paying, it will be thought heresy or ingratitude.

Some Relics there are merely forged to mock and abuse the world: And Burgos in Spain there is a Crucifix, whose bearde they cut every month, and pare his nails, and these parings are said to be of great virtue. At Rome there is kept in S. John's Church in Lateran, the circumcised fore-skin of Christ, as also the very Altar at the which John the Baptist did say divine service in the wilderness, as witnesseth the book of Romish Indulgences printed at Rome. Our Pilgrims bring home, out of Galizia, the feathers of certain hennes which are of the race of that cock, that crew to S. Peter when he denied his master: In S. Sulpitius Church in Paris, there is a stone of that fountain wherein the Virgin Mary washed the swathing-clothes of Christ newly borne. There was shown unto myself at S. Denis, Judas his Lantern, which doubtless is a piece of great virtue. As also Aaron's rod, which by that reckoning must needs have lasted three thousand and six hundred years without rotting; and yet our good masters confess, that the consecrated hosts do finnow and grow mouldy, the presence of Christ in them, cannot save them from putrefaction. Men go to Collein to worship the bodies of the three Kings that never yet were. The author of the book called Opus imperfectum upon S. Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom, saith that they were of those whom they called Magi, wizards, or soothsayers, and that they were twelve in number. Their names Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, do show that it was the invention of some Almaine Monk, for the two first are high-dutch names. That good and faithful servant of God Theodore Beza, whom God hath now gathered to his Saints in glory, in his book against Baldwine, reporteth of himself that he saw at Tours a cross laden with rich stones which the people adored at the Passion; amongst the rest there was an Achates or an ancient Agate stone which the people kissed, and that himself beholding the ingrauing, he found it to be a Venus weeping over her Adonis lying by her. And further, that to Lewis of Bourbon, Prince of Condee, being in the same Town, there was brought amongst other Relics an arm of silver, which being opened, there was found within it a knave of spades with a love ditty. And that at Bourges there was found in a casket of Relics a little wheel turning round upon a staff, having a little scroule written about it.

How can a man reconcile S. John of Angerie, with Amiens and Arras, seeing that these three Towns do brag that they have the head of Saint John the Baptist? How many houses might there be built, with that which is said to be the wood of the true Cross? Or who could reckon the thorns of Christ his Crown? Or the milk, or the hair of the Virgin Marie? In England only in the beginning of the reformation of religion, there were found above a bushel full of S. Apollonies teeth. And always the bason to receive the offering, is at hand. We see many Churches founded by this means. What semblance of these things was there amongst the ancients, nay was there ever any grosser cozenage in all the Heathen Paganism? In all this abuse of Relics, find me out any Relique or remnant of Piety, or any trace of Christianity.

ARTICLE XVIII. Of Images.

B Ut for worshipping either them or Images, I must account it damnable Idolatry. I am no Iconomachus; I quarrel not the making of Images, either for public decoration, or for men's private uses: But that they should be worshipped, be prayed to, or any holiness attributed unto them, was never known of the Ancients: and the Scriptures are so directly, vehemently and punctually against it, as I wonder what brain of man, or suggestion of Satan durst offer it to Christians, and all must be salued with nice Philosophical distinctions: As, Idolum nihil est: And, they worship (forsooth) the Images of things in being, and the Image of the true God. But the Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of anything that God created. It was not a nihil then that God forbad only to be worshipped, neither was the brazen Serpent, nor the the body of Moses a nihil, and yet the one was destroyed, and the other hidden for the eschewing of Idolatry.

Master Coeffeteau answers,

He addeth thereunto the testimony of the Fathers, alleging one of the second age, to wit,

And farther he addeth

This is the substance of his discourse, [Answer.] which he loades with so many, and such tedious words, that the matter is hardly perceived. By which discourse he showeth that he is ashamed of his religion. For he speaketh of Images, as of memorials, or mere representations, whereas the Church of Rome commandeth men to reverence them, to perform religious worship unto them, nay to adore them.

In the second Council of Nice, Pope Adrian writing to Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, speaketh thus, Let your beatitude continue to serve & adore the Images of all Saints. This commandment is repeated through the whole Council above twenty times. These words are to be found in the seventh Act. We hold that the Images of the pure Virgin Marie, the mother of God, and also of the glorious Angels, and of all Saints, are to be adored and saluted. That if so be any be otherwise minded, and do waver and be of a doubtful opinion concerning the adoration of venerable Images, our holy and reverend Synod doth anathematise him. And which is more, in the first Act of this venerable Council it is declared, that a Church without Images is nothing worth. Which is again affirmed, that to oppose Images is the worst of all heresies. In the fourth Act it is said, that Images are equivalent to the holy Gospels. And in the eight Act it is ordained, that such adoration be used unto Images, as is unto the venerable, and quickening Cross, and the holy Gospels. In the same fourth Session, speaking of the holy Hystories of Abraham, and of the Martyrs, it saith, that major est Imago quam oratio, An Image is of more excellency then prayer. In the fifth Act, the entire body of the Council pronounceth, that the Church holdeth that the Angels are corporal, and not invisible, but that they have subtle bodies compounded of air, or fire. And throughout the whole Council is the worshipping of Images commanded. Now this Council in the Church of Rome is most authentical, is styled Canonical, and confirmed by the Popes; and it is to be believed that such a Council cannot err: which is as much as can be said of the holy Scripture.

Bellarmine with other of their Doctors following this decision, doth teach that Images are religiously to be worshipped, and adored. Who directly opposeth that which Coeffeteau saith, that Images are worshipped Simply for that which they represent. For Bellarmine in the 21. chapter of his book of Images, sets down this maxim in Capitall letters, that the Images of Christ, and the Saints, ought to be worshipped, not by accident only, or improperly, but properly, and by themselves, so that the worship of them is determined in the Images, as they are considered in themselves, and not according to the patterns which they represent. And about the end of the 22. chapter. The usual worship performed unto external Images, is considered properly, and in themselves. So the worship done to Images, doth evidently show that they reverence the Images for themselves. For among the diverse Images of one Saint, one is covered with dust, another is cladd in silk, and is often in change of raiment: and some have offerings tendered unto them, and some have none; and which • s more, the Images of the self same Saints have diverse names: there is our Lady of Virtue, our Lady of Joy, our Lady of good news, our Lady of Snow, whose festival day is in Italy celebrated in the month of August, and he that should call our Lady of Virtue, by the name of our Lady of Joy, should be reputed a blockhead, or that he had been at Geneva And so doubtless when one censeth an Image, or kindleth lights, or clothes it with apparaile, or offers unto it; or when one speaketh to a piece of wood, or to the painting in a cloth, I see not how the Saint is more honored thereby: for he meddles not with the perfumes; and when the stones are polished, he sees not a whit the clearer. He takes no delight in seeing the Images clothed, or naked; nor doth he gather up any of the offerings, but they are all for the Curates, and Vicars. And if any should speak to the picture of a King, the King would not esteem himself honored thereby.

And if Images which do but doubtfully resemble the countenances of Saints, must be worshipped, then why should not the Bible be adored, wherein the power of God is most certainly represented?

Now if his Majesty of England speak of this abuse, as an abomination, what would he say if he had been an eye-witness of that superstitious madness, wherewith the poor multitude are inflamed? if he had seen behind an Image of stone, clad in silk, a poor naked picture, standing for the Image of God? if he had seen the people marching in procession before Lent toward the Image of our Lady, for leave to eat butter? if he had seen the rule practiced, which the Tridentine catechism sets down approving such as say a Pater noster before the picture of S. Dominic, or S. Barbara? if he had seen troupes of Saints in Churches diversely apparailed, among which some are but very basely clad, and some Saint having a hog by his side, some other a dog, &c, and these creatures to have a share in the perfume, & to be equally adorned with lights? He that should break an arm of one of these liveliness Images, shall be thought to have committed a greater fault, then if he had broken the heads of a hundred living men; howbeit the Image might be mended, when the men could have no amends. This abuse is boundless, and here superstition addeth madness unto their blindness. For the living Image of God falls down before the Image of a dead man. He among them that should see a church without Images, would think himself in a new world: or he that should see Images vnworshipped, would persuade himself he were among Devils.

Such as blush at this abuse, and speak thereof more nicely, (as Coeffeteau doth) they say that Images do help our devotion; but whence then is it, that they may not be seen in Lent, which is the time of devotion, and what devotion is there, without, nay against the commandment of God?

Others say, that they are ignorant men's books, and they say the truth, for they keep them in ignorance. So Habacuc cap. 2. calleth them teachers of lies: the mischief is, that whiles the Churches and public places, are filled with these books for the ignorant, they keep away the Scripture, which might have made them learned, and cured their ignorance, they amaze the people instead of instructing them, they quicken the sense, but dull the conscience, they kindle their wax-lights, while the Candle of God's word is hid under the bushel of an vnknowledge language: and by this means are men turned into stones, having stones for their instructors. And this is an old trick of policy, to busy the people with plays, and public shows, while their liberty is undermined, so dealt Alcibtades by the Athenians, and so (as Cor. Tacitus witnesseth) the Romans dealt in great Britain. The same cunning hath been used by the Pope, who hath built his Hierarchy upon the ruins of the Roman Monarchy, he sets the people gazing on paintings, and spectacles, while he doth insensibly change the doctrine of salvation, to make it serviceable to his Lordlinesse.

They allege the Images of the Cherubims made by the Commandment of God, which makes very much for our side: for they were fastened in the Sanctuary, where the people came not at all, for God concealing them from the sight of the people, prevented their Idolatry. Whence appeareth the strange boldness of Bellarmine, in the 12. Chapter of his book of Images, where without any purpose, he presumeth to affirm, that the Israclites did worship the Cherubims with the Ark. If so be the Jews worshipped not the Angels, how would they have worshipped their Images? he should first then have proved, that the people of God worshipped the Angels in the Temple, or addressed their prayers unto them. And had the children of Israel worshipped the Ark (as he falsely supposeth) may it thence be concluded that they worshipped the Cherubims placed on the Ark? he that saluteth the King, doth he salute his hat, or his habit? this hath neither reason, nor likelihood.

Neither was the brazen Serpent worshipped, or adored, for as soon as the people began to perform any worship unto it, Hezekiah brake it in pieces, now it is impossible that the Israelites should have thought, that this piece of brass was God, the wit of man was never so blunted: but they performed a respective service unto the Serpent, because of the power of God, whereof that was a memorial.

These men mend not their market by telling us, that they worship not the Images of false God's as did the Paynims: but the Images of the friends and servants of God, for Idolatry is called in the Scripture adultery, and an adulterous woman cannot be excused in saying that she betakes not her self to her husbands enemies, but only to his friends, and in so ticklish a point, and whereof God is so • ealous, we must be grounded upon the commandment of God: and to make it appear, that God would have us to worship the Images of his servants, or that we should yield them some religious service, or bow our knee before them, and not shiftingly to shun the question, in showing that it is lawful to make pictures, whereas the question is concerning the service that ought to be performed unto them.

Being thus urged, in place of alleging the commandment of God, they bring us a distinction of Latria and Dulia, and cast these Greek words like a handful of sand in the people's eyes. It would be easy for us to show by a great number of Greek authorities, that Dulia belongeth also unto God, yea unto God only when it signifies religious service; and that Latria is often referred unto men. But this matters not, inasmuch, as the service and inferior adoration, which they attribute unto the Saints, & to their Images, is always a religious service, and a voluntary worship, tending to the attainment of salvation. Therefore they are perpetually foiled, seeing they can neither prove, that this inferior worship belongeth unto the Saints, or to their Images, nor that God hath commanded that any religious service should be yielded unto their Images.

They being unfurnished with proofs out of the word of God, they fly unto miracles, and that they have done of late. For the second Council of Nice saith, that then none were made. Bellarmine tells of a Devil that promised a Heremite that he would trouble him no more, upon condition that he would promise him not to worship any longer the Image of the Virgin Marie. The Image of our Lady of Montferrat in Spain, that fell from heaven, was painted by S. Luke, who was a painter, if these men may be credited. Which S. Jerome in his catalogue hath omitted. S. Paul saith, that he was a Pysician. But the Church of Rome hath made him a painter since he went to heaven, whence also come our Images. Certainly we may well say that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian would not have thought the Art of painting to be wicked, and unlawful, if they had known S. Luke had been a painter: and it is strange that the ancient writers make no mention of his Images: and where were they all the four first ages, that the Churches of the Christians were without pictures?

With like abuse do they aver that our Lady of Loretto drawn by the same hand, was carried by Angels through the air, together with the chamber wherein she was kept, from Nazareth into Italy, in the year 1369. for this fable is of no greater antiquity. And it is strange how the ancient Christians which were in Syria, neglected that chamber, and that Image of such excellency: and how that image could subsist among the spoils of the Turks and Saracens, which turnde all things upside down, and that it should not be seen, till after fourteen hundred years: and that the Angels had not bethought themselves of transporting it sooner. And that so rare a story should not have any author worthy the naming. To this Image hath Pope Sixtus the fourth granted an indulgence of eleven thousand years, for saying a short prayer of three lines, which is publikelie sold. By reason of the multitude of offerings in his time, the farming thereof was enhanced to a price incredible, but the gains are now shrunk to the one half.

