A PAIR OF SPECTACLES FOR SIR HUMPHREY LINED TO SEE HIS WAY WITHAL.  
OR AN ANSWER TO HIS book called, VIA TUTA, A safe way: wherein the book is showed to be a labyrinth of error and the author a blind guide. By I. R.  
The children of Israel say the way of our Lord is not right. What are not my ways right o house of Israel, and not rather your ways crooked? Ezech. 18.29.  
Catholicae fidei regula velut via est quae te ducat ad patriam. The rule of the Catholic faith is as it were the way which may lead thee to thy country.  
Qui praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in via sed recedit de via. He that goeth beside the rule of faith (which is the Catholic Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way.  Aug. tract. 98. in Io. 
PERMISSV SUPERIORUM.  
1631.   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO SIR HUMPHREY Lined.  
1. SIR some while since, you wrote a book of the Visibility of your Church, calling it via tuta, a safe way; provoked thereunto, as you say, by the challenge of a jesuit: to which now after a long pause, you seem to answer, though it be not (as you also say) your profession; thereby to vindicate the cause of your Mother, the Church of England; and maintain your own credit. And all this you pretend to do out of our own authors. It is true Sir Humphrey, that a jesuit made you a challenge, as many have done before, and do still to all Protestants, to show where their Church was before Luther; and thereby have put them to much study and pain, to find her out. And some finding the task so hard, have been fain to turn about another way, and tell us it is not needful for the Church to be visible, which they prove, 
God's arrow against God's enemies by Hen Smith. Cap. 5. Fulke Apoc. cap. 12.  because in the days of Elias it perished, as they say; for he said he was left alone; and in the Apocalyps it is said, that the Woman shall fly into the desert. Which say they is all one, as that the Church must be invisible. But you now, as it should seem, taking yourself to be somewhat a better man than others that have gone before you, will needs take upon you to show where your Church was before Luther. Wherein you are so glorious and confident, that you style your book a safe way leading all Christians to the true, ancient, and Catholic faith, now professed in the Church of England; and this you undertake to perform by the testimonies and confessions even of your best learned adversaries.  
2. Which book of yours, though it hath been long out, and gained you much fame among some of your own sect, yet among Catholics it hath seemed of so small account as no man hath all this while thought it worth the answering, thinking it the best way of answer for such toys to let them dye as they springe: but since you not conceiving this to be the true reason of our silence, nor having regard to your own credit which is less impaired by silence then writing, stand still printing and reprinting this your wise piece of work, I have thought good to give it some answer. For though my intention at first, were only to satisfy a private friend, (which was somewhat stumbled with it) by gathering some few corruptions, whereby he might guess of the rest; Yet coming to read your book, and finding the very choice hard in such abundance of corruptions; and considering that many conceived highly thereof, the rather because it was not answered, I resolved upon a little more full answer, which might serve for satisfaction, not only of that one friend, but of others also, who may have conceived the like opinion of this your book: the very title and first page especially moving me thereunto, in which are contained so great promises, or rather so great brags, that if Sir Humphrey, you make them good, we may well change your name from Sir Humphrey to Sir Hercules; for it is more than an Herculean labour which you undertake therein: if you do not, I presume you willbe content to change your surname of Lind to another word, not fare different in sound, as beginning with the two first letters the same, and more suitable to your deeds: though (not to undubbe you) howsoever the matter fall out, there will still be left for you a title of Sir. Which title should seem a little by your phrase of speaking, to be the thing that made you engage yourself in this quarrel, as if by the honour of your Knighthood you thought your self bound thereunto: which if it were, 
Sir Fr. Hastings. Sir Edw. Hobby. Sir Edw. Cook.  you might have remembered, how ill some such Knight ventures as yourself have sped with their zeal. But seeing, you will not be ware by other men's harms, but be putting your fingar into the fire, you must take your chance as they did. And for trial of this quarrel you shall give me leave to enter into the lists with you in the examination of the book itself: here only I shall a little examine what you say in your dedicatory Epistle.  
3. In which, I reflect first, upon the title, which is, to the religious and well affected Gentry of this Kingdom, what should be the cause, you should dedicate this your work to the Gentry particularly, the thing it self pertaining alike to all sorts of men, who have souls to save; unless it were that by having specially to do with Gentlemen, you would fain seem to have somewhat of the Gentlemen. For which I blame you not, having need thereof: for setting your Knighthood a part, it may be your gentry may be questioned, if it be true that I have heard, of the honest Grocer your father, who dwelled next door to the George in King's street: by which your birth as it were by a natural kind of congruity, you may seem rather ordained to have to do with a  and a mortar, than a sword, or pen. This I do not say Sir Humphrey, that a man meanly borne, may not by his deserts come into a better rank; for reason, authority, and example of all sorts teach the contrary; but because, as nobility of extraction and virtue joined together, add and receive lustre reciprocally one from the other; So meanness of qualities or conditions, such as you show in your writings, and as (God willing) I shall out of them manifestly prove, doth more show itself, being joined with a mean birth and education, the one as it were bearing witness of the other. Wherefore me thinks Sir, you being privy to your own wants of this kind, should have forborn to proclaim them to the world by this manner of writing; which every man presently seethe, cannot come from an ingenuous disposition, such as a Gentleman is presumed to have.  
4. But now to come to your Epistle itself, you say you have attempted to send forth this Essay of your poor endeavours, to make the world see, it is no difficult matter for a mean Lay man, to prove the ancient Visibility of the Protestant profession; provoked thereto by a Iesuit's challenge, to show out of good authors, that the Protestant's church was visible in all ages before Luther; and this you undertake to do, not only out of the most orthodox fathers, but also out of the Romish Bishops. Doctors, Cardinals etc. This essay of your labours Sir Humphrey, is poor indeed, not to stand complementinge with you, as I shall after show: and for your proofs out of Fathers, and other writers in the Roman Church, we shall there also see what once, they are; that is, either nothing to the purpose, or out of Authors branded with the marks of heresy, or at least temerity and singularity. For the challenge itself, wherein consisteth the state of the question, I say here, that you do not set it down so truly and fully, as you should. For you were to show the Visibility of your Church, by naming some who in all ages did profess the Protestant faith, as it is now taught, and professed in England, entirely believing all that is here believed, and believing nothing else that is contrary unto it. Which you might have done, if it could be done, out of some good histories, without standing upon proofs of the particular points of doctrine, out of this or that author, for that was not to the present purpose.  
5. Neither were it sufficient, as you say in your next paragraphe, seeing it is confessed on all sides, that the faith of Christ in the first age had visible Professors, therefore to prove that the Faith of the Church of England is that, which was delivered to the Saints by Christ, and his Apostles, without farther recital of succeeding witnesses: this I say were not sufficient. For the challenge then which you were now to answer, and controversy which you were to handle, was not so much of the truth of this or that particular point, or of the doctrine even in general, but of the Church itself, which was to deliver the doctrine, and by which we were to come to the knowledge of the truth, who the men were, that were trusted to keep the depositum which S. Paul gave Timothy charge of, where the Church was, which the same S. Paul calleth the house of God, the pillar and firmament of truth? Which was the seed of Christ, whereof I say prophesieth, and promiseth in the person of God the Father, to his Son, that he would never take away the words of truth from their mouth? Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus. Spiritus meus, 
Isai. 59.21.  qui est in te, & verba mea, quae posui in ore tuo, non recedent de ore tuo, & de ore seminis tui, & de ore Seminis Seminis tui, dicit Dominus, amodo & usque in sempiternum. This is my covenant with them saith our lord My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth shall not departed out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy Seed's seed saith our Lord from this present and for ever. Who they be, to whom our blessed Saviour himself in person, and with his own mouth promised, that he would send the Spirit of truth to remain with them for ever? and that himself would be with them to the consummation of the world? So as this controversy being of the Church itself, which was to be found out, by the visibility and succession thereof, not so much by the doctrine, it could be no way sufficient to prove that the doctrine of the Protestant church, was taught anciently: though that can never be proved. For as I say the question is not of the doctrine, but of the persons: Wherein the jesuit took the right way, like a wise man and a good scholar, to find out the Doctrine, which is a thing more spiritual and less subject to the sense, by that which is corporal and more subject to the view of all sorts of men. For this is the way that all Scholars, in the teaching of all Sciences take, to wit, to begin with that which is known and evident, and by it to come to the knowledge of that which is hidden, according to Aristotel's Doctrine.  
6. And this hath ever been the way, which the holy fathers have taken, either in proving the Catholic faith, or disprovinge of heresies. So Tertullian, 
(a) praescrip. cap. 32. & lib. 3. car. adu. Marcio.  so Irenaeus, 
(b) lib. 3. cap. 1.2.3. & lib. 4. cap. 43.45.46.  so Cyprian, 
(c) ep. 52. & 76.  Optatus, 
(d) lib. 2. aduer. Parm.  and most of all that great Doctor S. Augustine 
(e) psal. 2. part. Don. & ep. 165. & de util. credend. cap. 7.  in several places; and particularly in his book de utilitate credenai: where writing to his friend Honoratus, whom he laboureth to draw from the Manichaean heresy, and putting case that he did doubt what religion to follow, he saith without doubt he were to begin his enquiry from the Catholic Church. Proculdubio ab Ecclesia Catholica sumendum exordium. For saith he, whereas there be among Christians many heresies, all which desire to seem Catholics, and call others Haeretiques, there is one Church, as all grant, if you regard the whole world refertior multitudine, ut autem qui noverunt affirmant etiam veritate sincerior caeteris omnibus, sed de veritate alia quaestio est. More full of people, and as they that know her for truth more sincere than any other: but of the truth, it is another question. So as here Saint Augustine maketh the first question of the Church itself: Which he maketh to be the first thing that a man that doubteth and seeketh to save his soul must inquire after, leaving the truth of the doctrine to be disputed in the second place. 
praescr. cap. 19  The like also hath Tertullian giving withal a good reason thereof: for making this prescription or exception against Haeretiques, that we are not to admit them so fare as to dispute with them of Scriptures, he saith it is first to be disputed. Quibus competat fides ipsa etc. to whom faith itself belongeth, to the which the Scriptures pertain. From whom, and by whom, and when, and to whom that discipline was delivered, whereby men are made Christians. For where it shall appear, that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith there shallbe the truth of scriptures and expositions, and all Christian traditions, so Tertullian. In whose judgement it is plain, that we are first to seek the persons that profess the faith, that is the Church: because there certainly is the truth to be found. Which is the course we Catholics take, and persuade other men to take, following the steps of our Forefathers; to wit, to seek out the Visible Church: whereas Haeretiques, as appeareth by Saint Augustine in the same book, take the clean contrary course just as you do here Sir Humphrey.  
