The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.

The eighth chapter. The autoritie 1 of traditions and fathers pretended to proue the Popes supremacie: in vaine; beside the scripture, which is the one∣ly rule of faith. The Fathers, 2 being heard with lawfull excep∣tions that may be iustly taken against them, 3 doo not proue it. As it is shewed, first, in Fathers of the Church of Rome. By the way, 4 the name of Priest, the Priestly sacrifice of Christians, the Po∣pish sacrifice of Masse-priestes, the proofes brought for the Masse, the substance and ceremonies of it, are laid open. And so it is declared that 5 neither the auncient Bishops of Rome themselues, 6 nor any other Fathers do proue the Popes supremacie. (Book 8)

HART.

* 1.1You labour in vaine, if you go about to perswade me that the Popes supremacie can not be proued by scripture. And what iniurious dealing is this, to bring our owne men, Canus, and Father Robert, for the proofe thereof? as though the greatest fauou∣rers of vs were against vs.

Rainoldes.

a 1.2 The scholer is not aboue his maister, nor the seruant aboue his Lord. If Christ my Lord and maister were glad to labor in vaine: why should I disdaine it? Chief∣ly, sith I may comfort my selfe, as he did, b 1.3 I haue laboured in vaine, I haue spent my strength in vaine and for nothing: but yet my duety is with the Lord, and my worke with my God. But what iniurious dealing is it, if I, indeuouring to winne you to the truth, doo bring you the confessions of your own men, who witnesse a truth?

Hart.

A truth? Why? will you graunt vs that the Popes supremacie came in by tradition: if we will graunt you that it

can not be proued by scripture?

Rainoldes.

By tradition? I: if you meane [tradition] as S. c 1.4 Peter doth, where he teacheth Christians, that they are re∣deemed from their vaine conuersation * 1.5 of the tradition of their Fathers.

Hart.

You are disposed to play with your owne fansies. You know my meaning well enough. Will you graunt that it came in by tradition of the Apostles?

Rainoldes.

I should play in déede with your owne fansies, if I should graunt you that.

Hart.

But they, whom you alleaged, doo say that it did so: as your selfe haue shewed.

Rainoldes.

But I will proue that they spake no truer in that, then you haue doone in the other.

Hart.

But what an iniurie is this, to presse mee with their former wordes of the scripture, whereas your selfe beleeue not the later of tradition?

Rainoldes.

What thinke you of S. Paule? Did hee beleeue those thinges which the heathnish Poets do write of Goddes and Goddesses, Bacchus, Diana, Minerua, Mercurie?

Hart.

He did not. What then?

Rainoldes.

Yet d 1.6 he alleaged them to perswade the Athe∣nians, that in God we liue, and moue, and haue our being. What an iniury was that to presse the Athenians with Poets words of God, whereas himselfe beléeued not their wordes of Gods and Goddesses?

Hart.

The Poets might say well, and did, in the former: though in the later they missed.

Rainoldes.

Now, wil you deale as frendly with me, as with S. Paule? His case and mine are coosins.

Hart.

Nay, you in the selfe same sentence of our men cull out a péece of it, and yet an other péece of it you allow not.

Rainoldes.

Euen so did S. Paule. For that which he a∣uouched out of their owne Poets, (the meaning of it is in e 1.7 sun∣dry, the very wordes in f 1.8 Aratus;) they spake it of Iupiter, who was a wicked man, but thought of them to be God: S. Paule, allowing not their error in the person, culled out their sentence concerning the thing, and proued a truth by it.

Hart.

Well: if you may diuide the sentence of Canus and 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

other sort then I haue done.

Rainoldes.

That I wish. For the truth is like vnto camo∣mill: the more you presse it down, the faster it groweth, and spre∣adeth fairer, and smelleth sweeter.

Hart.

So much of scripture then. Now to tradition: by which the Popes supremacie may be cléerely proued.

Rainoldes.

By tradition? Why? Do you acknowlege then that it cannot be proued by scripture?

Hart.

I tell you no, once againe. How often must I say it?

Rainoldes.

Once saying will serue, if you do not vnsay your saying. But here in my iudgement you séeme to vnsay it. For you disclaime the title pretended by scripture, when you claime by tradition.

Hart.

Why so? Might not the same thing both be writen in scripture, and deliuered by word of mouth?

Rainoldes.

It might, & was no dout, as m 1.9 the traditions shew which S. Paule doth mention: which signify the doctrine that hee deliuered n 1.10 out of the scriptures. But you meane a doctrine not writen in the scriptures, when you speake of tradition. For o 1.11 you doo imagin that the gospell of Christ is partly contained * 1.12 in writen bookes that is the scriptures; partly in vnwriten things, that is traditions: as p 1.13 the Iewish Rabbines do say, that God by Moses deliuered not only the law, that is writen; but also an vnwriten law, which they call Cabala.

Hart.

Sée: as the Iewish Rabbines. You haue inured your mouth to such venemous spéeches·

Rainoldes.

Beware: or els through my side you will wound your freend. For q 1.14 Bishop Peresius, your chiefest patrone of tra∣ditions, doth proue them solemnly by this point of the Iewish Rabbins and the Cabala. Neither is the proofe vnfit, if it be weigh∣ed. For as they pretend this ground for the Cabala, that it ope∣neth the hidden meaning of the scriptures: so do you for traditi∣ons. And as r 1.15 they in processe of time brought in doctrine contra∣rie to the scriptures, vnder pretense of traditions: so do you with your Cabala. And as Cabalists among the Iewes do call them * 1.16 scripture-men (by way of reproch) who cast off traditions and cleaue to scriptures only: so doo traditionists among you reproch vs with 2 1.17 the same terme. Yea s 1.18 Lindan, and t 1.19 Prateolus, doo note it for a speciall heresie. But (to leaue this venemous spéech)

it is manifest that you renounce the scripture for proofe of a∣ny title, which you lay claime to by tradition. For scripture is writen; tradition, vnwriten. Wherefore, if by tradition you minde to proue the Popes supremacie; you must acknow∣lege first that it cannot be proued by scripture. If you bee not willing to ackonwlege that: I must debarre you from traditi∣on.

Hart.

Then I will proue it by the Fathers.

Rainoldes.

Nay that you shall not neither: vnlesse you will forgo the scripture.

Hart.

And why so I pray?

Rainoldes.

Because they say, forsooth, that it is held by tra∣dition. So that their euidences make against you, if scripture be your plea for it.

Hart.

That is very false. For by the words, Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke, in the sixtéenth of Matthew, the first Popes of Rome, most holy martyrs, haue proued it: u 1.20 Anacletus, x 1.21 Alexander the first, y 1.22 Pius the first, z 1.23 Victor, a 1.24 Zepherinus, b 1.25 Marcellus, c 1.26 Eusebius, d 1.27 Melchiades, e 1.28 Iulius, & f 1.29 Dama∣sus; and likewise others by other places, as D. g 1.30 Stapleton al∣leageth farther. Wherefore that the Fathers tooke it (as you say) to be held by tradition, it is a flat lye.

Rainoldes.

Say you so? Then h 1.31 Canus, and i 1.32 Father Robert do lye flatly, (but that is no maruell,) who grounding it both on tradition, the one doth cite for witnesses thereof the first Popes of Rome, most holy martyrs, Anacletus, Sixtus the first, Eleutherius, Victor, Sixtus the second, Zepherinus, Mar∣cellus, Melchiades, Marcus, & Iulius: the other not contenting himselfe with particulars, doth alleage in grosse, f••••st, the gene∣rall Councels; next, the Popes; and last, the Fathers.

Hart.

Yet more of Canus and Father Robert? I take not their defense vpon me: and why againe doo you tell me of them?

Rainoldes.

That you may sée how * 1.33 the Lord doth sheath the swordes of Madianites in their own sides, to the confusion of them who pitch their campe against Israel. For the same Popes which are alleaged by Canus to prooue that their supremacie is an vnwritten truth; the verie same Popes are alleaged by Stapleton to prooue that it is writen: euen Anacletus, Victor,

Zepherinus, Marcellus, Melchiades, and Iulius. Yea, and that is more, the very same epistles of theirs are alleaged by Stapleton, which by Canus. If rightly by Canus: how may we trust Stapleton? If rightly by Stapleton; how may wee trust Canus? If rightly by them both: what trimme Popes are they, who with one breath doo say that the same thing is both writen and vnwriten? Yet Father Robert dealeth wiselyer, and like a Iesuite: who séeing the danger of naming speciall men and places, doth shrowd himselfe in the generall of Coun∣cels, Popes, and Fathers. As if an horse-stealer being to giue account of whom and where he got his horses, should say that he bought them of incorporations, horse-coursers, and honest men within Christendom.

Hart.

Will you leaue your roauing, and come vnto the marke now?

Rainoldes.

It is a roauing marke we shote at: and I am come néerer it, then you would haue me. But what shall be your next ba••••?

Hart.

I told you, that I would proue it next by the Fathers. It agreeth very well with your spirit, that you should call this a bolt.

Rainoldes.

Well enough as you shoote it. For although the Lord hath planted the writings of the Fathers, as trees; in his Church, as in a Paradise; whereof there may be made good shaftes; blessed is the man that hath his quiuer full of them, they shall not be confounded but they shall destroy their e∣nimies in the gate: yet not all the shaftes, which you do vse of theirs, are good; k 1.34 your fletchers (at whose handes you take them vpon trust) doo marre them in the making, that I may iust∣ly call them rather bolts of Papistes, then shafts of the Fathers. Who, if they were aliue, might say to you in like sorte, as did a Poet to Fidentinus:

This booke (Sir Fidentinus) which thou doost reade, is mine: But thou, by reading it amisse, beginst to make it thine.

Hart.

Will you promise then to yelde vnto the Popes su∣premacie, if I proue it by the sayings and iudgement of the Fa∣thers alleaged and applyed rightly.

Rainoldes.

I truly. But I must doo it with a protestation, for my defense against such quarrelers, as Bishop Iewell fell

vpon.

Hart.

With what protestation?

Rainoldes.

With this, that I promise to yéelde vnto the Popes supremacie, if you can proue it by the Fathers; not be∣ca••••e I thinke that proofe to be sufficient of doubtfull matters in religion, but because I know you are not able so to proue it.

Hart.

Whether I be able or no so to proue it, the thing it selfe will shew. But if you thinke not that a sufficient proofe, why saide you that the writinges of Fathers are as trees, whereof there may be made good shaftes, such as shall de∣stroy their enimies in the gate; yea that the man is blessed who hath his quiuer full of them?

Rainoldes.

It is writen in the Psalmes, l 1.35 Except the Lord keepe the citie, the keeper watcheth in vaine. By the which wordes the Prophet séemeth to haue thought, that the warde and watch of men is not sufficient for the defense of ci∣ties, vnlesse the Lord assist them with his watch and ward. How say? is not this true?

Hart.

So. What of that?

Rainoldes.

That is an answere to your question. For the Prophet adding how m 1.36 God doth blesse men in giuing them children, saith, n 1.37 they are as arrowes in the hand of a strong man: o 1.38 blessed is the man that hath his quiuer full of them; they shall not be confounded, but they shall destroy their e∣nimies in the gate. If this be truly spoken of children well nurtured, who yet are not sufficient to defend a citie without the Lordes assistance: why might it not be spoken of Fathers well vsed, and yet they not suffice to decide a controuersie without the worde of God? For though I acknowledge there is good wood in them to make shaftes for the Lordes warres: yet is not all their wood such; some of it is knottie, some lithy, ••ome crooked. And the best arrowes, which are made thereof, vnlesse they haue heades of stronger mettall, then them selues, out of the Lords armorie: they are not sharpe enough to pearce into the harte of the kinges enimies, as are p 1.39 the arrowes of our Salomon. Wherefore as of your part, q 1.40 if you hearken not to Moses and the Prophetes, I haue no greate hope that Fathers will perswade you, though they should rise from the dead: so for my selfe I will assure you, that neither dead

nor quicke, Fathers nor children, shall perswade me any thing in matters of religion, which they can not proue by Moses and the Prophetes. For, r 1.41 the Apostles preached not any thing, but that, which the Prophetes and Moses saide should come to passe. And if a Father, if a Saint, s 1.42 if an Angell from hea∣uen preach beside that which the Apostles preached, let him be accursed. This lesson I haue learned of Paul the Apostle: and I subscribe vnto it. If you can like it better out of a Fa∣thers mouth, learne it of S. Austin. t 1.43 Who writing against the Donatists, which could not proue by scripture their erroneous doctrine, doth presse them with the same sentence, and teach al Christians the same lesson: whether it be of Christ, or of his Church, or of any thing els whatsoeuer pertaining to our faith and life, I will not say, if we, but if an Angel from hea∣uen shall preach to you besides that which you haue recey∣ued in the scriptures of the law and the Gospel (that is to say, the olde and new testament,) let him be accursed.

Hart.

You mistake the meaning of S. Austins wordes. For they are thus in Latin: Proinde, siue de Christo, siue de eius ecclesia, siue d•• quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram-

Rainoldes.

I haue the right meaning of these wordes, I trow; for they are plaine of all thinges that doo concerne our faith and life.

Hart.

I: but heare the rest. Non dicam, si nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, licet nos, sed ••mnino quod sequutus adiecit, si angelus-

Rainoldes.

Neither doo I mistake these. For he alludeth to the wordes of Paul to the Galatians.

Hart.

But you mistake the meaning of that which doth fol∣low, Si angelus de coelo vobis annuntiauerit praeterqàum quod in scripturis legalibus & euangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.

Rainoldes.

Why? doth he not meane the old & new testamēt (as we call them) by the scrip••ures of the law and the gospell?

Hart.

Yes: but your errour is in the worde praeterquàm, by which he meaneth contra quàm; not beside that, but against that. For there are sundrie thinges of faith and life to be prea∣ched beside them in the scriptures of the law and the gospell, but not against them. Wherefore if it were so that the Popes supremacie could not be proued by scriptures: yet the proofe of

it by the Fathers might be good. For it were not against the scriptures; although it were beside the scriptures.

Rainoldes.

Praeterquàm; id est contra quàm: beside that which you haue receyued in the scriptures, that is, against that. This is your u 1.44 Louanists glose-

Hart.

Nay, it is S. Austins: as you may perceiue by his own wordes in an other place, touching the same matter, x 1.45 where he saith thus. The Apostle did not say, If any man preach vn∣to you more then you haue receyued, but, beside that you haue receyued. For if he should say that, he should be pre∣iudiciall to him selfe, who desired to come to the Thessalo∣nians y 1.46 that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith. Now he, that supplyeth, addeth that which was wanting; taketh not away that which was, and so forth. Whereby S. Austin sheweth that we may preach more then the scripture hath: but not beside it, that is to say, against it.

Rainoldes.

He sheweth nothing lesse: as any man that readeth his discourse, may see. For, that which he speaketh of more, and of wanting, is not meant of scripture, that is, the worde writen; but of the worde preached & deliuered by mouth. Wherein he declareth that the Apostles maner of instructing men, was, z 1.47 to feede them first with milke, not with strong meat. So, that which was wanting to the Thessalonians, was stron∣ger doctrine of the faith: that which they had, was easier. Wher∣of though in the one he taught them more then in the other: yet no more in either, then a 1.48 the scripture hath. And thus S. Austins more to be no more then scripture: himselfe maketh manifest by the example also which he giueth of it. For the doctrine of the manhead of Christ, he calleth milke; of the God∣head, strong meat. Now they who are taught to know him to be God, learne more then they had learned when they receaued him as man. But they learne no more then the scripture hath, b 1.49 which teacheth him both God and man. Wherefore, that S. Austin condemning all who preach ought beside the scrip∣tures of the law & the gospell, meant, that more then scrip∣tures may be preached, but nought against them: it is not S Au∣stins glose, but your Louanists, and in truth repugnant to S. Austins text. For c 1.50 in the same place S. Austin making mention how the Donatists hated him for preaching of the truth and con∣futing

their heresie; * 1.51 as though (saith he) we had comman∣ded the Prophets and Apostles who were so long before vs, that they in their bookes should set downe no testimonies whereby the Donatists might be proued to be the church of Christ. Which words doo shew plainly, y^t as by the scriptures of the law & the gospel he signified the bookes of the Prophetes & Apostles: so by condemning all that is beside the scriptures, he meant, not, all that is against, but, all that is not in the scriptures. And that this was his meaning, he sheweth yet more plainely by willing them to proue their doctrine by the testament: which your Louan d 1.52 Doctors (the greater shame for them to wrest S. Austins wordes against his sense) doo note also. For, as amongst men the testament doth open the will of the testa••or: so did S. Austin thinke that the controuersie be∣twixt the Donatists and the Church should be decided by the Scriptures, which Christ hath left to Christians as his will and testament. For, e 1.53 Christ hath dealt with vs, as an earthly Father is wont with his children: who, fearing least they should fall out after his decease, doth set downe his will in writing vnder witnesses, & if there arise debate amongst the brethren, they go to the testament. He, whose word must end our controuersie, is Christ. Let his wil be sought in his testa∣ment, saith Optatus. Which reason of Optatus S. f 1.54 Austin vr∣ging against y^e Donatists, as he doth other often: we are brethrē, (saith he to them:) why doo we striue? Our father died not vn∣testate: he made a testament, & so died. Men do striue about the goods of the dead, till the testament be brought foorth: when that is brought, they yeeld to haue it opened, & read. The iudge doth hearken, the counsellours be silent, the cryer biddeth peace, all the people is attentiue, that the wordes of the dead man may be read & heard. He lyeth voide of life & feeling, in his graue, and his words preuaile: Christ doth sit in heauen, and is his testament gainesaied? Open it: let vs reade: we are brethren: why do we striue? Let our mindes be pacifi∣ed. Our father hath not left vs without a testament. He that made the testament is liuing for euer. He doth heare our words: he doth know his owne word. Let vs reade: why doo we striue? Were not this a séely spéech of S. Austin, if hee had

meant, as you say, that all the Lords will is not declared in his testament: that thinges beside his owne worde may be proued by mens words? Let him be accursed who preacheth any point of faith, or life beside the scriptures. True: beside y^e scriptures, y^t is against the scriptures, say your Louan Doctours. Sée what skil can doo. If they were Doctours of y^e Arches, we should haue io∣ly law. For a coosining marchant might claime a thousand pound of a dead mans goods, who had bequeathed him a legacy of twētie grotes: & they might adiudge it him with good consciences, as not against the testament, though beside the testament. Nay, they might do this with so much better reason, then they doo the other; by how much the testament of God is more perfit, thē any mans can be: and that which Christ bequeathed the Pope, is farre lesse in comparison of the supremacie, then twentie grotes of a thou∣sand poundes. Wherfore, say the Doctors of Louan what they li••t, (perhaps they speake for their fée:) S. Austin meant plainely, that, sith the Donatists claimed the inheritaunce of Christ to them selues, they must proue their title by his will and testa∣ment. Which if they could not doo, or rather séeing that they could not: he pronounceth of them they had no right vnto▪ it. And thereupon he commeth to the generall sentence of the hea∣uenly iudge, denouncing them accursed, who, in any point, ei∣ther of faith, or life, doo preach beside that which is deliuered in the scriptures of the law and the gospel. Wherein if [be∣side] do signifie [against:] then all (in this respect) is against a testament, which is beside a testament.

Hart.

S. Austin, and Optatus, against the Donatists, doo speake reason: that, vnlesse they can proue their right by Christes testament, they may not shut the Catholikes out from his inhe∣ritance, and claime his goods vnto them selues. For it is meete that the will of the testator should be kept. But a learned lawi∣er, one g 1.55 Francis Baldwin, who hath set foorth Optatus, and writen notes vpon him, doth shew that a testament may be ei∣ther nuncupatiuum (as he calleth it) or scriptum; either set down in writing, or vttered by word of mouth. What say you to te∣stamentum nuncupatiuum?

Rainoldes.

I graunt that h 1.56 a testament may be made without writing, so that it be done before a solemne number of witnesses. But the testament of Christ is writen, I hope: and

so doo both Optatus and Austin speake of it. Wherefore your learned Lawier may kéepe that law in st••re, vntill his client néede it.

Hart.

As who say the testament of Christ might not be wri∣ten in part, though not in whole. Which is Baldwins meaning, as it appéereth by the place, not of Optatus, but of Austin, where∣to he applieth it.

Rainoldes.

But if Baldwin meant so, Baldwin should haue remembred that a testament so made is not testamentum nuncupatiuum (for i 1.57 that is vnwriten, as the very k 1.58 rudiments of the law might teach him,) but imperfectum rather; though writen, yet vnperfit. And I trust you will not say, that the testament of Christ is vnperfit. Sure Optatus would not.

Hart.

Nor I sir, though you would faine imply as though I said so. For if Christ would haue his will, in part writen, in part deliuered by word of mouth: ioyne them both togither, they make a perfit testament.

Rainoldes.

Then the writen testament of Christ is vnper∣fit. It will be gay and perfit with your traditions patched to it. But Optatus thought that his writen testament is perfit of it selfe. Which shaketh all the frame of Popery in péeces. And this is that Optatus, l 1.59 of whom S. Austin speaketh as of a worthy Catholike Bishop equall to Ambrose and Cyprian; of whom m 1.60 Fulgentius speaketh as of a holy faithfull interpre∣tor of Paule like to Austin and Ambrose; of whom n 1.61 your great Champion doth vaunt so gloriously, that he, nor he onely, but the rest of the * 1.62 Fathers are of your religion as surely and fully as the Pope himselfe, Pope Gregorie the thirteenth: whereas in very truth not one of them is so. For Gregorie the thirteenth is of your religiō in the Popes supremacie, y^e chiefest point of Poperie: as o 1.63 his rules of Chancery for re••eru ations and prouisions, p 1.64 his accursing of all that appeale from Popes to Councels, q 1.65 his bulles against decrees of Councels both prouinciall and generall, doo shew. From which abo∣mination how farre the Fathers were, it shall appéere when you alleage them. But Optatus is so plaine against your religion, in the point of scriptures and their sufficiencie to decide all controuersies: that your chalenger (if he read him, and not be∣leeued▪ common-place-bookes of Canisius and other broakers)

might haue blushed to boast of him. For those things, which r 1.66 he citeth out of Optatus, do not as much as rase the skinne of our religion, though they séeme to weake eye sightes. But this, of scriptures onely, doth breake the necke of yours: and it is so cléerely the iudgement of Optatus, that your owne s 1.67 Baldwin, (in his Annotations) is faine to say of him, he vsed that compa∣rison of a testament not so warily.

Hart.

Not so warily, as Austin doth. For Austin vseth it, when he will proue out of the scriptures that the Church is catholike: which was one of the pointes of their controuersie with the Donatists.

Rainoldes.

But in handling that point he maketh it a gene∣rall rule, that, whether it be of Christ, or of his church, or of a∣ny thing else whatsoeuer pertaining to our faith and life, no∣thing must be preached beside the scriptures, that is, the testa∣ment.

Hart.

But in an other point of their controuersie, touching baptisme, S. t 1.68 Austin doth alleage not so much the scripture, as the tradition of the Apostles.

Rainoldes.

Not so much the scripture. He doth the scrip∣ture then: though he alleageth also the custome of the Church deliuered by the Apostles. But what is that against the testa∣ment?

Hart.

Nay, beside the testament, which is the word writen, he doth commend vnwriten traditions in other places. Which proueth that he thought not the testament sufficient to decide all controuersies.

Rainoldes.

Now S. Austin findeth fauour at your hands, who make him say and vnsay the same. But where vnsaith hée that of the sufficiencie of scripture?

Hart.

You may sée in the u 1.69 Augustinian confession of Torrensis, in the chapter of Traditions.

Rainoldes.

But I would sée it in S. Austin. Torrensis is a Iesuit, whom we haue taken oft in lyes. I cannot trust him.

Hart.

Why? He alleageth S. Austins owne wordes. As in x 1.70 the first place, (which bringeth in S. Cyprian too,) Quod autem nos admonet Cyprianus vt ad fontem rec••rramus, id est, Apostolicam traditionem, & inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est & sine dubitatione faciendum. That is to say; whereas Cy∣prian

warneth vs that we should go to the coondit head, which is the tradition of the Apostles, and thence direct the pipe to our owne times: that is best and to be done out of all dout. These are S. Austins owne wordes.

Rainoldes.

S. Austins owne wordes in déede. But what doth folow in S. Austin? Traditum est ergo nobis (sicut ipse comme∣morat) ab Apostolis, quòd sit vnus deus, & Christus vnus, & vna spes, & fides vna, & vna ecclesia, & baptisma vnum. That is to say: It is deliuered therefore to vs by the Apostles (as Cyprian him∣selfe rehearseth) that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one church, and one baptisme. These are S. Austins owne wordes, and grounded on S. y 1.71 Cy∣prian too. So that he, and Cyprian, meant by [tradition] that, which is deliuered: and that to be deliuered, which is writen in the scriptures. For this selfe same thing, whereof they speake, is writen in the epistle of * 1.72 Paule to the Ephesians. Where∣fore, their traditiō is tradition writen, that is to say, scripture: and not vnwriten stuffe, as your Iesuit would haue it. Yea Cy∣prian is so plaine for controuersies to be decided by this tra∣dition onely, that in the same epistle (whence Austin citeth this) to the words of Stephanus, Traditum est, it is deliuered, vnde est ista traditio, faith he, whence is this tradition? Doth it come from the authoritie of the Lord and the gospell, or from the commaundements and epistles of the Apostles? For that we must doo those things which are writen, God doth witnesse saying to Ioshua, a 1.73 Let not this booke of the law depart out of thy mouth: but meditate in it day and night, that thou maiest obserue to per∣forme all thinges which are writen therein. And likewise the Lorde sending his Apostles willed them that b 1.74 the nations should bee baptized, and taught to obserue all things which he had commaunded. Wherefore if this thing (of the which Stephanus saith, it is deliuered,) be commaunded in the gospell, or contained in the epistles or actes of the Apostles: let this diuine and holy tradition be obserued. Sée you not how Cyprian thought, that all, which Christ commanded to be taught, is writen? How hee meant this writen doctrine by tradition? How his words of this tradition are approued by Austin? What conscience had your Iesuit to alleage that for traditions beside scriptures, which they so plainely meant of the scriptures them selues?

Hart.

I do not sée this, neither in S. Austin, nor in S. Cypri∣an.

Rainoldes.

I am the soryer that your sight serueth you no better. For the thing is so cléere that your owne c 1.75 Pamelius de∣clareth that Cyprian meant the holy scriptures there by tradi∣tion.

Hart.

Yet Pamelius addeth, that, if S. Cyprian had bene in∣structed better that the scriptures cited by him to proue his errour, are not of force thereto: S. Austin douteth not but he would haue allowed the contrary tradition.

Rainoldes.

That may well be. For he should haue found it proued by the scriptures, as S. d 1.76 Austin sheweth. But in the meane season you may sée by Pamelius, that Torrensis abused Cyprian, and Austin, in wresting that to his traditions.

Hart.

Not so. But his next place of e 1.77 Austin is more preg∣nant: Let the rule of the Church and the holy tradition and iudgement of the Fathers continue sure and sound for e∣uer.

Rainoldes.

As pregnant as the former. For it foloweth straight: Now the faith of our Fathers is this; we beleeue in God the father almightie, maker of all things visible and in∣uisible, and so he goeth forward with the pointes of Christian faith. Wherby it is apparant that he meant by [the tradition of the Fathers] their faith. But their faith is writen (the substance of it) in the scriptures. Therefore your Iesuit faileth in this tradi∣tion too. Moreouer S. Austin, if he wrote that sermon, whereof your f 1.78 Louan censours dout, but he, who wrote that sermon, en∣treateth of the Trinitie. But touching the Trinitie nothing must be said beside the rule of faith, which is set downe in scriptures: as g 1.79 I haue shewed by S. Austin. Wherefore if S. Austin had meant of vnwriten tradition in that point: S. Austin would retract it. But indeede the Iesuit hath ouerséene S. Austins workes very cunningly. Who, bearing men in hand that he hath gathered the summe of Austins doctrine out of all his workes, yet concealeth that h 1.80 in the chapter of scriptures, which Austin saith of their sufficiencie: & faceth that out i 1.81 in the chapter of tra∣ditions, which should haue bene defaced by that which Austin saith of scriptures. Howbeit, were it true, that the scriptures without traditions are vnperfit and vnsufficient to proue the

will of God: you are no néerer your purpose, that the proofe of it by Fathers is sufficient. For a testament, that is made by worde of mouth without writing, must be proued by solemne witnesses. The solemne witnesses of Christes testament, are the Prophets, and Apostles. So that vnlesse you proue by Prophets and Apo∣stles, that part of the testament of Christ is vnwriten, & that hée gaue the Pope supremacie in that part: your proofe by the Fa∣thers will neuer stand in law. Notwithstanding, though it bée against both law and reason, that the Pope should take the whole inheritaunce of Christes Church, and put all Bishops to their le∣gacies, vnlesse he proue his right by the testament of Christ: yet, if you can proue it (as I said) by the Fathers, I am content to yéelde vnto it.

Hart.

If I can proue it by the Fathers▪ I will bring them to witnesse for it. But when will you count it proued? Perhaps when I haue proued it, you will say I haue not.

Rainoldes.

And perhaps, when you haue not, you will say you haue.

Hart.

Who shall be iudge then? And how shall it bee tryed?

Rainoldes.

Optatus in the question of the Catholikes with the Donatists, whether one should be twise baptized: k 1.82 you (saith he) say, it is lawfull: we say, it is not lawfull. Betweene your [it is lawfull,] & our [it is not lawfull,] the peoples souls do dout and wauer. Let none beleeue you, nor vs: we are all contenti∣ous men. Iudges must be sought for. If Christians: they can not be giuen of both sides; for truth is hindred by affec∣tions. A iudge without must be sought for. If a Paynim: he can not know the Christian mysteries. If a Iewe: he is an eni∣mie of Christian baptisme. No iudgement therefore of this matter can be found in earth: 1 1.83 a iudge from heauen must be sought for. But why knocke we at heauen: when here we haue 2 1.84 the testament of Christ in the gospell? So, by the opinion and reason of Optatus, you and we can haue no fit iudge in earth: God must iudge vs by his word. But if the Pope will be tryed by God & the countrie: let him appéere at the assise; I will endite him of fe••••••ie for robbing Christians of their goods; and I will vse no witnesses to proue it but the Fathers.

Hart.

Nay, we may rather endite you for entring forcibly

on his land, I meane on the supremacie, and wrongfully detei∣ning it aboue these twentie yeares from him. Though (to say the truth) you are past enditement: you are condemned long ago.

Rainoldes.

By l 1.85 the Pope in his Consistorie. An easie matter where himselfe is plaintife, witnesse, and iudge.

Hart.

Him selfe is not alone iudge there: for he doth all thinges by the common verdict-

Rainoldes.

Of an enquest of Cardinals, with whom hee doth diuide his spoyles. And shall they be iudges, whether you doo proue the Popes supremacie or no?

Hart.

They are worthie Prelates, what count soeuer you make of them. But who shall iudge, if not they?

Rainoldes.

When an issue is ioyned to be tryed by the coun∣trie, the iury, that shal try it, ought to be of such as be next neigh∣bors, most sufficient, and ieast suspicious. This is the law of England. How doo you like your countrie law? hath it not reason?

Hart.

It hath. But this issue of ours must be tryed by the Church, not by the countrie.

Rainoldes.

I graunt. But the equitie of our countrie law doth hold in the Church too.

Hart.

Wil you be tryed then by the Catholike Bishops that are the Popes neighbours, of France, Spaine, and Italie, such as were at the Councell of Trent?

Rainoldes.

Fye: they are the most vnfit of all men to try any issue betwéene the Pope and vs.

Hart.

Why so?

Rainoldes.

For many causes. They are not frée holders. They are the Popes tenants, his sworne vasals, our sworne enimies: m 1.86 bound by oth to maintaine the Papacy. Are these most sufficient and least suspicious persons?

Hart.

They are most sufficient. But if your suspicions shall serue to chalenge them, you may chalenge any.

Rainoldes.

If you deny the causes, which I alleaged: I proue them. If I proue them all: there is no bench of Iustices in England, but will thinke my chalenge to be very lawfull.

Hart.

Then name your selfe the men whom you will admit to be of the iury.

Rainoldes.

Nay, I will name none. But I am indiffe¦rent

to all who are indifferent: who haue skill to iudge of the e∣uidence that is brought, and conscience to giue verdict according to the truth.

Hart.

According to the truth of the euidence, you meane. For so a iury ought. And so let all indifferent men be of the iu∣ry. For the wordes of the witnesses which I will bring shall be so full, so plaine in sense, so strong in proofe, that they must néedes condemne you: vnlesse they will giue verdict against the euidence and their consciences.

Rainoldes.

The crow doth thinke her own birdes fairest. But I must desire the iury to consider that the witnesses, whose wordes you will bring, are not aliue.

Hart.

Aliue? What is that to the tryall of our issue?

Rainoldes.

Much. For if they liued and did appeere before the iury, first, they should be sworne to say the truth, and al the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whereby they might bee moued both to speake more wa••ily, and to enforme the iury more throughly, then they haue doon. Next, it would be easier to examine them of their age, their estate, the circumstances of their persons; of their spéeches, the meaning, the occasion and cause thereof. Which all are helpes to finde out the truth of thinges in controuersie. Thirdly, if it appeered by examinati∣on, that either for their persons, or for their speeches, they are vn∣worthie of credit: then it should bee lawfull to except against them. A libertie, which n 1.87 law doth graunt against witnesses, if there be cause of iust exception. Yet you perhaps (as your men are wont) would make outcrye, if I should vse it against them who are dead and absent. Wherefore vnlesse the iury doo sup∣ply that by wisedome and equitie, which wanteth in the course of tryall, by reason that the witnesses whom you will bring are not aliue: they may be deceyued by names and shewes of witnes∣ses, and thereby giue a verdict which shall proue no verdict. For verdict is a speech of veritie.

Hart.

An honest mans worde is as good as his oth. For as he will not forsweare: so neither lye. The Fathers must not therefore be the lesse beleeued, because they are not sworne.

Rainoldes.

Yet an honest man, when he is sworne, wil speake more fully and maturely then when he is vnsworne. And hée may say that sometime on coniecture, which on his oth he would

not say.

Hart.

But that may be perceyued by the Fathers writings, when they doo pronounce of a thing, as certaine; when, as vncer∣taine, they coniecture it. And so may other circumstances (which you require) be knowne too: as well as if them selues were present.

Rainoldes.

Not so well. For their writings doo not an∣swere to many questions, which, if they were present, I woulde aske of them. But I am content with that which may be knowne so. Let the iury weigh it, and iudge thereafter of their credit.

Hart.

What? Shall meaner men, who be aliue now, iudge of the credit of the Fathers, who were so long in time, so farre in giftes before them?

Rainoldes.

Euagrius, a meane man, wrote vnto S. Ierom, desiring his opinion concerning Melchisedec, whether he were the holy Ghost. S. o 1.88 Ierom, answering him, when hee had shewed the iudgements of the auncient writers Origen, Didy∣mus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius Caesariensis, and Emise∣senus, Apollinarius, Eustathius, and the best learned Iewes, of whom some thought Melchisedec, an angel; some, a man: you haue (saith he) what I haue heard, what I haue read touching Melchisedec. * 1.89 To bring forth the witnesses, it was my part: let it be yours to iudge of the credit of the witnesses. It sée∣med reason to S. Ierom that Euagrius should iudge of of the wit∣nesses whom he brought. What is there more in the Fathers, then was in those witnesses? What was there more in Euagri∣us, then is in many who liue now?

Hart.

But you perhaps will cauil, either at the persons, or at the spéeches of the Fathers,* 1.90 and thinke that euery toy is a suf∣ficient reason, why men should not beléeue them.

Rainoldes.

Whether the exceptions, that I shall take a∣gainst any, be cauils and toyes: let the iury iudge. Nay, I durst say almost, let mine aduersarie iudge. For what thinke you you•• self, if one alleage for scripture that which is not scripture: may not that autoritie be iustly refused? As if, for example, a man should write that Christ said to his disciples, that which I say to one of you, I say to all.

Hart.

In deed M. p 1.91 Iewell alleaged that for scripture, to proue that the wordes of Christ vnto Peter, feede my sheepe,

feede my lambes, were spoken n ot to him onely but to the rest of the Apostles. Wherein he was iustly reproued by D. q 1.92 Har∣ding. For Christ did not say, what I say to one, that I say to all: but, r 1.93 what I say to you, (meaning, the Apostles,) that I say to all (Chri∣stians,) watch. So good is our cause, that M. Iewell could not make shew of truth against it, but by foule corruption and falsifi∣ing of the scriptures.

Rainoldes.

I pray be good to M. Iewell for M. Optatus and Fulgentius sake: who * 1.94 both haue missealleaged the same words of Christ, yea one of them in like sort, as Bishop Iewell did. For, to proue that the words of the Lord to Esay, t 1.95 Cry and cease not, were spoken not to Esay onely, but to all preachers, he v∣seth this reason, that Christ doth say to his disciples, what I say to one of you, I say to all. Wherin, as the doctrine of a preachers duty is true, though the proofe be false: so is in Bishop Iewell the doc∣trine of the Apostles duety. And Bishop Iewels proofe, from one Apostle vnto all, is better grounded on the wordes, then the other from Esay the Prophet to all preachers. Moreouer the faulte remaineth vncorrected in ••ulgentius and Optatus: Bishop Ie∣well hath corrected it. Wherefore if you condemne him of fouly corrupting and falsifying the scripture, because he missealleaged that sentence of Christ: what iudgement will you giue of Fulgen∣tius and Optatus?

Hart.

Nay, it is likely that they ouersaw it by a slippe of me∣morie.

Rainoldes.

The same would you iudge of M. Iewel, if some what did not blinde your eye. But by this your iudgement I see, that where the Fathers mistake the wordes of scripture, they may be refused. What if they mistake, not the wordes but the sense: may we refuse them also there? As u 1.96 Iustin the Mar∣tyr, x 1.97 Irenaeus, y 1.98 Papias, z 1.99 Tertullian, a 1.100 Victorinus, b 1.101 Lactantius, c 1.102 Apollinarius, d 1.103 Seuerus, and e 1.104 Nepos, in that they thought that Christians after the resurrection should raigne a thousand yeares with Christ vpon the earth, in a gol∣den Ierusalem, and there should mary wiues, beget children, eate, drinke, & liue in corporall delites. Which errour, though repugnant flatly to f 1.105 the scriptures, yet they fell into; partly, by confounding g 1.106 the first and second resurrection: partly, by ta∣king h 1.107 that carnally, which was mystically meant in the Re∣uelation.

Hart.

That was the heresie of the Millenaries, as they are called. Howbeit in the Fathers, though it were an errour, yet it was no heresie.

Rainoldes.

I doo not say it was an heresie. I say that they mistooke the meaning of the scripture: which you can not denie. Yea some times, when they neither mistooke the words, nor the meaning, yet they taught amisse out of it. As, that i 1.108 God created the world in six dayes, they vnderstood it rightly. But to conclude thereof that the world should last but sixe thousand yeares, because k 1.109 one day is with the Lord as a thousand yeares, & a thousand yeares as one day: this was an ouersight. For if that were true, which they did gather of those wordes: then might we know l 1.110 the times, whereof our Sauiour saith that it is not for man to knowe them. And vpon this reason S. m 1.111 Austin doth reproue that fansie of sixe thousand yeares, as rash and presumptuous.

Hart.

So doo we also. For n 1.112 Lindan and o 1.113 Prateolus doo note it, in Luthers and Melanchthons Chronicles, as a Iewish heresie.

Rainoldes.

Good reason, when Luther and Melanchthon write it. But when p 1.114 Irenaeus, q 1.115 Hilarie, r 1.116 Lactantius, and s 1.117 other Fathers write it: what doo they note it then?

Hart.

Suppose it were an ouersight. But what néedes all this? As who say you douted that we would maintaine the Fa∣thers in those things in which they are conuicted of error by the scriptures.

Rainoldes.

I haue cause to dout it. For though there be no man lightly so profane, as to professe that he will doo so: yet (such is the blindnes o•• mens deuotion to Saintes) there haue béene heretofore who haue so done, and are still. There is a famous fa∣ble touching the assumption of the blessed virgin: that, when the time of her death approched, the Apostles (then dispersed throughout the world to preach the gospell) were taken vp in cloudes, and brought miraculously to Ierusalem to be pre∣sent at her funerall. This tale in olde time was writen in a booke which bare the name of Melito, * 1.118 an auncient learned Bi∣shop of Asia: though he wrote it not be like. But whosoeuer wrote it, he wrote a lye, (saith t 1.119 Bede,) because his words gaine say the wordes of S. Luke in the actes of the Apostles. Which Bede

hauing shewed in sundrie pointes of his tale, he saith, that he re∣herseth these thinges, because he knoweth, that some be∣leeue that booke with vnaduised rashnesse against S. Lukes au∣toritie. So you sée there haue béene who haue beléeued a Fa∣ther (yea perhaps a rascall, not a Father) against the scriptures. And that there are such still, I sée by our countrymen, u 1.120 your diuines of Rhemes: who vouch the same fable, vpon greater cre∣dit of Fathers then the other, but with no greater truth.

Hart.

Doo you call the assumption of our Ladie, a fable? What impietie is this against the mother of our Lord, that ex∣cellent vessell of grace? whom x 1.121 all generations ought to call, blessed. But you can not abide her prayses and honours. Nay, you haue abolished not onely her greatest feast of her assumpti∣on, but of her conception and natiuitie too. So as it may bee thought the diuell beareth a special malice to this woman, whose seede brake his head.

Rainoldes.

It may be thought that y 1.122 the diuell when he did striue with Michael about the bodie of Moses, (z 1.123 whom the Lord buried, the Iewes knew not where,) did striue a 1.124 that his bodie might bee reuealed to the Iewes, to the entent that they might worship it and commit idolatrie. But it is out of doubt, that when he moued b 1.125 the people of Lystra to sacrifice vnto Paul and Barnabas, and to call them Gods, he meant to deface the glory of God, by the too much honouring and praysing of his Saintes. We can abide the prayses of Bar∣nabas and Paule: but not to haue them called Gods. We can abide their honours; but not to sacrifice vnto them. Wee know that the diuell doth beare a speciall malice both to the woman and to the womans seed. But whether he doth wreake it more vpon the séede, by your sacrificing of prayses and pray∣ers to y^e woman, or by our not sacrificing: let c 1.126 them define d 1.127who know his policies. The Christians of old time e 1.128 were char∣ged with impietie, because they had no Gods but one. This is our impietie. For whatsoeuer honour and prayse may bee giuen to the Saintes of God as holy creatures, but creatures: f 1.129 we doo gladly giue it. We thinke of them all, and namely of the blessed virgin, reuerently & honourably. We desire our selues, and wish others, to folow her godly faith and vertuous life. We estéeme her as an excellent vessell of grace. We call her (as the

scripture teacheth vs) g 1.130 blessed: yea the most blessed of all women. But you would haue her to be named and thought not onely blessed her selfe, but also a giuer of blessednesse to o∣thers; not a vessell, but a fountaine, or (as you entitle her) h 1.131 a mother of grace and mercy. And in your solemne prayers you doo her i 1.132 that honour, which k 1.133 is onely due to our creator and redeemer. For you call on her to defend you from the e∣nimie, and receiue you in the houre of death. Thus, although in semblance of wordes you deny it, yet in déede you make her e∣quall to Christ: l 1.134 as him our Lord, so her our 1 1.135 Ladie: as him our God, so her our 2 1.136 Goddesse: as him our King, so her our 3 1.137 Queene: as him our mediator, so her our 4 1.138 mediatresse: as him in all thinges tempted like vs, sinne excepted, so her 5 1.139 deuoide of all sinne: as him the onely name where∣by we must be saued, so her our 6 1.140 life, our 7 1.141 ioy, our 8 1.142 hope, a very mother of orphans, an aide to the oppressed, a medi∣cine to the diseased, and (to be short) 9 1.143 all to all. Which im∣pious worship of a Sainte because you haue aduanced by keping holy dayes vnto her, the feastes of her conception, natiuitie, & assumption; therefore are they abolished by the reformed Chur∣ches iustly. For the vse of holy dayes, is, not to worship Saintes, but to worship God, the sanctifier of Saintes. As m 1.144 the Lorde ordeined them, that men might meete together to serue him and heare his worde.

Hart.

Why keepe you then still the feastes of the Apo∣stles, Euangelists, & other Saintes, and not abolish them also? As some of your reformed, or rather your deformed Chur∣ches, haue doon?

Rainoldes.

Our deformed Churches are glorious in his sight, who n 1.145 requireth men to worship him in spirite & truth: though you, besotted with the hoorish beauty of your synagogues, doo scorne at their simplenesse, as o 1.146 the proude spirite of Mical did at Dauid when he was vile before the Lord. The Churches of Scotland, Flanders, France, and p 1.147 others, allow not holy dayes of Saintes, because no day may be kept holy but to the honour of God. Of the same iudgement is the Church of England for the vse of holy dayes. Wherefore,q 1.148 although by kéeping the names of Saintes dayes, we may séeme to kéepe them to the honour of Saintes: yet in déede we kéepe them holy to God

onely, to prayse his name for those benefits which he hath bestow∣ed on vs by the ministerie of his Saintes. And so haue q 1.149 the Chur∣ches of Flanders and Fraunce expounded well our meaning, in that they haue noted that some Churches submit them selues to their weakenesse with whome they are conuersant, so farre foorth that they keepe the holy dayes of Saintes, though in an other sorte, nay in a cleane contrarie, then the Papists doo.

Hart.

But if you kéepe the feastes of other Saintes in that sorte, why not of her also, of whom our Sauiour tooke flesh, and was brought foorth into the world?

Rainoldes.

So we doo: the feastes of the annuntiation of the blessed virgin, and the purification.

Hart.

Nay, the dayes of other Saintes, which you celebrate, as namely of Peter, Paul, and Iohn, are the dayes of their death, and so are proper vnto them. Wherefore you should of reason at the least celebrate our ladies assumption, as the day of her death. For though you beléeue not that her bodie is assumpted, yet you wil not (we trow) deny that she is dead, and her soule in glory. But you doo neither celebrate that, nor any other of her proper feastes. For as for the dayes of her purification and annuntiation, they be not proper to our Ladie: but the one to Christes conception, the other to his presentation. So that she by this meanes shall haue no festiuitie at all.

Rainoldes.

No festiuitie at all? What a foolish fansie is this of your r 1.150 Rhemists? As though the blessed virgin were like to * 1.151 Diana, and the Saintes of Christ to the Paynim-gods: who euerie one must haue his feast, and if you forget or passe o∣uer any, their honour is attainted in it. But by this sentence you iustifie the reformed Churches: both the rest, and ours. The rest, in that you thinke the holy dayes of Saintes are in∣stituted to their honour: which corrupt opinion, and supersti∣tion growing of it, might be a sufficient cause to abolish them. Ours, in that you say that the annuntiation and purification of the virgin are not proper to our Ladie (as you cal her,) but to Christ. Wherein you acknowledge, that the holy dayes of Saintes which we keepe, are kept to Christes honour, and not to theirs. For as the annuntiation of the blessed virgin is proper vnto s 1.152 Christ conceiued, and the purification to t 1.153 Christ pre∣sented

in the temple: so the day of Peter is proper vnto u 1.154 Christ professed, the day of Paul to x 1.155 Christ preached, the day of Iohn to y 1.156 Christ published by the writing of the Gospell. And this of them is as cléere, as is the other of the virgin, by z 1.157 the pray∣ers which we make, and the partes of scripture which wee reade on those dayes. Wherefore although we celebrate the memorie of these thinges touching the Apostles, on those daies on which they dyed, perhaps, (for neither are you sure of that, though you celebrate them in memorie of their death:) yet we do it not in respect of their death so to honour their assumption, but in respect of those thinges which Christ did by them while they liued. And by the same reason you may proue that we keepe no holy day to any Saint, by the which you gather ••hat the an∣nunciation and purification of the virgin are not proper vn∣to her. Which in deed you say, not because you thinke it, or haue cause to thinke it: but to make vs odious, by bearing men in hand that we despise the blessed virgin. For both your selues doo count them and call them a 1.158 her feastes, as well as anie o∣ther of those that beare her name: and the common people, when they cal the annuntiation day, our Ladie day, (by your corrupt custome,) thinke it as proper vnto her, as S. Peters is to him: and b 1.159 the reformed Churches, which disallow the feastes of Saintes, haue disallowe•• these amongst them, where yet they allow the feastes that doo belong to Christ, his natiuitie, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the holy Ghost.

Hart.

But if your reformed Churches thinke it dangerous to kéepe anie feast of the blessed virgin: why doo you retaine two of them in your Church, and not the rest as we doo.

Rainoldes.

You may learne the reason hereof in your Por∣tesse, reformed lately by the Pope. In your olde c 1.160 Portesse there was this prayer to the Popes martyr, S. Thomas Bec∣ket of Canterbury:

Christe Iesu, per Thomae vulnera, Quae nos ligant. relaxa scelera.

By Thomas woundes, O Christ Iesus, Loose thou the sinnes▪ which do binde vs.

Or, if you will haue better ryme, with as bad reason:

Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos Christe scandere quo Thomas a••cendit.

By the blood of Thomas which he for thee did spend, Make vs O Christ to clime whether he did a••••end.

Hart.

This is your common obiection against our prayers to Saintes: but an obiection for a Cobler, and not for a Di∣uine, as D. d 5.1 Harding told Iewell. For Christ, in this prayer, is vsed as the onely mediator of salua••ion: S. Thomas, a media∣tor of intercession to Christ.

Rainoldes.

Good words, M. Hart. Your plaister, of media∣tors of intercession and saluation, is too narrow for this soare. Your pang doth make you not to sée it.

Hart.

Nay: no whit to narrow. For the mediation which we giue to Saintes, is so farre inferiour to the diuine and singular mediation of Christ, that whereas we say to them, Pray for vs, we say not so to him, we doo not thinke of him so basely, but wée desire him to haue mercy vpon vs. Wherefore, we make him onely mediatour of saluation; and them, of intercession.

Rainoldes.

Yet is your plaister too narrow for the soare which you apply it too. For the blood and woundes of Thomas are presented, in the prayers that I spake off. And although you thinke not of intercession generally, as e 5.2 the scripture doth, which maketh it proper to f 5.3 the only mediatour betweene God and man, the man Christ Iesus: yet (I hope) you thinke of that intercession by the blood and woundes, that it is his alone, who gaue him selfe a raunsome for vs, and g 5.4 redeemed vs with his pretious blood. But if it were so that Thomas might bée made a mediatour of intercession in this preeminent sort: that can not heale your Portesse. For it doth make him ••latly a medi∣atour of saluation: not onely to pray for vs, but to haue mercy vpon vs.

Op•••• nobis ô Thoma porrige: Rege stantes, iacentes erige: Mores, actus, & vitam corrig••: Et in paci•• nos viam dirige.

Salue Thoma, virga iustitiae, Mundi iubar, robur ecclesiae, Plebis amor, cleri deliciae: Salue gregis tutor egregie, Salua tuae gaudentes gloriae.

* 7.1 O Thomas reach thy helpe to vs: Stay them that stand, raise them that lie: Correct our maners, deedes & life: Guide vs into the way of peace.

All haile ô Thom, the rodde of right, The worldes light, the churches strength, The peoples loue, the clergies ioye: All haile braue pa∣trone of the flocke, Saue them who in thine honour glee.

This praier, which giueth the honour of God to a creature, is not in your h 7.2 reformed Portesse: i 7.3 where yet there is a prayer which giueth as great honour to an other creature, euen to a woodden crosse.

O ••rux, ••••e, ipes vnica, Ho•• passionis tempore, Auge piis iustitiam, Reisque dona veniam.

All haile ô crosse, our onely hope, In this time of the passion, Encrease thou iustice to the godly, And giue to sinners pardon.

Now sith our reformed Church hath thought it impious to offer any such prayers to creatures: why haue you retained this, to the crosse, and not the other to S. Thomas.

Hart.

Whether that prayer to S. Thomas of Canterburie were in the Roman Portesse, before they reformed it: I am not sure; perhaps it was not; although it were in ours after the vse of Sarum.

Rainoldes.

Most likely that it was in the Roman too: sith he dyed a martyr of the Roman Papacie. But whether it were or no: there were other thinges 1 9.1 vncertaine and 2 9.2 inconueni∣ent, which the reformers haue left out, as k 9.3 the Pope confesseth. Who l 9.4 confesseth also, that almost al Primers, yea the Latin too, 3 9.5 were stuffed full with vaine errours of superstitions, before he reformed it. Wherefore sith you haue left out other superstiti∣ous & inconuenient things, in your reformed Seruice-bookes: why haue you retained this prayer to the crosse, which might haue gone with the rest?

Hart.

The other were a••olished iustly, as vnfit. But this is ••ot so. For why should you mislike a prayer to the crosse, of which S. m 9.6 Paule saith, God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ?

Rainoldes.

That is, in Christ crucified, as S. Paule doth meane it: not in the 1 9.7 wood, the 2 9.8 galowes, the 3 9.9 tree, 4 9.10 to which you make your prayer. For God forbidde that wee should reioyce in any thing, sauing n 9.11 in the Lord: whose redée∣ming of vs by suffering death vpon the crosse, because it was a stumbling blocke to the Iewes; S. Paule saith o 9.12 the crosse was a stumbling blocke, by a * 9.13 figuratiue spéech, meaning (as him selfe doth open it) p 9.14 Christ crucified. And so he calleth Christes blood, q 9.15 the blood of the crosse; and the preaching of his gos∣pell, r 9.16 the preaching of the crosse; and persecution rising of it, s 9.17 persecution for the crosse: and against them who reioyced in circumcision and the law, he saith that he reioyceth not but in the crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ. But, to the purpose of my question, if they of your Church, who reformed your Seruice-bookes, thought, that of the prayers which we doo mislike they might abolish some and retaine others: what if amongst the feastes which others doo mislike, they, who reformed our ceremo∣nies, retained the annuntiation and purification of the virgin, though they abolished the conception, natiuitie, and assump∣tion? Chiefly séeing that in those, which they reteined, they re∣garded the honour of Christ conceiued and presented, as your selues acknowledge: in those, which they abolished, they remo∣ued the superstitious worship of a creature, as the thing witnes∣seth. For both they were supposed to be feastes instituted to a Saintes honour, as they were indéede: neither is there any thing of them in the scriptures, that men might be edified by that wher∣of the memorie was celebrated in them: and they maintaine cor∣rupt opinions, touching the virgin, with derogation to Christes honour. For t 9.18 you meane by the feastes of her natiui∣ty, and conception, that she was neither borne nor conceiued in sinne. Which if it were so▪ then neither she néeded Christ to be u 9.19 her Sauiour, who came to saue sinners: & the prerogatiue of Christ, y 9.20 to be seuered from sinners, were common vnto her with him.x 9.21 A thing so absurd and contrarie to the scriptures, (which shew that z 9.22 all haue sinned, and a 9.23 are the children of wrath by nature,) that not b 9.24 the Fathers onely, but your chiefe c 9.25 Schoole-men, and d 9.26 Canons also, doo gainesay it. Yea the

feast of her conception, when it was créeping in, was therefore e 9.27 reproued: and the very glose of your f 9.28 Canon-law condemned sundry countries, and England namely, for kéeping it. But the conception and natiuitie of the blessed virgin make her scarse equall vnto Christ: the feast of the assumption doth lift her som∣what higher. For when Christ was taken vp into heauen: g 9.29 the Apostles were lead forth a litleway on foote, to sée it and witnes it. But to her assumption they were brought by miracle, in cloudes, as in chariots, from all the coastes of the world, through which they were dispersed. And this is it which I cal∣led, and cal againe, a fable, or if you will, a lye, as h 9.30 Bede doth: though your Diuines of Rhemes doo vouch it as a true storie.

Hart.

It is a true storie, as our Diuines of Rhemes doo ••ouch it: though, as he reported it whom venerable Bede doth touch, it was a lye. For i 9.31 he reported it to haue béene doon the second yeare after Christes ascension▪ which Bede doth proue it could not be. But our Diuines referre it to the fifteenth yeare after. For they take the common opinion that she liued three score and three yeares in all. Now, k 9.32 shee brought forth Christ when she was fifteene yeare olde. So that her assump∣tion was eight and fortie yeares after Christs natiuitie. And this agréeth with l 9.33 Eusebius, who saith y^t some do write it was re∣ueled to them that she was assumpted the eight and forteeth yeare of Christ: which was fifteene yeares after his ascension.

Rainoldes.

Then you graunt that they, who say it was the second yeare after, doo lye.

Hart.

I graunt. For that circumstance can not stand with scripture: as venerable Bede doth proue.

Rainoldes.

Then a m 9.34 holy nunne did lye, or an angel, n 9.35 or a deuill that appéered in the likenes of the virgin, and tolde her that tale.

Hart.

What if some were deceiued in circumstance of time. Yet the storie notwithstanding of her assumption is true, as our Diuines of Rhemes report it. For * 9.36 at the time of her death, (as S. o 9.37 Denys first, and after him S. p 9.38 Damascene writeth,) al the Apostles, then dispersed into diuers nations to preach the gos∣pell, were miraculously brought togither, (sauing S. Thomas who came the third day after,) to Ierusalem, to honour her diuine departure and funerall, as the said S. Denys writeth. Who saith, that him self, S. Timothee, and S. Hierotheus were present: testi∣fying

also of his owne hearing, that, both before her death and af∣ter for three daies, not onely the Apostles and other holy men pre∣sent, but the Angels also and powers of heauen did sing most me∣lodious hymnes. They buried her sacred body in Gethsemani. But for S. Thomas sake, who desired to sée and to reuerence it, they opened the sepucher the third day: and finding it voide of the holy body, but excéedingly fragrant, they returned, assuredly dée∣ming that her body was assumpted into heauen. As the Church of God holdeth, being most agréeable to the singular priuilege of the mother of God: and therefore celebrateth most solemnely the day of her assumption. And it is consonant not onelie to the said S. Denys, & S. Damascene, but to S. q 9.39 Athanasius also, who auoucheth the same. Of which assumption of her bodie S. Bernard also wrote fiue notable sermons, extant in his workes.

Rainoldes.

But in all those fiue sermons of S. Bernard, there is not one worde of your miraculous fable. As litle, in S. Athanasius: beside that, the sermon, which you alleage as his, is in r 9.40 your own edition reiected for a bastard. In Damascene there is more: yet not so much neither, as here s 9.41 your Portesse hath. But he is * 9.42 too late & too weake a witnes, to proue a doubtful mat∣ter pretended to be doon almost fiue hundred yeares before him. The best, or rather all your proofe, is S. Denys: whom you belye notablie. For where saith he that which you doo father on him?

Hart.

Where? o 9.43 in an epistle of his to S. Timothee.

Rainoldes.

He wrote no such epistle. Your Rhemistes did mistake their Portesse, whence this stuffe is borowed. For reading there, that Denys wrote hereof to Timothee, they thought it had béene in an epistle to Timothee. The place, which they meant, is in a t 9.44 booke entitled of the names of God: pretended to be writen to Timothee by Denys.

Hart.

In a booke, or an epistle; it is a great matter why you should charge them with lying.

Rainoldes.

I doo not therefore charge them with it. Neither would I mention this, but to point you the place in which they lye. For they say that S. Denys writeth these & these things: where neither the autour who writeth is S. Denys, neither wri∣teth he the thinges which they alleage. Touching the thinges, first, he saith no more thereof but that amongst the Bishops in∣spired of the holy Ghost Hierothe••s excelled all the rest (saue

the Apostles) in praysing Christes goodnesse, when him selfe, and Timothee, and many of their holy brethren, * 9.45 came to∣gether to behold the body which receyued God, and which the Prince of life was in. As for the miracle of the Apostles brought together, S. Thomas comming the thirde day after, the Angels singing hymnes three dayes, the bu∣riall of the virgins body, the desire of Thomas to see it, the sepulcher opened for his sake, and the body assumpted into heauen: he saith not one worde of these conceites, not one word. Nay he rather saith against them. For he noteth namely that Iames was also present the brother of the Lord, and Peter the chiefe and ancientest toppe of the Apostles. Which it is not likelie he would so note of two Apostles, if they had all béene pre∣sent. Much lesse is it likely that he would say nothing of so great a miracle, if any such had happened.

Hart.

Perhaps it is writen in some other parte of S. Denys workes.

Rainoldes.

In no part at all of anie worke that beareth the name of S. Denys.

Hart.

Not that is extant now. But he wrote manie more▪ as u 9.46 Nicephorus sheweth: and x 9.47 Damascene maketh men∣tion of this epistle to Timothee.

Rainoldes.

Nay, that which Damascene mentioneth is y 9.48 the booke I spake of: whence all, that he citeth, is taken word for word. Yea Nicephorus also z 9.49 doth alleage the same, (quo∣ting * 9.50 the very chapter) as the onely place wherein the assumpti∣on of the blessed virgin is proued by S. Denys. The more doo I maruell what should moue your Rhemists to say that S. Denys writeth and witnesseth that all the Apostles were brought miraculously together, to honour her diuine departure; yea and that he testifieth of his own hearing, that both before her death and after, for three dayes, the Angels did sing most me∣lodious hymnes: vnlesse they were disposed to lye for the whet∣stone. But this, of the thinges. The other, of the autour, is not so great a faute: yet a faute too. For they would haue men thinke that he who wrote this worke 1 9.51 of the names of God, & others2 9.52 of the heauenly & * 9.53 ecclesiastical hierarchie, (as he ter∣meth it,) was a 9.54 the famous Denys,b 9.55 the scholer of S. Paul. Wher∣as it was a counterfeit, who tooke that Denys name vpon him.

Hart.

It was that famous Denys in déed c 9.56 who wrote those notable and diuine workes, and others: in which he con∣firmeth and proueth plainely almost all thinges that the Church now vseth in the ministration of the holy sacraments; and af∣firmeth that he learned them of the Apostles: giuing also testimo∣nie for the Catholike faith in most thinges now controuersed, so plainely, that your men haue no shift but to deny that Denys to haue béene the autour of them, feyning that they be an others of later age. Which is an old sleight of heretikes: but most proper to you of al others. Who séeing al antiquitie against you are for¦ced to be more bold, or rather impudent, thē others in that point.

Rainoldes.

These flowers of your Seminarie, that wee are heretikes, bold, impudent; that all antiquitie is against vs: you may spare them, for they are stale; they haue béene dipt in gall & lye. You say y^t he proueth plainely almost al things that the Church now vseth in the ministration of the holy Sacra∣ments. If you meane by the Church, not our Church, but yours: that [almost] must haue fauor, or els without almost you lauish. For though he haue more thinges, then either the Church of the Apostles had, or ours doth allow: yet neither all that you haue, & many that you haue not, and some cleane contrarie to yours. As namely, in the sacrament of the Lords supper, wherin you varie from vs most: * 9.57 he neither hath your stage-like gestures & toyes, nor inuocation of Saintes, nor adoration of creatures, nor sa∣crificing of Christ to God, nor praying for the soules in Purga∣torie, nor sole receyuing of the Priest, nor ministring vnder on•• kind to them who receiue, nor exhortations, lessons, prayers in a tongue which the people doth not vnderstand. So that in thing•• of substance, and not of ceremonie only, he differeth as farre from your blasphemous Masse, as he is néere to our Communion. But the thinges which he hath, you say that he affirmeth he learned them of the Apostles. He doth so, I graunt: as it was fit for him, e 9.58 who would be counted that Denys which was conuerted by S. Paul. But, as it happeneth vnto counterfeites, he hath for∣got himselfe in one place, and so betrayed the feate. For, f 9.59 spea∣king of infants, why they are baptized: hereof (saith he) we say those thinges, which our diuine maisters 1 9.60 being instru∣cted by the old tradition, haue brought vnto vs. By the which words, the man at vnawares hath shewed that he learned not

not of the Apostles. For Christ him selfe instructed the Apo∣stles of baptisme: they had it not from old tradition.

Hart.

That is a weake coniecture why he should be a coun∣terfeit. For he might call the tradition of the Apostles, old tra∣dition: though it were but certain yeares or moneths before him.

Rainoldes.

Hardly: if he liued in the same time with them. But if he might; yet could he not say that the Apostles were instructed by the old tradition of the Apostles. Belike his maisters were younger men.

Hart.

Our coniectures may deceiue vs: we must not trust them in such matters. The Fathers count him the right Denys. For, g 9.61 Gregorie Nazianzen, h 9.62 Origen, i 9.63 Sophronius, k 9.64 Aga∣tho, l 9.65 Damascene, m 9.66 Euthymius, and others doo name him Dionysius Areopagita, when they cite thinges that are in him.

Rainoldes.

Gregorie Nazianzen doth prayse a 2 9.67 certain autour, whom he nameth not. It is but n 9.68 one mans ghesse, that he meaneth Denys. An o 9.69 other saith, (which is * 9.70 more likely,) that he meaneth Athanasius. Origen is auncient: if he had cited Denys, Denys must be elder a hundred yeares or two, then I doo iudge him by his countenance. But that worke of Origen, in which you finde him cited, can not bee Origens. For in it the Manichees are mentioned, and Arians: the names of which heretiks did rise a good while after Origen was dead. So that, when this Origen is brought to cléere that De∣nys: a théefe is brought to cléere a théefe. The rest, whom you al∣leage, Sophronius, Agatho, Damascene, and Euthymius, are of later yeares, and such as might easily thinke him to be De∣nys who called him selfe so. Many honest men p 9.71 did thinke Perkin Warbeck to be Richard Duke of Yorke, King Edward the fourthes sonne, as he professed him selfe to bee: though in déed he was a counterfeite.

Hart

If you may reiect an autour as counterfeit, against so great consent of writers: any ancient Father may be refused for a rascall.

Rainoldes.

If you may allow a counterfeit, as lawfull, be∣cause that many thinke well of him: euerie Perkin Warbeck may be receyued for Duke of Yorke.

Hart.

Nay, there was sure proofe that he could not bee the Duke. For the Duke was killed with the Prince his bro∣ther

in the Tower ofLondon by Richard the vsurper, ten yeares before men heard of Perkin.

Rainoldes.

There is surer proofe, that he, whose cause you pleade, cannot be Dionysius Areopagita.

Hart.

What? Such as q 9.72 Erasmus and q 9.73 Valla bring, that Ie∣rom and others do not mention him?

Rainoldes.

That, as light as you make it, did moue Cardi∣nall q 9.74 Caietan to dout of the man. But the proofe that I meant, is such as yours against Perkin: to weete that Dionysius Areo∣pagita was dead many yeares, before the workes, which beare his name, could be writen. For there is cited in r 9.75 them a say∣ing of Ignatius, out of an epistle which he wrote (to the Ro∣mans) as he was going to suffer martyrdome s 9.76 in the time of Traian the Emperour. Now Dionysius died t 9.77 in the time of Domitian, certaine yeares before. And u 9.78 when Ignatius wrote it, Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus, who succéeded Timothee. Your x 9.79 counterfeit alleageth it to Timothee Bishop of Ephe∣sus, either after his decease, or before it was writen. Moreouer, the Christians in Dionysius time made their assemblies to prai∣er, both in such places, and with such simplicitie, as y 9.80 the Apo∣stles did, and times of persecution suffered. But when your coun∣terfeit wrote, they had solemne temples like the temple of the Iewes: & the z 9.81 Chancell seuered with such sanctification from the rest of the Church, that it was not lawfull for moonks to enter thereinto, much lesse for other lay-men. Againe a 9.82 the moonkes also were risen when he wrote, and they of credit in the Chur∣ches, and many ceremonies to hallow them. Which in the time of the Apostles, when Dionysius liued, were not heard of yet: for any thing that can be proued by monuments of antiquitie.

Hart.

What? not moonkes? Why, Philo maketh men∣tion of them, as b 9.83 Eusebius sheweth. And c 9.84 Philo did florish vnder Caius the Emperour, euen in the prime of the Apostles.

Rainoldes.

That, which Philo writeth, he writeth not of Christian moonkes, but Iewish Essees, as d 9.85 him selfe sheweth. Eusebius was deceiued. And if you thinke that you haue mee at an aduantage, in that I do denie Eusebius: I shal haue you at the same; vnlesse you will deny him of whom you make greater ac∣count, euen Thomas of Aquine. For e 9.86 he saith ofthe same time of which Philo wrote, that there was not then * 9.87 any certaine

sort of religious men. But, to leaue the proofes which touch o∣ther matters, or stand on mens coniectures, or you may haue some colour of exception against: I will proue him a counterfeit by the same point for which you alleaged him; and that by de∣monstration out of the holy scriptures; and that by the confession of your Rhemists themselues. You alleaged him as a witnesse of the assumption of the blessed virgin. Him selfe saith that Ti∣mothee came with him togither, and many of their holy bre∣thren, to behold her body. The scriptures shew that f 9.88 Paule was not conuerted to Christ, till after Christes ascension. When he was conuerted, g 9.89 he staied three yeares in Damascus and A∣rabia, before h 9.90 he came to Ierusalem. Thence i 9.91 he went into the coastes of Syria and Cilicia, k 9.92 and the countries there about. And l 9.93 foureteene yeares after he came againe to Ierusalem, with Bar∣nabas, m 9.94 to the Councell. From the Councell n 9.95 he went to Derbe, and Lystrae: where he receiued Timothee. And hauing tra∣uailed through Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Macedonia, he came at last to Athens, where o 9.96 he conuerted Denys the Areopagite. So that it was seuenteene or eighteene yeares at least after Christs ascension, before S. Denys knew Christ. New, the blessed vir∣gin died the fifteenth yeare after Christes ascension, as your Rhemists put: who yet take the largest time ofher life; for p 9.97 other stories make it shorter. S. Denys therefore could not be one of the brethren who came togither to be present at her death and fu∣nerall. And all this is graunted and proued by your Rhemists: though they thought not ofit. For, in their q 9.98 table of S. Paule, they shew that it was the one and fiftieth yeare of Christ, when he conuerted S. Denys the Areopagite; and in their r 9.99 tale of the virgin they recken her to be assumpted the eight & fourtieth yeare of Christ. Wherefore you do vs great iniurie, to say, that we deny S. Denys to haue writen those workes be∣cause he giueth testimonie for the Catholike faith in most things now cōtrouersed. For, that which we deny, is, in respect of the truth, because indéede he wrote them not. But, in respect of his testimonie for the Catholike faith, I wish that I might graunt with a safe conscience that hee wrote them. He is so plaine against the most of your heresies: chiefly the Popes supre∣macie.