There is much ado made at Rome about the picture of Christ, which he sent unto King Agbarus, drawn upon a piece of linen: concerning which the first that made any mention is Euagrius, whose story determineth about the sixth hundred year of our Lord. Which is doubtless a matter admirable; that none hath mentioned it before, and that Eusebius, who near the end of the first book of his history speaketh at large of this Agbarus, and of certain Epistles sent from him unto Christ, and from Christ unto him, hath not a word of this picture. And yet notwithstanding Gelasius Bishop of Rome, in the fifteenth distinction of the Decrees, and after him Isidore, account these Epistles fabulous, and Apocryphal: Since that Eusebius makes him speak erroneously to Thadeus the Apostle, sent unto Agbarus, saying that in the death of Jesus Christ, his Deity was diminished. And which is more, if this history of Agbarus were true, then had S. Paul told an untruth, saying 1. Cor. 2.8. that none of the Princes of the world knew in his time the wisdom of the Gospel.

That other picture of the holy Veronica, invented a while after, is of the same stamp; which being carried in procession in the time of Innocent the third turnde topsy-turvy of it self, casting his beard upward, as Matthew Paris reporteth. For expiation whereof the said Pope granted an indulgence of ten days, for at that time they were not given by thousands.

It would be an endless piece of work for any to make report of the images that have spoken, or sweat, or bowed the head in sign of consent. Read Caesarius a Monk of the order of the Cist • rtians, his book of miracles. In the Abbey of Saint Guerlicou in Berrie near the town of Bourg-Dieu, upon the way of Romorantin, such women as would be got with child, are stretched along upon the image of this S. Bennet after such a manner, as modesty may not report.

In fine, not to tire the reader with thousands of the like abuses, if we may believe these our good Masters, it is certain that the images of Saints do more miracles, then ever the Saints themselves did.

Concerning these miracles we offer them the choice, whether they will have them accounted true or false: if they be false, we are not bound to believe them: and then there is collusion. For nowadays these miracles are nothing but conjuring of devils, with many tricks, aspersions, crossings, exorcisms, giving power unto words and signs: or it may be, the curing of one that is but counterfeit lame or sick. But to give sight to one that is borne blind, or to raise one from the dead that hath been buried, &c. are matters which their cunning could never contrive. And the Lieutenants, and Judges in Criminall causes, howsoever, of the Romish Religion, have often discovered and punished such impostures: Consider farther, that as the ancient Christians did glory, that the Devils and Oracles were dumb in their presence: So these miracles could never be wrought before us: for if we stand by, the devil looseth his fencing tricks.

Nevertheless, to deal fairly with these men, let us grant, that these Miracles are not counterfeit. For the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. foretelleth, that the son of perdition shall come with signs and Miracles. And Christ, Mark 13. saith, That false Teachers shall come, and work signs and wonders, whereby to deceive. And Mat. 12. A naughty and adulterous generation seeketh a sign. If we teach no other Doctrine then Christ and his Apostles have delivered, the Miracles which they have wrought do sufficiently confirm our teaching: Besides we know that Heretics in old time, did as many, and more Miracles, then they which taught the Orthodox faith.

Being foiled then about these Miracles, they have recourse, to the testimonies of the Fathers, Mast. Coeffeteau saith, that Tortullian in the seventh Chapter of his Book of Chastity, teacheth that in the Primitive Church, there were Images engraven in Chalices: this is false, For Tertullian in this place, speaks not of the Picture of Jesus Christ, nor of any Saint or Angel; but he speaktth of a Chalice, whereon was graven a Shepherd, bearing a sheep upon his shoulder: which was no Image of Christ, but an Emblem of his office, as men do usually picture the virtues: and had the people worshipped this Picture, they would have drawn it elsewhere in a place more eminent. Now Tertullian was so far from the worshipping of Images, that he held it simply unlawful to make any Image. So in his Book of Idolatry, cap. 4. The Law conioyning things, as not to make the likeness of anything in heaven, or in the earth, or in the Sea, hath forbidden such trades throughout the whole world. And in his Book of Spectacles, cap. 23. God forbiddeth to make the resemblance of anything, how much more of his Image? And therefore doeth he reproach Hermogenes the Painter with his Art, as being full of abomination.

Coeffeteau allegeth also a place of Gregory Nyssen taken out of the Oration concerning Theodore the Martyr, which we have heretofore disproved as false, and yet there is no speech of worshipping Images, no more then in the Oration of S. Basil, concerning the Martyr Barlaam, where there is only mention of Painted Histories, and the representing of the sufferings of the Martyrs; in which Painted works, the Executioners, and Soldiers horses are also represented, and if the story required, Christ was also drawn in the Picture: but of worship performed to these Painted stories, or to any Image, there is no manner of mention.

Besides it is to be observed, that if this were then practiced in the Churchyards of Cappadocia where Basil was, or in some Church within his Bishopric, yet we find not that this custom was brought into other countries. For Prudentius, and Paulinus alleged by Coeffeteau, lived a hundred years after, and they speak only of the History, and not of any worship.

He allegeth also Sozomen lib. 2. cap. 20. where he speaks of an Image of Christ in Caesaria, broken by Julian the Apostate, the pieces whereof were brought into the Church by the Christians, wherein his understanding fails him, for thereby it appeareth that this Image was not in any Church, and that no worship was done unto it. Now we speak here of Images set up in Churches, and which are there worshipped. Eusebius is the first that mentions this Image, lib. 7. cap. 17. of his History, whom Coeffeteau neglected to allege. For he saith, that this Image was made by that Heathen woman, whom Christ cured of a bloody issue. Afterward he saith, That none should wonder, if such of the Heathen as Christ healed made such things, in as much as we have seen the Pictures of the Apostles, Paul and Peter, yea and of Christ himself drawn in colors, to be kept in Tables; which the ancients did out of an Heathenish custom, which was to honor those in like manner, whom they esteemed their deliuerers. Observe here, that he calls it an Heathenish custom, and being begun by some of the Heathen that were healed by Christ, or his Apostles, they desired to honor them after the manner of the Heathen. We must also understand, that this Image was not in any Church, but in a corner of the street, and that the Christians were so far from giving any honor unto it, that they knew it not to be there For Nicephorus in the tenth of his History saith, That through age and forgetfulness it so decayed, that it could not be discerned whose Picture it was, or for what end it was set up, for this Image was spoiled because it stood uncovered, and the rain had made much earth to fall from the houses upon it. And he addeth that in the ende it was known by the subscription, all which proves, that it was some Image made after the heathen manner, sent thither for some public ornament. But of Images in Churches, or of their worship, there is no such news.

These are the places which Coeffeteau hath taken out of the ninth Chapter of Bellarmine's Book of Images: Having done wisely in omitting the place of Gregory Nazianzen, where Bellarmine commits a notorious falsehood. He saith that in the forty ninth (he would say) fortieth Epistle, Gregory lamenting because the Town of Diocaesatia was to be destroyed, wherein he had adorned a Church with great magnificence, he addeth; Ne{que}enim si statuae deijciantur hoc nos excruciat, etiam si aliquando excruciat. The truth is, that the Emperor being incensed against the Town of Diocaesaria for some offense (which Gregory in this Epistle attributeth to the insolent behavior of certain children) did threaten to ruin it, and the Emperor had already taken away the Statues of the Emperors, which he had in the Town: As we have an example in the insurrection at Antioch, where the people enraged against Theodosius the Emperor, they pulled down his Statues; concerning which Chrysostom hath diverse Homilies: and indeed Gregory calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Chrysostom doeth: otherwise, had he spoken of Images in Churches, he would with Zonaras, Damascene, and Cedrenus, have called them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And there is not so much as a word of that which Bellarmine saith, namely, that he speaks of Images in Churches, for indeed he speaks thereof contemptuously, in these words. For it is not very irksome, although it grieve us, if the Statues be pulled down, and do you not think that I speak hereof, for I am busied about affairs of more moment.

With like falsehood doeth he allege the Liturgy of Chrysostom, in which Pope Nicholas, and the Emperor Alexius, borne many ages after Chrysostom, are named. There also, and often elsewhere doth he allege the supposed Oration of Gregory Nissen upon Theodore.

So in the twelfth Chap. he falsely allegeth Basil against Julian, the Liturgy of Chrysostom, and Agustine in his third Book of Christian Doctrine, and the questions of Athanasius, which are so full of untruth, that Athanasius himself is alleged: And Cyrils Catechisms, heretofore convinced of falsehood, and certainly he that shall take the false Allegations out of Bellarmine, shall not leave one half part behind. The other places are impertinent, for one part speaks of historical Pictures out of Churches in private houses: and not anywhere mentioneth the worshipping of Images. Which is the point in controversy.

All this being overthrown, let us rely upon the commandment of God, which saith, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make any graven Image, nor the likeness of any things which are above in heaven, or below in earth, nor in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down before them, nor worship them.

The distinction which they make here between an Image, and an Idol, makes their confession very clear, that they are not pleased with this commandment, since they have taken it out of their Houres and Offices, which they give abroad among the poor multitude; and that they put the Law of God into meter, where this commandment is wholly left out. So the Council of Ausbourg, which is in the latter Tome of the Councils, held in the year 1548, turneth the commandments into high-dutch, as they ought to be set forth to the people, wherein there is not a word spoken of Images, nor of the likeness of things in heaven, &c, Now to make up the number of ten commandments, they cut the tenth in two partes, and make the coveting of another man's wife to be the ninth. Whence it follows, that there is no ninth commandment in the twentieth of Exodus; for it is thrust into the middle of the tenth, and put after the coveting of our neighbors house.

The Reader shall then have matter of very mature consideration. For were there words ever pronounced with more majesty then the law? the law written by the finger of God? the law pronounced by his mouth with fire, and tempest, and a terrible sound, to terrify the creature with a sacred astonishment? would any believe that worms of the earth should presume to correct this law, and charge it with superfluity? this cannot possibly receive sufficient aggravation. Christ saith, that heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, then that one jot of that law should not be accomplished: and loe, these are then men that raze out whole periods, yea, that commandment which the Lord delivered with greatest majesty, calling himself a jealous and a mighty God, adding thereunto his threatenings, and promises unto a thousand generations.

Being then convinced of impiety, they fall to gramatical disputations, and say, it must be translated, Thou shalt not make any graven Idol, and not Image: that an Idol is the representation of a false thing, and the object of Idolatry: but that Images do represent true things. I confess that in French an Image, and an Idol are diverse things: but the law of God was not promulgated in French, but in Hebrew: wherein the word Pesel signifies a graven Image, and so the Romish Bible translates it, Non facies tibi sculptile, Thou shalt not make a graven, or carved Image. And Deut. 4, 16. it is, for fear that ye defile yourselves, and make unto you Pesel, that is, an Image, as the Roman Bible expresseth it. And so Isaiah. 40.19. and many other places. Justin Martyr in his dialogue against Tryphon, translates it as we do, Thou shalt not make an Image, or the likeness of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath. And I am of opinion that Tully understood the Greek and Latin almost as well as the Iacobins. Yet in the first book de finibus, he speaketh thus: Images which they call Idols, by meeting with whom we see and consider, &c. Tertullian in the understanding of these things is not inferior to any of the ancients; and yet he takes and Image, and an Idol for the same thing, in his book of Idolatry cap. 3. Idos in Greek signifies a figure, or representation, whence comes the diminutiue Idolon, which signifies a little form, or fashion; and therefore every little representation, or figure, must be called an Idol. If then it be absurd in French to call the Cherubims Idols, in Greek it shall be no absurdity at all.

But what need we dispute, whether we ougth to say, Thou shalt not make any graven Image, or Idol, seeing it is added, nor any likeness, or resemblance whatsoever? And that it is also forbidden, to kneel, or bow down before it, or at all to worship it? and consequently this Dulia is forbidden, which signifieth nothing else but worship?

Therefore, neither had the Israelites the pictures of Abraham, or Jacob, or David in the Temple, or in their Synagogues being men that deserved to be worshipped, and adored, at least as well as S. Dominic, or S. Guerlicon, or their good S. Francis: They being far from yielding them worship or adoration.

Neither had the primitive Christians any of them, and when in the fifth age they began to have them in Church-yardes, in some places they made nothing but painted histories, without any worshipping of them.

We have heretofore seen that Tertullian condemneth alike all kinds of painting, yea without any reference to religion.

Clement of Alexandria hath the like in his Protrepticon, where speaking of Painting and Caruing he saith, We are altogether forbidden to practice this deceitful Art. And he discourseth very largely thereof, in his sixth Book of his Stromata.

Irenaeus reckons it among the abuses of the Gnostickes, That they had certain Painted Images, and others made of other stuff, saying that it was the Picture of Christ made by Pilate. Epiphanius saith the same, Lib. 1. Tom. 2. Haeres. 27.

Origen in his eight Book against Celsus, We ought to Dedicate unto the Lord, not Images made by the hands of Craftesmen, but framed by the word of God, which are virtuous examples.

In the Dialogue of Minutius Felix, Caecilius a Pagan doth ask of the Christians, Whence it comes that the Christians have no Altars, no Temples, no Images that are observed?

The testimony of the Historian Lampridius, in the life of Alexander Seuerus, is remarkable, who saith that in favor of the Christians, The Emperor Adrian commanded that in every City, Churches should be built without Images, which at this day are called Adrian’s Churches, because they have no God's in them; which they said he made for that end; to wit, to pleasure the Christians.

Saint Agustine in his Book of Heresies cap. 7. speaking of the Carpocratian heretics. They worshipped the Images of Christ, adoring, and burning incense unto them.

Amphilochius Bishop of Iconia, reporteth in the second Synod of Nice, We take no care of colouring in Tables the corporal visages of the Saints, for we have nothing to do with them, but we ought to call to remembrance their virtuous conversations.