7. This therefore being the thing which you, should have done, and you being so mistaken in it, what can be expected at your hands, but that by declining the question, in steed of vindicatinge your Mother's cause, and maintaining your own credit, you betray the one, and overthrew the other; being not able to show your pedigree and Succession, and in steed of making men see it is no difficult matter to prove your visibility, to make them see it is not only difficult, but also impossible. For though you pretend facility in words, yet in deeds you show impossibility. That than which you say in your bravery, that you will meet the adversary upon his own ground, and deal with him at his own weapon every man seethe how false and vain a flourish it is. For your adversary's ground that he appointeth you, is to show your Succession in all ages; and his weapon is a catalogue of Bishops and Pastors succeeding one another; Evangelists, and Doctors, the former to govern, the later to instruct, such as S. Paul, mentioneth Ephes. 4.11. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we meet all into the unity of Faith. Bring such a Succession of Pastors, such a people, living in this or that City or Country, professing the same faith and belief which Protestants now do; and you meet your adversary upon the same terms; for of this kind of weapon he hath offered you many, as Genebrard, Gualterus, Bellarmine, Sanders, and many others. Bring such a catalogue of your own, like one of these, and then you discharge your credit, which till then lieth engaged. And for this you should not have needed to take all that pains, nor put yourself to those straits of proving out of our own Bishops, Cardinals, Doctors etc. that your Doctrine hath been taught in former ages. For to be as liberal with you again; the jesuit would have given you the freedom to take all manner of Writers, whether Catholics or Haeretiques, Pagans, jews, Turks, or what profession else soever they were of, to see whether out of all together, you could patch up a Catalogue, or bring any the least mention of such a goodly people and commonwealth; as we see suddenly started up in the world, upon the revolt of Luther. For we Catholics have a public testimony of the Visibility of our Church, from all sorts of men, all sects and professions whatsoever, that being a condition and property, whereof the whole world cannot but take notice, and consequently all manner of men must necessarily witness.  
8. And therefore Sir Humhrey while you think you have hit the bird in the eye, by proving (though you should prove it as you never can) out of our Cardinals, Bishops, and Doctors, that your faith was taught in former ages, you are clean mistaken. For Visibility and antiquity are two different properties: antiquity properly belongeth to the doctrine and belief of the Church; but Visibility properly belongeth to the Church itself, as it is a Church, to wit, a community, commonwealth, or kingdom consisting of men living in a certain form of government, and professing a certain outward form or face of Religion, by Sacrifice, Sacraments, and other rites, tending to the worship of God and Sanctification of themselves, wherein all that are of that Community do participate, and thereby are distinguished and differenced from all such as are not of the same Community and profession. Wherefore you being challenged to show such a community, and flying from that to prove the antiquity of your Doctrine, out of our Fathers and Schoolmen, what else do you do, but confess your Church to want Visibility, and yourself honesty, by endeavouring to deceive men with a specious title of a safe way; intending indeed to lead them, from the true safe way of the Catholic Church, into such certain byways and corners, as our B. Saviour foretold us of, when he said, that False Prophets should come and tell us, lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe them. And by this you may perceive, how unfittly you join, or rather confound antiquity and Visibility, by saying in the very beginning of this your Epistle, the ancient visibility of the Protestant profession, and so in many other places. For Visibility must as well be new, to follow your manner of speaking, as ancient: that is, it is a thing which hath been without interruption, is, and ever must be to the world's end, in the true Church of God; and is no more tied to these primitives or ancient times, then to these later of ours, nor no more to those times of ours then to those that shall come after us again. Or if it more belong to one time then another, it rather belongeth more to succeeding times. For as it is clear by the Prophecies going before our B. saviour's coming, and the accomplishment of the same, after his coming the Church was to begin as all things else in this world, from a small beginning; and after, by time and continuance, receive a greater increase; and by little and little come to spread over the whole world; at which time, it must needs be more visible then in the beginning. So that little Stone, 
Dan. 2.36.  which the Prophett Daniel speaketh of in figure of the Kingdom of Christ, which is his Church, grew by little and little to be so great a mountain, as it filled the whole Earth: at which time certainly, it was more visible then at first, when it was but beginning. So the Church which began at Jerusalem, & from thence was spread by degrees to other Countries, and is to go on increasing to the utmost bounds of the Earth, to the very end of the World, must needs be more visible and apparent, as it goeth more dilating itself in space of place, and continuance of tyme.  
9 But now you come upon us with a counter challenge, demanding by what authority of scriptures and ancient Fathers, we have imposed new articles of Christian belief upon Priests and people: for, as you say, truth denies antiquity and universality to the principal articles of the new Roman Creed: and you say our best learned Romanists, profess that most of them were unknown to antiquity. Wherefore after a digression against implicit faith, and our altering and changing the ten commandments (as you say very wisely) you wish, that they that urge a catalogue of such Protestants, as have in all ages professed your 39 articles, should produce one ancient orthodox father in every age, for these 1500. years, who hath held all our Trent articles de fide, and that then you will acknowledge our Professors visible in all ages; our Cardinals, Bishops, & Schoolmen mistaken, & that they are to be reform by an Index expurgatorius; you will acknowledge the novelty of your Church, and submit yourself with an implicit faith to the Roman Church. So you: for your counterchallenge Sir Humphrey, had you marked the challenge well, you might have spared it; for the jesuit required you to perform nothing, but that which many on the Catholic part have performed ready to your hand, that is, that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession, for proof of the Visibility of your Church, as we did many of ours, as , Bellarmine, Gualterus, & others. You ask by what authority we impose new articles of belief upon men? this question is not to the purpose: but I answer, by denying your supposition; for we do not impose new articles upon men, but defend the old, against new fangled fellows, neither is this the proper place for you to require, or for us to bring proofs out of Fathers & Scriptures of particular points; whereof you cannot but know, that many great and learned men in the Catholic Church, have written great volumes; which no haeretique hath ever yet durst venture to answer, how then can you so brasenly say, that our own best learned confess, that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them, are unknown to antiquity: what point is there defined in the Council of Trent, which is not proved by way of authority of scriptures & fathers by judocus Coccius, by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius, to say nothing of others? some may perhaps say, that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Council; but to bring any Catholic to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly believed I dare say Sir Humphrey, is more than you can prove: but suppose any one may say, that there is no proof extant in any ancient author of this or that point, must it therefore follow that it is new? noe surely, for all things are not written, as S. john verifyeth of our saviour's own words and deeds: how much less than other things, which yet are generally taught and practised in the Catholic Church: which very practice without farther proof S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity? 
Aug count. Don. lib. 4.24.  but of this newness of faith, whereof you so ignorantly complain, and likewise of implicit faith, I shall say more afterwards.  
10. Now for our leaving out the second commandment wherewith you tax us, and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabbath to Sanctify the holidays, it is pity you are so hard driven, as when you are called upon to prove your Succession and Visibility of your Church, to fall upon us for the commandments: a thing of so different nature and so trivial. For first it is false, that we leave out that which you call the second commandment, Look in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions, and translations as well English as Latin, or any other language whatsoever. How then do we leave it out? you will say we leave it out in our catechisms; true: but to leave a thing out of a catechism, is not absolutely to leave it out, as long as it is else where. But besides to answer you another way, we leave out many other things, as that God is a jealous God, that he revengeth the Sins of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like, though they go intermingled with the commandments in the text: and this we do without blame; because they either pertain not precisely to the commandment, or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandment itself. So we say of this, that it is either contained in the first commandment being only an explication of the same; or if it be a distinct precept as some Divines say, then is it ceremonial only, and consequently abrogated with the whole Law.  
11. So likewise for the other commandment of Sanctifying the Holidays I answer that in our bibles or text of scripture we keep the word Sabbath, and in most and best catechisms also, as for example Canisius, Bellarmine's large catechism, and others but specially in that of the Council of Trent set out by authority of Pius V. Which were answer enough to show we make no such mystery of it, since sometimes we say Sabbath sometimes Holidays: as indeed we well may, the sense being the same: and we may better use this liberty in catechisms, where we stand not so much to cite the very words of scripture, as to declare the meaning of them; though in the text itself we keep precisely to the very words. Where yet we explicate it in the same sense, following therein the example of Scripture itself, which useth those words indifferently as may appear Levit. cap. 23. Where other Holidays beside the Saturday or Sabbath are called Sabbata 3. or 4. times in that one chapter: and in the beginning thereof those days which are called Sabbata, are called twice Feriae sanctae Holidays. So as you Sir Humphrey in making such a deal of difference between Sabbath and Holiday show yourself to be but shallowly read in scripture. Besides I may answer to this as to the former objection, that this commandment was partly ceremonial, to wit, for as much as pertaineth to that particular day of saturday, and partly natural, to wit, so fare as it obligeth to the observing of some day or time holy indeterminately.  
12. But if we be such great offenders for changing ●●e word Sabbath in some of our catechisms into Holiday, what are you for changing the very commandment while you stand working upon Saturday, and rest upon Sunday, so changing the Sabbath itself? but what stuff is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withal in the very beginning of your book, and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth, and not only to touch upon it here, but to print the commandments fair in a leaf by themselves, with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechism of 2. or 3. editions, as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze? but by this a man may easily guess what matter he is like to find in the book itself. I could have noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle, in the first leaf where you say, truth is justified of her Children, whereas the text of scripture is Wisdom is justified &c: but that I did not count it worth speaking of.  
13. Touching your great boast, that if we can show one good author in every age for this 1500. years, who hath held our Trent articles, as you call them, de fide, you will confess our Doctors, Schoolmen, etc. to be mistaken, and to need an index expurgatorius; and that you will submit yourself to the Roman Church, acknowledging the novelty of your own church: Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner, to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader, to make him more confident by your example in his false belief, I shall not much regard it, or any thing else which you shall say in that kind: for your deeds give me assurance of deep malice, and perverseness so grounded in your hart, as that they hinder you from beholding the light of truth, for which cause I cannot but reckon you in the number of them, of whom S. Paul lamentingly saith. 
2. Cor. 4.3.  Quod si opertum est evangelium nostrum, in ijs qui pereunt est opertum, in quibus Deus huius saeculi excoecavit mentes infidelium, ut non fulgeat illis illuminatio evangelij. If our Gospel be covered or hid, in them that perish it is hid, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the unfaithful, that the light of the Gospel may not shine unto them. For otherwise how were it possible, that in such great abundance of Catholic authors, now in this age proving the verity of the Catholic faith, some by way of controversy, some by way of history, others by way of chronology, others by way of authority, others by way of school divinity, you should come to ask for one in every age? what is Gualterus his whole chronology, but to prove twelve verityes now adays most controverted by the testimonies of Fathers and Doctors in every age? Doth not Genebrard in his chronology, at the end of every 100 years, note the antiquity of the Catholic belief, in most of all these points citing the places where the Fathers and Doctors their testimonies and proofs are to be found?  
14. But you say, they were not taught de fide as points of Faith; what is that to say? that they were never defined all in any general Council, I grant you that; but what then? must they not therefore belong to Faith? how many points be there that were never so defined? will it not serve your turn, that they were commonly believed without contradiction of any, as all these were? or if some one Doctor should be singular in his opinion, yet so as to be ready to submit his judgement to the definition of the church, what would this hinder? nay would it not much help to prove the continual Visibility & supereminent authority of the Church, which is the question now between us? but of this more afterwards. Now for our Doctors, whom you will confess to be mistaken, in witnessing the antiquity of your doctrine, I will say nothing here, but in due place will show how notoriously you falsify some, impertinently allege others, and either very maliciously or very ignorantly bring condemned known Haeretiques against us, for authors of our own.  