Hart.

Neither is that an heresie, nor is he against it: nay hée

is plaine for it. For s 9.100 he saith (as your selfe rehearsed out of him) that Peter is the chiefe and ancientst toppe of the Apo∣stles.

Rainoldes.

But he saith farther, that, t 9.101 for as much as the scriptures say to Peter, Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen, * 9.102 therefore he, and (accordingly to him) euery Bi∣shop doth admit the godly, and disinherite the godlesse, by declaring the sentence and administring the word of God. And this doth plucke vp the Popes supremacie by the rootes. For your u 9.103 maisters ground it on that charge of binding and loosing giuen Peter: as though after Peter it were proper to the Pope. Denys saith the contrarie, that it is common to all Bi∣shops. Whereby you may perceiue beside, that if the title which he giueth Peter did proue his supremacie, though x 9.104 I haue she∣wed it doth not, but if it did: yet your commō reason, from Peters supremacie to the Popes, is iointlesse. For he, who calleth Peter, chiefe of the Apostles, yet maketh Bishops equal; and giueth Rome no greater priuilege, then Antioche, or Ierusalem. But to knit vp that which brought vs vnto this of Denys: you sée that your Rhemists tale of the assumption of the blessed virgin is contrarie to the scriptures. Yet they doo beléeue it for the au∣thoritie of Fathers. That I might dout iustly whether you would beléeue the Fathers in those things, in which they are conuicted of errour by the scriptures.

Hart.

I cannot beléeue that the scriptures are against it. For the Church doth holde it: I meane the Catholike Church of Rome.

Rainoldes.

In that your Rhemists lauish too. For though the lying Greekes (as your y 9.105 Molanus calleth them,) z 9.106 doo vouch it very boldly: yet a 9.107 the Latin writers do say it is vncer∣taine. Yea the verie b 9.108 Martyrologe of the Roman Church affir∣meth, that the Church celebrateth the memory of S. Maries death: but where it hath pleased God to hide her body, 1 9.109 the Churches sobrietie hath chosen rather to be ignorant therof religiously, then to holde and teach 2 9.110 some friuolous thing & forged. How much the more shamefull is the misdemeanor, first, of c 9.111 a Papist, who saith y^t it is certaine she was assumpted by death, not onely in soule, but in body also: then, of d 9.112 the

Pope, who, setting foorth his new Portesse, saith that those things which are vncertaine, are put out: where this is left in, which they can not denie themselues to be vncertaine. But your Rhemists passe. Who, as though the Por••esse were not bolde e∣nough in alleaging Damascene, e 9.113 though it mende his tale with more then one lye: they take that which their Portesse doth tell them, lye and al, and father it vpon S. Denys, that it may haue the greater credit.

Hart.

Our Rhemists will render good account (I dout not) of this which they haue writen, when they shall heare what is said against it. And that which you declared out of the holy scrip∣tures concerning the time of S. Denys conuersion, which is the greatest argument that you brought yet to disproue the storie a∣uouched of his presēce at the departure of our Lady: I must re∣ferre to them. For I my selfe know not indéede how to accord it. But why do you presse that point about the Fathers, touching their ouerseeing ether the wordes, or meaning, or conse∣quent of the scriptures? We are past the scriptures, and proofes that the Fathers do gather out of them.

Rainoldes.

But if they may gather amisse out of the scrip∣tures, and ouershoote them selues in the word of God: they may be deceiued in the word of man too, and either not conceiue well, or not remember well, or not conclude well of it. Which hap∣ned to S. Ierom in that same point, that I reproued a litle rather in Eusebius. For f 9.114 he, reckning Philo the Iew amongst the Christian ecclesiastical writers, doth it (he saith) for this reason, because Philo writing a booke touching the first Church planted by the Euangelist S. Mark in Alexandria, hath prai∣sed the Christians: reporting them to be not onely there but in many countries, and calling their dwelling places, Mona∣steries. Whereby it is apparant that the Church of beleeuers in Christ, at the first, was such as moonkes endeuour and seeke to be now, that nothing is any mans owne in proprie∣tie, none is rich amongst them, none poore, their patrimo∣nies are distributed to the needy, they giue them selues who∣ly to prayer, and to singing of Psalmes, and to learning, and to continencie of life: such as S. g 9.115 Luke also doth write, that the beleeuers were first at Ierusalem. And this booke of Phi∣lo touching the life of our men, that is, of men Apostolike, is

entitled of the contemplatiue life of men that pray, because they did contemplate (studie, and meditate) heauenly things, and prayed to God alwayes. Thus farre S. Ierom. Where∣in, that the pointes of contemplation and prayer, being some∣what like in them whom Philo wrote off and in the Christian Church, did make him to mistake the one for the other, as like∣nes (they say) is the mother of error: but, that they were not Christians whom Philo meant in that booke, it may appeere by foure circumstances, of names, of deedes, of times, and of places. For they, of whom Philo doth write, were called Essees: which was a sect of Iewes, of whom 1 9.116 some liued in action, and 2 9.117 some in contemplation. The Christians were neuer knowne by name of Essees, either contemplatiue or actiue. Againe, they in Philo did leaue their goods and substance to their sonnes, or daughters, or kinsemen, or if they had no kinsemen, to their friendes. The Christians gaue them to the poore, and such as stood in need of succour. Moreouer y^e solemne day, which they in Philo did meete together publikely to heare the word of God taught, was the seuenth day of the weeke: which was the Sabbat of the Iewes, the saterday as we cal it. The Christi∣ans were wont to meete on h 9.118 the first day of the weeke, that is,i 9.119 sonday, k 9.120 the Lordes day as S. Iohn termeth it. Finally, they, whom Philo discourseth of, did liue in no towne or citie, but without, in gardens and solitarie places. The Christians liued in cities. Euen they who are namely mentioned by Ie∣rom, I meane the Christian Church placed by S. Marke in Alexandria, were planted l 9.121 in the citie Alexandria it selfe; whereas it is precisely noted by Philo, that his Iewish moonkes did dwell m 9.122 about it, and n 9.123 without it. Wherefore it is ma∣nifest that Ierom did mistake, or had forgot, the wordes of Philo. Howbeit if he had both well conceiued and remembred them: yet he thereof inferred amisse, that the moonkes in his time were such, as S. Luke doth write that the beleeuers were first at Ie∣rusalem. For the beleeuers at Ierusalem might keepe their owne if they listed: as o 9.124 Peter saith to Ananias; while it re∣mained, perteined it not to thee? And when it was sold, was it not in thine own power? But p 9.125 Ierom saith that his moonks may not haue proprietie in any thing of their owne. Beside, the moonkes of Ierom did liue in continencie. The beléeuers at

Ierusalem had wiues, & vsed them: for any thing y^t S. Luke shew∣eth. Though▪ by the way to note y^e difference betwéene y^e Iewish moonkes & the Christian, (who els would be too like:) q 9.126some of the Christian moonks in Ieroms time had wiues & did beget childrē; which I haue not read that anie of the Iewish did. Last of all, the moonkes whom Ierom doth meane (as he must néedes by Philo) were r 9.127 moonkes according to their name, that is, * 9.128 so∣litarie, and not collegiate moonkes. But the beléeuers at Ieru∣salem, were at Ierusalem, in a citie, and liued in fellowship to∣gether. Doo you not sée that the Apostles and Apostolike men were not such as afterwarde the moonkes whom Ierom mea∣neth: and therefore Ierom was deceiued?

Hart.

I will not beléeue on your worde, that so worthie a Father was deceiued.

Rainoldes.

If you will not on my worde, I will bring his owne worde to make you beléeue it. For, s 9.129 writing to Paulinus, touching the training vp of moonkes, he saith that the Apo∣stles and Apostolike men are not paterns for them to folow: but S. Antonie, and others, who dwelt in fieldes and de∣serts.

Hart.

He saith, that the Apostles and Apostolike men are set for an example to Priestes, and Bishops, not to moonkes. True: in some respectes. And yet, me thinkes too. But what if the Fathers perhaps might be deceiued so, through ouersight?

Rainoldes.

If they might be deceiued so through ouersight: they might be deceiued through affection also. For they were men, and subiect to it. As t 9.130 Cyprian, through too much hatred of heretikes, condemned the baptisme of heretikes, as vnlawfull: wherein u 9.131 a Councell erred with him. As x 9.132 Origen, through too much compassion of the wicked, thought that the diuels them ••elues should be saued at length. As y 9.133 Tertullian, through spite of the Roman clergie, reuolted to the Montanists: and z 9.134 called the Catholikes, carnall men, because they were not so precise as the Montanists in pointes of mariage and fasting.

Hart.

We condemne these errours in them, as well as you: and doo therein except against them.

Rainoldes.

You doo except also, I trow, (I am sure, a 9.135 your Doctors doo) against b 9.136 Damascene, for his tale of Gregorie the Pope and Traian the Emperour; that Gregorie, while he went

ouer the market place of Traian, did pray for Traians soule to God; and behold, a voyce from heauen, I haue heard thy prayer and I pardon Traian: but see that thou pray no more to me for the wicked. A verie great affection to prayers for the dead, that moued Damascene to write this. For it is against the doctrine of the c 9.137 Schoolemen that prayers may helpe out the soules that are in hell. In Purgatorie they say they may.

Hart.

d 9.138 S. Thomas doth confirme the same. Yet he beléeueth that of Damascene. But he saith that Gregorie did it by spe∣ciall priuilege, which doth not breake the common law.

Rainoldes.

But your e 9.139 Canus saith that Thomas was a young man then: beside that, he was greatly affected to Da∣mascen. And Damascen might easily perswade a well willer: he doth affirme so lustily that * 9.140 all the east and west is witnesse that the thing is true. Which report of his yet Canus doth maruell at: sith it is vnknowne in all the Latin story. But f 9.141 Ca∣nus (as a man of better minde and sounder iudgement then your Popish Doctors are, y^e most of them,) did wisely sée & noteth frée∣ly, that not onely later and lesse discreete autours (as he who made the golden legend,) but also graue, ancient, learned, holy Fathers haue ouershot them selues in writing miracles of Saintes: partly while they fetched the truth, where it is seldom, 1 9.142 from common rumors and reportes; partly while 2 9.143 they sought to please the peoples humor, and thought it lawfull for historians to write thinges as true which cōmon∣ly are counted true. Of this sorte he nameth 3 9.144 Gregorie and 4 9.145 Bede: the one for his Dialogues, the other for his English story. He might haue named Damascene with them. Unlesse hee meant him rather perhaps to be of that sorte which did not onely take by heare-say of others, but coyned lyes themselues too: & wrote those thinges of Saintes 5 9.146 which their fansie liked, though neither true nor likely. As that S. Frauncis 6 9.147 was wont to take lise that were shaken off, and put them on himselfe, it was a lowsie tricke, and S. Frauncis did it not: but the writer thought it an argument of his holinesse. Likewise, that when the diuel troubled S. Dominike, S. Dominike constrained 7 9.148 him to hold a candle in his handes, till the candle being spent did put him to great grief, in burning his fingers. Such examples there are innume∣rable: but these two may giue a taste of their affection who

haue defiled the stories of Saintes with filthie fables. Yet out of such stories many thinges are read in your Church-ser∣uice. And g 9.149 Canus although he confesse it, as euident: not∣withstanding, (which is straunge) he thinketh them vnwise Bi∣shops, who seeke to reforme it. For while they cure the naile∣sore (saith he) they hurt the head: that is, in steede of coun∣terfeites they bring in graue stories; but they chaunge the seruice of the Church so farre, that scarce any 8 9.150 shew of the olde religion is remaining in it. A thing well considered of them by whom your Roman Portesse was reformed. For though they haue remoued some of those stories, which Canus saith are 9 9.151 vncertaine, forged, friuolous, and false: yet haue they doon it sparingly. If they should haue left out all those legend-toyes: their Portesse had beene like our booke of com∣mon prayer, which heretikes would haue laught at: and there had remained no shew in a maner of the olde religion, saue that their seruice is in Latin.

Hart.

These thinges are impertinent, but that it pleaseth you to play the Hicke-scorner with the holy Portesse. For what need you mention the writer of S. Francis life? or S. Domi∣nikes? or the golden legend, that old moth-eaten booke (as D. h 9.152 Harding calleth it,) of the liues of Saintes? I mind not to presse you with thinges of later writers, but of olde and ancient: whom Canus iudgeth better of, then of the younger. For i 9.153 he saith of Vincentius Beluacensis, and Antoninus, that they ca∣red not so much to write thinges true and certaine, as to let go nothing that they found writē in any papers whatsoeuer. But of Bede, and Gregorie, he iudgeth more softly: and ra∣ther excuseth them then reproueth them. Though, iudge he how he listed, he was but one Doctour: and other learned men per∣haps mislike his iudgement, both for younger and elder wri∣ters.

Rainoldes.

They who deale with taming of lyons (I haue read) are wont, when they finde them somewhat out of order, to beate dogges before them: that in a dogge the lyon may see his owne desert. Euen so when I rebuke the writer of S. Francis life, or of S. Dominikes, or of the moth-eaten booke as you call it, * 9.154 though he who wrote it was an Archbishop, & in his time a man of name, and his booke a legend, read pub∣likely

in Churches, and called golden for the excellencie; but when I rebuke that moth-eaten writer, or Antoninus (if you will,) and Vincentius Beluacensis, who are as good as he welnigh: you must not thinke I doo it for the dogges sake, but for the lions rather, I meane the ancient writers who deserue rebuke too. For, as not k 9.155 Rupertus onely, but l 9.156 Seduli∣us, doo write that our Sauiour after his resurrection appeered first to the blessed virgin, which is false, but they thought through an affection to her, that he should haue done so: in like sort a louing affection to Saintes hath transported sundry, not onely later writers, but auncienter also from the truth to fansies. Gelasius, and the seuentie Bishops, who were assembled in a Councel with him, were assembled about eleuen hundred yeares ago. Yet euen then how manie stories of the Saintes were set abroade with forged fables? almost a whole bead-roale, m 9.157 con∣demned by the Councell. Whereof that some were coyned vpon that affection, as some vpon others: one of them, entitled n 9.158 the actes of Paule and Tecla, may serue for an example. These actes contained a storie (supposed to be omitted in the o 9.159 actes of the Apostles) how that when S. Paule did preach at Iconium, Te∣cla a maiden betrothed to a gentleman, hearing him preach of maidenhood, forsooke her husband by and by, and went away with him: and thereupon was persecuted, and deliuered from great dangers, and wrought many miracles, and trauai∣led through sundry countries with S. Paule. Which though it be a lewd tale, agréeing neither with p 9.160 the circumstance of S. Paules storie, nor with his q 9.161 doctrine and r 9.162 discretion: yet was it published as true, and that in the Apostles age, s 9.163 by an Elder, or Priest, (as you would terme him,) who was conuicted by S. Iohn, and confessed that he wrote it for * 9.164 good will that he bare to Paule. Such a credit (belike) he thought it would be to S. Paule, that a maide betrothed to a man of wealth and worship, (and so * 9.165 his wife by right,) should forsake her husband and goe away with him. Wherefore, though you minde not to presse me with thinges of later writers, but of old & ancient, as you say: yet was it not impertinent to mention your Portesse and sto∣ries of the like autoritie. For neither doo I know what num∣ber of yeares you will thinke sufficient to proue a writer old: and though you account none olde, but such as liued many hun∣dred

yeares since; yet are their fables in your Portesse (as name∣ly u 9.166 this of Tecla) euen out of them also. Yea the most of those things, not onely this of Tecla, but the most of those things which Gelasius Bishop of Rome, and the Councell, condemned for vn∣sound: I say, the most of those things are rehearsed in your le∣gends, and in the most of your Portesses. Which thing I affirme not of mine owne knowlege, for I haue not séene so many sortes of Portesses that I can vouch it of the most: but x 9.167 Claudius Es∣pencaeus, a Doctor of Paris, an eger enimie of Beza (, y^e worthier of credit herein,) affirmeth it, and he affirmeth it with great asseue∣ration that it is so 1 9.168 vndoutedly. Nor doth he touch them one∣ly for these so ancient lyes, but for many mo, which are of lesse ancientie, and that vpon the iudgement of sundry learned men, and not his priuate fansie. For he alleageth y 9.169 Peter, a venera∣ble Abbat, (who liued foure hundred yeares agoe,) saying, that the songs and hymnes of the Church had very many toyes: as namely an hymne in the praise of S. Benet; in the which, though reading it ouer somewhat hastily, and staying not to search all, yet he found 2 9.170 at least foure and twentie lyes. He alleageth an other z 9.171 Peter complayning likewise and reprouing a false and fond hymne in the praise of S. Mawre running vp∣on the waters. He alleageth the a 9.172 Cardinall of Aliacos aduise to the Councell of Constance, for order to be taken that 3 9.173 vn∣sound writings (corrupt and péeuish pamphlets) be not read in the Church-seruice. He alleageth the oration of the b 9.174 Earle of Mirandula to Pope Leo the tenth, and the Councell of Late∣ran, renewing the Cardinall of Aliacos aduise. He alleageth c 9.175 Raphael Volaterran, a great historian, if not a diuine, bewai∣ling the case that in the dayly praiers there are 4 9.176 manifest lies read. He alleageth d 9.177 Adrian (who afterward was Pope Adrian the sixth) misliking 5 9.178 superstitious forgeries in holy matters. In a word, he saith that the Catholikes may lament in the be∣halfe of the Church, as e 9.179 Ieremie lamented in the behalfe of the Synagogue, Thy prophets haue seene 6 9.180 false and foolish things for thee: and he addeth that the griefe which he doth feele and open for these 7 9.181 toyes & dotages crept into the publike ser∣uice of the Church, is common vnto him with all good men for the most part. Wherein, as his desire and zeale of reforma∣tion is greater then Canus, who would not haue this filth swept

out of the Portesses: so dealeth he more fréely and frankly with your churches legends too, then Canus. For, letting go the scurffe of the golden legend, and Antoninus, and Vincentius, hee re∣proueth the storie of Saintes which was compiled of late by f 9.182 a Venetian, a Bishop of account, and saith that no stable is ••o ful of doong, as that is of fables. Yea farther, that Simeon Meta∣phrastes (a great man in the new legends of g 9.183 Lipomanus, and h 9.184 Surius,) and Vsuardes Martyrologe, (which is the Church of Romes legend,) besides the Martyrologes of certaine other wri∣ters, 1 9.185 are fraught with much baggage. Now, to this Parisian Doctor Espencaeus, and the autours whom he alleageth, you may adde the kings professours and chiefest Doctors of Louan, (if you desire more witnesses,) euen Hessels, and Molanus. Of whom,i 9.186 the one, writing a Censure on a storie called the Passionall of Saintes, condemneth much thereof, and enditeth more, with this verdict, k 9.187 Try al things, holde that which is good: the other, l 9.188 setting foorth and commending that Censure, saith it is no mar∣uaile if in that Passionall there be corrupt stories, sith the sto∣ries which the Catholikes of that countrie found amongst 2 9.189 the lying Greekes might easily come into it. Molanus layeth the faulte vpon the lying Greekes, as they deserue it best indéed. Notwithstanding it appéereth by * 9.190 some, whom either Hes••els or himselfe haue censured, that not the Greekes alone are faultie. And sundry Greekes are faultie whom he would be loth to call lying Greekes: as namely Nicephorus, & Simeon Metaphra∣stes, of the newer writers; & of the ancienter, Palladius, and Cas∣sianus. Of all whom m 9.191 Molanus hath giuen this note, that most learned men do iudge them 3 9.192 not worthy to be great∣ly credited. Whereby you may sée that the iudgement of Ca∣nus, touching the stories of Saintes, is more a great deale then one Doctors iudgement. Howbeit, if so many were not of his minde: yet should you doo him wrong to cast him off as one Doc∣tor. For himselfe alleageth the testimonie of a Doctor as good as any that I haue named: I meane that worthy man n 9.193 Ludouicus Viues. Who lamenting that the stories of heathen captaines and philosophers are writen so notably, that they are like to liue for euer; but the liues of Apostles, of Martyrs, of Saintes, the actes of the Church both in the spring and grouth of it, are couered with great darknes, and lye vnknown in a maner: for

those things (saith he) which are writen of them are (a fewe excepted) 4 9.194 defiled with many fables, while he that writeth them doth folow his own affectiō, & telleth not what a Saint hath done, but what he would haue had him done, so that the writers fansie and not the truth doth penne the storie. Yea, some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse 5 9.195 to coyne prety lyes, that thereby mens deuotion might be stir∣red vp. Some haue thought it a point of great godlinesse, saith Viues: but wil you know of what godlines? There is a my∣sterie in y^•, which Vi••es doth not open: Canus doth open it. For o 9.196 he saith that they, who feine and forge in writing ecclesi∣asticall stories, deuise their whole matter ether to error or to gaine, S. Paule hath forewarned vs of a kinde of men, p 9.197 which thinke that gaine is godlines. Your Church, M. Hart, hath had many minions, who of a zeale to this godlines haue not onely writen, but wrought miracles too. You remember q 9.198 the tale of Bel and the Dragon. A r 9.199 fréend of yours intreating thereof, doth report, that as the Priestes of Babylon did abuse the peo∣ple in the Dragons worship, so euen in the Church the peo∣ple sometimes is shamefully deceiued with miracles wrought either by Priestes, or by their adherents, for gaine and lu∣cres sake.

Hart.

If any doo so, we allow not of it: and there is order ta∣ken by s 9.200 the Councell of Trent against such abuses. But what is this to the Portesse? or rather to the Popes supremacie? Chief∣ly, sith I minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it?

Rainoldes.

I was afraide you would. You are a man a•• likely (for ought that I know) to doo it for the Popes supremacie, as your Rhemists to doo it for the assumption of the virgin. Though my meaning was not so much of your Portesse, as of Portesse-like writers, by whom I fell into your Portesse. But ••f you minde not to alleage any thing out of the Portesse for it: then you will not bring those miracles which are fathered t 9.201 vpon S. Thomas of Canterburie.

Aqua Thomae quinquies varians colorem, In las semel transijt, quater in cr••orem.

Ad Thomae memoriam quater lux descendit, Et in sancti gloriam cereos accendit.

The water of Thomas did fiue times change her colour, Once it was turned into milke, and foure times into bloud.

At Thomas his monument foure times there came downe light, And in the honour of the Sainte it kindled the tapers.

Hart.

I pray go to the purpose, and leaue these idle fansies which you bring in to play with. There is no such thing in the Portesse now. And if it were: what is it to the point in question?

Rainoldes.

To the point in question, as direct as may be. For this Thomas died u 11.1 vpon occasion of a quarrell about the Popes supremacie: while he maintained appeales (against the king) to the Pope. Now, to proue that he stood in defense of the truth, those miracles were wrought. For, that, which they preached who had the grace of miracles, was the truth, saith x 11.2 Bristow: adding, that S. Thomas of Canterbury, S. Thomas of Aquine, S. Francis, S. Dominike, and infinit others had that grace, in such sorte, that no man is able to put any dif∣ference betweene the miracles of Christ with his Apostles, and of these men. Yet well-fare their heartes who reformed your Portesse. For they haue put out those miracles of S. Tho∣mas of Canterbury, and many others: which they would not haue doon, (I trow,) had they not knowne some difference be∣twéene the miracles of these men, and the miracles of Christ. But they haue left in as worthie a miracle, as those, of an other of Bristowes miracle-workers, euen of S. Thomas of Aquine: and (I hope) you will not call that an idle fansie; though it be as idle with me, as the former. For y 11.3 they report of him, that when he was praying earnestly at Naples before the image of the crucifix, he heard a voyce (* 11.4 the crucifix spake it) saying to him, 1 11.5 Thomas, thou hast writen well of me, Thomas. I should haue thought (for my part) that the wodden crucifix of a louing thankfull hart, had commended him, because he did honour it with the fame honour that is due to God, and z 11.6 writeth solemn∣ly that men ought to doo so. But Pope a 11.7 Pius the fifth, the Lorde-reformer of the Portesse, affirmeth, that 2 11.8 the doctrine of Thomas was approued by the mouth of the crucifix him self in this miracle. And he knew best the meaning ofit. So y^t I per∣ceyue this miracle was rather a dogmaticall miracle (as b 11.9 Bristow ••ermeth it) then personall. But whether personall, or

dogma••icall: it shall not perswade me that all is true▪ which is writen and taught by your dogmaticall Doctor Thomas. For (as * 11.10 I haue shewed) he forgeth and belyeth the Fathers nota∣bly, in the defense of the Popes supremacie against the Grecians. I can hardly think, that, when the crucifix said Thomas had wri∣ten well, it meant to approue his writing in that point. Or if the crucifix meant it, the crucifix was to blame: vnlesse the faute were rather in some lying knaue, who spake out of the crucifix. Such d 11.11 feates there haue beene wrought in images ere now.

Hart.

Euill mindes turne all thinges to the worst. Pope Pi∣us the fifth doth say of that miracle, that it 3 11.12 is recorded in a godly story.

Rainoldes.

But, in what story, Pope Pius doth not say. Be∣like he meaneth Antoninus: of whom you know what Canus iudgeth; and his iudgement therein is good.

Hart.

Yet you can not deny but that Antoninus reporteth many true thinges. And why may not that miracle (I pray) be one of them?

Rainoldes.

A lying miracle, no doubt, as e 11.13 Antoninus re∣porteth it. For he saith that when Thomas was commanded by Pope Gregorie to come vnto the Councell of Lions, and to bring with him that booke which he had made by Pope Vr∣banes commandement against the errours of the Grecians, whereof in that Councell they were to be conuicted: before he went thither, that voyce was heard out of the crucifix, by certaine who watched Thomas, as he was praying, on a cer∣taine night, in S. Dominikes coouent-church. I say nothing here of the suspicious circumstances, the time, the night season; the place, the coouent-church; the witnesses, lying in waite; the cause, to proue that which should bee handled for the Pope against the Grecians in the Councell. Onely this I say, that séeing in that booke (against the errors of the Grecians) Thomas doth falsifie the writinges of S. Cyrill, and of aboue six hundred Fathers, euen the generall Councel of Chalcedon, to make them beare witnesse for the Popes supremacie: the miracle pretended to haue declared, as from heauen, that Thomas did well in handling so the cause of Christ, was a lying miracle▪ ly∣ing, in respect of the forme, or of the end; I meane, as either wrought by deceit, or to deceit; by deceit, ifmen did counterfeit

the voice; to deceit, if they hearde it miraculously in deede. As it is writen touching the man of sinne, that f 11.14 his coming is ac∣cording to the working of Satan with all power, and with lying signes and wonders, and with all deceiuablenesse of vn∣righteousnesse among them that perish, because they recey∣ued not the loue of truth that they might be saued. Take héede, M. Hart, least that which foloweth be verified in you, g 11.15 Therefore shall God send them strong delusion to beleue lyes, that al they may be damned who beleeued not the truth but had pleasure in vnrighteou••nesse.

Hart.

Take heede vnto your selfe, M. Rainoldes, that you offend not in this vnrighteousnesse, by abusing that famous Doctor of the Church, S. Thomas of Aquine. For h 11.16 the holy Father Pope Pius the fifth hath honoured his memorie with a double greater feast in his countrie, and with a double feast throughout all Christendome, to be kept as solemnly as the holy dayes of the foure Doctours of the Church are kept. Wherefore you ought to thinke so much the more reuerently of all that he hath writen, and not to charge him with forging and falsifying, if he haue missed ought: but rather to suppose that if the autours haue not that which he alleageth, yet he had read it alleaged by some other, and of a good affection to the Sée of Rome he thought it to be rightly alleaged, and wrote it.

Rainoldes.

Of a good affection. As you will. Let it be so. He, with such dealing of a good affection, hath feasted the Pope: and the Pope againe of a good affection hath double feasted him. But you graunt then that Doctors of the Church may bee de∣ceyued, as through ouersight, so through affection too: and that these exceptions against them are lawfull.

Hart.

Lawfull, if you proue that they be so deceiued. For they may be, I graunt.

Rainoldes.

What? And may they not be deceiued also, or rather seeme to be deceyued through the affection or ouersight of other men?

Hart.

Of other men? How?

Rainoldes.

As when a Greeke writer is translated into Latin, the translator maketh him sometimes to say that which he neuer meant. And before printing, the scriueners, who co∣pied out bookes with hand, committed sundrie scapes. Which

likewise befalleth vnto printers now. So there may be a faute in an autour without the autours faute, through ouersight of printers, or scriueners, or translators. For example, in the story ecclesiasticall of i 11.17 Eusebius translated by Rufinus, it is alleaged out of Clemens that Peter, Iames, & Iohn, although Christ preferred them almost before all, yet they tooke not the honour of primacie to them selues, but ordeined Iames (who was surnamed Iust,) 1 11.18 Bishop of the Apostles. This had béene a notable testimonie for Iames, against the primacie of Peter. But k 11.19 I alleaged it not: because as I séeke to winne you to the truth, so I séeke to doo it by true and right meanes. Where∣of this were none, being an ouersight (as it appeereth) of Ru∣finus. For in the Greeke Eusebius, it is, that they ordeined him 2 11.20 Bishop of Ierusalem, not Bishop of the Apostles.

Hart.

That may be the printers faute, or the scriueners per∣haps, who wrote it out: not his who translated it.

Rainoldes.

But I thinke it rather the translators faulte. For Marianus Scotus doth cite out of Methodius the same tou∣ching Iames, that they ordeined him Bishop of the Apostles.l 11.21 Which (belike) was taken out of the storie of Eusebius doon into Latin by Rufinus. And he hath erred often in in turning Gréeke writers: as also his translation of Iosephus sheweth. Though I may not charge him with all the faultes therein. For where it is auouched by m 11.22 some that Iosephus holdeth the bookes of Maccabees to be holy scripture, as in déede he séemeth to doo * 11.23 in the Latin: in the Greeke he saith not any such thing, nay n 11.24 he doth teach the contrarie; but it is vnlikely this came from Rufi∣nus, o 11.25 who helde him selfe the Maccabees not to be canoni∣cal. Howbeit if you say that the Gréeke copie which he transla∣ted of Eusebius, had that word amisse through the scriueners faulte: I will not striue against you. But a more certaine exam∣ple of the faultinesse in scriueners first, and printers after, is found in p 11.26 Optatus: in that he affirmeth, Peter was called Ce∣phas because he was head of the Apostles; Apostolorum caeput Petrus, vnde & Cephas appellatus est. Upon the which place q 11.27 your lawier doth note, that where he had thought it to be an ouersight of a man dreaming that the Syriake word, which singifieth a stone, is the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth a head: now he ghessed rather that the words [unde & Cephas

appellatus est,] were some foolish glose, writen rashly in the margent, and then interlaced into the text by scriue∣ners.

Hart.

Like enough. But you haue no harme by this glose. For though you blot it out, yet Optatus saith that Peter was head of the Apostles.

Rainoldes.

Neither haue we any harme by that text. For I haue shewed r 11.28 before it maketh nought for the Papacie. But we may haue harme by that kind of gloses: chiefely sith (as s 11.29 Viues obserueth on S. Austin, vpon the like occasion) some glo∣sers haue defiled all the writings of noble autours with such vncleane handling of them.

Hart.

Will you make an ende of excepting against the Fathers: and let vs heare at length the Fathers speake them∣selues?

Rainoldes.

The fathers them selues? With a very good will. But looke that you bring me the Fathers them selues. For, (which is my last exception, and so an ende,) there are many bookes entitled to Fathers which the Fathers made not: nay whereof sundry were made by such youthes, as are not worthy to beare the Fathers shooes. The workes of S. Ierom are abroade in nine volumes: of the which nine as good as three are none of his. And yet Vitae patrum, (a legend, how wrong∣fully fathered on S. Ierom your t 11.30 Espencaeus & u 11.31 Canus shew,) is not amongst them. Though there are amongst them slippes of the same tree: 1 11.32 a barbarous and sottish fable (as Canus calleth it) of the natiuitie of S. Marie, and 2 11.33 many other treatises of the same kinde, which Erasmus hath refuted * 11.34 most diligent∣ly & rightly. The workes of S. Austin haue not béene tampred with, so much, in this sort. Notwithstāding there is not aboue one or two of his ten volumes, that hath not more or fewer such pam∣phlets patched to it. Not onely by the iudgement and censure of Erasmus, which yet you sée how Canus estéemeth in S. Ierom: but also of the Louanists, whose censures are the censures of ma∣ny of your best Diuines; and x 11.35 they shew that sundry things beare S. Austins name, whereof some are vnlearned, some lewde, and heretical. But what do I speake of Ierom and Austin? when there is scarse any amongst all the Fathers that hath not beene abused so. The Frier (whom y 11.36 Stapleton doth

commend greatly for diligence, and iudgement,) z 11.37 Sixtus Se∣nensis hath writen a discourse touching the false entitling of bookes, whence it cometh, and how to finde it out. There∣in he hath proued that bookes are fathered falsly, not onely vp∣on Austin and Ierom, whom I named, but also vpon Ambrose, Cyprian, Athanasius, Eusebius Emisenus, Iunilius, Cyrill, Eu∣cherius, Arnobius, yea Thomas of Aquine too. With this dis∣course he closeth vp the former volume of a 11.38 his holy librarie: in which hee hath shewed that Clemens, Abdias, Origen, Chrysostome, Hippolytus, & many mo haue had their names defaced with the same iniury.

Hart.

There are many bookes entitled to the Fathers falsly, we confesse. I will not bring them in, to witnesse against you: or if I doo, you may refuse them lawfully.

Rainoldes.

Then you will not bring in b 11.39 the storie of Abdias, to proue that Peter gaue the whole power to Cle∣mens which Christ had giuen him. Or if you doo, you license me to refuse him, as fréely as c 11.40 I refused his coosin Clemens in the same point. Neither will you bring d 11.41 Arnobius on the Psalmes, to proue that who so goeth out of Peters Church, shal perish, as doth e 11.42 Stapleton. Or, if you doo, you license me to refuse him, as not the man whom Stapleton would haue him ta∣ken for.

Hart.

You may refuse Abdias. For Pope Paule the fourth reiected him amongst the bookes which he condemned: as f 11.43 Sixtus recordeth. But Arnobius is an ancient writer indéede, & more worthy of credit.

Rainoldes.

More worthy of credit then Abdias, I graunt. But he is not that * 11.44 writer most ancient, whom Stapleton re∣porteth him to be. For g 11.45 the most ancient Arnobius was el∣der (as h 11.46 Sixtus also noteth) then that he might heare of i 11.47 the he∣resie of Photinus. Whereas k 11.48 this Arnobius, who writeth on the Psalmes, doth mention Photinus, and write by name against his heresie.

Hart.

Will you stand then to the iudgement of Sixtus, which be the right and naturall graffes of the Fathers, and which bee bastard slippes.

Rainoldes.

No. For though Sixtus did sée many thinges, yet he saw not all: and others may sée that which Sixtus ouersaw.

As, for example, there are two bookes touching the martyrdom of Peter and Paule, bearing the name of Linus, the first Bishop of Rome. These doth * 11.49 Sixtus iudge to haue indeede béene wri∣ten by that ancient Linus, as m 11.50 Faber also did before him. But n 11.51 Claudius Espencaeus doth maruel that Faber, a learned man, and witty, could be so perswaded: sith Peter in that storie is made to withdraw the Roman wiues & matrones from their husbands beddes vnder pretense of chastitie. Which vnchri∣stian doctrine, repugnant to the lawes of godlinesse and honestie, nether was it possible that Peter should teach, neither is it likely that Linus should belye him with it. And thus you sée an au∣tor disallowed by Espencaeus on very sound reason, whom Six∣tus hath allowed of, not so discretely.

Hart.

But if you thus allow and disallow whom you list: I may take paines in vaine. For when I shall alleage this or that Father speaking most expressely for the Popes supremacie: you haue your answere readie, that he was ouerséene through er∣ror, or ouerborne with affection, or if he wrote in Gréeke, he is mis∣translated; or, if he wrote in Latin, he was misse writen, or misse∣printed; or if none of these will serue, it is a bastard falsly fathe∣red on him. And whether your shifts be sufficient answeres, your selfe will be iudge.

Hart.

Nay, not so nether. For what soeuer I answere, I will giue reason of it. And whether my reasons bee sufficient proofes: I will permit it (as I said) to the iudgement of the iurie, that is, of all indifferent men, who haue skill to weigh the rea∣sons that are brought, and conscience to giue verdict according vnto that they finde. Which triall if you like off, as you séemed to doo: then bring forth your witnesses, and let vs heare now the Fathers speake themselues.

Hart.

Content. And I will ••irst beginne with the Fathers of the Church of Rome,* 11.52 euen the auncient Bishops whom I allea∣ged o 11.53 before out of D. p 11.54 Stapleton; namely Anacletus, Alex∣ander the first, Pius the first, Victor, Zepherinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Melchiades, Iulius, and Dama••us. To whom I adde also them whom you mentioned out of q 11.55 Melchior Canus: to wéete, the two Sixti, with Eleutherius and Marcus. For though some of them maintain it as by scripture, some as by tradition: yet all agrée in this that they maintaine the Popes supremacie.

Rainoldes.

In déed, though their heades be turned one from an other, yet their tailes méete together with a firebrand betwixt them, as did r 11.56 the foxes of Samson. But Samson had three hundred foxes: haue you no more but these fewe?

Hart.

Foxes doo you call those holy martyrs and Bishops? And will you still vtter such blasphemous spéeches, and set your mouth against heauen?

Rainoldes.

Against hell, M. Hart, and not against heauen. For I reuerence the holy martyrs whom yo•• named. But, foxes I call those beastes who wrote the thinges that Stapleton and Canus quote: most lewdly and iniuriously to the martyrs and Bishops whom they are falsly fathered on, as I will proue. Which that I may doo with lesser trouble, all in one: I would you brought the rest if you haue any more of them.

Hart.

More? Why, all the Bishops of Rome from them forward, euen till our age, haue taught the same doctrine, as s 11.57 Canus declareth. For it is confirmed by Innocentius the first, in his epistles to the Councels of Carthage and Mileuis; by Leo in his epistles to Anastasius, and the Bishops of the prouince of Vienna; by Gelasius in his epistl•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Anastasius the Emperour, and in the decrees which hee made with the seuentie Bishops, and in his epistle to the Bishops of Dardania; by Vigilius in his decrees, the last chapter of them; by Pelagius the second, to the Bishops that were assembled in the citie of Constantinople; by S. Gregorie in his epistle to Austin the Bishop of the Englishmen; and by many other Popes whose testimonies are rehersed in the decrees and decretals, in the twelfth distinction, and seuen∣teenth, and ninetéenth, and twentieth, and one and twentieth and two and twentieth, and the eightieth distinction, in the canon beginning with the worde Vrbes; and the ninety sixth distinction in the canon Bene; and in the foure and twentieth cause, the first question, throughout many chapters; and in the fiue and twentieth cause, the first question; and in the title of e∣lection, in the chapter beginning with the word Significasti; and the title of priuileges, the chapter Amiqua; and the title of baptisme, the chapter Maiores; and the title of election in the sixth booke of decretals, the chapter Fundamenta; and in the Extrauagants, the constitution V••am sanctam; which extraua∣gant constitution was renewe•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 approued by the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth. So that you haue not onely

the first Bishops of Rome, but all the successors of Peter in that Sée speaking with one consent for the Popes supremacie, euen a clowde of witnesses.

Rainoldes.

Not a clowde of witnesses such as t 11.58 the Apo∣stle spake off to the Hebrewes. But such a clowde rather as u 11.59 Athanasius meant: who when Iulian the Emperour had sent men of armes to spoile him of his life, and the faithfull about him were sorie for it, and wept, Be not dismayed (saith he) my children; it is b••t a small cloude, and will passe ouer quick∣ly. For this host of Popes which you haue armed against vs, may be sorted out into thrée companies. Whereof the first front, is, the names of them who liued three hundred yeares and vpwarde after Christ: but the names onely. For the writings sauour as much of those Bishops, as scarcrowes do resemble the strength of valiant men. The second front, are they who liued the next three hundred yeares, or there about. And the weapons (though not all) which they beare, are their owne: but those which are theire owne, are not long enough to reach the supremacie; and that which they doo reach they are to weake to winne it. The third, is as it were the forlorne hope: the Popes which doo folow the first and second front, in the vawarde, as you would say. And they haue best will, but can doo least. For they are troubled so with care of the cariage, and their whole artillerie of decrees, and decretals, and extraua∣gants is so dull, that, if the former be discomfited, they haue not power to strike a stroake. So that you sée, the witnesses, which you haue brought yet, are of no valure: haue you any better?

Hart.

Nay stay, I pray, a litle: and looke ere you leape. Soft fire makes sweete malt. Your answere to the Popes whose autorities I cited doth stand on three pointes, according to thrée companies of them, as you sort them. The first, you say, are counterfeites, and most vnlike those Bishops whose names they take vpon them. The next auouch not the supremacie of the Pope: though they auouch more then is true, through affection. The last, through a regarde of their owne commodities, haue spoken for them selues, and are vnfit to witnesse in their owne matter. Is not this your meaning?

Rainoldes.

Yes. But that which you apply to the last sort, that they are vnfit to witn•••••••• ••o their owne matter: I meane

it of the second too. And if I thought that the first (which séeme to haue beene counterfeited in the dayes of the third) had beene counterfeited and coined by some ambitious Pope himselfe: I would vse the same exception to them also. But in very truth I am not of opinion that any Pope himselfe did coine them. It was some cooke rather or horse-keeper of the Popes: if I can gesse ought by the style and Latin.

Hart.

I perceiue that all which you haue to say against the writings of the first sorte, is that, which your x 11.60 Centuries of Meydenburg haue saide. For this is their reason and they stand much vpon it, that the style is bad, and the Latin barbarous. Which disproofe is foolish and of no force: as Father y 11.61 Turrian sheweth in his defense of the canons of the Apostles and of those epistles of the Popes, against the Centuries. For in style and Latin they might speake rudely, both to the entent that in thinges pertaining to the saluation of all euen the simplest might vnderstand them: and least they should séeme by choise of wordes to hunt for prayse and vaine glory. Yea, whereas the Centuries, in this point of style, doo note the likenesse of it too, as if that were a speciall marke to proue them counterfeit: therein they haue betrayed most notorious folly. For the style is wont to be a certaine token of the right autour (chiefly in some mens writings,) whereby we vse often to try and discerne a true booke from a forged; as learned men haue doon in Austin, Ierom, Am∣brose, Cyprian, Tertullian, and others. But herein the tryall is the vnlikenesse of the style, betwene an autours owne worke and a bastard fathered on him. Which tryall can not bee had in those epistles of the Popes, that are denyed by the Centuries: because we haue nothing writen by those Popes, but onely those epistles. Now sée the blindnesse of heretikes. When they can not disproue them by vnlikenesse of style, they say that the likenesse of the style disproueth them: which is most ridiculous-

Rainoldes.

As Father Turrian dreamed. And as it is wont to fall out in dreames that sundrie pointes of them are con∣trarie one to another, and yet I know not how the dreamer ima∣gineth that all do cleaue togither well: so fareth it with Turrian in his discourse touching the style against the Centuries. For what is the reason on the which z 11.62 he saith that commonly the style is a sure token, and as it were a touchstone, wherby we

may discerne true bookes from forg••••••▪

Hart.

Because that the style sometime is so peculiar to his owne autour, that his worke may thereby easily bee knowne euen by a man of meane iudgement: as in Tertulli∣an, Apuleius, Plinie, Suetonius, and other such, not to rec∣ken vp all.

Rainoldes.

Why? May not an other mans style be so like to Tertullians, or any such, that you shall not be able to discerne betweene them.

Hart.

It may be perhaps: but that is rare and harde. And therefore the learned man (whom you mentioned) a 11.63 Sixtus Se∣nensis, affirmeth, that of all the tokens, and coniectures, by which the right workes of autours may bee knowne from counterfeite and forged, the diuersitie of style doth seeme to be most sure and euident. For though it be easie for eue∣ry craftie coosiner to take vpon himselfe the countrie, and kinred, and times of any autour, and folow his pointes of doctrine too: yet there is nothing harder then to counter∣feit an other mans style. By the style (saith he) I meane not that outward skinne of the wordes, but the shape of the o∣ration, the frame of the speech, the ioyning and continuall order of the partes, the forme of eloquution, the figures of speaking, the arte of disposing, the methode of handling, & other thinges which are proper to euery well spoken autour. For as euery man hath a peculiar feature of bodie to himself, and a peculiar countenance, and a peculiar voyce, and a pe∣culiar naturall coolour, and other seuerall markes whereby he doth differ from other men, and is vnlike them: so all ec∣clesiastical writers haue certaine properties peculiar to them selues, which neuer doo agree or seldome to any other: such, as is a gorgeous shew in Antiochus, an exquisite diligence of speech in Basil, a tragicall loftinesse in Gregorie Nazianze∣ne, a cleane and vnforced elegancie in Chrysostome, a singular pure facilitie in Cyprian, a French-like statelines of vtterance in Hilarie, a graue and sharpe copiousnesse of briefe sayinges in Ambrose, in Ierom a florishing varietie of thinges & words, in Austin clauses ending like, and members falling like, in Gregorie a gate (as I may say) of sentences answering one an other in measures interchaungeably, and other thinges of

like sort, which although a man doo seeke of purpose to ex∣presse, yet he cannot attaine vnto them. By the which words of Sixtus you may sée, that Turrian spake reason, in saying, that the style is commonly a sure token to discerne the right workes of autours from counterfeits.

Rainoldes.

And by the same wordes of Sixtus you may sée, that he, in saying so, disproueth his owne reason, and proueth the reason of the Centuries. For the epistles of y^e Popes which they endi••e of bastardy, are very like in style each of them to other: so like as though all had béene spet out of one mans mouth. Now the autours of them are said to haue béene, not two or three Popes, whose children might be like; but two or thrée and thirty with y^e aduantage, Clemens, Euaristus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Anicetus, Soter, Calixtus, Vrbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fa∣bianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Dionysius, Felix, Euty∣chianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Siluester, and mo, beside the foure∣téene whose names you alleaged out of Stapleton and Canus. Hereupon the b 11.64 Centuries inferre that those epistles are falsly fathered on them: because the whole shape and frame of their speech doth openly bewray that one and the same man was autour of them al. For it cannot be (say they) that so many Bishops should haue the same speech, no not though they had beene accustomed of purpose to likenes of style. And this is their reason of the likenes of style: which c 11.65 Turrian, while hee striueth to laugh it out as foolish, confirmeth as most sound, by saying that the style is wont to be a sure token wherby mens owne works are discerned from counterfeits, as they haue bene in Austin, Ierom, Ambrose, Cyprian, Tertullian, and o∣thers. Which could not be so, but that the styles of men haue their peculiar properties, wherein they differ each from other, as their bodies doo in feature, colour, voice, countenance, and other markes whereby we know them. And you shall not lightly ••••nde three men, that haue bodies like in all respectes: much lesse thrée and thirty. So the blindnes, which you thought to shew in the Centurie writers, as heretikes, is fallen on the heretical Iesuit who reproueth them. Yea, as d 11.66 the Syrians, when they went about to take Elisaeus, were striken with blindnes, and led into the middes of the citie of Samaria: so the blinde Iesuit, while he sought to beat downe a truth in the Centuries, hath fallen in∣to

the middes of a Samaritan qualitie. For to proue that they could not disproue those epistles by vnlikenes of style, he saith that we haue nothing writen by those Popes, whose epistles they deny, but onely those epistles. Which is an vntruth. For one of the Popes, whose bastard epistles e 11.67 they deny, is Corne∣lius. Of his there is extant one whole right epistle, and parcels of more, in f 11.68 Cyprian and g 11.69 Eusebius. An other h 11.70 is Iulius. Of his there is extant a right epistle in i 11.71 Athanasius. Betwéene which epistles, the right ones in Cyprian, Eusebius, and Atha∣nasius, and the bastard ones which are denyed by the Centuries, there is as great difference almost for the style: as there is for sub∣stance, betweene golde, and copper. Now by these few you may estéeme the rest: for they came all from one smithes forge. Where∣fore not onely the likenes of the style, but the vnlikenes also con∣uinceth them of forgerie. And this is noted too by k 11.72 the writers of the Centuries: chiefely in that of Iulius. The more doo I mar∣uaile at the Iesuits boldenes, who saith that they neither could nor doo obiect vnlikenes of the style against them.

Hart.

Yet the former reason which they bring from the La∣tin, that it is rude & barbarous, is iustly chalenged by l 11.73 Turri∣an. For S. m 11.74 Paule was rude in speech, but not in know∣ledge. And so might the Popes be.

Rainoldes.

Not so. For it is one thing to be * 11.75 rude in speech, and simple (as you would say) without pompe & braue∣rie: an other thing, to be barbarous. As it is one thing for a hus∣bandman to weare home-made cloth, which many honest men doo: an other thing, to go (as rogues are wont) in raggs. Wherfore when Turrian saith that the Popes might write barbarously, least by choise of words they should seeme to hunt for praise and vaine glorie: it is, as if a man should say that godly prea∣chers ought to go in torne clothes and full of vermin▪ least by ••leanly hansomnes they should séeme to giue themselues to pride and vanitie. As for his other reason that they might doo it of a desire to edifie, that, in thinges pertaining to the saluation of all, euen the simplest might vnderstand them: the reason were some what if the common peoples spéech in those dayes had béene of so course a thréede, as theirs is. For the spéech of men is best vnderstood when they declare their mindes in such wordes▪ & phrases, as are receiued commonly. But as farre as I can gesse,

or you proue, by the monuments of that time which are left in writing either by heathens or by Christians: such * 11.76 base words and phrases, as these epistles swarme with, were not receiued then in the common spéech. And shall we thinke that none of all the Doctors of that age did write for the instruction of the sim∣plest too? Not Tertullian? Not Cyprian? Not Arnobius? Not Lactantius? Not Minutius Felix? Not Ierom, Ambrose, Au∣stin? Or could they instruct them with cleane and true Latin, and could not the Popes? Nay, did other common Christians in Rome speake congruously, and purely, as we sée by their epistles and spéeches yet o 11.77 extant: and was it a priuilege of the Popes alone to write barbarously? I will not deny but that the Popes in our daies may haue such prerogatiues: but I am perswaded that in times of olde they were as other common men. And therefore if you haue no better ground then Turrian, I shall continue my o∣pinion that the Latin also and not the style onely is iustly noted by the Centuries, to proue, that the epistles whereof wee treate are counterfeit. Howbeit neither style, nor Latin, are the onely proofes that they bring for it. They haue more, and stron∣ger.

Hart.

How strong, it may appeere by that which they haue put last as the strongest; euen their chiefest reason, the autoritie of witnesses. For therein p 11.78 they conclude that the ancient Popes were not autours of those epistles, because nether Eusebius, nor Ierom, nor Damasus, do make mention of them, nor any autour lightly before the time of Charles the great. Of the which argument, the former part is fond: the la∣ter, vntrue. For although Eusebius and Ierom are wont dili∣gently to note what thinges haue béene writen by any great Doctor; yet not all mens writings came to their handes. As for Damasus, he writeth not so much the liues of the Popes his pre∣decessours, as briefe Chronicle-notes: what place they were born in, what kinred they came off, in what time they liued, how of∣ten they gaue orders, in what yeare they died, and where they were buried. Wherefore it is no maruaile that hee noted not what epistles they wrote. Though in a writen copie at Rome (which q 11.79 Turrian saw) there is mention made of one of their epi∣stles, namely of Anacletus.

Rainoldes.

In a writen copie, at Rome, it may be: but in

no printed copie yet. An ouersight of some, who, when Frier Su∣••ius set forth the Councels last, did not informe him of it, that h•• might haue mended it in Damasus. But if Damasus thought it a matter worth the noting how often they gaue orders: it is very likely that he would haue noted how they wrote sometimes too, if they had béene such writers. As for Eusebius, and Ierom, though (I graunt) all writers came not to their hands: yet were it very straunge, that r 11.80 the one of them being in great fauour with Constantine the Roman Emperour, s 11.81 the other attending on Damasus the Roman Bishop in ecclesiasticall writings, both of them desirous and curious to know all Christian writers monuments t 11.82 purposely to speake of them; neither of them could sée one of these epistles, that such and so many Bishops of Rome had writen. Chiefely, sith they found sundry epistles wri∣ten u 11.83 by them, which they mention: and yet of all which they found, there is not one amongst these nether.

Hart.

Those, which then were common, might be lost since: and these, which now we haue, might be then vnknowne. Ne∣ther is it reason that all they should be said to haue writen no∣thing, whose writings are not commonly knowne vnto men. For euen now there are (as x 11.84 Turrian reporteth) in the Popes librarie manie bookes of epistles of the later Popes, which con∣taine the actes and déedes of each their Popedomes, whence they are commonly called registers: of Gregorie the seuenth, Inno∣cent the third, Honorius the third, Gregorie the ninth, Inno∣cent the fourth, Alexander the fourth, Vrban the fourth, Cle∣mens the fourth, Nicolas the third, Honorius the fourth, Boni∣face the eighth, Iohn the two and twentéeth, Clemens the sixth, Innocent the sixth, and Vrban the fifth. And these are known of few men, because they are in writing ••nely and not printed: besides very few which Gregorie the ninth, and Boniface the eighth haue taken out of them, and compil••d them in the Decre∣tals to the vse of Church-causes. But, if these perhaps should be set forth hereafter: would you say that they are forged, because there hath no mention of them beene made by writers, nor by the Popes themselues; nay▪ which the Popes them selues perhaps neuer saw?

Rainoldes.

The comparison is vn-euen when you say, that the Popes them selues neuer saw bookes in their owne li∣brarie,

thereby to shew, that many bookes might be there, which Ierom and Eusebius knew not. For it is likely that the Popes haue many bookes which they sée not: they haue other thinges to looke on. But Eusebius and Ierom did study through libra∣ries, to see all the autours which were extant in them. So that they were as likely to know the epistles of the former Popes, as Turrian these of the later. For Turrian doth not search olde mo∣numentes more carefully to see vp the Pope, then Ierom and Eusebius did to set foorth Christ. But whatsoeuer Ierom or Eusebius saw: thinke you not that the Popes, as litle as they sée the bookes in their librarie, yet, if the sight of any thereof could a∣uaile them toward the recouering of their supremacy in England, they would finde it quickly?

Hart.

I thinke it should be foorth coming to doo good.

Rainoldes.

Then haue the Centuries in this place of wit∣nesses a very strong proofe, that (about the time of Ierom and Eusebius) these epistles were not in the Popes librarie. For there is no mention made of them at all either in y 11.85 the Councel of Carthage, or of Afrike: in which the Pope endeuouring to shew that appeales might lawfully be made to him, would haue all••aged them of likelyhood, had they béene extant. But this pro∣babilitie noted by the Centuries, Turrian passeth ouer in silence very smoothly; where yet he maketh semblance of answering al their witnesses: belike, after Antonies precept in z 11.86 Tully, who wisheth men, if they be troubled with a hard argument, to say nothing to it. Howbeit all these (I graunt) are but like∣lyhoodes. Notwithstanding if you adde to these likelyhoodes of Damasus, of Ierom, of Eusebius, of the Popes them selues, this also that neither any other Father or autour worthie of cre∣dit may be lightly found that hath alleaged them before the time of Charles the great, about eight hundred yeares after Christ: it may be well thought that there was good cause why the Centuries should suspect them.

Hart.

Nay, that is the later part of their argument, which (as I saide) is vntrue. * 11.87 For Isidore (who liued aboue a hun∣dred yeares before Charles the great) did gather them together at the request of fourescore Bishops. So that we haue foure score Bishops in that one, to testifie with vs against that ly•• of the Centuries.

Rainoldes.

But how know you that, which you tell of Isi∣dore and fourescore Bishops, to be true?

Hart.

How? By the preface of a 11.88 Isidore him selfe set before the Councels. For therein, hauing shewed how he was moued (by the request of fourescore Bishops) to gather the canons together: and we haue enterlaced (saith he) the decrees of cer∣taine epistles of the Bishops of Rome, to weete of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, and the rest, such epistles as wee could finde yet, til Siluester the Pope; after the which we haue set downe the Councell of Nice, and after that the remnant of the Popes decrees euen vntill S. Gregori••. Thus farre S. Isi∣dore. And is not he a Father? an autour worthie of credit?

Rainoldes.

Admit that he is so: what doo you conclude there∣of against the Centuries?

Hart.

Euen that which b 11.89 Genebrard doth, to vtter it with his wordes: then doo the Centurie-writers erre, who keepe a babling that those epistles decretall of the auncient Popes are not alleaged by any autour worthie of credit before the time of Charles the great.

Rainoldes.

Your Genebrard sheweth him selfe a cunning man stil against the Centurie-writers.1 11.90 For, whereas they say•••• you shall not lightly finde it;] he clippeth off the word [lightly,] that, y^e thing being found in a preface of Isidores, he may charge them with 2 11.91 errour, to discredit the heretikes. But what if S. Isi∣dore did not write that preface? What if he be a counterfeit too?

Hart.

Marry now you haue the way, if you can hold it. De∣ny all the writers that doo make against you, and say they bee counterfeit. So shameles a cause you vndertake as shameles pa∣trones, that but by s••ameles meanes you are not able to main∣taine it.

Rainoldes.

Nay patience, I pray. Me thought you were agréed that I might lawfully e••cept against a Father, if he were counterfeit.

Hart.

True: if he were so. But it is no good exception in law, to say this or that against a man: you must proue it.

Rainoldes.

So I minde to doo. And that by demonstrati∣on out of the sa••e booke of c 11.92 Genebrard himselfe, in which he ••indeth this faute with the Centurie-writers. For about what yeare of Christ did Isidore dye? How doth Genebrard

recken?

Hart.

In the yeare six hundred thirtie and seuen: as he pro∣ueth out of Vasaeus.

Rainoldes.

When was the generall Councell of Constanti∣nople vnder Agatho kept? What saith he of that?

Hart.

In the yeare six hundred foure score and one, or two, or there about.

Rainoldes.

Then Isidore was dead aboue fourtie yeares before that generall Councell.

Hart.

He was: but what of that?

Rainoldes.

Of that it doth folow that the preface writen in Isidores name and set before the Councels to purchase credit to those epistles, is a counterfeit, and not Isidores. For in that preface there is mention made of the generall Councell of Constantinople held against Bishop Macarius, and Stephanus, in the time of Pope Agatho, & Constantine the Emperour. Which, séeing it was held aboue fourtie yeares after Isidore was dead by Genebrards owne confession: by his owne confes∣sion Isidore could not tell the foure score Bishops of it. And so the foure score Bishops which Turrian hath found out in one Isidore, are dissolued all into one counterfeit, abusing both the name of Isidore and foure score Bishops.

Hart.

d 11.93 Igmarus who was Archbishop of Rhemes in the time of Lewes sonne to Charles, about seuen hundred yeares since, did thinke that worke to be S. Isidores, and so he citeth it.

Rainoldes.

Why mention you that? Are you disposed to proue that some haue béene deceiued, and thought him Isidore who was not?

Hart.

No: But to proue that the worke is Isidores (as Fa∣ther e 11.94 Turrian doth) by the testimonie of Igmarus.

Rainoldes.

Ignarus can not proue that. He must be con∣tent to be deceiued in some what as well as his ancestors. For it is too cléere by the f 11.95 Councels them selues that Isidore did dye about the time that we agréed of: and therefore no helpe, but it must be an other who wrote that preface in his name. Which maketh me so much the more to suspect that the epistles are coun∣terfeit, sith I finde that a Father was counterfeited to get them credit. And sure it is likely that about the time of Charles the great, when the westerne Churches did commonly-fetch bookes

from the Roman librarie, some groome of the Popes (that had an eye to y^e almes-box) conueied this pamphlet in amongst them: and well meaning men (in France, and other countryes) recey∣ued it as a worthie worke, compiled by S. Isidore, and coming from the See Apostolike. But say what may be saide for the si∣lence of olde witnesses, which is vrged, (and iustly,) as a probable coniecture, that those epistles were not extant in their dayes, the matters that are handled and debated in them, the scriptures alleaged, the stories recorded, the ceremonies mentioned, the times and dates assigned, are, not coniectures probable, but most certaine proofes, that they could not be writen by those ancient Bishops of Rome, whose names they beare. There is a booke entitled to the Poet g 11.96 Ouid, touching an olde woman: haue you euer séene it?

Hart.

What is that to the purpose? Doth he speake of the Popes epistles?

Rainoldes.

No: but their epistles are like to that booke in sundrie respectes. It is ancient: it was printed aboue a hun∣dred yeares ago. And he, who set it foorth, saith that Ouid wrote it in his old age, and willed it to be laide vp in his graue with him: in the which graue it was found at length by the inha∣bitants of the countrey who sent it to Constantinople, and the Emperour gaue it to Leo his principal notarie, who did publish it. A smooth tale, to make men beleeue that it is Ouids. Of whom though it sauour no more, then these epistles of the Bishops of Rome: yet if your Diuines could finde some antike verse there that were an euidence for the Popes supremacie, I sée my former reasons would not disswade you from beléeuing but Ouid wrote the booke. For, to the barbarousnes and base∣nes of the Latin and style, if I should vrge it, you might answere that Ouid wrote so for two causes: that he might not séeme to be vaine gloriously giuen, and that his repentance might bee knowne euen to the simplest. To the silence of witnesses, that no man maketh mention of it amongst his workes, you might answere that it lay hidden in his graue. And this you might answere with greater shew of likelyhood, then that the Popes epistles lay hidden in the Popes librarie. But vnto the mat∣ters of which the booke intreateth, and thinges that it discourseth on, no shadow of defense can be made with any reason. For h 11.97 it

speaketh in the praise of the virgin Marie, that 1 11.98 God shall giue her to be our mediatresse, and 2 11.99 shall assumpt her into heauen, and place her in a throne with him: yea, the autour 3 11.100 prayeth to her. Which are pointes of doctrine that were not heard of (I trow) in Ouids time. Neither is it likely that Ouid was so well read in the scriptures, that he could i 11.101 cite the 4 11.102 law of Moses, and speake of Iacob and Esau, and allude to 5 11.103 Salomon in Ecclesiastes. Euen so for those epistles of the Bi∣shops of Rome, although you haue gloses to shift of other reasons: yet I am perswaded that you can lay no colour on the contents and substance of them. For the scriptures are so alleaged; and such pointes are taught about the gouernment of the Church, about religion, about rites, about stories ecclesiasticall, that it is not possible they should be writen by those Bishops.

Hart.

Why? Doo you thinke it as vnlikely a matter, that they should alleage the scriptures, as that Ouid should?

Rainoldes.

Nay, I doo thinke it, or rather I doo know it to be more vnlikely, that they should so alleage the scriptures as they doo, then that Ouid should allude to Salomon, or cite Mo∣ses. For k 11.104 the bookes of Moses (l 11.105 perhaps of Salomon too) were translated into Gréeke by the Seuentie interpreters many a yeare before Ouid: and he might haue read them. But your common Latin translation of the olde testament, made (a great part of it) by S. Ierom out of the Hebrewe, (whence it is called S. Ieroms,) could not be séene by Anacletus and other auncient Bishops of Rome. For they were deceased before he was borne. And yet all their epistles doo alleage the scriptures after that translation. An euident token, that the writer of them did liue after S. Ierom: yea, a great while after him, as may bee déemed probably. For the common Latin translation, which the an∣cient Latin Fathers vsed, was made out of the Gréeke of the Seuentie interpreters. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarie, Ambrose, and other of the same ages, shew it in all their writings. Ne∣ther was that olde translation forsaken straight waies, as soone as Ierom had set forth his new. For m 11.106 Austin, who saw Ie∣roms, preferred still the olde translation before it. n 11.107 Gregorie, who liued about two hundred yeares after, doth vse them both indifferently (because the Church of Rome did so,) o 11.108 but liketh better of the new. And so in processe of time the new translati∣on

did preuaile, and the olde was wholy left: saue in the Psalmes onely, which being soong in Churches had taken déeper roote then could be plucked vp by Ierom. Now, sith those epistles of the Bishops of Rome doo alleage the scriptures after that translation which the Fathers called the new, p 11.109 you call the olde, and it was so long after Ieroms time before that translati∣on was growne to such credit that it had shut the other out: it is probable that they were writen long after, but whether long or short, it is certaine that they were writen after Ieroms time.

Hart.

It is true that Anacletus and the rest of those Bi∣shops, who liued before S. Ieroms time, must néedes vse that translation which the Fathers call the olde. And so doth q 11.110 Tur∣rian answere they did in these epistles.

Rainoldes.

The contrarie is plaine by the epistles them∣selues, in euerie one of them.

Hart.

I: but Turrian saith that when these epistles were first set abroad to the vse of the Church that they might come to all mens knowlege, then was it thought good (because S. Ieroms translation was in all mens hands) that many places, which were cited according to the other, should be changed and cited ac∣cording to S. Ieroms translation.

Rainoldes.

But how doth Turrian proue that they were ci∣ted first according to the other?

Hart.

Because sundrie sentences, which in them are cited out of the Prophets, would better fit the purpose if they had béene cited according to the other which was out of the Gréeke, then according to S. Ieroms which is out of the Hebrewe. For ex∣ample, in the first epistle of Pope r 11.111 Alexander, that text is allea∣ged out of the Prophet s 11.112 Zacharie, He that toucheth you, tou∣cheth the apple of mine eye, as it is in Ierom. But the other translation out of the Gréeke should be, He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: that is, of his owne eye, and not of Gods. In the which sort it had béene more fit for Alexander to cite it, as Turrian doth proue by the circumstances of the text. And the like he sheweth in two or thrée examples mo.

Rainoldes.

And thereof he concludeth that the Pope did cite it so. As who say the Pope must needes doo that which was most fit.

Hart.

Nay, it doth not well agrée to his purpose, vnlesse he

did cite it so.

Rainoldes.

Whether it doo, or no: it is plaine that the autour meant not so to cite it. For in the same epistle he saith that Priests and Bishops (to whom he applieth it) are called the eyes of the Lord. Which sith he saith on those wordes, He that tou∣cheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye: it séemeth that hée meant [eye] not of his eye who toucheth, but of Gods. Neither had he meant otherwise if he had cited the words after the Gréek translation, and not Ieroms. For though it be in Gréeke, He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye, (as it is in Hebrewe, and in the t 11.113 best copies of Ieroms Latin too:) yet the word [his, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is referred to [the Lord of hostes] whose care of his people the Prophet noteth by that spéech, in like sort as u 11.114 Moses had also doon before him. Wherefore if it agree not well in that sense to the purpose and drift of the Popes epistle, in which it is alleaged, as Turrian saith it doth not: then himselfe confesseth that not all the scriptures are there alleaged fitly. Which x 11.115 he cannot abide the Centuries should say. But if this answere be good and allowable, that when those epistles of the Popes were published, the textes, which could not be allea¦ged so by them, were chaunged: then is it impossible to bring a∣ny reason, but you may shield them from it easily. For if there be a point of order in discipline, or doctrine in faith, or the state of times, or circumstances of persons and things whatsoeuer, that is disproued by writers and witnesses of that age, as there are infi∣nite: you may say that it was not so in the epistles, but they who set them forth did alter that point. For example, in one of them which is fathered on y 11.116 Cornelius, appeales vnto the See of Rome are approued. But z 11.117 Cyprian doth shew that Cornelius agreed with him and other Bishops, that causes should be en∣ded where they began, without appeales.

Hart.

We shall neuer make an end if we stand on euerie particular that may be cauilled at. It sufficeth me that all which you can say is set downe in the Centuries, and that which they haue said is answered by Turrian. This is a 11.118 Stapletons defense of those epistles: and I content my selfe with it.

Rainoldes.

Not all which they haue said is answered by Turrian: perhaps not this verie point about Cornelius. But if you like so well of Stapletons policie to lay all on Turrian: let vs

leaue his dealing therein against the Centuries to be considered by the iury. Whom I must request withall to consider of one reason more▪ which they shall neither finde in Turrian, nor in the Centuries.

Hart.

What reason is that?

Rainoldes.

The iudgement of thrée learned men of your owne side, Cusanus, the Cardinall; Bellarmin, the Iesuit; and Contius, the famous Lawier. For Cardinall b 11.119 Cusanus, say∣ing, that peraduenture those epistles of Clemens and Ana∣••letus are counterfeit, vpon the which they, who would exalt the See of Rome more then is expedient and seemely for the holy Church, doo ground them selues: addeth for proofe there∣of, that if a man first did reade them ouer diligently, applying the state of their times to those epistles, and then were perfit in the workes of all the holy Fathers who liued vntill Austin, Ierom, and Ambrose, and in the actes of Councels where true and authenticall writinges are alleaged; he should finde this true, that neither are the said epistles mentioned in any of those writings, yea, and the epistles being applyed to the time of those holy men do betray them selues.

Hart.