Saint Agustine upon the hundred and thirteen Psalm, expounding these words of David, that Idols have a mouth and speak not, eyes and see not, that they are the work of men's hands, makes this objection, that the Church hath also instruments made with men's hands, but he answers, that this is true, But have these instruments mouths and speak not? Or eyes and see not? Do we address our Prayers to them, &c. Surely he could not have spoken thus, if he had had Images in Churches, or if Images had been a part of the Churches mooueables.

The same Father in his first Book, De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34. complaining of the superstition of certain Christians, that in Churchyards did kneedle before the Tombs of the Martyrs, and before the Painted Histories of their sufferings, saith, I know some who worship Sepulchers and Pictures, I know many that drink largely over the dead. It is not credible that these Christians thought these Images to be God's, for Christians never called a Saint God, and much less his Image, this is the reason why Bellarmine cap. 16. saith that S. Augustine was as yet but a novice in Christianity, when he wrote this, and that afterward he changed his opinion, when he was better instructed.

The Eliberin Council held at the same time as was the first of Nice, in the thirty and six Canon, saith, It is ordained that there be no Pictures in Churches, for fear least that which is worshipped and adored, be Painted in the Walls. The Jesuit Sanders, in the second Book of the worship of Images cap. 4. saith, That then it was necessary, but that now the matter is without danger, as if man's nature were nowadays not so prone unto Idolatry. Others say, that this Council forbids the Painting of Pictures upon walls, but not the having of them in Frames; with which conceit the Council meets, not only forbidding Painting in walls, but ordaining also that there should be no Painting in Churches. It hath been ordained (saith the Council) that there be no Painting in the Church, but if Painted frames be fastened to the walls, are they not in the Church?

In the second Tome of S. Jerome's Epistles, there is an Epistle of Epiphanius, which Jerome himself hath vouchsafed to Translate into Latin; whereof observe these words. As I was in a Village called Anablata, seeing as I walked along a burning lamp, and perceiving that it was a Church, I went in to pray, and found in the porch a veil hung up coloured, and painted, having in it the picture as it were of Christ, or some Saint, for I do not well remember of what: having then seen that in the Church of Christ, there was hung up the Image of a man, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, I rent it, and advised the keepers of the place to bury some poor dead body in it. He addeth, that he sent another veil without any Image, for recompense of that which he had torn, to content the keepers that murmured at it: after that he saith, I pray you that in the Church of Christ such veils be no more hung up, which are opposite to our religion. And this same Epistle is in the same words alleged in the Council of Paris, held under Louis le debonaire, in the year 824 that none may think it a piece of new forgery.

Gregory of Tours speaking of the Baptism of King Clouis and his children, witnesseth that the adorning of Churches, was to hang the Church with veils, or white linen. Of which S. Ambrose speaks, Epist. 33. and this custom doth yet continue in Lent. An evident proof that then they had no Images; for to what end should they then keep them covered? and this was about the year of our Lord five hundred.

Out of Monsieur Pithou his library, who was a man rarelie learned, we have the Council of Paris against Images: wherein King Louis le debonaires, and the French Bishops, do make remonstrances unto Pope Eugenius, who defended Images tooth and nail. For the Popes laid handfast upon this occasionn, to shake off the yoke of their master the Emperor of the East, under a color that he pulled down Images.

Not long before in the year 794. Charlemaigne assembled the Council of Franckford, against the worshipping of Images; wherein the second Nicene Council was condemned, before which Council of Nice a general Council was held at Constantinople in the year 750 where there were three hundred and thirty eight Bishops; some parts of which Council are alleged in the second Council of Nice, howsoever maimed, yet stronger then that which those Nicence Bishops opposed against it.

About the year 600. Serenus Bishop of Marsilia pulled down all the Images found in Churches, because the people worshipped them: and it is not by any means credible, that the Christians accounted Images for God's, or worshipped them as God. Nor do we find that the said Serenus erected them again, notwithstanding he was controlled by Gregory Bishop of Rome.

And indeed Monsieur Pithou hath good ground to say, that the French-men, began very soon after to be addicted unto Images. For Anastasius keeper of the Librarie, one superstitiously given, in the preface to the second Council of Nice, saith, that the Gauls had not yet received Images, because the truth was not yet revealed unto them; that is to say, more then eight hundred years after Christ. And Nicetas Choniates in the second book of the reign of Augustus Angelus saith, that the Armenians did gladly receive the Almaines, because Apud Alemannos & Armenios Imaginum adoratio aeque interdicta est, among the Almaines and Armenians, the worshipping of Images was forbidden alike. For Charlemaigne had so far rejected the worshipping of Images, that he himself wrote a book against it, which is yet extant. And soon after Agobardus Bishop of Lions compiled a great volume against Images, which is also extant, and newly printed at Paris.

To conclude, whosoever shall diligently read the scornful invectives of the primitive Christians, flouting the Images of the ancient Pagans, shall find that their reprehensions had been ridiculous, if the Christians had then had Images in their Churches; as when Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 4. doth call the Statues in the Pagan-temples, Grandes puppas, great babies, and when cap. 2. he saith that the Images of the God's are of no use, if they be present, and that if they be in heaven, then we should rather direct our prayers toward heaven. And when S. Austin upon the 113. Psalm, saith, that they draw the devotion of the people, in that they have a human shape, and are set in some high room. And doubtless the Infidels would have returnde the reproof, and reproach to the Christians, and to their Images of the Saints, and the worshipping of their Statues; which they do not. But we have heretofore heard that they ask the Christians for what cause they have no Images, that any could see.

ARTICLE XIX. Of the Image of God.

Y Ea, the Image of God himself is not only expressly forbidden to be worshipped, but even to be made. The reason is given, that no eye ever saw God; and how can we paint his face, when Moses (the man that ever was most familiar which God) never saw but his back parts? Surely, since he cannot be drawn to the viue, it is a thankelesse labor to mar it with a false representation, which no Prince, nor scarce any other man will be contented with in their own pictures. Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine, answer it to Christ at the latter day, when he shall accuse them of Idolatry; And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice sophistical Distinctions.

For answer whereunto Coeffeteau saith,

I expected that M. Coeffeteau would have produced some commandment of God; for his ground of the Images of God; or some place to show that God was pleased, to have his Images made, seeing they are not made to represent his essence: at least some ancient example either true, or false, after his old manner. But here is none of these, he only saith that Images do not express his being. I answer that this may be said as well of the Images of men, yea of beasts: for their pictures do not represent their essence, and never was any man so unreasonable as to think that the essence of anything could be expressed in a picture. Then in like manner do I say, that if these Images be not the Images of God, because they represent not his essence, then the Images of Saints are not their Images, because they represent not their essence. And indeed not the vulgar people only, but the Doctors also do call such pictures the Image of God, and the Trinity, The title of the eight chapter of Bellarmine's book of Images, is this, That the Images of God are not forbidden. Now there is no picture, which hath not some resemblance with the pattern, and every Image is a likeness. Therefore, our adversaries must hold that there is some assimilation, and resemblance between God, and his Images, for if there be none, they are not the Images of God.

Now these Statues and pictures are to be seen in all their Churches, and in the beginning of the Bibles printed at Rome by the authority of Sixtus Quintus and Clement 8. yea, they serve for signs at Tavern doors, they use to say Master N. lodgeth at the Trinity: and his horses are set at God's-head, a matter ridiculously profane, and reproachful to Christian Religion.

It appeareth also that these Images of God, are not made to represent the forms wherein God hath appeared, for they commonly picture God in a pontifical Throne, in the habit of a Pope with a triple Crown, and a Papal robe; as if you should say, behold Pope Julius granting pardons. There wants nothing but a fan of a Peacockes tail on either side, surely God never appeared in this habit, it makes me wonder whence it comes; that the Images of the Trinity are commonly dusty, and Spiders playing about them, but the Images of our Lady, and of the Saints, are diapred, and trimply appaireled: me thinks in regard of the Papal habit, at least they should be neatly kept.

It is true that God appeared unto Daniel in the shape of an old man, for he knew well that Daniel would not Idolatrously abuse the vision, but when he speaks to the children of Israel, he suffered them not to see him in any likeness, for fear (saith he) least ye corrupt yourselves in making a representation of any figure, of Male, or Female Deut. 4.16. And me thinks when they object this apparition in the figure of an old man, they knock themselves on the fingers. For did the Church then upon this occasion represent God in that figure? can it be found that after that time the Image of God was painted in the Temple, or in the Synagogue? And if the faithful in those days did it not for what reason shall we have license to do that which they thought unlawful. God doth that which seemeth good to his wisdom, but to us it belongeth to do what he commandeth, for his commandemen • , and not his actions must be the rule of our Religion. If he command the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, or Abraham to sacrifice his Son, doth it follow that we must therefore break his law, by the imitation of these examples? if a wooden old man that people call God the Father, must be worshipped, because it resembles the old man that appeared unto Daniel, why should we not much rather worship old men alive, which do much more resemble him?

This is the reason why some Doctors of the Church of Rome, as Abulensis, Durand, and Peresius do condemn these Images: Yea, the second Nicence Council how corrupt soever, yet condemneth them in the sixth and seventh Acts. Nicephorus a later and superstitious Author, lib. 18. cap 53. saith, The Armenian Heretics do paint the Image of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, which is most absurd. Saint Agustine in the seventh Chapter of his Book of Faith, and of the Creed, saith thus, When it is said that the Father sitteth, we must not think that he hath Legs to bow, for fear we fall into that sacrilege, for which the Apostle detesteth those that turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of a corruptible man, for to erect any such Image unto God in the Church, is a thing unlawful for a Christian, and much more in his heart, &c. He doeth not only say that it is unlawful to desire to represent his essence, but to make an Images of God sitting, his hammes bowed in the similitude of a man: which is the fashion of the Images of God which are made in these days. Now, no man that hath any drop of free judgment can make himself believe, that any Christian ever thought to represent the essence of God by such Pictures, seeing they cannot express the essence of man.

In brief, by this abuse doth God show unto us, into what headlong courses man runneth when he forsakes his holy word, and that after the shipwreck of piety, he loseth even his very reason, for the Lord having created man in the Image of God, Loe here are men that make God in the Image of man: as if they would exchange good turns with him. And indeed his Majesty of England saith true, that the meanest man would not be so resembled, for what man would be represented in the shape of a Pismiere, or of a Frog: and yet between an Ant and the greatest Monarch, there is some proportion, and between things finite, the distance cannot be infinite; but between the shape of a man that is finite, and the Majesty of God which is infinite, there can be no proportion. besides, the distinctions and excuses which they bring forth, are school distinctions, not understood by the common people, whose minds are fixed on that which they see, and seeing every day in their Parish Church a God of stone, clothed like a Pope, must needs imagine very gross things, and such as are very injurious to the eternal Deity.

ARTICLE XX. Of the Cross.

B Vt Christ's Cross must have a particular privilege (say they) and be worshipped ration contactus. But first we must know what kind of touching of Christ's body drew a virtue from it, whether every touching, or only touching by faith? That every touching of his body drew not virtue from it, is more then manifest. When the Woman in the bloody flux touched him, she was healed by her faith: But Peter then told him that a crowd and throng of many people then touched him, and yet none of them received any benefit or virtue from him. Judas touched him many and many a time, besides his last kiss▪ so did the villains that Buffeted and Crucified him, and yet I may safely pronounce them accursed, that would bestow any worship upon their relics: yea we cannot deny but the land of Canaan it self (whereupon our Lord did daily tread) is so visibly accursed, being governed by faithless Turks, full of innumerable Sects of heretical Christians, and the very fertility thereof so far degenerated into a pitiful sterilitie, as he must be accursed that accounteth it blessed. Nay, when a certain Woman blessed the belly that bare Christ, and the breasts that gave him suck: Nay rather (saith he) Blessed are those that hear the Word of God and keep it. Except then they could first prove that Christ had resolved to bless that tree of the Cross, whereupon he was nailed, they can never prove that his touching it could give it any virtue. And put the case it bad a virtue of doing Miracles, as Peters shadow had, yet doeth it not follow, that it is lawful to worship it, which Peter would never accept of. Surely the Prophets that in so many places curse those that worship Images, that have eyes and see not, that have ears and hear not, would much more have cursed them that worship a piece of a stick, that hath not so much as any resemblance or representation of eyes or ears.

To this M. Coeffeteau

The Doctor is not willing to leave his good custom of paying us with falsehoods. [Answer.] For Chrysostom's Sermon of the adoration of the Cross, w ^ch saith that the Cross, & the effigies thereof are to be worshipped is suppositious, and not found in Greek among Chrysostom's works. Ioachimus Perionius hath set forth in Greek and Latin, what himself pleased: but Gretser a Jesuit, who hath very lately inserted it among other orations that speak of the Cross, saith that he hath made diligent search for the manuscripts of Chrysost. in the Libraries at Bavaria, and Ausburg; and that the hath neither found it there, nor anywhere else.

Coeffeteau addeth, that Prudentius writing against Simmachus saith, that the Christians bowed their knees before the Cross to worship it: and yet this is false. He could not allege the words, but the verses of Prudentius are these.

Which sounds in English to this sense,

The meaning is that the Senate having seen a Roman banner, which they called Labarum, whereupon the name of Christ was written for an inscription in this form ☧ did worship this title, and the venerable name of Christ. But of adoring the cross he makes no mention.