15. In which regard I cannot but admire to hear you so hypocritically to conclude your Epistle, saying that though by the provocation of a jesuit, you have put your sickle into another man's harvest, yet you witness a true confession before God and Man, that you have neither wilfully not wittingly falsified any one author, either in citation, or translation in this treatise. What execrable perjury this is I shall after demonstrate. Prius vos ostendens fabricatores mendacij. First showing you to be framers of lies, as I may say to you Sir Humphrey, with so much more reason than job did to his friends; by how much they did urge him not with any false doctrines, but only mis-applied truths. Whereas you offend in all kind of falsehood. For even where you hap to cite a place truly, for so much as pertaineth to the words, you do it so clean kam from the author's meaning, and discourse, that every man may see how evidently false, and consequently how injurious both to God and Man that profession of yours is, wherein you call them to witness your truth & honesty in the citing of authors.  
16. And therefore whereas you seem to attribute the slips, if there be any, to your own weakness, which you are content ingenuously to confess, if they be showed you moderately, plainly, and faithfully: I must deal freely with you Sir Humphrey, and tell you, that indeed I take your weakness or ignorance to be no whit less, if not more, than you seem to acknowledge, both by what I find in this treatise, & by what I hear from some that know you well, and verily think you scarce skill even of ordinary Latin much less of such other Learning as is needful for writing books of this nature. Whereupon they conclude this book to be none of yours, but some Ministers who hath borrowed your name and title to countenance his work withal: and that you being somewhat greedy of glory were content to lend it, not considering that by so doing (that is) by fathering such a book, you are to undergo all the reprehension and shame which shall ensue upon the discovery of the author's ignorance and weakness whosoever he be. But because this is but a probable conjecture I will not build upon it, but taking you for author, seeing it beareth your name, I shall discover not only your great weakness and ignorance which you acknowledge, but greater obstinacy and malice, so as thereby it may plainly appear that your faults are not so much to be termed slips of ignorance or weakness, as slowes of malice of purpose to plunge your Reader, and make him stick fast in some mire of misbelief and infidelity with yourself.  
17. Which obstinacy and malice to be the true cause of all your errors, whatsoever you may pretend to the contrary, doth yet farther appear in that having received a foil or two, and together with them good admonitions, 

A plea for the real presence by I. O.  
A defence of the appendix by L.D.   you neither take notice of the one in your writings, nor show the fruit of the other in your manners. And therefore for the answer (which hath been hitherto differred because no man of learning could think it worth his pains to make you any, and should still have been differred were it not more for other men's sakes then your own) you are to expect it as you desire, faithful and plain, and though it must of necessity be a little round sometimes, yet I hope to any indifferent man it will also seem moderate, that is much within the compass of your deserts.  
18. Now lastly whereas you crave a favourable acceptance of these your beginnings promising us some farther fruits of your labours: if you remember yourself well these are not your first fruits: for you translated and published heretofore with a preface of your own a certain treatise of one john Bertram an ancient obscure author, whereby you have given to the world sufficient trial as well of your talon in translating as of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were most plainly convinced in a particular treatise of that matter called A PLEA FOR THE REAL PRESENCE BY I. O. Whereto you never having replied one word for clearing yourself of so foul a tax it is wonder you could think of publishing any farther fruits of your labours, and more wonder that you should desire any favourable acceptance of them. Wherefore it had been then, and is still, fit for you to lay aside any such thought, and rather think how you can acquit yourself to the world of your accounts for these that are past, or rather how you shallbe able to acquit yourself before the iudgment-seate of Almighty God, where you will find it another manner of matter than you count of to answer for one soul, much more for so many as you have laboured to pervert: but because you are not capable of any good advice of this kind I forbear to say more here resting howsoever.  
Your well-wishing Friend.   

THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader.  
Gentle and judicious Reader.  
THough in my precedent dedicatory or rather answer to Sir Humphrey's dedicatory Epistle I have had occasion to say what is wont to be delivered by way of preface concerning the occasion, intention, scope, and manner of writing, yet because my chief end next to the glory of God is the good of thy soul I cannot omit to address myself unto thee in a word declaring on my part the good intention and purpose I have in this writing, and on thine craving the like acceptance, but especially that for thine own good thou wilt come to read and peruse the same not with any prejudicate conceit either of one side or other but rather with an indifferency of mind ready to incline that way that the light of truth shall show itself. Sir Humphrey I confess hath some things, which at first sight may draw away an honest minded man who is not thoroughly acquainted with the fashion of such men of the Ministry as he is led by. For besides a little learning which in a secular man maketh a great show, (as for the increase of his own glory he toucheth once or twice in his dedicatory,) the very title of his book being VIA TUTA, A SAFE WAY is a very pleasing thing to many in these days, wherein men for the most part rather desire to find security in their own ways, then forsaking them, to seek it where indeed it is to be found. But the chief thing is this that he undertaketh to prove his intent out of our own authors, calling also both God and Man to witness his sincerity in the citation and translation of such and such places as he bringeth.  
Which though it may move a man a little at the first yet is it not sufficient to praecipitate the discreet Reader's judgement and carry it away wholly to the full belief of what he saith without farther examination especially when he shall understand that such specious titles and fair promises are the common baits of Haeretiques. 
Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6.  Of whom S. Hilarius saith that Ingerunt nobis primum nomina veritatis ut virus falsitatis introeat. They first set before us the names of truth that the poison of falsehood may enter in with them. And S. Aug. so well acquainted with their cunning practices, 
Aug. contra ep fundam. cap. 11.  saith: that the promise of truth which they are continually making is nothing but a veil to cover their errors, or a goodly fair gate for error to enter in stealingly into the minds of the unskilful. Which S. Paul himself also witnesseth saying that by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of innocent and harmless people. Now for the learning whereof he makes show, whether it be his own or no I will not question, though I might, since some that know him doubt whether he even understand Latin: but presuming that he hath a little because he was once a Scholar of Westminster and after of Christ Church in Oxford being by his Father deputed and put into the common road of the Ministry though he be since stepped out of it, I know not ho, w into the way of Knighthood. I only say this that it is fare short of what is requisite for writing of a book of this kind as shall manifestly appear: besides that though it were a thousand times more, I may say with the Wiseman. Non est Sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consilium contra Dominum. There is no wisdom, no prudence no council against our Lord. But of this I shall not here say more, this being my intent only in this place to advice thee so to come to the reading of this my answer that thou suffer not thyself so to be wholly praeoccupated and overswayed from that indifferency which is most necessary for framing a right judgement of any matter in controversy. With which preparation of mind if thou shalt come and with attention read, but most of all crave the special assistance of Almighty God's grace, I hope thou shalt not have cause to repent thee of thy pains: Whereto without longer delay I shall here leave thee.   

Certain points to be considered for the better answering of Sir Humphrey's chief arguments in this Book. 
Chap. 1.  CHAPTER I.  
1. WHereas Sir Humphrey after his dedicatory Epistle, before he come to the matter, setteth down a part of Pius 4. his bull, which is of the form of oath, and profession of faith, which according to the Council of Trent such men are to make, as are to be promoted to any Ecclesiastical dignity or benefice, which hath care of souls joined with it. I purpose likewise in this Chapter by occasion hereof, to set down some few heads, which may serve for a general answer to most of his arguments.  
2. The first shallbe concerning this very Creed as he calleth it of the Council of Trent, which therefore he is pleased according to the common fashion of his Ministers, by way of derision to divide into 12. points, as it were into 12. articles, which he and they might with as much reason divide into 24. but only that by this fine conceit, they would fain make some silly people believe, that we Catholics leave the old Creed of the Apostles, and coin ourselves a new one, according to the faith of the Council of Trent, and this he and his friends do often charge us with. To which I say, that True it is we confess it, the points in this form contained were defined and declared by that Council, and drawn into form of an oath and profession of faith, by Pope Pius 4. but that it is therefore a new Faith, or that there be new articles of belief we deny. For proof whereof I demand of him or his fellow Protestant's, who receive the Nicene Creed, as it is set down in their book of common prayer, what they think of that? whether that be any thing else but a profession of faith, set down by authority of the Church, gathered together in a general Council, approved by the See Apostolic, by way of a definition or explication of a point of faith then controverted by Haeretiques, and discussed and declared in the Council, and appointed to be publicly professed by all such as meant to be counted Catholics▪ Wherein I would farther know of him what other difference there is, but only that the Creed of Nice was made, for declaration of the Catholic faith in the point of the Divinity of our Saviour; and this of the Council of Trent, for declaration of all these points controverted by the Haeretiques of these times. And yet in one thing more they agree, that is, that as the Arrians of those times cried out against that Creed, as being new, and having words not found in Scripture, for example Consubstantiation: So our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of Faith, for the same reasons of novelty, and words not found in scripture, as for example Transubstantiation.  
3. But to come nearer unto them. They allow of the Nicene Creed; they will not then I suppose say, the Faith therein taught either now is, or then was new, though it were then first declared by authority of any Council. Which if they do not, as indeed they cannot; then say I in like sort, the profession of Faith set down by the Council of Trent, and Pope Pius 4. is no new Faith, but the old Faith of late particularly declared, and defined against the heresies of these times. I could also in proof of the same, urge Sir Humphrey, with the 39 articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England, to be uniformly taught by all Ministers, and which they are to swear unto. Which articles, though they be indeed new coined, as the foundation of a new Church: Yet Sir Humphrey being his Mother's Champion, will not I suppose yield her or her doctrine to be new: as yet on the other side he cannot deny, but those articles received some kind of force, whereby Protestants were more bound to believe and teach them then before. From whence I might evidently infer, that a new definition or declaration, doth not make the Doctrine new; but that ancient doctrine may be newly defined according as new springing heresies shall give occasion.  
4. Which being so, it is plain that all his insulting speeches against the Council of Trent and Catholic church are but very smoke, and may be as easily blown back upon Himself and his church: and that by them he doth but furnish us with weapons against himself, therein also bewraying his ignorance. For whose better instruction, if he be not too wise to learn, he is to know two things in this matter. First, that we Catholics do not call all points of faith howsoever taught, declared or defined articles as he seemeth to think, and the ground of this his error may be; in that those great main points of his Church's doctrine, called the 39 articles are called by that name of articles. But we call that only an article, 
V S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 1. ar.  according to S. Thomas, which containeth some special reason of difficulty in itself; whereby it requireth a particular and distinct revelation, because it cannot be inferred or deduced out of any other revealed truth: as for example, the point of our saviour's resurrection, is clean a different point from that point of his death and passion, and this again from that other of his Nativity, and so of the rest, because each of them requireth a distinct and several revelation from the other. For Christ might have been borne, and yet not dye upon the cross; and he might have died, and yet not risen the third day from death to life: but those other truths defined by the Church, as the unity of Christ's person against Nestorius, the distinction of his two natures against Sergius, Pyrrhus etc. are not to be called articles, because they are sufficiently contained in others, and deduced out of them. Other Divines give other definitions of an article of faith, which may also well stand with this of S. Thomas, which I follow as the more common, but all agree in this, that though every article be a proposition of Faith, yet every proposition is not an article of Faith.  