Cusanus, when he wrote these thinges, was not Car∣dinall: neither doth he affirme it, but saith, [peraduenture:] and he mentioneth the epistles of Clemens and Anacletus onely, not of all.

Rainoldes.

But his reasons, of the contents and witnesses, do touch them all: as doth his drift also. Nor saith he [perad∣uenture] of douting▪ but of modestie: for he addeth farther that 1 11.120 things a great number doo proue it manifestly. And though he were not Cardinall then, yet he was Doctour of the Canon law, and Deane of a Cathedrall Church, and fit to be made Car∣dinall within a few yeares after. Neither spake he of hatred to the Sée of Rome, which he calleth the diuine, 2 11.121 the most ex∣cellent in all praise, yea most superexcellent, the first, the chiefe See; and saith that she needeth not to helpe her selfe with these doutfull arguments, which are drawn out of those epistles and put in the decrees of Gratian. But if he were not Cardinall when he gaue that iudgement: yet Bellarmin was Iesuit when he confirmed it. For when he read at Rome of the Popes supremacie, and came to that argument of these

epistles of the Popes: he said that Father Turrian a learned man had defended them to be their owne, but he thought the contrarie opinion to be truer.

Hart.

How know you that he saide so, when he read at Rome?

Rainoldes.

One of your owne friendes and felowes, c 11.122 who was present, told me he heard him say so. And I do the rather be∣léeue his report, because, whereas d 11.123 Bellarmin him selfe hath set in writing the summe of those lectures, he saith though not al∣together so much, yet in effect. For I will not deny (saith he) but there are some errours crept into them.

Hart.

But he addeth that certes he thinketh neuerthelesse that they are very ancient.

Rainoldes.

And why? because Isidore maketh mention of them. Which reason, that he therefore doth thinke them very ancient because there is mention made of them by Isi∣dore, is as much in softer wordes, as if he saide, he thinketh them ancient, howbeit not so ancient as they are pretended. It may be that Bellarmin, if he were aduertised that Isidore is for∣ged too, would thinke them lesse ancient by one degrée then yet he thought. But that which the Iesuit was loth to deale with ouer roughly: the Lawier, a man of better minde, and bolder spirit, doth plainely auouch. For he affirmeth it to be cléere and euident, that those epistles of the Popes, who were before Sil∣uester, are all false and counterfeit. Now Siluester was Pope at the time of the Nicen Councell, aboue thrée hundred yeares after Christ. And so the exception which I made against your first band of Popes, who liued thrée hundred yeares after Christ, and vpward: you sée it is confirmed by a famous Lawier, a man of great iudgement, and of your owne religion.

Hart.

What famous Lawier is it? Or how doth he con∣firme it?

Rainoldes.

It is Antonius Contius, the kinges professor of the law in the vniuersitie of Burges: with whose notes (allow∣ed and approued by the priuileges of the Spanish & French kinges) your Canon-law was * 11.124 printed at Anwerpe by Plantin. In e 11.125 one of those notes, he saith, that he hath brought 1 11.126 many rea∣sons in his preface, by which he hath proued and 2 11.127 shewed manifestly, that 3 11.128 the epistles of the Popes who were before

Siluester, are all false and counterfeit. Behold, he hath shewed it, not by one or two ghesses, but by many reasons; and that, manifestly.

Hart.

But what are the reasons, which he hath shewed it so by?

Rainoldes.

Nay, I am bound to kéepe counsell in that. For 4 11.129 the preface (wherin he brought those reasons) is not printed. Though I must cléere Plantin the printer from the faute. For I caused a friend of mine to aske of him, why it was not printed, and what became of it, whether a man might sée it or no. To whome he made answere, that the Censour, appointed to o∣uersee bookes to be allowed to the print, would not suffer it to passe; but what became of it, hee remembred not, nor knew how to procure it. They that doo euill, hate the light. There was somewhat in that preface, which the Censour would not that all men should see. But f 11.130 the truth (saith Tul∣ly) which is pressed downe by many lewde men, doth rise vp often times by this one meanes: that either they, who are craftie to deceiue, are not bold to enterprise so much as they deuise; or they, who are bold enough to doo any thing, haue not wit and subtiltie to conuey their practises. Which con∣sideration of a wise Oratour, the folly of your Censour hath pro¦ued to be true. For though he were bold enough to leaue out the preface of Contius: yet he had not craft enough to raze out that note which mentioneth the preface. And yet a litle after, (to sée the mischiefe of it how that should scape his handes,) he hath put in a note vnder Contius his name, which would haue hel∣ped well if he had razed out the other. For, g 11.131 vpon a text of Pope Anacletus he hath made him say: I know that 5 11.132 some affirme those epistles of the Popes who next succceded Peter to be false and counterfeit; but I would desire them to bring 6 11.133 better proofe: specially sith they are found in all the courses of canons that are extant, collected 7 11.134 by Isidore out of the booke of Damasus which was Bishop of Rome. This note was iuggled in well by the Censour, with this subscription, [Contius.] Pity, that he tooke not away the other note, where [Contius] is subscribed too.

Hart.

Why suspect you the Censour that he should make that note, and not Contius him selfe write it? You haue a les∣son

in S. h 11.135 Paul, that charitie is not suspicious.

Rainoldes.

Charitie is not sottish neither: I learne that lesson of him too. For as it is a vice to suspect vniustly: so it is no vertue to beleeue vnwisely. And S. Paul, who saith that charitie beleeueth all thinges: yet beléeued not that i 11.136 they meant him well, of whom he vnderstood by his sisters sonne that they would lye in waite to kill him. Charitie beleeueth all thinges, which a wise and godly man should beléeue. But to beleeue that Contius wrote that note him selfe, were grea∣ter folly to the beleeuer, then charitie to the Censour. For how could it be that a learned man, the kinges professor of the law, should say concerning the same epistles, first, I haue shew∣ed manifestly by many reasons that they are counterfeit: and anon, I know that some affirme them to be counterfeit; but I would desire them to bring better proofe. Chiefly sith the cause, that is added there why he desireth better proofe, is Isidores autoritie: 8 11.137 whom k 11.138 Contius (in that respect) doth discredit; which note is printed too. And afterwarde againe, on l 11.139 other textes of those epistles, he noteth sundrie pointes where∣by it is manifest (he saith) that they are forged: and yet againe, on m 11.140 other, he mentioneth the proofe thereof made in his pre∣face: yea, and that is more, vpon the same epistle of the same A∣nacletus, on which that counterfeit note was coyned, n 11.141 Con∣tius againe noteth, this epistle is falsely fathered on Anacle∣tus, 9 11.142 as I aduertised in my preface. Sée you not how right∣ly Tully did obserue, that if, either suttletie were bold, or bold∣nesse craftie, it would go hard with the truth? The truth which is oppugned by those epistles of the Popes should haue had one patrone lesse to speake for her, if your Censour had béene as politike to blot out the notes touching the preface, as he was hardie to leaue the preface out, and coine a new note a∣gainst it. And yet perhaps he blotted out some notes too. But men, who deale with much, shall ouersée somewhat.

Hart.

You still suspect the worst. It might be the correctors faute and not the Censours. Or if the Censour did it, he did it of a good minde, because he thought that Contius was deceiued in it.

Rainoldes.

The likelyhood and presumption is not so much of the correctour, who vewing all the notes might haue left out

the rest too, if he had béene the dooer: as it is of the Censour, who suffering not the preface to passe to the print for the Popes sake, may iustly be suspected that he would straine an ynch farther to helpe the Pope. But, you say, he did it of a good minde. But good mindes must learne to vse good meanes also. At least, he should haue doon as Frier Surius did: who, whereas in the olde edition of the Councels there were certaine thinges noted out of Cassiodore, Marianus Scotus, and Gregorie Haloander, tou∣ching the yeares of the Consuls who are named in the dates of those epistles of the Popes: Surius (in his new edition there∣of) hath left out all those notes, o 11.143 yeelding this reason why hee left them out, because both the thing is darke of it selfe, & it is made more darke and intricate by their variance; in so much that Caluin seemeth on that occasion to haue reiected those epistles. In déede the Centurie-writers (whom Surius meant perhaps when he named Caluin) doo set downe that circum∣stance, of the yeare of the Consuls assigned in their dates, for a proofe that they be forged: and they confirme that proofe by those very notes that were set foorth with the epistles. For p 11.144 many of the epistles haue the names of such Consuls, as ne∣uer were Consuls together, or liued not then: q 11.145 as appeereth by Marianus Scotus & others, yea, euen by the notes added to those epistles in the Tome of Councels. Which wordes might worke discredit to the Centurie-writers with them who sée the Councels in no edition but the last: for there are no such notes. And Surius, in leauing them out, hath answered well that reason of the Centurie-writers. Though he should haue answered it a greate deale better, if he had left out also the epi∣stles them selues. For as long as they are extant: we shall not néede the notes vpon their dates to control them. Yet as he dealt wisely in leauing out the notes, so he shewed honestie in telling men of it: that they may know there were notes before, which impaired the credit of the epistles; and if they list to sée them, they may seeke and finde them too. But the Censour, who fell vpon the notes of Contius, hath shewed no such honestie. For neither hath he giuen any signification that he caused the pre∣face to be left out; neither hath hee tolde vs of an other edition where it might be found; and, that which is the worst, he hath made Contius to speake in maintenance of that which him selfe

knew and had declared to be forged. All the which pointes it be∣hooueth the iury to consider off; and not to weigh only the iudge∣ment of Contius, or Bellarmin, or Cusanus, for the disproofe of those counterfeits on which you ground the Popes supremacie: but to thinke with them selues how many more of likelihood euen in the middest of Poperie haue spoken against them; yea, sundry peraduenture, who, (as their writings are printed now,) speake for them. For if in these dayes when men doo sift their dooings, Surius durst aduenture to leaue out notes already printed, and the Censour to suppresse things in printers hands that they may neuer come to light, yea, to write notes in the names of autours flat contrarie to their iudgement, & print them as their own too: what is it to be feared they did in former times, when there were few that would espie them? Or, if espie them, yet who so hardy to bewray them?

Hart.

The iudgement of Cusanus, and Bellarmin, and Con∣tius, and the rest of our side, (if there were more who thought so,) may not disproue those epistles: séeing that themselues allow the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome.

Rainoldes.

So much the greater force they haue to disproue them: sith it is not likely that they would leaue this hold of that, which they fauour, if manifest truth and reason did not compell them thereunto.

Hart.

But why doo you bring the iudgement of our Car∣dinals, or Iesuits, or Lawiers herein against 〈◊〉〈◊〉: when, in as weightie a point against your selfe, you will not receiue them.

Rainoldes.

I gaue you the reason r 11.146 before out ofthe scrip∣tures, which cite the Poets so. But if you wil haue it confirmed by the Fathers, you know that s 11.147 Lactantius, t 11.148 Eusebius, u 11.149 Arnobius, and x 11.150 many more of them do bring the writings of Sibylla, and Orpheus, and Hermes, and other Gentiles against the Gentiles, whose iudgements they would not receiue against them selues. For, if Sibylla (saith▪ y 11.151 Austin) and Orpheus, and Hermes, and other ether Prophets, or Diuines, or wise men, or Philosophers of the Gentiles haue said true things touch∣ing god: that is of some force, not for vs to embrace the auto¦ritie of them, but to conuince by them the vanity of Gentiles when we shew that we doo worship that God of whom euen

they haue spoken, who partly did teach, partly durst not for bidde their felow Gentiles to worship idoles. And it is wri∣ten in your z 11.152 law, that if a Catholike be in suite against an he∣retike, the testimony of an heretike is of force for the Catho∣like: but against the Catholike no testimonie is of force, sa∣uing the testimonie of a Catholike onely. The testimonies therefore of Cardinals, & Iesuits, and what soeuer Papistes, are of force against you, but not for you against vs▪ Nether is ther caus•• why you should aske rather why I bring their iudgements a∣gainst the Popes epistles, and yet allow them not in the Popes supremacie: then why a 11.153 the Israelites tooke iewels and furni∣ture of gold and siluer of the Egyptians, when yet they forsooke their idoles and heauy burdens▪ And thus you sée what malte the soft fyer hath made for the first band of Popes, whom ether you named out of Stapleton, and Canus; or wrapped vp with∣out names in the decrees of Gratian. Haue you any hope of better successe in the remnant of them: or will you muster new souldiers?

Hart.

You shall finde more valure in these then you looke for, as hotly as you call for new. For, the exceptions which you made against the second sort ofPopes are naught doutlesse: to say nothing ofthe third.

Rainoldes.

You doo well to say nothing ofthe third sort. But what mislike you in my exceptions to the other?

Hart.

You should aske me rather what I mislike not. For I mislike all that you haue said therein. First, that they auouch not the Popes supremacie. Which who would say, but you? For it is too cléere that Innocentius the first, Leo the first, Gela∣sius, Vigilius, Pelagius, and S. Gregorie, (whom all you com∣prehend in the second sort of Popes,) auouch it as fully and in as ample maner, as any Popes sith them haue doon.

Rainoldes.

It is too cléere they doo not. And that will I proue by the third sort ofPopes, in the same places, that your selfe al∣leaged out ofthe b 11.154 decretals, and c 11.155 extrauagants, and the d 11.156 Councell of Lateran. For Paschal the second, Innocentius the third, Nicolas the third, Boniface the eighth, and Leo the tenth, (the autours ofthe chapters and textes which you quoted,) doo claime much therein, that nether Innocentius the first, nor Leo the first, nor Gelasius, nor Vigilius, nor Pelagius, nor Gre∣gorie,

nor any of that sort claimed.

Hart.

What one point, that toucheth the substance of the Popes supremacie?

Rainoldes.

First, their soueraine power ouer all Princes, that they may depose them: and that themselues are subiect to none, not to the Emperour. For e 11.157 Nicolas the third saith, that the monarchie of both powers (he meaneth ecclesiasticall and ciuill) belongeth in the citie of Rome to the Pope by the do∣nation of Constantine: who thought it vnmete that an earth∣ly Emperour should haue dominion there, where God had set the Prince of Priestes. And f 11.158 Boniface the eighth proclai∣meth himselfe to be set ofGod ouer nations, & kingdomes, to plucke vp, and to roote out, and so forth, euen to iudge the Princes of the earth. Which ordinance of Boniface (re∣newed, and approued by g 11.159 Leo the tenth,) hath béene put in practise accordingly by sundry ofthem. Many kings, and Em∣perours deposed by their sentence (as h 11.160 your owne writers boast) haue felt the proofe thereof: and we haue séene lately their will in our Quéene, and * 11.161 her father of famous memorie, though God hath blessed where they cursed, and held them vp whom they de∣posed. But the second sort of Popes were so farre from clai∣ming this power ouer al Princes, that they claimed it not ouer a∣nie. Neither were they monarches of the ciuil power in Rome, (as I i 11.162 haue proued,) by Constantines donation: but subiect to the Emperour, to whom that soueraintie belonged, as they ac∣knowledged. For k 11.163 Leo the first, when the Emperour Martia∣nus had summoned the general Councel of Chalcedon, and sent out his writs for him and other Bishops (as l 11.164 Emperours vsed) to come thither: although he nether liked the place, nor the time, appointed by the Emperour; yet did he according as hee was commaunded. The obedience of the rest I néede not shew in par∣ticular. The dutiful submission of m 11.165 Gregorie to the Emperour Mauricius, his Lord, as still he calleth him▪ may be a generall token of it. But when the third sort of Popes bore the sway, the state was turned vpside-downe. In so much that whereas the Pope said before, 1 11.166 our most godly Lord the Emperour: now must the Emperour say, yea, and be sworne 2 11.167 to our most holy

Lord the Pope. And whereas the Emperour before did summon Cou••cels, & called the Pope vnto them: now the Pope denieth y^• he may deale therewith; and neither him selfe obeyeth, nor suffe∣reth others to obey him. When n 11.168 Charles the fifth (in the as∣sembly of Spier) had mentioned a general Councel, and a natio∣nal, and order to be taken for matters of religion in the Im∣periall assembly: he was reproued by Paule the third for touch∣ing those things without naming the Pope, to whom the so∣ueraine power (he said) of gathering Councels, & ordering af∣faires of the Church, is giuen. Nay, when o 11.169 the same Charles requested most earnestly that the Councell, called by the Pope to Trent, might be kept there, & not at Bononia, whither the Pope (of policie) had remoued it: the same Paule reiected his earnest re∣quest, and would by no meanes yéelde thereto. So plainely in sight, so greatly in weight, doo the later Popes differ from the for∣mer, in the chiefest point of their supremacie ouer all, and being subiect vnto no man.

Hart.

It may be that the Popes of the second sort would not, of modestie; or could not, for occasions, claime their ful su∣premacie.

Rainoldes.

You should speake more truely and Christianly of them, if you said, they thought it not to be their right. But would not, or could not, your own answere graunteth that they did not claime it. Wherefore sith their supremacie implyeth soue∣raine power ouer kings and Emperours, as it is defined by the last sort of Popes: the second, who were subiect to the ciuill po∣wers, and claimed no such soueraintie, auouched not the Popes supremacie.

Hart.

Yet ouer the spirituall powers they auouched it, that is, ouer Bishops. And that is more then you wil yéelde too.

Rainoldes.

Though lesse then you lay claime too. But ne∣ther ouer Bishops did they auouch that which your last sort of Popes doth, and toucheth their supremacie most. For p 11.170 Pas∣chal requireth Archbishops to be sworne, that they shall be faithful and obedient to him. Yea the same othe of fealtie and obedience q 11.171 Innocentius the third exacteth of the Patriarkes of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem. Where the second sort of Popes, as namely r 11.172 Gregorie, acknowledged the Patriarkes to be his equals, not his subiectes▪ And they were so

farre from offering that violence, and iniury to them, that they required not any such othe, no, not of the meanest Pastor in their diocese.

Hart.

Yes, that they did: as you may sée by Pelagius. Who decréed and ordeined, that if any Metropolitan did not send to Rome within three monethes of his consecrtion to take his othe, and receiue the pall, he should be depriued of his place and dignitie.

Rainoldes.

Pelagius? Where is that decree?

Hart.

In the Canon-law: whence it is alleaged by s 11.173 Fran∣ciscus Vargas, a notable learned man, king Philips counsel∣lour and embassadour to Pope Pius the fourth. He, t 11.174 when the question of the iurisdiction of Bishops and the Popes autori∣tie could not be well agreed on in the Councell of Trent, was called by the Pope to a consultation with the chiefest Cardinals. Where he spake his iudgement of the point so wisely, that it was thought fit his answere should be set in print. Therein, a∣mongst many reasons and autorities for the Popes supremacie, he saith that Pelagius declared it by this decree, in that hee would haue all Metropolitans sworne to him.

Rainoldes.

This decree was made by a Popish Lawier, not by Pope Pelagius. For u 11.175 Pelagius, least that he should rash∣ly giue consent to the allowing of any Metropolitan who were not sound in faith, required them * 11.176 to make profession of their faith, and so to send for the pall, that is to say, for his consent, whereof the pall was a token. A Lawier of Paris, one x 11.177 Re∣mundus Rufus, to frame hereof a stronger weapon for y^e Pope, (in whose defense he wrote,) hath chaunged the wordes [ad expo∣nendam fidem suam,] into these wordes, [dandae fidei causa:] & so by dare fidem, in steed of fidem exponere, he proueth that Pelagius would haue their othes to the Pope, whereas he required pro∣fession of their faith in Christ. Now, Franciscus Vargas, al∣leaging (as I ghesse) this text on Rufus credit, (though he name him not,) did mistake the matter; the rather, through a preiudice conceiued of the later times. For, that Metropolitans should professe Christ, it was a thing required then. But, that y 11.178 they should be sworne to maintaine the Papacy, it is a wéede that grew ••••••e or six hundred yeares after.

Hart.

That they should be sworne to maintaine the Pa∣pacy,

it is though a newer yet a néedfull order: least men should fall away from vnitie and obedience of the Sée of Rome. But thus much yet Pelagius decréed, as you graunt, that they should al make profession of their faith to him, & be allow∣ed by his consent.

Rainoldes.

All, within his diocese: not all, throughout the world.

Hart.

Nay he saith, if any, if any Metropolitan send not vnto the See of Rome, to shew his faith, and receiue the pall: let him be depriued. Behold, he speaketh generally.

Rainoldes.

So the States of England make their actes of Parlament: if any man doo this or that. Which yet they meane not of men in Rome and Turkie; but of all men within the Quéenes dominion.

Hart

But the whole world is the Popes diocese. And that he meant of al Metropolitans therein, it is the more likely, because that all Bishops were then confirmed by the Pope, and it was thought necessarie that they should be so. Whereof there are e∣uident and notable examples, (as D z 11.179 Stapleton sheweth,) in a 11.180 Leo the great, about the election of Anatolius the Patriarke of Constantinople, and b 11.181 Proterius the Patriarke of Alexandria: in c 11.182 Sozomen, and d 11.183 Theodoret, about Nectarius also elected by the whole Councell, and yet to be confirmed by Damasus: in e 11.184 Gregorie the great about the Bishop of Salonae, who was con∣firmed by the Emperours, he being not made priuie to it; a thing that neuer happened vnder any Christian Prince be∣fore, saith Gregorie. Yea Bishops newly chosen were wont to send letters (called synodicall) to the Pope: in which they made profession of the faith they held, and so declared their agreement with the Church of Rome. Such letters f 11.185 Proterius, the Pa∣triarke afore named of Alexandria, sent to Leo; g 11.186 Sophronius, the Patriarke of Ierusalem, to Pope Honorius; h 11.187 Nicepho∣rus, the Patriarke of Constantinople, to Leo the third; and Peter after him, to Leo the ninth.

Rainoldes.

But, as other Patriarkes did send vnto the Popes such letters of conference, whereby they made profes∣sion of their faith to him, and shewed their agreement with the Church of Rome: in like sort the Pope was wont to make profession of his faith to them, and shew his consent in re∣ligion

with their Churches. For i 11.188 Gregorie the great wrote so to Iohn the Patriarke of Constantinople, to Eulogius the Patri∣arke of Alexandria, to Gregorie and Anastasius the Patriarkes of Antioche, to Iohn the Patriarke of Ierusalem: and k 11.189 this he did according to the ancient custome of his predecessours, amongst whom was Leo. Wherefore the preeminence of Leo was no greater in confirming Patriarkes of Constantinople, and Alexandria: then was their preeminence in confirming him. For as he allowed not them for lawfull Bishops, m 11.190 vntill by their letters of conference he knew them to be sound in faith: so n 11.191 neither were they wont to allow of any, of whose faith they were not enformed in the same maner. As for the example in Sozomen & Theodoret, that Nectarius elected by the whole Councell was yet to be confirmed by Damasus: therein your Doctour playeth with Sozomen and Theodoret. For o 11.192 Sozo∣men neither saith it, nor maketh any shew of saying it, not as much as by naming Damasus. p 11.193 Theodoret setteth downe the letters writen by the Councell to Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, and other Bishops of the west: but they disproue that priuilege of the Popes prerogatiue, which Stapleton would proue by them. For he alleageth them to shew that the Pope had * 11.194 at length (at that time) a necessarie consent in the confirming of all Bishops more then other Bishops, yea then him selfe before had. Whereas the letters mention the consent of Am∣brose, Britto, and the rest, no lesse then the consent of Damasus: and they craue their common consent in like sort to the confir∣ming of Nectarius, as in former time q 11.195 all Bishops were con∣firmed (yea, r 11.196 the Pope too) by the consent ech of others, for bet∣ter keeping of the faith, and fostering of loue amongst them. So the rest of your proofes import an equalitie betweene all Bishops at the first, and afterwarde betweene all Patriarkes. The one∣ly example that hath any kinne with the decrée of Pope Pelagi∣us for his superioritie euer Metropolitans, is that out of Gre∣gorie touching the Bishop of Salonae, s 11.197 a Metropolitan citie in the countrie of Dalmatia. For t 11.198 he was accustomed in déede to be confirmed by the consent of the Pope, as of his Archbishop, & u 11.199 to receyue a pall from him. But thereof to conclude that all Metropolitans throughout the whole world were likewise subiect to the Pope; it hath as much reason, as if you should

conclude that the Quéene of England appointeth Lieutenants throughout all Christendome, because she appointeth a Lord De∣putie in Ireland. You are deceiued, M. Hart, if you thinke the Pope was swolne so bigge in the time of Pelagius. His dropsy had made him to drinke vp much, but not all. He was become Archbishop of a Princely diocese, but he was yet but an Archbi∣shop. He was not vniuersal Pope, & Patriarke of y^e whole world.

Hart.

Your speech is absurd, and doth confute it selfe, in séeking to confute the Pope. For if he had but a diocese, how was he an Archbishop? Sith a diocese is y^e charge committed to a Bishop: an Archbishop, hath a prouince. And if he were but an Archbishop how had he Metropolitans vnder him? Whereas a Metropolitan, and an Archbishop, is all one. Beside that, you graunted him to be a Patriarke: for els the other Patriarkes must be his superiours, to whom you made him equall. So while you striue against him, and go about to bring him vnder, to bereue him of the supremacie: you speak as though you were bereft of sense and reason, and knew not what to say of him.

Rainoldes.

In déed, as the names of [Archbishop] and [diocese] are vsed in our dayes, and haue beene of some writers in ancient times also: my spéech may séeme absurd, who say that the Pope was but Archbishop of a diocese, when he was Patriarke as I graunt. But after the language that was then receiued when the second sort of Popes were at the best, I speake the wordes of sense and reason. For Iustinian the Emperour, who (as it is requisite in penning of lawes) is wont to keepe the proper and vsuall spéech of his time, (and * 11.200 his raigne did fall in∣to the time we treate off,) x 11.201 ordeined, that if an Elder or Dea∣con were accused, his Bishop should haue the hearing of the matter; if a Bishop, his Metropolitan; if a Metropolitan, his Archbishop. And y 11.202 againe he prouided for the ecclesiasticall causes of clergie men, that first they should be brought to the Bishop of the citie; from the Bishop of the citie, to the Me∣tropolitan; frō the Metropolitan, to the Synode of the pro∣uince; frō the Synode of the prouince, to the Patriarke of the diocese: and a Patriarke is all one with an Archbishop, z 11.203 in him. Whereby you may perceiue, both that an Archbishop had Metropolitans vnder him: and that a diocese was more then a prouince. In which respect I called it a

Princely diocese, to distinguish it from a Lordly, that you might know I meant a diocese of a larger sise, then as the word is taken for a Bishops circuite. But that you may haue the cléerer light to sée the truth of mine answere, and thereby to perceue how the Pope encroched on Bishops by degrées, vntill of an equal he became a soueraine, first ouer a few, next ouer ma∣ny, at last ouer all: I must fetch the matter of Bishops, Metropo∣litans, and Archbishops somewhat higher, and shew how Chri∣stian cities prouinces, and dioceses, were allotted to them. First therefore, when a 11.204 Elders were ordeined by the Apostles in e∣uery Church, b 11.205 through euery citie, c 11.206 to * 11.207 feede the flocke of Christ, whereof the holy Ghost had made them ouerseers: they, to the intent they might the better doo it by common coun∣sell and consent, did vse to assemble themselues and méete togi∣ther. In the which méetings, for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge: they those one a∣mongst them to be the President of their companie, and modera∣tour of their actions. As in the Church of Ephesus, though it had d 11.208 sundry Elders and Pastours to guide it: yet amongst those sun∣drie was there one chiefe, whom our Sauiour calleth e 11.209 the An∣gel of the Church, and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know. And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the Fathers called Bishop. For as the name of f 11.210 Mi∣nisters, common to all them who serue Christ in * 11.211 the steward∣ship of the mysteries of God, that is, in preaching of the gos∣pell, is now by the custome of our English spéech restrained to Elders who are vnder a Bishop: so the name of g 11.212 Bishop com∣mon to all Elders and Pastours of the Church, was then by the vsuall language of the Fathers appropriated to him who had the Presidentship ouer Elders. Thus are certaine Elders repro∣ued by h 11.213 Cyprian; for receiuing to the communion them who had fallen (in time of persecution,) before the Bishops had ad∣uised of it with them and others. And i 11.214 Cornelius writeth that the Catholike Church committed to his charge had sixe and fortie Elders, and ought to haue but one Bishop. And both of them being Bishops, the one of Rome, the other of Carthage, k 11.215 doo witnesse of them selues that they dealt in matters of their Churches l 11.216 gouernment by the consent and counsell of the companie of Elders, or the Eldership, as

they both (after S. m 11.217 Paule) doo call it.

Hart.

Elders, and Eldership: you meane presbyteros, and presbyterium,* 11.218 that is to say Priestes, and Priesthood. But these new fangled names came in by your English translations of the new testament: which (as * 11.219 our translation doth iustly note them for it) haue changed Priestes into Elders of falshood and corrup∣tion, and that of farther purpose then the simple can sée. Which is, to take away the office of sacrificing, and other functions of Priestes, proper in the new testament to such as the Apostles of∣ten, and the posteritie in maner altogither doo call Priestes, pres∣byteros. Which word doth so certainely imply the authoritie of sacrificing, that it is by vse made also the onely English of sacer∣dos, your selues as well as we so translating it in all the olde and new testament: though you cannot be ignorant that Priest com∣meth of presbyter, and not of sacerdos: and, that antiquitie for no o∣ther cause applied the signification of presbyter to sacerdos, but to shew that presbyter is in the new law, that which sacerdos was in the olde: the Apostles abstaining from this and other like olde names at the first, and rather vsing the wordes Bishops, Pa∣stours, and Priestes, because they might be distinguished from the gouernours and sacrificers of Aarons order, who as yet in the Apostles time did their olde functions still in the temple. And this to be true, and that to be a Priest is to be a man appointed to sacrifice: your selues calling sacerdos alwaies a Priest must néedes be driuen to confesse. Albeit your folly is therein notorious, to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos, and to take it from presbyter, whereof it is deriued properly not onely in English but in other languages,* 11.220 both French, and Italian: which is to take away the name that the Apostles and Fathers gaue to the Priestes of the Church, and to giue it wholy and onely to the or∣der of Aaron.

Rainoldes.

Wholy and onely to the order of Aaron? Nay, then I can abide your Rhemists no longer, if their mouthes do so runne ouer. For we giue it also to the order of Melchisedec, n 11.221 after the which our Sauiour is is a Priest for euer. And they who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the gospell, Elders: are guiltie themselues of he∣resie and blasphemie in that they call them Priestes. For they doo not call them Priestes in respect of the o 11.222 spirituall sacrifices

of p 11.223 prayers and q 11.224 good workes, which Christians of al sortes are bound to offer vnto God, and thence are called r 11.225 Priestes in scripture: but they call them Priestes in respect of the carnall and external sacrifice of the cursed Masse, wherein they pretend that they offer Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father, a sacrifice propiciatorie, that is, of force to pacifie God, and reconcile him vnto men. So, whereas the scripture doth teach that s 11.226 one Priest, by t 11.227 one sacrifice, u 11.228 once offered, that is, our Sauiour Christ, by giuing himself to death vpon the crosse hath reconciled God vnto vs, and sanctified vs for euer: the doc∣trine of Rhemes ordeineth many Priestes, to offer vp often, whe∣ther * 11.229 the same sacrifice that Christ, or an other, they speake staggeringly, but to offer it often. As though there were yet left x 11.230 an offering for sinne after the death of Christ: or his pre∣tious bloud were of no greater value then y 11.231 the blood of buls and goates, z 11.232 which were offered often, because they could not purge sinnes. And this ••bomination they séeke to main∣taine by the name of Priestes, sith Priestes are men (they say) ap∣pointed to sacrifice, and that name was giuen to them by the Apostles. In saying whereof they doo play the Sophisters: and that with greater art then the simple can sée. Which is, in that they vse our English word [Priest] after a dooble sort: the one, as it is deriued from presbyter; the other, as it signifieth the same that sacerdos. For Priest, as it signifieth a man appointed to sacri∣fice, is 1 11.233 sacerdos, and not presbyter. The name which the A∣postles giue a Minister of the gospell, is 2 11.234 presbyter, and not sa∣cerdos. Which difference of wordes, necessarie to be obserued for the distinction of thinges betwéene the Ministers of the old and the new testament, as the Apostles kept it in the tongue in which the new testament is writen, so they who translated the testa∣ment into English were to kéepe it also. Wherefore it was not of falshood and corruption, but of religious zeale of truth, that they called presbyter, an Elder, not a Priest. For sith the custome of our English spéech hath made the name of Priest proper to a man appointed to sacrifice, such as were the 1 11.235 Priests after the order of Aaron in the olde testament, the Priest after the order of Melchisedec in the new: the Ministers of the gospell, ordeined, not (as Christ) to sacrifice to God, but to féede Gods people with his worde and sacraments, must haue an other name 2 11.236 accor∣ding

to the scripture: and our English word, expressing that in scripture, is the name of Elders. But you by confusion of these sundry names doo séeke confusion of the things: and as théeues are wont to change the markes of thinges which they haue stollen; so you, to make the Priesthood of Christ séeme your owne, doo change names, as markes of thinges which they signifie. For in stéede of that which we call [an Elder] you would haue [a Priest,] that your Massing Priestes may be accounted a 11.237 Priestes after the order of Melchisedec, as Christ is a Priest: and so your sacrifice of the Masse be thought the soueraine sacrifice, (as b 11.238 your Maister calleth it,) wherein Christ is offered vnto God his father. In the which conueiance, if you painted it with nought but colours of your owne: the matter were lesse. For, c 11.239 the a∣busing of one name applied vnto sundry thinges was a common shift of sophisters among the heathens. And you are to be borne with, if, hauing no better cause then they had, sometimes you ad∣uenture on the shiftes that they did. But to abuse the credit of the Apostles to this sophistrie, and say that they gaue the name of Priestes to Pastours of the Church of Christ: that is a faulte that cannot be excused. For seeing our language doth meane by [Priests] sacrificers, which in their language are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they neuer gaue the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Pastours of the Christian Church: it foloweth that they gaue them not the name of Priests. Or if you replie, they gaue them that name because they called thē 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence our English name of Priests is deriued: yet you cannot say they called them Priestes, as the name of Priest hath a relation to sacrifice: and therfore that name is no∣thing to the Masse, which you would proue by it. For so the word [Priest] must yet haue two meaninges: the one of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Wherof the one is giuen by the Apostles: but doth not implie autoritie to sacrifice. The other doth imply auto∣ritie to sacrifice: but is not giuen by the Apostles,

Hart.

But sith the name of Priest is properly deriued from the word presbyter,* 11.240 or (as it is in Gréeke) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only in English, but in other languages, both French, and Italian: why did not your translatours kéepe this according to the Gréeke, and deuise an other for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is sacerdos, if they would néedes di∣stinguish them by different names. For it is (as I said) a noto∣rious folly to apply willingly the word Priest to sacerdos, and to

take it from presbyter whereof it is deriued properly.

Rainoldes.

If our translatours had béene Lords of wordes, and might haue forced men to take them in what sense they would: then had you spoken reason. For d 11.241 he, whom others fo∣lowe•• in our English translations, did note that if Antichrist had not deceyued vs with vnknowne and straunge termes, to bring vs into confusion & superstitious blindenesse, a Priest, that is, a sacrificer as Aaron was a Priest and sacrificed for the people, should haue had some other name in English then Priest. Which he spake in respect that the name of Priest, as it came from presbyter, betokening a Minister of the new testa∣ment, should not haue beene giuen to the Ministers of the olde, who differ, as in function, so in name, by scripture. But you, in whose eyes our folly is notorious, for that we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos, and take it from presbyter whereof it is de∣riued properly: what say you (I pray) for your owne translati∣on in the fourth of the Actes, e 11.242 where it is saide of Peter and Iohn the Apostles, that they were men vnlettered and of the vulgar sort.

Hart.

Why? What faute finde you with our translation in that?

Rainoldes.

I finde not any faute; but I would know of you why you call them [men of the vulgar sort,] and not rather [idiotes:] sith in the Gréeke text the worde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Latin idiotae.

Hart.

That were a profane terme for the Apostles, who were indued with heauenly wisedome.

Rainoldes.

It were so in deede. But if the deriuation of wordes must be folowed in translating autours: that terme should haue béene giuen them. For the name of idiot is proper∣ly deriued from the 1 11.243 Gréeke or 2 11.244 Latin, not onely in English but in other languages, both 3 11.245 French and 4 11.246 Italian, and (if that helpe) the 5 11.247 Spanish, 6 11.248 Dutch, and 7 11.249 Syriake too. Yea it cometh neerer in euery one of these to the Latin worde of the olde translation (which you pretend to folow,) then the name of Priest in any of them doth to presbyter.

Hart.

But the worde in English hath not the same meaning that it hath in Latin; and in translating thinges the sense must ••e kept. Nor is it to bee marked so much whence a worde is

properly deriued, as what it doth signifie. Now it doth signify that which vsually men vnderstand by it. For the consent of men taking a worde for this or that, doth make it to signify that for which they take it, as f 11.250 Aristotle sheweth. Who fra∣meth thereupon a rule, g 11.251 that we must call thinges by those names, by which the common people calleth them. Where∣fore sith the name of idiot in English is taken for a foole, or sot, and the Latin idiota where it is vsed in scripture doth signify the vnlearned, such as the vulgar sort of men: we haue translated it the vulgar, and not idiot, according to the meaning not the de∣riuing of it. Neither may you therefore charge vs with va∣rying from the Latin text: which, as we pretend, so we do folow faithfully. For whereas S. * 11.252 Paul saith to the Corinthians, If thou blesse in the spirit, how shall he that supplyeth the place of the vulgar, say Amen vpon thy blessing? in Latin, for the vulgar, it is idiotae. Which word if we should haue transla∣ted, the idiot: we should haue doon iniury to the common sort of rude vnlearned men, whom it doth betoken, as you must néedes acknowledge, who translate it the vnlearned, as wee doo the vulgar.

Rainoldes.

True. But you may sée then how wise your Rhemists are, who charge vs with notorious folly becau••e we giue the name of Priest to sacerdos, and not to presbyter. For as the name of idiot, doth come from idiota, but is taken for a foole: so the name of Priest is deriued from presbyter, but sig∣nifieth a sacrificer by custome of our English speech. Wherefore if your reason doo proue that all Pastors of the Christian Church must be called Priestes, and haue autoritie to sacrifice; because they are presbyter••: it will proue as well that all vnlearned Chri∣stians must be called idiotes, and may be begged for fooles, be∣cause they are idiotae. Which if you dare not say of vnlearned Christians, though in very truth you deale with them as idiotes when you make such reasons to approue your Masse & Massing Priestes vnto them: learne, by discharging your selues in the one, to cléere vs of notorious folly in the other. For sith in translating thinges (as you confesse) the sense must bee kept, and the sense of wordes is that which vsually men vnderstand by them, and by the worde Priest men vnderstand sacerdos, that is to say, a man appointed to sacrifice: it foloweth thereof that

our translatours did their dutie, in giuing the name of Priests to them onely, to whom the Priestly function in scripture doth appropriate it. As for your Rhemists who still doo translate sa∣cerdos a Priest, as graunting that we haue no other English wo••d for it, and yet translate presbyter by the same worde too: they do ioyne together that which God hath seuered; and the wordes, which the holy Gost hath distinguished, they wittingly confound. Wherein they doo lewdly abuse the simple Christi∣ans, who are vnskilful in the tongues, to make them in loue with the whorish sacrifice of the idolatrous Masse; and alienate their mindes from the true religion professed in the Church of En∣gland. For the name of Priest, as it hath relation to sacrifice, is sacerdos: which worde your i 11.253 Trent-fathers doo therefore vse in handling the sacrifice of the Masse. Now because the name of 1 11.254 sacerdos is not giuen to the Ministers of the gospell in the new testament: your Rhemists make 2 11.255 the name, that is giuen them, the same in * 11.256 English with sacerdos. To the intent, that the simple, not seeing the sleight, may conceiue thereby that mini∣sters of the gospell are Priestes ordeined to sacrifice: and so may loth our Ministers, who neither doo sacrifice, nor list to be called Priestes; and may embrace your Priestes, who professe them selues to be Priestes, yea Masse priestes, and are sent to sa∣crifice, as it is shewed in k 11.257 your Apologie of the English Se∣minaries.

Hart.

That learned Apology, which D. Allen wrote in the defense of our Seminaries, doth iustly blame your new pulpits, (the very chaires of the scorneful,) for calling vs by that terme me∣rily or mockingly.* 11.258 For the Church of God knoweth no other Priests, neither hath Christ instituted any other order of Priests, but of these▪ whom contemptuously you doo call Masse-priests.

Rainoldes.

So D. Allen saith. But he proueth neither Priestes nor Masse, by scripture: vnlesse the Masse be the chaire; and the Priestes be the scornefull.

Hart.

Though he alleage not the scripture there to proue them, yet hath he done it other where: as in his Latin treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse, and in our Annotations on the testament in English, wherein his hand was chiefest. * 11.259 For Esay doth specially prophecy of the Priestes of the new testa∣ment (as S. Ierom declareth vpon the same place) in these words:

l 11.260 You shall be called the 1 11.261 Priestes of God, the 2 11.262 Ministers of our God shall it be saide vnto you. And as here the Mini∣sters of God are called Priestes, in that very terme which your selfe confesse hath a relation to sacrifice: so, that they did sacri∣fice, you may perceiue too by the m 11.263 Actes of the Apostles, where it is writen of Prophets and Doctors in the Church at Anti∣oche, that they were ministring to our Lord. For 3 11.264 the Gréeke signifieth that they were sacrificing: and so Erasmus translated. Whereby it is meant that they did say Masse: and the Gréeke Fathers hereof had their name Liturgie, which Era••mus transla∣teth Masse, saying Missa Chrysostomi. Howbeit we translate it, ministring, and not sacrificing, or saying Masse, though wee might: if we would (as you doo) boldly turne what text we list, and flée from one language to another for the aduantage of our cause. But we kéepe our text: as the translatours of the scriptures should doo most religiously.

Rainoldes.

Your n 11.265 text then doth say, that the Prophets & Doctors at Antioche were ministring▪ but you, to proue the Masse, doo reproue your text. For if the Gréeke signifie that they were sacrificing, and your text translated the Gréeke into Latin: how did your text kéepe his text, when he translated it, not sa∣crificing but ministring? Will you say that the autour of your old translation (o 11.266 which onely is approued by your men as au∣thenticall) did not performe that dutie which the translators of the scriptures ought most religiously? You doo so for aduantage. But in this point you doo him iniurie. For though the worde may (by consequent) import to sacrifice, when sacrifice is a ser∣uice pertaining vnto them whose ministerie it betokeneth, as where it is spoken of 4 11.267 Leuites and 5 11.268 Priestes: yet doth it pro∣perly signifie to minister, either in publike function (after p 11.269 the originall thereof) or in any; as magistrates are called 6 11.270 the ministers of God, and Angels are saide to be 7 11.271 ministring spi∣rits, and the Gentiles are willed 8 11.272 to minister vnto the Iewes in relieuing of their necessitie. In so much that the learnedst of your owne translators, Isidorus Clarius, and Arias Montanus, who both haue turned the new testament out of Gréeke in∣to Latin, q 11.273 the one approued by the Deputies of the Trent-councel, r 11.274 the other by the Doctors of Louan, doo both of them translate it in this very place of the Actes of the Apostles

not sacrificing, but ministring; which their affection to the Masse would haue béene loth to doo, vnlesse the truth had forced them to it. How much the more shamefull is the demea∣nour of your Rhemists, who, where they carp vs, as leauing the Greeke for the aduantage of our cause, them selues for the ad∣uantage of their owne cause doo clip the meaning of the Gréeke: against, I say not, the iudgement of s 11.275 Grammarians, euen t 11.276 such as seeke to helpe them most, but against the common vse of it in scripture, against their olde text, against their new translations, yea, against their owne conscience, as that which you alleaged out of the Prophet Esay, (where they haue Eng∣lished it, 2 11.277 the Ministers,) doth shew. And herein their dealing is so much the worse, because they set it out with the name of E∣rasmus; as if he meant by [sacrificing] the saying of Masse: which is farre from him. For although by reason u 11.278 he thought that the word doth properly signifie, not simply to minister, but to minister in holy thinges, as they who serue in the Priest∣hood, therfore he did translate it that the Prophets & Doctours in the Church at Antioche were sacrificing to the Lord: yet he saith x 11.279 that hereby is meant that they imployed their giftes to Gods glo∣ry, and the saluation of the Church, the Prophets in propheci∣ing, the Doctours in teaching the doctrine of the Gospell. So he vnderstandeth nothing els by sacrificing, then others doo by ministring, or rather then the scripture doth: as it is obserued out of the circumstances of the text by y 11.280 the best of your own in∣terpreters. Who séeing that the men were Prophets, and Doc¦tours, which are said to haue béene ministring to the Lord, thereup∣on do gather that they serued him in executing their owne mi∣nisterie, that is to say, the ministerie of prophecying, and teaching. In which sort z 11.281 the Gréeke fathers doo expound it also: 1 11.282 what meaneth the word ministring? (say they,) it meaneth preaching. Wherefore if the name of Liturgie were taken hereof, by the Gréeke fathers, as your Rhemists adde: it is a good hearing, but so much the lesse will it proue your Mas••e. For if they vnderstood preaching, by ministring, when the worde is spoken of Pro∣phets, and Doctours: it is the more likely that when they apply∣ed it to the ministerie of the Pastours, •• seruice of the Church, they meant the publike prayers and other holy functions which we doo call Diuine seruice. As in truth they did. For that which we call euening prayer, they called 2 11.283 the euening Liturgie, as

you would say the seruice doon to God at euening: and in the verie Liturgie, that is called Chrysostomes, because he made some part of it belike, not all, for himselfe a 11.284 therein is prayed too; but in that very Liturgie the word is applied to 3 11.285 the Churches seruice in the same maner as it is to the seruice which 4 11.286 Angels b 11.287 doo to God. And I hope you will not affirme that the Angels doo say Masse in heauen. Wherefore howsoeuer Erasmus did translate it after the phrase of his time, wherein the Churches seruice was commonly called Missa: the ministerie mentioned in the Actes of the Apostles doth not proue that sacrifice of which you would inferre your Priesthood. As for the place of Esay, in which it is writen, you shall be called the Priests of God, the Ministers of our God shal it be said vnto you: the course of the text doth seeme to meane by Priestes all the seruants of God, whom c 11.288 Peter calleth an holy Priesthood, to offer vp spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. For d 11.289 the words are spoken as in Christes person to e 11.290 all the faithfull and repen∣tant, f 11.291 who should be trees of righteousnes, g 11.292 to build vp the Church: and thereupon are promised that h 11.293 their enimies shall serue them, and i 11.294 they shall serue God. But in an other place of Esay, (I graunt,) the name of Priest is giuen to Pastors and Elders: k 11.295 where speaking of the calling and conuersion of the Gentiles, And of them (saith he) will I take for Priests, for Leuites, saith the Lord.

Hart.

S. Ierom doth expound the former place of them also. But all is one to my purpose. For séeing that Pastours and Elders (as you terme them) are called Priests in scripture, and the name of Priest implyeth (you confesse) autoritie to sacrifice: it foloweth that Pastours and Elders are Priestes autorized to sacrifice. Now the Priest that hath autoritie to sacrifice, is he, whom you do call a Masse-priest. Wherefore both Masse and Priests are proued by the scripture.

Rainoldes.

Why? Thinke you that euerie Christian man and woman is a Masse-priest, because the name of l 11.296 Priests is gi∣uen them by scripture in respect of m 11.297 spirituall sacrifices which they must offer vnto God?

Hart.

No. Because the sacrifices that they must offer, are spirituall: and are called sacrifices by a borowed kinde of spéech, and not properly. But the sacrifice which is offered to God in

the Masse, is an external, visible, true, and proper sacrifice, as it is declared by n 11.298 the Councell of Trent. So that the Priestes ordeined to offer this sacrifice are properly called Priestes: wher∣as other Christians are called so improperly, according to the na∣ture of the sacrifices which they offer.

Rainoldes.

Then the name of Priestes alleaged out of Esay doth not proue your Masse-priestes. For he doth call the Mi∣nisters of the gospell Priestes, in respect of the spirituall sacrifi∣ces which they must offer. And that appéereth by o 11.299 the words going next before: in which the Lord declaring (euen by S. Ie∣roms iudgement too) that he would call the Iewes to the same honour, that by the name of Priests is signified: and they (saith he) shall bring the Gentiles for an offering to the Lord, as the children of Israel offer in a cleane vessell in the house of the Lord. So to bring the Gentiles as an offering to the Lord, is that, for which they, who do bring such offerings, are named Priestes and Leuites.p 11.300 But the offering vp of the Gentiles vnto him, is a spirituall sacrifice: made by the Ministers of Christ (as q 11.301 Paule sheweth) when they conuert the Gentiles through the preaching of the gospell. The sacrifice therefore, in respect whereof the Ministers of the gospell are called Priestes by Esay, is a spirituall sacrifice. And as euerie faithfull person is a Priest, because we must offer, each his owne bodie, r 11.302 a liuing sacrifice, holy, acceptable vnto God: so that name is giuen to Ministers of the gospell, because they are called to offer vp the bodies of o∣ther men in like sort. Wherefore if priuate Christians are not Masse-priestes, because their sacrifices are spirituall: then sith the Ministers must offer vp the like sacrifices, it foloweth by your answere that nether they are Masse-priestes.

Hart.

The Ministers of the gospell must offer vp the like sacrifices: I deny it not. And in that respect it is true, that nether they, nor priuate Christians are proued to bee Masse-priestes. But there is an other, an externall sacrifice, that Ministers must offer also: euen that which our Lord in the prophet Mala∣chie doth call s 11.303 a cleane oblation, and saith that in euerie place it is sacrificed and offered to his name, because his name is great among the Gentiles. And that is the sacrifice, in respect whereof the Ministers of the gospell are called Priestes properly, and are indéede Masse-priests. For the cleane oblation is the

sacrifice of the Masse, wherein the body and blood of Christ is offered vp vnto God his father, as t 11.304 the Councell sheweth, an oblation that cannot be defiled by the vnworthines or wic∣kednes of them who offer it.

Rainoldes.

What? And be your Priestes of the tribe of Leui, who offer vp this sacrifice?

Hart.

No syr, nor of the Iewes: but they are Christian Priestes.

Rainoldes.

But they, who must offer the sacrifice that is spo∣ken of in the prophet Malachie, are of the tribe of Leui. For after∣ward u 11.305 entreating of * 11.306 y^e same oblation, or offering (as we cal it,) that shall be offered vnto God in the time of the gospell, he saith that the Lord shall fine the sonnes of Leui, and purifie them as gold, and siluer, that they may offer an offering vnto God in righteousnes. Wherefore if the offering that Malachie doth speake of, be the sacrifice of the Masse, that is, a sacrifice pro∣perly: then the proper Priestes, by whom it is offered, are the Ie∣wish Priests after the order of Aaron, euen the sonnes of Leui. But if the sonnes of Leui betoken (by a figure) the spirituall Le∣uits, that is, all the faithfull, whom Christ in the new testament hath made x 11.307 a royall Priesthood, y 11.308 euen Kings and Priestes to God his father, as your z 11.309 Montanus well expoundeth it: then must the offering (by a figure) signifie the spirituall sacri∣fice, which Christians of all sortes are bound to offer vnto God. And in truth, as a 11.310 Christ said of Iohn Baptist, If you will re∣ceiue it, this is Elias which was to come, meaning, that b 11.311 the Prophet did signifie Iohn Baptist by the name of Elias: so I may say to you touching the spirituall sacrifices of Christians, If you will receiue it, this is the cleane offering which should in euery place be offered to the Lord. For the Prophets, when they spake of the gospell of Christ, and the religious worship of God c 11.312 in spirit and truth, (which Gentiles conuerted by the preaching of the gospell should serue him in, through all the world:) are wont to describe it by figuratiue spéeches drawen from the externall and carnall worship of God in the ceremonies of the law. So they say that d 11.313 there shall be an altar of the Lord in the middes of the land of Egypt; that e 11.314 God will ac∣cept the burnt offrings and sacrifices of straungers vpon his altar; that f 11.315 all the sheeepe of Kedar shall be offe∣fered

on it, and the rammes of Nebaioth; that g 11.316 the Gentiles shall go vp to keepe the feast of tabernacles from yeare to yeare h 11.317 vnto Ierusalem, and i 11.318 euery pot in Ierusalem and Iuda shall be holy to the Lord of hostes, and all they who sa∣crifice shall come & take of them and seeth therein; finally, that k 11.319 the offering of Iuda and Ierusalem shalbe sweete vnto the Lord, as in the dayes of old and in the yeares afore. Wherefore, as the Prophets doo mention an offering which the Christian Church shall offer vnto God in the time of the go∣spell: so doo they mention burnt offeringes, and sacrifices, the sheepe of Kedar, the rammes of Nebaioth, to bee offered on an altar; they mention Ierusalem to bee gone vnto, the feast of tabernacles to be kept, the flesh of beastes sacrificed to be sodde in pottes, the Leuites to be the Ministers who shall make the offering in righteousnesse to God. But neither doth l 11.320 the Priesthood of the Leuites continue, neither is m 11.321 Ierusalem the place to worship God, neither are n 11.322 the Iewish feastes the times to doo it, nor will he be serued o 11.323 with sacrifice, and offe∣ring, if they be taken properly. The Prophets therefore meant by an allegorie (as we terme it) to shew that all Christians should, as Priests, and Leuites; offer vp them selues, and theirs, as sacrifices; at all times, as solemne feastes; in all places, as in Ierusalem. And so the cleane offering, whereof the Prophet Malachie saith it shalbe offered in euery place vnto the Lord, doth signifie not a sacrifice to be made vpon an altar, as your p 11.324 Councell would haue it, but the spirituall sacrifice which S. q 11.325 Paul exhorteth the faithfull to offer, when he willeth men to pray in euery place, lifting vp pure handes without wrath & douting.

Hart.

The Prophetes speake much in déed of thinges to come not properly, and simply, but figuratiuely, by obscure spée∣ches, and allegories, and parables, that must be vnderstood other∣wise then they are writen as r 11.326 Tertullian noteth. But the name of altar is vsed properly for a materiall altar by the Apostle to the Hebrewes, saying, s 11.327 we haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle. For he putteth them in minde by these wordes, that in folowing too much their olde Iewish rites they depriued themselues of an other maner & a more excellent sacrifice and meate: meaning, of the holy altar, and Christes owne blessed body offered and eaten there. Of

which they that continue in the figures of the old law could not be partakers. This altar (saith t 11.328 Isychius) is the altar of Christes body, which the Iewes for their incredulitie must not behold. And the 1 11.329 Gréeke worde (as also the 2 11.330 Hebrew answering thereunto in the old testament) signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar. Wherefore séeing that we haue a very altar in the proper sense, and the name of altar doth import a sacrifice that is offered on it: it foloweth that the body of Christ vpon the altar is a very sa∣crifice in the proper sense. And that out of doubt is the cleane offering which the Prophet speaketh of: according as the Coun∣cell of Trent hath defined.

Rainoldes.

And are you out of doubt that by the wordes, we haue an altar, the Apostle meaneth a materiall altar, such as your altars u 11.331 made of stone.

Hart.

What els? a very altar.

Rainoldes.

And they who haue not power to eate of this altar are the stubberne Iewes, who keepe the ceremonies of the law.

Hart.

The Iewes, and such prophane men.

Rainoldes.

Then your Masse-priestes may and doo vse to ••ate of this altar.

Hart.

They doo. And what then?

Rainoldes.

Their téeth be good and strong, if they eate of an altar that is made of stone. Are ye sure that they eate of it?

Hart.

Eate of an altar? As though ye knew not, that, by the altar, the sacrifice which is offered vpon the altar is signifyed. They eate of Christes body, which thereby is meant.

Rainoldes.

Is it so? Then the worde [altar] is not ta∣ken for a very altar in the proper sense, but figuratiuely for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed and offered. Neither is it taken for the body of Christ, in that respect that Christ is of∣fered in the sacrament, in the which sort he is * 11.332 mystically offe∣red as often as the faithfull doo eate of that bread, and drinke of that cuppe, wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood is represented to them: but in that respect that Christ was offered on the crosse, in the which sort he was truly offered not of∣ten, but x 11.333 once, to take away the sinnes of many, and y 11.334 to sanctifie them z 11.335 for euer who beleeue in him.

Hart.

Nay, the auncient Father Isychius expoundeth it of the bodie of Christ in the sacrament, (as I shewed) which the Iewes must not behold. They might behold his body vpon the crosse, and did so.

Rainoldes.

But the holy Apostle him selfe doth vnderstand it of the bodie of Christ as it was offered on the crosse. And that is manifest by the wordes he addeth to shew his meaning tou∣ching the Iewes and the altar. a 11.336 For (saith he) the bodies of those beastes, whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high Priest for sinne, are burnt without the campe. Therefore euen Iesus, that he might sanctify the people with his owne blood, suffered without the gate. Which wordes are somewhat darke, but they will be plaine, if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would proue, and the reason by which he proueth it. The thing that he would proue, is, that the Iewes can not be partakers of the fruite of Christes death and the re∣demption which he purchased with his pretious blood, if they still retaine the ceremoniall worship of the law of Moses. The reason by which he proueth it, is an ordinance of God in a kinde of sacrifices appointed by the law to be offered for sinne, which sacrifices shadowed Christ, and taught this doctrine. For where∣as b 11.337 the Priestes who serued the tabernacle in the ceremonies of the law, had a part of other sacrifices and offeringes and did eate of them: c 11.338 there were certaine beastes commanded to bee offered for sinne in special sort, and their blood to be brought into the holy place, d 11.339 whose bodies might not be eaten, but must be burnt without the campe. Now, by these sacrifices of∣fered so for sinne, our onely soueraine sacrifice Iesus Christ was figured: who e 11.340 entred by his blood into the holy place, f 11.341 to clense vs from all sinne; and g 11.342 his body was crucified without the gate, that is, the gate of the citie of Ierusalem; and they who keepe the Priestly rites of Moses law, can not h 11.343 eate of him, that by his death they may liue: for none shall liue by him who séeke to be saued by the law, as it is writen, i 11.344 if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. The Apostle therefore exhorting the Hebrewes k 11.345 to stablish their hartes with grace, that teacheth them to serue the Lorde in spirit and truth after the doctrine of the gospell, not with meates, that is to say, with the ceremonies of the law, a part whereof was the

difference betweene vncleane and cleane in meates: doth moue them to it with this reason, that l 11.346 if they serue the tabernacle, and sticke vnto the rites of the Iewish Priesthood, their soules shall haue no part of the foode of our sacrifice, no fruit of Christs death. For, m 11.347 as the bodies of those beastes which were of∣fered for sinne, and their blood brought into the holy place by the hye Priest, might not be eaten by the Priestes, but were burnt without the campe: n 11.348 so neither may the keepers of the Priestly ceremonies haue life by feeding vpon Christ, who (to shew this mystery) did suffer death without the gate, when he shed his blood to clense the people from their sinne. And thus it appeereth by the text it selfe that the name of altar betokeneth the sacrifice, that is to say, Christ crucified: not as his death is shewed foorth in the sacrament, but as he did suffer death with∣out the gate. Whereby you may perceiue, first, the folly of your Rhemists about the Greeke worde, (as also the Hebrew) that it signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on: as though it might not therefore be vsed figuratiuely; where yet them selues must needes acknowledge it to be so too. Next, the weakenes of your reason, who thereof doo gather, that, by the sacrifice, which that worde importeth in the Apostle, is meant the cleane offering of which the Prophet speaketh. For, the cleane offe∣ring, of which the Prophet speaketh, is offered o 11.349 in euery place: the sacrifice meant by the Apostle, in one place onely, p 11.350 with∣out the gate. Wherefore the name of altar in the epistle to the Hebrewes doth neither signifie a Massing-altar, nor proue the sacrifice of Massing-priests.

Hart.

That which you touch, as foolishly noted by our q 11.351 Rhe∣mists, about the Greeke and Hebrew worde, is noted very truly. For you can not deny your selfe, but that it signifieth properly an altar, a materiall altar to sacrifice vpon, and not a metaphorical and spirituall altar. Whereby as they conclude that we haue not a common table, or prophane communion boord to eate meere bread vpon, but a very altar in the pro∣per sense to sacrifice Christs body vpon: so for proofe hereof they adde, that, in respect of the saide bodie sacrificed, it is al∣so called an altar of the Fathers, euen of r 11.352 Gregorie Nazian∣zene, s 11.353 Chrysostome, t 11.354 Socrates, u 11.355 Augustine, and x 11.356 Theo∣phylact. And when it is called a table, it is in respect of the

heauenly foode of Christes body and blood receiued.

Rainoldes.

The note of your Rhemists, about the Greeke & Hebrew word, is true (I graunt,) yet foolish too: though true in the thing, yet foolish in the drift. For to the intent that where the Apostle saith, we haue an altar, it may be thought hee meant not that word spiritually, or in a figuratiue sense, as we expound it of Christ, but materially of a very altar such as is vsed in their Masses: they say that the 1 11.357 Greeke word (as also the 2 11.358 Hebrew answering thereunto in the olde testament) signifieth pro∣perly an altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar. Which spéech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it: I will make you sée by an example of their owne. Our Sauiour in the gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is y 11.359 the true bread, z 11.360 which giueth life vnto the world; a 11.361 the bread which came down from heauen, that who∣soeuer eateth of it should not die: b 11.362 if any man eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer. Your c 11.363 Rhemists doo note hereon, that the person of Christ incarnate is meant vnder the meta∣phore of bread, and our beleefe in him is signified by eating. Wherein they say well. But if a man should tell them that the 1 11.364 Greeke word (as also the 2 11.365 Hebrew answering there∣vnto in the old testament) doth properly signifie bread which we eate bodily, and not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread: were not this as true a speech as their owne? Yet how wise to the purpose, who is so blinde that séeth not? Yea, to go no far∣ther then the very word, whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they séeke aduantage: them selues, vpon that place of d 11.366 Iohn that he saw vnder the altar the soules of them who were kil∣led for the word of God, doo affirme expressely that Christ is this altar. Christe (say they) as man, no dout is this altar. They meane it (I hope) in a metaphoricall, or other figuratiue spéech. For they will not make him by transsubstantiation to be an altar properly. Yet here it is as true that the 1 11.367 Greeke word (as also the 2 11.368 Hebrewe answering thereunto in the olde testament) signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphoricall or spirituall altar. And if it were as much for the aduantage of their cause to proue that Masse is said in hea∣uen, as that in earth; and, that Christ is properly bread without a figure, as that bread is properly Christ in the sacrament: the

text of the scripture where Christ is called bread, yea the true bread, would proue the one cléerely, as they could fit it with this note; and the word altar, would put the other out of controuersie, chiefely if that were noted withall, that e 11.369 an Angell stood be∣fore the altar hauing a golden censer, though f 11.370 others there al∣so affirme the altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhe∣mists, as it is wont with g 11.371 false prophets: 1 11.372 one buildeth vp a muddy wall, and 2 11.373 others daube it ouer with a rotten plai∣ster, and when a storme cometh, the wall falleth and plaister with it. For though, as they lay it on, it séemeth hansom, that wordes signifie properly the naturall things which they are vsed to signifie, and not metaphoric••ll or spirituall things: yet if it be opened that hereby is meant that wordes may not be vsed (by metaphores, or other figures) to signifie those thinges which pro∣perly they doo not signifie, the boyes in grammer schooles, who know what a metaphore is, will laugh at it. Wherefore this plaister will not helpe the weakenes of your muddy wall, I meane of the conclusion which you would proue by it and doo in∣ferre vpon it, that we haue an altar in the proper sense to sa∣crifice Christes body vpon. In the daubing vp whereof yet your plaisterers do shew a péece of greater art: partly, by drawing vs into hatred who haue not Popish altars, but communion ta∣bles; partly, by winding the names of Fathers in, as if they made for you against vs. Both, with skill and cunning: but more of sophistrie, then diuinitie. For that which the scripture doth call h 11.374 the Lords table, because it is ordeined for i 11.375 the Lords supper in the administration of the blessed sacrament of his bodie and blood: k 11.376 the Fathers also call it a table in respect of the heauenly banket that is serued vpon it. And this in proper sense. Marry, by a figure of speech, by which the names of thinges that are like one an other in some qualitie, are giuen one vnto an other, as l 11.377 Christ is called Dauid; m 11.378 Iohn Bap∣tist, Elias; n 11.379 the citie of Rome, Babylon; o 11.380 the Church of God, Ierusalem: the Fathers for resemblance of the Ministers and sacraments in the new testament to them in the olde, are wont to giue the name, as ofp 11.381 Priestes, and Leuites, to Pastours, and Deacons; so of a sacrifice, to the Lords supper; and of an altar, to the Lords table. For these thinges are lynked by nature in relation, and mutuall dependence (as I may say)

one of an other: 1 11.382 the altar, 2 11.383 the sacrifice, and 3 11.384 the sacrificers who serue the altar, that is, Priestes and Leuites. Wherefore if the Fathers meant a very altar in the proper sense to sacri∣fice Christes bodie vpon: then must they meane also q 11.385 the Le∣uitical Priesthood to serue in sacrificing of it. But r 11.386 the Le∣uiticall Priesthood is gone, and they knew it: nether did they call the ministerie of the Gospell so, but by a figure. Your Rhe∣mists therefore doo abuse them, in prouing, as by them, that the communion table is called an altar properly. But vs of the other side they doo abuse more, by setting an altar against a com∣mon table in such sort of spéech, as if we, whose Churches haue not a very altar to kill our Sauiour Christ and sacrifice him vp∣on it, had but a common table and profane communion boord to eate meere bread vpon. A feate to make vs odious in the eyes of men, whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your priuie sclander doth vs open iniurie. For we haue not a common, but a holy table, as both s 11.387 we call it, and estéeme it; not a profane communion boorde, but a sanctified; to eate, not meere bread, but the Lords supper; wherein we receiue the bread of thankes-giuing and the cuppe of blessing, as t 11.388 the Apostles doctrine and practise of u 11.389 the Fathers teach vs. Your selues are guiltie rather of fée∣ding men with meere bread, x 11.390 who do take away the cuppe of the new testament in the blood of Christ from the Christian peo∣ple; and in stéede of the blessed bread of the sacrament do giue in your Masses meere bread in déede by your owne confession, y 11.391 the common bread that goeth vnder the name of * 11.392 holy-bread. I would to God, M. Hart, you would thinke with your selfe, e∣uen in your bed, (as z 11.393 the Prophet speaketh,) and consider more déepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the holy sacrament of the Lords supper is profaned in your vnholy sacrifice of the Masse; and the treacherous meanes whereby your Maister and Felowes of the College of Rhemes doo séeke to maintaine it. Who being not able to proue it by the scriptures either of the al∣tar, or of the cleane offering, the principall places whereon their shew standeth: they go about to bréede a good opinion of it in the heartes of the simple, partly, by discrediting vs with false re∣proches; partly, by abusing the credit of the Fathers. Which two kinds of proofe do beare the greatest sway through all your Rhe∣mish

Annotations.

Hart.

We do not abuse the credit of the Fathers to per∣swade an errour: but as we endeuour to folow them in truth, so alleage we them to proue the truth by them. And howsoeuer you auoide the place of S. Paule, where it is said, we haue an al∣tar: the prophecie of Malachie, that in euery place there is sacri∣ficed and offered a cleane offering to God, must néedes belong to the verie and outward sacrifice of the Masse, not to spirituall sacrifices. Which because that reuerend man, D▪ Allen, whose treatise of the Masse is such a moate in your eye, a 11.394 doth proue by sixe reasons, 1 11.395 the pith whereof he greatly praiseth: I will bring them forth in his owne wordes, that you may yéelde the rather to them. First therefore, the word to sacrifice and to offer, being vsed by it selfe 2 11.396 without a terme abridging it, is ta∣ken in the scripture alwaies properly for the act of outward sa∣crifice. But when it is said, the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of crying, the sacrifice of contrition, and the like: it is percei∣ued easily by the wordes annexed that they be taken improper∣ly. Secondly, this sacrifice, of the which the Prophet speaketh, is one: but spirituall sacrifices there are so many as there are good workes of Christian religion. Thirdly, this is the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the new law, and the Gentiles, not of the Iewes. But spirituall sacrifices of praiers and workes are common to the Iewes with vs. Fourthly, this that Malachie meaneth doth succéede the sacrifices of the Iewes, and is offered in their stéede: but praier, fasting, and the workes of charitie doo not succéede any, but are ioined and coopled to euerie kinde of sa∣crifices. Fifthly, our workes (chiefely in the iudgement of here∣tikes) are defiled, howsoeuer they séeme beautifull: but this Pro∣phetical offering is 3 11.397 cleane of it selfe, and so cleane of it selfe in comparison of the olde sacrifices, that it cannot be polluted anie way by vs or by the woorst Priests. For here, in our testament, they cannot choose all the best to them selues, and offer to the Lord for sacrifice the féeble, the lame, and the sicke, as before in the old: because there is now one sacrifice so appointed, that it cannot be chaunged; so cleane, that no worke of ours can distaine it. Finally, the Fathers, and all that euer haue expounded this place of purpose catholikely, haue expounded it of the sacrifice of the Masse: yea then, when they speake of the sacrifice of praier, yea or

of spirituall sacrifice. Wherein the heretikes deceiue and are de∣ceiued. For the Fathers call our sacrifice some times an offe∣ring of prayer, and a spirituall sacrifice, because it is made with blessing and with prayer mysticall: because 4 11.398 the vic∣time that is here, hath not a grosse, carnall, and bloody con∣secration or sacrification, as had the victimes of the Iewes. Sée Tertullian in the third booke against Marcion, in the end; Iustin, in Trypho; Irenaeus, in the fourth booke, the two and thir∣tieth chapter; Ierom, on the eighth of Zacharie; Austin, in the first booke against the aduersarie of the law, and the eightenth chap∣ter; albeit in the second booke against the letters of Petilian he doth expound it of the sacrifice of prayse: Cyprian also, in the first booke the sixtenth chapter against the Iewes; Cyrill, in the booke of worshipping in spirit and truth; Eusebius, in the first booke of pre∣paration of the gospell; Damascen, in the fourth booke of the Ca∣tholike faith, and the fourtenth chapter; Theodoret, vpon the first chapter of Malachie. Thus farre D. Allen. By whom you may perceiue, that we bring the right opinion of the Fa∣thers, with many other reasons out of the circumstances of the text it selfe, to proue that the cleane offering in the Prophet Malachie doth signifie the sacrifice of the blessed Masse.