He further saith, that S. Ambrose in the Oration made upon the death of Theodosius, speaking of Helena that put one of the nails of the Cross in Constantine's crown, saith, that she did wisely in advancing the Cross above the heads of Kings, that in Kings the Cross of Christ might be worshipped. Let us here resolve that this Oration, as also others of the third Tome, be adjudged counterfeit by Erasmus a man of good judgment in the reading of the Fathers. And indeed it is not credible that S. Ambrose should speak so ridiculously, as to compare Christ Jesus crying on the Cross to the beetle fly a base creature, and that crieth not, as the Author of this Oration doth: yet, being granted to be true, doth Coeffeteau still show himself a falsifier both of the words, & of the sense: of the sense: for these words, Vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur do signify, that Kings being adored, the cross by that means might be adored: whereby it is evident that he speaks of a civil adoration, because he makes it one with that which is performed unto Kings: now the question is here of religious worship. Secondly, Coeffeteau doth curtaile this place with like falsehood, suppressing the words following, which do explain what is meant by the Cross. This is no arrogance (saith he) but piety, when it hath reference to the redemption: he speaks then of worshipping the redemption, and not a wooden Cross. In like manner hath Coeffeteau dissembled the precedent words, which are wonderful plain: Helena adored the King, and not the wood, for this is a heathenish error, and a vanity of the ungodly. But she worshipped him that was hanged on the wood. This licentious falsifying, and clipping of the Fathers is horrible: if our Doctor durst falsify the Scripture with like liberty, he would questionless allege some passages therehence.

Concerning Paulinus who lived in the fifth age, and all others that speak of honoring, or reverencing the Cross, yea or if there be any that speak of adoring it, S. Jerome upon the 95. Psalm gives us a general rule, whereby to expound such places. His Cross (saith he) is the Pillar of mankind, upon this Pillar his house is built: now by the Cross I understand not the wood, but the passion. The same Father upon S. Matthew, lib. 4. cap. 23. complaining that certain women carried about them some words of the Gospel written in little rolls of parchment, and superstitiously worshipped the Cross. Some odd huswiues among us (saith he) use to do this with little Gospel's, and the wood of the Cross, & such like things, which have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. What would he have said, if he had seen any to speak to a piece of wood, and to salute the Cross, as if it understood them? saying to it, Ave lignum triumphale, hail triumphant wood. And, O aue crux, spes vnica, auge pijs iusticiam, reis{que} dona veniam. Hail Cross our only hope, increase righteousness unto the faithful, and pardon the sinful: as our adversaries do.

For I ask to whom they speak: do they speak to Jesus Christ? why, he is neither called wood, nor Cross: do they speak to the Cross: why, that understands them not: do they speak to the Cross in honor of Christ? or do they worship the Cross, with a relative adoration, having reference unto Jesus Christ? then should that whereunto they speak in honor of Christ, understand what they say; and he that should speak to the timber of the Kings chair in honor of the King, would be taken for a fool: neither should the King be more honored thereby: and to give a relative worship unto the Cross, is to worship the Cross: we may not worship a dead thing, to honor Christ thereby; nor must we honor God, by transgressing his commanndement.

Now our adversaries tell us of twosorts of Crosses which must be worshipped: one is the true Cross, which nevertheless is not now a Cross, because it hath been cut out into little pieces: the other is the image of the Cross, such as are the common Crosses.

Concerning the true Cross, the Author of the Catechisms falsey ascribed unto Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth Catechism saith, that this wood is so grown, and multiplied, that in a manner, the whole conntrey is full of it: I think one may build a City of it: for as time and experience makes menwiser, so have the Christians at length thought good to have some little chip of the true Cross in their chest, or about their neck, as a holy defensatiue against devils. Whence it appears, that the Apostles, and the Christians in their time, that might each of them have had a cut of the true Cross, and yet left it whole and untouched, without any search for it, for 300. years together, were either more barren in invention, or colder in devotion. In the year 1239 John naming himself King of Jerusalem, who was afterward Emperor of Constantinople, being hunger-starved for want of money, began a traffic of relics, and sold great store of them to the western Princes, that were not so subtle as himself: he sold the Crown of thorns to King Louis the ninth, and the true Cross to the Venetians, which the said King Louis bought of them again, making them gainers half in half: he bought also the sponge wherewith they offered drink unto Christ; and the iron of the spear, wherewith S. Longis pierced his side, and recovered his sight thereby. The holy Chapel of the Palace, was purposely built for the reservation and the adoration of these relics.

Touching the worship and adoration of this Cross, I find that all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, ( Bellarmine, and some inferior Jesuits excepted) do agree, that the true Cross ought to be worshipped with Latria, that is to say, with the very worship which is given to God himself. An abhominable Doctrine, giving to a dead creature as great worship as unto the high God; which cannot be excused, that this worship of the Cross hath relation unto God, or is referred unto Jesus Christ: for to adore Jesus Christ, and to adore the Cross in honor of Jesus Christ, must needs be two different adorations, We must not in honor of God, adore the creature with honor equalling the worship of God; for in seeking thus to honor God, we shall dishonor him; reproach him by such worship; by such respect disrespect him; neglect him by such service: in a word, this is to make ex opposito appositum, to descend in clyming, and to get heat by freezing. Besides, what honor, or respect soever you may show unto the King, it can never be made good, that any can honor him the more, by giving like reverence to his chair, or his cloke: the chief point is, that if such worship of the Cross be lawful, then hath God commanded it. For we may not adore anything, but what he hath commanded us to adore: and here are our adversaries tongue-tied, and allege no one word of God's commandment.

This is the reason why Cardinal Bellarmine thinks it better to say, that the Cross ought to be worshipped with an inferior adoration: wherein he plainly confesseth, that the adoration of the Cross differs from the adoration of Jesus Christ, in that it is inferior: and so his meaning is that the dead creature be worshipped in it self, and with a differing worship from that by which Christ is worshipped, Secondly, he doth thereby confound the understanding of the poor people, who when they fall down before the Cross, think of performing no more then one worship: but Bellarmine will have them to perform two services, one to Christ, and the other to the Cross, and in the one instant to cut their devotion in two pieces, deviding their thoughts between two kinds of worships. It were extremely absurd to hope, that he, or any other should produce any commandment of God touching this religious worship subordinate to the worship of Christ; without saying, that the people adoring a piece of the Cross, must assuredly believe that it is a piece of the true Cross, and that it is not suppositious: whereof notwithstanding there can be no assurance.

For the other kind of Cross, which is the Image of the Cross in wood, or silver, the Church of Rome doth worship that also: and at the elevation thereof, they say, Ecce crux, adoremus. And therefore Cardinal Bellarmine in the thirtieth chapter of his book of Images, speaks thus: We worship all Crosses, because they are all Images of the true Cross: yea the bare Crosses without a Crucifix. We worship (saith he) the Cross, yea without Christ crucified.

All which is a Medley of absurdity with impiety. For none worshippeth the Image of the Cross with like worship, as he doth the true Cross: and if the true Cross be to be adored with a worship subordinate to that yielded to Christ, then behold three sorts of religious worship. Now if we must adore a Cross without a crucifix; for that it is an Image and resemblance of the Cross; why do they not worship the bars of windows, or the Sayle-yardes of Ships, seeing they resemble the Cross of Christ? Why shall we not worship all the nails, and all the linen clothes in the world, seeing they better resemble the nails which pierced our Savior, and the linen clothes that wrapped him in his infancy? Whereunto if any object, that these common nails and linen, are not in any consecrated place, nor appointed to that end, nor purposely made to serve as Images, or memorials of the Passion, or birth of Christ: I answer, that this is to grant as much as we desire, and to fall into the like impiety: for this is to affirm, that common nails and ordinary linen ought to be worshipped, if they were carried into some holy place, and appointed to serve for the resemblance, or commemoration of Christ's passion; w ^ch our adversaries will be unwilling to grant: And wherefor then do they adore all manner of Crosses, yea without crucifixes, as soon as they are put into some holy place, and ordained to represent the passion? For if the question be of the touching, the linen touched the body of Christ as near as the Cross; yea I say, that the nails and Iron of the Spear touched him nearer, even to the very heart: and then whence is it, that the nails and Iron of the Spear put into a holy place, are not adored as well as the Image of the Cross? And where is the adoration of this Image commanded by God?

To be short, I say that if any should do obeisance, or speak unto the kings cloak, although the king did wear it, he should nevertheless be thought to be beside himself. How much more if he spake to the cloak, or did obeisance to it, when it is hanged upon a hook? And yet how much more, if he should salute or talk to the picture of this cloak? In like manner I say, that if any had saluted the Cross, whiles our Savior was fastened thereunto, or had spoken unto it, he would have been thought to have been mad, although his salutation had been relatiuely made unto Christ. How much more then if he had saluted it alone, Christ not being thereon? And how much more, if he had saluted or spoken to the picture, or Image of this Cross? especially to a bare Cross without a crucifix, as at this day the Church of Rome doth? Certainly no words can sufficiently express the absurdity of this abuse.

So Coeffeteau doth give no manner of satisfaction to that which his Majesty of England doth object: namely, that if the Cross ought to be worshipped because it touched Jesus Christ; then Judas his mouth, and the hands of those that buffeted him, and the land of Canaan whereon he walked, which is at this day an example of God's curse, ought also to be worshipped.

Coeffeteau answers, that the reason is not alike, because the lips of Judas, and the hands of the executioners, were their living members that touched him sacrilegiously: but the Cross was a dead thing, and a guiltless Instrument of the death of our Redeemer. This is but a bare shift: for first, if our Saviors touching had made dead things adorable, it should much more have made profane things holy. Our adversaries have also forged a fable of one S. Longis, that with hate and insultation pierced his side, and thereby became a Saint. And secondly, the Cross (as Coeffeteau saith) is not to be worshipped the more, for that it was a dead thing: Thirdly, the water wherewith Christ was baptized, obtained no life thereby, and (to speak with Coeffeteau ) it was an innocent Instrument of his baptism; and did touch Christ, and yet was never adored Fourthly, our adversaries (as I suppose) would not worship the empty Chalices, although they did believe that the blood of Christ, yea his whole body had been therein. They will not adore the Priest, albeit he have often eaten God, and that he come to take Christ a fresh into his stomach: Fifthly, the whips wherewith Christ was bloodied, were harmless Instruments of his sufferings, yet we find not that ever Christian worshipped them: Sixthly, nothing touched Christ so near, as the nails and spear that pierced him, and they were also harmless Instruments of his passion, and yet the primitive Christians never worshipped them. Constantine put two of them into his Helmet, and of two others he made a Bitte for a Horse; wherein he had some seeds of superstition: yet had Constantine adored these nails, he would have caused them to be put into the Church, rather then to have put them into the mouth of a Beaste, and left them hanging on a post in the Quirry: and yet Theodoret and Ambrose approve this action: Seventhly, if the nails touched the body of Christ nearer, and his foreparts deeper then the Cross, why do they not adore the Image of the nails, and yet they adore the Image of the Cross, yea without a crucifix?

Coeffeteau addeth, that there is more in the Cross besides the touching, for it is a representation also of the death of Jesus Christ. If he speak of the true Cross, it is not true that it representeth the death of Christ. For that of the Cross, which they worship nowadays, is but little pieces of worm eaten wood, which have neither figure nor fashion of the Cross. But if he speak of the Image of the Cross in silver, or paynting, it is false that Christ ever touched it. And if these Crosses be without crucifixes, they do not resemble the passion. For there is no Image of the passion, where there is no Image of him that suffereth; it may be some remembrance but no resemblance.

The Reader shall also note, that Coeffeteau omits that excellent observation which the King makes touching the bodily touch, and the touch of faith; and the example of the woman that touched the hem of Christ's garment, as also the example of that woman that said, Happy is the womb that bare thee; together with the reason which he doth excellently draw, from the person and the shadow of Peter: and the comparison of Images condemned by the Prophets, which have eyes and see not, ears and hear not, with the Cross which hath no resemblance of eyes or ears. This Doctor suffers all this sweetly to slide a way, and honestly holdeth his peace; having of set purpose (in my opinion) made his book a foil to give luster to the King of great Britain's book.

After all these abuse, these our Masters have the good grace, to accuse us of misprision of the Cross of Christ, who say with the Apostle, Galat. 6. God for bid that I should rejoice in anything but the Cross of our Lord Jesus. Our adversaries talk of the Cross of Christ, but we practice it; they paint it, we bear it; they glory in some pieces of the Cross, but we in suffering for his name; they paint it on walls, and we print it in our hearts: many carry it tossing upon their body, whose belly is an enemy of the Cross of Christ. Let us learn then to fasten our affections to his Cross, and to crucify our old man with him. But for the worshipping of Crosses of gold or silver (for the metal is honored) we say with the ancient Christians in the Dialogue of Minutius Felix, Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, We neither worship, nor wish for Crosses. He doth us wrong that thinks, that we reject this sign and memorial of the passion, we only wish the abuse and Idolatry to be reformed.

ARTICLE XXI. Of Purgatory.

A S for Purgatory and all the trash depending thereupon, it is not worth the talking of; Bellarmine cannot find any ground for it in all the Scriptures. Only I would pray him to tell me if that fair green Meadow that is in Purgatory, have a brook running thorough it, that in case I come there, I may have hawking upon it. But as for me, I am sure there is a Heaven and a Hell, premium et poena, for the Elect and Reprobate: How many other rooms there be, I am not on God his counsel. Multae sunt mansiones in domo Patris mei, saith Christ, who is the true Purgatory for our sins: But how many chambers and anti-chambers the Devil hath, they can best tell that go to him: But in case there were more places for souls to go to then we know of, yet let us content us with that which in his Word be hath revealed unto us, and not require further into his secrets. Heaven and Hell are there revealed to be the eternal home of all mankind: let us endeavor to win the one and eschew the other; and there is an end.