5. And hereupon we teach, that for articles of faith, the Church can make none, as she cannot write a canonical book of scripture, but that belongeth only to the Prophets and Apostles, or rather hath been fully and perfectly performed by them to whom those articles were immediately revealed by God, whereof they delivered part by writing and part by word of mouth to their posterity the Church. So as now there need not any new and particular revelations, but out of those already made to the Apostles and Prophets, which are all laid up in the treasury of the Church, as a pawn or depositum as S. Paul calleth it, other truths are drawn the holy Church and true spouse of Christ ever keeping this precious treasure with continual care and vigilancy, and dispensing the same faithfully to her Children, as need requireth. Whensoever any haeretique or other enemy endeavoureth to corrupt or pervert, she calling her Pastors and Doctors together to examine the matter, being infallibly assisted by that Spirit of truth which our Saviour promised to be always with his disciples, that is with his Church; she declareth what is true, and what false, as agreeing or disagreeing with or from that doctrine, which she hath received from her fathers, that is Prophets and Apostles upon whom as upon a spiritual foundation she is strongly built, according to that of S. Paul superedificaii supra fundamentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum. 
Ephes. 2 20.  Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The very words Fundamentum foundation also showing, that her doctrine is not of her own invention or framing, but grounded on them from whom she received it, and that she hath not any which she receiveth not from them. For as in a house or building there is not the least stone or piece of timber which resteth not upon the foundation: So in the doctrine of the Catholic Church there is not the least point which is not grounded or contained in that which was delivered by the Prophets and Apostles.  

Commonit. adver haer. cap. 27.  Which truth Vincentius Lerinensis in like sort deduceth out of the word Depositum, used by S. Paul to Timothee. Quid est depositum saith he? id est, quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inventum: quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti: rem non ingenij, sed doctrinae: non usurpationis privatae, sed publica traditionis: rem ad te perductam, non a te prolatam: in qua non auctor debes esse, sed custos: non institutor, sed Sectator: non ducens, sed sequens. What is a depositum, it is, that which thou art trusted with, not that which is found by thee: that which thou hast received: not that which thou hast sought out: a thing not of wit, that is, not of thine own inventing, but of learning, that is, which is learned: not of private usurpation, but public tradition: a thing brought to thee, not brought forth, by thee; wherein thou art not to be the author, but the keeper; not the institutor but a scholar not leading but following.  
So as by Timothee the whole Church being understood as the same author saith, or especially the whole body of Pastors it followeth that the Church createth not any new articles of faith, but teacheth only that which she hath learned of the Prophets and Apostles.  
6. From which followeth; that other thing, which I meant to tell the Knight for his learning, which also I touched before in a word, to wit, that when points of doctrine before in controversy and undefined, come to be defined by the Church, the doctrine is not therefore new, because it is de fide, or matter of faith now, which it was not before, as he most falsely and fond supposeth for an undoubted truth; and upon this his own idle fancy, buildeth many goodly arguments, like so many castles in the air. For out of this he thinketh it to follow that we vary in our doctrine; that because forsooth there be many things now the fide, which were not before, and whereof Doctors did dispute, which seeing we may not now doubt of, therefore the faith is in his judgement altered. But this showeth nothing but the poorness of his judgement. For by this he might prove, that the sun as it riseth higher and higher, and by spreading his beams giveth light in some places at noon, where it did not in the morning, that therefore it is changed in itself: than which what can be more absurd?  
7. And that it is the same of the Church and the Sun, 
Cant. 6.9  appeareth by that place of the Canticles. Quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens, pulchra ut Luna, electa ut sol, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata. Who is she that goeth forward as the morning rising, fair as the moon, chosen as the Sun, terrible as an ordered army of tents? Which words no man ever doubted to be literally understood of the Church. Even then as the Sun may go spreading his beams more and more, with out increase or change of it own light in itself, so may the Church go more and more spreading the beams of her divine faith, with out increase or alteration of the faith in itself. And as the Sun beam may shine in a valley or room of a house, where it did not shine before, so may the Church spread the light of her faith, showing such or such a point to be a divine truth, which before was not so known to be: or which though it were a divine truth in itself, yet it was not so to us.  
8. For more declaration whereof, I may yet bring another more scholarly example, which is of the principles of several sciences, which are to be the premises in demonstrative arguments of those sciences: in which principles or premises, are contained diverse truths, which may be drawn out of them by many several conclusions, one following of another; these conclusions were truths in themselves before, though they did not so appear unto me, till I saw the connexion they had with the premises; and how they were contained in them. And by the many several conclusions which are so drawn, the truth of those principles and premises, doth more show itself, but not receive any increase or change in itself thereby. Even so we say in the prime principles of our Faith, revealed immediately to the Prophets and Apostles, and by them delivered unto the Church, are contained all truths which any way belong to our Faith and whereby the Church, hath in succeeding ages destroyed several heresies as they have risen, without creating or coining new faith, or altering the old, but out of the old grounds and premises drawing those conclusions, which destroy new heresies, and show them to be contrary to the ancient faith. And in that manner the Church, hath grown and increased in knowledge by degrees, and shall still go growing and increasing to the end of the world, 
Greg. moral. lib. 9 cap 6.  as showeth S. Greg. his discourse upon those word of job. Qui facit Arcturum & Oriana & Hyadas etc. Where he saith thus. Vrgente mundi fine superna scientia proficit & largius cum tempore excrescit. As the world draweth to an end the heavenly knowledge profiteth, and with time increaseth: Wherein also she resembleth our B. Saviour her chief Lord and heavenly Spouse, who though in grace and knowledged he never received the least increase from the first instant of his Conception, 
Luc 2.52.  yet the Scripture saith after proficiebat sapientia & aetate & gratia apud Deum & homines. To wit, because he shown it more in his words and actions.  
9 This is farther, confirmed by the manner and practice, which our Catholic Doctors and Fathers ever observe, in and out of Counsels in proving or defining points of faith, to wit by having recourse to the authority of scripture, and tradition, belief, and practice of the Church; in the searching whereof the holy Church joineth humane industry with God's holy grace and assistance For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth, particular Doctors severally dispute and write thereof: then if farther need require it, the holy Church gathereth together her Pastors and Doctors in a Council, to examine and discuss the matter more fully; as in that first Council of the Apostles, 
Act. 15.6.  whereof the Scripture saith: Conueneruntque Apostoli & seniores videre de verbo hoc. The Apostles ad Ancients assembled to consider of this word. The Pastors coming so together, and having the presence of our Saviour according to his promise, and his holy Spirit out of the Prophetical, and Apostolical Scriptures and Traditions, joining therewith the authorities and interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors out of praecedent times, she doth infallibly resolve and determine the matter not as new but as ancient orthodox and derived from her Forefathers: making that which was ever in itself a divine truth, so to appear unto us, that now we may not make farther question thereof.  
10. 
Vinc. Lerin. cap. 27.28.29. & seq.  And this being the common doctrine delivered by our Catholic Doctor I think it not amiss somewhat farther to confirm and authorise the same by an excellent discourse of that holy and ancient Father Vincentius Lerinensis, not reciting his very words, because it would be too long, but only the substance, which is this. Having proved by the word Depositum out of S. Paul, that a Pastor, Priest, Preacher, or Doctor there meant by Timothee, must only deliver the doctrine which is deposited with him or in his hands, not found out by him, which he hath received, not invented; whereof he is not to be author or beginner, but the Keeper or Guardian; he saith that if such a man have abilities for it he may like another Beseleel adorn set out and grace the precious jewels of divine faith by expounding more clearly that which before was believed more obscurely, that posterity may rejoice at the clear knowledge of that which antiquity did reverence even before it came to be so known: that in fine he must so theach which he hath learned, that though he deliver it in a new manner, yet he deliver not any new matter. And then ask a question by way of objection, whether Christian religion do not receive any increase or profit; he answereth; yes verily: but in such manner as it may be truly called increase, not change. For increase importeth an amplification or enlargement of a thing in itself. Change importeth a turning of one thing into an other. And so he saith the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom both of every man in particular, and of the whole Church in general, may receive increase, but so as to persist in same doctrine, sense, and judgement which he declareth by the similitude of a man's body, which though it be greater when he comes to be a man, then when he was a chile, yet all the parts and limbs are the same, so as though it receive increase, yet no change: the same he declareth by another similitude of a grain of wheat cast into the ground which though it multiply in the growth, yet it multiplieth only in the same kind of grain. Whereupon he concludeth that the Church being a diligent and wary keeper of the doctrines committed to her custody doth not add diminish, or any way change; doth not cut of what is necessary, nor add any thing superfluous, but with all industry so handle all ancient doctrines as if any have not received their full shape and perfection, to polish and perfect them, if any be throughly searched and expressed, to consolidate and strengthen, them; if any be confirmed and defined to keep them: adding withal that the Church hath never endeavoured any thing else by her decrees of Counsels, but only that which was simply, that is without questioning believed before, should after be more diligently believed; that which before was preached more slackly, should after be preached more earnestly, that which before was more securely reverenced, should after be much more carefuly garnished or adorned: and that the Church being excited by the novelties of haeretiques hath done no more but consigned to posterity in writing, that which before she had received from her ancestors by tradition only, and for more clear understanding thereof many times expressed the ancient sense of faith by the propriety of a new appellation, that is by a new word, then invented to express the ancient belief.  
11. This is the discourse of this Holy Father, which I have set down the more fully, in regard it containeth the clear decision of this whole matter. For out of it together with what hath been hitherto said it may be gathered, first that the Church createth not any new articles of faith; but only that she delivereth unto us those articles of ancient faith which she hath received from them by whom she was first planted and taught that faith. Much less doth she deliver unto us any new faith. For though she should have new distinct revelations, yet would it not follow that the faith were new so long as those it followeth that he that denieth the explication doth deny the article and consequently frame unto himself a new belief.  
12. And that the absurdity of Sir Humphrey's argument may yet appear more manifestly I add that any haeretique that ever was may by the very same manner of argument challenge antiquity to himself and accuse us of novelty. For he may say such a thing was not the fide before such a Council ergo it is new; and that he believes only that which was believed before that Council ergo he believeth the ancient Faith. Which argument if it be good in Sir Humphrey is good in them and consequently he must disallow the decrees of all Counsels as novelties and approve all heresies for the ancient belief. Which being so great and manifest an absurdity he will not sure for shame admit and consequently must allow of Vincentiu's his authority and the answer out of him, to wit, that Counsels in defining matters of faith do not coin a new faith but declare, explicate, and define the old. Which that Sir Humphrey may the better conceive I shall here in a word urge him with an example of his own Church thus The Church of England admitteth of diverse books of the new testament for canonical whereof there was doubt for three or four hundred years together in the Church of God, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of S. Peter, the Ep. of S. jude, the Apocalypse of S. john and some others, which were after admitted for Canonical. Now I would know of him whether upon the admittance of them there were any Change of faith in the Church: or whether even those books have received any change in themselves? he cannot say they did: and there by he may answer himself, and see plainly that the change which seemeth to be is not in the things to be believed but in us that are to believe them because upon such definition or declaration of the Church we are obliged to believe them which it may be we were not before. And this may suffice for this matter of new articles of belief which Sir Humphrey would feign father upon us.  
13. Another thing which he much buildeth upon and whereby he thinketh to prevail against us in the authority of some particular Doctors or Schoolmen of the Church differing among themselves in some points not defined by the Church at such time as they did dispute thereof though afterwards they were. But any man of judgement will presently see that this is but to delude the simpler sort of people of his own side whom he thinketh to make believe any thing. For who doth not know that Catholics bind themselves only to defend the Catholic faith which neither doth nor can depend upon the judgement of any one private Doctor how learned soever, for neither is any thing counted faith till it be taught by the authority of the Catholic church or common consent of Doctors, 
Vinc. Lerin. cap. 4.  for so saith Vincentius Lerinensis expressly that we are to believe without doubt not what one or two Masters teach but what all with common consent hold, writ, and teach plainly, frequently, and perseverantly. 