Rainoldes.

Nay, I may perceiue that D. Allen bringeth the names of the Fathers, though Damascen a childe in respect of the rest, farre in yeares beneth them, & farther in iudgement; but their names he bringeth, he bringeth not their right opiniō. For if their opiniō be searched & examined, it maketh nothing for him. And therfore he doth onely name them & quote them. Which point of his wisdome your Rhemists folow much. Many other reasons he bringeth, I graunt, besides the names of Fathers: but it had béene better for him not to bring them. For Tertulli∣an, Iustin, Irenaeus, Ierom, Austin, Cyprian, Cyrill, Eusebius, Damascen, and Theodoret, would make a faire shew with their names alone, if the other reasons and they were set a sun∣der. Now, being matched in a band together, and agréeing no better then b 11.399 Ephraim with Manasses, and Manasses with Ephraim, who did eate vp one another, they marre the matter with their discorde. That, as the Emperour Adrian saide, c 11.400 when he was dying, The multitude of physicians hath cast a∣way the Emperour: so may you complaine, the multitude of

reasons hath cast away the proofe, which your Masse did hope to procure by Malachie.

Hart.

Not so. But their multitude helpeth one an other. For many thinges, which singled by them selues are weake, are strong if they be ioyned: and d 11.401 a three fold coard is not easily broken.

Rainoldes.

This is a roape of sande rather, then a coard: it will not hang together. For whereas D. Allen doth thus alleage e 11.402 Malachie after your f 11.403 olde translation, in euery place there is sacrificed and offered a cleane offering to my name, saith the Lord of hostes: the Hebrew text, and after the Hebrew the Gréeke of the seuentie interpreters (which the Fathers folow) doo set it downe thus; in euery place there is g 11.404 incense offered to my name, and a cleane offering. Now the worde [incense] is vsed in the scripture simply for prayers, in the fifth chapter of the Reuelation: where h 11.405 the golden vials of the foure and twentie Elders are full of * 11.406 odours, or incenses (to keepe the worde,) which are the prayers of the Saintes. And so doo i 11.407 the Fathers expound the same in Malachie. Wherefore the first reason which you rehersed of D. Allens, that the worde [to sa∣crifice] being vsed by it selfe without a terme abridging it, is taken in the scripture alwayes properly for the act of out∣ward sacrifice, is false, both in it selfe, and by the iudgement of the Fathers. For that worde of his, is incense in the Fathers according to the scripture. But incense in the scripture is taken for prayers figuratiuely. By the iudgement therefore and expo∣sition of the Fathers, that worde doth not inferre the sacrifice of the Masse, but our spirituall sacrifices.

Hart.

In déede S. Iohn expoundeth in the Apocalypse those odours to be the prayers of the Saintes. But thereby it is plain (as k 11.408 we note vpon it) that the Saintes in heauen offer vp y^e pray∣ers of faithfull and holy persons in earth (called here Saintes, and in the scripture often) vnto Christ. And among so many diuine and vnserchable mysteries set down without exposition, it pleased God yet, that the Apostle him selfe should open this one point vnto vs, that these odours be * 11.409 the laudes and prayers of the faithfull, ascending and offered vp to God as incense, by the Saintes in heauen. That so you may haue no excuse of your errour, that the Saintes haue no knowledge of our affaires

or desires.

Rainoldes.

You are too too flitting on euery occasion from the present point in question to others. And yet, if we should en∣ter into that controuersie about the worship of Saintes: that ho∣nour which you giue them would finde no succour here. For nei∣ther doth it follow that we must pray to them though they did offer vp our prayers; neither is it certaine, that the Saintes in heauen onely are represented in the foure and twentie Elders; neither, if they be, can you proue that the prayers of Saintes, which they offer, are other mens prayers, they may bee their owne. And for my part I doo rather thinke that the foure and twentie Elders represent all the Saintes and faithfull both in heauen and earth, who offer vp their owne prayers as incense to God. For after that S. Iohn had saide that l 11.410 the odours are the prayers of the Saintes: he addeth, that m 11.411 they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthie to take the booke, and to open the seales thereof, because thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God by thy blood out of euery kinred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made vs Kinges and Priests vn∣to our God, and we shall raigne vpon the earth. By the which wordes it seemeth that he openeth what the prayers are which they offer to Christ. And sith they, who offer them, doo say of them selues that Christ hath made them Kinges and Priests, which S. Iohn n 11.412 before affirmeth of the Saintes on earth: it may be that they also, and not the Saintes in heauen onely, are re∣presented by the foure and twentie Elders.

Hart.

Nay: o 11.413 the foure and twentie Elders are described with golden crownes vpon their heads. And the crowne is giuen to Saintes in heauen, as it is writen: p 11.414 Be thou faith∣full vntill death, and I will giue thee the crowne of life.

Rainoldes.

The rewarde of life, giuen to the Saintes in heauen q 11.415 when they haue striued as they ought to doo, and gotten the victory, is called * 11.416 a crowne, or (as we speake) a gar∣land, by allusion to a custome that was among the Grecians. For such as got the masterie in their games of wrastling, or run∣ning, or the like, were r 11.417 crowned with a garland in token of victorie. Whereupon the scripture (by a figure of spéech) doth call life eternall, wherewith God rewardeth the conquerours, the crowne of life: s 11.418 not a corruptible crowne, as those of the

Grecians were, but incorruptible, * 11.419 a crowne that can not wither, euen a crowne of glory. And as the crowne is taken in this sense for a garland, to signify the blisse of endlesse life and ioy: it is giuen onely to the Saintes in heauen, who u 11.420 rest from their labours. But the foure and twentie Elders had golden crownes set vpon their heads; and x 11.421 a crowne of gold be∣tokeneth a kingdome. Wherefore sith the Saintes on earth are kinges also, and not the Saintes in heauen onely: the foure & twentie Elders may signifie them both. As it is both their du∣ties y 11.422 to cast their crownes before the throne, and say to him who sitteth on it, Thou art worthie O Lord to receiue glory, and honour, and power: for thou hast created all thinges, and for thy willes sake they are, and were created.

Hart.

But they are saide also to be z 11.423 clothed in white rai∣ment. And the white raiment is vsed to betoken the bright∣nesse of glory, wherewith the Saintes in heauen are clad. For a 11.424 Christ doth pronounce of the godly in Sardis, that they shall walke with him in white: and when vpon the mountaine b 11.425 his clothes were white glistering, it was a token of his glory.

Rainoldes.

But as white raiment doth betoken glory, so doth it grace too. For c 11.426 our Sauiour aduiseth the Church of the Laodiceans to buye of him white raiment, that she may bee clothed, and that her filthie nakednesse doo not appeere. And d 11.427 the scripture sheweth touching the faithful of al tongues, and peoples, and kinreds, and nations, that they had washed their robes and made their robes white in the blood of the Lambe. Wherefore sith no more is saide of the Elders but that they were in white raiment: it may as wel agrée to the Saintes on earth, who are in white of grace; as to the Saintes in heauen, who are in white of glory.

Hart.

But e 11.428 they were sitting on foure and twentie seates about the throne of God: and f 11.429 the throne is saide to haue béene set in heauen. Wherefore it can not be that the Saintes on earth should be meant thereby.

Rainoldes.

Why? Was not S. Paul on earth when he said g 11.430 our * 11.431 conuersation is in heauen? Or, doth he not meane the same of all the faithfull, who liue after the lawes of the heauenly citie, that is, the Church of God, and are not earthly minded? Doth not S. Iohn him selfe in the Reuelation say that h 11.432 a great

wonder appeered in heauen: a woman clothed with the sunne, and the moone was vnder her feete, and vpon her head a crowne of twelue starres, and she was with childe, and cryed trauailing in birth, and was pained readie to be deliuered? And is not the Church on earth hereby meant, clad as it were with Christ, who is i 11.433 the sunne of righte∣ousnes; treading downe k 11.434 things worldly, which change as the moone; adorned with the doctrine of the Apostles, as of l 11.435 starres; and bringing forth the faithfull, m 11.436 as children, vnto God? Doth not he say farther that n 11.437 there was a battel in heauen: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, but they preuailed not, nether was their place found any more in heauen? And is not this also meant of the militant Church: in which o 11.438 the Prince of the faith∣full, * 11.439 Michael, that is Christ, with his p 11.440 angels and q 11.441 ser∣uants, doth fight against the dragon, that is, r 11.442 the deuil, with his angels, euen all his powers and ministers, and doth preuaile against them? Then if the Church militant on earth be repre∣sented both in this battel and in that woman, as s 11.443 your selues confesse, and yet S. Iohn describeth the one to haue appeered, the other to be doon in heauen: the foure & twentie Elders might haue their seates in heauen by S. Iohns vision, and notwithstan∣ding signifie the faithfull on the earth also. Which yet I say not, as defining it to be so; for I had rather learne then teach the Re∣uelation, wherein I doo acknowledge there are many mysteries that God hath not reuealed to me: but onely to shew that you haue no ground in the holy scripture why you should restraine it to the Saintes in heauen. And if I could satisfie my selfe with such aduantage to plucke downe your fansies, as you content your selues with to set them vp: I might as well restraine it to the Saintes on earth, sith the Elders say, t 11.444 we shall raigne vpon the earth; perhaps, as Christ said, that u 11.445 the meeke are bles∣sed, for they shal inherite the earth. But you and your Rhe∣mists should haue doon well (before you medled with the scrip∣tures) to learne S. Austins lesson giuen to the Donatists: who when they alleaged as fit a place of scripture out of x 11.446 the song of Salomon to proue that the Church was in Afrike alone, as you to proue that Saintes in heauen know our desires, out of the Reuelation: S. y 11.447 Austin telleth them that he were very im∣pudent

who would expound an allegorie or darke speech of scripture for his owne aduantage, vnlesse he haue also plaine and manifest testimonies, by the light whereof the darke may be made euident. Which point in this place doth touch you the néerer, because, though it be graunted that the Elders signify the Saintes in heauen alone: yet z 11.448 the praiers, which are spo∣ken off, may be their owne praiers, to shew that a 11.449 they serue God, as it is shewed after that b 11.450 the Angels doo, and c 11.451 all the creatures in heauen, and on the earth, and in the sea, and vn∣der the earth, and d 11.452 the foure beasts, and finally them selues againe. For, there are manifest testimonies of scripture that all the Saintes offer vp their owne praiers, in which respect they all are Priests. But no manifest testimonie, that their praiers are offered in heauen vnto God by anie other person then e 11.453 by Christ Iesus, f 11.454 the hye Priest of our profession, g 11.455 the Angell of the couenant, h 11.456 the onely mediator betweene God and man. And this doth séeme to be that Angel, that other Angell, of whom it is writen in the Reuelation, i 11.457 An other Angell came and stoode before the altar hauing a golden censer, and there was much odours giuen vnto him that he should put them into the prayers of all the Saintes on the golden altar which is before the throne: and the smoke of the odours, which were put into the prayers of the Saintes, went vp be∣fore God out of the Angels hand. For although the Angels be k 11.458 ministring spirites, sent forth to minister for the Saints on earth, who shall inherite saluation, and therefore as l 11.459 they serue to certifie them that their prayers are come vp before God, so they might rather offer their prayers to God, then the Saintes in heauen, who haue no such ministery to serue the Saintes on earth: yet because this Angell standing with a cen∣ser at the altar of incense to burne perfume before God, is set forth as dooing that duetie, m 11.460 which the hie Priest did figure in the law; and n 11.461 our hye Priest is, no created Angel, but he * 11.462 by whom the Angels were created, euen Christ; it foloweth that Christ is meant by the Angell. To whom this name is giuen oftentimes in o 11.463 scripture, because he is an Angel, that is to say, a messenger, sent by God his father to open his will vnto his ser∣uants, and worke their saluation by his couenant. And it may be, that, as God the father p 11.464 hauing said of him, Behold I send an

Angell, q 11.465 doth adde, my name is in him, to shew that he is * 11.466 God: so, to distinguish him from the created Angels, who are of∣ten mentioned in the Reuelation, S. Iohn doth cal him an other Angell, as differing from the rest, not onely in number, but also in nature, autoritie, and dignitie. For those things which are writen of the Angell, who r 11.467 had the seale of the liuing God; who s 11.468 casting fier into the earth the Angels blew their trum∣pets, and powred out the plagues of God: who t 11.469 comming downe from heauen, clothed with a clowde, and the raine∣bow vpon his head, and his face was as the sunne, & his feete as pillers of fier, had in his hand a little booke, & set his right foote on the sea, and his left foote on the lande; which are namely written of an other Angell, an other mightie Angel, as he is also called: doo (if the circumstances of the text be weigh∣ed) best agrée to Christ. But whether it be so, or no: it is cer∣taine that Christ is the Angell who putteth odours of most sweete perfume into the prayers of all the Saintes, as our hye Priest, and offreth them to God his father, to whom u 11.470 he maketh alwayes intercession for vs, and is not onely for our prayers but for our selues also x 11.471 an odour of a sweete smelling sauour before him. Wherefore sith the scripture manifestly sheweth that our Sauiour Christ offreth the prayers of all the Saintes, and not that the Saintes in heauen offer the prayers of the Saintes on earth: you might haue bene contented to leaue this honour vnto Christ, and haue suffred me to go forward with your reasons about the offering in Malachie. For you see how we are fallen from the Pope to Priests, from Priests to the Masse, from Masse to the Saintes. And if I should folow the same veyne on that which you haue saide of Saintes, and touch your abuse, who confessing that the scriptures giue that name to faithfull and holy persons in earth, yet (to maintaine your solemne in∣uocation of dead men) do make it proper, not to Saintes in heauen, but to them whom it shall please y 11.472 the Pope to z 11.473 ca∣nonize, or 1 11.474 deifie, (as 2 11.475 the Master of his sacred ceremonies termeth it,) wherin notwithstanding a 11.476 your Doctors also teache that the Pope may erre, and canonize a wicked person for a Saint, so that it may be (euen by your owne doctrine) that in your Church-seruice you worship them, as Saints, whose spirits are in hell with the deuill and his Angels: I say, if I should flit

thus from point to point on euery occasion that your speech doth offer, we should confound our conference, and neuer make an end of the point in question. Wherefore let other questions I pray be reserued to their due place touchinge the faith of the Church. And now, to finish this touching the head of the Church, let vs go forward with your Masse-priestes, that so we may returne to the Popes supremacy. Of the sixe reasons ther∣fore which you alleaged out of D. Allen, to proue, that the cleane offring which Malachie doth write of is the sacrifice of the Masse, and not spirituall sacrifices: the first is conuinced clearely to be false, and that by the consent of all the same Fathers whom he would proue it by. For b 11.477 the word, which noteth an outward sacrifice with him, with all them is c 11.478 incense of sweete per∣fumes and odours. But incense in the scripture is taken for the praiers of the Saintes as you grant. The word then which he doth build the Masse vpon, is not alwayes taken properly in scripture for the act of outward sacrifice.

Hart.

But he doth not onely vrge the word, to sacrifice, for which indéede the Fathers and the Hebrewe text haue incense: but the word, to offer. And if that be alwaies taken properly for the act of outward sacrifice: his reason is of force still.

Rainoldes.

But the force of his reason doth lye vpon the word, to sacrifice, not to offer. For d 11.479 him selfe granteth that lay men, yea women too, are said to offer properly and truely: when, as in e 11.480 the olde law the tithes and first fruites com∣manded to be giuen to the Leuites and the poore were pre∣sented before God; so they present bread and wine for the communion, or almes for the reliefe of the poore and needy, or any earthly giftes and offerings for holy vses, as f 11.481 the Fathers shew. Wherefore though the word, to offer, were al∣waies taken properly for the act of outward offering: it proueth not the offering of your outward sacrifice: sith g 11.482 the wise men offered giftes vnto Christ, h 11.483 the faithfull Iewes at the altar, i 11.484 lay men and women at the Masse; and yet nether any of them were Massing-priests, nor their offerings, Massing-hosts. Much lesse doth it proue it, as Malachie applyeth it to the offering of incense. For, as incense signifieth the prayers of the Saintes: so to offer incense must be to sacrifice those prayers. But the sacrifice of prayers is a spirituall sacrifice. Wherfore the word to offer, doth not proue your outward sacrifice of the Masse.

And so the first reason is gone. The second foloweth: which is no sounder then the former. For why doth Allen say, that the sa∣crifice spoken of in Malachie is one: and therefore betoke∣neth not spirituall sacrifices, the which are as many as there are Christian good workes?

Hart.

Why? Because the text of the Prophet Malachie saith that there is offered a cleane oblation, or offering, as you call it. And offering is spoken of one, not of many. For els he should haue saide, offerings, not offering.

Rainoldes.

So. And doo you thinke that he who said to God, k 11.485 sacrifice & offering thou art not delited with, or (as you trans∣late it) host and oblation thou wouldest not: did meane the Masse by that host?

Hart.

The Masse? No. He meant the hostes and ob∣lations of the old law. For they are the wordes of the Prophet Dauid, spoken of the legall and carnall sacrifices of the Iewes.

Rainoldes.

The Iewes? Nay: the text of the Prophet Da∣uid saith that God mislyked host and oblation; it saith not, hostes and oblations. Wherefore sith he speaketh of one, not of many; and the carnall sacrifices of the Iewes were many, but the sacrifice of the Masse is one, as you say: it séemeth he should meane that. A point some what dangerous for the host, which your Priests lift vp to be adored. More dangerous for them, who liue by lifting it vp.

Hart.

Our adoration of the host is good, in spite of all here∣tikes, and not reproued by the Prophet. For, although he saith, host and oblation thou wouldest not: yet is it plaine he mea∣neth the sacrifices of the Iewes by * 11.486 a figure of spéech, in which a part is vsed for the whole, and one for many; as host, and ob∣lation, for hostes, and oblations.

Rainoldes.

Then Allens second reason is not worth a shoo∣buckle to proue that the sacrifice of y^e Masse is meant by the ob∣lation in Malachie. For the word l 11.487 oblation, or offering, which he vseth in his owne language, is vsed likewise still, m 11.488 as of one, not as of many, through all the olde testament. Wherefore if the sacrifices of the Iewes were many, which neuerthelesse are called not offerings, but offering: the same worde applyed to the sacrifices of Christians can not inforce them to be one. How∣beit, were they one, to graunt you that by a supposall: yet might

that one sacrifice be a spirituall sacrifice, and so your Masse no whit the neerer. For as the Prophet n 11.489 Esay saith that the Gen∣tiles shalbe an offering to the Lord, vsing o 11.490 the same worde that the Prophet Malachie: so the Apostle p 11.491 Paul exhorteth them with Esay to present their bodies, a liuing q 11.492 sacrifice, holy, acceptable vnto God, speaking of their sundry sacrifices as one; as also, in a mysterie, r 11.493 we that are many are one body. But without supposall, the course of the text doth import rather that the Prophet, saying, there is offered an offering, doth meane not one, but many, by 1 11.494 that figure which you touched: as by 2 11.495 an other figure he saith, it is offered, meaning, it shall be offered. For * 11.496 the Lord declaring his detestation of the sacrifices of the Iewish Priests, saith that t 11.497 he will not accept an offering at their hand: but u 11.498 the Gentiles shall offer to him a cleane of∣fering, which he meaneth of the contrarie that he will accept. And this he sheweth farther, where, touching it againe, he saith * 11.499 it shall be offered vnto him in righteousnesse, y 11.500 and shalbe acceptable to him. Now, the offering that is z 11.501 acceptable to God from the Gentiles in the new testament, is all sortes of spirituall sacrifices and good workes. By the offering there∣fore mentioned in Malachie there are many sacrifices meant, not one onely. Which yet your olde translation maketh more euident, opening the meaning of the Hebrew word by ter∣ming it sacrifices, a 11.502 They shall offer * 11.503 sacrifices to the Lord in righteousenesse. Wherefore sith our offering that should please God in the time of the gospell, is sacrifices by the iudge∣ment of your old translation, which b 11.504 you in no case may re∣fuse; and sacrifices can not be meant of the Masse, for that is one sacrifice, but of spirituall sacrifices it may, for they are many, as Allens second reason saith: you see, we must conclude on his owne principles, that the cleane offering, which Malachie wri∣teth of, doth signifie the spirituall sacrifices of Christians, and not the sacrifice of the Masse. The third and fourth reasons haue greater shew, but lesser weight. For, though it be true that spi∣rituall sacrifices of praying to God and doing good to men are common to the Iewes with vs, and therefore may seeme not to be the offering spoken of in Malachie, which, beside that it is proper to the Gospell and the Gentiles, it should succeed also the sacrifices of the Iewes, and be offered in their steede:

yet if we marke the difference that the scriptures put betweene the Iewish worship of God in the law, and the Christian in the gospel, that séeming wil melt as snow before the sunne. For in the law of Moses, the Iewes, c 11.505 to the intent that both their redempti∣on by the death of Christ & dutie of thankfulnesse which they did owe to God for it, might stil be set before them as in a figure & sha∣dow; were willed d 11.506 to offer beastes without spot & blemish in sacrifice, with ceremonies thereto annexed, and to offer them e 11.507 in the place that God should choose, which was f 11.508 the citie of Ierusalem, and g 11.509 the sanctuarie, that is to say, the temple built therein. Now Christ, in the gospell, when that was ful∣filled which the temple of Ierusalem and sacrifices did represent, shewed that h 11.510 the time of reformation was come, and re∣moued that worship both in respect of the place and of the ma∣ner of it. For as it was prophecied that i 11.511 he should destroy the citie and the sanctuary, k 11.512 and cause the sacrifice and offering to cease: so him selfe taught that l 11.513 now the Father would not be worshipped in Ierusalem, nor m 11.514 as the Iewes did worship him, but n 11.515 he would be worshipped in spirit and truth. The Christian worship therefore that did succéede the Iewish, doth differ from it in two pointes: one, that it worshippeth God not in Ierusalem, but in all places; an other, that it worshippeth him in spirit, and truth; in spirit, without o 11.516 the carnall cere∣monies & rites; in truth, without p 11.517 the shadowes of the law of Moses. The which sort of worship séeing q 11.518 hee requireth of the true worshippers, that is of all the Saintes, his seruants; and in the new testament r 11.519 the Gentiles by the Gospell are called to be Saintes: the worship, that is proper to the Gospell and the Gen∣tiles, is the true spirituall worship of God, the s 11.520 reasonable ser∣uing of him by t 11.521 godlines, and u 11.522 good workes, in righteous∣nes, and true holines; euen x 11.523 the offering vp of spirituall sa∣crifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And thus you may sée the weakenes of those cauils which are brought to proue that our spirituall sacrifices cannot be the offering whereof God in Malachie saith it shall be offered to him in euery place. For the former of them, that spirituall sacrifices of prayers and workes are common to the Iewes with vs, deceiueth with a fallacie: because ou•• spirituall are spirituall méerely, whereas they had carnall sacrifices with their spirituall. The later doth

discouer this fraude of the former, but with an other fraude. For in that it saith, that praying, fasting, and the workes of chari∣ty were ioyned to their sacrifices: it sheweth that their worship (though in part spiritual) was not spiritual méerely. But in that it gathereth thereof, that these things cannot succeede their sa∣crifices, there is an other fallacie: because although the worship of God were still spirituall, as * 11.524 hée is still a spirit, and so no worship may succéede, for how can a thing succéede it selfe? yet, the same in substance came foorth in sundry maners, and so one maner of it might succéede an other. As * 11.525 the word of God, tou∣ching the saluation of men by faith in Christ, was alwayes the same: but vttered in sundry maners by the Prophets, and by Christ. In which sort the worship of God was ordered also: by the Prophets, a 11.526 couertly, vnder the vailes of ceremonies; by Christ, b 11.527 plainly and simply. Wherefore, as the doctrine of Christ did succéede the doctrine of the Prophets, both the same doctrine, but taught by Christ more cléerely, more darkely by the Prophets: so the spirituall worship of God in the Gospell succéeded his spirituall worship in the law, both the same wor∣ship, but laden with ceremonies & shadows in the law, disburd∣ned of them in the Gospell.

Hart.

I can not sée those fallacies which you charge D. Allen with. For if the Iewes did offer prayers to God and other such spirituall sacrifices, as they did: then is it true, as he saith, that spirituall sacrifices are common vnto them with vs. And if they be common vnto them with vs, it foloweth, in my iudge∣ment, that ours succeede not theirs: sith to succeede, is to come after; and how may that come after which did go before?

Rainoldes.

I haue shewed, how. And if you sée it not: c 11.528 the vaile may be the cause, which is very likely to be laide on your heart in reading of the new testament, as it was on the heart of others, in reading of the olde. For the thing is plaine of it selfe, and euident, that the spirituall sacrifices which the Iewes offe∣red, as namely their prayers, did not discharge their duetie but they must offer carnall also; and that not euery where, but in the place that God had chosen. In so much, that albeit they might pray in all places lawfully, as wée may, yet must they come thither to worship God d 11.529 at certaine times: and Daniel, though hée could not because of their captiuitie, yet

c 11.530 had his windowes open toward Ierusalem, when hee praied: and the faithfull wept by the riuers of Babylon, f 11.531 how should we sing the lords song in a strange lande? and the princely Prophet lamented that his banishment did keepe him g 11.532 from appeering there, and longed h 11.533 to behold the power and glory of God, as he beheld it in the sanctuary; and being sicke as it were i 11.534 with the loue of his tabernacles, yea k 11.535 fainting with desire of coming to his courts and l 11.536 altars, he pronoun∣ced them m 11.537 blessed who dwell in that house, yea, n 11.538 who may come vnto it, yea o 11.539 though they trauaile hardly thereto through drye places, p 11.540 to present themselues before God in Sion. Whereas Christians, of the other side, q 11.541 neither haue those altars or offerings made theron to ioyne with their spirituall r 11.542 sacrifice of prayse, and they may s 11.543 sing the songs of the Lord t 11.544 in al pla∣ces. No land is strange: no ground vnholy. Euery coast is Iewry, and euery towne Ierusalem, and euery house Sion, and u 11.545 euery faithfull company, yea x 11.546 euery faithfull body a temple to serue God in. The Christian worship then doth differ euen in prayers from that of the Iewes, both in respect of the temple, y 11.547 which they had a regard to: and of the ceremonies of the law, which they were bound therwith to keepe. Wherfore, as z 11.548 the ministery of the new testament, that is, of them who taught the gospell, came after the ministerie of Priestes in the old, and yet both old and new are the Lords testament: so might and did the worship of God amongst Christians in spirit and truth come af∣ter the worship of God amongst the Iewes, though yet they both did worship God spiritually. For the Iewes before did worship in the temple with the ceremonies of the law: as when a 11.549 the Priest was burning incense at the altar in the inner part ther∣of, b 11.550 the multitude of the people were praying in the outter. And the Christians after did pray without incense in any place, the people and Pastour all together: as c 11.551 the Apos••les with the disciples, and (d 11.552 according to their instruction) e 11.553 the primitiue Churches practise shew. But these points of difference betweene vs and them be perhaps the harder for you to vnderstand, be∣cause your Popish worship is so lyke the Iewish, both for the temple, and the ceremonies, that you may iustly thinke their worship was in spirit and truth as much as yours. For as the Priest with them was seuered from the people by the diuision of

the sanctuarie and court of the temple: f 11.554 so with you, by the chancell and body of the church. As with them g 11.555 he burned incense at the altar: h 11.556 so with you he doth. As with them i 11.557 he was clad in an Ephod, a miter, a broydered coate, a girdle, a brestplate, and a robe, and they who serued him were in their linen coates too: k 11.558 so with you he must haue an amice, an albe, a girdle, a fanel, a chisible, and a stole, and they who are about him haue surplesses, yea copes also. Their Priestes had l 11.559 a lauer whereat they must wash before they sacrificed: m 11.560 so haue yours. Your n 11.561 vaile betweene the quire and the al∣tar in lent, resembleth o 11.562 theirs, that seuered the holy place from the most holy. Your p 11.563 pyx with the sacrament, and their q 11.564 arke with the mercy seate; your r 11.565 phylacterie with Saintes relikes, and their * 11.566 pot with Manna; your t 11.567 mon∣strancie with the host, and u 11.568 their table with the shew-bread; your x 11.569 holy oyle of balme, and y 11.570 theirs of myrrhe with spi∣ces; z 11.571 their purifying water made of the ashes of an heifer, and a 11.572 yours of other ashes with water, wine, and salt; b 11.573 their fyer sent from heauen, and c 11.574 yours fetcht * 11.575 thence by art; their d 11.576 rod of Aaron, and e 11.577 your crosse of Christ; finally, f 11.578 your candles, or tapers, or torches, and g 11.579 their candlesticke with lamps, do match one an other in proportion of rites: nay, you surpasse them in your candles. For h 11.580 theirs were lighted in the night: i 11.581 yours, in the day too. Theirs, in the temple onely: yours, k 11.582 abroad also. Theirs, before the Lord: yours, l 11.583 before images. Theirs, in one maner: yours, m 11.584 with great varietie. Theirs, in small number: yours, at n 11.585 times, and places, as many as the sand of the sea. And what should I speake of the rest of the things in which you do not onely folow their cere∣monies, but also go beyond them? Your o 11.586 consecrating of Bishops, of churches, of altars, of patens, of chalices, and other instru∣ments of your Priesthood, by anointing them, p 11.587 according to the order of Aaron and the tabernacle. Your q 11.588 shauing, as of r 11.589 Leuites; your s 11.590 imagery, as from t 11.591 Salomon; your u 11.592 ha∣lowing of men, x 11.593 belles, y 11.594 ashes, z 11.595 boughes, a 11.596 bread, b 11.597 the

paschal Lambe, c 11.598 the paschal taper, d 11.599 agnus-deis (and what not?) with e 11.600 exorcized water: wherwith almost all thinges are purged by your law, as f 11.601 by theirs with blood. Your pu∣rifying (as g 11.602 they called it) or (as you terme it) h 11.603 reconciling of a churchyard, or other sacred place, if it be polluted. In con∣clusion, to passe ouer your i 11.604 festiual daies, exceeding theirs in k 11.605 shadowes; your l 11.606 mysticall deuises in sacraments, to their pa∣terne; your m 11.607 pontificall robes, in figures incomparable, in number double vnto theirs; and infinite solemnities of your n 11.608 hiest Priest, who o 11.609 entreth * 11.610 once a yeare into the place most holy, p 11.611 as did the hye Priest of the Iewes: your dayly sa∣crifice of the Masse, though inferiour to q 11.612 theirs in that it is no burnt offering, wherein yet I maruaile you came no néerer them, for as r 11.613 they kept fyer on the altar alwaies, s 11.614 so doo you require it, and what should you haue fyer vpon your altar as they had, vnlesse you burne as they did? but your dayly sacrifice of the Masse is celebrated in such Leuitical sort, as if you conten∣ded to set forth a Iewish worship more liuely then the Leuiticall Priests could. In attire like them, in mysteries aboue them, in t 11.615 orders more exquisite, in u 11.616 cauteles more diligent, in furni∣ture aboundantly: in lifting vp the whole host, and not (as x 11.617 they) a part of it, in y 11.618 ringing of the sacring bell to counteruaile z 11.619 their trumpets: in washing often, in blessing and crossing, in censing often, in soft spéech and whispering, in kissing of the a∣mice, kissing of the fanel, kissing of the stole, kissing of the altar, kissing of the booke, kissing of the Priests hand, and kissing of the pax: in smiting and knocking, in gesturing by rule and measure, in bowing and ducking, in spacing forward, backward, and tur∣ning round about, and trauersing of the ground: beside the swéete musicke of a 11.620 organs, and so forth, where it may be had, as in b 11.621 the temple it might. I dout not, M. Hart, but you are perswa∣ded that this kind of seruice in your Church is Christian: and such, that if our selues were present at the doing, the solemne doing of it, specially atChristmas, Easter, and such other more festiual times, the most of our stonie hartes would melt for ioy, as your c 11.622 Bristow writeth. But in verie truth it is more then Iewish: and his conceit thereof is childish, and carnal. For al∣though it might be delitefull to the flesh, the eies with galant sightes; the eares, with pleasant soundes; the nose▪ with fra∣grant

sauours; the minde, with shew of godlines, to him that doth not vnderstand: yet d 11.623 a spiritual man would be grieued at it, as e 11.624 Paule was in Athenes, and lament that the people should do••te vpon that by which they are f 11.625 not edified, and wéepe ouer them as g 11.626 Christ ouer Ierusalem, O if thou hadst knowne at least in this thy day those things which belong vnto thy peace: but now are they hidden from thine eyes. The Lord h 11.627 take away this vaile from your heart, if it be his good plea∣sure: that you may see at length what it is to worship him in spi∣rit and truth, and when you sée it, doo it.

Hart.

There is a vaile rather of presumption ouer your heart, who cōdemne the Catholike ceremonies as Iewish: then of ignorance ouer ours, who embrace them as Christian. For i 11.628 the Councell of Trent, which was gathered togither and guided by the holy Ghost, hath accursed them who say that the receiued and approued rites of the Catholike Church, vsed in the solemne ministring of sacraments, may be despised. And those of the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, whereat your spite is greatest, k 11.629 the holy Fathers of that Councell haue shewed to be grounded on the tradition of the Apostles, not on the law of Moses. For as much (say they) as the nature of men is such, that it cannot be lifted vp easily to the meditation of diuine things without outward helpes: therefore our holy mother the Church hath ordeined certaine rites, to weete, that some things should be pronounced in the Masse with a soft voice, and some things with a lowder. Moreouer she hath vsed ce∣remonies too, as namely mystical blessings, lightes, incense, vestiments, and many other such things, * 11.630 by the discipline and tradition of the Apostles: to the ende that both the ma∣iestie of so great a sacrifice might be set forth, and the minds of the faithful might be raised vp by these visible signes of re∣ligion and godlines to the contemplation of most high things which doo▪ lye hidden in this sacrifice. These are the Councels words. Whereby you may perceiue, that the rites and ceremonies vsed at the Masse, are not Iewish, but Apostolike: as (if neede were) it might be shewed in particulars, of incense, by S. l 11.631 Denys; of lightes, by S. m 11.632 Austin; of the rest, by other Fathers.

Rainoldes.

What? of the vestiments too? fanel, amice, albe, stole, and such trinkets?

Hart.

I, euen of them too: as basely and scornfully as you speake of them. Nor yet are these of ours like in all respectes to those which the Priestes did weare amongst the Iewes. From whome in other pointes our ceremonies differ also. As for ex∣ample, their n 11.633 incense was a perfume most pretious: o 11.634 ours, is simple frankincense. Their p 11.635 lightes must be of pure oyle: q 11.636 ours are of waxe, and may bee of other stuffe indifferently. Which sith it is likewise apparant in the rest, as you must néedes confesse, at least for sundrie of them: you are to blame greatly to reproch the ceremonies of the Church as Iewish.

Rainoldes.

Nay, you did mistake me, if you thought I meant that they are all Iewish, or Iewish absolutely. For I must néedes confesse that some of them are Heathnish rather then Iewish. As namely the shauing of your Priests crownes: af∣ter the maner of r 11.637 Priestes of Isis in Egipt. Your lighting of can∣dels on Candlemas-day:s 11.638 which came from the Februall ce∣remonies of the Romans. Your painting or grauing of the i∣mages of men: t 11.639 a thing that Christians tooke 1 11.640 by custome of the Heathens. Your 2 11.641 censing of images, and setting tapers before them: u 11.642 as the Romans also did, when they were Hea∣thens. To be short, the whole substance of your image-worship, x 11.643 your kyssing, kneeling, & creeping to the image of the crosse, like y 11.644 Sicilians to Hercules; your images borne in processi∣on, like to the z 11.645 Grecians idols; your pilgrimage to Saintes images, where they are most famous, as a 11.646 our Ladie of * 11.647 Lau∣retto, like b 11.648 Diana of Ephesus, with infinit such other fansies, doo resemble liuely the Heathnish rites of Paganisme, and grew by likelyhood from the Heathens. But I▪ because the temple of Salomon had images, although not of men; the Leuites had sha∣uing, although not of crownes; the tabernacle had lightes, al∣though not in y^e day time, much lesse at the beginning of Febru∣arie more then other times: did speake of your Popish rites here∣in as Iewish, to make the best of them. And for all the difference that you find betwixt them, of waxe in yours, and oyle in theirs; and their perfume, and your frankincense; though c 11.649 frankin∣cense was mingled with their perfume also, and d 11.650 made an in∣cense too without it; but granting this difference betwixt them

to the vttermost: yet are yours Iewish in the kinde thereof, be∣cause they are shadowes such as were the Iewish. And it is likely, that they who deuised them did fetch them out of Moses, as they who defend them doo ground them vpon Moses. For the fairest colour that eyther Bishop e 11.651 Durand, or f 11.652 others set vpon them, is, that God ordeined them in Moses law. As g 11.653 Pope In∣nocentius saith that the Catholike Church doth holde that Bishops ought to be anointed, because the Lord comman∣ded Moses to anoint Aaron and his sonnes: and againe, that temples, and altars, and chalices ought to be anointed, be∣cause the Lord commanded Moses to anoint the taber∣nacle, and arke▪ and table with the vessels.

Hart.

But Pope Innocentius addeth, that the sacrament of vnction (or anointing) doth figure and worke an other thing in the new testament then it did in the old. And there∣of he concludeth that they lye who charge the Church with Iu∣daizing (that is, with doing as the Iewes did) in that it cele∣brateth the sacrament of vnction.

Rainoldes.

Yet Pope Innocentius doth not bring that difference betwene the Iewes and you, that your holy vnction is made of oyle, and balme, where theirs was made of oyle & myrrhe with other spices. He knew that the difference of this or that ingredient in the stuffe of it would not cléere your Church from Iudaizing in the kinde of the purgation, that is, the rite whereby you sanctifie Priests and altars. No more, then if you should sacrifice a dogge, and say that you doo not therein as the Iewes did, because they did sacrifice, not dogges, but shéepe & ox∣en. As for the difference by which the Pope seuereth your vnctiō from theirs, that yours doth worke and figure an other thing then theirs did: first, it wrought as much in their altars, as in yours, for any thing that I know. Secondly, it figured in their Priests the giftes of the holy ghost: which he saith it doth in yours. Thirdly, were it so that it had an other either worke or meaning with you then with them, as after a sort it hath, both in respect of h 11.654 him, who ordered theirs; and i 11.655 the cause, why: yet might the ceremonie be Iewish notwithstanding. For (I trust) you will not maintaine but it were Iudaisme for your Church to sacrifice k 11.656 a lambe in burnt offering, though you did it to signifie, not Christ that was to come, l 11.657 as the Iewes did,

but that Christ is come, and m 11.658 hath by his passion both entred in himselfe and brought in others to his glorie. At the least, S. Peter n 11.659 did constraine the Gentiles to Iudaize, (as you terme it,) when they were induced by his example and autoritie to al∣low the Iewish rite in o 11.660 choise of meates. Yet neither he, nor they allowed it in that meaning, which it was giuen to the Iewes in. For it was giuen them p 11.661 to betoken that holines, and q 11.662 traine them vp vnto it, which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithfull. And Peter knew r 11.663 that Christ had doon this in truth, and s 11.664 taken away that figure, yea, t 11.665 the whole yoke of the law of Moses: which point he taught the Gentiles also. Wherefore, although your Church doo kéepe the Iewish rites, with an other meaning then God ordeined them for the Iewes, as Pope Innocentius saith, to salue that blister: yet this of Peter sheweth that the thing is Iewish, and you doo Iudaize who kéepe them.

Hart.

S. Peter did not erre in faith, but in behauiour, when he withdrew him selfe from eating with the Gentiles. For that was a defaute in conuersation not in doctrine, as u 11.666 Tertulli∣an saith. Neither doth S. x 11.667 Austin thinke otherwise of it.

Rainoldes.

I graunt. For he offended not in the truth of the gospel, but y 11.668 in walking according to it, that hauing li∣ued before not as the Iewes, but Gentile-like, yet z 11.669 then hee left the Gentiles for feare of the Iewes, and a 11.670 dissembled his iudgement touching that point of Christian doctrine. But this doth so much more conuince both your Church of Iudaizing in her ceremonies, and your doctrine of corrupting the gospell with that leauen. For if S. Peter b 11.671 was to be condemned, as cau∣sing them to Iudaize, whom through infirmitie he drew by ex∣ample to play the Iewes in one rite: what may your Church be thought of, which of setled iudgement doth moue and force Chri∣stians to play the Iewes in so many? And he did acknowledge the truth of the doctrine by silence, and submission, when S. Paul reproued him. But c 11.672 Pope Innocentius saith that they lye who touch your Church for it. Wherefore the Pope, or rather the Popes and Papists all, who maintaine the doctrine of the Trent-Councell approuing both d 11.673 the rest of your Iewish rites, and namely e 11.674 that of vnction confirmed out of Moses by Pope Innocentius: they doo not offend as the true Apostle of Christ

S. Peter did; but as the false Apostles, f 11.675 who troubled the Galatians, and peruerted the gospell by mingling of the law with it.

Hart.

Your wordes should haue some coolour of truth a∣gainst the Church, if we taught that g 11.676 men ought to be circum∣cised, as did the false Apostles.

Rainoldes.

Why? Shall no heretikes be counted h 11.677 false teachers in the Church of Christ, vnlesse they teach in al point•• as did the false Prophets?

Hart.

But, (as I haue shewed out of i 11.678 the Councell of Trent,) the ceremonies which we vse in the sacrifice of the Masse, as namely mysticall blessinges, lightes, incense, vesti∣ments, and many other such thinges, came all not from the false but from the true Apostles. And if there be any which they ordeined not: that might be ordeined by 1 11.679 our holy mo∣ther the Church. As it was, that some thinges should be pro∣nounced in the Masse with a soft voice, & some thinges with a lowder. For such is the nature of men, that it can not bee lifted vp easily to the meditation of diuine thinges 2 11.680 without outward helpes. Which reason, added by the Councel, doth warrant all our rites both of the Churches ordinance, and the Apostolike tradition against your cauils and surmises.

Rainoldes.

Alas. And sée you not how giddily the Coun∣cell doth bring in that reason, that because our nature doth neede outward helpes, therefore some things should be pro∣nounced softly, some aloude? For the very chiefest of the out∣warde helpes, which God hath ordeined to raise our mindes from earth to heauen, is k 11.681 the hearing of his word. His word is rehersed in the Epistle, the Gospell, the Canon, and other partes of the Masse. The Masse l 11.682 you forbid to be saide in the vulgar or mother tongue of the people: so that if all were * 11.683 cryed as loude as Baals seruice, the people could not vnderstand it. Yet not content with that, you will a part of it to bee saide with a soft voice, that the poore soules may not as much as heare it. Wherefore the reason which your Councell maketh for that Massing-rite, is this in effect, that because the blindenesse and coldnesse of men doth neede to be lightened and warmed by Gods worde▪ which is rehearsed in the Masse: therefore a part of it must be pronounced with a soft voyce, that they

may not heare it; part with a lowder, but in a strange toong, that, although they heare it, they may not vnderstand it. And was there not a mightie spirit of giddines in the Princes of Trent, that made them write so droonkenly? Yea, m 11.684 with a curse to seale it too?

Hart.

They curse him who saith that the rite of the Ro∣man Church, whereby part of the Canon and the words of consecration are vttered with a soft voice, is to be condem∣ned: or that the Masse ought to be celebrated onely in the vulgar toung. And great reason why.

Rainoldes.

No dout. For as n 11.685 the Iewes, when they could not iustifie their wilful withstanding of the Sonne of God, agrée∣ed, that if any man confessed him to be Christ, he should be ex∣communicated: so by like reason your Iudaizers of Rome doo banne and curse vs, when they cannot iustifie their impudent customes and corruptions against vs.

Hart.

The customes are Catholike and religious rites, which they do establish with the seueritie of the curse.

Rainoldes.

Catholike, and religious, to kéepe the Saintes of God from hearing of Gods word? Catholike, and religious, to haue the Church-seruice in a tongue which the Church, the faithfull people, vnderstand not?

Hart.

Yea, Catholike, and religious, if you marke the rea∣sons which they giue thereof. For of o 11.686 the one, they shew, that the Church hath ordeined it: of p 11.687 the other, that the Fathers thought it not expedient it should be had in the vulgar toung.

Rainoldes.

Not the ancient Fathers? Why, q 11.688 they are cleere for it: and r 11.689 yonger Fathers too. Yea, Fathers both, and chil∣dren, I meane the whole Churches, of al nations, in the old time; of many, euen till this day: as namely of the s 11.690 Syrians, t 11.691 Arme∣nians, u 11.692 Slauonians, x 11.693 Moscouites, and y 11.694 Ethiopians.

Hart.

What so euer Churches or Fathers doo, or haue doon: it seemed not expedient to the Fathers assembled in the Coun∣cell of Trent. And they, being Bishops and Pastours of the Church, might take order for rites and ceremonies of the Church by z 11.695 your owne confessions.

Rainoldes.

They might. But our confessions withall should haue taught them, that as they may prouide for a 11.696 things

to be doon with comelines and in order: so their rites and ceremo∣nies must be b 11.697 all to edifie. Which the Trent-fathers obserued not in this rite, of hauing the seruice in a straunge tongue, as themselues acknowlege. For c 11.698 they write expressely, that 1 11.699 although the Masse containe great instruction of the faithful people, yet the Fathers haue not thought it expedient 2 11.700 that it should be soong or said euerie where in the vulgar tongue. Whereof this is the meaning, to open it in plainer words, that the corrupt custome of the Church of Rome, praying, and reading the scriptures in a straunge tongue, in deede doth not edifie: yet must stand for policie, to keepe their Churches credit. For if they should yéeld that they haue erred in one thing, men would dout perhaps that they might erre in more. And this doo they farther bewray by the other point of vttering the words of con∣secration * 11.701 secretly, that the faithfull may not heare them. For in saying that d 11.702 the Church hath ordeined that rite, they doo closely graunt that Christ ordeined it not. Nay, e 11.703 their owne men teach that f 11.704 the example of Christ, and g 11.705 the order of his Apostles, with h 11.706 the Fathers too, is manifest against it. Beside that, in calling it i 11.707 a rite of the Church of Rome, they signifie that other Churches do not vse it, no not k 11.708 the Greeke Church. And yet against the practise of Churches, of Fa∣thers, of Apostles, and of Christ, they say that a dumbe shew (which l 11.709 crept in by custome) was ordeined by our holy mo∣ther the Church: and, as men resolued to wallow in their owne vomit, they curse him whosoeuer he be that shall condemne it.

Hart.

Although Christ (we grant) did vtter the words of consecration openly; and the Apostles, and Fathers, and other Churches also haue kept the same rite: yet the Church of Rome is not to be condemned for taking order to the contrarie. For rites may be changed as it shall séeme best to them who gouerne the Church: and there was great reason why they should change this, to weete, m 11.710 least those words so holy and sacred should grow into contempt, whiles all in a maner knowing them, through common vse, would sing them in the streetes and o∣ther places not conuenient. In the which respect perhaps they thought good also that the Masse and Mattins, and all the Church-seruice should rather be in Latin, then in the vulgar

tongue. For of familiar vse there groweth contempt: and men are wont to wonder at things which they know not; thing•• common are despised.

Rainoldes.

A great ouersight of our Sauiour Christ, who willed his Apostles n 11.711 to speake that in the light, which he had told them in darknes; and, what they heard in the eare, that to preach on the howses. For men would despise his gospel, if they knew it: as they doo meate who haue it. And what meant S. Paule to disclose o 11.712 the words of consecration to the Corin∣thians? Yea, in their vulgar tongue too? And that with instruc∣tion, p 11.713 to shew foorth th•• Lords death vntill he came, as oft as they receiued the sacrament? Did he go about to bring the words of consecration, and death of Christ, into contempt? Or was not Innocentius the Pope borne yet, of whom he might haue learned that they must be vttered not onely in a strange tongue, but also closely and in silence, least men, if they heare them, do know them through vse, and sing them in the streetes? But wil you sée? Your q 11.714 Fathers of the Trent-councel were ouershot a litle, when they ordeined that Pastours and all who haue cure of soules should 1 11.715 often times expound (by them selues, or by others,) somewhat of those things which are read in the Masse: and r 11.716 explane the scripture to the faithful people 2 11.717 in their mother tongue. In the Latin toong if they had willed them to to do it, the order had agréed better with your doctrine: the people would haue wondred at it. Now the knowlege of it is like to breede contempt. Beside there is danger, least, by hearing of it often times expounded, men be∣come to wise, and smell out your abuses. The lesse they doo know: the fitter to be Papists. For s 11.718 ignorance is the mother of Po∣pish deuotion: as t 11.719 knowlege is the nurse of Christian religi∣on.

Hart.

We acknowlege that u 11.720 ignorance is the mother of all errors: neither do we séeke to noosell Christians in it, but to weane them from it, as those decrées of the Councell do suffici∣ently shew.

Rainoldes.

They shew sufficiently that you professe so: but how well you séeke it, the former decrées of the rites, by which the people is nooseled in ignorance, do more sufficiently shew. Nether is it likely that all Pastours and Curates shall haue skil

and leasure to expound the scripture to the people often. It may be that the seruice, read, and heard in a knowen tongue, would teach them more in a day, then some of them will in a moonth. Or if euerie Church had as good a Pastour, as Paule wisheth Timothee to be, that would x 11.721 diuide the word of truth a right: yet they, being vsed y 11.722 to heare the scripture read, should vnderstand him better, as z 11.723 the Iewes did Paule, and be (through Gods grace) a 11.724 the readier b 11.725 to beleeue him. And sith c 11.726 the Trent-fathers declare this expounding therefore to be néedefull, least Christs sheepe be famished, or d 11.727 the young children aske bread & no man breake it to them: it had béene their dutie withall to consider that God would haue the table of his children furnished with this bread e 11.728 plenteously, and as f 11.729 Dauids table with a cup running ouer, to kéepe them in good liking, not onely that they be not famished. At least, howsoeuer they smooth their practise in this point, it is sure that their reason is beside all reason, when g 11.730 they say that because the nature of men doth neede outward helpes for raysing of it vp to think vpon the things of God, therefore hath the Church ordeined those rites, that some things in the Masse should be pronoun∣ced with a soft voice, and some things with a lowder: the one, not to be heard; the other, not to be vnderstood. And yet herein their dealing is the more plaine, that they doo acknowlege the Church to haue ordained these rites. For if they would haue hardned their faces, and said, that they receiued them from the Apostles by tradition: they might as well haue said it, and pro∣ued it as soundly, as they doo of others, lightes, incense, vesti∣ments, and all the rest of their beggerie.

Hart.

Beggerie call you that, which setteth foorth the blessed sacrifice of the Masse with so comely ceremonies, to the consola∣tion and instruction of the faithfull?

Rainoldes.

Nay, the name of beggerie is to good for it. For if S. Paule called the ceremonies of the Iewes * 11.731 weake and beggerly rudiments, when they were matched with the gospel: what name deserue yours, ordeined not of God, as theirs, but of men?

Hart.

You doo vs great iniurie to apply S. Paules words, spoken of the Iewish ceremonies which should cease, to ours which should continue. Much more, in that you say that God

ordeined not ours, as he did theirs. For he ordeined theirs by Moses, and ours by S. Paul.

Rainoldes.

By S. Paul? Fye? And who tolde you so?

Hart.

S. i 11.732 Austin saith that all that order of doing which the whole Church obserueth through the world in consecra∣ting, offering, and distributing of the Eucharist (which order of dooing we doo call the Masse) was ordeined by S. Paul.

Rainoldes.

Your k 11.733 Iesuit in déede maketh that note vpon S. Austin. And if his meaning be thereby to proue onely so much of that order, as the whole Church obserued through the world in S. Austins time: then doth he disproue your ceremonies quite, yea some what more then ceremonies. For behold he men∣tioneth the distributing of the Eucharist, that is of the bread and cuppe of thankes-giuing: both the which you distribute not in any Masse; in priuat Masses, neither. But if he meant as l 11.734 Bristow did, and you would haue him, that S. Paul ordeined al that order of dooing which your Church obserueth and cal∣leth it the Masse: your Councell doth disproue him. For they confesse that the Church of Rome hath certaine rites, m 11.735 nei∣ther ordeined by S. Paul, n 11.736 nor obserued through the whole Church. And S. Austin speaketh of nothing but that which the whole Church obserued, as namely the receyuing of the Sa∣crament fasting: which custome being kept alike of all Christi∣ans, he gathereth on S. Pauls wordes to the Corinthians (* 11.737 other thinges will I set in order when I come) that he ordeined it.

Hart.

It is true, S. Austin doth speake of those rites, which the whole Church obserued through the world without any change or diuersitie of maners. But so much the more doth he proue the doctrine of the Councell of Trent. For the rites, which p 11.738 they say, the Church hath receiued from the Apostles by tradition, are namely mysticall * 11.739 blessinges, lightes, in∣cense, vestiments, and many other such thinges. And for these S. Austins witnesse is of force that S. Paul ordeinedal that or∣der of dooing which we call the Masse. For the proofe where∣of you may sée a cléerer testimonie of his in q 11.740 an epistle to Pau∣linus, quoted by Torrensis, vpon the same place of S. Austins confession.

Rainoldes.

And in that also Torrensis doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you. For S. Austin there, writing to a Bishop who had inquired of him

how those wordes differ one from an other in S. r 11.741 Paul, suppli∣cations, prayers, intercessions, and giuing of thankes, doth tell him that he thinketh thereby is vnderstood that, which all the church, or in a maner all practiseth, to weete, that supplicati∣ons are those which are made in celebrating of the sacramēts before that which is vpon the Lordes table beginne to bee blessed; prayers, when it is blessed, and sanctified, and prepa∣red to be distributed, and diuided; intercessions, when the peo∣ple is blessed and offered to God by their Pastours as it were by aduocates; which thinges being doon, and the sacrament receyued, the giuing of thankes doth knit vp all, which S. Paul in those wordes remmbreth also last. Now, what is there here more for your Masse, then for our Communion? Or if our Com∣munion, which differeth from your Masse no lesse then light from darkenesse, yet hath all these thinges which S. Austin tou∣cheth as meant by S. Paul: what face hath Torrensis, who saith that S. Paul is auouched by S. Austin to haue ordeined all that order of dooing which you call the Masse? Is this your Ie∣suites dealing with the auncient Fathers to make them fetch your Massing rites from the Apostles?

Hart

Yet euen there S. Austin doth mention blessing twise▪ and that out of S. Paul. Whereby the first point, which the Coun∣cell of Trent nameth, is approued, to wéete, of mysticall bles∣singes.

Rainoldes.

True, if the Councell had meant by * 11.742 that worde, as the scripture doth, either s 11.743 the giuing of thankes vnto God, or t 11.744 the sanctifying of creatures vnto holy vses, or u 11.745 pray∣ing for the people, that the Lord will blesse them. But if they meant the making of the signe of the crosse, as it is plaine they did, both by the matter which that▪ chapter handleth tou∣ching visible signes, and by their intent to confirme the cere∣monies which Protestants condemne, and by the Canon of the Masse which is as ful of crosses as x 11.746 a coniurers circle, and the worde [* 11.747 he blessed] is taken so there with a crosse in the mid∣dest of it: then your mysticall blessinges of the Trent-fathers were neither meant by S. Paul, nor mentioned by S. Austin.

Hart.

Yes: S. Austin séemeth to mean•• there by [blessing] ••he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the signe of the crosse on the sacrament. For in a ••••rmon of his touching the same matter, he saith that the body

of Christ is consecrated with the signe of the crosse.

Rainoldes.

In what sermon is that?

Hart.

Amongst his sermons de tempore, y 11.748 the hundred eightieth and one.

Rainoldes.

That is amongst his sermons, but none of his sermons. For it vseth the wordes of Gregorie, a Bishop of Rome who liued long after: and mo thinges it hath by which it is certaine (as z 11.749 your Diuines of Louan note) that it is not S. Austins. Howbeit neither he that did compile that sermon, whosoeuer it were, saith that the ceremonie of the crosse in consecrating was of S. Paules ordinance, or a tradition of the Apostles: which is the point that you had to proue by S. Austin; and, if you proue it not, you doo not cléere the Trent-councell. For I graunt that a 11.750 in S. Austins time, yea b 11.751 before it, the Chri∣stians, as they vsed to signe their forhead with the crosse, in to∣ken that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified, whom the Iewes and Gentiles reproched for the death which he suffered on the crosse: so they brought the rite thereof into the sacraments, and vsed both the figure of the cross•• and crossing in other thinges of God also. But it doth not folow because the Christians did it, therefore the Apostles ordeined it to be doon.

Hart.

But it is likely that they did. And certainely c 11.752 Ter∣tullian, a very ancient writer, doth expresly say that Christians had it by tradition.

Rainoldes.

To signe their forhead with a crosse, but not to signe the sacraments. Tertullian was so ancient, that he wrote (it séemeth) before that custom grew. Besides, you mistake him if you thinke he meant by the name of [tradition] a tradi∣tion of the Apostles. For what soeuer custome not writen in the scripture was kept by the faithfull, that, because it was deli∣uered by some body from whom the vse thereof was taken, hee saith it came in by tradition. In so much that he affirmeth it both of 1 11.753 Iewish customes before the Apostles, as that their wo∣men couered their faces with vailes: and of Christian after, which yet are not Apostolike, as, 2 11.754 the dipping thri••e of them who are baptized, and feeding them with milke and hony. And, (which plainely sheweth hee meant not the A∣postles in it,) 3 11.755 euery faithfull man may (by his iudgement) deuise such rites vpon reason: neither must we respect the au∣tours,

but the autoritie; & 4 11.756 regard the thing deliuered, who∣soeuer did deliuer it. Wherefore the tradition, that Tertullian speaketh of, is against the doctrine of your Trent-councell. For neither doth he mention the signe of the crosse to haue béene v∣sed in consecration, which he would of likelyhood if then it had béene vsed: nor saith he that it came by tradition frō the Apostles in that sort as it was vsed, but he knoweth not from whom.

Hart.

Though none of th•• Fathers perhaps beare witnesse of it: yet if the Councell meant it by mysticall blessinges, they knew that the Church had it from the Apostles. For els they would not vouch it.

Rainoldes.

Then you were best to say that they learned it from heauen by reuelation: d 11.757 as the Anabaptists are wont to doo their mysteries. For els they could not know it.

Hart.

You confesse your selfe that S. e 11.758 Austin and others of the auncient Fathers did vse it in celebrating of the holy sacra∣ments. I maruaile why you like it not in our Masse, sith wee doo therein but as the Fathers did.

Rainoldes.

Nay, I cōfesse not that. For your Massing-priest doth tricke i•• as a f 11.759 sorcerer, all in mathematicall or rather ma∣gicall numbers: g 11.760 by crossing thrise the bread, and wine, both together, and thrise againe both; then once each in seueral, and once againe each: and againe thri••e, & once; and againe once, and thrise, with a crosse on him selfe betwixt: hetherto with his hand: after with the host he crosseth thrise the chalice; and twise (to make vp fiue) betwene his brest and the chalice▪ next with the pa••en he ••••osseth once himself, and the chalice thri••e witha péece of the host, and once himselfe againe with the host ouer the pa∣ten, and lastly once him selfe againe with the chalice; all these in the Canon and Communion of the Masse, besid•• h 11.761 a number mo before he cometh to the Canon. But the auncient Fathers and namely S. Austin were farre from such mysticall toyi••ges with the sacrament. Pope Hildebrandes magi••e, that so ma∣ny cros••es, though yet not so many as you are growne to now, but i 11.762 the tradition of Pope Hildebrand that crossinges must come in by one, or three, or fiue, 1 11.763 still in an odde number, af∣ter * 11.764 the rule of k 11.765 old sorcerers, was a profounder rite of mystical blessinges, then either S. Austin, or other ancient Fathers vsed.

Hart.

Pope Gregorie the seuenth (named Hildebrand

before his Popedome, kept not those odde numbers for any ma∣gicall fansie, though m 11.766 Benno charge him falsly with that diue∣lish art: but to note a mysterie. For n 11.767 he said that one, or three, or fiue crosses must therefore still be made, because by one, and three, we signifie one God in trinitie; by fiue, the fiue partes of the passion of Christ▪

Rainoldes.

As who say o 11.768 magicians had not the like myste∣ries in their odde numbers too. And if Pope Hildebrand would haue had p 11.769 a circle made about the Priest to keepe the deuill from him while he is saying Masse: there were a mysterie for that also, to weete, that it signifieth God, who nether hath be∣ginning, nor ende.

Hart.

Nay, the circle is a ceremonie proper to coniurers: and he would neuer haue admitted it. But, in that he kept an odde number alwaies in making of crosses vpon the oblati∣on: he did as he had learned in Rome, where he was brought vp vnder ten of his predecessours. And that, which he ler∣ned there, was the tradition of the Apostles.

Rainoldes.

So q 11.770 his scholer saith; and he saith truly, for sundry pointes of that he learned: as namely, that r 11.771 the peo∣ple did, and must receiue the sacrament with the Priest, and that, vnder both kindes. Which sheweth (by the way) that your priuate Masse, and Communion vnder one kinde, was a∣gainst the tradition and order of the Apostles, by the iudgement of the Church of Rome and Popes them selues * 11.772 aboue a thou∣sand yeares after Christ. But the making of crosses on the sacrament still in an odde number was so farre from being a thing deliuered by the Apostles, that the Church of Rome had then begoon it lately, if yet the Church began it, and not Pope Hildebrand were rather the father & first inuentour of that my∣sterie. For Bishop s 11.773 Amalarius, who liued two hundred yeares or thereabout before Hildebrand, and did both know and reue∣rence the order of the Church of Rome, hauing said that it suf∣ficeth to make a crosse once vpon the bread and wine, because Christ was once crucified, addeth, that it is not amisse to make it twise, because he was crucified for two kindes of pe∣ople, that is, the Iewes and the Gentiles. Whereto t 11.774 he no∣teth farther, that the Priest made two crosses with the host neere vnto the chalice, to signifie that Christ was taken down

from the crosse being crucified for two peoples. And this which he reporteth of two, was u 11.775 the order of the Church of Rome before Hildebrand came: who controlled it (as appéereth by x 11.776 his scholer) vpon this reason, that Christ had no wound in his side but one, and therefore but one crosse must be made beside the chalice. Which reason is so good, that it may séeme straunge why the reformers of your y 11.777 Masse-booke haue kept the former order against the rule of Pope Hildebrand: vnlesse perhaps they thought that Hildebrand misliked it not so much for that reason as for the number of two; z 11.778 which number, the sooth-sayers and sorcerers hol•• to be naught. But hereby them selues haue opened their iudgement, that not all which Hilde∣brand is said to haue learned vnder ten of his predecessours was the tradition of the Apostles. And it is worth the noting how these mysticall blessings, which at Trent were fathered on the Apostolike tradition, haue lately got that parentage by the helpe of such as was Hildebrands scholer, whē before they séeme not to haue béene accounted so. For a 11.779 Amalarius, (whom I na∣med,) a man that was likely for zeale to speake the best, for skill to know the most that might be said of the seruice and ceremo∣nies of the Church; he had read so much and trauailed so farre euen to Rome, and that in embassage from the Emperour to con∣ferre with the Pope about them: yet this Amalarius, speaking of the signe of the crosse which they vsed to make in consecratiō, leaueth it in dout whether Christ made any when he did blesse the bread, or rather thinketh he made none, because the crosse at that time was not yet set vp; but now (saith he) wee know that it must be made, for S. Austin saith so. Where it is not probable that he would haue grounded it on mans autoritie, if he could haue said that either Christ had vsed it, or, though Christ vsed it not, yet the Apostles had ordeined it. No more, then that after the testimonie of S. Austin he would haue iudged it suffici∣ent to crosse the bread and wine once, if he had thought that so many crosses, as you make, were to be required by S. Austins iudgement.

Hart.

Thus you reproue vs as varying from S. Austin, be∣cause we make so many. What may we say of you who make none at all? Who nether vse it in consecration of the holy sacra∣ments, nor signe your forheads with it, nor set it in your Chur∣ches,

nor allow it in the sanctifying of meates and other crea∣tures. Though all these things were doon by the ancient Fa∣thers, in remembrance of him who dyed for vs on the crosse: yea, though Christ himselfe haue commended to vs the signe there∣of by miracles, as the storie of Constantine the Emperour doth witnesse; b 11.780 who saw it in the element with these wordes wri∣ten by it, * 11.781 In this signe ouercome; and was charged in a dream to make the forme and likenes of that which he had séene, and vse it as a defense against his enimies assaultes; which he did accordingly, and mightily subdued them by it. But nether the vision of Christ vnto Constantine, nor that and other mira∣cles which haue béene wrought by it, nor the practise of the primi∣tiue Church and ancient Fathers can preuaile with your men, but that they must séeke to raze out from among Christians so worthy and notable a monument of Christes passion. And yet you will beare the simple people in hand that you are of the same religion that they were, when you plucke down that which they did set vp, and do cleane contrarie vnto them.

Rainoldes.

The signe that appeered to Constantine in the element, was a signe of the name of Christ, not of his crosse: howsoeuer the coiners and c 11.782 crosse-maintainers of your Church do falsly paint it out. For, as d 11.783 Eusebius writeth, (vn∣to whom Constantine did report the thing, and shewed him that ensigne which he had caused to be made in the likenesse thereof,) it was the forme of 1 11.784 a speare standing straight vpright, with 2 11.785 a crowne at the toppe of it, & as it were 3 11.786 a horne which 4 11.787 did crosse the middest of the speare a slope. So that it represented two of the Greeke letters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which being the first letters of the name of Christ, the name of Christ was signified by that signe to Constantine. Thus he describeth it, who saw it.

Hart.

But out of dout e 11.788 he calleth it the signe, or the mo∣nument of the crosse ^q also.

Rainoldes.

But f 11.789 him selfe sheweth that he called it so, be∣cause it resembled some what 5 11.790 the signe of a crosse. For nether was it like the crosse of Christ fully, which had * 11.791 an other fi∣gure: and, where he describeth it, he saith in plaine termes that

it was 6 11.792 a signe of the name of Christ. Nether were those words that you rehearsed writen by it, In this signe ouercome, as your h 11.793 Doctor saith, (belike because he read it coyned in y^e cru∣seado so, or in the por••igue:) but, 7 11.794 By this ouercome; as if God, shewing him the name of Christ, should haue said vnto him, that i 11.795 there is giuen no other name vnder heauen wherby he must be saued. In the which meaning it seemeth that Constantine did vnderstand it also: because k 11.796 he vsed afterward to cary in his helmet, not the signe of the crosse, but those two letters by which the name of Christ was represented to him. How∣beit, if it were so, that not the name onely of Christ but his crosse too were meant by that signe, as l 11.797 the Bishops tooke it, who ther∣upon taught Constantine the mysterie of Christ crucified; yet nether that vision, nor Constantines victories, nor other mira∣cles wrought thereby, nor practise of the faithfull in the primitiue Church doth proue that we haue doon amisse in plucking downe the signe of the crosse, wherewith you en••••ite vs; or that we are not of the same religion that they were who did set it vp. For tell me, what thinke you of the brasen serpent, m 11.798 which God commanded Moses to set vp in the wildernes? Was it not n 11.799 a figure of the passion of Christ?

Hart.

Yes. But what of that?

Rainoldes.

And there were many miracles also wrought by it. For, when the Iewes were stoong by the fyerie ser∣pents, o 11.800 they looked on the serpent of brasse, and were healed.

Hart.

If they were: what then?

Rainoldes.

Yet p 11.801 king Ezekias, a man of the same religion that Moses was, did breake it in peeces: and he did well in it.

Hart.

He brake the brasen serpent in péeces I graunt: but that was because the children of Israel did burne incense to it.

Rainoldes.

So haue we pluckt downe the signe of the crosse, because you burne incense to it, M. Hart.

Hart.

Nay, that we do not.

Rainoldes.

It is writen in your q 11.802 Masse-booke, that in so∣lemne Masses the Priest 1 11.803 hauing made obeysance to the crosse doth incense it thrise.

Hart.

But that is not to burne incense as the Iewes did. For they had a superstitions estimation of the serpent, putting

trust and affiance in it.

Rainoldes.

So haue you a superstitious estimation of the crosse. For you thinke it a speciall defense against the diuell; and (by your common phrase) they do blesse them selues who signe their brestes with it; and you carry about you crosses made of mettall, with an opinion that you are the safer thereby, as 2 11.804 su∣perstitious women in S. r 11.805 Ieroms time did the wood of the crosse.

Hart.

If any doo it of superstition, as those women did: we reproue them with S. Ierom. But the Iewes did worship the brasent serpent as God: and we doo not the crosse so.

Rainoldes.

If any do it as those women, which your crosse∣cariers doo: they doo it of superstition. But how did the Iewes worship the serpent, as God?

Hart.

S. s 11.806 Austin saith that they did worship it as an idole: which is to make a God of it. And Ezekias shewed the same in effect, by that t 11.807 he called it nechushtan, that is, brasen-stuffe: as if he should haue saide, that it had no diuine power, which they by errour thought it had.