In this point of such great consequence, wherein the benefits of Christ, and the cleansing of our sins are handled, it were very behooveful for M ^r . Coeffeteau to bring some proofs out of the word of God, whereunto the King of great Britain's words do bind him, seeing he reproacheth Cardinal Bellarmine with ignorance of any one passage of the Scripture whereon to ground his Purgatory: and therefore he calls the other Doctors to assist the Cardinal, and supply this default.

In steed whereof Coeffeteau rusheth upon the Fathers, and saith,

To these allegations he

But of giving satisfaction to the Kings reasons, or defending Bellarmine's flowery field, we hear no news. He hath not undertaken the one, and he is ashamed of the other.

This being one of the ulcerous fistula's of the body of the Romish Church, it doth deserve a deep search, and diligent examination: and herein we must declare,

• 1 The belief of the Church of Rome.
• 2 The doctrine of the Scripture.
• 3 The judgment of the Fathers, either not

understood, or fraudulently alleged by Coeffeteau.

ARTICLE XXII. Of Anarchy, and of the degrees of superiority in the Church.

A Fter the refutation of so many abuses, the King of great Britain setteth down for the shutting up of his confession the Article of the Monarchy of the Church, and of the primacy of the Pope, the which his Majesty affirmeth to be the chief of all other Controuersies, and indeed upon just cause, for all other errors serve to uphold this: superstition helpeth to support tyranny. Other pointes there are, but this is that for which we dispute. Whosoever shall examine all our Controuersies, with a judgment not forestalled, nor pre-occupied, shall find that every error is a pillar of the Popes Empire, and a prop of his Dominion, and that the Articles of Faith have been skillfully bended and fitted to the advantage of his Holiness.

To this may be also added, that if the Pope cannot err in the decision of doubts: the case is then clear, without further difficulty. Neither shall it be needful hereafter to assemble Councils, nor to search into Scriptures, but only to consult this Papal Oracle, and so to content our selves with what it determineth.

It is therefore upon just cause, that his Majesty saith this point is the principal Controuersie, and therefore insisteth upon it, more then upon any other, and therein displayeth the admirable ability of his wit, of which I confess, I am rather a learner then a defender, having first learned to speak of him, before I did speak for him.

But before he entereth into the matter, he saith,

But who these persons were, that with so hasty murder would not have expected his birth, it is best known unto his Majesty: and it is not to be doubted, but they have been punished according to the laws. And for such any punishment is too little. But it is true that there is nothing so turbulent as an Anarchy, in which there is no Master, because everyone is such a one, where everyone by being too free becometh a slave: for in a State it is better to be under an ill Master, then under none at all; and Tyrannie is more tolerable then such a freedom which under the title of liberty, introduceth licentiousness, and this licentiousness bringeth in extreme servitude. So is it in Families and Common-wealths, in Armies, yea even amongst the Angels themselves; yea if we descend to Bees, and Cranes, we see not these meaner creatures without a natural policy, and a kind of superiority.

The Church is no way exempt from this order in which God hath established Pastors and Bishops, and above them Assemblies, which the ancient Church called Synods and Councils; of which it is likewise necessary, that someone should be President to direct and order the businesses.

But if one demand, what differences of degrees these should be, or whether one man should have superiority over one only flock, or over many? It is another question, and tendeth nothing to the kings purpose, which is only to withstand the Monarchy of one single man over the universal Church. For admitting it should be yielded, that in every Country and Province, there ought to be one sovereign Prelate: It would not follow thereupon, that therefore there must be one Monarch over all Prelates, or one head of the Universal Church, no more then if a man by proving that a Monarchy is the most exact form of Gouernement, should by that conclude, that therefore there must be one Monarch over the whole world. No, there are no shoulders of strength enough to bear so great a head: the providence of no one man can stretch or extend it self so far, or devide it self into so many pieces: Such Countries as are placed under another Hemisphere, and fall under the tyranny of Lieftenants and officers, over whose government a careful eye could not be had. The same inconvenience or rather much greater would be in the Church: for besides this difficulty, pride is much more pernicious in Divine, then in human things. And it would be very hard that any man should climb so high, but that his head would be giddy: for if pride get in amongst beggars, whom we see quarrel and contest, whilst whilst they sit ridding themselves of vermin, how much more would it fasten it self to such a height of glory, which inuesteth a weak man, and many times a vicious, with the title of the head of the Church, which title the Scripture giveth not but to the only Son of God.

Now the end and scope of the government of the Church, and of Ecclesiastical Discipline, is the peace of the Church, the reformation of manners, suppressions of scandals, and the conservation of the purity of doctrine: to which end I conceive we may attain by different ways. And he should be rash, that would tie all other Churches to that exterior Ecclesiastical policy, which is practiced in his own Country; or by a peevish presumption prescribe his particular example, for an universal rule. Far is it from the charitable opinion of the King of England, who towards the end of his book declareth, that he no way intendeth to condemn those Churches, which hold a differing form of government, since in the grounds, and in all the points of doctrine, we fully agree with the English Churches, which are our brethren in our Lord Jesus, members of the same body, sensible of our common griefs, and whose quarrel we esteem to be our own, as persons tending to the self same end, and by the self same way, though clothed perhaps in colors differing. For the suspicion of M ^r . Coeffeteau, is ill grounded, when upon the protestation which the King of great Britain maketh, that he disliketh the Puritans, he inferreth, that his confession of faith, published in Scotland, was a supposed confession, made by the Scottish Ministers, in which they make him speak like a Puritan; for that confession agreeth in substance with that which the same King inserteth into his book: the defense whereof we undertake. But if in Coeffeteau his opinion, to pray to God only, in the name of Jesus Christ, to deny the fire of Purgatory, to reject the Popes Indulgences, to pray in a known tongue, and to abstain from Idolatry; if this be to be a Puritan, there is none of us that had not rather be a Puritan with the Apostles, then be impure with the Bishop of Rome. So that his Majesty by the same wisdom, by which he prudently governeth his Kingdoms, can well discern in this matter of Ecclesiastical government, betwixt such of his subjects, as oppose themselves merely for contradiction, and whose heat is accompanied with contempts: from such who though they differ somewhat in opinion, yet walk in obedience and with a good conscience, desiring nothing more then the establishment of his Throne, and are ready to lay down their lives for his service: such are the faithful Ministers, who carefully employ themselves to root out those tares which Satan soweth whilst we sleep, and to pull up Popery out of men's hearts; the increase whereof being nourished by our petty discords, cannot choose but be a weakening to the greatness of Kings, and the diminution of their Empire: for it is certain, unto himself in England, so many subjects his Majesty doth gain unto his Crown, seeing that according to the rules of Popery, a King is an usurper, if he be not approved by the Pope, and that his subjects are bound to rebel, as soon as the lightnings of the Vatican have been cast forth upon any sovereign Prince. And seeing that also the Cardinal Bellarmine dareth to affirm, and to maintain, that England is part of the Popes Demaines, and that the King is Feudatory and Vassall to the Bishop of Rome. It is to be presumed that his Majesty hath sent him his picture, drawn out of the Apocalypse, to pay him his Arrearages, and to yield homage to his Lord in chief.

These things considered, the best means to be revenged of so great an injury, is to give order, that the people be carefully instructed, and that the Country Churches be not unprovided of faithful Pastors, who may watch carefully over their Flocks, and may expound plainly the benefits of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Gospel: In presence of which, Popery doth vanish and fall down, as DAGON fell before the Ark of the Covenant.

ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Popes Supremacy.

A Nd for his temporal Principality over the Signory of Rome, I do not quarrel it neither, let him in God his Name be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos, and Princeps Episcoporum, so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum. But as I well allow of the Hierarchy of the Church for distinction of Orders (for so I understand it) so I utterly deny that there is an earthly Monarch thereof, whose word must be a Law, and who cannot err in his Sentence, by an infallibility of Spirit. Because earthly Kingdoms must have earthly Monarchs: it doth not follow, that the Church should have a visible Monarch too: for the world hath not One earthly temporal Monarch. Christ is his Churches Monarch, and the holy Ghost his Deputy: Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic. Christ did not promise before his ascension to leave Peter with them to direct and instruct them in all things, but he promised to send the holy Ghost unto them for that end.

And as for these two before cited places, whereby Bellarmine maketh the Pope to triumph over Kings, I mean pasce oues, and Tibi dabo claues: the Cardinal knows well enough, that the same words of Tibi dabo, are in another place spoken by Christ in the plural number. And he likewise knows what reason the Auncients do give, why Christ bade Peter pascere oues: and also what a cloud of witnesses there is, both of Auncients, and even of late Popish writers, yea diverse Cardinals, that do all agree, that both these speeches used to Peter, were meant to all the Apostles represented in his person: Otherwise how could Paul di • ect the Church of Corinth, to excommunicate the incestuous person cu spiritum suo, whereas he should then have said, cumspiritu Petri? And how could all the Apostles have otherwise used all their censures, only in Christ's name, and never a word of his Vicar? Peter (we read) did in all the Apostles meetings sit amongst them as one of their number: And when chosen men were sent to Antiochia from that great Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, ( Acts 15.) The text saith, It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men; but no mention made of the Head thereof; and so in their Letters no mention is made of Peter, but only of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren. And it is a wonder, why Paul rebuketh the Church of Corinth for making exceptions of persons, because some followed. Paul, some Apollos, some Cephas, if Peter was their visible Head! for then those that followed not Peter or Cephas, renounced the Catholik faith. But it appeareth well that Paul knew little of our new doctrine, since he handleth Peter so rudely, as he not only compareth, but preferreth himself unto him. But our Cardinal proves Peters superiority, by Paul's going to visit him. Indeed Paul saith, he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and confer with him: but he should have added, and to kiss his feet.

To conclude then, The truth is that Peter was both in age, and in the time of Christ's calling him, one of the first of the Apostles: in order the principal of the first twelve, and one of the three whom Christ for order sake preferred to all the rest. And no further did the Bishop of Rome claim for three hundredth years after Christ: subject they were to the general Councils, and even but of late did the Council of Constance depose three Popes, and set up the fourth, And until Phocas days (that murdered his master) were they subject to Emperors. But how they are now come to be Christ's Uicars, nay, God's on earth, triple crowned, Kings of Heaven, earth and hell, Judges of all the world, and none to judge them; Heads of the faith, Absolute deciders of all Controuersies by the infallibility of their spirit, having all power both Spiritual and Temporal in their hands; the high Bishops, Monarchs of the whole earth, Superiors to all Emperors and Kings; yea, Supreame Uice-gods, who whether they will or not, cannot err: how they are now become (I say) to that top of greatness, I know not: but sure I am, We that are Kings have greatest need to look unto it. As for me, Paul and Peter I know, but these men I know not: And yet to doubt of this, is to deny the Catholic faith, Nay, the world it self must be turned upside down, and the order of Nature inverted (making the left hand to have the place before the right, and the last named to be the first in honor) that this primacy may be maintained.

Thus have I now made a free Confession of my Faith: And (J hope) I have fully cleared myself from being an Apostate, and as far from being an Heretic, as one may be that believeth the Scriptures, and the three Creedes, and acknowledgeth the four first general Councils. If J be loath to believe too much, especially of Nouelties, men of greater knowledge may well pity my weakness; but J am sure none will condemn me for an heretic, save such as make the Pope their God, and think him such a speaking Scripture, as they can define heresy no otherwise, but to be whatsoever Opinion is maintained against the Popes definition of faith. And I will sincerely promise that when ever any point of the Religion I profess, shall be proved to be new, and not Auncient, Catholic, and Apostolic (I mean for matter of Faith) I will as soon renounce it: closing up this head with the maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis, that I will never refuse to embrace any opinion in Divinity necessary to salvation, which the whole Catholic Church with an vnanim consent, have constantly taught and believed even from the Apostles days, for the space of many ages thereafter without interruption:

This discourse being nothing else, but a rich piece of tyssue wrought full of Demonstrations, and the very language of truth in the mouth of a King; deserved an exact answer. But M. Coeffeteau not daring to confront the King to his face, doth treacherously assail • im side-wise: for instead of satisfying his proofs drawn out of holy Scripture, he entrencheth himself in his hold of custom, and produceth some testimonies of men.

He saith then that Basil writing to Athanasius adviseth him to advertise the Church of Rome of certain schisms that happened in his country, to the end that he by interposing his authority might send learned and able men to extinguish those divisions which troubled the East. But withal he should have added, that Basil doth not entreat him to show forth his power in punishing the obstinate and refractary, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to reprehend and admonish the froward men of our country. For as touching the title of Head of the Church, S. Basil in the same Epistle doth so qualify not the Bishop of Rome, but Athanasius Patriarcke of Alexandria, in these words: we thought that we could not better give entrance to our affairs, then by having recourse to your perfection, as to him who is the universal Head, and by winning you to be counselor and conductour of our Actions. Now he thus speaketh, not because Alexandria was the first Sea, but because there was not then any Bishop, who did not willingly give precedence to Athanasius because of his virtue. As for the priority of the Bishops-sea, it appeareth by his 50. Epistle that S. Basel thought it due to Antioch, when he exhorteth Athanasius to adjoin himself to Miletius, Patriarcke of Antioch, of whom he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that it is he, who as we may so say, sitteth as ruler over the whole Church. And saith also, that the Bishops of the West give consent thereunto: it is a thing remark-able above the rest, that S. Basel, purposing to address himself to the Bishop of Rome, that he should lend his help to pacify some differences stirred up in Asia confesseth in one of his Epistles, that men are deceived to hope for any succor from thence, and taking offense at his pride, he accounteth all such deputations idle, and to no purpose. For in his 10. Epistle to Gregory Nazianzen, after he had advised him to take heed that he used no requests or intreatyes towards the Bishop of Rome, for fear lest he wax proud thereupon, he addeth these words; If the wrath of God continue, what help shall we receive from these Westerlings, who neither know the truth, neither can they endure to be taught it.