Vinc. Lerin. cap. 39  And this, as he saith else where. Non in omnibus divinae legis questiunculis sed quidem certe praecipuè in fidei regula. Not in all small questions of the divine Law, but chiefly in the rule of faith. Which Sir Humphrey cannot be ignorant of, but only that he lifteth still to be limping, and wilfully dissembling the truth. For if he had taken notice of this, he would have had less to say, though he say not much even now with all the dissembling he can device.  
14. Neither will it serve his turn to say that we urge him and his Ministers out of their own authors, and why may not he do the like to us, for the reason is clean different. They have no public authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not only to every private Doctor or Minister, but to every private Lay man and Woman. And though it be true that it is no convincing proof to urge one particular Protestant Doctor's authority against another, there being not two among them of one opinion wholly, much less one bound to answer for the other; Yet we are fain and may with good reason use it because they have no certain rule of Faith, wherewith we may urge them. Authority of Church they have none. Scripture they have indeed, but so mangled, corrupted, perverted by translation, and misinterpreted according to their own fancies, that as they have it, it is as good as nothing. Traditions they have none. Counsels they have not any among themselves, nor will stand to ours. Consent of Fathers or Schoolmen they care not for. Consent of Doctors they have not among themselves, nor can have without an head; neither if they had, would any man think himself more bound by that, then by consent of Fathers: what then is left but to urge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren.  
But with us the case is fare different, for we have diverse infallible rules of faith, though all with some reference to one principal rule. As Scripture in the plain and literal sense which is out of controversy; tradition or common belief and practice of the whole Church; Counsels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolic; the authority of that Holy See itself defining ex cathedra, though without either general or particular Council; the common and uniform Consent of ancient Fathers, or modern Doctors and Schoolmen delivering any thing unto us as Matter of Faith.  
15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge; wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world urge us, we flinch not, we do not deny the authority, but are ready to make good whatsoever is taught any of these ways. What folly then is it for a man to stand urging us with the authority of any one private man who may straggle out from the rest? though to go farther than we need in such great liberty as we give Protestants, we give them leave to urge us with the authority of any one single Doctor in a point wherein he is not contradicted by other Catholic Doctors or which other Catholics do not wholly disavow. What more can a man desire? And yet again though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a main difference between him and them, that no Protestant can justly plead that single Catholic author to be wholly of his opinion or belief in that point, to say nothing of others wherein they differ. For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stiffly not meaning in any case, or for any authority to change or leave it, which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique. Whereas the Catholic ever holdeth it with indifferency, ready to leave it whensoever the Catholic Church shall determine otherwise. Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to do we will bear with all his errors, because than they will be soon amended. What little help than is he like to have from Catholic authors? or what likelihood is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our own Cardinals, Bishops, Doctors, Schoolmen etc. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to be very great, Whereas God knoweth they come very poor and single as shall appear, and some be Cardinals of his own creating only, as I shall after show but this he doth for credit of his cause though it be with loss of his own.  
16. And all this which here I say is to be understood supposing that indeed he cite Catholic authors and cite them truly, as here he promiseth, which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how he performeth I shall afterwards make manifest, here only I shall add a word concerning his authors, who he promiseth us shall be Catholics: Whereas indeed for the most part they are either known Haeretiques or some such men, as though with much ado they may pass for Catholics, as Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Cassander, and the like, yet they gave themselves so much liberty in they writings as they came to be noted for it, and their works forbidden. Of which I will not therefore make any account as no other Catholic doth. But when I come to such authorities as there be many in this book I mean to make no other answer but that the author is condemned, or book forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum? the table of forbidden books. Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill favoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our own Doctors and Schoolmen, and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to be subject to so main exception and so to be by us disavowed and rejected as incompetent judges or witnesses.  
17. But there is no other to be expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neither look for better nor say more of it but by this occasion add a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which so much troubleth the consciences of these men; Which being rightly understood no man of reason and judgement can be offended with it. For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath been ever observed in the Church of God for preserving of the Catholic faith and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques, and other wicked men, who by books bring great prejudice both to Faith and manners, unless special care be used for praeventing thereof. Of the necessity and justness of which course there be whole books written by diverse learned Catholic Doctors, neither can any body dislike thereof, but only Haeretiques; who indeed find themselves mightily aggreived therewith as being by this course deprived of a chief means of spreading their wicked doctrine by books; though indeed they have no more cause to complain then Necromancers, judiciary Astrologers, Soothsayers, Witches, Magicians, and even bad Catholics who publish, naughty and lascivious books; for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoever may be offensive or hurtful either to faith or good manners.  
18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs have it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to be corrected and razed. I answer that for the Bible indeed it is not permitted in the vulgar language to every body without any regard or distinction of persons, as it never was nor aught to be, as is well proved by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rheims testament. But yet it is not so forbidden, but that it is in the Bishop's power to grant leave, if upon conference with the Parish-Priest or Confessor of the party that desireth leave, he find him to be such an one, as may not incur danger of faith, but be like to increase in virtue and devotion by reading thereof. Which with any reasonable man may be counted sufficient liberty. As for the Fathers it is most grossly false which the Knight after the ordinary ministerial tune stands canting, that we blot out and raze them at our pleasure. For though for soemuch as concerneth the late Catholic authors of this last age, (for this our index of which is all the difficulty beginneth but from the year 1515.) whatsoever needeth correction is to be mended or blotted out, yet for others going before that time it is expressly said that nothing may be changed, unless some manifest error through the fraud of haeretiques or carelessness of the Printer be crept in but that if any thing worth nothing occur the new editions of the same author by some notes in the margin or at the later end the author's mind may be explained; 
De correct. lib. §. 3. & 4.  or the hard place, by comparing other passages of the same author, be made more clear. Now is here any thing that derogateth from the dignity and authority of antiquity? What is it then that these men would have? what is it they can carp at? nothing but that they themselves are stung in that, hereby they are kept either from publishing their own wicked works, or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure: and to wipe away this blemish from themselves they would lay it upon us. And by this that is here said of this matter may be answered no little part of Sir Humphrey's book, whereof one whole chapter is of this matter, beside other bitter invectives upon other occasions to fill his paper: though there also I shall have occasion to say somewhat more hereof.  
19 The last thing which here I mean to speak of is a certain distinction of explicit and implicit faith which the Knight and his Ministers cry out against and are pleased sometimes to make themselves merry withal as if they would laugh it out: but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blown away with the breath of any such Ministerial Knight as he is. I will therefore only declare it in a word that the Reader may see whether the distinction, or the Knight be more worthy to be laughed at. The words explicit and implicit are drawn from the Latin and they signify as much as folded, and unfolded, or wrapped up and laid open. And explicit faith signifieth a belief directly and expressly believing a particular point of faith in itself not as it is involved or wrapped up in an other; implicit faith is the belief of any point of faith, not in itself but in some other general principle wherein it lieth involved, or as it were wrapped up; as Catholics believe in many thingh as the Church believeth though they do not know what the Church holdeth particularly in this or that point. Now all Catholics being bound to the belief of the Catholic faith wholly and entirely under pain of damnation, as saith Saint Athanasius in his Crede; and all not being able to know what is taught in every particular, there must be some means whereby to believe all, and this by an implicit faith including in itself a promptness or readiness of the understanding and Will to obey and rely upon the authority of the holy Church; wherein no Catholic that believeth any one point can have much difficulty, seeing the reason why he believeth that one point is the authority of God declared unto us by the mouth of the never erring Church.  
20. Neither is this implicit faith for the ignorant alone as the Knight saith but it is for all both learned and unlearned; for there is no man so learned but may be ignorant of some one point or other; or at least in matters not yet defined, he must have that indifferency and readiness of Will and judgement to believe as the Church shall teach. True it is the unlearned know less of particular points though all be bound to the express or explicit knowledge of some articles as of the Apostles Creed, of the Commandments of God and the Church, Sacrifice of the Mass, of some Sacrements, and every one of so much as pertaineth both to the common obligation of Christian Duty and of his own particular state and vocation. For the rest it is not necessary for any one in particular to know all, but it sufficeth that he have a mind so praepared that when he shall understand more to be needful he be ready to embrace it, Which a man would think were but reason. And for this disposition and praeparation of mind wherein the essence of implicit faith consisteth it is alike both in the learned and unlearned. The want whereof in Protestants is the very reason why they have no true faith at all even in the belief of those mysteries which they believe: for by this it plainly appeareth, that even in those things which they believe they have no regard to any authority by which they are propounded unto them, but only because they think good themselves and although they should believe all things which Catholics believe but not for the reason which they believe but because they please themselves yet were not this faith, and so it is much better to believe a few things expressly with a resolution to believe whatsoever else shallbe propounded by the Catholic Church, then to believe a great many more with out this mind. For that former is divine faith, this later only humane self opinion and judgement.  
21. Neither is there any cause why this Knight should so cry out against implicit faith obtruded (as he saith) upon the ignorant; for it is not obtruded upon any man, but rather we desire with Saint Paul that all may be replenished which the Knowledge of God and heavenly things: but every body knoweth that all men are not of capacity and understanding alike. And for such as are not able to attain higher, we say it is sufficient for them to know some few things, and for the rest to believe as others in the Catholic Church believe. Doth not S. Paul speak, Wisdom among the perfect that is, teach them the greater and higher mysteries of faith, and yet to others he gives only milk, 
1. Cor. 2.  that is, the more easy Mysteries of faith, not meat, for (saith he) You were not yet able. Were it not pretty if every simple man should only believe so much as his own understanding reacheth unto and for that which it cannot reach to deny it? were not this a notable point of pride? and yet this is that which the Knight would have every man to do, and derideth us Catholics because we will not have Men so to do but with humility to believe what they do not understand so long as they have sufficient ground to believe it, which never wanteth in the Catholic Church and out of it is ever wanting. By this any man may see whether this distinction of explicit and implicit faith do not stand with very great reason and consequently whether the Knight who laugheth thereat do not show himself most worthy of laughter?  
22. Especially if we add withal that it is not so much this implicit faith that he speaketh against as divine faith in general: for: that he counteth implicit faith when a man is bound by a blind kind of Obedience as he calleth it to submit his judgement to the Catholic Church: which is the true property of divine faith: and that is it which he counts simplicity and calleth it implicit faith to believe that whereof we understand not the reason but herein he destroyeth the very nature of faith expressly contradicting S. Paul's definition thereof, which is this: 
Hebr 11.1.  Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for an argument of things not appearing: and S. Aug plainly saith: that is faith to believe that which thou dost not see and S. Greg. addeth: 
Greg. ho. 36. in Euang.  that faith hath no merit where humane reason giveth experience. So as for a man to speak against this kind of implicit is plain infidelity and therefore I shall say no more of it but only, supposing it as a most certain and commonly received principle of the Fathers and point of absolutely necessary Christian humility for a man so to submit his judgement in what he understandeth not, I shall conclude with a word of Vincent. Lerinensis wishing such men as have suffered themselves out of presumption to be carried away with some novel opinions out of the Catholic Church to return thereunto by this humility of implicit faith in these words. Dediscant bene quod didicerunt non bene, 
cap. 25.  & ex toto ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant; quod non potest credant. Let them unlearn well that which they have learned not well, and out of the whole doctrine of the Church Let them conceive what can be conceived; what cannot let them believe. Which authority alone is sufficient to warrant our distinction of explicit and implicit faith against all Sir Humphrey's scornful laughter. 