Rainoldes.

The Iewes gaue u 11.808 the honour of God to a creature, in that they burned incense to it. And therefore E∣zekias did call it brasen-stuffe; as if we should call your roodes wooden-stuffe, your Agnus-deis waxen stuffe, your crucifixes and crosses made of copper, copper-stuffe, because you impart the honour of God to them, by putting trust and hope in them. And if x 11.809 the couetous man be called an idolater, because he maketh mony his God, not as though he thought the coyne to be God, but because he trusteth to liue and prosper by it, y 11.810 which confi∣dence and hope he should repose in God onely: then worship you the signe of the crosse as an idole, because you trust to bee saued by it, as in your z 11.811 Church-seruice you professe notoriously, and so a 11.812 your selues confesse you worship it as God. Wherefore if b 11.813 Ezekias be praised by God, for breaking in peeces the ser∣pent of brasse, because the children of Israel did burne in∣cense to it: we who haue remoued the signe of the crosse because you put the hope of saluation in it, may content our selues to bee dispraysed by men. But if you say therefore, that we be against the ancient Fathers in religion, because we plucke downe that which they did set vp: take héede least your speech doo

touch the holy Ghost, who saith that Ezekias c 11.814 did keepe Gods commandements, which he commanded Moses, and yet withall saith that d 11.815 he brake in peeces the serpent of brasse which Moses had made. And if you will not learne this lesson of me, yet learne it of e 11.816 the Canon law, that, if our predeces∣sours haue done some thinges which at that time might bee without faute and afterwarde be turned to errour, & super∣stition: we are taught by Ezekias breaking the brasen serpent that the posteritie may destroy them without any delay, and with great autoritie.

Hart.

The diuine worship with the which we honour the i∣mage of the crosse, is proued by S. f 11.817 Thomas to be due there∣to. For, the honour of an image is referred to that which the image resembleth: and the motion of our minde is the same to the image of a thing, as an image, and to the thing it selfe. Wherefore, sith the crosse doth represent Christ, who died vpon a crosse, and Christ is to bee worshipped with di∣uine honour: it foloweth that the crosse is to bee worship∣ped so too. Yet you and your men are still obiecting to vs our honouring of the crosse, as though we committed idolatry there∣in. In good sooth, Maisters, ye are too young to controll the Church of Rome in her dooings.

Rainoldes.

So M. g 11.818 Harding telleth vs of the citie of Rome, when we controll her stewes. And in deede you haue almost as much reason to speake for the maintenance of this spi∣rituall whooredome, which you commit with the crosse: as he for the carnal, which they commit with Courtisans. Now wel had it fared with the brasen serpent, if Thomas had béene schoolemai∣ster to king Ezekias. For he would haue taught him, that sith the brasen serpent did represent Christ, and Christ was to be worshipped with diuine honour: therefore the brasen serpent was to bee worshipped so too. You are angrie when wee say that you worship the Pope, h 11.819 as God. Me thinkes you should graunt it. Sure you might defend it by this Schoole∣diuinitie. For, though he beare one way i 11.820 the image of the beast: yet in that he is a man, hee is k 11.821 an image of God, whom he resembleth more liuely then any crosse or crucifix doth represent Christ. But to returne to the mysticall bles∣sings of the Masse, which you went about to fetch by S. Austin

from the Apostolike tradition: you sée that neither they, nor incense, nor lightes, nor vestiments, nor the rest of that suite of ceremonies are mentioned at all, much lesse auouched to be A∣postolike, in that of S. Austin which your Iesuite groundeth on.

Hart.

I know that S. Austin doth intreate rather of the sub∣stance of the Masse, then of the ceremonies, in that place. But l 11.822 in the other which I cited he doth intreate of customes: and so, that he proueth the ceremonies of the Masse to haue come from the Apostles. For of the thinges (saith he) which we keepe by tradition, it is to bee thought that such as are obserued through the whole world were either ordeined by the A∣postles them selues, or by generall Councels. Wherefore sith the ceremonies of incense, lightes, vestiments, and other of the like sorte were not ordeined by generall Councels: it followeth by S. Austin, that the Apostles did ordeine them.

Rainoldes.

That rule of S. Austin, is probable, not necessa∣rie. For though it be likely that there was no custome obser∣ued by the Church through the whole world, which it had not from the Apostles, chiefly, seeing m 11.823 Christians did va∣ry then so much in rites of all sortes: yet they might either haue taken vp, or kept of that they had before, some thing which the Apostles deliuered not vnto them. But admit his rule as an vndouted principle to your most aduantage: and yet are you no neerer the proofe of those ceremonies. For how can you proue that incense, lightes, vestiments, and the rest of your baggage were vsed at that time through the whole world?

Hart.

Incense to haue béene vsed,n 11.824 I haue proued by S. Denys Areopagita: lightes, by S. Austin.

Rainoldes.

But you haue not proued that they were vsed through the whole world, either by S. Austin, or by S. Denys.o 11.825 Nay, that Denys (who so euer he were,) doth proue the contra∣rie. For in his description of the Masse (as you call it) there are neither lightes, nor vestiments, nor crossinges, nor all the other ceremonies: whereby it is manifest that they were not v∣sed through the whole world when that Denys wrote. As for incense, howsoeuer it crept into that Church in the which he liued: it appeereth by the writinges of p 11.826 Tertullian, and q 11.827 Ar∣nobius, that the Church vsed it not in their dayes. Neither is the censing, which Denys speaketh of, liker to yours: then (I

shewed) your blessinges are like to S. Austins. For r 11.828 he hath it onely once aboute the Church. But in s 11.829 your solemne Masse it is vsed often, and to sundrie thinges: to the crosse, to relikes, to images, to candlestickes, to the altar, the lower part of it, and the higher, to the Priestes, to the booke, to the bread and wine, thrise aboue the chalice, and the host, and thrise about them, to the altar, and the Priest againe and a∣gaine, to the quire, to the deacon, to the subdeacon, to the people; and, in Masses for the dead, to the sacrament also at the time of the eleuation. So that, if the wordes of the t 11.830 Trent-councell be weighed with your practise: you will léese the coun∣tenance of that which Denys sheweth to. For with him it is incense in the singular number. Your Masses and the Councell hau•• * 11.831 incenses in the plurall. By the which word if the Coun∣cell meant to note all the censinges that are vsed in Massing, as they did of likelyhood: then neither Denys maketh for your Mas∣sing-incense. Though, whatsoeuer he make, he maketh nought for your reason: because he proueth not that it was vsed through the whole world. Now the lights, which your Iesuite hath founde in S. u 11.832 Austin, make lesse a greate deale for it. For S. x 11.833 Austin calleth the lights which they vsed, ¹ lightes of the night: because they did vse them in the night time when they met at prayers, y 11.834 as Christians were wont. But your Massing-lights are vsed in the day time, when the sunne shineth: a thing perhaps obserued through the whole world, but z 11.835 of idolatrous Heathens, not of the Church of Christ.

Hart.

Yes, that Christian Churches had also lightes bur∣ning in the bright sunne-shine while the gospel was reading, S. a 11.836 Ierom is a witnesse; and, before S. Ierom, his Maister b 11.837 Na∣zianzen maketh mention of it; and c 11.838 Athanasius before them both. Wherefore out of dout it is an ancient custome, and that very generall.

Rainoldes.

As you say: if it be witnessed by these thrée Doctors, S. Ierom of Europe, Nazianzen of Asia, & Athanasius of Afrike. But he who saith they witnesse it, hath not read them, I thinke.

Hart.

But I thinke he hath: or rather I am sure of it. For D. d 11.839 Stapleton saith it, in his comparison of the Catholike and Roman Churches Masse with the Lordes supper of the

Protestants. Wherin as he allegeth these Doctors for this point: so he proueth all things, which your Supper wanteth and our Masse hath, to be Apostolike.

Rainoldes.

He proueth? Nay he promiseth to proue them Apostolike. For in verie truth he proueth not one: not one of all those things wherein your Masse differeth from our Lords sup∣per. No more then he proueth this of lightes burning in the bright sunne-shine: in y^e which he notably abuseth their names whom he doth cite to proue it. For in c 11.840 Athanasius the ta∣pers of the Church are mentioned onely: but that they were lighted in the day-time while the gospell was reading, there is no such word. b 11.841 Nazianzene speaketh of lightes that were burning vpon Easter-euen: but 2 11.842 to lighten the night, he saith, not the day.

Hart.

But speaketh he there of those night-lightes alone, and of no other light?

Rainoldes.

He speaketh of an other light, but spirituall For he saith that the most bright shining light foloweth the can∣dle that did go before it.

Hart.

Why, that is it that sheweth the ceremonie which wée talke off. For they were wont to carry candles before the gos∣pell when they did reade it.

Rainoldes.

They were wont afterward. But we speake of Nazianzene. And he meant nothing lesse. For by [the light] he signified Christ, e 11.843 the light of the world: and by [f 11.844 the can∣dle] Iohn Baptist▪ g 11.845 who went before Christ to prepare his wayes. The light (saith he) shining most excellently bright fo∣loweth the candle that did go before it; and h 11.846 the word, i 11.847 the voice; and k 11.848 the bridegrome, 3 11.849 the bride man, or frend who bringeth the bride to him. Is this D. Stapletons proofe out of Nazianzene for burning tapers in the day time?

Hart.

Of Nazianzene I know not. But certainely S. Ierom is a witnesse of it against Vigilanti••s▪

Rainoldes.

Yet these are S. Ieroms owne words in a 11.850 that treatise: We doo light 4 11.851 tapers not in the bright••day-time, as thou doost vainely sclaunder vs, but by this comfort to ease the darknes of the night.

Hart.

But he addeth that Churches of the east had lightes burning in the day-time, while the gospell was reading, ther∣by

to shew their ioy.

Rainoldes.

But nether this vsage of the easterne Churches was the same that yours is. For they did kéepe lightes, while the gospel was reading, and put them out after: which rite l 11.852 you had also, and some where haue perhaps yet. But the generall rite which you haue gotten now of burning tapers still, before the gospell, and after: that in S. Ieroms time not onely was vn∣borne in the we••••, but in the ••ast too. Though if the east had vsed it: yet nether were it proued so (by your reason) that the Apostles did ordeine it, because it was not vsed in the westerne Chur∣ches, & therfore not through the whole world. Howbeit I deny not but there is good reason why your Church should vse it. For m 11.853 Tertullian saith: let them light candels dayly who haue no light; 5 11.854 the testimonies of darkenes doo well beseeme them.

Hart.

You may bring Tertullians werdes, when you haue proued that we haue no light: which you shall neuer doo.

Rainoldes.

Not while you are able to say with n 11.855 the Pha∣rises, Are we blinde also? But sith there were so ancient Churches which lighted candels in the bright sunne-shine: that may be some colour for your Massing-lights. For your Massing-vestiments not so much can be found. Yet o 11.856 they are also fathered on the tradition of the Apostles.

Hart.

And D. p 11.857 Stapleton saith that if we list to runne through euery one of them, we shall finde that the primitiue Church did vse them all.

Rainoldes.

Belike you will neuer list then. For sure you will neuer finde that.

Hart.

No? Why say you so? When himselfe hath found it, and proueth it particularly. For hitherto belongeth the plate, or Bishoply miter▪

Rainoldes.

The miter? That is none of your Massing-vesti∣ments.

Hart.

Though it be none of them which simple Priestes weare, yet it is a vestiment that Bishops weare at Masse.

Rainoldes.

O, that Bishops weare. Then I perceiue your Doctor meaneth to proue not onely the sixe vestiments, com∣mon to all Priests, in token that they are perfit, because the

sixth day the Lord did perfit heauen and earth: but also the nine which Bishops haue beyond them, in token that they are spirituall like the nine orders of Angels, as Pope q 11.858 Innocentius and Bishop r 11.859 Durand open.

Hart.

If he proue them both: your shame is the greater, who nether vse the Priestly vestiments, nor the Bishoply.

Rainoldes.

But they both togither do make fifteene vesti∣ments: which Bishops must put on, when they say Masse, * 11.860 to signifie the fifteene degrees of vertues (according to the fifteene psalmes of degrees) wherewith they must be clad. And, I may tell you, it will be as hard to proue that any Bishop did weare those fifteene vestiments in the primitiue Church: as, that euery Bishop, who weareth them in yours, hath the the fifteene de∣grees of vertues which they signifie.

Hart.

Well, if you will hearken vnto D. Stapleton: hehath proued more, then may be with your liking. For hitherto be∣longeth the plate, or Bishoply miter, which Iohn the Euange∣list did weare, as Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus saith in the storie of s 11.861 Eusebius. Hitherto the Priestly attire of the head, mentioned by t 11.862 Tertullian. Hitherto the stole mentioned by S. u 11.863 Ambrose, and by the x 11.864 Councels of Braga and Toledo. Hi∣therto the copes, which y 11.865 Epiphanius calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hitherto the Deacons albe, as it is named in the z 11.866 Councell of Carthage: a 11.867 Chrysostome nameth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hitherto the robes, or han∣gings, with the which the altar is beautified, in the storie of b 11.868 Theodoret. Hitherto the linen clothes, and the couerings, wherewith (as c 11.869 Optatus doth expressely mention) altars in olde time were couered, as they are now. Hitherto the holy robe that reached downe to the feete, in d 11.870 Eusebius. To conclude, hitherto belongeth the amice, the girdle, the chisible, the fanel, and the corporace: which the Gréeke Fathers e 11.871 Chrysostome, and Basil, note also by their names, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which all to haue béene holy, and consecrated to this function, the same Fathers testifie. There is in f 11.872 Theodoret a notable example of an en∣terlude-plaier, who wearing on a stage a holy garment, that he had bought, fell sodenly downe and dyed. Of the like vengeance of God there are examples in g 11.873 Victor, and h 11.874 Bede. And i 11.875 Op∣tatus

also, more auncient then they both, doth sharply touch the Dona••ists for spoiling and profaning the o••naments of the Church.

Rainoldes.

Here is a faire tale for them, whose eyes are dim, and cannot iudge of colours. But they who can discerne be∣twéene wordes, and proofes, doo sée that neuer lesse was saide with greater shew. For, the pointe whereof proofe should bee made, is that the vestiments which are worne of Bishops and Priests saying Masse, were vsed all of them by the primitiue Church. The wordes which D. Stapleton speaketh of this point, are so farre from prouing it, that the most of them doo not as much as touch it. For the copes, which k 11.876 Epiphanius (hee saith) calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are the garments which the Scribes & Pharises did weare with * 11.877 phylacteries, and fri••ges. And the Scribes and Pharises (I trow) said not Masse.l 11.878 The robes or hangings of the altar in Theodoret, are 1 11.879 couerings. The couerings and linen clothes, in m 11.880 Optatus, are ornaments of the Communion table, such as we also vse. Is our commu∣nion Masse too?

Hart.

••ay, he calleth it an altar.

Rainoldes.

By a figure, as n 11.881 I haue shewed. For by the name of [altar] he meaneth a table, as these his wordes declare: who of the faithfull knoweth not that 2 11.882 the boordes them selues are couered with a linen cloth in celebrating of the sa∣crament? Of this kinde is also the cloth called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which worde importeth not so much as your o 11.883 corporace: but though it did, of this kinde it is in the counterfeit p 11.884 Chrysostome and Basil. As for the examples of the vengeance of God on them who profanely did abuse garments appointed vnto holy v∣ses: the first, in q 11.885 Theodoret, is not of a Massing but a baptizing garment, (a peculiar solemnitie more then your selues vse:) to omit that the matter of the enterlude-player was deuised to spite a Bishop▪ whose harme was sought as hauing solde it. The second, in r 11.886 U••••••or, is of the linen clothes and couerings of the altar, such as I spake of in Optatus. The third, in s 11.887 Bede, is added to make vp the tale: for there is no such s••orie. Finally, the Church-ornamentes, which t 11.888 Optatus sheweth that co∣••etous men would haue spoyled, were of gold and siluer: vessels belike, & plate, wherewith S. u 11.889 Ierom noteth that many (though

he reproue it as Iewish and superstitious) did decke vp Christi∣stian Churches after the example of the temple in Iury. But whether they were vessels, as dishes and cuppes for bread and wine at the Communiō, or whatsoeuer other instruments, or ie∣wels: Optatus neither saith, nor séemeth to say, that they were Massing-vestiments. There remaineth the miter, the stole, the albe, the amice, the girdle, the chisible, & the fanel. Which first are farre beneth the number of fifteene; and so they reach not to all your Massing-vestiments. Then, for sundrie of them, it appéereth not that they were such as yours; or rather it is plaine that they were not such. Lastly, if they were such: yet how doth it folow that they came from the Apostles? Which is the point that Stapleton would and ought to proue; or els fare∣well the Trent-councell.

Hart.

Came not the Bishoply miter from the Apostles, which S. Iohn, an Apostle and Euangelist did weare, as you may sée in x 11.890 Eusebius?

Rainoldes.

Polycrates, whom Eusebius alleageth, doth not mention a miter, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, a thinne plate, such as was y 11.891 the plate of golde set in the front of the miter of Aaron, the high Priest of the Iewes, that it might be vpon his his forhead.

Hart.

But Polycrates signified a miter by that [plate,] af∣ter a figure of spéech, wherein a part is vsed to signifie the whole.

Rainoldes.

Nay, if you come to figures, it is more likely that Polycrates, in saying, S. Iohn was 1 11.892 a Priest that did beare the plate, meant (by an allusion to the lawe of Moses) that he entred as it were into the sanctuarie with prerogatiue, and had the very mysteries of God * 11.893 reueled to him. Whereto S. z 11.894 Ierom séemeth somewhat to incline: who translating the same of Polycrates touching Iohn, saith, that hee was a high Priest bearing the plate of gold vpon his head. For if he had vsed to beare a plate of gold in déede, vpon his forhead: sure, when a 11.895 Peter saide, siluer and gold haue I none, to the creple who desired an almes of Peter and him, that plate would not haue saued his forhead from blushing. Neither is it nothing that Polycrates mentioned 2 11.896 the plate, and not a miter: sith * 11.897 other of the Iewish Priests did weare 3 11.898 miters; none, but th•• high Priest, the plate. Howbeit, if the worde were meant as

you would haue it, and S. Iohn had worne a miter like to Aa∣ron: yet his example proueth not that all Apostles, much lesse that all Bishops wore it. Nay, the speciall note thereof in S. Iohn doth rather proue the contrarie: as, when we reade that c 11.899 Iohn Baptist had his garment of camels heare, and a girdle of skin, we gather that all preachers wore not such apparell.

Hart.

But infulae, that is a Priestly attire of the head, which d 11.900 Tertullian speaketh of, was common to them all: and the mi∣ter séemeth to bee the same with vs, that infulae with him.

Rainoldes.

I graunt that the attire, which Tertullian spea∣keth of, doth touch your miter néerer: but it doth not proue it. For e 11.901 infulae were miters, which the heathnish Priests, as namely the 4 11.902 Priestes of Ceres, and 5 11.903 Apollo did weare in their solemnities. Of the which ceremonie Tertullian deriuing a prouerbiall phrase (after the maner of his style) doth say tou∣ching Christians, who refuse to be counted Priests, that 6 11.904 they lay downe the miters. In déede it is likely the miters of your Bishops came from that heathnish rite: although they draw some what from the Iewish custome, as f 11.905 Wolfgangus Lazius, your friend, hath well obserued. But it is neither true, nor fit for you to hold, that it was a miter worne by Christian Priests which Tertullian meant. Not fit for you to hold: least all Priests be pro∣ued to haue as good right to the miter, as your Bishops; which doctrine they will neuer account of, as catholike. Not true: be∣cause your Bishoply miters were not vsed in many hundred yeres after Tertullian.

Hart.

No? Is it not writen in g 11.906 the donation of Con∣stantine, that when he offered Pope Siluester a golden crown beset with gemmes, the Pope refused it, and onely tooke a white miter?

Rainoldes.

What tell you me againe of that foolish forge∣ry? Which yet doth make the first originall of the miter younger then Tertullian: But the true recordes and monuments of an∣tiquitie doo shew that it was not bredde a greate while after. For h 11.907 Amalarius Fortunatus, and i 11.908 Rabanus Maurus, and k 11.909 Walafridus Strabo who liued aboue eight hundred yeares after Christ, and wrote of the vestiments which Bishops wore in their dayes, make no mention of it. And l 11.910 Alcuinus, the Mai∣ster of Charles the great, who liued and wrote not long before

them, treating of Priestly vestiments, and therein of the miter of the Iewish Priests: 7 11.911 we haue not (saith he) such a vestiment in the Church of Rome, or in our countries. Yea m 11.912 Iuo Car∣notensis, who liued thrée hundred yeares after Alcuinus, doth shew that in his daies it was not yet come in: and, with expresse mention of the plate of golde, he saith that no Priests of the new Testament doo weare it. Wherefore the first and highest of your Massing-vestiments is nether confirmed by the plate in Eusebius, nor by the miters in Tertullian. The next is the stole: whereof you haue no better proofe in S. n 11.913 Ambrose. For that, which he mentioneth, was either a towell, (as it may séeme,) or a napkin, wherein his brother Satyrus caused the sacrament to be wrapped vp, and laid it to his necke. At least, séeing Sa∣tyrus was nether Priest, nor perfit Christian: what shew haue you of likelihood that it was a Massing-vestiment?

Hart.

S. Ambrose calleth it orarium. And orarium is vsed in the o 11.914 Councell of Toledo for the same that stola, that is, a stole, as we call it.

Rainoldes.

But if S. Ambrose meant a stole by orarium, because the Councell meant so: then stol•• in p 11.915 the later writers of those matters must be a womans garment, because it is so in q 11.916 Isidore, who liued néerer to them, then did S. Ambrose to the Councell. And as for that Councell, and the other of Braga: no marueile if the stole be mentioned in them. For they were kept at * 11.917 that time when rites did steale in upon religion verie fast. Though nether was it then halfe setled in the Masse yet: as by a later r 11.918 Councell of Braga may be gathered. Howbeit, if it had béene: your proofe faileth still. For you may not say that because a Spanish Councel speaketh of it, therfore the Church had it by tradition of the Apostles. Unlesse you will say also, that your shauen crownes ought to be great circles about the whole head by the tradition of the Apostles, and not such little circles on the toppe of the head onely, as now a daies are made: because s 11.919 a Spanish Councell condemneth1 11.920 the shauing of those little circles as 2 11.921 a rite of heretikes, and alloweth none, but great ones. So farre of the stole. There foloweth the albe. For which the Deacons albe, so named in the t 11.922 Councell of Carthage, maketh nothing. For though the name of albe be de∣riued from alba, by which word the Councell doth note a white

garment, as it were a surplisse, forbidding the Deacōs to weare it all the seruice time: yet the thing differeth from your Mas∣sing-albe which is peculiar to Priests, as u 11.923 the Canonists also declare on the same worde of the Councell of Carthage. Which difference remoueth your proofe, out of x 11.924 Chrysostome, touching 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too. For what soeuer kind of garment that were: it was common to the Deacons, not proper to the Priests; and there∣fore not your Massing-albe. Hitherto the holy robe (in y 11.925 Eu∣sebius,) that reached downe to the feete, should be referred by z 11.926 their iudgement, who compare the garments of Aaron with yours. But Stapleton, who found that holy robe in Eusebius, might haue found withall an other meaning of it by the wordes folowing. For he, whose oration Eusebius doth report, telleth Bishops that they are clad with * 11.927 the holy robe that reached downe to the feete, and with the heauenly crowne of glorie, and with the vnction of God, and with the Priestly garment of the holy Ghost. Wherein, as the garment, and vnction, and crowne do signifie spirituall giftes, not thinges corporall: so the holy robe that reached downe to the feete betokeneth that function, which a 11.928 that robe b 11.929 in Aaron did represent and shadow.

Hart.

You perswade not me that he alluded so to the robe of Aaron: but that hee meant in déede a robe which Christian Bishops wore.

Rainoldes.

And what gaine you by it, if so much were gran∣ted? For you cannot proue by any circumstance of the place, that it must be a Massing-robe. The onely shew of any such is in your last proofe out of the Gréeke Fathers, Chrysostome, and Basil; or rather, out of the Liturgies, which falsely beare their names; or rather, out of some copies ofthose Liturgies, wherin are mentioned the amice, the girdle, the chisible, and the fanel. Howbeit, if a man should sift the Gréeke words, out of the which you picke these, and conferre your amice with their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, your biggin of the head with their shoulder garment, your one coard or fanel with their mo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, your chisible with their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: perhaps he should leaue the girdle post alone to binde your proofe with. And doutlesse, in that which is most maske-like, and least beséemeth Christian Pastours at publike seruice, I meane that which the Priest at Masse weareth vppermost, the

chisible you call it (I trow) or vpper vestiment: the Gréeke word declareth that you doo wrong to the Grecians in matching that of theirs with yours. For the word 1 11.930 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the which their vpper vestiment is noted, doth signifie a cloake: a garment worne much ( c 11.931 as single, and readie) by Christians in olde time, chiefly by the Grecians, whose Bishops kept it thence belike in solemnities, when other wise they left it off▪ But your vpper vestiment is farre from that singlenes: nor is it like to that com∣mon garment, but to a little cottage, (whence it is named 2 11.932 casula,) closing the Priest round as it were with walles, and ha∣uing a hole for him to put out his head at, as it were a loouer-hole to let out the smoke at.

Hart.

The high Priest of the Iewes had the like robe.

Rainoldes.

Like your cottage-vestiment? Which robe was that?

Hart.

If not like our vpper vestiment altogither, yet like in that respect that it was close about, d 11.933 with a hole for his head in the ••••ddes of it. And therefore you néede not to scoffe in such sort at that kinde of vestiment.

Rainoldes.

If you take the little cottage to be a scoffe, it is not my scoffe, but your owne e 11.934 Doctours, whose * 11.935 wordes I doo but open. Your selfe are rather faultie, who compare your cot∣tage-ragge patched by mans braine, with a Priestly robe made by Gods commandement. And yet, in that you match your vesti¦ment with the Iewish for the forme of it, I reproue you not. For though there be difference betwéene theirs, and yours, in sundrie respectes: yet yours were taken vp after the example, and made in likenes of theirs. Which is plainely shewed by those ancient autours whom I named before, Alcuinus, Amalarius, and Wa∣lafridus Strabo. Of whom the f 11.936 first treating of Massing-vesti¦ments, saith, that the Church receiued them 1 11.937 after the facion of the Priests of Moses law. The g 11.938 next, that our hye Priest (he meaneth euery Bishop) hath them 2 11.939 after the rule of Aarō. The h 11.940 last, that they came in by little & little: for at the first (saith he) men celebrated Masses in common apparel, as certaine of the east Church are said to doo till this day. And so hee goeth forward shewing in particular, how Stephen, and Sil∣uester, and other Popes, and Prelats did softly bring them in, and some deuised this, some that, either to resemble the

roabes of the Iewish Priests, or to note a mysterie. To be short, it is shewed plainely by them all, that the Massing-vestiments of Bishops at that time (which was eight hundred yeares after Christ) were but eight in number: iust as many as Aarons. Whereof the former seuen, (for the eighth was proper to Arch∣bishops onely) are growen now to be fiftéene, more then twise as many. And doo you not perceiue hereby, M. Hart, how lewdly D. Stapleton alleageth the Fathers, to proue your Massing-vesti∣mentes all to haue bene vsed by the primitiue Church? How falsely the Councell of Trent doth father them, nor onely them but also lightes, incense, crossinges, and other ceremonies of the Masse on the tradition of the Apostles? And sawe I not truely that if you see not how the Christian worship of God in spirit and truth doth differ from the Iewish, and so might succeed it: the cause thereof (by likelihood) is the vaile of Popery, which hauing brought in a Iewish kinde of worship doth hide it from your eyes? For is it not euident that the Iewish * 11.941 shadowes, that is, the darke lineaments of Christ, as of a picture, which he abolished by his coming as being the image it selfe and body of them, are drawne out againe by the painters of your religion? Or may not he, that hath but halfe an eye, sée, that you surpasse the Iewes in sundrie shewes of outwarde seruice, and go beyond the priesthood of Aaron in carnall rites? For the most whereof though you haue meanings mysticall▪ or spiritual matters which they are saide to figure in other significations then the Iewish did: yet they set the Church to schoole with new * 11.942 rudiments af∣ter a Iewish maner, and presse it with that bondage from which the Lord hath made it frée. Wherefore, were they taken from the Iewes, or not: yet in respect of vs, on whom God hath not laide them, they are of * 11.943 the commandements & doctrines of men. And we may iustly say of them, now being bredde, the same, that S· m 11.944 Austin saide, when they were bréeding: Although it can not be found in what sense they are against the faith, yet reli∣gion it selfe which God of his mercy would haue to bee free vnder * 11.945 very few and most manifest ceremonies of diuine ser∣uice, is by them o••pressed so with seruile burdens, that the case and state of the Iewes is more tolerable; who although they haue not acknowledged the time of libertie, yet are they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the packes of Gods law, not with the deuises and

presumptions of men.

Hart.

It is a calumnious spéech that our ceremonies are sha∣dowes, or rudiments, or kéepe the Church in bondage as the Iewish did. For theirs were very many, combersome, & darke: ours are v••ry few, easie, and significant. As S. n 11.946 Austin saith, that since that our libertie hath shined most brightly by Christs resurrection, we are not laden with a heauie charge of signes, as were the Iewes: but our Lord himselfe and the Apostolike discipline hath deliuered to vs 2 11.947 some few in steed of many, and them most easie to be doon, most hono∣rable for signification, most cleane and pure to be obserued. But you would haue (me thinkes) no ceremonies at all: for you saide that the worship of God amongst Christians is spirituall meerely.

Rainoldes.

I spake in comparison of the Iewish worship: or rather Christ, not I. For they are his wordes, that o 11.948 God will be worshipped now in spirit and truth. Which must néedes be meant of meere spirituall worship: sith the reason fo∣lowing, that p 11.949 God is a spirit, doth shew that the Iewes did worship him in spirit too. And yet is that spoken in compari∣son, as I saide. For Christ him selfe ordeined two principall ce∣remonies, which we call the sacraments, his q 11.950 Supper, and his r 11.951 Baptisme. And the Church-assemblies,s 11.952 which are helpes most necessarie for vs to learne and practise that spirituall wor∣ship, must haue their time, when; their place, where; their ma∣ner, how; things to be directed t 11.953 with coomelinesse and order, in rites fit u 11.954 to edifie. But these are few in number and cléere in signification. So few, that they are nothing in comparison of the Iewish: so cléere, that they do liuely represent Christ, and are no darke shadowes. Now whether that your Popish ceremonies haue kept this fewnes, and cléerenes.

Hart.

Perhaps you meane because we haue seuen sacra∣ments, and not two onely. But the Fathers, as namely S. Au∣stin (though x 11.955 your men alleage him to the contrary,) doo name other sacraments beside the Lordes Supper (as you call it) and Baptisme.

Rainoldes.

But S. Austin nameth not your seuen sacra∣ments, as you may see by his y 11.956 Confession.

Hart.

Yet he nameth more then your two sacraments. And

the rest of ours are proued by other Fathers. Whereupon the z 11.957 Councell of Trent hath defined that there are seuen sacra∣ments of the new law, neither more, nor fewer: & they all are sacraments truly and properly.

Rainoldes.

The a 11.958 Fathers doo commonly vse the word [sacrament] for a mystery or signe of a holy thing. And so you may proue seuen and twentie sacraments by them, as well as seuen. Which is manifest by S. b 11.959 Austin, whom you pretend herein most. For as he giueth the name of sacrament to c 11.960 ma∣riage, to d 11.961 the ordering of ministers, to e 11.962 laying on of hands, and f 11.963 reconci••••ng of the repentant: so he giueth it to g 11.964 Easter, and to the Lords day, h 11.965 to the sanctifying and i 11.966 instructing of nouices in the faith, the feeding, the signing, the catechizing of them, the making of prayers, the singing of Psalmes, and so forth to other holy rites and actions. But as the worde [sa∣crament] is taken in a straiter signification, to note the visible signes inistuted by Christ for the assurance and increase of grace in the faithfull, which is the sense of it both with k 11.967 you, and l 11.968 vs, when we speake of sacraments: so doth m 11.969 he name those two, as principall ones, by an excellencie; and, when n 11.970 there issued blood and water out of Christes side, o 11.971 these are * 11.972 the two sacra∣ments (saith he) of the Church, meaning the Lordes supper by blood, by water baptisme. Yea, the Schoolemen them selues, who were the first autours that did raise them vp to the precise number of seuen, no more, nor fewer; for you ••••nde it not in any of the Fathers or other writers whatsoeuer before a thousand yeares after Christ: but the Schoolemen them selues haue shewed that the seuen are not all sacraments, if the name of sa∣crament be taken properly and straitly. For neither can ma∣riage so be of the number, as p 11.973 Durand proueth well: neither confirmation (the chrisme of oyle and balme) as q 11.974 Bonauen∣ture teacheth. And, to be short, their captaine r 11.975 Alexander of Ales doth auouch expressely, that there are 1 11.976 onely two principal sa∣craments, 2 11.977 which Christ himselfe did institute: so that (by his confession) as we speake of sacraments, there are two only. But my meaning was not to blame you for seuen. I spake of all your ceremonies, which are (I may say boldly) seuentie times seuen.

Which whether that they be so few, and so cléere in comparison of the Iewish, as I haue declared and you confesse that Christi∣an ceremonies should be: let the learned iudge by comparing of your Church-bookes, chiefly the s 11.978 Ceremoniall, t 11.979 Pontificall, and u 11.980 Missall, with x 11.981 the bookes of Moses. Let the vnlearned gesse by the store and straungenesse of sacrificing vestiments: whereof y 11.982 their common Priests had thrée, yours haue sixe; their high Priest had eight, your Bishops haue fiftéene at least, and some sixtéene, beside z 11.983 the Popes prerogatiue-robes. And so, to leaue this matter to their consideration: your owne confession, yeldeth enough for my purpose touching the place of Malachie. For if the spiritual worshipping of God, wherewith the Iewes did serue him, had ceremonies in number more, in signification darker, then it hath amongst the Gentiles: this kinde of seruing him with fewer ceremonies & cléerer is proper to the Gentils, & might succeede that which was amongst the Iewes. Wherefore D. Allens third, & fourth reasons, whereby he would proue that the offering spokē of in Malachie the Prophet must signify the outward sacrifice of the Masse, and not spirituall sacrifices, can take no holde against vs. No more then ours could take against you of the contrarie, if we should conclude that it must betoken a spirituall worship not outward offeringes on an altar, because outward offeringes are common to the Iewes with vs, and this is proper to the Gentiles: and this should succéede the Iewish worship of God, and come in steede of it, which no outward offeringes and sacrifices can doo, sith they are coopled alwayes to Gods spirituall worship. Would you allow these reasons?

Hart.

They are not like to D. Allens. But the fifth reason doth put the matter out of doubt. For, (in the iudgement chiefly of heretikes,) 1 11.984 our workes are defiled, howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull: but that 2 11.985 Propheticall offering is cleane of it selfe, and so cleane of it selfe in comparison of the olde sacrifices, that it cannot be polluted any way by vs or by the worst Priests. For here in our testament, they can not choose all the best to them selues, and offer to the Lord for sacrifice the féeble, the lame, and the sicke, as before in the old: because there is now one sacrifice so appointed, that it can not be changed; so cleane, that no worke of ours can distaine it.

Rainoldes.

And thinke you M. Hart, that the workes of Christians can not be the offering which the Prophet speaketh

of, because they are defiled, howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull? Thinke you thus in déede? Then you consent yet in the chiefest point of Christian religion (which God graunt you doo) with he∣retikes, as you terme vs. For, if our workes be defiled, how∣soeuer they seeme bewtifull, chiefly as heretikes iudge: then are men iustified by faith, not by workes. If our workes bee defiled, howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull: then fulfill we not the law of God perfitly, much lesse super-erogate. If our works be defiled, howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull: then are they me∣ritorious of euerlasting death, but euerlasting life it is impossible they should merit.

Hart.

Nay, I meant not so. For though they be defiled, as they are of our selues: yet as they are of Christ, whose grace wor∣keth in vs, they are pure and perfit.

Rainoldes.

Then, as they are wrought by the grace of Christ, so they may be the offering which the Prophet speaketh of. For they are pure and perfit so, and therefore cleane by your owne opinion.

Hart.

But the Propheticall offering is cleane of it selfe. Our workes are not cleane of them selues, but of Christ: and therefore can not be that offering.

Rainoldes.

Now may you féele the falshood of D. Allens dea∣ling. For himselfe addeth those words [* 11.986 of it selfe,] to make his reason serue: the Prophet saith no more but that a 11.987 the offering is cleane. Wherefore sith our workes are cleane and vndefiled; chiefly as Papistes iudge: our workes might be meant by the Propheticall offering, howsoeuer they be vnperfit and impure of them selues.

Hart.

What? And doo you thinke, M. Rainoldes, that our workes, though vncleane of them selues, yet as they are wrought by the grace of Christ, are cleane and vndefiled? And see you not then, that of the other side you consent in the chiefest point of Catholike faith with Papists, as you terme vs? For if you thinke in deede that our workes bee cleane, as they are wrought by grace: then must you néedes thinke that we may so fulfil the law, and merit life, and be iustified by workes, not by faith onely.

Rainoldes.

I meant not so, M. Hart. But according to the prouerbe, that for a hard knot a hard wedge must be sought,

I thought good to cleaue a Popish dreame in sunder with a Po∣pish fansy. For otherwise, I know, that, although our workes be wrought by Christes grace: yet is mans nature and flesh in vs who worke them, and therefore doo they cary a staine of vn∣cleannes. It was of grace, that the children of Israel did conse∣crate their holy thinges and giftes to God. Yet that worke of theirs was not frée from spot: in so much that b 11.988 Aaron must beare on his forhead a plate of pure gold, wherein was in∣grauen, Holines of the Lord, (a monument of Christ) c 11.989 that hee might take away the iniquitie of 1 11.990 the holy thinges which they consecrated, of all the giftes of their holy thinges; and he should beare it alwayes to make them acceptable before the Lord. It is of grace, that the Saintes of God doo pray to him. Yet, d 11.991 the other Angel, that stoode before the altar with a golden censer, had much odours giuen him 2 11.992 that hee might put them into the prayers of all the Saintes vpon the golden altar which is before the throne, and the smoke of the odours put into the prayers went vp before God out of the Angels hand. Which is a token that the prayers of Saintes haue their infirmitie: and yeelde no sweete smelling fauour vnto God, without fauour in Christ. To be short, in all the gratious and good workes of men, e 11.993 God doth worke in vs both to will, and to doo. But f 11.994 euill is so present with vs, that g 11.995 the good which we would doo, we can not: wee would, through Gods grace; we can not, through our frailtie. Yea, when we doo good, it is a will rather of dooing, then a dooing; we are so farre from perfit dooing it. For wee ought to h 11.996 loue God with all our heart, and with all our soule, and with all our strength, & with al our thought: and our neigh∣bours, as our selues. But as long as i 11.997 the flesh doth lust against the spirit, and k 11.998 a law in our members doth rebell a∣gainst the law of our minde; which is as long as we are in l 11.999 this body of death: we loue him not with all our heart, soule, strength, and thought, but with part; and therefore in lesser measure, then we ought. Now, whatsoeuer is lesse, then it should be, is fautie: for it transgresseth m 11.1000 his commandement. Wherefore sith our workes should bee doon with perfit loue of God and men, and that perfit loue we haue not in this life: it fo∣loweth that our workes in this life are fautie; yea, though they 〈◊〉〈◊〉

wrought by the grace of Christ. Not as though his grace had any blemish, (God forbidde;) but because our selues, in whom it worketh, are corrupt: as water, though it flow from a fountaine most cléere, yet, if it doo runne through a muddy chanell, it be∣commeth muddy. So nether fulfill we the law in any worke, much lesse in all our workes, which they must doo, who will ful∣fill it; for n 11.1001 he that offendeth in one, is guiltie of all: nether can we merit ought at Gods hands, much lesse eternall life; for o 11.1002 he oweth vs no thankes p 11.1003 though we did all thinges which are commaunded vs, because we ought to do them; and what is our desert then, who doo not all things? nether may wee possibly be iustified by workes before the iudgement seat of God; for q 11.1004 cursed is euery man that continueth not in all things, which are written in the booke of the law, to doo them, and r 11.1005 we all offend in many things.

Hart.

But if all our workes be muddy, as you say, and stai∣ned with vncleannesse: then is it much surer that the cleane of∣fering, which the Prophet speaketh off, cannot betoken them. For the Lord reproueth the Iewish Priests there for s 11.1006 offe∣ring vncleane bread, and sacrificing the blinde, the lame, and the sicke. Wherefore sith of the contrarie he saith that the offe∣ring made among the Gentiles shall be a cleane offering: it fo∣loweth that he meant not the spirituall sacrifices, that is, the workes of Christians; and what then, but the outward sacrifice of the Masse?

Rainoldes.

In déede if cleane things stained with vnclean∣nesse were the verie same that vncleane things: you might iust∣ly thinke that our spirituall sacrifices could not be allowed, no more then the carnall of those Iewish Priests. But the onely sacrifice that is cleane perfitly, and hath no staine at all, is t 11.1007 Christ, the vndefiled and vnspotted Lambe, u 11.1008 offered on the crosse to sanctifie vs with his blood. The sacrifices of the faithfull are cleane, but vnperfitly: and therefore néede his fa∣uour, with pardon, (as I shewed,) that they may be x 11.1009 accepta∣ble to God through Iesus Christ. The sacrifices of the wic∣ked, and hypocrites, are vncleane: as being either vnlawfull, such as were y 11.1010 the blinde, and lame, and sicke among the Iewes; or offered vnlawfully, with z 11.1011 mindes and consciences defiled. So the sacrifices of those Iewish Priests, which God

reproueth, were absolutely vncleane. Our spirituall sacrifices are vnperfitly cleane: cleane in comparison, and cleane by ac∣ceptation. Cleane in comparison & respect of men: as Habacuk complaining that a 11.1012 the wicked man deuouteth the righteous, saith, * 11.1013 him that is righteous in respect of him selfe; praysing not the righteous man as simply righteous, but in compari∣son of the wicked. Cleane by acceptation in the sight of God: who dealing as a louing father with his children, taketh in good part that which they doo willingly, though they doo it weakely. For as b 11.1014 he accepted the sacrifices of the Iewes, when they offered the best and soundest that they had: so when c 11.1015 the Gentiles were brought him for an offering, in like sort as the Israelites doo offer an offering in a cleane vessell, d 11.1016 the offering vp of them was acceptable to him. And thus might the spirituall sacrifi∣ces of Christians be meant by the cleane offering, whereof the Lord saith in the Prophet Malachie that it shall be offered to him in euerie place. According to the scripture, that instruc∣teth vs e 11.1017 to pray in euerie place, lifting vp pure hands with∣out wrath, and douting. For though nether our prayers be so intier and feruent, nor our hands so pure, and vnspotted of the world, nor our mindes so setled in loue of our neighbour, nor our faith so constant, and stedfast towards God, but that they be stai¦ned with remnants of vncleannes, and haue lesse perfitnes then they should: yet are they all cleane in respect of f 11.1018 the sacrifices of those Iewish hypocrites, which God in the Prophet reiecteth as g 11.1019 vncleane; and so, where he h 11.1020 refuseth to accept theirs, he i 11.1021 promiseth to accept ours, and sheweth that k 11.1022 they please him well. Wherefore the Masse findeth no footing in Malachie by D. Allens fifth reason. Now the sixth, and last, which he conclu∣deth with, as it were to set the Masse in full possession of the cleane offering mentioned by Malachie: doth dispossesse it cleane and casteth out the reasons which he brought to strengthen it. For the Fathers expound it of our l 11.1023 spirituall sacrifices, of m 11.1024 prayers, of n 11.1025 thankes giuing, of o 11.1026 holinesse, of p 11.1027 godly works, of q 11.1028 repentant heartes, of r 11.1029 clensed mindes, and bodies sanc∣tified, of s 11.1030 the giftes offered in Christian Church-assemblies, and of t 11.1031 the whole worship wherewith we honour him in spi∣rit and truth. Wherein to say that they meane the sacrifice of the Masse by the sacrifice of prayer, and the spirituall sacri∣fice,

as he ••aith they doo, and that they call it so because 1 11.1032 the victime, that is here, hath not a grosse, carnall, and bloody consecration or sacrification, as had the victimes of the Iewes: it is grosse, and carnall. For the victime, (as you terme it) which they meane, and speake of, is either u 11.1033 our selues, pu∣rified by faith; o•• x 11.1034 our fruites, accepted as pure from persons purified: not Christ, killed, and sacrificed vnto God his Father, which is your Massing-uictime, pure of it selfe, and purifying o∣thers, as you fansie. Yea, sith it is granted by D. y 11.1035 Allens owne words, that Austin, expounding it of the sacrifice of praise, meaneth not the sacrifice of the Masse thereby: let z 11.1036 that place of Austin he weighed with the rest of a 11.1037 his and b 11.1038 other Fathers, and it shall be found that Malachie toucheth not the Masse in their iudgement, by D. Allens owne graunt. The sixe reasons therefore which he setteth forth, as 2 11.1039 strong, and very good, for the proofe thereof, proue it no better out of the Prophets in the old testament: then doo his bare wordes out of the Apostles in the new. In déede there is no letter through all the scriptures for it. And thus much perhaps him selfe hath espied, since hee wrote his treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse. For in his Apo∣logie of the English Seminaries, (where he would of likeli∣hood make the strongest proofe of it, that he could, for the defense of Masse-priests, and the Masse-priests Nourseries,) c 11.1040 he citeth not the scriptures, but the Fathers onely. Which, vnlesse hée thought that the scriptures faile him, I sée not why hee should. Chiefly, sith he knoweth, that they, whose good liking of Masse-priests, & the Masse he séeketh specially to winne by his Apolo∣gie, doo giue greater credit to fiue words of God then to ten thou∣sand words of men.

Hart.

Nay, you are deceued much in D. Allen, if you think his iudgement changed any whit from that it was in this point. But in his Apologie he citeth the Fathers onely, not the scrip∣tures, because you haue colours of spiritual sacrifices to shift the scriptures off; but you cannot the Fathers so. For they all were Masse-priestes themselues, and said Masse.

Rainoldes.

What one of them, M. Hart? If you speake in∣deede to the point of the Masse, and daly not, as D. Allen: who maketh Masse-priestes of the Apostles, because they did conse∣crate the body and bloud of Christ, and offer it. For if to con∣secrate

and offer, as d 11.1041 they did, be to say Masse: then wee say Masse in our Communion, and our Ministers are Masse-priests Which (I thinke) you meane not.

Hart.

I meane that all the Fathers said Masse, as we doo; and were, as we be, Masse-priests. Which he meaneth also, and proueth by the most of them. For so was S. Ambrose, e 11.1042 testi∣fying of him selfe that he offred sacrifice, and said Masse, euen in that plaine terme.

Rainoldes.

In that plaine terme? Why? S. Ambose spake not English, I trust.

Hart.

No. But he saith in Latin, Missam facere.

Rainoldes.

That is not to say Masse, but to doo masse, or rather to dimisse. * 11.1043 Missam fecit, in f 11.1044 Suetonius, would proue the Masse as wel as that. Which I dare not say that perhaps him selfe espied since he wrote it, least againe you tell me that I am much deceiued in him. But in g 11.1045 his Apologie turned into La∣tin, S. Ambroses missam facere is changed into missam dixisse. And so the words are fitter to proue he said Masse.

Hart.

Dixisse, or facere: the matter standeth not in that, but in the word missa. From which sith the name of Masse dooth come in English: it foloweth that S. Ambrose did celebrate Masse, that is, say Masse, as wée terme it.

Rainoldes.

Must I tell you again, that idiot commeth from idiota? And wil you say that all the simple, idiotae, who heare Masse, are idiotes?

Hart.

That is a iest: you may not so put off my reason. For the name openeth the nature of the thing, as h 11.1046 Aristotle shew∣eth. Wherefore sith the name of Masse is in S. Ambrose: how can you deny but that hee did celebrate the thing, that is, the Masse it selfe, as we doo, whom you call Masse-priests?

Rainoldes.

And thinke you in earnest that S. Paul did cele∣brate the communion of the body and blood of Christ, as we doo, who are called Ministers?

Hart.

As you doo? who saith so?

Rainoldes.

You: if your reason be of any value. For the name openeth the nature of the thing, as Aristotle sheweth. Wherfore sith the name of communion is in S. i 11.1047 Paul: how can you deny but that he did celebrate the thing, euen the communi∣on it selfe, as we doo, who are called Ministers?

Hart.

Yes. For though you keepe the name with S. Paul: yet you keepe not the thing. As k 11.1048 sorcerers are called magi, like l 11.1049 the Sages of the East: yet is their wisdome wicked, not like that of the Sages.

Rainoldes.

That is false M. Hart, as you referre it to our Communion. For as we keepe the name, so we kéepe the meaning of the name too: and therefore the thing it selfe with S. Paul. But turne it to your Masse: and it is very true. For in S. Ambroses time the Christian people, hauing publike prayers in many Churches dayly, m 11.1050 did therewithall dayly receiue the holy sacrament of Christes body, and bloud. Now, because sun∣dry were at other partes of diuine seruice, for whom it was not lawful to receiue the sacrament, as 1 11.1051 nouices in the faith who were not yet baptized, and 2 11.1052 such as Church discipline remoued from the communion: therefore they were wont (after prayers made, and scriptures read, and taught,) n 11.1053 to dimisse the rest who might not communicate, the faithful onely staying to receue to∣gether. And this dimission of them was noted by the word o 11.1054 missa, * 11.1055 vsed for missio, that is a sending away, or licensing to depart. Whence it came to passe that the very name of missa was geuen to that part of the seruice: and they were said missam fa∣cere, who celebrated the communion as S. Ambrose did. Where∣fore though your sacrifice keepeth the name of Masse, that S. Ambrose vsed: yet doth it not keepe the thing meant thereby. For nether send you them away, who receiue not: and many a Masse is said that hath no communicants.

Hart.

But we wish (as p 11.1056 the Councell of Trent hath de∣clared) that 1 11.1057 the faithful, who stand by at Masse, would com∣municate. Wherefore if they doe not: it is through their owne default, and not through ours.

Rainoldes.

But it is your faute that you send not them away from the communion who communicate not. And herein your Councell doth vary from S. Ambrose, and other an∣cient Fathers, that it alloweth non-communicants to be stan∣ders by. For in the primitiue Church, yea, in S. Gregories time, (who for q 11.1058 naming Masse too is made a Masse-priest by your Doctor,) r 11.1059 the Deacon was accustomed to bid them 2 11.1060 de∣part, who did not communicate. Wherefore séeing that they meant the Communion by the name of Masse, and termed it so,

because they sent away the non-communicants from it: you, who doo not so, may see how fond a reason D. Allen maketh for your Masse, and Masse-priestes, when he sheweth Ambrose, Gregorie, and s 11.1061 Leo to haue vsed that name. Then which there can be nothing in deede more against him. For if the name open the nature of the thing as Aristotle sheweth: then is not your Masse, the masse of the Fathers, because it is not missa, that is, a dimissing, and sending away of them who receiue not.

Harte.

Nay, it is not onely the name of the Masse, whereon he relieth, but the thing it selfe. For who knoweth not (saith he) that S. t 11.1062 Gregory the great was a Masse-priest, who hath the very word, the maner, and the partes thereof so expresly in his Epistles: who u 11.1063 sent all holy furniture and ornamentes for the same to our Blessed Apostle.

Rainoldes.

What? to S. Paul, x 11.1064 the Apostle of the Gentiles?

Hart.

I meane, to S. Austin the Apostle of the Englishmen.

Rainoldes.

I know no such Apostle: if you meane of that sort▪ of which y 11.1065 Christ gaue Apostles; as the maiestie of the words [our Blessed Apostle] should import. But the orna∣ments, and furniture which S. Gregorie sent to Austin the Moonke, were not Massing-vestiments: no more then the vessels and clothes (that you mentioned before out of Optatus, and o∣ther ancient Fathers,) which serued for the Communion. As for the maner and partes of the Masse, which he hath (you say) in his Epistles so expresly: all that which he hath▪ is, z 11.1066 that there was said, 1 11.1067 praise ye the Lord; and, the clergie saying, 2 11.1068 Lord haue mercy vpon vs, the people answered them with the same wordes; and 3 11.1069 Christ haue mercy vpon vs was saide in like sort; and 4 11.1070 the Lordes prayer, with the prayer (called the Canon,) was saide ouer the offering; and * 11.1071 after consecration the Com∣munion was ministred. Now compare the maner and partes of your Masse with this of S. Gregorie: and they are as like it, as is an * ape vnto a man. For in outward gestures, and shape of face & body, that is, in shew of actions, and forme of wordes & prayers, yours resemble it. But the soule, & reason as it were of it, which is, that the people did pray with the Pastour, nor onely pray together, but communicate too: that your Masse hath not.

Hart.

They pray, and communicate both in affection,

though they receyue not alwayes the communion bodily, nor vnderstand the prayers.

Rainoldes.

But, to communicate, is to b 11.1072 eate, and c 11.1073 drinke; which the people did in S. Gregories time: and they vn∣derstoode the prayers which were made, that they might d 11.1074 say Amen thereto. Now the Priest hath swalowed vp their right, in the one; and the Clerke, in the other.

Hart.

But the Canon of the Masse, which is the chiefest part, we haue in like sorte as S. Gregorie had. And therein, e 11.1075 the worship of Saintes, and prayers for the dead: where of there is no shadow at all in your Communion, neither can you abide them. The greater wrong you doo both to him, and vs, to make as though you folowed that which he practised; and to say, that our Masse is no lyker his, then is an ape vnto a man.

Rainoldes.

We folow him in that, wherein he folowed Christ, f 11.1076 and the folowers of Christ. g 11.1077 Himselfe beareth wit∣nesse that 5 11.1078 the Apostles neither vsed nor 6 11.1079 made that Ca∣non, but I know not what Scholer. Wherefore, though a Scho∣ler presenteth 7 11.1080 the merits and prayers of the Saintes before the throne of God, desiring helpe for their sakes; and prayeth for the faithful, who do rest in Christ, that they may haue 8 11.1081 a place of cooling, peace, and light: yet because our h 11.1082 Maister tea∣cheth that i 11.1083 himselfe alone wrought all righteousnesse, k 11.1084 that we might finde fauour through his desert and intercession; and sheweth that l 11.1085 the dead who dye in him, are blessed, and rest from their labours, m 11.1086 in light, n 11.1087 peace, and o 11.1088 comfort; we folow not S. Gregories Canon in those pointes, but answere him with Christ, p 11.1089 from the beginning it was not so. And you, who thinke your Masse better then an ape in respect of his, be∣cause it resembleth his in the Canon, the chiefest part of it: may know that it resembleth his therein no better then doth an ape a man, when he sweareth by the crosse of his ten bones. For the Canon also, beside that y^e people did heare, & vnderstand it, recordeth 9 11.1090 their receyuing of the body & blood: q 11.1091 as doo the other praiers too after the communion. Which being as it were the soule and reason of it: your Masse, which hath it not, is but an apish counterfeit of his, for all the Canon. Nay, it is in déede so much the more apish; because it hath his wordes, and not the meaning of them.

Hart.

You grate on the Communion still, as if the Canon and all S. Gregories Masse did aime at that. Which is not so. For the principall point thereof is the sacrifice, euen the soue∣raine sacrifice, that is, our Sauiour Christ offered to God his father. And sith this is that which the Canon speaketh of, and S. Gregorie offered, and the Masse importeth with vs, whom you call Masse-priests: it foloweth that S. Gregorie celebrated the sacrifice of the Masse, as we doo; and therefore was a Masse-priest, not a Minister of the Communion.

Rainoldes.

Then the men & women of Rome were Masse-priestes too in S. Gregories time, and celebrated the sacrifice of the Masse, as you doo. For the sacrifice which he offered, and the Canon speaketh of, is 1 11.1092 the bread and wine, offered by the men and women for the Communion; and 2 11.1093 the sacrifice of prayse, which they did offer all to God.

Hart.

Nay, it is the very body and blood of Christ.

Rainoldes.

The wordes of the Canon are plaine to the contrarie. For it desireth God 3 11.1094 to accept and blesse their offering, that it may be made the body and blood of Christ to th••m. It was not the body, and blood of Christ therefore, but very bread and wine, which the faithfull people offered to be ••••nctified to the vse of the Communion.

Hart.

It was bread and wine before consecration: as it is declared by those wordes of the Canon. But after consecrati∣on the Canon saith of it, Hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, that is, the pure, holy, and vndefiled host.

Rainoldes.

But vpon those wordes it foloweth in the Ca∣non: 4 11.1095 the holy bread of eternall life, and the cuppe of sal∣uation. Wherefore the bread, and the cuppe, that is, the wine, though holy now, and sanctified to be the bread of life, and cup of saluation, that is, the body and blood of Christ in a mystery, but the bread, and wine are the pure, holy and vndefiled sa∣crifice, or host (as you terme it,) not onely before but after con∣secration too.

Hart.

Nay, the reall body, and blood of Christ are meant by the bread, and the cuppe, in a figuratiue spéech: and so Christ himselfe, is the pure, holy, and vndefiled host.

Rainoldes.

Where a figuratiue speech is vsed in r 11.1096 scrip∣ture: you will none of it. Here, where your Canon vseth none,

you fansy it. For it foloweth straight touching that bread, and that cuppe: 5 11.1097 vpon the which thinges vouchsafe o Lord to looke downe with a mercifull & cheerefull countenance, and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the of∣ferings of thy righteous seruant Abel. So that, if Christ him selfe were meant really by the bread, and the cuppe, in a figura∣tiue spéech: then the Priest desireth God to looke on Christ with a mercifull and cheerefull countenance, and to accept of him at the Priests request, as he did accept s 11.1098 the giftes, which Abel offered. There hath beene heretofore a saying a∣mongst you, (which I hope you like not,) that t 11.1099 a Priest is the creator of his creator. But by this meanes the Priest is lif∣ted higher to bee the mediator of his mediator. And so will you vouch in earnest of Masse-priests, that, which u 11.1100 Tertullian did iest at in the Heathens: * 11.1101 man must be merciful vnto God now; vnlesse it please the Priest, Christ shall not finde fauour in his fathers sight.

Hart.

The prayer of the Priest that God will looke vpon his offrings, and accept them, hath a very good meaning, whereof I doo not dout. But the former wordes, touching the hoste, must néedes betoken Christ. For how can the name of a pure, holy, and vndefiled hoste be geuen to the bread, and wine?

Rainoldes.

How are they called 6 11.1102 pure, or vndefiled giftes, offeringes, and sacrifices in the Canon it selfe before consecration?

Hart.

They may be called pure by acceptation there, as your selfe expounded. Which the Canon seemeth to imports also, in that it prayeth God 7 11.1103 to accept them and blesse them.

Rainoldes.

Euen so they may be called here a pure, holy, and vndefiled sacrifice. For the Canon also likewise pray∣eth God to accept them, in expresse termes; and, in effect, 8 11.1104 to blesse them. Whereof it hath a farther and plainer proofe too, in that it saith they offer to God that pure sacrifice, the bread of life, and cup of saluation, 9 11.1105 of his giftes. For in saying that they offer it of the giftes of God, it sheweth that the very bread and wine is meant. Which the people being vsed then to offer, (as now we offer mony:) the rest there of was geuen after

to the poore; a part was taken first for the vse of the communi∣cants, that they might be partakers of the bread of life and cuppe of saluation, that is, the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

Hart.

I know that the name of sacrifice is giuen to the peo∣ples offerings, and other things often. But I am perswaded that, by the pure, holy, and vndefiled sacrifice, S. Gregorie meant Christ: and so did offer him vp to God his Father, in the Masse, as we doo. Which I thinke the rather, because they were Masse-priests (as our Apologie sheweth,) who liued in the func∣tion of Priesthood before him. For the holy x 11.1106 Councell of Nice knew none but such offerers, or sacrificing, that is, Massing-priests. S. y 11.1107 Cyprian acknowledgeth the Priests of his time, to haue offered, or sacrificed, yea euen in prisons. Hee was a Masse-priest, that S. z 11.1108 Austin sent to doo sacrifice in a house infested with euil spirits. They were Masse-priests of whom a 11.1109 Eusebius writeth, that they pacified the diuine maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall consecrations. The dignitie of Priesthood set forth in the worke of the same title by S. b 11.1110 Chrysostome, is specially commended there for the power of dooing the vnbloody sacrifice vpon the altar. To be short, he, and all the other Fathers both Gréeke and Latin were Masse-priests, none being euer made but for that purpose principally: S. c 11.1111 Ambrose testifying that to take the order of Priesthood, which he calleth with the Apostle, Imposition of hands, is to re∣ceiue authoritie to offer sacrifice to God in our Lordes steede.

Rainoldes.

These testimonies, M. Hart, of Greeke, and La∣tin Fathers, with the rest quoted by your Apologie-writer ei∣ther at d 11.1112 Doway, or at e 11.1113 Rhemes: doo some of them mention of∣fering, and not sacrificing; some speake of sacrificing, but not the sacrificing of Christ. Betweene the which pointes what dif∣ference there is: for the one, f 11.1114 himselfe is a sufficient witnesse, in that he declareth that sundry things are offered which are not sacrificed; for the other, they, who shew that the faithfull did offer sundry sacrifices, as namely, of g 11.1115 almes, of h 11.1116 praise, of i 11.1117 them selues, euen at the celebration of the Lords supper. But admit they meant by offering, and sacrificing, the sacrificing of Christ, as some of them did: yet nether was their sacrificing,

that, which your Massing is; nor they who sacrificed, Masse-priests. For you will haue k 11.1118 the sacrifice offered in the Masse to be a 1 11.1119 very, soueraine, 2 11.1120 true, and proper sacrifice: wherby you meane l 11.1121 that Christ is killed there indeede, and sacrificed to God. But the Fathers named their offering, a sacrifice, not properly, but by a figure: meaning the death of Christ (our onely very, soueraigne, true, and proper sacrifice,) to be repre∣sented there, in a mysterie, not exequuted in deede. For as in the Scripture sacraments are noted by the names of thinges whereof they are sacraments, that men may lift their eyes from the outward signes to the things signified: so because we are willed m 11.1122 to celebrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in his remembrance, and n 11.1123 to shew his death; that shewing of his death, and remembring of his sacrifice, is cal∣led by the Fathers his sacrifice, and death. So doth o 11.1124 Cypri∣an treate of the offering of Christ. For teaching that 1 11.1125 we mention his death in all sacrifices, he geueth this as a reason of it, 2 11.1126 for the death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer. So doth Chrysostome open his meaning of the sacrifice. For he affirmeth it to be p 11.1127 a signe of Christes death: and hauing said that q 11.1128 we offer the very sacrifice that Christ did, he correcteth his spéech thus, 3 11.1129 or rather we worke a remembrance of that sacrifice. So the same r 11.1130 Ambrose who speaketh of sa∣crificing to God in Christes steede, dooth expound it too, 4 11.1131 euen with Chrysostomes words. So s 11.1132 Austin saith that Christ, al∣though he were sacrificed but once in himselfe, 5 11.1133 is sacrifi∣ced euery day to Christian folke in a sacrament or mysterie: nether is he falsly said to be sacrificed. For sacraments haue 6 11.1134 a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments; and for that resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues: as the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christs body 7 11.1135 after a certaine sort, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christs blood. Finally, Eusebius (who may serue also to declare the iudgement of the Councell of Nice, whereof he was a part) doth by the very name of vnblooddy sacrifices witnesse his agréement therein with the rest. For he calleth our remembrances and represen∣tations of the death of Christ in celebrating the sacrament of his body and blood, though sacrifices, for the lykenes; yet vnbloody,

for the difference: to shew that Christ is not sacrificed in them truly, and properly, (for then must his blood be shed, as it was, when he suffered death,) but onely by the way of a sacrament, & mystery, wherein the true sacrifice is set foorth before vs, and re∣membred by vs. And this he maketh plainer t 11.1136 other where by saying, that Christ hauing offered him selfe for a soueraine sa∣crifice vnto his ••ather, ordeined that we should 8 11.1137 offer a re∣membrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice. Which remembrance we celebrate 9 11.1138 by the signes of his body and blood, vpon his table: and, pleasing God well, we offer vn∣bloody sacrifices, and reasonable, and acceptable to him.

Hart.

Nay, Eusebius calleth our sacrifices, vnbloody, in re∣spect of the maner, and not of the thing. For they are true sacri∣fices of Christ, and therefore bloody: but Christ who was offe∣red vpon the crosse blooddily, is offered in the Masse vnblood∣dily.

Rainoldes.

That is your u 11.1139 Trent-doctrine: but it will not cleaue with the wordes of Eusebius. For he calleth them 1 11.1140 vn∣blooddy sacrifices: not bloody sacrifices offered vnblooddily, but vnbloody sacrifices. And adding that we celebrate the re¦membrance therein of the sacrifice of Christ by the signes of his body, and blood: he sheweth that they are not in déede bloody sacrifices, but mysteries of the bloody.

Hart.

Nay, the blood of Christ, the very sacrificall blood (as x 11.1141 we terme it) which Christ did shed vpon the crosse, is in the blessed chalice of the altar at the sacrifice of the Masse. For y 11.1142 Chrysostome (in that notable worke of the Priesthood) saith that Christ is seene there by all the faithfull, and mentioneth his blood too.

Rainoldes.

Yea, and (that is more) he saith that Christ is held there in all their handes, and all are * 11.1143 made redde with that pretious blood. The Fathers delite much in such effectu∣all spéeches: which néede wiser readers, then many bee who light on them. But if your selfe know that the whole people which cometh to your Masse, is not made redde with the sacri∣ficall blood: you may learne thereby that Chrysostome, spea∣king of blood in the sacrifice, doth consider of it as bloody in a mystery, but in déede vnbloody.

Hart.

Nay: it is called vnbloody by the Fathers, as D. z 11.1144

Allen noteth, not because the blood in deed is not in it, but to distinguish it frō the same sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, which was made and offered 2 11.1145 not without blood shedde.

Rainoldes.

The blood is not shed then in this sacrifice. And therefore it is neither propiciatorie; for a 11.1146 sinnes are not re∣mitted without shedding of blood: nor the true and so∣ueraine sacrifice of Christ; for 3 11.1147 that is the onely true, and so∣ueraine sacrifice, wherein his blood was shed for vs.

Hart.

Yes: the blood is shedde in the sacrifice of the Masse, but it is shedde vnblooddily.

Rainoldes.

Blood, vnblooddily shedde? You speake mon∣sters, M. Hart, vnlesse you meane by [vnblooddily] not truly, and in déede, but sacramentally. For then you say well, that his blood is shedde, when we shew his death, and remember the shedding of it. But as S. b 11.1148 Austin writeth, that the flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed 4 11.1149 in truth and in deede when he suffered, is celebrated 5 11.1150 by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended: so, when the blood of Christ is shedde in this sort by the sacrament of remem∣brance, it is not shedde in deed, for that was doon at his death onely. And this is the most that you can make of the Fathers, although it be graunted that they called their cele∣brating of the Lordes supper an vnbloody sacrifice in respect of the blooddy sacrifice of Christ which hee offered on the crosse. Much lesse make they for you, if they called it not so in respect of his sacrifice, but of the sacrifices of the Iewes. Which it is the more likely that they did, because they called their c 11.1151 prayers and their very d 11.1152 worship of God vnblooddy too: no doubt to distinguish it from the Iewish worship, which offered bloody sacrifices. For as S. e 11.1153 Paul, treating of our seruing of God, calleth it 6 11.1154 reasonable, because we do sacrifice our selues spiritually; not bruite beastes and senselesse thinges with carnall ceremonies, as the Iewes did▪ so f 11.1155 the Fathers called it 7 11.1156 rea∣sonable, and vnblooddy, to the same effect. And g 11.1157 Eusebius namely saith that we offer 8 11.1158 vnblooddy and reasonable sacri∣fices to God as long as we liue, meaning all h 11.1159 spirituall sacri∣fices thereby, which euery Christian offereth as a Priest to God. Yea, euen in i 11.1160 that place which D. Allen chose as ma∣king

most for his Apologie, the prayers, which 9 11.1161 the Mini∣sters (for so Eusebius termeth them) did offer vnto God, may well be vnderstoode by those sacrifices too. But if hee meant onely their offerings of the remembrance of Christes death in the sacrament, as that which ensueth of mysticall consecrations may séeme to import: yet himselfe declareth by the word [vn∣blooddy] that he called them sacrifices, not properly, but by a figure; as meaning not that Christ is put to death there in deede, but in a mysterie. To be short, he, and all the other Fathers, both Gréeke, and Latin, are so fully and plainly of one mind in this point: that the k 11.1162 Master of the Sentences (in his abridge∣ment of Diuinitie gathered out of them) proposing this question, 1 11.1163 whether that which the Priest doth exequute be called a sacrifice properly, resolueth that it is not. But that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice (saith he) and an offering, 2 11.1164 because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and the holy offering made on the altar of the crosse, as he prooueth by the Fathers. Wherefore sith the sacrifice offered in the Masse is 3 11.1165 a true and proper sacrifice, as you define it; and that of the Fathers is not a true sacrifice, but called so improperly: it remayneth to be concluded that the Fathers nether said Masse,l 11.1166 nor were Masse-priests. And so, to make an end with that which you be∣gan with, the cause is iust, and holy, why we call presbyteros, not Priests, but Elders. For sith the name of Priest hath rela∣tion to sacrifice, & men by the sacrifice vnderstand your Masse, and your Masse is a monster of abomination, prophaning the blood of Christ, condemned by the Scriptures, vnknowen to the Fathers, detestable in the sight of God and of the godly: the charge of the Lord, m 11.1167 not to lay a stumbling block before the blind, might haue remoued * 11.1168 that name from Ministers of the gospel, yea, although they had bene ordeined to sacrifice, much more sith they are not, but as other Christians. The name of Elders therefore expressing that word whereby the Scripture calleth them, as it is confessed by n 11.1169 your owne authentical, tran∣slating it so: we could not but allow it. Chiefly sith the very necessitie of opening our meaning vnto others (which is the end of languages) required different words for the different thinges of presbyter, and sacerdos. For how will you translate that say∣ing

of S. o 11.1170 Austin, that S. Iohns words [p 11.1171 they shalbe Priests of God, & of Christ] are meant of all Christians; non de solis episco∣pis, & presbyteris, qui propriè iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; that is, as we translate, not of Bishops and Elders only, which now are called peculiarly Priests in the Church. But how would you translate it?