Coeffeteau subioyneth, that S. Chrysostom, being banished and driven from his Bishopric, he had recourse to Pope Innocent, and implored the assistance of his authority. But he should also have added, that Innocent taking the defense of Chrysostom in hand, wrote two Letters which are found in Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 26. The first of which is nothing but a Consolatorie Epistle to Chrysostom, exhorting him to patience, without promising him any assistance; which he would doubtless have done, if it had been in his power to have re-established him into his charge. The second Letter was written to the people & Clergy of Constantinople, in which there is no commandment given to restore Chrysostom to the possessiō of his charge, but only a complaint of infringing the Canons of the Church, & an advise to summon a general Council Sozomen further addeth in the 28. chapter, that the Deputies sent by the Pope to solicit Chrysostom's restitution, were sent back without prevailing anything, and were further * accused towards the Emperor Arcadius, as having meddled in this business with contempt of the Empire, and as troublers of the state of the transmarine Empire. And indeed were the cause why Chrysostom was sent farther away into banishment. So little did men then care for the Counsels or aduertisements of the Bishop of Rome. So also all his intercession was only by way of advise and request, and not by commandment: neither shall you find that S. Chrysostom or his successors, did ever demand the Bishop of Rome's Letters of Inuestiture, or ever received the Pall from him.

Our Doctor addeth, that Julius the first restored

It would be in vain, to expect from this Doctor, any passages faithfully alleged: the course and order of the story showeth, that they were not restored at all, and that the Eastern Churches made little account of the Bishop of Rome. For in the lines following it appeareth, that the Eastern Bishops did nothing at all, of what Julius wrote unto them, but returned Letters of mockery, taxing his pride. They spake indeed honourably of the Church of Rome, by reason of the greatness of the City, and because that the Apostles had taught there, but withal they add, That they were moved with indignation, that they should be thought to be of a lower rank, under a pretence that their Church was not so great; seeing that if they respected virtue or government of life, they were far before the Church of Rome. And to the end that the Bishop of Rome should not be doing with their affairs, they tell him that they intermeddled not with his, And that the Bishops and Priests of the East, their predecessors, did not oppose themselves to the Bishop of Rome, when he cut off Novatus from the Church. And further the same Sozomen, cap. 10. witnesseth, that the same Oriental Bishops deposed Julius Bishop of Rome, with Osius, Maximus, and others. They were indeed Arians, and proceeded unjustly against Julius, who defended the truth; but yet we shall not find that this hath been reckoned among the errors of the Arians, that they did not acknowledged • e the Bishop of Rome to be head of the Church. They were ignorant of the true nature of Jesus Christ, but they well knew what was the Ecclesiastical policy, and how far the bounds of the Bishop of Rome did extend. And if it be found in story, that Julius Bishop of Rome wrote his Letters, to re-integrate any expulsed Bishops into their Charges; we find also that Liberius Bishop of Rome, being put from his Bishopric, is sent back with the letters of the Eastern Bishops, and by their commandment re-established, as Sozomen witnesseth lib. 4. cap. 14. And yet this is not taken up for a proof of superiority of the Eastern Bishops over the Bishops of Rome; but to testify the mutual help which the Churches lend one to another in their necessities: no more then when we read in the story of Socrates, l. 7. cap. 33. that Cyril of Alexandria deposed Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, & that Nestori{us} degraded Cyril: as also that John of Antioch, and Cyril condemn & excommunicate one another: this is not a proof of Superiority. So S. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, in the fragments of his Epistles oftentimes saith, Anathema tibi a me Liberi: and so excommunicateth the Bishop of Rome, without any pretence of Superiority over him.

As for that which Sozomen saith, that the Bishop of Rome had the care of all Churches by reason of the dignity of his Sea; this is true not only in the Bishop of Rome, but also of all the Patriarchs. Thus have we heretofore seen that Basil saith, that Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria had the care of all Churches, as Basil had of his particular Church, and that the Patriarch of Antioch was over the whole body of the Church. We have also but even now produced an example, in which the Bishops of the East, show to have had care of the West. But this point hath need of more clear demonstration.

To fetch the matter then a little higher, we must understand, that from the first Nicene Council, held Anno 328. the Histories do make manifest, that in the ancient Church Bishops had precedency each of other, according to the dignities of their Cities; which precedency was without any Superiority or Jurisdiction over one another. No more nor less then the Counselors of the Court, go in rank according as they were admitted, although they be equal in charge. Or as when Christian Princes, or their Ambassadors meet together to deliberate of the affairs of Christendom, one hath precedency and place before another, yet without rule or dominion one over another. So fared it with the Patriarchal Seas: there was the Bishop of the first seat: the Bishop of the second, and so in order. The Bishop of the first Sea was the Bishop of Rome, for the dignity of his City, because it was the seat of the Empire: the Bishop of the second seat was he of Alexandria, because it was the greatest and mightiest City of the Empire, next after Rome: then followed Antioch and lastly, Jerusalem, which had more the name, then the power and authority of a Patriarch; because it self was subject to the Metropolitan of Cesarea.

Now to prevent, least any under the title of preseance or the first seat, should presume to challenge and usurp Dominion over his fellows: the third Council of Carthage, Canon 26. ordaineth, That the Bishop of the first Sea, shall not be called Head or Prince of the Priests, or high Priest and Bishop, but only Bishop of the first Sea, acknowledging it to be for order sake, and not for Superiority.

But after that the abode and ordinary residence of the Emperors began to be in Constantinople, together with the forces and strength of the Empire: the Bishop of Constantinople did then equal himself with the Bishop of Rome, and held himself in nothing inferior to him. Whereuppon came in the Ordinance of the Council of Chalcedon, which saith, Canon 28. that, The hundred and fifty Bishops of the Council of Constantinople, well-beloved of God, have given to the seat of new Rome (which is Constantinople) the same perogatives with ancient Rome. Iudging it according to reason, that the City honored with the Empire and the Senate, and which hath the same Privileges with ancient Rome, ought of right to be magnified as much as she in Ecclesiastical matters, being the next in rank after her. Where you see that the Council putteth a priority in order, with an equality in power: And this priority because Rome had been the seat of the Empire before Constantinople; whereupon is to be noted, that Leo Bishop of Rome denieth that his deputies consented to that Article, as appeareth by the nine and fifty and sixty of his Epistles: but the Council for all that doth not let to go forward; and I think that six hundred and thirty Bishops (for so many there were at the Council of Chalcedon) are more to be credited then the Bishop of Rome alone. And that which is more, you shall find the Canon set down at large in the sixth general Council. Which hath moved the Canonists to falsify this Canon: for in the two and twentieth Distinction, in the Canon Renouantes, instead of these words, Etiam in Ecclesiasticis, they have put non tamen in Ecclesiasticis, which is a manifest imposture and corruption.

That little preeminence then which the Bishop of Rome had, from the time of the Council of Nice, and a long while after, was only in consideration of the Noblenesse and greatness of the City. For so also the Patriarchs and Metropolitans were at the first ordained, according to the dignities of their Cities, as appeareth in the Canon Prouinciae, in the ninth Distinction. And indeed the Archbishop of Rauenna, though it be almost situated at the gates of Rome, yet would he never yield to acknowledge himself inferior to the Bishop of Rome, during the time that the Exarch, which was the Emperors Lieutenant, made his abode in Italy. Which also appeareth, in that the Popes Boniface and Celestine, who lived in the time of S. Agustine, being desirous to have drawn to themselves the Appeales of Africa, and to have played their Masteries out of Italy; they allege nothing to the Council of Africa, where this matter was debated, not any text of Scripture, nor the power given by Christ to S. Peter, but only the ordinance of the Council of Nice, of which they produced certain forged Canons. Which falsehood of theirs being detected and convinced by confronting it with the Originals brought in place, the Bishop of Rome had the foil, and lost the cause. And hereof we have the whole Council for witness, in which Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and S. Agustine Bishop of Hippo were present; who together with the rest of their fellows, wrote letters to Celestine, which are inserted into the Council, and which speak to the Bishop of Rome in this manner: The Fathers have most wisely and justly provided, that all affairs should be decided and ended in the places where they arise. Neither will the grace of God be wanting to any place, through which equity shall prudently and constantly be acknowledged, and embraced of the Ministers of Christ, seeing also that it is permitted to every man that receiveth any greeuance from his delegated Judges, to appeal to a Provincial, or indeed to a general Council, unless perhaps any man shall think that God may give ability to someone man to examine things uprightly, which he will not vouchsafe to a multitude assembled in a Council. Or how can a Sentence or judgment be of force, that is given beyond the Sea, where necessary witnesses cannot be present, either by reason of sex, or infirmity of old age, and a thousand other hindrances? For to tell us, that there ought Deputies [Legates a Latere] to be sent unto us as coming from your Holiness side, it is a thing which we do not find to have been ordained by any Synod of the Fathers; for those Articles which you sent us a while agone by our fellow and Companion Faustinus, as being of the Council of Nice, we could not find it so in the true Copies sent unto us by Cyril and Atticus, &c. Forebear also to send us your Clerks, men ready to serve every great man's turn, or indeed any that shall ask them; least it seem that we go about to bring this worlds smoky pride and hautinesse into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity, and the brightness of humility before those who desire to see God. After these checks given to the Bishop of Rome, they publicly denounce and give him warning, that he revoke and withdraw his Deputy Faustinus out of Africa; afterwards they salute him, calling him Sir and Brother. This Epistle is a precious Jewel of Antiquity, and I wonder how so excellent a piece could escape the hands of these falsifiers and Spongers of the Fathers. Now they, who read this Lesson to the Bishop of Rome, who already began to be somewhat tickled with presumption, were Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and S. Agustine, and all the Bishops of Africa. For which cause Boniface the second, in an Epistle which is found in the second Tome of the Councils, saith, that Aurelius and his fellows had separated themselves from the Church of Rome, being waxen proud through the instigation of the Devil. An Epistle which witnesseth, that S. Agustine died excommunicated out of the Church of Rome, which also we have elsewhere defended against Coeffeteaus accusations.

Neither was this the first ordinance, by w ^ch these Bishops sought to stifle the growing tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, whereby he labored to draw the appeals of the causes of Africa to himself; his purpose being, that they who were condemned in Africa by the Councils, might make their appeal over the Sea, that is, into Italy: For these same Bishops in another Council assembled at Mileuitum, in the two and twentieth Canon, say: If they [who are condemned by the neighbor Bishops] think that they may appeal from their judgment, let them not appeal any whither else then to the Councils of Africa, or to the Primates of their Provinces. But whosoever shall appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be admitted to the Communion, by any in all Africa. These men feared never a whit, least there might come from Rome a lapse upon their Benefices, or a deuolution to the Pope: they did not expect from him the Archbishops Pall, nor the Cardinals Hat, nor any liberality of consecrated grains, nor feared they his excommunication, whose power in those days passed little further then mount Apennine. And here out of this Discourse the Reader shall further learn, that this very Canon is found in the Roman Decrees, in the second Cause, in the Canon Placuit, but wholly corrupted and miserably falsified, for after these words, Whosoever shall appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received by any to the Communion; there is a piece of another stuff, and another color vnhandsomely patched on, unless he appeal to the Sea of Rome: how could this exception be allowable, seeing that this Canon of the Council was expressly made against the Sea of Rome? So is it also against the truth and evidence of all the Copies.

Yea so far are the ancient customs and ordinances from giving any Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome over other Patriarchs, that here is a flat Canon of the Council of Nice, recyted by Ruffinus to the contrary, in his first book and fifth chapter, They ordain also that in Alexandria, and in the City of Rome, the ancient custom be kept, to wit, that he of Alexandria have the care of Egypt, the Bishop of Rome of all suburbicary Churches, that is, of all the Cities that were under the authority and civil jurisdiction of the city of Rome. These Fathers did liberally cut him out a large share, as the times then were, but scant enough according to his ambition as now it is.

S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, wrote many Epistles to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, all which bear this inscription, Cyprian to Cornelius his brother sendeth greeting: which had been a great vnreuerence if Cornelius had been head of the Universal Church, or if he had had power of Jurisdiction over S. Cyprian. So likewise: in the fourth book of Socrates, cap. 11. the Eastern Bishops, who write to Liberius Bishop of Rome, call him nothing but Brother and Companion, yea they speak like Masters, for qualifying themselves the Catholic and Apostolic Church, they denounce Anathema against the Council of Ariminum, without expecting the judgment, or the will and pleasure of Liberius. Thereupon Leo the first, albeit he speak big in his Epistles, nevertheless he commonly taketh no other Title to him but only this, Leo Bishop of the City of Rome to such and such sendeth greeting.