Chap. 2.  And so having noted thus much in this place by occasion of his praeambles I come now to the examination of his sections.   

Whether the Church of Rome be with out cause bitter against the reformed Churches, as the knight affirmeth. CHAPTER II.  
1. THe Knight's first section is to prove, that the Church of Rome is without cause bitter against the reformed Churches: That she is bitter, he proveth, because we style him and his not only by the common name of Haeretiques, but also by other special reproachful epithets pertaining to the several Sects of Zuinglius, Luther, Caluin etc. Secondly because we accurse and excommunicate them, and will not let them live with us, whereas we admit jews and Infidels. That all this is without cause he proveth, first by an authority of Theodoret, which speaks of a contention between two factions in the Church of Antioch, and the reason to allay it, because (saith Theodoret) both parts make one and the same confession of their faith, for both maintain the Creed of the Nicene Council. Secondly by the authority of Bellarmine, whom he maketh to say, that the Apostles never propounded as common articles of faith, other things than the articles of the Apostles Creed, the ten commandments, and some few of the Sacraments: because these things are simply necessary and profitable for all men, the rest are such as a man may be saved without them. Thirdly he maketh it an undeniable truth that the reformed Church and the Roman are two Sisters; and that the Roman Church failing, and becoming an Harlott: it was well done of his Church to separate herself, lest she might be partaker of her plagues. And so goeth on inveighing bitterly against the Roman Church to the very end of the Section, whereof this is the whole substance, which I have brought into this method the better to answer it.  
2. That we Catholics style the Knight and his Reformers by the common name of Haeretiques we deny not: that some particular Catholic authors style some of them that is the Zwinglians, Lutherans, and others by other reproachful names we also deny not. But why this Knight should complain, as if he were injured in all the several names, that are given to the several sects of Haeretiques, I see not; unless it so be that he be of all their several religions; which yet I see not how he can be they being so many and so contrary among themselves. But be he of one or other or more, and let him but go into Germany and profess himself a Caluinist, or a Zuinglian, he shall find so good entertainment and such gentle terms at the Lutheran's hands, as I dare boldly say, he will never complain more of the bitterness of Catholics against him and his Brethren.  
For the word (Haeretique) which is the worst of all other, as containing all in itself, he cannot but know that it hath ever gone with such, as have held new particular doctrines, different from the common doctrine of the Catholic Church; and therefore the word according to the etymology is no word of contumely, but a word signifying the nature of the thing; and it is only grown by custom to be contumelious: because the thing itself, to wit, heresy, is the most detestable thing in the world. If then the thing ot crime of heresy pertain to a man, and that he be notoriously guilty thereof, I see not what great bitterness it is to give him the name of Haeretique. If I would I could urge his bitterness much more in the same kind and in this very section; as for example, where he calleth the Catholic Church an harlot the whore of Babylon, the Pope Antichrist, Catholics Idolaters and a great deal more: But I let all that pass, making only this answer that we do nothing in this matter of names which seemeth to him so great a point of bitterness but what we can warrant by very good authority and example even of scripture. 
Act. 13.11. 2. Cor. 11.15  S. Paul called that enemy of faith Elymas the Magician, Son of the Devil, Enemy of all justice: and false Apostles in general, that is Haeretiques, he calleth the Ministers of Satan. In an other place; 
Philip. 3.2. 1. Io. 2.18. Ep. jud.  he calleth Haeretiques by the name of Dogs. S. john calleth them Antichrists. S. jude is most vehement against them, giving them many bitter epithets and comparing them to Cain, to Balaam, to Core. Our Saviour himself said of one of his Disciples, that he was a Devil, 
joan. 6.  which he meant of judas, who is ordinarily and worthily ranked among Haeretiques. Which considered; Sir Humphrey you should never have stood complaining of the word: but freed yourself of the matter, and all had been well.  
3. For that other point of bitterness, that we accurse and excommunicate you, and spare jews and Infidels, accusing us therein of great cruelty and bitterness; You should have remembered S. Paul's authority and example. Doth not he excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian, and deliver him to the Devil, and yet spare jews and Infidels? He doth; and gives the reason why he spareth them, to wit, because he hath no authority over them. Quid mihi de ijs qui foris sunt iudicare? 
1. Cor. 5.12.  what have I to do to judge those that are without? that is, out of my jurisdiction? but because you Sir Humphrey shall not likewise say, that by privilege of your heresy you likewise exempt yourself, 
1. Timoth. I. 20.  you may remember how S. Paul in an other place, delivereth Alexander and Hymecraeus, Haeretiques, to Satan. Which yet you cannott call bitterness, but just severity; unless you will also take upon you to condemn S. Paul of cruelty and bitterness, which I presume you will not. If then you and your fellow Ministers be Haeretiques, as they were, why should you deny to undergo the same Doom? Clear yourself of the heresy, but complain not of the curse and excommunication? it is and hath ever been the just censure of the Church against Haeretiques, Schismatics, and all enormous and contumacious sinners? we must not alter Laws for you Sir Humphrey, though you alter faith at your pleasure.  
4. Now then let us see whether there be cause for the severity, which the Catholic Church doth use, by calling our Reformers Haeretiques, and denouncing them subject to Anathema. Sir Humphrey's first reason to the contrary is, out of Theodoret's history; but that maketh nothing for him, but rather quite contrary; and withal giveth a taste in the very beginning, how truly and conformably to their minds he allegeth authors. Theodoret speaketh of a schism, division, or dissension which long troubled the Church of Antioch, about their Bishop; some taking one to be their lawful Bishop, and communicating only with him; and such as held with him; Others in like sort with the other: Which contention dured not only during one Bishop's life, but more each side choosing a new one, in place of their Bishop deceased; his words are these, speaking of some Bishops, who gathering together said that the Churches, were to be brought to concord. Nam constabat etc. For it was plain, 
Lib. 3. cap. 4  that they were not only impugned by the favourers of contrary doctrine, but also that they were pulled insunder by mutual dissension among themselves. For at Antioch the body of the Church which followed sound Doctrine, was divided into two parts; for all, who standing for the excellent man Eustathius had separated themselves, did perpetually make their meeting a part: and they which stood for that admirable man Meletius, separated from the Arian faction, did celebrate the holy Mysteries in Palaea: (So the place was called) and yet was the confession of faith of both one and other the same. For both companies did defend the doctrine of faith, caught in t●e Council of Nice, the contention being only of an other matter, and out of the love which they did bear to their Bishops neither could the death of the one take away the discord. These and Theodoret's own words, which are enough to show the case to be clean different: there the contention was not for matter of faith or doctrine, here it is; there the Catholics of both sides though at variance among themselves for other matters, yet in regard of faith they would have nothing to do with Arrians. So it is now with us Catholics, though there may be contentions for other matters as for Superiority, extent of jurisdiction, privileges, exemptions, or the like, yet all jointly detest all haereticall doctrine. There indeed both sides embraced the Nicene Creed, which was the only point in controversy at that time, which now our Reformers profess to believe: but they differ in the profession of faith of the Council of Trent; whereof the reason is the same now, as it was then of the Creed of Nice. For that was against the heresies of those times, and this against the heresies of these. If then the knight find Catholics disagreeing among themselves about other matters, yet agreeing in the profession of faith of the Council of Trent; he may allege this authority of Theodoret, to allay the contention. But for the matter between him and us, it is wholly impertinent, and out of season; and a wrong to Theodoret himself to have his authority alleged, for persuading of concord with Haeretiques, without their renouncing of their heresies.  
5. But a man may well have patience to see this author's meaning abused, when he shall see both Bellarmine's meaning abused, and his words corrupted, as I shall now show. His words out of himself are these. 
Lib. 4. de verb. Dei. cap. 11.  It is to be noted first, that in the Christian Doctrine, as well of faith as manners, there be some things simply necessary to Salvation for all men; as the knowledge of the articles of the Apostles Creed, the ten Commandments, and some Sacraments. Other things are not so necessary, as that without the explicit knowledge, belief and profession of them, a man may not be saved; so he have a ready will to receive and believe them, when they shallbe lawfully propounded unto him by the Church. Thus Bellarmine in one place, and in another a little after again he saith. Note secondly, that the Apostles did preach to all, those things which were necessary for all; but of other things, not all to all; but some to all, and some only to Praelats, Bishops, and Priests. So Bellarmine. By which any man may see, how falsely and cunningly the knighs hath dealt in citing this authority: For I would know of him, where Bellarmine saith, that the Apostles never propounded as common articles of faith, other things than the articles of the Apostles Creed, the ten commandments, and some few Sacraments? to begin first with the last word; where doth Bellarmine say some few Sacraments: he saith some Sacraments indeed; but (few) he saith not. Which though it be not much yet I cannot think but Sir Humphrey had a meaning in it, to make Bellarmine symbolise, with him in his paucity of Sacraments. Secondly where, doth Bellarmine say, that the Apostles propounded the ten commandments and some Sacraments, as articles of faith? where find you that Sir Humphrey? Do not you make more articles of faith now then ever any man did before? The ten commandments are indeed to be believed but yet are they not so much matter of belief, as practice; not so much pertaining to faith, as to charity towards God and our Neighbour and this Bellarmine saw very well, when he said, that in the Christian doctrine, as will of faith as manners, somethings were necessary to salvation for all men As the articles of the Apostle's Creed and the ten commandments and some Sacraments. For the Creed belongeth to faith, the commandments and Sacraments to manners. For Bellarmine speaketh here, not only what is necessary for all men to believe, but what is necessary for all men to do, for obtaining of salvation; according to that commission of our Saviour to his Apostles: Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.  
6. I do not say, that we are not to believe these things also; for we cannot practise them unless we know them, and some we cannot know otherwise then by faith. The commandments indeed are principles of reason, drawn even from the very light of nature though taught by divine authority; but the Sacraments are taught only by faith, yet so as they are ordained principally for practice, no less than the Commandments, and therefore not articles of faith, but sufficiently contained in the article of the Catholic Church, for without Sacraments there can be no Church. Thirdly where doth Bellarmine say, that the Apostles never propounded for common articles of faith other than the things mentioned? I do not find it, but rather the contrary: For besides these things which he saith were simply necessary for all, and without which men of discretion were not to be admitted to Baptism, he saith that For those other things, which were not simply necessary, that is, without the express knowledge whereof, they, that is, men of years, might be admitted to Baptism and saved the Apostles did preach many other things; some of them to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, and some again only to some, as to Praelats, Bishop's, and Priests. And here also Sir Humphrey you cunningly join these two things in one; things simply necessary, and profitable, as if both were meant only of one kind of things: whereas the Cardinal doth distinguish the one from the other. Which though it be but a less matter, yet it showeth your corrupt mind that can relate nothing sincerely. Fourthly whereas Bellarmine saith, that these things by you named are simply necessary, he saith with all that there be other things not so necessary, as that without the explicit knowledge and profession of them a man may not be saved, so he have a ready will to receive and believe them, when they shallbe lawfully propounded unto him, by the Church; You were pleased to leave out the word (explicit) in the former part of the sentence and with it also to leave out the whole later part; Bellarmine requiring an explicit faith of same things, and an implicit faith of other that is a readiness of will to receive & believe them when they shallbe propounded by the Church which kind of faith though you like not as being the thing that maketh a Catholic yet you should have let it stand among Bellarmine's words, you have the liberty to confute him if you can, but not to put in or out what you list.  