Hart.

There is a defect in our English tounge, that we can not translate it so perspicuously as it is in Latin, because we haue but one word for presbyter, and sacerdos.

Rainoldes.

Then you should not play the dog in the man∣ger, nether your selues mending the defectes of our tounge, nor suffering vs to mend them. For if a man translate it as your q 11.1172 Rhemists doo, not of Bishops and Priests only, which are * 11.1173 properly now in the Church called Priests: how shal the English reader vnderstand his meaning which Priests be called Priests, and whether Bishops be Priests too? Nay, to come to that which must néedes enforce you to translate sacerdos otherwise, then presbyter: S. r 11.1174 Austin hauing brought (against Iulian, an heretike,) the testimonies of the Fathers, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilarie, Ambrose, Innocenti∣us, Nazianzene, Basil, & Chrysostome, doth name them sacerdo∣tes, that is (as you translate it) Priests: is it not?

Hart.

Yes: We haue no other English for sacerdos.

Rainoldes.

Where S. Austin addeth then touching Ierom, that nether he must be contemned because he was presbyter: what here shal presbyter be? Wil you make S. Austins spéech so vnsauory, as to tell the heretike, that he ought to reuerence I∣renaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and the rest, because they were Priests; and not contemne Ierom because he was a Priest?

Hart.

Nay, I would translate here, presbyter, a Priest: but, for sacerdotes, I would say Bishops. For that is S. Austins mea∣ning in these places where he doth name them sacerdotes.

Rainoldes.

So s 11.1175 your translatour doth. But the word Bi∣shop is our English of episcopus. And what if episcopus chaunce to come in too, with sacerdos, and presbyter? How will you ex∣presse them? As where in * 11.1176 the Canons collected by Isidore tou∣ching the order of keeping Councels, he saith that sacerdotes first must enter in, and after them presbyteri: your * 11.1177 Lawier noteth on it, Vide vt sacerdotes vocet episcopos veteri more, quem ig∣norantes

plerique presbyteros sacerdotes appellari promiscuè stuliè o∣pinantur. Wherein, if you translate sacerdotes, Bishops, and pres∣byteros, Priests: then your Lawier saith (which were a wise speech) that Isidore calleth Bishops Bishops, after the old ma∣ner, which many not knowing do folishly think that Priests are called Bishops indifferently.

Hart.

Such sentences cannot be well expressed in English▪ but the Latin words must be kept in them.

Rainoldes.

But it is behoofefull for our English men to haue them in English, that they may know your Latin abuses of Rome. For this is meant thereby, that the ancient writers are wont to note Bishops by the name of Priests: which ma∣ny not knowing doo foolishly think that the name of Priests is vsed indifferently for the same that Elders. A lesson for your Rhemists, who make them all one, although not of foolishnes so much as of fraude: to the intent that 1 11.1178 Elders, that is to say, Mi∣nisters of the new testament, may be thought 2 11.1179 Priests, that is to say, Ministers ordeined 3 11.1180 to sacrifice, as your 4 11.1181 Masse-priests be. For colour and maintenance of the which errour, the countenance of proofe that you pretend out of the Fathers is the lesse by thus much, that x 11.1182 they were accustomed to geue the name of Priests, not generally to Elders, but to Bishops onely. Wherefore to auoide confusion of things, which the confusion of words might ingender, in that we are to treate off: I will (by your leaue) call presbyter an Elder, as our translations doo; that I may distinguish it from the name of Priest, both as it is vsed by you for a Masse-priest, and as it is vsed by the Fathers for a Bishop. So to come at length back againe to that which I was in hand with, of the second sort of the Bishops of Rome,* 11.1183 that, when they were growen to their fattest plight, they were but Archbishops of a Princely diocese, not vniuersall Popes and Patriarkes of the whole world: the Elders (as I said) or∣deined by the Apostles in euery Church, through euery ci∣tie, chose one amongst themselues whom they called Bishop, to be the President of their companie, for the better handling and ordering of things in their assemblies and meetings, wherein they prouided by common counsell and consent for the guiding of the flock of Christ committed to them. Which point of care and wisdome the Bishops folowing also, knowing that y 11.1184 where

counsels want the people falleth, but in the amplenes of counsellers there is health, had their meetings likewise for con∣ference together when things of greater waight required more aduise: and they chose to be their President therein the Bishop of the chiefest citie in the prouince, whom they called the Me∣tropolitan. For z 11.1185 a prouince, as they termed it, was the same with them, that a shire is with vs: and the shire-towne as you would say of the prouince was called a 11.1186 metropolis, that is the mo∣ther-citie. In which, as the Iudges and Iustices with vs doo heare at certaine times the causes of the whole shire: so the ru∣ler of the prouince with them did minister iustice, and made his abode there ordinarily. Whereupon by reason that men for their busines made great concourse thither: the church was woont to furnish it (of godly policie) with the worthyest Bishop, endued with gifts aboue his brethren. And they reposed in him such affiance, that they did not onely commit the b 11.1187 Presi∣dentship of their assemblies to him: but agréed also that c 11.1188 none through al the prouince should be made Bishop without his cōsent, d 11.1189 nor any waightyer matter be doone by them with∣out him. Now the Roman Empire was gouerned in such sort, that as the Queenes Maiestie appointeth Lieutenants o∣uer sundry greater parts of her dominion, a Lord Deputie of Ireland, and the Lord Presidents of Wales, and of the North: so the Emperour diuided his to sundry officers, 1 11.1190 the Earle of the East, 2 11.1191 the Lord Presidents of Aegypt, 3 11.1192 of Italie, and so foorth, whose circuites had many prouinces within them, and were called 4 11.1193 dioceses. Through occasion whereof the Bi∣shops of those cities in which these Lieutenants of the Emperor were resiant, (* 11.1194 the state ecclesiasticall folowing the ciuil,) did grow in power too. Nether were they onely named Archbi∣shops and Patriarkes of the diocese, that is, the chiefest Bi∣shops and Fathers of that circuite which the Lieutenant ruled: but also they obteyned that the Metropolitans of the prouinces in their diocese should be likewise subiect and obedient to them, as Bishops were to Metropolitans. So the Archbishop and Patriarke of Antioche had e 11.1195 prerogatiues geuen him through the diocese of the East, f 11.1196 wherein were seuen prouinces. So g 11.1197 nothing could be doon in the diocese of Aegypt, (h 11.1198 which vnder the Archbishop had ten Metropolitans) without the consent of the Archbishop and Patriarke of Alexandria.

So i 11.1199 it was granted to the Archbishop and Patriarke of Con∣stantinople, that the Metropolitanes of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, (k 11.1200 within the which there were eight and twenty prouinces) should be ordeined by him. Finally, so was it l 11.1201 decréed that if a Bishop had any matter of controuersie with the Metropolitan of his own prouince, 1 11.1202 the Patriarke of the diocese should be iudge thereof: as also if any man did receiue iniurie of his own Bishop, or Metropolitan. Thus were the Roman Popes (as they are called now) first Bishops ouer Elders within their own citie; next, Metropolitans ouer Bishops within their own prouince; then Archbishops, and Patriarkes ouer Metropolitans within their own diocese. And this is the Princely diocese, which I meant, when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Archbishop of a Princely diocese; but he was yet but an Archbishop: hee was not vniuersall Pope and Patriarke of the whole world. For although the Patriarke of Constantinople, being puffed vp because in his citie not the Emperours Lieutenants were resi∣ant, as in the rest, but the Emperour himselfe, aspired to be therefore Soueraine of the rest, and as the Emperour counted himselfe m 11.1203 Lord of the world, so would he be called n 11.1204 Patri∣arke of the world: yet the Roman Patriarkes o 11.1205 Pelagius, and p 11.1206 Gregorie, did withstand his pride,2 11.1207 and neither would them∣selues take so much vpon them, nor agrée that any Patriarke should doo it. Wherefore when Pelagius ordeined that if any Metropolitan sent not to the see of Rome to shew his faith, and receiue the pall, he should be depriued: Pelagius must be thought to haue made that ordinance for all Metropolitans within his own diocese, not throughout the world. The testi∣mony of q 11.1208 Gregory which your selfe alleaged touching the Bi∣shop of Salonae is a proofe thereof. For, that 3 11.1209 my Bishops (saith he) should despise me, I impute it to my sinnes: and, if the causes of Bishops committed to me be dealt with thus, alas what shall I doo?

Hart.

Nay, although he say, Bishops committed to me, and, my Bishops: yet is that no proofe that onely certaine Bi∣shops were of his diocese.4 11.1210 For he might signifie all Bishops

by those wordes, as being all his subiects.

Rainoldes.

The Patriarkes of Antioche, and Alexandria will deny that; or rather Gregorie him ••elfe. For r 11.1211 him selfe exhorting them to withstand the pride of the Patriarke of Con∣stantinople, who would be vniuersall Patriarke: stand ye strong (saith he) and keepe all 5 11.1212 the Bishops subiect to your charge from defiling them selues with consent to this pride. Where by it is manifest that onely certaine Bishops were subiect to his charge: whom he termed his Bishops, and, Bishops com∣mitted to him. And this appéereth further by that which s 11.1213 Di∣aconus writeth in his life: that, when there were Bishoprikes voide in his diocese, 6 11.1214he desired Bishops of an other diocese (who were destitute) to take them; as the Bishop of 7 11.1215 Smyrna to take a Bishoprike in Sicilia. Howbeit, if Gregorie and Pela∣gius both had meant generally of all Metropolitans through the whole world, that they should be allowed by the Popes con∣sent: yet neither wou••d that proue the Popes of the second sort to haue auouched that soueraintie of power ouer Bishops which your last sort of Popes doth, and toucheth their supremacie most. For t 11.1216 they of the second taught that all Bishops ought to bee chosen by the people and clergie: them selues requiring onely the confirming of Metropolitans by their consent, if that be granted. Where u 11.1217 these of the last doo claime to them selues the right not of confirming alone, but of choosing too, both Metro∣politans and Bishops: and binde them by x 11.1218 othe (for more as∣surance of their State) * 11.1219 to obserue and cause to be obserued by others, the Papall reseruations, prouisions, and mandates, by which they worke this tyrannie.

Hart.

It is more requisite that the Popes in our time should reserue Bishoprikes to their owne bestowing, that they may prouide good Pastors for the Church, then it was of olde. And therefore lesse maruell if they choose them selues such as they know fit, and will haue the confirming of such as other choose: though their predecessours (when the dayes were better) did nei∣ther choose any, nor confirme all. But the Popes supremacie standeth not so much in making Church-officers, as in iud∣ging Church-causes. And therein the second sort of Popes auou∣ched as much as the last. For y 11.1220 Innocentius the first answe∣ring the letters of the Councell of Mileuis, who had writen to

him about the errour of the Pelagians, doth prayse them for re∣ferring the matter vnto him: and I thinke (saith he) that 1 11.1221 as oft as a matter of faith is called in question, all our brethren and felow-bishops ought not but to referre it vnto Peter, that is, the autour of their name and honour, as now your charitie hath doon.

Rainoldes.

Th••se wordes of Innocentius may proue (M. Hart) that he claimed a preeminence of knowledge for your Pe∣ter, not a soueraintie of power: a preeminence of knowledge, 2 11.1222 to resolue the Church-questions; not a soueraintie of power, to decide the Church-causes. For matters of faith are to be defined by the rule of faith, that is, by the scriptures: and the right ope∣ning of the scriptures lyeth not in power, but in knowledge. Which you may learne by z 11.1223 Gratian in the Canon law, saying, that the Fathers are preferred before the Popes in expoun∣ding of scriptures, because they passe them in knowledge: the Popes before the Fathers in deciding of causes, because they passe them in power.

Hart.

That distinction of causes and questions of the Church is but a shift of sophstrie to cast a mist vpon y^e truth. For though the Church-causes, as Gratian speaketh of them, do con∣cerne persons, the innocent to be acquitted, or offenders to be condemned: yet questions of faith (which you call Church-questions) are Church-causes too in a generall sense. As a 11.1224 one of the third sort of Popes saith, that greater causes of the Church, chiefly such as touch the articles of faith, are to be referred to the See of Peter. And this was the meaning of Innocentius the first. For, in b 11.1225 his letters to the Councell of Carthage writen to like effect on the same occasion, he saith, that the Fathers decreed by the sentence not of man, but of God, that whatsoeuer was doon in prouinces far of, they thought that it ought not to be concluded before it came to the no∣tice of the See of Rome.

Rainoldes.

It is true that questions of matters touching faith are causes of the Church: but they are not such causes as quicken the Papacie. The causes touching persons, which Zosi¦mus, Boniface, and Caelestine did deale for, when they would haue it lawfull for Bishops & Elders to appeale to Rome, are those which Popes must liue by. And the same Councels of Car∣thage

and Mileuis, whom Innocentius wrote too, did know, and shew this difference, when they desired the Popes consent in that of faith, but c 11.1226 forbadde the causes of Bishops and Elders to come vnto him by appeales. Wherefore that distinction of the Church-causes, and the Church-questions, is not a shift of so∣phistrie to cast a mist vpon the truth, but a point of truth to cléere y^e mist of your sophistry. For yourd 11.1227 Iesuit citeth those textes of Innocentius to proue the Popes supremacie. Whereas he claimeth iudgement, to resolue the douts; or (that is lesse,) au∣toritie, to approue the doctrine; not a soueraine power to heare and determin the causes of the Church.

Hart.

Nay, his wordes are generall to the Councell of Car∣thage, that whatsoeuer was doon in prouinces farre off, it should come to the notice of the See of Rome before it were concluded.

Rainoldes.

But if you doo racke that word [whatsoeuer] so farre beyond his drift: you make him more gréedy then the last sort of Popes, who claime e 11.1228 the greater causes of the Church onely. Wherefore, as when S. f 11.1229 Paul saith, all thinges are law∣full for me, he meaneth not all thing••s absolutely, and simply, but all indifferent thinges, according to the point which he trea∣teth of: so must you apply the wordes of Innocentius not to whatsoeuer touching Church-causes, but to matters of faith called into question; which, the Popes being learned then and Catholike, g 11.1230 the Christian Churches vsed to referre to them, that the truth approued by their consent and iudgement might for their autoritie finde the greater credit & fréer passage against heretikes.

Hart.

What say you then to Leo the great, or rather to S. Gregorie: who had the Church-causes, euen such as touched persons, referred to their Sée, and willed them to be so, as their epistles shew.

Rainoldes.

In déede Leo, and Gregorie are somewhat large that way. Though Leo, as * 11.1231 the diocese of the Roman Pa∣triarke was lesser in his time, then afterwarde in Gregories: so had fewer of them. Gregorie had more: yet he had not all.

Hart.

Not all: but all the greater. And that is as much as the last sort of Popes claime.

Rainoldes▪

But they claime all the greater, through the

whole world, which Gregorie neither had nor claimed.

Hart.

No? Is it not manifest by all his Epistles that hée dealt with the causes of Bishops in Italie, Spaine, Fraunce, A∣frike, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicilia, Dalmatia, and many countries mo?

Rainoldes.

Yet he dealt neither with all the greater cau∣ses, nor through the whole world. And this very shew of the names of coūtries, by which h 11.1232 your Irish champion doth thinke the Popes supremacie to be cléerely proued, is a demonstration in truth to disproue it. For, rehersing only those which you haue named, with England, Ireland, Corcyra, and Graecia, and saying y^t Gregorie did practise the supremacie ouer their Bishops, and Churches, though neither prouing so much, but admit he proued it: yet, in bringing only the names and proofes of these, he sheweth that Gregorie did not practise it ouer the Bishops and Churches of Thracia, Mysia, Scythia, Galatia, Bithynia, Cap∣padocia, Armenia, Pamphylia, Lydia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Lycia, Caria, Hellespontus, Aegypt, Iury, Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Arabia, Mesopotania, Isauria, with the rest of the coun∣tries subiect to the Patriarkes of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem.

Hart.

Though S. Gregorie speake not of these particularly: yet he sheweth in generall his supremacie ouer them. For whereas the Patriarke (saith i 11.1233 he) doth confesse himselfe to be subiect to the See Apostolike: if any fault bee founde in Bi∣shops, I know not what Bishop is not subiect to it. Behold, not onely Bishops, but the Patriarkes also subiect to the Pope, by S. Gregories iudgement: yea by their owne confession.

Rainoldes.

Nay, it was not a Patriarke but 1 11.1234 a Primate, who confessed that. And a Primate is but 2 11.1235 a Bishop of the first and cheefest See in a Prouince; that is, a Metropolitan.

Hart.

It was Primas Byzancenus, that is to say, the Patri∣arke of Constantinople: as it is expounded in k 11.1236 the glose on Gra∣tian. For Constantinople was called Byzantium first.

Rainoldes.

Gratian and his glose were deceiued both. For primas Byzacenus (or Byzancenus, if you reade it so) is Primate of Byzacium (l 11.1237 called Byzantium too) which was m 11.1238 a prouince of Afrike, and therfore n 11.1239 had a Primate, as Councels of that coun∣trie shew. Whom, and not the Patriarke of Constantinople, to haue bene meant by Gregorie: it is now declared in your Gra∣tian

o 11.1240 too. The Patriarke was too loftie to confesse himselfe sub∣iect to the Pope: he sought to make the Pope his subiect.

Hart.

Perhaps he had sought it before, but not then. For cer∣tainely S. p 11.1241 Gregorie, saying, that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the See of Rome, addeth, that Eusebius the Bishop of the same citie doth confesse it still.

Rainoldes.

There was q 11.1242 no Eusebius Bishop of that citie in all Gregories time. And they who were Bishops, r 11.1243 first Iohn, s 11.1244 then Cyriacus, did vsurpe the title of vniuersall Patri∣arke, as Gregorie himselfe declareth. Wherefore either Gre∣gorie wrote more then was true, to chéere vp his subiects: or some hath chopt into him that which he wrote not, to aduaunce the credit of the See of Rome. But howsoeuer he thought all Bishops subiect to it if any fault be found in them, perhaps as S. t 11.1245 Peter was subiect to S. Paule, and u 11.1246 Christians are one to an other, to be reproued by their brethren when they do offend; but if he meant more, as perhaps he did of a good wil to his See: yet he meant not that which toucheth the point of the Popes su∣premacie, geuen you to proue, to wéete, that Bishops causes through the whole world must be referred to him. And hereof himselfe is a sufficient witnesse, in that x 11.1247 he ouerruleth the case by 1 11.1248 the law of Iustinian the Emperour. For, if any man (sayth he) accuse a Bishop for whatsoeuer cause: let the cause bee iudged by his Metropolitan. If any man gainsay the Metro∣politans iudgemēt, let it be referred to the Archbishop and Patriarke of that diocese, and let him end it according to the canons and lawes.

Hart.

The causes of Bishops (I grant) must first be heard of their Metropolitans; and next, of their Patriarkes. Yet if the Patriarkes iudgement be misliked too: then may the partie grée∣ued appeale to the Pope, and so they come to him last.

Rainoldes.

Gregorie meant not so, but that the last iudge thereof should be the Patriarke: as did Iustinian also. Which they shew playnely, by saying, Let him 2 11.1249 end it 3 11.1250 according to the canons and lawes. For both y 11.1251 the canons of that Councell which referred the causes of Bishops to the Patriarkes, did mē∣tion thē as the last Iudges: & z 11.1252 the lawes of Emperours which granted appeales from Metropolitans to them, 4 11.1253 granted no appeale from them to any other; nay, for bad expressely al

appealing from them.

Hart.

Yet euen there S. Gregorie giueth a speciall priui∣lege and preeminence to the Pope aboue other Patriarkes. For he addeth, that if a Bishop haue no Metropolitan nor Patri∣arke at all: then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolike, which is the head of all Churches.

Rainoldes.

True: he addeth that beyond the canons of Councels, and the lawes of Emperours. But in the meane sea∣son, he yéeldeth that the causes of Bishops, who were subiecte to any other Patriarke, must not be referred to the Popes See. Whereby it is euident that not all their causes through the whole world were claimed by S. Gregorie. And herewithal by this place it may be noted too, that when he nameth the See and Church of Rome the head of all Churches, he meaneth it of excellencie for sundrie giftes aboue them, not of the supremacie for power to gouerne them. Which answereth the question that you made before a 11.1254 vpō the same title: If the Church of Rome be the head of all Churches, why not the Bishop of Rome the head of all Bishops? For the name of head is geuen to that Church in respect of others: as if the citie of London shoulde bée called in England▪ the head of all cities. The Lord Mayor of London might chaūce to haue a fauourer, who would aske there∣on: If the citie of London be the head of all cities, why not the Mayor of London the head of all Mayors? But I knowe no Mayor so simple in England, that vpon this sophisme would yéelde himselfe a subiect to the Lord Mayor of London.

Hart.

Yet your selues grant, y^• b 11.1255 Zosimus, Boniface, & Cae∣lestinus, did claime the right of appeales to be made to thē in the causes of Bishops through the whole world. Who being Popes before Gregorie, almost two hundred yeares: it followeth that they of the second sort did auouch as much for the Popes supre∣macie in iudging Church-causes, as their successours of the last doe, which you denied.

Rainoldes.

And I denie it still: neither doth that proue it. For the last sort claimeth c 11.1256 al the greater causes of the church. Wherein d 11.1257 they comprehend not only the causes of Bishops and the Clergie, but of all estates, as many as doe fall within the * 11.1258 reserued cases, as they call them. And because these cases by the ancient e 11.1259 Councels should be all determined within their

own•• Prouinces, not referred to Rome: therefore f 11.1260 no Councel may prescribe a law (they say) to bind them. But the other, whom you named of the second sort, did neither take vpon them such power ouer Councels, nor claime appeales in causes of a∣ny, but of Bishops, or Clergie at the most. As for y^e cases which Popes reserue now from ordinarie Iudges to their owne Es∣chequer: the seconde sort of Popes was so farre from doing it, that they were in their graues many hundred yeares before the sent thereof was felt. Wherefore you ouerreach••d your selfe, M. Hart, when you sayde that g 11.1261 the Bishop of Rome hath alwayes vsed the practise of the supremacie. For it is apparant by this which I haue shewed, that not one of them for the space of sixe hundred yeares after Christ did euer either vse it, or claime it as his right.

Hart.

Yes: they hearde the causes of Clergie-men appea∣ling to them, and held that they might doe so. Wherefore they claimed the supremacie, and vsed it too.

Rainoldes.

Which reason is as good, as if a Kentish Gentle∣man should say that all the Countie of Kent is his own, because he hath a Lordship in the Weald of Kent.

Hart.

What? doe you accounte it so small a matter, that Clergie-men, yea Bishops shoulde appeale to them out of all prouinces through the whole world?

Rainoldes.

A goodly Lordship and large. But nothing so large as the Weald of Kent, much lesse as all Kent. There are many Lordships mo within the Countie, which the auncient Popes neither had, nor claimed. One Lordship of being subiecte to no man, no not to the Emperour. An other, of hauing power ouer Princes to excommunicate and depose them. An other, of binding Bishops, Metropolitanes, and Patriarkes with an oth to be their faythful subiects. An other, of giuing Church-liuings and offices vnto whom they list. An other, of breaking the bandes of al Councels with dispensations and decrées. An other, of reseruing cases to their Sée. Whereof (to passe the rest, which you may finde recorded in their 1 11.1262 Rolles, and 2 11.1263 Chancerie) sith they neither chalenged nor possessed any: they bore not them∣selues as Lordes of the whole Countie; I meane, they neyther claimed nor vsed the supremacie.

Hart.

But will you graunt that so much then of the supre∣premacie

as they claimed or vsed, belongeth to their Sée, and is theirs of right.

Rainoldes.

No. For the exception h 11.1264 which I made against them was of two branches: one, that they auouch not the su∣premacie of the Pope; the other, that they auouch more, through affection, then is true and right. And this is very manifest not onely by the dealinges of them whom I named: but also by the writinges of them whom you alleaged.

Hart.

Of the thirde sort of Popes if you meane: they may be refused perhaps with greater shewe of reason. But they, whom I alleaged, of the second sort, were holy men, and Saints.

Rainoldes,

The Apostles of Christ (I hope) were Saintes too. Yet hath the spirite of God set down for our instruction that i 11.1265 they did not onely desire superioritie, but also striue about it. Innocentius, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Pelagius, and Gregorie, the men whō you alleaged, were not greater then the Apostles. And the praise which they giue to their See of Rome, doth so ex∣céede the truth: that it beareth euident markes of their affection. You might haue perceiued it in that which you cited out of k 11.1266 In∣nocentius concerning the Fathers and the sentence of God: by which (he saith) they decreed, that, whatsoeuer was done in prouinces farre off, it should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome. For what were the Fathers who decréed that? where is the sentence of God, by which they did it? Though this is the least of many friendlie spéeches, which not Innocentius onely, but the rest too (as l 11.1267 I haue shewed in Leo,) doo lend their Church & Peter. Yea, some flat repugnant to the holy scripture: and that, confessed by your selues. For they say that m 11.1268 all Churches tooke their begin∣ning from the Roman. The holy n 11.1269 scripture maketh * 11.1270 Ierusalem the spring of them. They say that o 11.1271 all Bishops had their ho∣nor and name from Peter. The holy p 11.1272 scripture teacheth, that many had it from other Apostles, not from him. They say q 11.1273 that the Church of Rome hath neither spot, norwrinckle, nor any such thing. The holy r 11.1274 scripture sheweth y^t the Church is san••ctified, & framed to be hereafter not hauing spot, or wrinckle or any such thing, whē Christ shal make it glorious & trium∣phant in heauen: not, but that it hath such, while it is militant

on the earth.s 11.1275 Which is so apparant, that not the Fathers only, but t 11.1276 Thomas of Aquine also, and D u 11.1277 Stapleton confesse it. Wherefore howsoeuer holy men they were of the second sort of Popes which you alleaged: it cannot be denied but they had af∣fections, and yéelded thereunto as men. Howbeit the thirde sort (I graunt) are best worthy to be excepted against for this fault. For it is a small thing with them to vse spéeches repugnant to the Scripture: but they must abuse, yea, coine scripture too, for maintenance of their Papall port. They can teach the Church that x 11.1278 the Pope may offer to confirme Archbishops 1 11.1279 vpon this condition, if they will be sworne to him: because whē Christ committed his sheepe vnto Peter, he 2 11.1280 did condition with him, saying, a 11.1281 if thou loue me, feede my sheepe. They can teach the Church that y 11.1282 the Pope hath power ouer all powers, & Prin∣ces of the earth, & none hath power ouer him, because b 11.1283 the spirituall man iudgeth all thinges, yet hee himselfe is iudged of no mā. They can teach the Church that z 11.1284 Christ ordeyned Peter and Peters successors to be his vicars, who, (by c 11.1285 the testimony of the booke of kinges) must needes be so obeyed, that he who obeieth them not, must die the death: and, as it is read d 11.1286 otherwhere, Hee that forsaketh the Bishop of Romes chaire cannot bee in the Church.

Hart.

That which is cyted out of the booke of kinges, is in the booke of Deuteronomie. The text is true scripture, though the place mistaken. And, though it belong not to the Pope immediatly.

Rainoldes.

Nay, neuer goe about to salue it, M. Hart. That of Deuteronomie we haue e 11.1287 alredy handled. Pope Leo y^e tenth and his Councel of Laterane had a strong affection to make the Popes Kinges, when they alleaged the booke of kinges for Deuteronomie, & Deuteronomie for the Papacie. But what soeuer you think of the third, or seconde, or any sort of Popes: it is against all law both of God, and man, that they should bée witnesses in their own matter. And therefore if your proofe of their supremacie be no better: the iury will cast you, out of all controuersie. For f 11.1288 if I should beare witnesse of my selfe (saith Christ) my witnesse were not true. g 11.1289 None are fit witnesses in their own causes: h 11.1290 no not though they were as worthy mē as Scipio was amōgst y^e Romans. It were a bad plea in Westmin¦ster

Hall: Iohn a Noke must haue this land; for Iohn a Noke saith so. The i 11.1291 Canonistes themselues, when Popes alleage Popes for proofe of certaine pointes touching their supremacie, doe note, that 1 11.1292 it is a familiar kind of proofe: meaning such belike, as that in the common prouerbe, Aske my felow if I be a theefe. Which they might note the better, because it is euidēt that 2 11.1293 the Popes haue stretched out their owne frindges in laying claime to large power, as k 11.1294 great Diuines among you, haue written in these very termes.

Hart.

The power, which they claimed, hath séemed ouer large to enuious and malicious men. But it was no more then their right and due. Which because you thinke not sufficiently prooued by the Popes themselues: I will prooue it farther by the wordes and testimonies of other ancient Fathers.

Rainoldes.

Of whom?

Hart.

Of the chéefest of them, both Gréeke and Latine. For it was the prerogatiue of the Popes office that made S. Ber∣narde séeke to Innocentius the third, Epist. 190. S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike to Innocentius the first, and to Caelesti∣nus, Epist. 90.92.95. S. Chrysostome to the saide Innocentius, Epist. 1. & 2. S. Basil, to the Pope in his time, Epist. 52. S. Ie∣rom, to Damasus, Epist. 57.58. tom. 2. and other likewise to o∣thers: that by them they might be confirmed in faith and eccle∣siasticall regiment.

Rainoldes.

If you bring such witnesses to proue the Popes supremacie: I must request the iury to haue an eye to the issue. For some of these Fathers desired to be helped by their aduise, and counsell; some by their autoritie, and credit; some by both. By their aduise, and counsell▪ as Ierom, of Damasus. By their autoritie & credit: as Chrysostome, of Innocentius. By both: as Basill, Austin, and the Bishops of Afrike, of the Popes in their time. Bernard somewhat more. But he liued yesterday, in comparison of the rest: and therfore not to be numbred amongst the auncient Fathers. Though neither he by this point proueth the Papacy. And what his iudgement was thereof l 11.1295 I haue de∣clared. Now for them, first, who asked the aduise and counsell of the Pope: I will tell you a storie, which (I pray) consider of. m 11.1296 Theodosius the Emperour desirous to procure the peace of y^e Church, consulted with Nectarius the Patriarke of Constanti∣nople,

what way might best be taken for ending controuersies of religion. The Patriarke imparted the matter to Agelius a No∣uatian Bishop. The Bishop to Sisinius, a reader in his church. The reader gaue aduise and counsel to the Patriarke. Which the Patriarke liked of, and shewed it to the Emperour: the Em∣perour embraced it, and dealt according thereunto.

Hart.

You would inferre hereof that the auncient Fathers might aske the Popes counsell, and yet not acknowledge him to be their supreme head.

Rainoldes.

True: as the Emperour might of the Patri∣arke; the Patriarke, of the Bishop; the Bishop of the rea∣der.

Hart.

The case is not like. For it was the personal wis∣dome, vertue, lerning, or faith of these men, which made them to be sought to. But that, which made the Fathers séeke to the Popes, was the prerogatiue of their office:

Rainoldes.

Wherein they could not erre, as you heard say at n 11.1297 Rhemes. But you who distinguish the office of the Popes from their personall faith and giftes in this sorte, must be put in mind that by the same reason o 11.1298 Sergius the Patriarke of Constantinople sought to Pope Honorius, in respect not of his personall wisedome, vertue, learning or faith, but of his of∣fice too. And so shall your selfe be forced to confesse, that eyther the Pope may erre in consultations, which he dealeth with by reason of his office, as Pope Honorius did: or, the Fathers sée∣king to the Popes for counsell, did séeke in respect of their per∣sonall giftes, that they were learned and godly Pastours; as p 11.1299 many sought to Austin then, q 11.1300 to Caluin lately, though nei∣ther of them were Pope.

Hart.

Nay: it is certaine that S. Ierom sought to Dama∣sus for his office sake. For r 11.1301 he speaketh namely of the chaire of Peter: that is, the Sée Apostolike committed to Damasus.

Rainoldes.

But withall he speaketh of the inheritance of the Fathers, that is, the Christian faith, which Damasus kept vncorrupted. And therfore he sought to him as a godly lerned, not as a Pastour only: not for his office sake alone, but for his person, succéeding as in place, so in doctrine to Peter. Though in whatsoeuer respect and consideration Ierom sought to Da∣masus: his séeking to be resolued in a point of faith, doth not

import soueraintie of power, s 11.1302 as I haue shewed. Much les doth the counsell that Basill asked, import it, t 11.1303 about asswaging of their troubles. Least of all, that Austin, and the Bishop of A∣frike: who, vnder shew of asking counsell of Innocentius, u 11.1304 in trueth gaue him counsell, for feare least the Pelagians should haue seduced him to their errour. Wherefore the auncient Fa∣thers, who sought aduise of Popes, proue not the Popes supre∣macie. No more doe they in déede who sought to further others, or reléeue themselues, by the Popes autoritie. For autoritie & power differ: that such, as are their brethrens superiours in the one, may be their inferiours or equals in the other. As x 11.1305 wée agréed, if you remember.

Hart.

It may be so, I graunt. But they, whom I named, sought to Innocentius the first and other Popes, as to supreme heads of all the Church in power, not as to their superiours in autoritie only.

Rainoldes.

Their own wordes and déedes argue the con∣trarie. For y 11.1306 Chrysostome 14. being called into iudgement by his enemies, namely, by the Bishop of Alexandria & others assem∣bled in a Councell, did appeale from them to a generall Coun∣cell, and (as z 11.1307 himselfe speaketh thereof) to iust iudgement. Whereby hee declareth that the lawfull power of iudging his cause belonged to the Councell, and not to the Pope.

Hart.

But when he was depriued and cast out of his Bi∣shoprike, notwithstanding his appealing to the generall Coun∣cell, he requested the Pope to write that those things being wrongfully done were of no force, as in deed they were not, and that they who did him such wrong, might bee puni∣shed.

Rainoldes.

But in this request hée dealt with the Pope as with a member only of the generall Councell, to which hée had appealed: a member, in power; a principall member, in auto∣ritie. For in praying him aboue the rest to write: he shewed that he thought him to be of greater credit then other of his brethren. But, in appealing to them all ioyntly, not to him alone: hée she∣wed that the right of iudging the matter belonged, not to him, but to them in common. Which is playner yet by that he saith farther of Bishops in seuerall, that they are forbidden by 1 11.1308 lawes of the Fathers to take on thē 2 11.1309 the iudging of such as

are without the limites of their diocese. Wherefore the pree∣minence which Chrysostome gaue the Pope, was of autoritie, not of power. The same I say of Basil, or rather a 11.1310 himselfe saith it, desiring, that the Pope would vse his own autoritie in sen∣ding men to succour them.

Hart.

You doe vs great iniurie, by this newe distinction of autoritie and power. For Basil meant power, when he named autoritie.

Rainoldes.

You will not say so, if you weigh the grounde and circumstances of his spéech. For b 11.1311 the Easterne Churches being pestered with the Arian heresie by meanes of the Em∣perour Valens, an Arian, who persecuted the Catholikes: the Churches of the West (vnder Valentinian, a Catholike Em∣perour) did flourish with sinceritie of faith and faithfull Bi∣shops. Whereupon S. c 11.1312 Basil conferring with Athanasius (both Bishops of the East) about their Churches state, saith, that the consent of the Westerne Bishops is the onely way & meanes to helpe it, in his iudgement. For if they would shewe that zeale for our Churches, which they did for one or two be∣ing taken among them selues in errour: it is likely (saith he) that they should do vs good, by reasō that the rulers would regard and reuerence 3 11.1313 the credit of their multitude: & the people euery where would folow them without gainsaying. Now this, whereto he wished a multitude of Bishops first, is the same that afterward he sought to the Pope for. Whom d 11.1314 he prayed to deale 4 11.1315 himselfe in the matter, & vse his own au∣toritie in choosing and sending fit men to that purpose, be∣cause the Westerne Bishops could not doe it easily * 11.1316 by a cō∣mon conference and decree of Councell. So that he desired a Councels aide chiefly, because their consent & multitude had greater credit: as in e 11.1317 his epistle to the Westerne Bishops themselues he saith againe. It was not power therefore, but credit, and reputation that S. Basil meant in suing to be suc∣coured by the autoritie of the Pope. Which you must néedes graunt, vnlesse you wil say that he thought the Councell to bée aboue the Pope in power, against your f 11.1318 Trent-doctrine of the Popes supreme power ouer the whole Church. As for S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike: it is too manifest that they kept this new distinction, as you terme it. For of the two

Popes whom you say they sought to: g 11.1319 they desired the one to assist them with 6 11.1320 his autoritie; h 11.1321 the other, not to chalenge 7 11.1322 power in their Church causes. A great fault of yours: to say, that S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike sought to Caelesti∣nus for the prerogatiue of his office, when they dealt against * 11.1323 his vsurped prerogatiue. Greater, if you did it wittingly and willingly. Wherof 1 11.1324 your Annotations do geue strong suspici∣on, in that hauing quoted all the other places, they l••••ue this vnquoted, least the reader should find the fraude.

Hart.

I was not at the finishing of our Annotations. They who set them downe, knew their own meaning: and will (I warrant you) maintaine it. But what a souerainty y^e Fathers yéelded to the Pope it may appeare by this, (as D. k 11.1325 Stapleton sheweth,) that they thought no Councell to be of any force vnles he confirmed it. For l 11.1326 the Fathers assembled in the Councell of Nice, (the first generall Councell) sent their epistle to Pope Sil∣uester, beséeching him to ratifie and confyrme with his con∣sent whatsoeuer they had ordeined.

Rainoldes.

The Councell of Nice had no such fansie of the Pope. Their epistle is forged: and he, who forged it, was not his craftes-master. For one of the 1 11.1327 Fathers pretended to haue writen it is Macarius Bishop of Constantinople. Whereas m 11.1328 Constantinople had not that name yet in certaine yéeres after the 2 11.1329 date of this epistle, but was called Bizantium: 3 11.1330 neither was Macarius Bishop of Bizantium at that time, but Alexander. Moreouer, they are made to request the Pope that n 11.1331 he wil as∣semble the Bishops of his whole citie. Which is a droonken, spéech, sith the Bishops of his whole citie were but one; & that one was himselfe. Unlesse they vsed y^e word [citie] as the Pope (answering them in like sort) that he 4 11.1332 conferred with the Bi∣shops of the whole citie of Italie. And so it is more sober, but no more séemely for the Councell of Nice. Finally, neither Eu∣sebius, (who was at the Councell) nor Rufinus, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor Sozomen, nor other auncient writers doo mention any such thing. Only 1 11.1333 Peter Crabbe (the setter foorth of it) had it out of a librarie of Friers at Coolein. But whēce had

the Fryers it?

Hart.

The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople (the second generall Councel) wrote to Pope Damasus for his con∣sent to their decrees. And that is witnessed by o 11.1334 Theodoret.

Rainoldes.

It is, and so witnessed, that it ouerthroweth the Popes soueraintie, which D. Stapleton would proue by it. For they wrote ioyntly to Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valeri∣an, Ascholius, Anemie, Basill, and the rest of the Westerne Bi∣shops assembled in a Councel at Rome. Nor only to them, but to the Emperour Theodosius. Yea, to Theodosius in seueral, and more forcibly. For p 11.1335 they requested him to confirme and rati∣fie their decrees and ordinances. Wherefore if the Pope haue such a supremacie, whose 5 11.1336 consent and liking therof they desi∣red▪ what supremacie hath the Emperor, whom they besought to 6 11.1337 ratifie them, and to confirme them?

Hart.

Nay: your own distinction of power and authoritie, dooth serue well and fitly to this of the Emperour. For their de∣crées and ordinances of doctrine, were true; and of discipline, good; though he had not confirmed them. But more would ac∣cept of them as good and true, through his word & countenance. As we see that many doo frame themselues to Princes iudge∣ments. Wherefore it was the Emperours autoritie and credit, for which they desired his confirmation of their decrées: not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of religion.

Rainoldes.

Not for any soueraintie of power that hee had to make matters true, of false; or good, of euill: but to make his subiectes vse them as good, and true, being so in déede. Which perhaps the Fathers of the Councell meant too. But your own answere may teach you to mend your imagination of that they wrote to Pope Damasus. For the doctrine of Christ, which they decréed, was true; & the discipline, good; though he had not con∣sented to it. But more would accept of it as good, & true, through his agréement and allowance. As we sée that manie doe follow the mindes of Bishops. Wherefore it was the Popes autoritie and credit, for which they desired his consent to their decrées: not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of reli∣gion. Which is plaine by their crauing not of him alone, but of other Bishops to like thereof also, that the Christian faith be∣ing agreed vpon, and loue confirmed amongst them, they

might keepe the Church from schismes and dissensions.

Hart.

All Bishops might allow the decrées of Councels by consenting to them. But the Pope confirmed them in speciall sort. For S. q 11.1338 Cyrill saith of the third general Councel of Ephe∣sus, that Pope Caelestinus wrote agreeably to the Councell, and confirmed all thinges that were done therein.

Rainoldes.

S. Cyrill sayth not that of Caelestinus, but of Sixtus. Howbeit, if he had: yet this would proue autoritie still, and not power. As r 11.1339 Prosper noteth well that the Nestorian heresie was specially withstood by the industrie of Cyril, and the authoritie of Caelestinus. But these very wordes of Cyrill, touching Sixtus, doe ouerthrow your fansie conceaued on the Popes confirming of Councels. For, the Councell of Ephesus was of force and strength in Caelestinus time by your own con∣fession. Notwithstanding Sixtus, who succéeded him, did con∣firm it afterward. In déede y^e truth dependeth neither of Coūcel, nor of Pope: though, whē Popes & Councels were good & godly minded, they were chosen vessels and instruments of God to set forth the truth. For as Ioshua sayd to s 11.1340 all the tribes of Israel, euen to the Priests also assembled in a Councell, t 11.1341 If it seeme e∣uill to you to serue the Lorde, choose you whom you will serue, whether the Gods which your Fathers serued, or the Gods of the Amorites; but I and my house will serue the Lord▪ so the right faith and religion of Christ is firme of it selfe, and ought to be imbraced of euery Christian with his houshold, whether it please the tribes, that is, the Church, or no. But the Church is named u 11.1342 the piller and ground of truth in respect of men, because it beareth vp the truth, and confirmeth it, through preaching of the word, by the ministerie of x 11.1343 Priests in the old te∣stament, and y 11.1344 Bishops in the new, whom therefore z 11.1345 Basil ter∣meth the pillers and ground of truth. Now, the more there be of these who maintaine it, and the greater credit they haue amongst men: the stronger and surer the truth doth séeme to be, and many yéeld the sooner to it. For which cause a 11.1346 the doctrine of Barnabas and Paul, though assuredly b 11.1347 true, yet c 11.1348 was cōfirmed by Iames, Peter, and Iohn, who were counted to be pillers; yea, by the Councell of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem: and being so confirmed was e 11.1349 receiued more redily and gladly both at Antioche, and f 11.1350 in other cities; in so much that g 11.1351 the

Churches were stablished in the faith, and increased in num∣ber daily. The men of God therfore, who in ancient time were assembled together to vphold the truth, desired the consent, some time of all Bishops, as in h 11.1352 the Councell of Sardica; sometime of the Pope, as in i 11.1353 the Councell of Carthage: not for that they thought that else their decrées should be of no force, but because they knew that the consent of such would adde the greater cre∣dit to them. And, that generall Councels, if they had desired the Pope to confirme them, which all of them did not, but if they had done so, yet must haue done it in this consideration: you may sée by a piller and ground of your Councel of Trent, euen k 11.1354 Andra∣dius. Who not only voucheth that * 11.1355 most learned mē do most wisely thinke it, as Alfonsus l 11.1356 namely: but alleageth also Car∣dinall Turrecremata, the chéefest patrone of the Pope, for proofe of the same, or rather of a farther point. For if there shoulde happen such a case (sayth m 11.1357 the Cardinal) that al the Fathers assembled in a generall Councell should make a decree tou∣ching any matter of fayth with one accord, and the Pope a∣lone gainesaied that decree: men ought (in my iudgement) to obey the Councell therein, and not the Pope. And why? Because the iudgement of so many Fathers of a generall Councel seemeth to be iustly and worthily preferred before the iudgement of one man in a matter of faith. Wherevpon he addeth that the Councell then is aboue the Pope, 1 11.1358 not in power of iurisdiction, 2 11.1359 but in autoritie of iudgement to discerne thinges, and in amplenesse of knowledge. Thus it is apparant by your owne Doctors, that, to confirme Councels importeth an autoritie the Pope had, not power: and that hée was not soueraine in autoritie neither, no not as much as e∣quall, but inferiour to them. So farre is it off from prouing his supremacie.

Hart.

Though Councels be aboue the Pope in autoritie, after the opinion of Cardinall Turrecremata: yet you sée he set∣teth the Pope aboue them in power of iurisdiction, wherin his supremacie doth principally stand. And that did the Fathers ac∣knowledge by their déedes too. For Athanasius Bishop of Alex∣andria, Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, Lucian of Adrianople, and very many other Bishops of the East, being driuen out of their Churches by the Arians,

did appeale to the Pope, as n 11.1360 ecclesiasticall stories shew.

Rainoldes.

The stories shew it not: but o 11.1361 he, who sayth they shew it, sheweth that he dealeth with them in this point, as in p 11.1362 the former with S. Cyrill. Hath he abused you so often, and will you neuer cease to credit him?

Hart.

The stories shew that they came to Rome to Pope Iu∣lius, and he for the prerogatiue and dignitie of his Sée restored them to their Churches, perceiuing that the Arians had depri∣ued them wrongfully.

Rainoldes.

The dignitie and prerogatiue of the See of Rome, in restoring them, was but of autoritie, and honour, not of power. For the power of hearing and iudging their cause did rest in the Councell assembled then at Rome. Which Iulius him∣self, and Athanasius both do testifie. Athanasius, who speaking thereof q 11.1363 ascribeth it plainly to the Councell. Iulius, who being reproued by the Arians for ouerthwarting that which they had done in their Councell, r 11.1364 answereth that the doinges of a for∣mer Councell may lawfully be sifted and examined in an o∣ther; that themselues had offred to haue the cause debated so in iust iudgement, and thereto had requested a Councell to be called; that Athanasius and the rest appeered at the Councell, and they who should haue also appeered made de∣faute; that hereupon the Councell finding their iniquitie, relieued the parties wrongfully oppressed; to be short, that whatsoeuer he dealt or wrote therein, he did it on the Coū∣cels iudgement, and consent, not on his owne head. Where∣fore it was not the Pope, but the Councell, that heard and de∣termined the causes of Bishops, whether at first, or on appeales. Such power of iurisdiction nether did Iulius claime, nor A∣thanasius giue him.

Hart.

Yes: there is an other epistle of Iulius,s 11.1365 wherein hée claimed such power, and that vpon the canons of the Councell of Nice.

Rainoldes.

I told you oft 11.1366 epistles which séemed to be writ∣ten by some of the Popes horse-kéepers or cookes. This is one of them. It should be the very same, that I alleaged, extant in A∣thanasius. But it is no liker it, then black is to white. The ca∣nons, which it coineth with the image and superscription of the Nicen Fathers, bewray the lewdnesse of it. The more, because

Iulius in the same epistle (as Athanasius hath it) citeth their au∣toritie for the Councell aboue the Pope, who in this are cited for the Pope aboue the Councell. Wherefore sith Athanasius hath his right epistle, as it is confessed: you must be content to let the other go for a counterfeit.

Hart.

Yet u 11.1367 Socrates & x 11.1368 Sozomē report, that Iulius wrote in his epistle to the Arians, that whereas they called not him vnto the Councell, therein they did vnlawfully: because it was prouided by a law of the Church, that things which were decreede and done without the Popes consent shoulde be voide.

Rainoldes.

If Iulius had writen so to the Arians: Iulius had writen a manifest vntruth. For by y 11.1369 the Nicen Canons (which were the chiefest lawes of the Church at that time) it was ordered, that Councels should be kept yeerely twise in e∣uery prouince. To all which it were ridiculous to say that they must call the Pope: or that they might doo nothing there but what he liked of. But Socrates and Sozomen did mistake Iuli∣us, as z 11.1370 Stapleton doth now. And whereas a 11.1371 he had said, know ye not that this is the maner and custome 1 11.1372 that ye should write to vs first, that hēce might be decreed the thing which is iust? they thought that he had spoken of himselfe, belike, and had meant the Pope by the word [vs,] by which he meant the Councell. For he wrote that epistle in the Councels name, as Athanasius noteth: and himselfe sheweth it by saying straight before, 2 11.1373 ye ought to haue written vnto all vs, that so that which is iust might be decreed by all.

Hart.

Whatsoeuer you conceue ofthe doings and writings of Athanasius and Iulius: yet can you not denie but Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo from the Coun∣cell of Ephesus deposing him vniustly. And so did Theodoret Bi∣shop of Cyrus too▪ For b 11.1374 the Emperour Valentinian witnesseth the one; and c 11.1375 Theodoret himselfe, the other.

Rainoldes.

Flauianus appealed from the Councel of Ephe∣sus: but to a greater and a more lawfull Councell, not to Pope Leo. Which appéereth by an epistle of d 11.1376 Leo himselfe, complay∣ning to the Emperour Theodosius of the fewnesse and op∣pression of the Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus; and desi∣ring that a generall Councell might be kept, because Flauia∣nus

had appealed. You must adde therefore the Empresse Pla∣cidia to the Emperour Valentinian: and with the ones words of 3 11.1377 appealing to Leo, take that e 11.1378 the other sayth, to Leo 4 11.1379 and to all the Bishops of these partes. So Leo, and the Bishops be∣ing ioyned together, will make the Councell of Chalcedon: by the which Councell f 11.1380 the cause of Flauianus and his appeale was iudged. The same Councell also g 11.1381 did iudge Theodorets cause; & finding him guiltlesse restored him to his Sée. Where∣fore sith the Councell was iudge of the appeale: if he appealed to Leo, and not to the Councell, it was an ouersight. Unlesse perhaps he did not appeale as to a higher iudge▪ that might re∣store him; but as to a man of learning and autoritie, whose cre∣dit and iudgement might helpe to proue him not guiltie. And this doth the tenour of h 11.1382 his request pretend. Though asking wi••hall the aduise of Leo, whether he shall beare that wrong∣full depriuation, or seeke to be restored: he séemeth to haue thought of a further matter. Which yet he toucheth so, in spea∣king of troubling men, and crauing Leos prayers: that it is e∣uident it lay not in Leo alone to restore him. Wherefore, the most that you may well imagine of an appeale made by Theo∣doret to Leo for remedie of the wrong done him, is, that Leo tooke his bill of appeale to preferre it to the Councell whereof he was President. As with vs in England the billes are put vp to the Speaker of the Parlament, that he may informe the Par∣lament thereof, not as though himselfe had soueraine power to passe them.

Hart.

Then you grant that Leo was President of the Councell, as in déede he was, and head of the Bishops therein, as i 11.1383 themselues say. Which sheweth that they counted the Pope their supreme head.

Rainoldes.

You will find more heads, then the Popes shoulders will be content to beare, if you make such reasons. First, the Bishop of Corduba. For k 11.1384 Hosius was President of the Councell of Nice: nor of Nice onely, but also of Sardica, and of many others. Next, the Bishop of Antioche, or whosoe∣uer he were that had the roome in the Councell of Constantino∣ple. For l 11.1385 the Pope had it not. Thirdly, the Bishop of Alex∣andria.

Hart.

Nay, Cyrill, who had it in the third general Councel,

was Deputie therein to Pope Caelestinus, as m 11.1386 Euagrius writeth.

Rainoldes.

Caelestinus ioyned his autoritie to Cyrils. But Cyrill was President, as wel as Caelestinus, in n 11.1387 more mens iudgement then Euagrius. Howbeit, if he were not: yet Alex∣andria will haue a head still. For o 11.1388 Dioscorus was President in the next of Ephesus: neither he alone but also the Bishops of Ierusalem and Caesarea. Wherefore if the Presidentship of a ge∣nerall Councell do make a supreme head: then Corauba in Spaine, Alexandria in Egypt, Ierusalem in Iewrie, and other cities of the East may claime the supreme headship as well as Rome in Italie. The Pope will be loth to haue so many partners. But to deliuer him from that feare, or rather the Church from his ty∣rannie, and the truth from your sophisme: there is a distinction in p 11.1389 Cardinall Turrecremata which is worth the noting vpon this very point. The Presidētship of Councels (he sayth) is two-folde: one, 1 11.1390 of honour; an other, 2 11.1391 of power. Presidentship of honor, is, to haue preeminēce in place, to propose things, to direct the actions, to giue definitiue sentence according to the voices and iudgement of the Councell▪ Presidentship of power is to haue the right, not onely of directing, but of ruling their doings also, and to conclude of matters after his owne iudgement, though the greater part of the Councell like it not, yea, though no part like it. Now the Popes supre∣macie chalengeth this Presidentship of power in Councels, as though he alone were soue••aine iudge there: which appéereth by his practise in q 11.1392 the Councell of Vienna, and by the r 11.1393 Cardi∣nals doctrine with the s 11.1394 chiefest Papists. But that, which the general Councell of Chalcedon gaue vnto Leo in naming him their head, was the Presidentship of honour: as himself shew∣ed in his Legates and Deputies, t 11.1395 who vsed all the Bishops as their fellow-iudges, and concluded nothing but what they a∣gréed of. Wherefore the Presidentship, which they gaue to Leo, was no Papall soueraintie: neither did they acknowledge him in that particular, much lesse the Pope in generall, to be their supreme head.

Hart.

The Fathers did in general acknowledge the Pope, and taught vs to acknowledge him, our u 11.1396 vniuersall Patriarke and x 11.1397 Bishop of the Catholike Church: nay (to vse yet more

the wordes of the most ancient Fathers) y 11.1398 our Prince, z 11.1399 the head of al Churches, a 11.1400 the top and the chiefe of the Aposto∣like company, or (as b 11.1401 Epiphanius speaketh) the chiefest, c 11.1402 the teacher of the whole world, d 11.1403 the ruler of the house of God, e 11.1404 an other father of the houshold, and f 11.1405 the first begotten; whose seate (as the most excellent Diuine, S. g 11.1406 Austin sayth) hath the preeminence of a higher roome in the pastorall watch-tower which is common to all Bishops. And will any man desire greater proofes of the Popes supremacie?

Rainoldes.

If any man doe: he must take the paines to séeke them somewhere else. Sure he is not like to finde them in your Stapleton. For these are the chiefest of all in his treasurie. Which therefore he culled out, and sent them for h 11.1407 a present to Gregorie the thirtéenth: to shew what good wordes they giue of his Holinesse for his liberalitie toward the English Semina∣ries. But he presenteth him with one title more, which you haue omitted: and yet doth it aduance him aboue all the rest.

Hart.

None of the titles which the Fathers giue him. Be∣like you meane that of i 11.1408 the Emperour.

Rainoldes.

No: I meane that of his owne, * 11.1409 Supremum in terris Numen. In déede it hath no Fathers testimonie to proue it. But as in this title he playeth the notable flatterer with the Pope: so, in the rest, the notable sophister with you. For the ti∣tles of our Prince, the toppe, the cheefe and chie∣fest of the Apostolike companie, the teacher of the whole world, an other father of the houshold, and the first begot∣ten: are giuen by Optatus, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, and a k 11.1410 bastard Austin, to Peter, not to the Pope. Stapleton alleaging them sayth that he vseth the wordes of the Fathers. That is cunningly spoken. For it is true he vseth their wordes, though not their meaning. As for the title of vniuersall Patriarke: the Councell of Chalcedon (which he quoteth for it) gaue it not to the Pope neither.

Hart.

No? did not l 11.1411 Theodore and certaine others there giue it to Pope Leo.

Rainoldes.

A few poore suiters, in their supplications to him and the Councell, did séeke his fauour with it. But neither the Councell nor any one Bishop of the Councell gaue it him.

Hart.

They gaue it him, at least by their consent, & iudge∣ment.

For they would haue reproued it when they heard it read in the supplications, if they had not allowed of it.

Rainoldes.

Say you so? what thinke you then of m 11.1412 y^e Coū∣cell of Lateran? where the Pope is tolde (and that, in a n 11.1413 Ser∣mon) that 1 11.1414 to him is giuen all power in heauen and in earth; yea, which is more, that 2 11.1415 he hath all power aboue all powers both of heauen and of earth. Did the Councell allow of these blasphemous spéeches? They did not reproue them.

Hart.

But the Councell of Chalcedon did offer themselues the title of vniuersall Patriarke to Pope Leo, as S. o 11.1416 Grego∣rie writeth: they did not only heare it giuen him by others.

Rainoldes.

S. Gregorie affirmeth it to be p 11.1417 a new, a proud a pompous, a profane, q 11.1418 a rash, peruerse, foolish, abomina∣ble, r 11.1419 wicked, and s 11.1420 superstitious title: t 11.1421 a name of singulari∣tie, of arrogancie, of blasphemie. The Councell of Chalcedon was a companie of six hundred Bishops and thirtie, sound in re∣ligion, and zealous of the glorie of God. You must pardon me, if I discredit rather the word of one Gregorie: then thinke that sixe hundred and thirtie such Bishops did offer to commit so great iniquitie and folie. For neither is there any proofe of that offer in any part of the Councell, which is wholy extant: and that which made u 11.1422 Gregorie to misreport the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, might induce him likewise to misreport these Bi∣shops too. Wherein his affection may be the more suspected, be∣cause x 11.1423 he sayth farther, that it was offered to his predecessors not only by the Councel, but also by the Fathers following. The names (it is likely) of these Fathers following should haue bene foorth comming, if they had bene at hand, the matter being so important. Howbeit if they, and the Councell both, had not only offered it, but giuen it also: yet might they haue giuen it in respect of lesser preeminence then the Papacie. Which it must needes be the Councell should haue done: for else they had con∣traried y 11.1424 their owne decrées and actions. And z 11.1425 the Pope himself gaue it to the Patriarke of Constantinople, as a title of honour (I trow) and not of power. Wherefore the first title, put vpon the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon, inferreth not the Popes supremacie. Much lesse doth the next, alleaged out of Cyprian. For although Cornelius, a godly Bishop of Rome, be there na∣med Bishop of the Catholike Church: yet is he so named, not

as the word [Catholike] signi••••eth vniuersall, but as it signif••∣eth right beleeuing, holding the Catholike faith. Wherefore it maketh no more for his supremacie, then for a 11.1426 Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and b 11.1427 other Catholike Bishops, who all are named Bishops of the Catholike Church.

Hart.

A particular Church may be called Catholike in re∣spect of the Catholike faith which it professeth. And so was A∣thanasius Bishop of the Catholike Church of Alexandria.

Rainoldes.

And Cornelius Bishop of the Catholike church of Rome.

Hart.

Nay: he was Bishop of the Catholike Church of the whole world, not of the citie of Rome onely. For it fol∣loweth c 11.1428 in the same place, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church.

Rainoldes▪

That is, in the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome. For Cornelius himselfe, in whose epistle that is writ∣ten, sayth other where (entreating d 11.1429 of the same matter) that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church, wherein there are sixe and fourtie Elders and seuen Dea∣cons. Now e 11.1430 in a Synode which then was held at Rome, there were aboue threescore Elders and Deacons: how many hū∣dred more through the whole world? Wherefore sith six and fourtie Elders and seuen Deacons, were not all the Elders and Deacons of the world, but of the citie of Rome: it follow∣eth that the Catholike Church wherein he saith there ought to be one Bishop, was the Catholike Church of the citie of Rome, not of the whole world. And, that this was meant in that of Cornelius, it is very plaine by the occasion of his speéche: as al∣so by the canon of the Councell of Nice made on that occasion. For the Church * 11.1431 being troubled at that time with the schisme and heresie of Nouatus: the Nouatians refusing the commu∣nion of the Catholikes, ordeined new Bishops for their hereti∣call synagogues and schismaticall conuenticles. Whereby it came to passe that in one citie there were two Bishops, a Ca∣tholike, and an heretike: as in f 11.1432 Rome, Cornelius and Nouatia∣nus; in g 11.1433 Carthage, Cyprian, and Fortunatus. The Catholikes therefore, communicating in faith and loue with Cornelius, h 11.1434 called him Bishop of the Catholike Church: condemning the Nouatians as heretikes, and schismatikes, with their Bishop

Nouatianus. And as they sayd farther, that there ought to be one Bishop in a Catholike Church, according to the ancient order as I i 11.1435 shewed: so was it decréed by the k 11.1436 Nicen Councell touching the Nouatians who became Catholikes, that, if a Bi∣shop of theirs were conuerted l 11.1437 the Catholike Church ha∣uing a Bishop; he should not enioy a Bishops roome, but an Elders, least that there shoulde be two Bishops in a citie. Wherefore the Bishoprick of the Catholike Church, in the time of Cornelius, was the charge that euerie Catholike Bi∣shop had. Neyther meant they more who sayd that there ought to bee but one Bishop in a Catholike Church, then S. Chrysostome did, saying to Sisinius Bishop of the Noua∣tians in Constantinople, A citie may not haue two Bishops.

Hart.

But S. m 11.1438 Cyprian writeth, that neither heresies nor schismes haue sproong of any other fountaine, then of this, that the Priest of God is not obeyed: and that one Priest for the time in the Church, and one iudge for the tyme in steede of Christ is not regarded. To whom, if the whole brotherhoode would be obedient according to Gods tea∣chings: then no man would make any thing adoe agaynst the company of Priests. Wherein, by one Priest, he meaneth one Bishop; and, by one Bishop, Cornelius the Pope, to whom he writeth those wordes. So that he confesseth the Pope to bée the Bishop of the whole Churche, and teacheth men to thinke of him, as one iudge for the tyme in Christes steede.

Rainoldes.

You erre still in the same point. The Church wherein Cyprian requireth obedience vnto one Bishop and iudge in Christs steed, is the particular Church of euery citie, not the vniuersall. For he speaketh it on occasion of iniurie of∣fered to himselfe by the Nouatians in Carthage: who there had ordeined a new Bishop against him, as their fellowes did in Rome, against Cornelius. And as the words 1 11.1439 before, and 2 11.1440 af∣ter, do shew that he meaneth it of all Catholike Bishops, ech in his owne charge: so the whole discourse & circumstances argue that he applieth it to himselfe, not to Cornelius. Chiefly, that, of 3 11.1441 a Bishop approued to his people in the Bishoprick foure yeares. Which can by no meanes agree to Cornelius, who was * 11.1442 not thrée yeares Bishop. Or if, because Cyprian doth write

it to the Pope, you haue such a preiudice that it is the Popes peculiar: you may know that he writeth the same o 11.1443 to an other expresly of himself; Thēce haue schismes & heresies sproong, & doe spring, that the Bishop, which is one, and ruleth the church, is despised by the proud presumption of certain men. Wherefore though your p 11.1444 Rhemists and q 11.1445 other of the Popes friends doe plie the box with that saying of one Priest & one iudge for the time in Christs steed: yet in very truth it maketh as much for the Bishop of Rochester, as for the Bishop of Rome. The more is Stapletons blame: who knowing and confessing the same not onely r 11.1446 otherwhere, but in s 11.1447 this very worke of his principles too; yet in t 11.1448 the ende thereof abridgeth it to the Pope. Maruell, that in his preface to Gregorie he past it. He might haue alleaged it better then he hath The head of all Churches. Which title is giuen in u 11.1449 Victor to the Church of Rome, not to the Bishop: and toucheth lesse the Papacie there, then in S. Gregorie; in whom it doth not proue it, as x 11.1450 I haue declared. Marry, that which followeth is of greater shew, out of Ambroses commentarie on S. Paul to Timothee: where Damasus (the Bishop of Rome in his time) is called ruler of the Church. But, first, whatsoeuer he were who wrote that, it was not S. Ambrose the famous Bishop of Milan: on whom are falsly fathered the cōmentaries on S. Paul, as your y 11.1451 Diuines of Louan do obserue and testifie. Next, the wordes themselues which are in that autour on mention of the house of God, [the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus,] are not (in my iudge∣ment) the autours owne wordes, but a glose crept in amongst them. For whereas S. Paule, writing vnto Timothee, declared why he did so, to wéete, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the house of God, which is the Church of the liuing God: z 11.1452 the commentarie thereon doth expoūd it thus, I write vnto thee that thou maiest know how to gouern the Church, which is the house of God; that whereas all the world is Gods, yet the Church is called his house. [the ruler whereof at this day is Damasus,] For the world is naught, troubled with sundrie errours. Therefore

the house of God and truth must of nece••sitie be saide to be there, where he is feared according to his will. In the which wordes, if that of [Damasus] were omitted, the l••ter clawse contayning a reason of the former would cleaue therevnto more suantly and fitly. Which maketh me to thinke that it was not pitched in thetext by the autour, but found a ••hinke and so came in; as a 11.1453 an other glose of [Damasus successour] hath done into b 11.1454 Optatus. And I think it the rather, because some are perswa∣ded by manifolde conference, (as your c 11.1455 Louanists note,) that the booke of questions of the old and new testament enti∣tled to S. Austin, & this to S. Ambrose are the same autours. For d 11.1456 he, who wrote that booke, was not aliue (of lykelihoode) when Damasus was Pope. Howbeit, if he were too, and of a kinde ••ffection to Rome, e 11.1457 where he liued, thought good to menti∣on him: the wordes which he vseth in Latin, [cuius hodie rector est Damasus.] might meane that Damasus was [a ruler of the Church] not, as f 11.1458 you english it [the ruler.] Which to haue bene so, it appéereth farther by the word [at this day,] spoken with a relation to the dayes of Timothee: that as hée did gouerne the Church in Paules time, so at that present was Damasus ruler of it. Wherefore sith Timothee was g 11.1459 placed at Ephesus to set that Church in order, not to rule the whole: Da∣masus might be called a ruler of the Church, in that he was 4 11.1460 Bishop of the Church of Rome, as S. h 11.1461 Ambrose termeth him, though he were not the ruler of the vniuersal. S. Austin is the last o•• them whose testimonies you cited▪ And, the preemi∣nence of a higher roome, whereof i 11.1462 he made mention to Boni∣face y^e first, importeth a prerogatiue of honour ouer others, not soueraintie of power. A prerogatiue of honour; according to the canon of k 11.1463 the first Councell of Constantinople: which 5 11.1464 gaue that prerogatiue to the See of Rome, 6 11.1465 because that citie raigned. Not soueraintie of power; as it is euident by the Councell of A∣frike: where l 11.1466 he denied that to the same Boniface, to whom hée graunted this preeminence. It was therefore only the dignitie of place, which S. Austin meant by the higher roome. As m 11.1467 else where, hauing named Cyprian, Olympius, and other aun∣cient writers, he sayth that Innocentius was 7 11.1468 after them in time, before them in place: because they were Bishops of in∣feriour cities; and he of the Roman.

Hart.

Nay: but S. n 11.1469 Austin sayth in plain termes, that the principalitie of the Apostolike * 11.1470 See had floorished in that Church still.

Rainoldes.