See here a notable Example: The ancient custom of the Church was, that the penitents should confess their faults aloud in the face of the Church. But the Church being grown into wealth and riches▪ many men refused to undergo this shame, and judged it intolerable. To give them content herein, an order was established that every Church should have a Penetenciary Priest, who should receive their confessions in secret. This order having been everywhere received: Nevertheless Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople abolished this custom throughout all the East, without asking the Bishop of Rome's counsel, who also did not reprehend him for it: and this hath ever since so remained. Thereupon I say, that if Nectarius had been subject to the Bishop of Rome, he would never have undertaken so great a matter without his advise, and contrary to his example, Should a Bishop of Paris or Lions be borne withal nowadays, if of his own authority, without advise from the Pope, he should put away auricular confession out of his Bishopric: Here are other examples. It appeareth by S. Augustine's 118. Epistle to Ianuarius, that in Rome they fasted on the Satterday, but at Milan they did not so. Damasus Bishop of Rome, writing to S. Jerome, complaineth, that the service, and the singing in the Church of Rome, was performed with ill grace and unseemly, and with too great simplicity, and requesteth Jerome to teach him the custom of the singing and service of the Greek Church, that he might bring it into the Church of Rome. Is it credible that the Church of Rome would have dayned to be the Disciple of other Churches, and to correct her faults by the example of her neighbor Churches, if she had ruled and governed all other Churches, as she doth to this day? S. Jerome in an Epistle to Euagrius, showeth, that the custom of other Churches touching Deacons was better then that of Rome, which he saith, was but a City from whence pride first sprunge. So the Canon Aliter in the 31. Distinction, saith, That the Tradition of the Eastern Churches is one, and that of the Church of Rome another; for there the Priests and Deacons do marry, but here not. And this Canon is attributed to Pope Stephen, to whom Cyprian writeth. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 21. maketh a long Bed-roll of diverse Church-customs, and showeth how different the Churches were in the observation of Fastes, of the marriage of Churchmen, and of the days of public Assemblies; which diversity is an evident proof that they were not all governed by one only universal head, otherwise they should all have been conformed to the Ordinanances of the Church of Rome.

So shall we also find that the Churches of Asia, of Syria, and of Egypt, are called Catholic and Apostolic Churches, and yet they are never called Roman.

Especially it is manifest, that the Church of Rome, in those days did never give the definitive sentence, or that her judgments were esteemed irrefragable not to be gainsaid, forasmuch as we find examples of some causes, judged by the Bishops of Rome, which the Emperors have caused afterwards to be judged by other Bishops, for the better examination of the matters. S. Agustine in his 162. Epistle, and Euseb. lib. 10 cap. 5. report, that the Donatists demanded Bishops of the Emperor Constantine, to judge their Controuersie: and that at their request the Emperor commanded Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and Rheticus Maternus and Marinus his associates, to take notice of their Cause: by whose judgment the Donatists having been condemned, and they not willing to stand to their sentence, the Emperor commanded that their cause should again be heard and judged more exactly at Arles by other Bishops in a greater assembly, and that there the sentence of the Bishop of Rome and of his fellows should be sifted and examined: and it is found that the Bishop of Rome did complain for that the Emperor would not that men should stand to his judgment, but did quietly remit the whole matter to be tried and examined by other Bishops.

It appeareth chiefly in the convocation and the holding of Councils, how little the power of the Bishop of Rome was, in comparison of that which is given nowadays. Damasus Bishop of Rome summoned a Council at Rome, whereunto he inviteth the Eastern Bishops, who were assembled at Constantinople, from diverse places, pressing them earnestly to meet together at Rome, to deliberate of common affairs: but the Bishops of the East refused to be present, & excused themselves by letters to Damasus, Ambrose, &c. whom they call their Brethren and Colleagues, saying, that they had no commission from their Churches, to pass any further then Constantinople, and that they were not provided for that journey, and therefore had only sent their brethren and companions, Cyriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian, to let them understand their minds, which was a good will of peace and union In the end they conclude their Epistle with these words, God preserve you (our dear sons) in health and safety. Where are the Bishops now a days, that dare call the Pope their son? That would be taken either for beastly mockery, or plain flattery, seeing that now the least of his Titles is to be called most holy Father, not content with holy Father, which is the Title that Christ giveth to God his Father, John. 17. ver. 11. These Bishops then keep themselves at Constantinople, and there hold their Council; over which was President Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople; & they leave Damasus, and Ambrose, & the Bishops of Italy, to hold their Council at Rome. I beseech the Reader to weigh that which I am now about to say, that is, that the Council held at Constantinople, and called without the advise of the Bishop of Rome, and whereat he had not so much as any one Deputy, is held for a general Council, and one of the first four. But the Council which Damasus kept at Rome, is not held but for a particular Council, and which indeed is scarcely named. And verily in the succeeding Councils that followed, they were wont to recite the Canons of the Council of Constantinople, but never made any mention of the Roman Council.

The example which followeth, is no less direct to the purpose. Leo Bishop of Rome assembleth a Council at Rome: he writeth to the Emperor Theodosius the younger, and beseecheth him very instantly, that it would please his Majesty to call a Council in Italy. These be the terms of the Councils request. All the Priests do beseech your Clemency with sighs and tears, that you would command a general Council to be celebrated in Italy. But Leo and his fellows were denied their request. In the end the Synod was assembled at Chalcedon, which Synod Leo seeing that he was not able to transport it into Italy, besought at leastwise that it might be deferred. But the Emperor Martian, Theodosius successor, would not gratify him in that, but the Council was held at Chalcedon for the ease and commodity of the Bishops of Asia, as was the Emperors pleasure. Whereat Leo complaineth in his one and fortieth Epistle to Martian, and in the nine and fortieth to Pulcheria the Empresse, in such sort notwithstanding, that he submitted himself thereunto, and sent thither his Deputies by their commandment.

Socrates the historian, lib. 7. cap. 11. observeth that the Bishops began to go beyond the bounds of their charge even in the time of Theodosius the younger, the son of Arcadius, and that they already began to make themselves Princes in secular affairs, and that the Bishop of Alexandria having begun, he of Rome followed his example. These be his words, There brake forth a great flame of envy against the Novatians, the Bishopric of Rome having past the bounds of Priesthood, after the manner of that of Alexandria, and having carried it self forward to a secular Princedom.

One of the subtle tricks of the Bishops of Rome was, never to be present at general Councils, for fear least someone of the other Patriarchs should take place before him; even so far that Vigilius Bishop of Rome, being in the City of Constantinople, whilst the fifth general Council was held there, Vigilius notwithstanding refused to assist, and to be present, for fear least Menas Bishop of Constantinople should take the precedency. With such a like cunning, when any Bishop of Asia, or Egypt, or Greece, was chosen by joint consent of a general Council to be President therein, the Bishop of Rome well perceiving, that his Deputies could not have the first place, entreated him who was chosen to be President, to keep his place, and to represent his person; as he did Cyril in the first Council of Ephesus, who notwithstanding this counterfeit Commission, would not have let to have been President of the Council: As well as did Dioschorus, who was President in the second Council of Ephesus, without being Legate of the Bishop of Rome, and where the Bishop of Rome had his Deputies, who did not contest for the first place. The issue and the end indeed of the Council was turbulent, but yet it was lawfully assembled according to the usual form, and there was good order kept in the first Sessions. So Menas and Euticheus Patriarchs of Constantinople sat Presidents in the fifth Council of Constantinople, albeit Vigilius Bishop of Rome were in the same Town: which doubtless was the cause why he refused to be present at the Council: All which notwithstanding after the close and conclusion of the Council, he approved the Acts.

Read carefully the second Council of Nice, and you shall see, that in reckoning up the Bishops, who were assisting thereat, he who hath translated the Acts of the Council, hath oftentimes placed (to gratify the Pope) the Deputies of Rome the first; yet notwithstanding the whole action of the council doth plainly show, that they were not Presidents at all: they speak almost never a word, and they give in their opinions sometimes amongst the rest. But Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople speaketh to every matter, governeth the whole action, pronounceth the conclusions, and is chief President in the Council.

And to come up a little higher, the most famous Council that ever was, was the first Council of Nice; in which surely the Bishop of Rome was not President: but if we will believe the testimony of Athanasius who was there present, Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, sat in the first place. His testimony is reported by Theodoret in the second book of his story, and fifteenth chapter, where he saith, that there was no Council held, wherein Hosius was not President: And this he speaketh agreeable to that which the same Athanasius saith in his Epistle to them that live in the desert. The first speaker was Eustachius Bishop of Antioch, who sat at the Emperors right hand; Which hath made some men to think that he was President: but it appeareth not throughout the whole action that the deputies of Rome did anything. In the Tomes of the Councils, though made for the Popes greatest advantage, yet Hosius subscribeth the first, and the deputies of Rome under him. And least any man should say that he was the Bishop of Rome's Legate, he subscribeth apart in these words, Hosius, Episcopus Cordubensis, Ita credo. Then the deputies of Rome subscribe apart. Victor & Vincentius Presbyteri vrbis Romae pro venerabili Papa Syluestro subscripsimus. For if they had been all three deputies for the Bishop of Rome, they would thus have subscribed, Hosius, Victor, & Vincentius pro Syluestro, &c. And Hosius should rather have taken this title, then to be qualified only Bishop of Corduba, &c.

Whosoever hath never so little looked into the stories, knoweth that the Bishops of Constantinople, considering that the dignity of the sea of Rome came, for that Rome had for a long time been the seat of the Empire; and seeing that the Empire was now translated to Constantinople, have labored to have themselves to be credited and preferred before the Bishop of Rome. Even so far forth, that John the Bishoppe of Constantinople, whom Greeks call S. John the Almosner, began under the Emperor Maurice about the year six hundred, to call himself the first and chief Bishop, and Ecumenical Bishop, that is to say Universal. Whereupon Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome doth not complain that John did set footing upon the Sea of Rome, or that he did him any wrong by usurping that which belonged to the Bishop of Rome: but saith, that this was a new Title, and That he which will be called universal Bishop is the forerunner of Antichrist, because that in the Pride of his heart, he preferreth himself before others. Now the intent of this John was not to have denied the others to have been Bishops also: but he said that he was the first and above the rest. And indeed this John's successors continued this title, and are so called in Zonaras and Cedrenus. And further in the second Council of Nice, the second Action: there is an Epistle of Adrian Bishop of Rome, wherein he calleth Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople universal Patriarch. Howbeit Gregory in his Epistles, thinketh that he who will be universal Bishop, doth by consequent ruin the Bishopric of others, and seeketh if not directly, yet at leastwise by consequence, to be the only Bishop: the Bishopric of others, after that, being nothing else but a bare name without substance, as is the charge of Bishops under the Papacy. Thus hath God plucked out of the mouth of Gregory the condemnation of his Successors; for this good man was not aware that in so speaking, he called Boniface the third his Successor, the forerunner of Antichrist, to whom the Emperor Phocas gave the title of universal Supremacy, within a while after the death of Gregory. And yet for all this the Bishops of Constantinople, would never acknowledge themselves inferiors to the Bishop of Rome; no nor those of Antioch and Alexandria, until that the Turks and Saracens having overthrown all the rest, the Bishop of Rome only finding in our Kings soft spirits, and that they were little seen and versed in Divinity, drew from them huge liberalities, persuading them to whatsoever he would, even to subject their Crowns unto him, and to pill and rifle their Kingdoms, and to take upon him those Titles, of which we shall speak anon. He that will see how much the Pope hath exalted himself, let him compare the four first Councils, where all things are passed by common voices, with the Council of Florence, in which they gave power and authority to the Pope, to make new articles of faith: And with the latter Lateran Council, in which all is referred to the will of Pope Leo the tenth, who there is called the divine Majesty, the corner stone laid in Zion, the Lyon of Judah, the King and Prince of all the world, whom all the Kings of the earth ought to adore. To such Councils the Pope doth willingly afford his personal presence, because he doth there rule and domineer with absolute authority: but in the ancient Councils he refused to be present, because there he should have found Bishops as stout and as strong, and as ambitious as himself. Add hereunto that in the general Councils, they used the Church of Rome and her Bishop no otherwise then they did their particular Churches. So in the six general Councils, re-assembled at the Palace: Pope Honorius is condemned for an Heretic. And the thirteenth Canon doth by name condemn the Church of Rome, because it disallowed the marriage of Priests. And further in the 55. Canon the Church of Rome is expressly forbid to fast anymore the Satterdy and the Sunday, upon pain of incurring the rigor of the Canon of the Apostles which saith, If a Clerke be found fasting on the Satterday or the Sunday (one only excepted) let him be deposed; Or if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommunicated. Would they thus have spoken, if they had believed the Pope to have been their Superior, or the Church of Rome chief over other Churches, and that it could not err?

That the Passages of the Fathers alleged by Coeffeteau for the Primacy of S. Peter are partly false, partly maimed, and partly impertinent.

FRom this point Doctor Coeffeteau passeth over to the Primacy of S. Peter: howbeit before he cometh thereto, he giveth in passing by a blow to his Holiness, affirming, that he is not Lord over any Town: thus doth he dispute the Souerainty of the City of Rome. We leave themselves to clear this doubt, and end this Processe.

He allegeth then for the Primacy of S. Peter the 11. Homily of S. Chrysostom: and that very falsely; for in all the Homily there is no mention of S. Peter, nor of his Primacy. But Bellarmine did deceive him, out of whom Coeffeteau copied his allegations.