7. Besides these four corruptions of Bellarmine, by putting in some words of your own, and leaving out some of his, I might tax you with corrupting his meaning, for your own purpose. For by saying that the explicit belief of these things is necessary for all, he doth not mean as you would have him, that it was free for any man to choose, whether he will believe any thing else of those which the Apostles preached: for that were most false. Neither is it his meaning, though he say those things be necessary, that therefore they alone are sufficient for all men, and that no man is bound to know or believe explicitly also, any thing more. For without question those things which the Apostles taught to Praelats Bishops and Priests, were to be believed by them explicitly. Wherefore the belief of the Apostles Creed, the ten comandments, and some few Sacraments, is not sufficient for your Ministers, who pretend to be Bishops and Priests; but they are bound to know and believe more. How then will you make the belief of those necessary things sufficient, to make concord and unity in faith, seeing some men are bound to believe, more even explicitly and all men bound to believe whatsoever the Catholic Church shall propound implicitly and consequently not to deny any thing else so propounded. For not only the denial of those but of whatsoever else preached by the Apostles or Church is enough to make a man an Haeretiq. Thus therefore you have egregiously abused both Bellarmine's words and meaning, and consequently not proved your intent; that because you retain the Apostles Creed, which you call the general cognizance of our faith, therefore there is no cause to rank you with Haeretiques. For this Cognizance was not sufficient for an Arrian, with out the explication thereof in the Nicene Creed, as may be gathered out of Theodoret before cited: and so may I now say it is not sufficient to distinguish a Catholic from a Lutheran, Caluinist, Protestant, or other Haeretique of these times, without the explication of the Trent profession of Faith. For this is now the touchstone to try who believeth the Apostles Creed in deed and who in words only; And this yourself must confess, who term some Sects Haeretiques, and us Catholics, Idolaters, nowithstanding we and they profess the Apostles Creed which you call the cognizance of our faith.  
8. Now to that which you say, that the Roman Church and yours are Sisters, and that the Roman, playing the harlot, yours went out of her. I answer, that this is so fare from clearing you from the note of haeresy, that it doth rather make you more guilty thereof. Your Church indeed cometh out of ours as all haeretical sects have ever come out of the Catholic Church. For so saith S. john of Haeretiques, ex nobis prodierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis permansissent utique nobiscum, sed ut manifesti sint quoniam non sunt omnes ex nobis. 
1. Io. 2.19.  They went out of us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would verily have stayed with us: but that they may be manifest that they are not all of us: And among other marks of Haeretiques, S. jude also reckoneth this. 
Ep. jud. 19  High sunt, qui segregant semetipsos, these are they that separate themselves. S. Paul saith to the Ephesians, that out of themselves some should rise speaking perverse things, 
Actor. 20.  that they might draw Disciples after them. S. Aug. explicateth that place of the Psalm 30 Qui videbant me foras fugerunt a me. 
Aug. in Ps. 30.  They that saw me fled forth from me, to be meant of Haeretiques: because when they saw what the Church was, they went. Forth and made heresies and schisms against it. and every where urgeth this, and nothing more than this, against the Donatists, who justified themselves as you Sir Knight justify your Church. Much more of this might be said, but this may serve to show you not to be in your right wits, that brag of that which you ought most to be ashamed of, and account that to make for you which makes most against you.  
9 For that which you talk of going out of Egypt and Babylon, which you would have men understand the Catholic Church, as if you were commanded to go out from her, Do but once show us that Egypt and Babylon, which the Sripture speaketh of, were ever the true Church, and then you may seem to have said some what for your Church's departure from the Roman: Which impudence itself cannot deny to have been once the true Church. You are bold indeed to say that Babylon was a true Church, wherewith sometimes the faithful did communicate, but that after it was more depraved, the faithful are commanded to go out of it. But I may ask you where you read this? what Father, what Doctor, what man ever took Babylon in scripture to be used for the name of the true Church? S. Peter in one of his Epistles speaketh of Rome by the name of Babylon: out of which a multitude of Fathers and Doctors prove that Saint Peter was at Rome, and now you forsooth bring some of them cited by our authors to that purpose, to prove that by Babylon is understood the true Church. Abusing all those Father's most egregiously, among all whom never one meant any such matter: but only by Babylon understood the temporal state and government of the City of Rome, as it was subject to those Pagan tyrannising Emperors, which persecuted the Church and people of God; wherein it did resemble that other ancient and true Babylon, which detained the jews, than the true Church and people of God in captivity and oppression. Which also S. Peter's own words do sufficiently show, distinguishing most plainly Babylon from the true Church. For he saith thus. 
1. Pet. 5.13.  Ecclesia quae est in babylon coëlecta. The Church which is in Babylon coelect saluteth you. Not that Babylon was a true Church as your words are Sir Humphrey.  
10. Now whereas you say, that when she was depraved, the faithful were willed to go out of her, that is, out of her that was once the true Church. You are extremely mistaken. For if you mean any true Babylon as that City of Chaldaea, or that other of Egypt, or Babylon by similitude and likeness, as was Rome in time of the Heathen Emperors and as many Interpreters think towards the end of the world in time of Antichrist the city or temporal government thereof shall again become, (of which time that of the Apocalypse is meant, that the faithful shall fly, for avoiding of the cruelty and tyranny of the persecutors, which shall then be more cruel than ever,) or if by Babylon you mean the whole company of wicked men, from the beginning to the end of the world, as S. Aug. taketh it throughout his great work de civet. Dei, and other Fathers and Doctors, and many interpreters understand that place of the Apocalypse 18. If I say you mean it any of these ways, as no man of understanding ever meant or understood it otherwise, then was it never any true Church, and so the Children and people of God might well be willed to get out of it, either locally by motion of the body, or spiritually by avoiding the manners of the people, not having any thing with them in their wicked ways. But if you mean as you express yourself, that by Babylon is understood the true Church, and that it may be depraved, that is, that the Church of Christ notwithstanding all his promises for the perpetuity thereof, as That he would be with it to the world's end, That it was built upon a rock, That the Gates of hell should not prevail against it, That he would send the Holy Ghost to be with it for ever, notwithstanding that the Church is his kingdom, his inheritance, his mystical body, his Spouse; that notwithstanding all this I say, it should fail, it shoull be depraved, it should be wiolated, I know not what to say but to stop mine ears against that mouth of blasphemy of yours and herewith end this section, the rest thereof being nothing but the bitter froth of a distempered stomach, and unworthy of answer.   


Chap. 3.  THE EXAMINATION OF Sir Humphrey's second and third Section. CHAPTER III.  
1. IN the second Section Sir Humphrey laboureth to prove the contention betwixt the Churches (as he calleth them) to proceed originally from us, and this by the confessions of our own. The third Section is to prove the corruptions both in faith and manners confessed by some of us, and yet reformation denied by the Pope. Both which are easily answered. First by ask what all this is to his purpose, suppose it were true? Doth this show his Church to have been always visible, or ours to have been at any time not visible. He was not to stand upon matter of contention, who was cause or not cause thereof, or who would have mended, who not. For the errors in faith, which he seemeth to tax ●s withal in his third section: if he can prove them, he saith somewhat indeed; though yet not so fully to his purpose. For though he prove us to have had some errors it doth not so presently follow that they of his side have had none; or that therefore their Church hath been ever visible there is a great deal more required to it then so. And though he should prove some errors to have been taught by some particular men, or even in some Country professing the Catholic faith, it doth not follow that the Catholic Church hath failed in faith, or ceased to be visible.  
2. Secondly I answer to his second Section, which is to prove that the contention proceeded from us, which he undertaketh to prove by our own confession: that in all this Section, he bringeth but four authorities to wit. Cassander, a Canon of his English Church out of the preface to jewels works; Camden citing S. Bede, Plessy Morney citing Michael Caesenas. Of all which only S. Bede is a Catholic, and even cited by the Protestant Camden, and only for a story which he tells of one Redwalde king of the East Saxons, who being first converted to Christianity, and after seduced by his wife had in the same Church, two altars, one for Christ's religion, another for the Devils out of which this knight frameth to himself a pretty fancy, being desirous hereby to make men believe, that the like happened in the Roman Church, and that some adored God only, others fell to adore Saints and images, and the like. Which fond conceit what answer can it deserve? For it is but the bare saying of one that doth not understand what he saith. For otherwise how could he possibly say such a thing of himself without saying when, where, or how that happened, to us; or ever saying word in proof that the case is the same. I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Lined that he and his Protestants have built a new Church, a new faith, erected an altar against an altar, etc.  
3. But as I was saying of his authors, they are not many as you see, much less have they any part among Catholics. For Cassander, Michael de Caesenas, and Philip Morney, are in the Index of forbidden books. Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants; but, which is more strange, not a man of these such as they are, that saith any thing of that which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter, but only Cassander; who after the fashion of Haretiques, speaketh of the Pomp and pride of the Clergy, and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men advising reformation: these godly men he meaneth, such as himself, that is Haeretiques or next door to them, though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist. So that all the cause that even this man allegeth of the contention is, because the ecclesiastical persons will not yield themselves to Haeretiques, and let them have the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures; therefore they break away and fall into contention with the Church. What cause do Clergy men give of contention? in not submitting themselves to their inferiors, and to men that have no authority over them: or even if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men think not good to follow it, must they therefore presently fall to schism and haeresy, tearing and renting the Church. By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellows? if in a civil commonwealth, some great man should dislike the government, either because his enemies have the managing of matters, or that he thimketh he could do it better than they, and presuming to give counsel to the Prince and his counsel, they shoull not follow it, and that therefore he should go from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth; who should be counted cause of this contention? the Prince and his Counsel or he? if Sir Humphrey be judge, he must say, the Prince and his Counsel, if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse.  
4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar, it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order, but for his learning I never heard any such commendation of it: but we know why the Knight praiseth him: Well be it so; but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope, for his disobedience and rebellion, he said that particular man, which was john 22. was an Apostata, and an Heretic: and therefore no true Pope. But that he made two such Churches, one of the wicked under the Pope, another of the good without any head as Morney makes him make, and this Knight out of him, I find not in any, good author, but rather that he allowed of the authority of the Roman Church; for he appealed from the Pope's sentence to it; as may be seen in Coquus his answer to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to. 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena. Neither was he ever taxed with any such haeresy.  
5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith, but what is agreeable to the Old and new testament, and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholic Bishops but what is that to the purpose? how doth this prove us to give the cause of Contention? he will say, this proveth his men to give none. I answer that if all the rest of their Canons and proceed were answerable to the saying of this Canon, there would perhaps be somewhat less to do. Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men: and therefore the practice shown in this Canon is contrary to the words. And so the 2. section is answered.  
6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confess and yet deny to reform. He proveth it out of the Council of Pisa where Alexander the 5. 