But S. Austin addeth in as plain termes, that Bishops may reserue their cases to the iudgement of their fellow-bishops, chiefly of the Apostolike Church: and that a generall Councell is aboue the Pope in iudging of those cau∣ses too. Which is a cléere proofe that by the principalitie of the Apostolike See he meant the Church of Rome to be chéefe of o∣ther Churches (as I sayd) in honour, not in power. For in po∣wer, al others, at least the Apostolike, (that is, in which the faith of Christ had bene taught by the Apostles themselues) are made equall with it. But amongst all, in which the Apostles themselues had taught the faith, the Roman for honour & cre∣dit had the chiefty. And thus haue I discharged my selfe of my promise: which was, that I would yeeld vnto the Popes su∣premacie, if you prooued it by the sayings and iudgement of the Fathers, alleaged and applied rightly. For none of all thē which you haue alleaged, neither of any other church, nor of the Roman it self, doth auouch it. Whereby the shamelesse vanitie of o 11.1471 Bri∣stow may be séene: who, being not contented to say of all the Fathers, that they were Papists; addeth that in familiar talke among our selues we are not afeard plainely to confesse it. The Lord, who is witnesse of our thoughtes, and spéeches, kno∣weth that we are lewdly sclaundered herein. And for mine owne part, I am so farre off from confessing plainely that they were all Papists: that I haue plainly declared and confirmed not one of them to haue bene. For the very being and essence of a Papist consisteth in opinion of the Popes supremacie. But the Popes supremacie was not allowed by any of the Fathers. Not one then of al the Fathers was a Papist. Wherefore, if you haue the Fathers in such reuerent regard and estimatiō, as you pretend, M. Hart: let, if not the Scriptures, yet the Fathers moue you to forsake Papistrie; and giue to euery pastor and church their owne right, whereof Christ hath possessed them, and the Pope hath robbed them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The first Diuisi∣on.
• a 1.2

  Matt. 10.24.
• b 1.3

  Esai. 49.4.
• c 1.4

  1. Pet. 1.18.
• * 1.5

  Vulg. paterne traditionis.
• d 1.6

  Act. 17.28.
• e 1.7

  Homer. Odyss. lib. 1. Orpheus & Callimachus hymnis in Io∣uem.
• f 1.8

  In phaenom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m 1.9

  2. Thess. 2.15.
• n 1.10

  Act. 17.2.
• o 1.11

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Session. 4.
• * 1.12

  In libris scrip∣tis & sine scrip∣to traditionibus.
• p 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap. 1. Elias Le∣••••ta in T••••bi.
• q 1.14

  Martin. Pere∣fino de diuinis, apostolicis, & ecclesiasti••is ••raditionibus. part. 2. assert. 1.
• r 1.15

  Mat. 15.3. Mar. 7.13.
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elias Leuita in Tisbi.
• 2 1.17

  Scripturarij. Albert. Pigh. eccl. hier. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• s 1.18

  Dubitantij dia∣log. 2.
• t 1.19

  De vi••••s, sectis, & dogmat. hae∣••er. l. 17. haer. 1••.
• u 1.20

  Epist. prima.
• x 1.21

  Epist. ad om∣nes orthodoxos.
• y 1.22

  Epist ad om∣nes ecclesias.
• z 1.23

  Epist. ad The∣ophilum.
• a 1.24

  Epist. ad Sici∣liae episcopos.
• b 1.25

  Epist. ad epis∣copos Antio∣chenae prouin∣ciae.
• c 1.26

  Epist. ad epis∣copos Campa∣niae & Tusciae.
• d 1.27

  Epist. ad His∣paniarum epis∣copos.
• e 1.28

  Epist. ad ori∣entales epis∣copos.
• f 1.29

  Epist. ad trium conciliorum Africanorum episcopos.
• g 1.30

  Princ. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 15.
• h 1.31

  Locor. Theo∣log. lib. 6. cap. 8.
• i 1.32

  Robert. Bellar∣min. controue••. •• quaest. 5.
• * 1.33

  Iudg. 7.33.
• k 1.34

  Stapleton, Torrensis, Cani∣sius, & the rest of the Popish Rabbins.
• l 1.35

  Psal. 127. vers. 2.
• m 1.36

  vers. 3.
• n 1.37

  vers. 4.
• o 1.38

  vers. 5.9.
• p 1.39

  Psal. 45.5.
• q 1.40

  Luk. 16.31.
• r 1.41

  Act. 26.22.
• s 1.42

  ••al. 1.8.
• t 1.43

  Cont. liter. Petilian. Dona∣••ist. lib. 3. cap. 6.
• u 1.44

  Annotat. in som. 7. August. script. •• Grauio, probat. a Mo∣lano & Theolo∣gis Louan.
• x 1.45

  Tractat. 98. ••n Ioha••n••m.
• y 1.46

  1. Thess. 3.10.
• z 1.47

  1. Cor. 3.2. Hebr. 5.12. & 6.1.
• a 1.48

  Act. 26.22.
• b 1.49

  Ioh. 1.15. Rom. 9.5. 1. Tim. 3.16.
• c 1.50

  Contr. liter. Petilian. Dona∣natist. lib. 3. c. 6.
• * 1.51

  Quasi no•• mā∣dauerim••s tan∣to ante Prophe∣••••▪ & Apostolis, vt in libris suis nulla testimonia ponerent qui∣b••s pars Dona∣ti ecclesia Chri∣sti esse docea∣tur.
• d 1.52

  Annot in Tom. 7. Aug. Con∣traliter. Petili∣an. lib. 1. cap. 23.
• e 1.53

  Optatus lib. •• contra Par∣menian. Dona∣tist.
• f 1.54

  Aug. in Psal. 31. ••xpo••it. 2.
• g 1.55

  Annot. in Op∣tat. lib. 5.
• h 1.56

  L. Heredes. Dig. Qui testa∣mentum facere possunt.
• i 1.57

  L. Hac consul∣••••sima. §. per nuncupationē. Cod. dete••ta∣mentis.
• k 1.58

  In••titut. lib. 2. tit. 10. §. Sed haec quidem.
• l 1.59

  Contr. epist. Parm. lib. 1. De vnit. eccles. cap. 16. De doc∣tr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 40.
• m 1.60

  Ad Mon. l. 2.
• n 1.61

  Edmund. Cam••pian. Rat. 5.
• * 1.62

  Patres tam sunt nostri, quam Gregori∣••i ipse decimus tortius.
• o 1.63

  Published in the yeare of Christ 1572. Reg. cancel∣lar. Apost.
• p 1.64

  On maun∣day-Thursday in the yeare 1575. Liter. processus Gre∣go. decimi tert. le••t. die Coen. Dom.
• q 1.65

  Bulla confir∣mat. priuileg. ord. Minor. de obseruant. Non-obstantibus &c. and in other buls common∣ly. Ecloge bul∣lar. & motupro∣prior. Greg. de∣cimit••rt.
• r 1.66

  Edmund Cam¦pian. Ration. 5.
• s 1.67

  Annot▪ in Op∣tat. lib. 5.
• t 1.68

  De baptism. contra Dona∣tist. lib. 4. cap. 6.
• u 1.69

  Confess. Au∣gust. lib. 1. c. 8.
• x 1.70

  De bapt. co••∣tr. Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 26.
• y 1.71

  Epist. 74. ad ••ompeium.
• * 1.72

  ••ph. 4.4.
• a 1.73

  Ios. 1.8.
• b 1.74

  Matt. 28.20.
• c 1.75

  Annota••. in epist. 74. ad Pompeium.
• d 1.76

  De baptism. contr. Donatist. lib. 1. cap. 7. & deincep•• passim.
• e 1.77

  Sermon. de temp. 191. qui est tertius de Trinita••••.
• f 1.78

  In Censu•• generali To•••• 10. operum D. August.
• g 1.79

  Chapt. 2. Diuision 2.
• h 1.80

  Confess. Au∣gust. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• i 1.81

  cap. 8.
• k 1.82

  Lib. 5. conrr. ••armenian. Do∣natist.
• 1 1.83

  De caelo quae∣••endus est iudex.
• 2 1.84

  Testamentum.
• l 1.85

  Pope Pius y^• fifth in his Bul against the Queene of England.
• m 1.86

  c. Ego N. ex∣tra. de i••reiu∣rando.
• n 1.87

  L. Testium fides. D. de Testibus.
• o 1.88

  Epist. 126.2•• Euagrium.
• * 1.89

  Meum fuit re∣citare testes: tu um sit de fide testium iudica∣re.
• * 1.90

  The se∣cond Di¦uision.
• p 1.91

  In the de∣fense of the A∣polog. part. 2.
• q 1.92

  In his De∣tection lib. 3.
• r 1.93

  Mar. 13.37.
• * 1.94

  Optat▪ contr. Parmen. lib. 1. Fulgent. ad Tra∣simundum Reg. lib. 1.
• t 1.95

  Esai. 58.1.
• u 1.96

  In dialog. cum. Tryphon. Iud.
• x 1.97

  Hieron. com∣ment. in Esai. l. 18. in praefat.
• y 1.98

  Euseb. hist. ••c∣clesiast. lib. 3. cap. 36.
• z 1.99

  De spe fideli∣um: vt citatur▪ ab Hieronymo.
• a 1.100

  Hieron. de scriptor. ecclesi∣ast. in verbo Papias.
• b 1.101

  Diuina••. insti∣tut. l. 7. c. 23.
• c 1.102

  Hieron. com∣ment. in Esai. lib. 18. in praefat.
• d 1.103

  Hieron. com∣ment. in Ezech. lib. 11.
• e 1.104

  Euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 7. cap. 23.
• f 1.105

  1. Thess. 4.17. Matt. 22.30.
• g 1.106

  Reu. 20.5.
• h 1.107

  Re••. 21.10. & 22.2.
• i 1.108

  Exod. 20.1••.
• k 1.109

  2. Petr. 3.8.
• l 1.110

  Act. 1.7.
• m 1.111

  In e••arrat. Psalm. 89. & de ciuit. Dei lib. 1••. cap. 53.
• n 1.112

  In Dubitantio. Dialog. 2.
• o 1.113

  De vit. sect. & dogmat. haeret. lib. 9. tit. Iudaeo∣rum haereses.
• p 1.114

  Aduers. haeres. lib. 5. cap. 23.
• q 1.115

  Diuinar. insti∣tut. lib. 7. c. 14.
• r 1.116

  In Mattha••um can••ne 17.
• s 1.117

  Hieron. epist. 139. ad C••∣p••ian Iustin, Mart. responsi∣on. ad Orthod. quaestion. 71.
• * 1.118

  Euseb. histor. ec••les. l. 4. c. 13. & 25.
• t 1.119

  Retractat. in Act. Apost. c. 8.
• u 1.120

  In their An∣notations vpon the Acts of the Apostles. 1.14.
• x 1.121

  Luk. 1.41.
• y 1.122

  Iude vers. 9.
• z 1.123

  Deut. 34.6.
• a 1.124

  Nicol. Lir. in Deuter. 34. & e∣pistolum Iudae.
• b 1.125

  Act. 14.11.
• c 1.126

  Exod. 22.20. Matt. 4.••0. Col. 2.18. Reuel. 19.10. & 22.9.
• d 1.127

  2. Cor. 2.11.
• e 1.128

  Tertullian. in Apologet. Eu∣seb. hist. eccl. l. 4. c 13.
• f 1.129

  Confess. Hel∣••••t. cap. 5. Con∣fess. Bohem. Au∣gustan. Saxoni. &c. in Harmo∣nia confes••io∣num fidei. Secti¦on. 2.
• g 1.130

  Luk. 1.28.
• h 1.131

  Maria mater gratiae, mater misericordiae:
• i 1.132

  Tu nos ab hoste protege, & ho∣ra mortis susci∣pe. Offic. B. Ma∣riae uirg resor. mat. & edit. a Pio quint.
• k 1.133

  Psal. 31.5. Act. 7.59. Psal. 50.15. Luk. 11.4.
• l 1.134

  Antonin. in s••••ma pa••t. 4. Tit. 15. cap. 44. Chassanaeus in catalogo glo∣riae mundi, part. 3. consid. 4.
• 1 1.135

  Domina.
• 2 1.136

  Dea.
• 3 1.137

  Regina.
• 4 1.138

  Mediatrix.
• 5 1.139

  Immunis ab omni corrupti∣one peccati.
• 6 1.140

  Vita,
• 7 1.141

  Dul∣cedo,
• 8 1.142

  Spes nostra salue.
• 9 1.143

  Omnibus es omnia.
• m 1.144

  Leuit. 23.24. Neh. 8. vers. 2.6.8. & 18. Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.2. Reu. 1.10.
• n 1.145

  Ioh. 4.23.
• o 1.146

  2. Sam. 6.20.
• p 1.147

  Confess. He∣luetica, cap. 24. cui subscripse∣runt ecclesiae Sabaudicae, Po∣lonicae. Hunga∣ricae, Scoticae, Gallicae, & Bel∣gicae. In harmo∣monia confessi∣onum fidei.
• q 1.148

  In their ob∣seruatiōs vpō y^e Harmonie of cōfessiōs. Section. 16▪ ad ••ohemi∣cam, obseruat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• q 1.149

  In their ob∣seruations vp∣on the Har∣mony of con∣fessio••s. Sec∣tion 16. ad Bo∣hemicam▪ obser∣••••••. ••.
• r 1.150

  In their An∣not. vpon the Act. 1.14.
• * 1.151

  Ouid. Meta∣morphos. lib. 8. Superos perue∣••it ad omnes Ambitiosus ho∣nor. Solas sin•• thure relictas Praeteritas ces∣sasse ••erunt La∣••oidos aras Tan∣git & iraDeos.
• s 1.152

  Luk. 1.31.
• t 1.153

  Luk. 2.22.
• u 1.154

  Matt. 16.16.
• x 1.155

  Act. 9.20.
• y 1.156

  Ioh. 21.24.
• z 1.157

  The collects, epistles, & Go∣spels (as they are termed) in the booke of common praier▪
• a 1.158

  Festa Sanctae Mariae: Purifica∣tionis, Annun∣tiationis, Visita∣tionis, Assump∣tionis, Natiuita∣tis, Conceptio∣nis: & S. Mariae ad Niues. Missa∣le Romanum in ordinario Mis∣sae.
• b 1.159

  Confes••io Hel∣uetica cap. 24. Sect. 16. in Har∣mon. Confess. fid.
• c 1.160

  Portiforium seu breuiarium, ad vsum ecclesiae Sarum: in festo S. Thomae Can∣••••ariensis.
• d 5.1

  In his De∣••••••••. l 5. c. 10.
• e 5.2

  Hebr. 7.25.
• f 5.3

  1. Tim. 2.5.
• g 5.4

  1. Pet. 1.1••.
• * 7.1

  This is the meaning of the Latin. But the grace ther∣of is halfe lost for lacke of ••yme: which in the Latin is very good.
• h 7.2

  Bre••iarium Roman. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de∣cret. Sacrosanct concil. Trid. ••estitut. & edit. a Pio Quint.
• i 7.3

  Sabbato in hebdomada quarta Qua∣dragesimae.
• 1 9.1

  In cer••a.
• 2 9.2

  Aliena.
• k 9.3

  Pope Pius the fifth. Prae∣fat. Roman. Bre∣uiar. reformat.
• l 9.4

  Praefat. offic. Beat. Mar. virg. nuper reformat.
• 3 9.5

  Vanis super∣stitionum ••rr••••••ibus referta.
• m 9.6

  Gal. 6▪ ••4.
• 1 9.7

  Regnauit a ligno De••s.
• 2 9.8

  Suspensus est paribulo.
• 3 9.9

  Arbor decora & fulgid••, Or na•••• ••egis pur∣pura. Electa dig∣no ••••••pite 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sancta membra tangere:
• 4 9.10

  Be••ta cuius brachiis Secli pependit preti∣um, Statêra sacta corporis, Prae∣dam••ue tulit Tartari, O crux, ••ue spes vnica, & quae sequūtur.
• n 9.11

  1. Cor. 1.31.
• o 9.12

  Gal. 5.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 9.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p 9.14

  1. Cor. 1.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 9.15

  Col. 1.20.
• r 9.16

  1. Cor. 1.18.
• s 9.17

  Gal. 6.12.
• t 9.18

  Thom. Aquin. Summ. Theo∣log. part. 3. quaest. 27. art. ••. Sixtus Papa quartus c. cúm praeexcelsa. Ex∣trauag. de reli∣quiis & venera∣tione Sanctorū.
• u 9.19

  Luk. 1.47.
• y 9.20

  Heb. 7.2••.
• x 9.21

  1. Tim. 1.15.
• z 9.22

  Rom. 5.12.
• a 9.23

  Eph. 2.3.
• b 9.24

  Ambros. l. 2. comment. in Luc c. 2. & in Psal••. 1.11••. Serm. 6. August. in Psal. 34. concion. 2. & contr. Iu••ian. l. 5. c. 15. & De perfect. iustit. c. 21. Leo de natiuit. ••om. Serm. 1. & 2. Fulgent. de side ad Petr. c. 26. Damascen. de orthod. fid. l. 3. cap. 2. Beda l. 1 •••• Luc. c. 1. Anselm. Cur Deus homo. l. 2. c. •••• 6. Bernard. ad Canon. Lugdun. epist. 174.
• c 9.25

  Thom. Aquin. part. 3. quaest. 27. art. ••. Bonau. in 3. S••••t. dist. 3. art. 1. quaest. 2. Anton. Summ. part. 1. tit. 8. c. 2.
• d 9.26

  De consecr. dist. 4. c. Firmi••sun••▪
• e 9.27

  Bernard. ad Canon. Lug∣dun. epist. 174. Beleth. in expli∣cat. diuin. offic. c. 146. Durand. in Rationali l. 7. cap. 7.
• f 9.28

  De consecrat. ••istinct. 3. c. pro∣nuntiandum.
• g 9.29

  Luk. 24.30. Act. 1.12.
• h 9.30

  Retract. in Act. Apost. c. 8.
• i 9.31

  Melito de transitu S. Ma∣riae.
• k 9.32

  Nicephor. hist. eccle. l. 2. c. ••
• l 9.33

  In chronico.
• m 9.34

  Beata Elisa∣bet. Antonin. hist part. 1. tit. 6. c. 3.
• n 9.35

  Vincent. spe∣culi hist. lib. 1. cap. 80.
• * 9.36

  Rhem. Annot. vpon Act. 1.14.
• o 9.37

  Dionys. epist. ad Timotheum.
• p 9.38

  De dormition. Deiparae.
• q 9.39

  Serm. in Euan. de Deipara.
• r 9.40

  In edit. Petri Nannij Louan. prae••at. ad Epis∣copum Atrebat.
• s 9.41

  Breuiar. Ro∣manum in Festis August. quarto di•• infra octa∣uam assump••. Beat. Mariae.
• * 9.42

  About the yeare of Christ 740.
• o 9.43

  Dionys. epist. ad Timotheum.
• t 9.44

  Dionys. ad Timotheum de diuin. nomin. cap. 3.
• * 9.45

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 9.46

  Histor. eccles. lib. 2. cap. 20.
• x 9.47

  De dormiti∣on. Deiparae.
• y 9.48

  De diuinis no∣minibus ad Ti∣motheum.
• z 9.49

  Histor. eccle. lib. 2. cap. 22.
• * 9.50

  In tertio ca∣pite ad Timo∣theum.
• 1 9.51

  De diuinis nominibus.
• 2 9.52

  De coelesti & ecclesiastica hierarchia.
• * 9.53

  That is, the holy gouerne∣ment of the Church.
• a 9.54

  Dionysius A∣reopagita.
• b 9.55

  Act. 17.34.
• c 9.56

  As the Rhe∣••••••ts say in their Annota∣••ions on Act. 17.••4.
• * 9.57

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• e 9.58

  De diuin. no∣min. cap. 2. & 3.
• f 9.59

  Ecclesiast. hie∣rarch. cap. 7.
• 1 9.60

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 9.61

  Orat. in Nati¦uitat. Christi.
• h 9.62

  Homil. 2. i••∣ter homil. in va∣rios locos noui Testament.
• i 9.63

  Ad Sergium Pat••iar. Constā∣tinop.
• k 9.64

  Ad Constan∣tin. Heracl. & Tiber. August.
• l 9.65

  De orthod. fid. lib. 1. cap. 12. & lib. 2. cap. 18.
• m 9.66

  In Panoplia part. 1. tit. 2.
• 2 9.67

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 9.68

  Budae. in cō∣mentar. linguae Graec.
• o 9.69

  Nicet. com∣ment in Grego. Nazianzen.
• * 9.70

  Gregor. Na∣zianz. orat. in laudem Athan.
• p 9.71

  Polyd▪ Virgil. hist. Ang. lib. ••••
• q 9.72

  Annot in c. 17. A••t Apost.
• q 9.73

  Annot in c. 17. A••t Apost.
• q 9.74

  Annot in c. 17. A••t Apost.
• r 9.75

  De diuin. no∣min••b. cap. 4.
• s 9.76

  Eusebius in Chronico.
• t 9.77

  Methodius in martyrio Dio∣nys. A••eopag.
• u 9.78

  Ignat. epist. ad Ephesios.
• x 9.79

  Dionys. Are∣op. episcopus Athenarum ad Timotheum episcopum E∣phesi.
• y 9.80

  Act. 1.13. & 12.12. & 20.8.
• z 9.81

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. epist. ad Demophilum.
• a 9.82

  Dionys eccl••∣siast. hietarc. c. 6.
• b 9.83

  Hist. eccles. l. 2. c. 17.
• c 9.84

  Eusebius in Chronico.
• d 9.85

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De vita con∣templatiu. &, Quód quisque probus, liber.
• e 9.86

  Thom. Aquin. quodlib. 7. art. ••7. resp. ad 4. argumentum.
• * 9.87

  Aliqui religio∣•••• determinati.
• f 9.88

  Act 9.5.
• g 9.89

  Gal. 1.18.
• h 9.90

  Act. 9.26.
• i 9.91

  Gal. 1.21.
• k 9.92

  Act 13.4.
• l 9.93

  Gal. 2 1.
• m 9.94

  Act. 15.4.
• n 9.95

  Act. 16.1.
• o 9.96

  Act. 17.34.
• p 9.97

  Marian. Scotu•• Chron. l. 2. Nicephorus hist. ecclesiast. l. 2. c. 3. ex ••uo∣dio.
• q 9.98

  After the Actes of the A∣postles.
• r 9.99

  Annot. vpon the Act. 1.14.
• s 9.100

  Dionys. de di∣••sin. nom. c. 3.
• t 9.101

  Eccles. hierar. cap. 7.
• * 9.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 9.103

  Francis. San∣souin. de regnis & rebusp. l. 11. Sander. de visib. monar. eccles. lib. 7.
• x 9.104

  Chapt. 5. Diuis. 3.
• y 9.105

  Praefat. in Censuram D. H••ssels de histo∣riis Sanctorum.
• z 9.106

  Simeon Me∣taphrastes, de vita & dormit. S. Mariae. Nicephorus, hist. eccles. l. 2. c. 21.22. & 23. Michael Synge∣••us in Dionysii en com••o.
• a 9.107

  Ado Treuir. in Martyrolog. Fulbert. Serm. 83. in append. D. August. Tom. 30. Beleth. in explicat. diui∣nor. officior. cap. 146.
• b 9.108

  Vsuard. Mar∣tyrolog. Aug. 15.
• 1 9.109

  Sobrietas ec∣clesiae.
• 2 9.110

  Friuolum & apocryphum.
• c 9.111

  Richard Bri∣stow. Motiu. 32.
• d 9.112

  Pius the fifth. in praefat. Bre∣••••ar-Roman.
• e 9.113

  For Damas∣cene saith, The Angels soong almost three dayes: the Por∣tesse, three whole dayes. Damascen, The rest of the A∣postles would shew to one of them (who was absent) the body: the Portesse, Tho∣mas (who was absent) would worship the body.
• f 9.114

  Hieron. de scriptorib. ec∣clesiast. verbo Philo.
• g 9.115

  Act. 4.32.
• 1 9.116

  Philo in libr. quód quisque p••obus sit liber.
• 2 9.117

  Philo de vita contemplatiua.
• h 9.118

  Act. 20.7. Cor. 16.2.
• i 9.119

  Iustin. mart. apolog. 2. ad Antoninum.
• k 9.120

  Re••. 1.10.
• l 9.121

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.
• m 9.122

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 9.123

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• o 9.124

  Act. 5.4.
• p 9.125

  Epist. 1. ad Heliodorum.
• q 9.126

  Athanas. in epistola ad Dra∣contium.
• r 9.127

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hieron. epist. 1. ad Heliodor. & 13. ad Paulin.
• * 9.128

  Eremitae, and not coenobitae.
• s 9.129

  Epist. 13. ad Paulin. de insti∣tut. monachi.
• t 9.130

  Epist. 73. ad Iubaian.
• u 9.131

  Concil. Car∣thagin. episco∣por. 87. sub Cy∣priano.
• x 9.132

  Augustin▪ de ciuitat. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 17.
• y 9.133

  Hieron. in Catalog. script. eccles. verbo▪ Tertullianus.
• z 9.134

  Tertul. de mo∣nogam. de ieiu∣nio aduersus. Psychicos.
• a 9.135

  Canus loco••. Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 2. D. Hessels Censur. de hist. Sanctor. cap. 3.
• b 9.136

  Sermon. de defunctis in fid▪
• c 9.137

  Petr. Lom∣bard. Sentent. lib. 4. dist••act. 45. Thomas, Scotus, Bona∣uent. & caeteri scholast. in eas distinct.
• d 9.138

  In 4. Sentent. dist. 45. quaest. 2.
• e 9.139

  Locor. Theo∣logic. l. 11. c. 2.
• * 9.140

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 9.141

  Locor. Theol. lib. 11. cap 6.
• 1 9.142

  Ex dissipatis peruagatisque rumoribus.
• 2 9.143

  Indulserunt fidelium vulgo.
• 3 9.144

  Gregorius in Dialogis.
• 4 9.145

  Beda in histo∣ria Anglorum.
• 5 9.146

  Quae animus scribentis dictat.
• 6 9.147

  Pediculos semel excussos in seipsum soli∣••itum esse im∣mittere.
• 7 9.148

  Diabolum, vt haberet lucer∣nam in manibus
• g 9.149

  Locor. The∣olog. l. 11. c. 5.
• 8 9.150

  Forma anti∣quae religionis.
• 9 9.151

  Incerta, apo∣crypha, leuia, falsa.
• h 9.152

  In the D••∣••ection lib. 4.
• i 9.153

  Locor. Theo∣log. l. 11. c. ••.
• * 9.154

  Iames the Archbishop o•• Genua in Italy.
• k 9.155

  De diuin. of∣fic. l. 7. c. 15.
• l 9.156

  Oper. Pascal. lib. 5.
• m 9.157

  c. Sancta Ro∣mana. distinct. 15.
• n 9.158

  Liber Actuum Teclae & Pauli.
• o 9.159

  The foure∣teenth chapter of the Actes.
• p 9.160

  Act. 16.2. & 17.14. & 18.1. and so foorth.
• q 9.161

  1. ••or. 7.13.
• r 9.162

  1. Cor. 9.5.
• s 9.163

  Hieron. de scriptorib. ec∣clesiast. verbo Lucas, ex Ter∣tulliano.
• * 9.164

  Amore Pauli.
• * 9.165

  Matt. 1.20.
• u 9.166

  Thamiride sponso relicto. In Breuiar. Ro∣man. edit. a Pi•• quinto. In fe∣stis Septembr.
• x 9.167

  Comment. in 2. epist. ad Ti∣moth. c. 4. Di∣gress. 21.
• 1 9.168

  Indubié.
• y 9.169

  Petr. Abb. Cluniac. l. 5. c. 29.
• 2 9.170

  Mendacia ad minus viginti quatuor.
• z 9.171

  Petr. Pictauē∣sis epist. 31.
• a 9.172

  Petr. de Alia∣co Cardinal. d•• reformat. ec∣cles. considera∣tion. 3.
• 3 9.173

  Scripturae a∣pocryphae. In Picus they are called apocry∣phaenugae.
• b 9.174

  Iohan. Fran∣cis. Pici orat. de moribus reformandis a•• Concil. Later. sub. Leone 10.
• c 9.175

  Comment. vrbanor. l. 16.
• 4 9.176

  Aperta men∣dacia.
• d 9.177

  Quodlibe••. 6.
• 5 9.178

  Superstitiosa figmenta.
• e 9.179

  Lament. 2.1••
• 6 9.180

  Falsa & stul••••ta.
• 7 9.181

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• f 9.182

  Petr. de Na∣talibus Episco∣pi Equilin. ca∣talogus Sanc∣torum.
• g 9.183

  Aloys. Lipom. de Sanctor. hi∣storiis Tom. 5.6. & 7.
• h 9.184

  Laurent. Sur. de probatis Sanctorum histo riis.
• 1 9.185

  Multis sca∣ten•• quisquiliis.
• i 9.186

  Censura Io∣hannis Hessels in librum qui in scribitur Passio∣nale de Sanctis per annum.
• k 9.187

  1. Thess. 5.21.
• l 9.188

  Iohann. Mo∣lanus praefat. in ••esselii Censu∣ram.
• 2 9.189

  Mendaces Graecos.
• * 9.190

  Namely by S. Ierom, Se∣dulius, Ruper∣tus, ••ames the Archbi••••op of Genua, Pope Adrian the ••••rst, and Vsuarde. In Censura Hess. & praefation. in Vsuardum.
• m 9.191

  Praefat. in Martyrologium Vsuardi c. 20. excus. Louan. •• 568.
• 3 9.192

  Non satis pro∣batae autorita∣tis.
• n 9.193

  De tradendis dis••iplin. l. 5.
• 4 9.194

  Multis com∣mentis foeda••a.
• 5 9.195

  Mendaciol•• pro religione confingere.
• o 9.196

  Loc••r. Theo∣log. l. 11. c. 6.
• p 9.197

  1. Tim. 6.5.
• q 9.198

  In the Apo∣crypha of Dani∣el. chapt. 14.
• r 9.199

  Nicol. Lira 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dan. 14.2••.
• s 9.200

  Session. 25. decret. depur∣gator. & se∣quent.
• t 9.201

  In bre••iatri•• secundum vsu•••• Sar••m.
• u 11.1

  Matt. Paris histor. Angl. in Henric. secund.
• x 11.2

  Motiu. 6.
• y 11.3

  Breuiar. Rom. in festo S. Tho. Aquinat.
• * 11.4

  Antonin. hist. part. 3. tit. 23. cap. 7.
• 1 11.5

  Bene scrip∣fisti de me Tho∣ma.
• z 11.6

  Thom. Aquin. Summ. Theolo. part. 3. quaest. 25. artic. 4.
• a 11.7

  In eclog▪ bul∣lar. & motu pro∣prior. Pij. quint.
• 2 11.8

  Scripto••is An gelici doctrina saluatoris cru∣cifixi or •• mira∣biliter probata.
• b 11.9

  Motiu. 5.
• * 11.10

  Chapt. 5. Diuis. 2
• d 11.11

  Rufin. hist. ecclesiast. lib. ••. cap. 25.
• 3 11.12

  Sicutipia testatur historia.
• e 11.13

  Histor. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 7. ••. 11.
• f 11.14

  2. Thess. 2. v••r. ••.
• g 11.15

  ver. 11.
• h 11.16

  Bulla Pij quinti super ce∣lebratione festi∣••itatis Angelici Doctoris S. Tho∣mae de Aquino.
• i 11.17

  Euseb. histor. eccles. l. 2. c. 1.
• 1 11.18

  Episcopum Apostolorum.
• k 11.19

  Chapt. 4. Diuision 2.
• 2 11.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• l 11.21

  Chron. lib. 2.
• m 11.22

  Sixt. Senen. biblioth. sanct. lib. 1.
• * 11.23

  In calce lib. de Maccabaeis.
• n 11.24

  Iosephus ad∣uersus Apion. lib. 1.
• o 11.25

  Rufin. expo∣sit. Symb. Apost.
• p 11.26

  Libr. 2.
• q 11.27

  Fran. Bald∣uin. Annot. in Optat.
• r 11.28

  Chapt. 5. Diuision 3.
• s 11.29

  In Augusti∣num de ciui••. Dei l. 22. c. 8.
• t 11.30

  Comment. in epist. 2. ad Tim. cap. 4.
• u 11.31

  Locor. Theo∣logic. l. 11. c. 6.
• 1 11.32

  Fabula insul∣••a aeque acbar∣bara.
• 2 11.33

  Huius gene∣ris sunt ali•• multa.
• * 11.34

  Diligentissi∣mé & rectissi∣mé.
• x 11.35

  Censura The∣ologorum Lo∣uanien••••um in appendice ••o∣mi secundi & caeterorum Au∣gustini.
• y 11.36

  Princip. doc∣trin. l. 9. c. 14.
• z 11.37

  Sixtus Senen sis de falsa li∣brorum inscrip∣tione.
• a 11.38

  Bibliothec•• sanctae l. ••. & 4.
• b 11.39

  Apostol hist▪ lib. 1.
• c 11.40

  Chap. 6. Diuision 4.
• d 11.41

  Comment▪ in Psalm. 106.
• e 11.42

  Prin••. doctr. l. 6. c. 15.
• f 11.43

  Biblioth. sanct•• lib. 2.
• * 11.44

  Vetustissimus scriptor.
• g 11.45

  Hieron. de scriptorib. eccl.
• h 11.46

  Biblioth. sanct. lib. 4.
• i 11.47

  Histor. tripar∣tit. l. 5. c. 5.
• k 11.48

  Commentar. in Psalm. 109.
• * 11.49

  Bibliothe••. sanct•• lib. 2. in verbi•• Paulus, Petr••••, Linus.
• m 11.50

  In fine com∣mentarior. in Paulum.
• n 11.51

  De continen∣ti•• l. 6. c. 2.
• * 11.52

  The third Di¦uision.
• o 11.53

  In the 1. Di∣uision of this Chapter.
• p 11.54

  Princ. doctr. l. 6. c. 15.
• q 11.55

  Locor. Theo∣log. l. 6. c. 8.
• r 11.56

  Iudg. 15.4.
• s 11.57

  Locor. Theolo∣gicor. lib. 6. c. 4.
• t 11.58

  Heb. 12.1.
• u 11.59

  Rusin. hist. eccles lib. 1. cap. 3••.
• x 11.60

  Eccl••s. histor. Magd••burg. Centur. 2.3 & 4. cap. 7.
• y 11.61

  Francis. Tur∣rian. aduers. Magdeburg. Centuriat. pro epist. Pontific•••• lib. 1. cap. 17. & lib. 2. cap. 1. & 2.
• z 11.62

  Pro epist. Ponti••. lib▪ ••. cap. 1▪
• a 11.63

  De falsa li∣brorum inscrip. biblioth. sanct. lib. 4.
• b 11.64

  Centur. 2. c. ••.
• c 11.65

  Pro epi••••. Pont. l. 2. c. 1.
• d 11.66

  2. King. 6.1••▪
• e 11.67

  Centur. 3. c. 7.
• f 11.68

  Epist. 46. & 48. edit. Pam.
• g 11.69

  Eccles. hist. l. 6 c. 42.
• h 11.70

  Centur. 4. c. 7.
• i 11.71

  In Apolog. 2.
• k 11.72

  Centur. 4. c. 7.
• l 11.73

  Pro epist. Pont. l. 1. c. 17.
• m 11.74

  2. Cor. 11.6.
• * 11.75

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set against 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the false Apostles vsed. ••. Cor. 2. ver. ••▪ •• 4.
• * 11.76

  Rigorosus, modernus, cha∣ritatiuus, in∣thro••izare, a malis se cauere, vtiliter se prae∣uidea••, gaudeo de vestra sospi∣tate, leges se no∣centes non sus∣cipiunt, praetax∣ato modo, vt praelibatum est, episcopus accu∣sandus▪ est ad primates suos, necessarium es•• vt vobis ab hac Apostolica sede suffragetur, with many like flowers of speech: Sal∣ua in omnibus autoritate Apo∣stolica. In the epistles of Telesphorus, Vrbanus, Anto∣rus, Fabianus, Stephanus, Eusebius, Mel∣chiades, and the rest.
• o 11.77

  In Cyprian. epist. 3.26.30.31.46. & 50.
• p 11.78

  Centur. ••. c▪ 7.
• q 11.79

  Pro ep. Po••••▪ l. 5. c. 20▪
• r 11.80

  Eusebius l. ••. & 3. De vi••a Constant.
• s 11.81

  Hieron. ep. 11. ad Ageruchiam.
• t 11.82

  Euseb. in hist. ecclesiast. Hi••ron. de scrip∣••orib. ecclesiast.
• u 11.83

  Namely, by Clemens, Vic∣••or, and Corne∣lius.
• x 11.84

  Pro epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 5. c. 20.
• y 11.85

  Concil. Car¦thag. 6. & Afri∣canum. Abou•• the yeare of Chri••••. 420.
• z 11.86

  De 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. ••.
• * 11.87

  Turria••. pro epist. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 2••.
• a 11.88

  Praefat. Isidor. Concilior. ••om. ••.
• b 11.89

  Chronograph. lib. 3.
• 1 11.90

  Ne•• ••atil•• re∣peria••.
• 2 11.91

  Errant e••go Centuriatores.
• c 11.92

  Chronograph. ••ib. 3.
• d 11.93

  Libr. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 capit. eccles. cap. 27.
• e 11.94

  Pro epist. Pont. lib. 5. c. 25.
• f 11.95

  Concil. Tole∣tan. 4. & 6. in subscription. e∣piscopor.
• g 11.96

  Ouidij Naso∣nis Pelignensis de vetula. Prin¦ted by Iohn of Lubecke, a ci∣tizē of Coolein in the yeare of Christ. 1479.
• h 11.97

  De ve••ula, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3.
• 1 11.98

  Hanc media∣tricem dabit humano gene∣ri rex Largitor veniae.
• 2 11.99

  Non opus est vt••am velit ex∣altare gradatim▪ Sed simul assu∣met, simul & sibi concathe∣drabit.
• 3 11.100

  Illic esto tui memorum me∣mor optima virgo.
• i 11.101

  De vetula l. 2.
• 4 11.102

  Imbenedici∣bilem lex innuit illa spadonem Exemplo quo∣dam famoso: nam spado, cum sit Voce Iacob, manibus non est Esau.
• 5 11.103

  Ecclesiast. 12. l. 3. de vetula.
• k 11.104

  Ioseph. anti∣quit. Iud. lib. 12. c. 2.
• l 11.105

  Epiphan. lib. de mensur. & ponder.
• m 11.106

  De ciuit. Dei l. 18. c. 43.
• n 11.107

  Epist. ad Le∣andrum in ex∣position. Iob. cap. 5.
• o 11.108

  Exposit. Iob. ••••. c. ••••.
• p 11.109

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Session. 4.
• q 11.110

  Pro epist. Pont. l. 5. c. 21.
• r 11.111

  Alexand. prim. ep. 1. ad omnes orthodoxos.
• s 11.112

  Zach. 2.8.
• t 11.113

  In Bibliis Complutensib▪ & Regi••s Ant∣uerp. & variis manuscript. Hontenii. & Francisci Luc. & text. excus. cum. Hieron. commentar. in Zachar. 2.
• u 11.114

  Deut. 32.10.
• x 11.115

  Pro epist. Pont. l. 3. c. 13. and other where often.
• y 11.116

  Epist. 2. ad Rufum aut Rusticum.
• z 11.117

  Epist 55. ad Cornelium. Statutum est om¦nibus nobis.
• a 11.118

  Princip. doc∣trin. l. 6. c. 15.
• b 11.119

  De concor∣dant. Cathol. l. 3. c. 2.
• 1 11.120

  Ex allegatis etiam in ipsis epistolis, ac a liis innumeris, ista pat••re possent, ••uae hic super∣uacué poue∣rentur.
• 2 11.121

  Omni laude su••erexcellen∣••••••simam.
• c 11.122

  M. Rishton.
• d 11.123

  In Romani•• praelectionib. controuer. 4. quaest. 5.
• * 11.124

  In the yere of•• Christ. 1570.
• e 11.125

  Distinct. 16. c. Septuaginta. In Annot. Cont.
• 1 11.126

  Multas ratio∣nes.
• 2 11.127

  Manifesté ostendi.
• 3 11.128

  Omnes Pon∣tificum qui Sil∣uestrum praeces∣serunt decreta∣les falsas esse.
• 4 11.129

  In praefatione ••dduxi.
• f 11.130

  Cic. pro Clu∣••ent.
• g 11.131

  Distinct. 21. c. cleros. In An∣not. Cont.
• 5 11.132

  Quosdam istorum Ponti∣ficum a Petro proximé sequē∣tium decretales falsi insimulare.
• 6 11.133

  Maiorem probationem.
• 7 11.134

  Ab Isidoro.
• h 11.135

  1. Cor. 13.7.
• i 11.136

  Act. 23.16.
• 8 11.137

  Isidorus mul∣ta apocrypha & dubiae fidei in∣seruit.
• k 11.138

  In praefat. Qui aut quot ante Gratianum ca∣nones ecclesi∣asticos college∣rint.
• l 11.139

  6. q. 1. c. Bea∣tus. 8. q. 1. c. Vn∣de. 30. q. 5. c. Iudicantem. In Annot.
• m 11.140

  30. q. 5. c. A∣liter.
• n 11.141

  Distinct. 99. c. Prouinciae.
• 9 11.142

  Vt in praefa∣tione monui.
• o 11.143

  Praefat. ad sectorem. Con∣ciliorum Tom. 1.
• p 11.144

  Cent. 3. cap. 7.
• q 11.145

  Cent. 4. cap. 7.
• r 11.146

  In the 1. Di∣uis. of this Chapt.
• s 11.147

  Diuin. institut.
• t 11.148

  De praepa rati∣one euangelica.
• u 11.149

  Adue••sus gen∣tes.
• x 11.150

  Clemens A∣lexandrinus, Iustinus Mar∣tyr, Tertullianus, Tatianus, & Augustinus.
• y 11.151

  Contra Fau∣stum Manich••. l. ••3. c. ••5.
• z 11.152

  2. q. 7. c. Si haeteticus.
• a 11.153

  Exod. 3.22. & 12.35.
• b 11.154

  c. Significasti. de electione. c. Antiqua. de pri∣uilegiis. c. Fun∣damenta. de e∣lectione. In Sexto.
• c 11.155

  Ex••ra. c. V∣nam sanctam. de maioritate & obedientia.
• d 11.156

  Sub Leon. decimo. Ses••i∣••n. 11.
• e 11.157

  c. Fundamen∣ta. de election. in Sexto.
• f 11.158

  Extra. c. Vnam▪ sanctam. de ma∣ioritate & obe∣dientia.
• g 11.159

  In Concil. Lateran. Sessi∣on. 11.
• h 11.160

  Steuch. Eugus bin. de falsa do∣nat. Constantin. lib. 2. Sixt. Se∣nens. biblioth. sanct. l. 6. an∣not. 72.
• * 11.161

  King Henry the eighth de∣posed by Pope Paule the third: as he Maiestie by Pius the fifth▪ Onuphr. de vitis Pont. in Paulotert. Gene∣brard. Chrono∣graph. lib. 4.
• i 11.162

  Chapt. 7. Diuision 7.
• k 11.163

  Leo epist. 47. & 48. ad Martia∣num Aug. Tom. 1. Concilior.
• l 11.164

  Euseb. de vit. Constantin. l. 3. c. 6. Socrat. hist. ecclesiast. l. 5. c. 8. & l. 7. c. 33. Leo epist. 12.16. & 23. ad Theodosium August.
• m 11.165

  Registr. lib. 2. epist. 61. lib. 4. epist. 31. lib. 5. ep. 6••. lib. 6. ep. 6. & caet
• 1 11.166

  Piisaimus Dominus noster. Grego. Regist. lib. 4. ep. 32.
• 2 11.167

  Sanctissimo Domino nostro Domino Nicolao diuina proui∣denti•• Papae quinto ego Fridericus rex Romanorum promitto & iuro. Cerem. Rom. eccles. lib. 1. tit. ••.
• n 11.168

  Li••••r. Pauli tert. Pont. Max. ad Carolum quint. Where∣of the summe is in sleīdan, lib. 16 y^e whole copie, in Cal∣uin, Opusculor. par••. 2. class. 1.
• o 11.169

  Onuphr. de ruis Pon••. in Paulo t••rt.
• p 11.170

  ••. Significasti. de electione.
• q 11.171

  c. Antiqua. de priuilegiis.
• r 11.172

  Registr. l. 4. epist. 36. & l. 7. i••dict. 1. ep. 30.
• s 11.173

  De episcopo∣rum iurisdict. & Pont. Max. autoritate re∣sponsū. Proposi∣tion. 5.
• t 11.174

  Paul. Manut. prae••at. ad re∣sponsum Fr. Vargas.
• u 11.175

  Distinct. 100. c. Quoniam.
• * 11.176

  Exponere fi∣dem suam.
• x 11.177

  Defens. in Molinaeum pro Pontifice Ma••∣imo.
• y 11.178

  c. Ego N. ex¦tra. de iur••iu∣••ando.
• z 11.179

  Princip. doctrin. lib. 4. cap. 20.
• a 11.180

  Epist. 33. & 34. & 40. & 54. & 55.
• b 11.181

  Epist. 68.
• c 11.182

  Lib. 7. cap. 8.
• d 11.183

  Lib. 5. cap. 9.
• e 11.184

  Lib. 4. epist. 34.
• f 11.185

  Leo epist. 68.
• g 11.186

  Huius epist. meminit Pho∣tius in sua bibli∣otheca.
• h 11.187

  Turrian. pro ••pist. Pont lib. 2. cap. 4.
• i 11.188

  Registr. lib. 1. ep. 4 & 24. & 25.
• k 11.189

  Iohan. Di•••• in vita Gregor. lib. 2. cap. 3. & 5.
• m 11.190

  Leo epist. 3••. & 38. de Anasta∣sio, ep. 67. de Proterio.
• n 11.191

  Greg. lib. 5. ep. 64. & lib. 7. ep. 53. & Io. Di∣acon••s, in vita Gregor. l. 4. c. 23
• o 11.192

  Lib. 7. cap. 8.
• p 11.193

  Lib. 5. cap. ••.
• * 11.194

  T••ndem. A••∣hibita tandem est episcoporū omnium per Ro∣manum Ponti∣ficem necessaria confirmatio. Staplet. lib. 4. cap. 20.
• q 11.195

  Synod. Afri∣cana apud Cy∣prian. ep. 68. ad eccles. Legion. Astur. & Emer. Cyprian. ep. 69. ad Florentium. Ambros. ep. 82.
• r 11.196

  Corne••••u••, in Cyprian. ep. 45. ad Cornelium, & ep. 52. ad An∣tonianum.
• s 11.197

  Gregor. lib. 2. indict. 11. ep. 8
• t 11.198

  Epist. 22.
• u 11.199

  Lib. 7. iudict. 2. epist. 81.
• * 11.200

  It began in the yeare of Christ 527. and continued til ••65 Sigebert. in Chron.
• x 11.201

  Nouell. 137. ••. Non solum.
• y 11.202

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. C. de episcopali a••dientia.
• z 11.203

  Nouell. 123. ••. Si quis autem. §. Interdi ••it. §. Si qui. veró. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pas••im▪
• a 11.204

  Act. 14.23.
• b 11.205

  Tit. 1.5.
• c 11.206

  Act. 20.28.
• * 11.207

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is▪ to doo the duetie of a pastour to it.
• d 11.208

  Act. 20.17.
• e 11.209

  Reu. 2.1.
• f 11.210

  1. Cor. 4.1.
• * 11.211

  Luk. 12.42.
• g 11.212

  1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.7. Act. 20.28.
• h 11.213

  Epist. 13. Pres∣byteris & Dia∣conis.
• i 11.214

  Euseb. hist. ec∣cles. l. 6. c. 42.
• k 11.215

  Cornelius Cypriano. Ep. 46. Cyprianus Presbyteris & diaconis. Ep. 6.
• l 11.216

  Cyprian. ep. 35 Cornelius ep. 46. apud Cy∣prianum.
• m 11.217

  1. Tim. 4.14.
• * 11.218

  The fourth Diuisiō.
• * 11.219

  In the Anno∣tations of the Rhemish Testa∣ment. Act. 14.22.
• * 11.220

  Presbyter. Priest. ••rebstre. ••rete.
• n 11.221

  ••s. 110.4. Heb. 7.11.
• o 11.222

  1. Pet. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• p 11.223

  Heb. 13.15. Reu. 5.8.
• q 11.224

  Heb. 13.16.
• r 11.225

  Phil. 4..8. 1. Pet. 2.5. Reu. 1.6. & 5.10.
• s 11.226

  Heb. 7.23.
• t 11.227

  Heb. 10.12.
• u 11.228

  Heb. 7.27. & 9.28.
• * 11.229

  The same, as they say in their Annota∣tions on Heb. 10.11. An other. as they handle it, on Heb. 9.12. Which may be further per∣ceiued by D. Allen, de Eu∣charist. sacrific. cap. 10. & 23. whence the faltering spee∣ches of the Rhemists flow.
• x 11.230

  Heb. 10. ver. 18.
• y 11.231

  ver. 4.
• z 11.232

  ver. 2.
• 1 11.233

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.234

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 11.235

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.236

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 11.237

  So the Rhe∣mists speake of them: in their Annotat. Heb. ••.12.
• b 11.238

  D. Allen, in his Apologie of the English Seminar. chap. 1.
• c 11.239

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arist. in repre∣••en••. Sophist.
• * 11.240

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Presb••••er. Priest. Prebstre. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• d 11.241

  Tyndal, in the obedience of a Christian man.
• e 11.242

  The Rhe••i•••• translation, Act. 4.13.
• 1 11.243

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.244

  Idiota.
• 3 11.245

  Idiot.
• 4 11.246

  Idiota.
• 5 11.247

  Ydiota.
• 6 11.248

  I dio••.
• 7 11.249

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• f 11.250

  De interpret.
• g 11.251

  Topico••. l. 2.
• * 11.252

  1. Cor. 14.16.
• i 11.253

  Con cil. Tri∣dent. session. 2▪ cap. 1.2.3.6. & 7. can. 2. & 8.
• 1 11.254

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.255

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 11.256

  Priest.
• k 11.257

  The Apolog. of the English Semin. chapt. 6.
• * 11.258

  Psalm. 1.
• * 11.259

  The Rhemis•••• Annotations on Heb. 7.23.
• l 11.260

  Esai. 61.6.
• 1 11.261

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.262

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m 11.263

  Act. 13.2.
• 3 11.264

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n 11.265

  Vulga••. trans∣lat. ministranti∣bus.
• o 11.266

  Concil. Tri∣dentin. sessi∣on. 4.
• 4 11.267

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Num. 18.6.
• 5 11.268

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb. 10.11.
• p 11.269

  Of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 6 11.270

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rom. 13.6.
• 7 11.271

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hebr. 1.14.
• 8 11.272

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rom. 15.27.
• q 11.273

  Isidor. Clar. 1564. Venet.
• r 11.274

  Tom. 8. Re∣gior. Biblior. 1572. Antuerp.
• s 11.275

  Etymolog. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sui••as, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Bud. Henr. St.
• t 11.276

  Lexic. Graec. Tom. 6. Regior. Biblior.
• 2 11.277

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 11.278

  Era••m. anno∣tat. in Act. A∣post. 13.2. & epist. ad Heb. 8.2.
• x 11.279

  Paraphr. & Annot. in Acta Apost. 13.2.
• y 11.280

  Ar. Montanus in Elucidation. Card. Caieta∣nus, & ••o. Ferus, in Comment. in Acta Apost.
• z 11.281

  Oecumenius & Theophy∣lactus in expo∣••it. in Acta A∣post••e Chry∣sostom. & Gra∣cis Patrib.
• 1 11.282

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.283

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodoret. hist. eccles. l. 4. c. 14.
• a 11.284

  Chrysost. li∣••urg. Graec. ex∣cas. Paris. 1560.
• 3 11.285

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4 11.286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 11.287

  Esai. 6.3. Reu. 4.8. & 5.12.
• c 11.288

  1. Pet. 2.5.
• d 11.289

  Esai. 61. uer. 1.
• e 11.290

  ver. 2.
• f 11.291

  ver. 3.
• g 11.292

  ver. 4.
• h 11.293

  ver. 5.
• i 11.294

  ver. 6.
• k 11.295

  Esai. 66.21.
• l 11.296

  Reu. 1 5. & 5.10.
• m 11.297

  1. Pe••. 2▪ 5.
• n 11.298

  Session. 22. c. 1. visibile sa∣crificium. c. 2. veré propitia∣torium. can. 1. verum & pro∣prium sacrifi∣cium.
• o 11.299

  Esai. 66.20.
• p 11.300

  Comment. in ea verba Esaiae, Quomodo si in∣ferant filii Isra∣el munus.
• q 11.301

  Rom. 15.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 11.302

  Rom. 12.1.
• s 11.303

  Mal. 1.11.
• t 11.304

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• u 11.305

  Mal. 3.3.
• * 11.306

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• x 11.307

  1. Pet. 2.9.
• y 11.308

  Reu. 1.6.
• z 11.309

  Arias Mon∣tanus comment. in Malach. c. 3.
• a 11.310

  Matt. 11.14.
• b 11.311

  Mal. 4.5.
• c 11.312

  Ioh. 4.23.
• d 11.313

  Esai. 19.19.
• e 11.314

  Esai. 56.7.
• f 11.315

  Esai. 60.••.
• g 11.316

  Zac. 14. ver. 16
• h 11.317

  ver. 17.
• i 11.318

  ver. 21.
• k 11.319

  Mal. 3.4.
• l 11.320

  Heb. 7.1••.
• m 11.321

  Ioh. 4.21.
• n 11.322

  Gal. 4.10.
• o 11.323

  Heb. 10.••.
• p 11.324

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• q 11.325

  1. Tim. 2.8.
• r 11.326

  Aduers. Mar∣cion. lib. 3.
• s 11.327

  Heb. 13.10.
• t 11.328

  In Leuitic•••• lib. 6. cap. 21.
• 1 11.329

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 11.330

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• u 11.331

  Durand. rati∣on. diuin. offic. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• * 11.332

  That is to say, not in the truth of the thing, but in a mysterie beto∣kening it, as it is n••ted out of S. Austin. c Hoc est. de consecr. distinct. 2.
• x 11.333

  Heb. 9.28.
• y 11.334

  Heb. 10. ver. ••0.
• z 11.335

  ver. 14.
• a 11.336

  Hebr. 13.11.
• b 11.337

  Leu. 6.16. & 7.6.
• c 11.338

  Leu. 4.3. & 16.15.
• d 11.339

  Leu. 6.30.
• e 11.340

  Heb. 9.12.
• f 11.341

  1. Ioh. 1.7. & 2.2.
• g 11.342

  Ioh. 19.20.
• h 11.343

  Ioh. 6.51.
• i 11.344

  Gal. 5.1.
• k 11.345

  Heb. 13. ver. ••
• l 11.346

  ver. 10.
• m 11.347

  ver. 11.
• n 11.348

  ver. 12.
• o 11.349

  Mal. 1.11.
• p 11.350

  Heb. 13.12.
• q 11.351

  In thei•• An∣not. on Heb. 13.10.
• r 11.352

  In ora••. de so∣rore Gorgonia.
• s 11.353

  Demonst. quód Christus sit Deus.
• t 11.354

  Histor. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 20. & 25.
• u 11.355

  Epist. 86. De ••iuit. Dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. & lib. 22. cap. 30. Co••••ess. lib. 9. cap. 11. & ••3. Contr. Fau∣••••um Manich. lib. 20. cap. 21.
• x 11.356

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••3. Matt.
• 1 11.357

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 11.358

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• y 11.359

  Ioh. 6. ver. 32.
• z 11.360

  ver. 33.
• a 11.361

  ver. 50.
• b 11.362

  ver. 51.
• c 11.363

  In their An∣notations on Ioh. 6.32.
• 1 11.364

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.365

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• d 11.366

  Reu. 6.9.
• 1 11.367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 11.368

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• e 11.369

  Reu. 8.3.
• f 11.370

  Are••has in collect. exposit. in Apocalyp. cap. 8. Rupert. comment. in A∣calyps. lib. 5.
• g 11.371

  Ezek. 13.10
• 1 11.372

  Allen, in his treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse.
• 2 11.373

  The Rhemists in their Anno∣tations on the new Testament.
• h 11.374

  1. Cor. 10.21.
• i 11.375

  1. Cor. 11.20.
• k 11.376

  Gregor. Na∣zianzen. orat. in la••d. Basilii. Chrysost. de∣monstr. quód Christus sit De∣us. Homil. in Matt. 16. & 83. in prior. ep. ad Corinth. 24. & 27. ad popu∣lum Antioch. 60. & 61▪ Ser∣mon. de Eucha∣rist. & de B. Phi∣logonio. So∣crat. hist. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 20. & 25. Augustin. epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract. in Iohann. 26. de verbis Domini Serm. 46. Theophylact. in prior. epist. ad Corinth. cap. 11.
• l 11.377

  Ezek. 34.23.
• m 11.378

  Mal. 4.5.
• n 11.379

  Reu. 17.5.
• o 11.380

  Esai. 62.9.
• p 11.381

  Pruden••ius hymn. de S. Lau∣••ent. Conc. Carth. 2. can. ••. ••sidor. etymo∣••ogiar. lib. 7. cap. 1••••.
• 1 11.382

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 11.383

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 3 11.384

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 11.385

  Ambros. de of∣ficiis lib. 1. c. 50. Leo epist. 79. ad Dioscorum.
• r 11.386

  Heb. 7.11.
• s 11.387

  The booke o•• common pray∣er, in the com∣munion.
• t 11.388

  1. Cor. 10.16. & 11.23.
• u 11.389

  Iustin. Mart. in Apolog. 2. Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 34. & lib. 5. cap. 4. Cy∣prian. epist. 63. ad Caecilium. Ambros. de sa∣crament. lib. 4. & 5. Leo Sermon. 4. de quadrages.
• x 11.390

  Concil. Con∣stantiens. Sess. 13. & Trident. Sess. 21. cap. ••. can. 2.
• y 11.391

  Durand. in Rational. diui∣nor. offic lib. 4. cap. 53.
• * 11.392

  Panis bene∣dictus sanctae communioni•• vicarius.
• z 11.393

  Psal. 4.4.
• a 11.394

  Alan. de Eu∣charist. sacrific. cap. 5.
• 1 11.395

  Argumenta valida, & pla••é bona.
• 2 11.396

  Sine termino d••minuente.
• 3 11.397

  Per••se munda est, & ita per se m••nda.
• 4 11.398

  Victima hic existens.
• b 11.399

  Esai 9.21.
• c 11.400

  Dio Nicaeus: i•• Adriano.
• d 11.401

  Eccles. 4.12.
• e 11.402

  Mal. ••.11.
• f 11.403

  In omni loco sacrificatur & offertur nomini meo oblatio munda.
• g 11.404

  Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Latin, incensum offertur nomini meo & oblatio munda.
• h 11.405

  Reuel. 5.8.
• * 11.406

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 11.407

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 33. Euseb. de praeparat. Euang. lib. 1. Hieron. in Za∣char cap. 8. August. contr. aduers. legis. lib. 1. cap. 20.
• k 11.408

  In the Rhe∣mish Annot. on the Apoca∣lyp. 5.8.
• * 11.409

  That is to say, the pray∣ses.
• l 11.410

  Reu. 5. ver. ••.
• m 11.411

  ver. 9.
• n 11.412

  Reu. 1.6.
• o 11.413

  Reu. 4.4.
• p 11.414

  Reu. 2.10.
• q 11.415

  2. Tim. 2.5.
• * 11.416

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• r 11.417

  Herodotus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vrania.
• s 11.418

  1. Cor. 9.2••.
• * 11.419

  1. Pet. 5.4.
• u 11.420

  Reu. 14.13.
• x 11.421

  Psal. 23.3.
• y 11.422

  Reu. 4. ver. 10
• z 11.423

  ver. 4.
• a 11.424

  Reu. 3.4.
• b 11.425

  Luk. 9.29.
• c 11.426

  Reu. 3.18.
• d 11.427

  Reu. 7.14.
• e 11.428

  Reu. 4. ver. 4.
• f 11.429

  ver. 2.
• g 11.430

  Phil. 3.20.
• * 11.431

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 11.432

  ••eu. 12.1.
• i 11.433

  Mal. 4.••.
• k 11.434

  1. Ioh. 2.••5.
• l 11.435

  Dan. 12.3.
• m 11.436

  Esai. 54. ver. 1. & 5. & 13. Gal. 4.27.
• n 11.437

  Reu. 12.7.
• o 11.438

  Dan. 10.21. & 12.1.
• * 11.439

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is to say, who is as God, or equall to God. Phil. 2.6.
• p 11.440

  Heb. 1.14.
• q 11.441

  Mal. 2.7. & 3.1. Reu. 1.20.
• r 11.442

  Reu. 12.9.
• s 11.443

  The Rhemis•• Anno••at. on Reu. 12.7.
• t 11.444

  Reu. 5.••0.
• u 11.445

  Matt. 5.5.
• x 11.446

  Cant. 1.7. vbi pa••cis, vbi cubas in meridie. Au∣gustin. de vnitat▪ eccles. cap. 16.
• y 11.447

  Epist. 48. ad Vincentium.
• z 11.448

  Reu. 5. ver. 8.
• a 11.449

  ver. 9. & 10.
• b 11.450

  ver. 11. & 12.
• c 11.451

  ver. 13.
• d 11.452

  ver. 14.
• e 11.453

  Heb. 13.15.
• f 11.454

  Heb. 3.1.
• g 11.455

  Mal. 3.1.
• h 11.456

  1. Tim. 2.5.
• i 11.457

  Reu. 8.3.
• k 11.458

  Heb. 1.14.
• l 11.459

  Act. 10.4.
• m 11.460

  Exod. 30.7. Leu. 16.12.
• n 11.461

  Heb. 7.27.
• * 11.462

  Col. 1.16.
• o 11.463

  Gen. 48.16. Exod. 14.19. Esai. 63.9. Mal. 3.1.
• p 11.464

  Exod. 23. ver. 20.
• q 11.465

  ver. 21.
• * 11.466

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as he is also called Exod. 13.21.
• r 11.467

  Reu. 7.2.
• s 11.468

  Reu. 8.5.
• t 11.469

  Reu. 10.1.
• u 11.470

  Heb. 7.25.
• x 11.471

  Eph. 5.5.
• y 11.472

  Extra. De re∣liquiis et vene∣rat. Sanctorum.
• z 11.473

  Sacrar. cere∣mon. Rom. ec∣cles. lib. 1. tit. 6. De canonizati∣one Sanctorum.
• 1 11.474

  That is ••o say, admit in to the number of the Gods. As the hea∣thenish Ro∣mans, before they would worship their Emperours, as Gods, did vse to deifie them. Herodian. lib. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.475

  Diuorum no∣strorum apoth••∣oses. Praefat. lib. 2. Sacr. ce∣remon. Rom. ecclesiae.
• a 11.476

  Thom. Aquin. quodlibet. ••. att. 16. Antonin. Summ. Theol. part. 3. tit. 12. cap. 8. Cai••tan. opusc. de indul∣genti••s ad Car∣din. Medicem. cap. 8. Canus Locor. Theo∣log. l. 5. c. 5. Pellarmin. in praelectionib. Rom. cont••o∣uer. 4. qu••st. ••.
• b 11.477

  Sacrificatur.
• c 11.478

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Greeke Fathers, in the Latin, a word answe∣ring thereto: as incensum, August. contr. aduers. leg. l. 1. cap. 20. or odo∣res incensi, Cy∣pr. contr. Iudae∣os l. 1. c. 16.
• d 11.479

  Alan. de Eu∣char. sacrific. cap. 16.
• e 11.480

  Deut. 12.17. & 14.23. & 26.10.
• f 11.481

  Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 32. & 3••. August. epist. 59. ad Paulin. Iustin. Mart. apolog. 2. & in Tryphon. Cy∣prian. de opere & ••l••••mo••ynis.
• g 11.482

  Matt. 2.11.
• h 11.483

  Matt. 5.24.
• i 11.484

  c. Omnis Chri∣stianus. de con∣secration. distinct. 1.
• k 11.485

  Psalm. 40.7. Heb. 10.5.
• * 11.486

  Synecdoche.
• l 11.487

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• m 11.488

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 onely in the singular num∣ber, and neuer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plurall.
• n 11.489

  Esai. 66.20.
• o 11.490

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• p 11.491

  R••m. 11.1.
• q 11.492

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 11.493

  1. Cor. 10.17. Rom. 12 5. Ephes. 4.4.
• 1 11.494

  Synecdoche speciei.
• 2 11.495

  Enallage temporis.
• * 11.496

  Mal. 1. ver. 8. & 9.
• t 11.497

  ver. 10.
• u 11.498

  ver. 11.
• * 11.499

  Mal. 3. ver. 3.
• y 11.500

  ver. 4.
• z 11.501

  Philip. 4.18. Heb. 13.16. 1. Pet. 2.5.
• a 11.502

  Mal. 3.3.
• * 11.503

  Sacrificia.
• b 11.504

  Concil. Tri∣dent. session. 4.
• c 11.505

  Heb. 8.5. & ••.9. & 10.1.
• d 11.506

  Num▪ 28.3. Leu. 22.19.
• e 11.507

  Deu. 12.5.
• f 11.508

  Psal. 122.••.
• g 11.509

  Psal. 78.••9. 1 King. 8.20.
• h 11.510

  Heb. 9.10.
• i 11.511

  Dan. 9. ver. 26
• k 11.512

  ver. 27
• l 11.513

  Ioh. 4. ver. 21
• m 11.514

  ver. 22.
• n 11.515

  ver. 23. & 24.
• o 11.516

  Heb. 7.16 & 9.10.
• p 11.517

  Col. 2.17. Heb. 10.1.
• q 11.518

  Ioh. 4.13.
• r 11.519

  Rom. 1.7. 1. Cor, 1.2. Ephes. 1.1. & ••▪ 11. & so foorth.
• s 11.520

  Rom. 12.1.
• t 11.521

  1. Cor. 5.8.
• u 11.522

  Ephes. 2.10. & 4.25.
• x 11.523

  1. Pet. 2.5.
• * 11.524

  Ioh. 4.2••.
• * 11.525

  Heb. 1.1.
• a 11.526

  Exod. 34.33. Heb. 8.5.
• b 11.527

  Mat. 27.51. ••. Cor. 11.3.
• c 11.528

  2. Cor. 3.14.
• d 11.529

  Exod. 23.17.
• c 11.530

  Dan. 6.10.
• f 11.531

  Psal. 137.4.
• g 11.532

  Psal. 42.2.
• h 11.533

  Psal. 6••.2.
• i 11.534

  Psal. 84. ver. ••.
• k 11.535

  ver. ••.
• l 11.536

  ver. 3.
• m 11.537

  ver. 4.
• n 11.538

  ver. 5.
• o 11.539

  ver. 6.
• p 11.540

  ver. 7.
• q 11.541

  Col. 2.14.
• r 11.542

  Heb. 13.15.
• s 11.543

  Eph. 5.19.
• t 11.544

  1. Tim. 2.8.
• u 11.545

  2. Cor. 6.16.
• x 11.546

  1. Cor. 6.19.
• y 11.547

  1. King. 8. ver. 30. & 33. & 42. & 44. & 48.
• z 11.548

  2. Cor. 3.6.
• a 11.549

  Luk. 1. ver. ••
• b 11.550

  ver. 10▪
• c 11.551

  Act. 1.14.
• d 11.552

  1. Cor. 14. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 16. & 2••, & 26.
• e 11.553

  Iustin. Mart. in Apolog. 2. Tertullian. i•• Apologet.
• f 11.554

  Durand. in ••ationali divi∣nor. officior. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• g 11.555

  Exod. 10.7.
• h 11.556

  Durand. l. 4. c. 8. & l. 5. c. 9.
• i 11.557

  Exod. 28.4.
• k 11.558

  Durand. l. 3. ••. 1.
• l 11.559

  Exod. 30.20.
• m 11.560

  Durand. l. 1. c. 1. & l. 4. c. 3.
• n 11.561

  Durand. l. 1. c. 3.
• o 11.562

  Exod. 26.33.
• p 11.563

  Durand. l. 1. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 1.
• q 11.564

  Exod. 25. ver. 10. & 17.
• r 11.565

  Durand. l. 1. ••. 3.
• * 11.566

  Exod. 16.33.
• t 11.567

  Or monstraus, as D. Allen cal∣lēth it, De Eu∣charist. Sacram. cap. 30. It is a vessel, like a cage, hauing ••••des of glasse or crystall, that through them the con∣secrated cake set vp therein, may be shewed to men.
• u 11.568

  Exod. 25.30.
• x 11.569

  Durand. l. 6. c. 74.
• y 11.570

  Exod. 30.23.
• z 11.571

  Num. 19.9.
• a 11.572

  Durand. l. 1. ••. 7.
• b 11.573

  Leu. 9.24. ••. Chron. 7.1.
• c 11.574

  Durand. l. 6. c. 80.
• * 11.575

  From the ••unn through a crystall glasse.
• d 11.576

  Num. 17.10.
• e 11.577

  Durand. l. 1. c. 3.
• f 11.578

  Durand. l. 1. c. 1.
• g 11.579

  Exod. 25.31. & 27.20.
• h 11.580

  Exod. 30.8. 1. Sam. 3.3.
• i 11.581

  Durand. l. 4. c. ••.
• k 11.582

  Extra. De celebrat. Mis••ar. c. Sane.
• l 11.583

  Vaux catechism.
• m 11.584

  Durand. l. 2. c. 7 & l. 4. c. 6. & l. 6. c. 72.73.80.89. &c. 〈…〉〈…〉 eccles. l. 1. tit. 2.
• n 11.585

  Chiefely on Candlemas-day, and ••enebre-wensday. Durand. l. 6. c. 72. & l. 7. c. 7.
• o 11.586

  Durand. l. 1. c. 8.
• p 11.587

  Exod. 30.26.
• q 11.588

  Durand. l. 2. c. 1.
• r 11.589

  Num. 8.7.
• s 11.590

  Durand. l. 1. c. 3.
• t 11.591

  1. King. 6.32.
• u 11.592

  Durand. l. ••. c. 4.
• x 11.593

  l. 1. c. 4.
• y 11.594

  On Ash••-wensday. Du∣rand. l. 6. c. 28.
• z 11.595

  On Palme-sunday. Durand. l. 6. c. 67.
• a 11.596

  l. 4. c. 53.
• b 11.597

  l. 6. c. 86.
• c 11.598

  cap. 80.
• d 11.599

  cap. 79.
• e 11.600

  Missale Rom. reformat. a Pio quinto. Sacer∣dotale Rom. ec∣cles. edit. a Sa∣marin. part. 2.
• f 11.601

  Heb. 9.22.
• g 11.602

  Num. 19.18.
• h 11.603

  Caemeteria re∣concilianda. Ex∣tra. de consecr. eccles. c. consu∣luisti.
• i 11.604