This other is like it. S. Cyprian (saith Coeffeteau ) affirmeth, that the other Apostles were certainly the same that S. Peter was, fellows and partners of his honor, and of his power: but the beginning proceedeth from Unity: and therefore the Primacy was given to S. Peter, the true reading is this, the Apostles inde de were the same things that S. Peter was, having ONE EQVALL SOCIETY In honor and in power, but the beginning was made by one, to show the unity of the Church. Coeffeteau hath razed out the word EQVAL which troubled him, and hath clapt on a Tayle of a sentence, which is not in Cyprian, and therefore the Primacy was given to S. Peter.

S Cyprian had said a little before, that Jesus Christ after his resurrection gave a like power to his Apostles, and yet to show the unity of the Church, he so disposed by his authority, that the fountain of this unity should begin from one. That is to say, that he gave to all his Apostles an equal power: but to show that the Church is one, he gave his power first unto one, namely to Peter, and afterwards gave equal power to the rest.

With like falsehood he dealeth with S. Jerome, lib 1. against Jovinian whom he thus allegeth, One is chosen among the twelve, to the end that there being one head established, all occasion of Schism might be taken away. But he omitteth the words that went before, thou tellest me that the Church is founded upon S. Peter, notwithstanding that the same is done upon all the other Apostles, and that all do receive the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and that upon them the stability of the Church is EQVALLY grounded: whence appeareth, that the Head and chief of which he speaketh, is nothing else but a superiority in rank, without any Jurisdiction and power over his fellows, seeing that they had all the Keys alike, and were alike the foundations of the Church. Which may serve (to the end we may not trouble our selves with examining the rest of his falsifications) for solution of all the rest of Coeffeteaus quotations, in which S. Peter is called head and first among the Apostles.

S. Agustine indeed in the beginning of his second book of Baptism, which place Coeffeteau allegeth, calleth S. Peter the first of the Apostles, but he saith also in the same place, that for all that he did not presume that the new-comers, and latter Apostles were to yield him obedience. The same S. Agustine, as he is alleged in the 24. Cause, Quaest. 1. Canon Quodcun{que}, speaketh thus: S. Peter when he received the Keys, represented the Church: if then all the good were signified in the person of Peter, so were all the wicked also signified in the person of Judas. Seeing then that S. Peter was the same among the faithful, that Judas was among the wicked, it followeth, that as Judas was not the head of the wicked, to have power and Jurisdiction over them, but only was the most remarkable among them: so S. Peter should be such a one among the believers. He might have had perhaps a priority either in age, or in virtue, or in zeal, or in eloquence, or in preseance, and taking the first place: but yet without Dominion or power of Jurisdiction. As touching that which sometimes he saith, that the Church is founded upon S. Peter; we shall see hereafter, that he retracted that over sight afterwards: and we have heard before S. Jerome to have said that the Church is Equally founded upon all the Apostles. As for that which he saith, that he that is without the Communion of the Church is to be accounted profane, and that he that is without the Ark shall perish in the flood, the same may be said of every other Church which holdeth the true Orthodox Doctrine, yea of the least of the faithful, for that a man cannot separate and withdraw himself from him, but by renouncing the truth: Now in the quarrel which then was in debate, Damasus maintained the truth and sounder opinion.

Whether the Pope may err in faith or no.

TO that which the King of great Britain denieth, that there is any Monarch of the Church on earth, whose words ought to be held for laws, & who hath the gift to be able not to err; Coeffeteau thus answereth:

This is it which is commonly said, that the Pope indeed may err as he is a man and a particular Doctor, but not as he is Pope: Or that he may err in manners, but not in faith: They say also, that he may err in the question de facto, but not in the question de Iure. For (as Boniface the eighth saith) the Pope hath all law and right in the chest of his breast.

A man had need of a good stomach to digest this: And I do not see how all this can agree. For first if the Pope may err in the question of fact, it followeth also that he may err in the question of Right, seeing that the one dependeth upon the other: if he may be ignorant, whether Jesus Christ came into the world, or whether he died for us, he may also be ignorant whether we ought to believe in him or no.

So likewise if he may err in manners, it followeth that he may teach false doctrine: for to lie and to speak against his conscience, is certainly a defaillance in manners. If then the Pope cannot be ignorant of the true doctrine, and yet through maliciousness will bury the truth, willfully to deceive, to what end serveth this truth hidden in the Popes understanding, if the people in the mean time be fed with lies? But this is an absurdity above the rest, to think that the Pope may err as man, or as a particular Doctor, but not as Pope: for why doth not the Pope correct the doctor? Or when Pope Boniface or Clement do err as Boniface, but not as Pope, why doth not Boniface ask counsel of the Pope? why doth he not consult himself? why doth he not betake himself from his private chair to the Popes Seat, to the end to change his opinion? If the Popes divine knowledge be tied to his Chair or Papal habit, it followeth that when he riseth from his seat, or putteth off his Robes, that withal he strippeth himself out of his knowledge: And that Boniface the eight was to blame to inclose the Popes knowledge in his breast. Shall we think that these men have a desire to be credited, and that by these pleasant distinctions, they do not mock the Pope?

Put the case that all this may be reconciled, and that the Pope may be contrary to himself, and worse then himself, and at one instant both Heretic and an Orthodox; what doth all this avail the people, seeing that in what sort soever the Pope teacheth, whether as Pope or as Doctor, he will always be believed? Neither can the people discern these subtle Distinctions.

Neither may we omit that the Pope upon Maundy Thursday doth excommunicate all Heretics; whence it should follow, that if himself be an heretic, as man, he is also excommunicate, and consequently is out of the Church: and so it should come to pass, that the man may be out of the Church, but the Pope be within it; which is as if I should say, that the King at the same instant is within his Palace as King, but without it as man; or that Coeffeteau is at the same time in the Refectory or dyning-hall as Friar, and without as man; so that a man shall find him in two places at once.

It was then a great unhappiness to the ancient Fathers to have been ignorant of this Distinction, and to have assembled so many Councils, so long and so painful for the deciding of differents in Religion, seeing that they needed only to have addressed themselves to the Bishop of Rome, and to entreat him not as man, or as Doctor, but as Pope to pronounce the sentence, & give decision of the Controuersie. Whence also it followeth, that then the Popes had but small zeal to the public good of the Church, seeing that they refused to be present at general Councils, which were the special places in which they ought to have put on this their Infallibility. As also when the Roman Bishop had given his advise by his Deputies, the Councils did not forbear for all that, to sound and examine the matter to the bottom, and to hear the opinions of others.

Howbeit Coeffeteau produceth this Scripture, to show that the Pope cannot err; he saith that our Lord said to S. Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith should not fail. Whence he concludeth, that the Pope cannot err in faith. Surely we have no greater proof of the patience of God, then that he suffereth his holy word thus to be abused: for first, is there any mention here of the Pope? Is all that that was spoken to S. Peter spoken also to the Bishop of Rome? If that be so, then must we needs say, that that which our Savior said to Peter, Mat. 16. he said also to the Pope, Get thee behind me Satan: Secondly, add that which we will hereafter show, that the Pope is not the Successor of S. Peter, unless it be as sickness succeedeth health: Thirdly, and albeit this had been spoken to the Pope, yet by these words Christ doth not promise to S. Peter that he should not err at all in faith; for it is one thing not to fail, another thing not utterly to fall away. There be many that miss and fail, but yet do they not wholly miscarry; whence ensueth, that though Christ should have prayed for the Pope, that his faith should not utterly fail, yet can he not for all that be exempted from power of erring: Fourthly, if the Successors of S. Peter enter also upon this virtue of his, never to err, then should the Bishop of Antioch who styleth himself Peters Successor, be exempted also from erring: Fifthly, seeing that Saint John, S, Paul, S. James, &c. were no less exempted from this power of erring then was S. Peter, why should not their Successors inherit the infallibility of the rest of the Apostles, as well as the Successors of S. Peter: Sixthly, but without anymore ado, let us look upon the place, and read with one breath the verses following, and we shall find that Christ in that place did foretell to S. Peter his fall and denial, and promiseth that his faith should not utterly be vanquished in that temptation: that was then personal and peculiar to S. Peter; yet so that our Savior would have his fall and rising again, to serve to confirm his brethrē. Here by the way the Reader may note, that this Passage and Text of Scripture is the only foundation that the Church of Rome can find, to prop up the Popes infallibility, which is as if a man would plant and rear up an huge Colossus upon Reedes, or from a thing of nothing to make a long chain of Consequences to depend.

Wherefore Coeffeteau being put off from Scripture, he hath recourse to the Fathers, and saith, that S. Cyprian is bold to say, that the Church of Rome is that, to which treachery and false hood can have no access. Cyprian thereby understands that it cannot be the refuge of perfidious men, neither can they be received there to find shelter; which is true of every Orthodox Church: for Cyprian varied from the Bishop of Rome upon the point of Rebaptization of heretics; which is an evident proof that he did not believe that the Bishop of Rome could not err: and indeed in the Epistle to Pompeius (written after that which Coeffeteau allegeth) he saith that Stephen Bishop of Rome was in an error, and that he had written many things idle and contradictory, very ignorantly and unwisely. It is not material to inquire whether Cyprian were in an error, or no; it is sufficient, that Cyprian thought that the Bishop of Rome was subject to err and to mistake.

Our Doctor addeth S. Jerome, who in his third Apology against Ruffinus, saith, That the Roman faith, commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not admit any such iuglings. (For so is it read, and not as Coeffeteau doth falsely allege it) The Trickes of which he speaketh, were, to put the title of a good Author to an evil book; so that this place is neither to the purpose, nor yet faithfully alleged: and if it were to the purpose, yet doth he not say, that the Church of Rome or her Bishop cannot err in faith, but saith that the Faith which S. Paul commended in the Romans, could not subsist together with such impostures; for the faith which S. Paul praiseth in them was the true faith, which doth not approve of any seducing. The same may be said of the faith of the Ephesians and Thessalonians, to whom the same Apostle giveth the same testimony as well as to the Romans, to wit, that their faith was spread abroad in all quarters. 1. Thes. 18.

Now that S. Jerome did not believe that the Bishop of Rome could not err in the faith, it appeareth by this, that in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, he thus speaketh of Fortunatianus: In this he is accounted detestable, that he was the first that solicited Liberius Bishop of Rome, who went into banishment for the faith, and made him to yield, having induced him to subscribe to Heresy. And in the same Catalogue he calleth Felix Bishop of Rome, Arian, as doth also Socrates, lib. 2. cap. 2.

S. Hilary in his fragments, lately published by Monsieur le Feure, doth often excommunicate Liberius, in these terms: Anathema tibi a me Liberi. For having subscribed to the Confession of the Arians framed at Sirmium: S. Athanasius an inward friend to Liberius, in his Epistle to them that lived in the Desert, after that he had greatly commended Liberius, he saith, that after two years banishment, he yielded and subscribed. As also the Arians would never have given him Letters to restore him to his Bishopric: if he had still persisted in the true faith. Damasus in the Pontifical alleged in there. Tome of the Councils, saith, that Liberius being re-entered into the City consented to the Emperor Constantius an Heretic, and that upon his arriuall there happened a great persecution at Rome.

Liberatus a great flatterer of the Bishops of Rome, hath written a book, which is found in the second Tome of the Councils; where in the two and twentieth Chapter is produced an Epistle of Vigilius Bishop of Rome, written to the Eutychian Heretics, in which he declareth himself an Eutychian, and denieth two natures in Christ, even so far as to excommunicate those that say the contrary.

Honori the first is condemned for a Monothelite heretic by three Councils which our adversaries call General, to wit, by the sixth, seventh, and eighth, that is to say, by a thousand witnesses; the Deputies of Rome then and there present never gainsaying it.

On the contrary, his Successors Agatho and Leo the second do there accurse and detest him for having polluted the Sea of Rome through his heresy. Who will believe that these Popes would have defamed their own Sea with a false accusation? Or that so many witnesses had been ill informed? seeing that even in these Councils the Epistles of Honorius, in which he defendeth heresy, are produced and alleged. And although they should have condemned him unjustly, yet it appeareth hereby, that they held it in those times for a thing certain, that the Bishop of Rome might err.

Bellarmine in his fourth book de Pontifice Romano, maketh no difficulty to say, that Pope Gregory the third, who taught, that a man whose wife was through sickness become unfit for the duties of marriage, might take another woman, had erred and failed through ignorance.

John the two and twentieth believed and taught that the souls of the faithful did not see God be fore the resurrection, as we have proved heretofore by many witnesses.

John the three and twentieth out-stripped and exceeded them all; for he denied the immortality of the soul, and maintained that there was neither Heaven nor hell. For which cause, besides many other crimes laid down in the eleventh Session of the Council of Constance, he was deposed from the Papacy by the same Council, whose words are these: JOHN the three and twentieth hath often and many a time, in the presence of diverse Prelates, and other honest men of worth, said, held, determined, and obstinately maintained by the instigation of the devil, that there is no life eternal, nor any other after this life; yea and hath obstinately said and believed, that the soul of man dieth together with the body, and is extinguished as that of brute beasts; and hath said, that a man once dead, shall not rise again the last day. And to the end that no man may doubt of the truth of the Accusation, it is a little after added, that it is publicly and notoriously known. Note also, that the Council, before that it deposed him, acknowledged him for lawful Pope, and all the Church of Rome doth reckon him among the number of Popes.

Furthermore that prodigious Canon, which beginneth Si Papa in the fortieth Distinction, after it hath said, that though the Pope should draw with him an innumerable multitude of souls into hell, there to be everlastingly tormented, yet no man should presume to reprove him; because he that judgeth all men, ought to be judged of no man: Addeth this exception, Nisi deprehendatur a fide deuius; unless he be found to have swerved from the faith.