  Durand. l. 6. & 7.
• k 11.605

  Col. 2.17.
• l 11.606

  Durand. l. 4. c. 41. & l. 6. c. 83.
• m 11.607

  Innocent. mysterior. Missae l. 1. c. 10.
• n 11.608

  The Pope. Sacr. cerem. Rom. eccles. l. ••.
• o 11.609

  D••rand. l. 6. c. 75.
• * 11.610

  On Maun∣dy-thursday.
• p 11.611

  Heb. 9.7.
• q 11.612

  Num. 28.3.
• r 11.613

  Leuit. 6.13.
• s 11.614

  Durand. l. 4. c. 6.
• t 11.615

  Ritus celebran•• di Missam.
• u 11.616

  Cautelae Missae▪
• x 11.617

  Exod. 29.27.
• y 11.618

  Durand. l. 4. c. 41.
• z 11.619

  Num. 10.10.
• a 11.620

  Durand. l. 4. c. 34.
• b 11.621

  1. C••ron. ••••.
• c 11.622

  Motiu. ••2.
• d 11.623

  1. Cor. 2.15.
• e 11.624

  Act. 17.16.
• f 11.625

  1. Cor. 14.17. Gal. 4.9. 1. Cor. 10.7.
• g 11.626

  Luk. 19.24.
• h 11.627

  ••. Cor. 3.16.
• i 11.628

  Sess. 7. de sacra∣ment. in gene∣re. can. 13.
• k 11.629

  Session. 22. cap. 5.
• * 11.630

  Ex Apostolica disciplina & tra∣ditione.
• l 11.631

  Dyonis. Areo∣pagit. ecclesiast. hierar. cap. 3.
• m 11.632

  Confession. Augustinian. lib. ••. cap. 11. tit. 2. •• concil. Car∣••hag. 4. can. 6.
• n 11.633

  Exod. 30.33.
• o 11.634

  Durand. lib. 4. cap. ••.
• p 11.635

  Exod. 27.20.
• q 11.636

  Durand. lib. ••. cap. 7. Sa∣cr. cerem. ec∣cles. Rom. l. 1. tit. 2.
• r 11.637

  Capillum des rasi, vertice pr••∣nitentes. Apu∣lei. Au••ei Asin. lib. 11.
• s 11.638

  Rhenan. An∣notat. in Tertul∣lian. aduers. Ma∣reion. lib. 5.
• t 11.639

  Eusebius hist. eccles. l. 7. c. 17.
• 1 11.640

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 11.641

  Ad eas thus, & cerei. Cic. off. lib. 3.
• u 11.642

  Polydor. Vir∣gil. de inuentor. rerum. lib. 2. c. 23. & l. 6. c. 13.
• x 11.643

  Durand. l. 6. cap. 77.
• y 11.644

  Cic. in Ver∣rem. lib. 4.
• z 11.645

  Pausanias in Corinthiacis. Herodian. lib. 1. Apulei. Aur. Asin. lib. 11.
• a 11.646

  Leand. Albe••t. descript. Italiae. Histor. S. Mariae Lauret. script. ab Hier. Angelit. ad Clement. sept.
• * 11.647

  A towne in Italie, where there is a temple of the blessed Virgin, more celebrated with lying miracles, and thereupon with resort of men: then her temple was at Walsingham in England, of which Erasmus writeth in Colloqu. Pe••egrinat. religionis ergo.
• b 11.648

  Act▪ 19.27.
• c 11.649

  Exod. 30.34.
• d 11.650

  Leuit. 2.3.
• e 11.651

  In Rationali diuinorum o••••i∣••iorum.
• f 11.652

  The Cano∣nists & Popes, de cōsecration. di••tin••t. 1. & so foorth in th•• Decrees & De∣cretals.
• g 11.653

  Extra. De sa∣cra vnctione. cap. vnico.
• h 11.654

  God by his word. Exod. 39.22.
• i 11.655

  To figure & betokē Christ. Heb. 8.5. out of Exod. 25.40.
• k 11.656

  Exod. 29.41.
• l 11.657

  Ioh••. 1.29.
• m 11.658

  Reu. 14.1.
• n 11.659

  Gal. 2.14.
• o 11.660

  Leuit. 11.47. & 23.25.
• p 11.661

  Col. 2.16.
• q 11.662

  Gal. 4.3.
• r 11.663

  Act. 2.38.
• s 11.664

  Act. 10.15.
• t 11.665

  Act. 15.10.
• u 11.666

  De praescrip∣tionib. aduers. haeret.
• x 11.667

  Epist. 9. & 19. ad Hieronymsi.
• y 11.668

  Gal. 2. ver. 14.
• z 11.669

  ver. 12.
• a 11.670

  ver. 13.
• b 11.671

  ver. 11.
• c 11.672

  Non Iudaiza•• ecclesia, sicut aliqui mentiu••∣tur. Extra. de sacra vnctione. §. vngitur.
• d 11.673

  Sess. 7. de sa∣crament. in gen. ••an. 13.
• e 11.674

  Sess. 23. can. ••.
• f 11.675

  Galat. 1.7. & 2.3. & 4.9
• g 11.676

  Galat. 5.2.
• h 11.677

  2. Pet. 2.1.
• i 11.678

  Sess. 22. cap. 5.
• 1 11.679

  Pia mater ecclesia.
• 2 11.680

  Sine admini∣c••lis exteriori∣••us.
• k 11.681

  Matt. 13.23. Act. 13.15. 1. Cor. 14.19.
• l 11.682

  Con. Tride••t. Sess. 22. cap. 8.
• * 11.683

  1. King. 18.28.
• m 11.684

  Sess. 22. ca••. •• Anathema fit.
• n 11.685

  Ioh. 9.22.
• o 11.686

  Sess. 22. ca••. 5.
• p 11.687

  cap. 8.
• q 11.688

  Iustin. Mart. apolog. 2. Ter∣tullian. in apo∣loget. Cyprian. de orat. Dom. Euseb. hist. ec∣cles. l. 7. c. 8. Au∣gustin. de cate∣chizand. rudib. cap. 9.
• r 11.689

  Isidor. de of∣••ic. eccles. l. 1. c. 10. Cyrillus, Aen. Silu. hist. Bohem. cap. 13. Io. Beleth de diuin. of••ic. in prooem. Lyra in 1. Cor. 14. Ca∣ietan. opuscu∣lor. Tom. 3. tractat. 15.
• s 11.690

  Liturg. Basil. ex version. Syr. quam vocant Anaphoram.
• t 11.691

  Bellon. obser∣uat. l. 3. c. 12.
• u 11.692

  Auentin. an∣nal. Boior. lib. 4.
• x 11.693

  Sigismund. Lib. in com∣m••nt••rer. Mos∣couit.
• y 11.694

  F••an. Aluar. in descript. A••∣thiop. cap. 11.
• z 11.695

  Confess. Au∣gu••t. art. 7. Wir∣t••mberg. art. 35.
• a 11.696

  1. Cor. ••4. ve••. ••0.
• b 11.697

  ver. 26.
• c 11.698

  Sess. 22. cap. 8.
• 1 11.699

  ••••tsi: non ta∣men.
• 2 11.700

  Vt vulgari passim lingua celebraretur.
• * 11.701

  Secreté pro∣fer•• verba con∣secrationis, Ho•• est corpus meum. In Ca∣non. Missae.
• d 11.702

  Concil. Tri∣dēt. Sess. 22. c. 5.
• e 11.703

  Thom. Aquin. Summ. Theolog. part. 3. quaest. 7••. art. 1. D. Harding in his answere to the 16. art. of B. Ie∣wels chalenge.
• f 11.704

  Luk. 22.19.
• g 11.705

  Clem. consti∣tut. Apost. lib. 8.
• h 11.706

  Ambros. de sacrament. lib. 4. c. 5. Leo Serm. 6. de ••eiun••o 7. men∣••is. Iustinian. in Authent. 137. §. Ad haec iube∣mus.
• i 11.707

  Concil. Tridēt. Sess. 22. can. 9.
• k 11.708

  Chrysost. Li∣••urgia. Bessario de sacrament. ••ucharist.
• l 11.709

  As Pope In∣••ocentius the third saith in his treatise of the Mysteries of the Masse. lib. 3. cap. 1.
• m 11.710

  The reason, that Pope In∣nocentius the third (in the same place) giu••th of it.
• n 11.711

  Matt. 10.27.
• o 11.712

  1. Cor. 11. ver. 24.
• p 11.713

  ver. 26.
• q 11.714

  Se••s. 22. cap▪ 8.
• 1 11.715

  Frequenter.
• r 11.716

  Sess. 24. cap. 7.
• 2 11.717

  Vernacula lingua.
• s 11.718

  Rom. 10.3.
• t 11.719

  2. Pet. 1.5.
• u 11.720

  Dist. 38. c••. Ignorantia.
• x 11.721

  2. Tim. 2.15.
• y 11.722

  Act. 13. ver. 15.
• z 11.723

  ver. 17.
• a 11.724

  Act. 17. ver. 11.
• b 11.725

  ver. 12.
• c 11.726

  Sess. 22. cap. 8.
• d 11.727

  Lament. 4.4.
• e 11.728

  Col. 3.17.
• f 11.729

  Psal. 23.5.
• g 11.730

  Concil. Tri∣den. Sess. 22. c. 4.
• * 11.731

  Gal. 4.9.
• i 11.732

  Epist ••••8. ad I••nuar. cap. 6.
• k 11.733

  Torrensis in confession. Au∣gustinian, lib. 1. cap. 8. tit. 6.
• l 11.734

  Motiu. 9.
• m 11.735

  Concil. Tri••dent. Sess. 22. cap. 5.
• n 11.736

  ••ap. 8. & can. 9▪
• * 11.737

  10 Cor. 11.34
• p 11.738

  Sess. 22. cap. 5.
• * 11.739

  Benedictione••.
• q 11.740

  Epist. 59. ••d Paulinsi quaest. 5.
• r 11.741

  1. Tim. 2.••.
• * 11.742

  Ble••••ing, and to blesse. Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lat. benedictio, & benedicere.
• s 11.743

  Mat. 26.26.
• t 11.744

  1. Cor. 10.16.
• u 11.745

  Num. 6.23.
• x 11.746

  Erasm. collo. in Exorcism.
• * 11.747

  Bene ✚ dixit ••n Can. Missae.
• y 11.748

  Sermon· 181. de tempore.
• z 11.749

  Censur. serm. 59. in append. de diuersis. Tom. 10.
• a 11.750

  Augustin. in Euang. Iohan••. Tract. 11••.
• b 11.751

  Chrysostom. demonstrat. quód Christus fit Deus.
• c 11.752

  De coron•• militis.
• 1 11.753

  Apud Iudaeo••.
• 2 11.754

  Ter mergita∣mur: lactis & mellis concor∣diam praegusta∣mus.
• 3 11.755

  Omni fideli.
• 4 11.756

  Saluo traditi∣onis respectu, quocunque tra¦d••tore censetur▪
• d 11.757

  Sleidan. com∣ment. l. 6. & 10.
• e 11.758

  In euang. Io∣hann. Tract. 118.
• f 11.759

  Wierus de praestigijs dae∣mon 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••. cap. 4. & 10.
• g 11.760

  In Canone Missae, & com∣munione.
• h 11.761

  Ritus cele∣brandi Mis••am.
• i 11.762

  Microlog. de eccle••iast. ob∣seruationib. cap. 14.
• 1 11.763

  Imparem nu∣merum semper obseruamus.
• * 11.764

  Numero De∣us impare gau∣det.
• k 11.765

  Virgil. in Pharmaceutria. Eclog. 8.
• m 11.766

  Benno Car∣dinalis in hi∣stor. de vita Hildebrandi.
• n 11.767

  Microlog. de obseruat. eccle∣siast. cap. 14.
• o 11.768

  Cornel. A∣grippa de oc∣culta Philoso¦phia l. 2. c. 4. & 6. & 8. De va∣nitate scienti∣ar. c. 47. & 48.
• p 11.769

  Element. ma∣gica Petr. de Aban. in prae∣••at.
• q 11.770

  The auto•••• of the treatise intitled Mi∣crologus de ec••lesiast. ob∣se ru. cap. 14.
• r 11.771

  ••ap. 18. & 19.
• * 11.772

  For Hilde∣brand was Pope in the yeare of Chris•• 1084.
• s 11.773

  Amalar. Fortu∣mat. episcopus Treuirens. de ecclesiast. offic. lib. 3. cap. 24.
• t 11.774

  cap. 26.
• u 11.775

  Ordo Rom. de officiis di∣uinis. cap. de ••fficio Missae.
• x 11.776

  Microlog. de obseruat. eccle∣siast. ca. 17.
• y 11.777

  Missale Roma∣num ex decret•• sacros. concil. Trident. resti∣tutum, in Rit. celebrandi Missam, & Ca∣none Missae.
• z 11.778

  Cornel. A∣grippa de oc∣cult. philosoph. l. 2. c. 5.
• a 11.779

  De ecclesiast. offic. l. 3. c. 24.
• b 11.780

  Euseb. de vi∣ta Constantin. lib. 1. cap. 22.
• * 11.781

  In hoc signo vince. Alan. Cop. dialog. 4. cap. 3.
• c 11.782

  Martials ••••••∣tise of the Crosse, art. 2. Harpsfieldes Cope, dialog. 4.
• d 11.783

  De vit. Con∣stantin. l. 1. c. 25.
• 1 11.784

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 11.785

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 11.786

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 4 11.787

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which words, translated a∣misse by inter∣prete••••, (erat litera •• inserta in medio lite∣rae ••) haue oc∣casioned ••ome to make the signe other∣wise then Eu∣sebius describeth it.
• e 11.788

  De vit. Constantin. lib. 1. cap. 22.
• f 11.789

  cap. 25.
• 5 11.790

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 11.791

  The figure of the letter T. Tertullian. aduers. Marci••••. lib. 3. Hiero. lib. 3. commentar▪ in Ezech. cap. 9.
• 6 11.792

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 11.793

  D. Harpsfield in his Cope. Dialog. 4. c. 3.
• 7 11.794

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. de vit. Constan. lib. 1. c. 22.
• i 11.795

  Act. 4.12.
• k 11.796

  Euseb. de vi∣ta Constant. lib. 1. cap. 25.
• l 11.797

  cap. 26.
• m 11.798

  Num. 2••.8.
• n 11.799

  Ioh. 3.14.
• o 11.800

  Num. 21.9.
• p 11.801

  2. King. 18.4.
• q 11.802

  Tit. ••itus· celebrandi Missam.
• 1 11.803

  Facta eruci ••euerentia 〈…〉〈…〉 in censat.
• 2 11.804

  Superstitios•• mulierculae.
• r 11.805

  Hieron. com∣ment. in Matt. cap. 23. Super phylacteria Ph••∣risaeorum.
• s 11.806

  De ciuit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 8.
• t 11.807

  2. King. 18.4.
• u 11.808

  Exod. 30.8.
• x 11.809

  Ephes. 5.••.
• y 11.810

  Ier. 17.7.
• z 11.811

  Breuiar. Ro∣man. Sabbat. in hebd. quarta quadrag.
• a 11.812

  Thomas A••••quin. Sum. The∣olog. part. 3. quaest▪ 2••. art. 4. Andrad. orthod. explicat. lib. 9.
• b 11.813

  2. King. 18. ver. 3. & 5.
• c 11.814

  ver. 6.
• d 11.815

  ver. 4.
• e 11.816

  Dist. 63. c. Q••••a. §. verum.
• f 11.817

  Thom. Aquin. Sum. Theolog. part. 3. qu••st. 25. art. 3. & 4.
• g 11.818

  Confutat. of the Apolog. part. 4.
• h 11.819

  2. Thes. 2.4.
• i 11.820

  Reu. 13.14.
• k 11.821

  1. Cor. 11.7.
• l 11.822

  Epist. 118.2•• Ianuarium.
• m 11.823

  Socrat. histo••▪ eccles. lib. 5. cap. 21.
• n 11.824

  Eccles. ••ierat••chiae cap. 3.
• o 11.825

  In Concil. Carthag. 4. c••n▪ 6.
• p 11.826

  In apolog••▪ cap. 42.
• q 11.827

  Aduers. ge••∣tes lib. 7▪
• r 11.828

  Dionys. Are∣opag. hierar. ec∣cles. cap. 3.
• s 11.829

  Vit. celebran∣di Missam.
• t 11.830

  Sess. 22. cap. 5.
• * 11.831

  Thymiamata.
• u 11.832

  Confession. Augustin. lib. 3. cap. 11. tit. 2.
• x 11.833

  De tempore. In Natali ••om. Serm. 3. •• Luminaria noctis.
• y 11.834

  Act. 20.8.
• z 11.835

  Tertullian. de idololatri••.
• a 11.836

  Cont. Vigi∣lant.
• b 11.837

  Orat. in Pas∣••ha.
• c 11.838

  In exhortat. ad ••rthodox••s.
• d 11.839

  Quaestion. quodlibe••ic. 2.
• c 11.840

  Epist. ad Or∣thodoxos in persequut.
• b 11.841

  Orat. in sanc∣tum Pascha.
• 2 11.842

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 11.843

  Ioh. 8.11.
• f 11.844

  Ioh. 5.35.
• g 11.845

  Luk. 1.76.
• h 11.846

  Ioh. 1. ver. 1.
• i 11.847

  ver. 23.
• k 11.848

  Ioh. 3.29.
• 3 11.849

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 11.850

  Contr. Vigi∣lant.
• 4 11.851

  Cereos non clara luce ac∣cendimus.
• l 11.852

  Ordo Roman. de diuin. offic. cap. de officio Missae. Durand. in Ration. di∣uin. offic. lib. 4. cap. 24.
• m 11.853

  De idolo∣latr.
• 5 11.854

  Illis competút ••estimonia te∣nebrarum.
• n 11.855

  Ioh. 9.40.
• o 11.856

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 22. cap. 5.
• p 11.857

  Quaestion. quod libetic. 2.
• q 11.858

  Mysterior. Missae lib. 1. cap. 10.
• r 11.859

  In Ration. diuin. offic. lib. 3. cap. 1.
• * 11.860

  As Innocen∣tius and Du∣rand say▪ in the places quoted.
• s 11.861

  Lib. 3. cap. 2••.
• t 11.862

  In. lib••, de monogamia.
• u 11.863

  In Orat. su∣neb. de obit. fratr. Satyr.
• x 11.864

  Concil. Bra car. 1. can. 32. & Tolet. 4. can. 39.
• y 11.865

  Haeres. 15. & 16.
• z 11.866

  Concil. Car. thag. 4▪ can. 4••.
• a 11.867

  In Liturg.
• b 11.868

  Lib. 1. cap. 31.
• c 11.869

  Lib. 6. contr. Parmenianum.
• d 11.870

  Lib. 10. cap. 4▪
• e 11.871

  In Liturgii•• suis.
• f 11.872

  Lib. 2. cap. 27.
• g 11.873

  De p••rsequut. Vandal. lib. 1.
• h 11.874

  Histor. Angli••. l. 1. cap. 29.
• i 11.875

  Lib. 1. con••••a Parmenian••m▪
• k 11.876

  Haeres. 15. & 16.
• * 11.877

  Matt. 23.5.
• l 11.878

  Lib. 1. cap. 31.
• 1 11.879

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m 11.880

  Lib. 6. contra Parmenia••um.
• n 11.881

  Before in this Diuision. pag. 552.
• 2 11.882

  Ipsa lig••a li••teamine co∣operiti?
• o 11.883

  Durand. in Ration. l. 4. c. 29.
• p 11.884

  In the Li∣turgies that beare their names.
• q 11.885

  Lib. 2. cap. 27
• r 11.886

  Persequu••. Va••••d. lib. 1.
• s 11.887

  Histor. An∣glican. lib. 1. cap. 29.
• t 11.888

  Lib. 1. co••tr. Parmenian.
• u 11.889

  Epist. 2. ad Nepotian. de vita clericorum cap. 12.
• x 11.890

  Hist. eccles. lib. 3. cap. 25.
• y 11.891

  Exod. 28.36.
• 1 11.892

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 11.893

  Reu. 1.1.
• z 11.894

  Descriptor. ecclesiast. verbo Polycrates.
• a 11.895

  Act. 3.2.
• 2 11.896

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 11.897

  Exod. 28.40.
• 3 11.898

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 11.899

  Mat. 3.4.
• d 11.900

  De monogam.
• e 11.901

  Cic. in Verr. lib. 4. Virg. Ae∣neid. lib. 2
• 4 11.902

  Sacerdotes Cereris c••m infulis.
• 5 11.903

  Apollinis infula.
• 6 11.904

  Deponimus insulas.
• f 11.905

  Comment. reip. Roman. lib. 2. cap. 3.
• g 11.906

  Dist. 96. c. ••onstantimus.
• h 11.907

  De eccles. of∣fic. lib. 2 cap. 22.
• i 11.908

  De institut. elericorum lib. 1. c. 14. & deinceps.
• k 11.909

  De exord. & increm. ••erum eccles. cap. 24.
• l 11.910

  De diuin. offi∣tijs. cap. de sin∣gulis vestibus.
• 7 11.911

  Huius cemo∣di vestis nō ha∣betur in Roma∣na ecclesia, vel in nostris regi∣onibus.
• m 11.912

  Sermon. in ••ynod. de signi∣ficat. indumen∣torum sacerdot.
• n 11.913

  In oration. funebr. de obit. fratr. Satyr.
• o 11.914

  Concil. Tolet. 4. can. 39.
• p 11.915

  Aleuin. de di∣uin. offic. cap. de vestibus. Amalar. de ec∣cles. offic. lib. 2. cap. 20.
• q 11.916

  Etymologiar. lib. 19. cap. 25.
• * 11.917

  Aboue sixe hundred years after Christ.
• r 11.918

  Concil. Bra∣carens. 3. cap. 3.
• s 11.919

  Concil. To∣let. 4. cap. 40.
• 1 11.920

  In sol•• capi∣tis apice modi∣cum circulum tondent.
• 2 11.921

  Ritus haereti∣corum.
• t 11.922

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. can. 41.
• u 11.923

  Dist. 93. cap. Diaconus in cónuentu. in glossa. Durand. in Ration di∣uin. offic. lib. 3. cap. 1.
• x 11.924

  In Liturg.
• y 11.925

  Lib. 10. cap. 4.
• z 11.926

  Amalar. de ec∣••les. offic. lib. 2. cap. 18. Du∣rand. in Rati. on. diuin. of∣fic. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 11.927

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 11.928

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Exod. 28. ver. 31.
• b 11.929

  ver. 35.
• 1 11.930

  Deriued frō 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which worde S. Paule vseth 2. Tim. 4.13.) the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answering t•• the Latin, pa∣n••l••.
• c 11.931

  Tertullia••. lib. de pallio.
• 2 11.932

  A diminuti•••• ••t casa▪ a cot∣tage. The En∣glish worde, chisible came (as it seemeth) from that La∣tine casula, but doth not expre•• the force of it.
• d 11.933

  Exod. 2••.3••.
• e 11.934

  Durand. in r••∣t••on. diuin. of∣fic. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• * 11.935

  Casula dicitu•• quasi parua casa.
• f 11.936

  Alcuin. de di∣uin. offic. cap. de singulis ves••ibus.
• 1 11.937

  Ad instar sa∣cerdotum Mo∣saicae legis.
• g 11.938

  Amalar. de ecclesiastic. of∣fic. lib 2. c. 22.
• 2 11.939

  Ad normam Aaronis.
• h 11.940

  Walafrid. St••abo de exord. & incrementis rerum eccles. cap. 24.
• * 11.941

  Heb. 1••▪ ••. Col. 2.17.
• * 11.942

  Gal. 4.3. & 5.1.
• * 11.943

  Col. 2.22.
• m 11.944

  Epist. 119. ad D••ua••. cap. 1••.
• * 11.945

  P••••••issimis & m••••itostis. i∣c•••• celebratio∣n•••• s••cramen∣••••.
• n 11.946

  De doctrin•• Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• 2 11.947

  Quaedam p••u∣ca pro multis, eadem••ue fac∣tu facillima.
• o 11.948

  Iob. 4. ver. 23.
• p 11.949

  ver. 24.
• q 11.950

  Luk. 2••.19.
• r 11.951

  Matt. 28.1••▪
• s 11.952

  Act. 2.42.
• t 11.953

  1. Cor. 14. ver. 40.
• u 11.954

  ver. 26▪
• x 11.955

  Apolog. e••∣cles. Anglic.
• y 11.956

  Confession. Augustin. lib. ••. cap. 1. tit. 5.
• z 11.957

  Sess. 7. de Sa∣crament. in ge∣nere can. 1.
• a 11.958

  Tertullian. aduers. Iudae. & contr. Marcion. lib. 5. Hilar. in Matthae. can. 12. & 13. Leo epist. 10.11.12.13. & passim.
• b 11.959

  Epist. 5. ad Marcellin. De ciuit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 5. Contr. ad∣uers. leg. & Pro∣phetarum lib. 2. cap. 9.
• c 11.960

  August. de bo∣no coniug. c. 18.
• d 11.961

  Contr. epist. Parmenian. lib. 2. cap. 13.
• e 11.962

  De baptism. contr. Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 20.
• f 11.963

  De adulteri••. coniug. cap. 26. & 28.
• g 11.964

  Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.
• h 11.965

  De peccat. merit. & remis¦sion. l. 2. cap. 26.
• i 11.966

  De symb. ad ca••echumen. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• k 11.967

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 7. in pro••m. & de Sacrament. in gen. can. 1.
• l 11.968

  Articuli reli∣gion. eccles. Anglican. cap. de Sacramen∣tis.
• m 11.969

  De doctrin. Christian. l. 3. c. 9. Epist. 11••. ad Ianuar▪ cap. 1.
• n 11.970

  Ioh. 19.34.
• o 11.971

  Augustin. de s••mb. ad catechum••nos lib. 2. cap. ••.
• * 11.972

  Gemina sacramenta ecclesiae.
• p 11.973

  Durand. de S. P••rtian. in 4. Sent. distinct. 26. quaest. 3.
• q 11.974

  In 4. Sentent. dist. 7. art. ••. quaest. 2.
• r 11.975

  Summ. Theologic. part. 4. quaest. 5. membr. ••. art 2. & membr. 3. art. 2.
• 1 11.976

  Sola duo principalia.
• 2 11.977

  A Domino in••••ituta per se ipsum.
• s 11.978

  Sacrarum ce∣remoniarum Romanae eccle∣siae libri tres.
• t 11.979

  Pontificale Romanum in tres distinctum partes.
• u 11.980

  Missale Ro∣manum, in ru∣bricis Missalis, ritibus celebrā∣di Missam, & de∣fectibus circa Missam occur∣rent••bus.
• x 11.981

  Exodus, Leui∣ticus, and Num∣bers.
• y 11.982

  Exod. 28.40.
• z 11.983

  Innocent. Mysterior. Mis∣sae. lib. 1. cap. 53. & l. 2. c. 7.
• 1 11.984

  Nostra opera sunt inquinata, vtcunque speci∣osa vide antur.
• 2 11.985

  Prophetica oblatio per se munda est.
• * 11.986

  Per se.
• a 11.987

  Mal. 1.11.
• b 11.988

  Exod. 2••. ver. 36.
• c 11.989

  ver. 38.
• 1 11.990

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• d 11.991

  Reu. 8.3.
• 2 11.992

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 11.993

  Phil. 2.13.
• f 11.994

  Rom. 8. ver. 21.
• g 11.995

  ver. 18.
• h 11.996

  Luk. 20.••7.
• i 11.997

  Gal. 5.17.
• k 11.998

  Rom. 7. ver, 23.
• l 11.999

  ver. 24.
• m 11.1000

  Deut. 4.••. & 12.••2.
• n 11.1001

  Iam. ••.10.
• o 11.1002

  Luk. 17. ver. 9.
• p 11.1003

  ver. 10.
• q 11.1004

  Gal. 3.10.
• r 11.1005

  Iam. ••.2.
• s 11.1006

  Mal. 1.7.
• t 11.1007

  1. Pet. 1.19. & 2.22.
• u 11.1008

  Heb. 9.25. & ••3.12.
• x 11.1009

  1. Pet. 2.5.
• y 11.1010

  Leu. 22.22.
• z 11.1011

  Tit. 1.15.
• a 11.1012

  Hab. 1.13.
• * 11.1013

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• b 11.1014

  Leu. 22.20.
• c 11.1015

  Esai. 66.20.
• d 11.1016

  Rom. 15.16.
• e 11.1017

  1. Tim. 2.8.
• f 11.1018

  Mal. 1. ver. 8. & 13.
• g 11.1019

  ver. 7. & 12.
• h 11.1020

  ver. 10. & 13.
• i 11.1021

  Mal. 3.4.
• k 11.1022

  Rom. 12.1. Phil. 4.18. Heb. 1••.16.
• l 11.1023

  Tertullian. ad∣uers. Iudaeos.
• m 11.1024

  Contr. Mar∣cion. l. 3. & 4.
• n 11.1025

  Augustin. contr. aduersar. leg. lib. 1. cap. 18. & contr. lit. Pe••ilian. lib. 2. cap. 86.
• o 11.1026

  Hieron. in Zachar. cap. 8.
• p 11.1027

  Euseb. de∣monstrat. E∣uang. lib. 1.
• q 11.1028

  Tertullian. aduers. Iudaeos.
• r 11.1029

  Euseb. de∣monstrat. E∣uang. lib. 1.
• s 11.1030

  Irenae. lib. 4. cap. 32.33. & 34. Iustin. Mart. in Tryphon.
• t 11.1031

  Theodoret. in Malach. cap. 1. Cyrill. de ado∣rat. in spirit. & verit.
• 1 11.1032

  Vic••••ma hic existens. Victima is a liue thing killed to be sacrificed. Which word he applyeth to the sacrifice of the Masse, be∣cause he main∣taineth that Christ there is killed and sacrificed to God his fa∣ther. Alan. de ••••charist. sa∣crific. cap. 11. ver•• mactatur, ac immolatur.
• u 11.1033

  Euseb. de∣monstrat. E∣uang. lib. 1.
• x 11.1034

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Ter∣tullian. con∣tra Maccion. lib. 4.
• y 11.1035

  In that he saith of Au∣stin, licet libro secundo contra literas Petiliani de sacrificio laudis exponat.
• z 11.1036

  Contr. liter. Petiliani lib. ••. cap. ••6.
• a 11.1037

  Contr. aduer∣sar. leg. lib. 1. cap. 18. & 20.
• b 11.1038

  Chrysost. con∣tr. Iudaeos o∣rat. 2. Hic••o••. in Malach. cap. 1, Cyprian. lib. 1. cap. 16. contr. Iudaeos, and the rest allea∣ged.
• 2 11.1039

  Argumenta valida & plané bona.
• c 11.1040

  The Apolo∣gie of the Eng∣lish Seminaries chapt. 6.
• d 11.1041

  1. Cor. 10.16. & 11.24.
• e 11.1042

  Lib 5. epist. 33
• * 11.1043

  Paulinam coniunxit sibi breuique mis∣sam fecit.
• f 11.1044

  In Caligula cap. 25.
• g 11.1045

  Concertat. eccles. Cathol. in Angl. aduer. Caluinop. & Purit.
• h 11.1046

  De interpret.
• i 11.1047

  Cor. 10.16▪
• k 11.1048

  Act. 8.9. & 13.6.
• l 11.1049

  Mat. 2.1.
• m 11.1050

  Ambr. de sa∣cram l. 4. c. 6. & l. 5. c. 4. Hie∣ron. ep••st. ad Lucin. & apo∣log. ad Pam∣mach. pro libris contr. Iouinia∣num.
• 1 11.1051

  Ca••echumeni. In Liturg. Ba••il. & Chryso••t.
• 2 11.1052

  Abstenti. Cyprian. de O∣ration. Domin.
• n 11.1053

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. c••n. 84. vsque ad mis∣sam catechume∣norum. August. serm. de temp. 237. Ecce post sermonem fit missa catechu∣menis▪ mane∣bunt fideles.
• o 11.1054

  Isidor. orig. lib. 6. cap. 18.
• * 11.1055

  As the word, remissa, is vsed for remissio. Tertullian. con∣tr. Marcion. lib. 4. Cyprian. de bono patient. Augustin. de baptism. contr. Donatist. lib. 3. cap. 18.
• p 11.1056

  Sess. 22. cap. 6.
• 1 11.1057

  Fideles ad∣stantes.
• q 11.1058

  Registr. l. 2. ep. 9. & 93. Ad. 3. interrogat. Au∣gust.
• r 11.1059

  Gregor. Dia∣logor. lib. 2. cap. 2••.
• 2 11.1060

  Si quis non communicat, det locum, &, Non communi∣can••es ab ec∣clesia exibant.
• s 11.1061

  When Leo the great (ep ••1. cap. 2. ) tooke order for laying ••ao M••sses the•• one, in a day, in one Churche: were they not Masse priests, that said those Ma••sse•••• sait•• Allen in the margent of his Apolog•••• in English. The last of which words are thus in his Latin. Num sorté e∣rant sacerdotes Missificante•••• that is to say, were they Masse priests▪ An errour of the Latin, but speaking truer then the Eng∣lish, and very happily gaine∣saying it. For the Masses, spo∣ken of by Leo, were commu∣nions celebra∣ted by Mini∣sters: at whose hands the peo∣ple receiued the sacrament both of the body and blood of Christ▪ which they be not at the hands of Masse-priests. Leo serm. 4. de quadragesima.
• t 11.1062

  Greg. lib. 2. ep. 9. & 93. lib. 7. ep. 63. ind. 2. lib. 11. ep. 56. Ad 3. interrog. August.
• u 11.1063

  Bed. histor. lib. 1. cap. 29.
• x 11.1064

  Rom. 11.13.
• y 11.1065

  Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 9.1. Gal. 1.1.
• z 11.1066

  Lib. 7. i••∣dict. 2. epist. 63.
• 1 11.1067

  Halleluia.
• 2 11.1068

  Kyrie eleeson.
• 3 11.1069

  Christe eleeson.
• 4 11.1070

  Orationem Dominicam post 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 11. ep. 56.
• * 11.1071

  Simia quám similis turpissima ••esti•• nobis?
• b 11.1072

  Matt. 26. ver. 26.
• c 11.1073

  ver. 27. 1. Cor. 11.2••.
• d 11.1074

  1. Cor. 14.16.
• e 11.1075

  Gegor. in li∣bro Sacramen∣tor.
• f 11.1076

  1. Cor. 11.1.
• g 11.1077

  Gregor. lib. 7. ind. 2. ep. 63.
• 5 11.1078

  Mos Aposto∣lorum fuit, vt ad ipsam solum∣modo orationē Dominicam ob∣lationis hosti∣am consecra∣rent.
• 6 11.1079

  Precem quam Scholasticus cō. posuerat.
• 7 11.1080

  Quorum me∣ritis precibus∣que concedas.
• 8 11.1081

  Locum refri∣geri••, lucis, & pacis.
• h 11.1082

  Matt. 23.10.
• i 11.1083

  Matt. 3.15. Ioh. 8.46. & 19.30.
• k 11.1084

  Heb. 4.16. & 7.25. & 9.12.
• l 11.1085

  Reu. 14.13.
• m 11.1086

  Col. 1.12.
• n 11.1087

  Esai. 57.2.
• o 11.1088

  Luk. 16.1••.
• p 11.1089

  Matt. 19.8
• 9 11.1090

  Quotquot ex hac altaris par∣ticipatione sa∣crosanctum filij ••ui corpus & sanguinē sump∣serimus.
• q 11.1091

  Amalat. For∣••unat. de e••cle∣siast. offic. prae∣fat. al••. Wala∣frid. Strabo de rebus ••ccles. cap. 22. Micro∣log. de eccles. obseruat. c. 19.
• 1 11.1092

  Offeruntur a populo o•• la∣tiones & vinum: e quibus in al∣tari pon unt••r vt sacrent••r. Greg. in lib. sa∣crament. Of the which it is said in the Ca∣non of the Masse, haec do∣na, haec munera, haec sacrificia illibata.
• 2 11.1093

  Sacrificium laudis. Where∣of the Canon saith, memento Domine omni∣um circum ad∣stantium qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omni∣bus.
• 3 11.1094

  Quam obla∣tionem tu Deus benedictam ac¦ceptabilemque facere digneris, vt nobis corpus & sanguis ••iat Iesu Christi.
• 4 11.1095

  Panem san, ctum vitae aeter∣nae, & calicem salutis perp••∣tuae.
• r 11.1096

  Luke. 22. ver. 19. & 20.
• 5 11.1097

  Super qe•••• ••••opitio ac se∣••eno vultu re∣spicere digne∣••••••: & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es mu∣••era pueri tui iusti Abel.
• s 11.1098

  Heb. 11.4.
• t 11.1099

  Sacerdos est creator creato∣ris sui.
• u 11.1100

  In Apologe••.
• * 11.1101

  Homo iam Deo propitius esse debebit.
• 6 11.1102

  Haec dona, haec munera, haec sacrificia illibata.
• 7 11.1103

  Vti accepta habeas, & be∣ne••icas.
• 8 11.1104

  Iube haec por∣••erri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, v•• quotquot ex hac altaris par∣ticipatione sa∣crosanctum filij tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedicti∣one caelesti & gratia replea∣••••••r.
• 9 11.1105

  De tuis donis ac datis.
• x 11.1106

  Cap. 14.
• y 11.1107

  Epist. 5.
• z 11.1108

  De ciuit. Dei l. 22. c. 8.
• a 11.1109

  In vit. Con∣stantin. l. 4 c. 45.
• b 11.1110

  Chrysost. de sacerdotio.
• c 11.1111

  in 1. Tim. 4.
• d 11.1112

  In his trea∣t••se of the sacri∣fice of the masse, (cap. 14.) out of his lec∣tures read at Doway.
• e 11.1113

  In his Apo∣logie: and the Annotations on the Rhemish Testament, Heb. 10.11.
• f 11.1114

  Alan. d•• eu∣charist. sacrif. cap. 16.
• g 11.1115

  Cyprian. de opere & eleem.
• h 11.1116

  August. contr. aduersa••. leg. l. 1. c. 18. & 20.
• i 11.1117

  De ciuitat. Dei lib. 10. cap. 6. & l. 22. c. ••••
• k 11.1118

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. in prae∣fat. & Can. 1.
• 1 11.1119

  Verum & sin∣gulare sacrifici∣um.
• 2 11.1120

  Verum & pro prium sac••ifici∣um.
• l 11.1121

  Alan. de Eu∣char. sacrif. c. 10.11. & 12.
• m 11.1122

  1. Cor. 11. ver. 2••. & 25.
• n 11.1123

  ver. 26.
• o 11.1124

  Epist. 63. ad Caecilium.
• 1 11.1125

  Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs om∣nibus facimus.
• 2 11.1126

  Passio est e∣nim Domini sa∣crificium quod offerimus.
• p 11.1127

  Homil. 83. in Matthaeum.
• q 11.1128

  Homil. 17. in epist. ad Hebr.
• 3 11.1129

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 11.1130

  In epist. ad Heb. cap. 10.
• 4 11.1131

  Magis autem recordationem sacrificij ope∣ramur.
• s 11.1132

  Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.
• 5 11.1133

  Omni die po¦pulis immola∣tur in sacra∣mento.
• 6 11.1134

  Quandam si∣militudinem.
• 7 11.1135

  Secundum quendam mo∣dum.
• t 11.1136

  Demonstrat. Euang. lib. 1.
• 8 11.1137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 9 11.1138

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u 11.1139

  Concil. Trid••t. Sess. 22. cap. 2.
• 1 11.1140

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De vit. Constan∣tin. lib. 4. cap. 45. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Demonstrat. E∣uang. lib. 1.
• x 11.1141

  In the Rhe¦mish Annot. Heb. 9.20.
• y 11.1142

  De sacerdo∣tio lib. 3.
• * 11.1143

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made redde like crimse•• or sc••rlet.
• z 11.1144

  De Euchar••t. ••acis••. c••p. 1••.
• 2 11.1145

  Non sine fu∣••o ••ruore.
• a 11.1146

  Heb. 9.22.
• 3 11.1147

  Singulari & ••olo vero sac••i∣ficio pro nobis Christi sanguis eff••sus est. Au∣gust. contr. ad∣uersar. leg. l. 1. c. 18.
• b 11.1148

  Cont. Faust. Manich. l. 20. cap. 21.
• 4 11.1149

  Per ipsam ve∣rit••tem redde∣batur.
• 5 11.1150

  Pe•• sacramen∣tum memo••iae celebratur.
• c 11.1151

  Cyril. lib. de t••cta fid. ad Re∣ginas. Oecu∣men. in epist. ad Hebr. c. 13.
• d 11.1152

  Concil. Ephe∣sin. epist. ad Ne∣stor. Liturg. Ba∣••il. & Chrysost.
• e 11.1153

  Rom. 1••.1.
• 6 11.1154

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 11.1155

  Liturg. Basil. & Chrysost.
• 7 11.1156

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 11.1157

  Demonstrat. Euang lib. 1.
• 8 11.1158

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 11.1159

  1. Pet. 2.3.
• i 11.1160

  De vit. Con∣stantin. l. 4. c. 45.
• 9 11.1161

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 11.1162

  Lib. 4. dist. 12.
• 1 11.1163

  Si, quod. gerit sacerdos, pro∣priē dicatursa∣crisicium vel immolatio.
• 2 11.1164

  Quia memo∣ria est & repre∣sentatio ver•• sacrificij & sanctae immola∣tionis fact••m ara crucis.
• 3 11.1165

  Verum & proprium sa∣crificium.
• l 11.1166

  Concil. Tri∣dent. S••ss. 22. can. 1.
• m 11.1167

  Leu. 19.14.
• * 11.1168

  As the name of my Baal. H••s. 2.16.
• n 11.1169

  The vulga•• Latintrans••a••tion. 1. Pet. ••. Seniore.
• o 11.1170

  De ciu. Dei l. 20. c. 10.
• p 11.1171

  Reu. 20.6.
• q 11.1172

  In their An¦not. Reu. 20.6▪
• * 11.1173

  So they translate the wor•• propri•• deceitfully: for aduantage of their errour, that Mini∣sters of the gospel are pro∣perly called Priests. Where∣as S. Austin meaneth that generally, by Scripture, all Christians haue that name: though peculiarly Bi∣shop•• & Priests, by the Church, in his time: both called so vnproperly, and by a figure: not as the Le∣uiticall Priests, and Christ, pro∣perly.
• r 11.1174

  Contr. Iulian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 7. & l. 2. c. 10.
• s 11.1175

  Greg. Martin. in his Disco∣uer. chap. 6.
• * 11.1176

  De ordine ce∣lebrand. Con∣cil. Canones a sanct. patribus constit. & ab I∣sidoro in vnum corpus collecti. Concil. Tom. 1.
• * 11.1177

  Antonius Contius, in ap∣pend. decretor. Gratiani, de ord celebr. Conc.
• 1 11.1178

  Presbyteri.
• 2 11.1179

  Sacerdotes.
• 3 11.1180

  Sacrifica••e.
• 4 11.1181

  Sacrificium Missae.
• x 11.1182

  Cyprian. ep. 55. Ambros. e•• 33. Concil. A¦frie. in ••pist▪ ad Celestin. and the rest of the Fathers com∣monly. which the Emperours vsed in their lawes too: as Antonius Con∣tius. (L. nec ho∣nore. C. de epi∣scopis.) noteth with these words, Obser∣ua sacerdotem semper in his legibus poni pro episcopo.
• * 11.1183

  The fifth Di∣uision.
• y 11.1184

  Prou. ••1.1••.
• z 11.1185

  Notit. prouin∣ciar. Imperij Romani.
• a 11.1186

  L. obseruare. D. de officio Proconsulis. Dio in Adriano.
• b 11.1187

  Concil. Anti∣och. can. 20. Chalced ca•• 19
• c 11.1188

  Concil. Ni∣cen. can. 4. & 6.
• d 11.1189

  Concil. Anti∣ochen. can. 9.
• 1 11.1190

  Comes Ori∣entis.
• 2 11.1191

  Praefectus Augustalis▪ or Aegypti.
• 3 11.1192

  Praefectus Praetorio Italiae.
• 4 11.1193

  As dioecesis Aegyptiaca. L. omnia. C. De offic. praefect. Aug. So dioece∣sis Orientis, & the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in Cod. Theod & Iusti∣nian. passim.
• * 11.1194

  Wolfgang. Laz. comment. reip. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• e 11.1195

  Concil. Con∣stantinop. 1. can 2.
• f 11.1196

  Concil. Anti∣och. in exord.
• g 11.1197

  Concil. Chal∣ced. action. 4.
• h 11.1198

  Theodos. & Valentin. epist. ad Dioscor. in Concil. Chal∣ced. Action. 1.
• i 11.1199

  Concil. Chal∣ced. Act. 16.
• k 11.1200

  As appe••∣reth by Theo∣doret▪ Histor. eccles. l. 5. c. 2••. Though the booke entitled Notitia prouin∣ciarum imperij Romani num∣breth but six & twentie, ten in Pontus, ten in Asia, and six in Thracia.
• l 11.1201

  Concil. Chal∣ced. can. 9. & 17.
• 1 11.1202

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Coun∣cel calleth him. But thereby is meant the Patriarke, as appeereth by Iustinians con∣stitution, Nouel. 123. cap. 22.
• m 11.1203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. D. ad legē ••ho∣diam deiactu.
• n 11.1204

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gregor. Regist▪ lib. 4. epist. 39.
• o 11.1205

  In epist. ad episcopos qui conuenerant Constantinopoli. Dist. 9•• c. Nullus.
• p 11.1206

  Registr. lib. 4 ep. 32. & 34. & 36. & 38. lib. 7. indict. ••▪ epist. 30. Distinct. 99. c. Ecce.
• 2 11.1207

  Archiepis∣copi & Patriar∣cha senioris Rom••, Constan∣tinopol••os, A∣lexandriae, Theo∣polcos (that is▪ of Antioche,) & Ierosolymo∣rum. Nouel. 123. cap. 3.
• q 11.1208

  Registr. lib. 4. ep. 34.
• 3 11.1209

  Episcopi m••i.
• 4 11.1210

  Episcoporum mihi commissorum.
• r 11.1211

  Registr. lib. 4. epist. 36.
• 5 11.1212

  Episcopos curae vestrae sub∣••ectos.
• s 11.1213

  Iohan. Dia∣c••••. vit. Gregor. lib. 3. c. 1••.
• 6 11.1214

  Vacantes e∣piscopos in suae dioeces••os epis∣copatus inuita∣b••t.
• 7 11.1215

  A citie of A∣sia, in the di••∣cese of the Pa∣triarke of Con∣stantinople.
• t 11.1216

  Leo epist. 82. & 87. c. Metro∣politano. c. Vota ciuium. dist 63. Gregor. Regist. lib. 1. epist. 56. & 58. & 78. lib. 2. ind. 11. epist. 22. & 29. & 30. & caet. passim.
• u 11.1217

  Concil. Late∣ran. sub. Leon. decim. Sess. 11. abrogat▪ prag∣maticae sanctio∣nis, & Concilij Basiliensis.
• x 11.1218

  Forma iura∣menti praestandi ab episcopo e∣••••ecto. In Ponti∣ti••icali Rom. part. 1.
• * 11.1219

  Reseruationes, prouisiones, mandata Apo∣stolica totis vi∣ribus obserua∣bo, & faciam ab alijs obserua••i.
• y 11.1220

  Epist. 93. inter epist. Augustin.
• 1 11.1221

  Quotiesfid o•• ratio ventilatur.
• 2 11.1222

  Super anx••••s rebus quae sit tenenda senten∣tia.
• z 11.1223

  c. Decretale ••. distinct. 20▪
• a 11.1224

  c. Maiore••. de baptismo.
• b 11.1225

  Epist. 91. in∣ter epist. Au∣gustin.
• c 11.1226

  Concil. Car∣thag. Graec. can. ••8. Concil Mi∣leuit. can. 22.
• d 11.1227

  Torrensis confess. August. lib. 1. cap. 9. tit. ••
• e 11.1228

  Maiores ec∣clesiae causas. c. Maiores. de bap∣tismo.
• f 11.1229

  1. Cor. 6.12.
• g 11.1230

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as S. Cyril saith in his epistle to C••lestin. Epist. ••8.
• * 11.1231

  Wolfgang. Laz. commen∣••ar. reip. Roman. l. 2. c. 2.
• h 11.1232

  D. Saunders, de visib. Monar. eccles. lib. 7.
• i 11.1233

  Registr. lib. 7. ind. 2. epist. 64.
• 1 11.1234

  P••imas Byza∣cenus.
• 2 11.1235

  Primae sedis e∣piscopus. Con∣cil. Carthag. can. 17.18. & 19. Distinct. 99. c. Primae sedis.
• k 11.1236

  c. De Constan∣tinopolit. dist. 22. in glossa. Byzancenus, id est, Constanti∣nopolitanus. Primo enim Constantinopo∣lis dicta fuit By∣zantium.
• l 11.1237

  Notitia pro∣uinciarum imper. Rom.
• m 11.1238

  Conc. A••ric. can. 57. & 94. & in subscriptio∣nibus, Prouin∣cia Byzacena.
• n 11.1239

  Concil. Car∣thag. can. 17. & African. passim.
• o 11.1240

  By Antonius Contius. In whose notes on G••atian▪ primas By ••••cenus is expounded, Bi∣zacij q••ae erat vna ex prouin∣cijs Afric••e.
• p 11.1241

  Registr. lib. 7. ind. 2. epist. 63.
• q 11.1242

  Nicephor. Chronolog. tri∣partit. Ge ne∣brard. chronog. lib. 3. & caet. Chron. Const.
• r 11.1243

  Registr. lib. 4. epist 36. & 38.
• s 11.1244

  Lib. 6. epist. 31. & lib. 7. ind. 2. epist. 69.
• t 11.1245

  Gal. 2.11.
• u 11.1246

  1. Thes. 5.11. Leu. 19.••7.
• x 11.1247

  Grego. Regist. lib. 11. ep. 54.
• 1 11.1248

  No••ella tra∣dirio, as Gre∣go••ie calleth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mea∣neth Nouell. 123. cap. 2••.
• 2 11.1249

  P••aebeat finē.
• 3 11.1250

  Secundum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & lege••.
• y 11.1251

  Concil. Chal∣cedon. can. 9. & 17.
• z 11.1252

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. C. de episcopa∣li a••dientia.
• 4 11.1253

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 11.1254

  Chapt. 7. Diuision 9.
• b 11.1255

  In Concilio Africano.
• c 11.1256

  Cap. Maiores. de baptismo.
• d 11.1257

  c. Etsi domi∣nici: De poenit. & remission. in extrauag. com∣mun. Bulla, quae publicatur per Papam in die Coenae Domini: inscript. Literae processus. In eclog. Bullar. & motu proprior. Greg. decimi∣tert.
• * 11.1258

  Casus reserua∣ti Apostolicae se•• di. De quibus Concil. Trident. Sess. 14. cap. 7.
• e 11.1259

  Concil. Ni∣caen. can. 5. An∣tioc••en. can. 2. Constantinop. prim. can. 2.
• f 11.1260

  c. Significasti, De election.
• g 11.1261

  Chapt. 7. Diuisi. 7.
• 1 11.1262

  Decretales e∣pistolae.
• 2 11.1263

  Regulae can∣cellariae Apo∣stolicae.
• h 11.1264

  In the third Diuisiō of this Chapter.
• i 11.1265

  Mat. 20.20. Luke. 9.46. & 22.24.
• k 11.1266

  Ep••st. 91. inte•• epist. Aug.
• l 11.1267

  Chapt. 1. Diuis. 2.
• m 11.1268

  Vigilius in decretis suis▪ cap. vlt.
• n 11.1269

  Esai. 2.3. Act. 1.4. & 2.5. & 8.4·
• * 11.1270

  Which there¦fore is called the mother of all Churches by y^e Fathers of the Councell (the second ge∣nerall Coūcel) of Constanti∣nople. Theodo∣ret. l. 5. c. 9. Al∣though the Popes nowe & their Trent-councell do be∣lie the Church of Rome with that title. Con∣cil. Trid. Sess. 7. De baptism. can 3. Ses. 14. de Sacrament. ex∣trem. vnction. cap. 3. Sess. 22. cap. 8. Sess. 25. Decret. de dele∣ctu ciborum.
• o 11.1271

  Innocent. ep. 93. inter Epist. Aug.
• p 11.1272

  Act. 14.23. & 20.28. Tit. 1. ver. 5. & 7.
• q 11.1273

  Gelasius in decret. cum 70. episcopis.
• r 11.1274

  Eph 9 ••7
• s 11.1275

  Hieron. in Ie∣rem. cap. 31, August. Retract. l. 2. c. 18.
• t 11.1276

  Summ. Theo∣log. part. 3. q. 8. art. 3.
• u 11.1277

  Princip. doct. l. 1. c. 2. & 8.
• x 11.1278

  c. Significasti. de electione.
• 1 11.1279

  Tali conditio∣ne, si sacramen∣tum exhiberes.
• 2 11.1280

  Conditionem posuit.
• a 11.1281

  Ioh. 21.16.
• y 11.1282

  c. Vnā sanctā extra. de maio∣rit. & obed.
• b 11.1283

  1, Cor. 2.15.
• z 11.1284

  In concil. La∣teran. sub Leon. decim. Sess. 11.
• c 11.1285

  Ex libri Regū testimonio.
• d 11.1286

  Where is that read?
• e 11.1287

  Chap. 6. Diuis. 1.
• f 11.1288

  Ioh. 5.31.
• g 11.1289

  L. nullus D. de testibus. L. omnibus. C. eo. 4.9.2. & 3. c. Si testes.
• h 11.1290

  Cicer. pro Roscio.
• i 11.1291

  9. q. 3. c. pater. in glossa. C••em. vnica de iureiu∣rando. In glossa Iohannis An∣dreae.
• 1 11.1292

  Familiaris est haec probatio quum Papa ali∣um Papam ad∣ducit in testem.
• 2 11.1293

  Summi Ponti∣fices suas fim∣brias nimis ex∣tēdentes. Spo∣ken by allusi∣on to y^e Scribes and Pharises, who enlarged the Phylacteries and frindges of their garments. Mat. 13.5.
• k 11.1294

  Aen. Silu. de gestis Basilien••sis concil. l. 1. Iacobus Al∣main de autor. ecclesiae cap. 8. The sixth Diuision.
• l 11.1295

  Chap. 6. Diuision, 4.
• m 11.1296

  Socrat. hist. ecclesiast. l. 5. cap. 10.
• n 11.1297

  The Rhemish Annot. on Luk. 22.31.
• o 11.1298

  Sext Synod. Constantinopo∣lit. act. 12.
• p 11.1299

  August. epist. ••om. 2.
• q 11.1300

  Caluini epi∣stolae & resposa.
• r 11.1301

  Epist. 57.
• s 11.1302

  Chapt. 7. Diuision 8.
• t 11.1303

  Epist. 52.
• u 11.1304

  Possid. de vit. August. cap. 18.
• x 11.1305

  Chap. ••. Diuision 3.
• y 11.1306

  Socrat. hist. ec¦clesiast. lib. 6. cap. 14. Sozo∣men. l••b. 8. c. 17.
• z 11.1307

  Epist. 1. ad In∣nocentium,
• 1 11.1308

  ••e meaneth canons of Coū∣cels cheefely Cōcil. Constan∣tinopolit. can. 2.
• 2 11.1309

  His wordes in Latin are tr••smōtanos ad nostra iudicia. non trahendos. But y^e Greeke canon hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which word being vsed by Chrysostome here▪ (as I gheste by the circumstāces, for the Greeke I haue not seene) was mis¦taken by the translator, as if it had come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mons, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ter∣minus.
• a 11.1310

  Epist. 52,
• b 11.1311

  Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 2.1••.21. & 30.
• c 11.1312

  Epis••. 48.
• 3 11.1313

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 11.1314

  Epist. 2.
• 4 11.1315

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪
• * 11.1316

  Epist. 52.
• e 11.1317

  Epist. 47.
• f 11.1318

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 14, cap. 7.
• g 11.1319

  Epist. 90••92. et 96. apud Aug.
• 6 11.1320

  Statutis nostrae mediocritatis Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur au∣toritas▪ &. Auto∣ritati sanctitatis tu•••• facilius eos ces••uros spera∣mus. &. damnet ea Pelagius pa∣terna exhorta∣tione & autori∣tate ••anctitatis tuae.
• h 11.1321

  Epist. Conc. Af••ican. de Cae∣lestin. in Concil. Afric. cep. 105.
• 7 11.1322

  Either by hearing their causes at Rome, or by sē∣ding Legates a latere vnto them.
• * 11.1323

  Quasi ecclesiae Romanae priui∣legia, auouched by Faustinus y^e Legate of the Pope repro∣ued by S. Au∣stin and the Bishop of Afrike, in epist. conc. African▪ ad Caelestin.
• 1 11.1324

  The ••hemish An••••otat. in Luk. 22.31.
• k 11.1325

  Princ. doctr. lib. 7. cap. 10.
• l 11.1326

  Epist. Synod. Nicen. ad Syl∣uestr. Tom. 11 conciliot.
• 1 11.1327

  Hosius episco¦pus Cordubae, & Macarius epis∣copus ecclesiae Constantinopo∣litanae.
• m 11.1328

  Cassiodor. in chronico. Sigon. de occident. imper. lib. 4.
• 2 11.1329

  Paulino & Iuliano consulibus.
• 3 11.1330

  Episcopos totius vaestrae Apostolicae vrbis.
• n 11.1331

  Socrat. hist. eccle. lib. 1. ca. 25. & l. 2. c. 4. Nicephor. chronolog. tripartit. Genebr. chron. lib. 3.
• 4 11.1332

  Cum episcopis totius vrbis Italiae. Praemonit. ad lectorem pro epist. Synodi Ni∣senae & Syluestri.
• 1 11.1333

  Hosius episco¦pus Cordubae, & Macarius epis∣copus ecclesiae Constantinopo∣litanae.
• o 11.1334

  Hist. ecclesi∣••••t. lib. 4. cap. 9.
• p 11.1335

  Epist. Concil. Constantinopo. lit. ad Theodo∣sium imperat. in Graec. decret. & Libell. Sinodi∣car. constit. lat.
• 5 11.1336

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 6 11.1337

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• q 11.1338

  Epist. 29 tom. 4. oper. Cyrill.
• r 11.1339

  In chronico.
• s 11.1340

  ••os. 24. ver. 1.
• t 11.1341

  ver. 15.
• u 11.1342

  1. Tim. 3.15.
• x 11.1343

  Mal. 2.7.
• y 11.1344

  Act 20 ••8.
• z 11.1345

  Epist. 70.
• a 11.1346

  Gal. 2. v. 1. & 2
• b 11.1347

  ver. ••.
• c 11.1348

  v. 6. & 9.
• e 11.1349

  ver. 31.
• f 11.1350

  Act. 16. ver. 4.
• g 11.1351

  ver. ••.
• h 11.1352

  Athanas. in Apolog. 2. The∣odoret. hist ec∣cles. l. 2. cap. 8.
• i 11.1353

  Epist. 90. inter epist. August.
• k 11.1354

  Defens. fid. Tride••t. lib. 1.
• * 11.1355

  Doctissimi viri s••pientissimè existimant.
• l 11.1356

  Alfonsu•• a Ca∣stro de iusta hae∣reticorum pu¦••itione, l. 1. c. 6.
• m 11.1357

  Iohan▪ rurie∣crem. de Pont. Max. gener. que Concil. autori∣tate ad Basil••ē∣sium oratorem respon. nu. 67. & 6••.
• 1 11.1358

  Non potesta∣te iurisdictionis.
• 2 11.1359

  Sed autoritate discretiui iudi∣cij, or maiorita∣te, as Turrecre∣mata calleth it, in Summ. de ec∣cles. l. 3. c. 64.
• n 11.1360

  Hist. tripart. l. 4. c. 15. So∣crat. l. 2. c. 15. Sozomen. l. 3. c. 8.
• o 11.1361

  D. Stapleton▪ Princip. doctr. lib. 4.cap. 19.
• p 11.1362

  lib. 7. c. 10.
• q 11.1363

  Apologia. 2.
• r 11.1364

  In epist. ad e∣piscopos Anti∣ochiae congre∣gatos. Apud A∣than. apol. 2.
• s 11.1365

  Rescrip••. Iulij Papae c••••tra o∣rientales. Conc. Tom. 1.
• t 11.1366

  In the 3. Di∣uision of this Chapter.
• u 11.1367

  Hist. eccle. l. 2. cap. 17.
• x 11.1368

  lib. 3 cap. 10.
• y 11.1369

  Conci. Nicaen. ca••. 5.
• z 11.1370

  Princ. doctr. lib. 7. ca. 10.
• a 11.1371

  Iulius in epi. ad episcopos An••io••h. con∣gregat. Apud A∣than. apolog. 2.
• 1 11.1372

  Vt p••imum nobis scribatur.
• 2 11.1373

  Oportuit scri∣bere omnibus nobis.
• b 11.1374

  Epist. ad The∣odosiam.
• c 11.1375

  Epist. ad Leo∣nem.
• d 11.1376

  Epist. 13.
• 3 11.1377

  Flauianus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 appellauit.
• e 11.1378

  Epist. Gallae Placidiae ad Theodosium.
• 4 11.1379

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad omnes episcapos haiú partium.
• f 11.1380

  Concil. Chalc. act. 1.
• g 11.1381

  act. 8.
• h 11.1382

  Theodoret. e∣pist. ad Leon.
• i 11.1383

  ••elat Synod. Chalce••on. ad Leon. act. 3.
• k 11.1384

  Athan. in ep. ad solitar. vitam agent. Apolog. de ••uga ••ua: & Apolog. 2.
• l 11.1385

  As it appea∣reth by their epistle to Da∣masus, in Theo∣do••et. Hist. ec∣cles. lib. 5. c. 9.
• m 11.1386

  H••••tor. eccle. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• n 11.1387

  Valentinian & Martian. ep. ad Pallad. Con∣cil. Chalcedon. act. 3. & Episco∣pi variarum p••o¦••••nciarū▪ act. 4.
• o 11.1388

  Acta Ephes. Synod. 2. in cō∣cil. Chalc. act. 1.
• p 11.1389

  Summa de ec∣clesia lib. 3. cap. 23.
• 1 11.1390

  Praesidentiae honoraria:
• 2 11.1391

  Autoritatiua, as Turrecrema to calleth it. But he vseth that word to note potestatē, and not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reputati∣onis, as h•• di∣s••inguisheth it, lib. 3. cap. 18.
• q 11.1392

  ••s y^e Clemē¦tines shew: & Iohan. Andr. in p••inc••p. Clemē∣tin.
• r 11.1393

  Summa de ec∣cles. lib. 3. ca. 22.23. & 25.
• s 11.1394

  Canus Iocor. Theolog. l. 5. c. 5. Sander. de visib. monarc. eccles. lib. 2. cap. 5. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. passim.
• t 11.1395

  Conc. Chalc. act. 3. & 8.
• u 11.1396

  act. 3.
• x 11.1397

  Cyprian lib. ••. epist. 11.
• y 11.1398

  Optatus. lib. 2.
• z 11.1399

  Victor de per∣sequut Va••••dal. lib. 2.
• a 11.1400

  Chrysos. hom. 87. in Iohan.
• b 11.1401

  In Anchorat.
• c 11.1402

  Hom. 87. in Iohan.
• d 11.1403

  Ambros. com. in 1. Tim. 3.
• e 11.1404

  August. quaest. ex nou. Testam. quaest. 75.
• f 11.1405

  Chrysost. hom. 59. in Mat.
• g 11.1406

  Lib. 1. cap. 1. ad Bonifacium.
• h 11.1407

  Epistola dedi∣cato••ia Pontifi¦ci optimo Max∣imo, Gregorio decimo tertio, ad hum••llima pedum oscula.
• i 11.1408

  Martianus in epist. ad Leon.
• * 11.1409

  Which is as much to say, as, Great is Di∣ana of the E∣phesians. Act. 19.28.
• k 11.1410

  So Alfonsus proueth him, aduers. haeres. lib. 10. in Mel∣chisedec: and the Diuines of Louā, Censura in lib. quaest. ver. & nou. Test. in append. Tom. 4. oper. Augustin.
• l 11.1411

  Concil. chalc act. 3.
• m 11.1412

  Concil. Late∣ran. sub Leone decim. sess. 10.
• n 11.1413

  Stephan. ar∣chiepisc. Patrac. & episc. Torcel∣lan.
• 1 11.1414

  Tibi data est omnis potestas in c••elo & in terra. Spoken to Pope Leo the tenth.
• 2 11.1415

  In quo erat omnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam coeli quam ter∣rae. Spoken of Pope Eugeni∣u•• the third.
• o 11.1416

  Registr. lib. 4. epist. 32. & 36.
• p 11.1417

  epist. 32.
• q 11.1418

  epist. 38.
• r 11.1419

  epist. 39.
• s 11.1420

  l. 6. ep. 24.
• t 11.1421

  l. 4. ep. 32. & 38.
• u 11.1422

  Regist. lib. 7. ind. 2. ep. 63. as I haue shewed in the former Diuision.
• x 11.1423

  lib. 7. ind. 1. epist. 30.
• y 11.1424

  Concil. Chal∣ced. ••an. 9 & 17. & ••8. and in the Sessions throughout.
• z 11.1425

  Adrian the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Synod. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. act. 2.
• a 11.1426

  Epist. Arsen. Athanas. apol. 2
• b 11.1427

  Epist. concil•• Nicaeni, Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. & con∣cilii Sardicensis Theodoret. li. 2. ca. 8. Quint. cō∣cil. Constanti∣nop. cōfess. 8. in subscript.
• c 11.1428

  Lib. 3. ep. 11. Epist. 46. edit. Pam. Corneliu•• Cypriano.
• d 11.1429

  Epist. ad Fabi∣um Antioch. e••piscopum.
• e 11.1430

  Euseb. hist. ec∣cles. lib. 6. c. 42.
• * 11.1431

  As it is shewed before, Ch••pt. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.
• f 11.1432

  Cyprian. epist. 52. ad An••on.
• g 11.1433

  Epist. 5•• ad Corneliu••.
• h 11.1434

  E••ist 46. Cor∣nelij ad Cyp••.
• i 11.1435

  In the thirde Diuision of this Chapter.
• k 11.1436

  Can. 8.
• l 11.1437

  Socrat▪ hist. eccl. l. 6. c. 20.
• m 11.1438

  Epist. 55. ad Cornelium.
• 1 11.1439

  Sacerdotum hostes & cōtra ecclesia catho∣licam rebelles.
• 2 11.1440

  Sacerdotes, id est, dispensato∣res Dei.
• 3 11.1441

  Episcopus plebi suae in e∣piscopatu qua∣driennio iam probatus.
• * 11.1442

  Eusebius in chron. Damasus in Pontificali. Platin. de vit. Pontificum. Ge∣••••brard. Cro∣nogr. lib. 3. O∣••uphr. in Chrō. Pont. Rom.
• o 11.1443

  Epist. 69. ad Florentium.
• p 11.1444

  Annotat. in Luk. 12.31.
• q 11.1445

  Polus Ca••d. pro eccles. vni∣tat. defens. lib. 2. Remundus Ru∣fus, duplicat. in patronum Mo∣lin••i propont. Maximo. Cani∣sius Catechism. de praeceptis ec∣clesiae tit. 9. Lin∣danus Panopliae Euangelicae lib. 4. cap. 86. Pame∣lius Annotat. in Cyprian epi. 55. Copus dialog. 1 cap. 18. & 21. Ha••ding and Dormā against Bishop Iewel. Though Dor••¦man (being taught the truth by M. Nowell ac∣knowledged that S. Cypri∣an meant it of all Bishops. As Stapleton (in Hardings behalfe) cōfes∣sed also▪ whose exāple should haue moued y^e Rhemists to haue spared S. Cyprian in that point.
• r 11.1446

  In his Re∣turn of vntruths on M. Iewels re∣pli••. Artic. 4..
• s 11.1447

  Princip. doct. lib. 7. cap. 1.
• t 11.1448

  In conclusio∣ne totius operis & admonit. ad lectorem.
• u 11.1449

  Depersequut. Vandal. lib. 2.
• x 11.1450

  In the fifth Diuision of this Chapter.
• y 11.1451

  Praefat. in Biblia excusa An∣tuerp. a Plantino. & Censur. in lib. quaest. vet. & nou. Test. Tom. 4. in append. operum August.
• z 11.1452

  Commen∣taria quae Ambrosij titulum ferunt. in 1. Tim. 3.
• a 11.1453

  Damaso Siri∣ciu, ••odie.
• b 11.1454

  Lib ••. As Bal∣d••••n••. sheweth Annot. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 1. & 2.
• c 11.1455

  Cen••••r. in lib. 〈…〉〈…〉 4.
• d 11.1456

  〈…〉〈…〉 Pope vntill about 370. ••ieron. in Chron.
• e 11.1457

  Lib. quaest. vet. & nou. testam. quaest. 115.
• f 11.1458

  The Rhemists in the••r Annot. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. Tim. 3.15.
• g 11.1459

  1. Tim. 1.3.
• 4 11.1460

  Roman ec∣clesiae sacerdos.
• h 11.1461

  Epist. ad Valē∣ti••ian. Impetat. contra Symma∣chum.
• i 11.1462

  Contra d••as ep••st. Pelag a∣n••t. ad Bonifa∣••••u•• li•• 1. c. ••.
• k 11.1463

  Can. 3.
• 5 11.1464

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 6 11.1465

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as ••he coun∣••••l o•• Chalced•• i••••erpreteth their fact, c••n. 2••.
• l 11.1466

  Ep. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Afric. ad Bonifacium, & C••lestinum.
• m 11.1467

  Cont. Iulian. P••lag••. l. 1. c. 4.
• 7 11.1468

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 tem∣pore, prior loco.
• n 11.1469

  Epist. 16••.
• * 11.1470

  〈…〉〈…〉 Chapt. 7. Diui••. ••.
• o 11.1471

  Motiu. 14.