Council Pisan. sess. 20.  promised to attend to the reformation of the Church and out of the Council of Trent acknowledging many things amiss in matter of indulgences, Mass etc. To this I answer that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformation to be needful: and such it is that these two Counsels speak of, and have performed as is to beseen by their Decrees: though the former be not of any great authority. 
Concil. Trident. sess. 22. Decret. de reformat.  And for the later, it complaineth indeed with great reason of the avarice of such as had the gathering of moneys given in alms by occasion of indulgences. Whom the Knight calleth the Pope's Collectors though the Council speak not of the Pope. But he out of his love to the Pope would fain bring him in upon all such occasions. This is true: but false it is, which he saith: that the Council complaineth of indulgences an article of the Roman faith as his words are. For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers, so doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine, as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited else where by this Knight himself whereby he is convinced of wilful corruption. The same Council likewise complaineth of many things crept in, in the celebration of Mass by the fault of the times, or carelessness and wickedness of men which are fare from the dignity of so great a sacrifice. The words of the Council are right cited by him in Latin in the margin, perhaps to save his credit by sincerity so much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English, which goeth in the text he foully corrupteth them they are thus in Latin. Cum multa irrepsisse videantur. Which in English is this. Seeing many things seem to have crept in: which the Knight translateth thus, there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Mass: which is a gross error and corruption in the Knight the Council speaking only of abuses which were crept in not of errors in matter of faith. The Council likewise seemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Priests making such bargains for the saying of Mass as was not far from Simony, or at least filthy lucre. It speaketh of the use of music where with some wantonness was mixed as also of certain Masses or candles used in certain number, that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true so fare.  
7. But that is not true, which the Knight saith, that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there, but to be reform nay they are not named, but by way of forbidding them, and by way of commanding Bishops to reform such things even as delegates of the see Apostolic, where there is need. Which is so apparent, that the Knight is fain to confess it after in these words. Neither did these men seek reformation in manners only, but in the doctrine itself. Wherein together with the contradiction of his own former lie he telleth a new one, to wit in saying that we seek a reformation in the doctrine whereof he nameth some particular points as private Mass, Latin service etc. Which is most false for the doctrine, is the same still, and ever was, that though the fruit were greater when the people did communicate with the Priest sacramentally, yet the Mass in that case is neither unlawful, not is to be called private: both because the people communicate spiritually, and also because the Mass is offered by the Priest, as the public Minister of the Church. It wisheth indeed, that the standers by did communicate not only spiritually, but also sacramentally: without ever mentioning the reformed or rather deformed Churches.  
8. What error then doth the Council here acknowledge? Again the knight saith that though the Council do not allow the celebrating of Mass in the vulgar tongue, yet it commandeth Pastors and others that have care of souls, to explicate and expound to the people some of those things that are read in the Mass: and asketh thus, how near these men do come to our doctrine, who doth not perceive! I answer that do not I Sir Humphrey, nor I think any man else. That hath ordinary, common sense. You condemn all Mass. The Council alloweth it: you condemn private Mass. The Council approveth that which you call private Mass, but denieth that it is so called Private as you would have it. The Council speaketh of Mass the true and proper Sacrifice of the new Law: you would make men believe it speaketh of your sacrilegious Supper. In our Mass and Communion as the Council teacheth is offered and distributed the true, real and substantial. Body and Blood of CHRIST JESUS and what it saith hereof you most madly would make me believe were spoken of your empty and imaginary communion. The Council teacheth that the Mass is not generally to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue: you would all public prayer so made: and therefore condemn the Catholic Church for celebrating in Latin which the Council alloweth. O madness of a man then! to talk thus as if the Council came near to him when it saith yea to his nay, and nay to his yea.  
9 But having thus substantially proved the Council, to agree with him and finding other places of the same so evidently against him he will needs have the Council contradict itself and for that end bringeth certain contradictions as he wisely taketh them to be: One is that the Pope in his Bull of profession of faith, saith, that the use of Indulgences is most wholesome for the people. For which he might have cited also the Council more thou once; and that yet the Council confessed the scandal that came by them was very great, with out hope of reformation: which is not contradiction between the Council and Pope but a flat corruption of the Knights: the Pope speaking of one thing, to wit, Indulgences in themselves: the Council in this place speaking of the men, that had the promulgation of them, and the gathering of the alms. For preventing whose avarice & abuses, there had been so many remedies used formerly in other Counsels, but to none effect, that this Council thought good, to take that office wholly out of such men's hands, and take another course with it. What seeming contradiction is here? Another of his contradiction is, that the Council approveth those Masses, wherein the people do not communicate, and yet wisheth that the people were so devout as to communicate sacramentally. Is not here a stout contradiction: as also that the Council approveth Mass in an vn known tongue, and yet will have the Priests, especially upon Sundays and Holidays, to declare some of that which is read, or some mystery of the holy Mass? Do not these two agree very well, I do not see what the Man meaneth.  
10. And to conclude this wise section, he talketh somewhat of reformation hindered by some principal men as one Nicolas Scomberg a Dominican Cardinal. Citing four or five most haeretical books namely forbidden in the Roman Index (and among them the history of the Council of Trent not named in the Index, because it came out since, but written by an Arche-haeretique and no less detested by. Catholics then any of the rest.) Which I pass over as of no account, nor alleged to any purpose. As for reformation who can say it is hindered, but only by Haeretiques. For what else hath the Council of Trent done, but reform all abuses of manners, where it is or can be received; and for errors of faith taught by Haeretiques, it hath utterly condemned them, and banished them from the ears of all Catholics. What reformation then hath it hindered, but the haeretical reformation whereunto Cardinal Scomberg said well, if you and your history of Trent say true, that it was no way to yield a jot to Haeretiques; for it is not indeed; for the practice of the Church hath ever been to the contrary, showing thereby that the way to overcome haeresy is, wholly to resist it, and though that thing which the Haeretiques teach or would have practised, were before indifferent, yet for their urging the same upon their haeretical grounds it hath been absolutely forbidden lest we might seem to have yielded to them, and so confirm them or draw Others to believe them or their doctrine who to reprehend and contradict the Catholic Church many times make things of indifferency to be of necessity that they forsooth may seem the only Wisemen in the world: and the Church of God subject to errors. Which I could prove by many examples, if need were. And herewith I make an end of this chapter, wherein I have disproved the Knight, and convinced him of manifest falsehood in both the things by him pretended, showing in the one that the Council acknowledged not any corruption in matters of faith, but only by Haeretiques: and in the other, that for corruption of manners which it acknowledged it hath used all possible means to redress them.   

Of Sir Humphrey's 4. Section; whereof the title is this. That many learned Romanist, convicted by the evidence of truth, either in part, or in whole have renounced Popery before their death. CHAPTER FOUR  
1. I Can here before I go farther, ask what this maketh for the Visibility of the Knight his Church. For suppose it were true, and that we did yield him his saying, that many have fallen from the Catholic faith to be Protestants as it is clear, that many have; for otherwise there had never been any Protestants in the world, Doth this make his Church visible in former times? or doth this prove Succession of Pastors in his Church, 
Chap. 4.  without which no Church can be Visible? It is clear it doth not. But because this is a general fault throughout his whole book, I will not stand noting it in every Section apart, but this general note may serve for all. To begin here with the title of this Section, if by Popery, he understand, as I suppose he doth, that Faith, which we Catholics profess under the Pope, as our supreme Pastor than it is foolishly said of him, that some have renounced the same in part. For no man can renounce the Catholic Faith in part, it being indivisible, but he that ceaseth to believe one point ceaseth to believe any one as he should; that is, by way of true Divine Faith.  
2. Now to prove what he pretends he hath about again with his reformation; and telleth us, that were it not for endangering of the Romish religion, we would come nearer them in all the fundamental points, which their Church teacheth. For example, he saith, the Council of Basil did allow the Bohemians the use of the cup; Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope Pius 2. saith of the Marriage of Priests, that as upon weighty reasons it was taken away, so upon weighty considerations, it were wished to be restored. For private Mass as he calleth it, he saith that Doctor Harding saith the faithful complain. The translation of scriptures was as he telleth us out of Causabon to Peron, and Causabon out of those of Douai importunitate Haereticorum. Besides he saith, out of my Lord Cook's reports, that for the first eleven years of Q. Elizabeth all Catholics did frequent their Church; and which is more he will needs have Bishop Gardener, Bellarmine, and Albertus Pighius die Protestants. He hath two more both Bishops to wit Paulus and john Vergerius brothers, which he will needs have dye of his religion, of whom because I have not heard much; nor doth he cite any author but Sleidan and Osiander most notorious fellows, both for lying and haeresy, in whom I list not so much as to look what they say of these two, I give him leave to take them and make the best he can of them: 
Sur. comment. rerum in orb. gest. anno. 1567.  only for that Paul Vergerius I find in Surius, that when he came to dye he did cast forth an horrible stench and roared most fearfully like an ox, besides other things so strange and fearful that one Venerandus Gablerus a famous Physician, and then an earnest Protestant who was with him at his death being strucken into horror and amazement there upon returned to the Catholic Church again. But because this knight standeth so in need of people, as it seemeth, to make up number, and so would fain borrow some of ours there be Apostates enough and too many of several sorts, and in several countries, which would make a jolly show, and make his book swell handsomely, I will give him leave to take them all.  
3. And for the rest I answer thus first noting his fundamental points what they are, to wit, the Cup; the Marriage of Priest; private Mass as he calleth it; and the translation of Scriptures into the vulgar tongue: Which for all that if the Knight had well considered, he might have found not to be so fundamental, being matters more of practice then belief. Secondly, it seemeth that, for a man to incline in judgement à little towards the Protestant's side, in any one of those points, is enough to make him of Sir Humphrey's Church, though in all others he be of a quite contrary opinion, as we shall see. The Counsel of Basil, is the first that cometh near his Church in matter of the Cup, allowing the use thereof to the Bohemians, upon this condition as the knight himself saith out of Genebrarde, that they should not find fault with the contrary use, nor sever themselves from the Catholic Church. How near then doth the Council come to you Sir Humphrey. You condemn the use of one kind, the Council will not have it condemned; is this near? the Council will not have you sever yourself from the Catholic Church; you do: is not this also near? but beside these two conditions the Council requireth a third, to wit that they shall believe that there is no more received under both kinds, then under one. You teach the quite contrary: how near then are you. Now over and above all this, you know the Council of Basil is of little or no with Catholics, as being reproved by the See Apostolic.  
4. Your second point is, of the Marriage of Priests, which I see not why you should make so fundamental, unless it be to gain the good will of the Ministry with whom I confess it is of great account. You prove it by a saying of Aeneas Silvius, whom being a Pope, you would be glad if jou could make come near you. But he cometh as near as the Council of Basil. For first his authority as you cite it in this place is, but a saying of his related by Platina, without citing any work where out it is taken: but you repeating the same again with some little addition in your eleventh section note in the margin his books de gestis Concilij Basileensis, which you cannot but know to have been revoked and condemned by himself, in bulla retractationis: and there excused by him, in that he writ it in time of that Council, being then a young man, neither Priest nor Divine, but only a Grammarian and Poet, and coming then newly from those studies; and therefore he will have those works counted not Pius his works but the works of Aeneas Silvius, as he saith expressly in the same Bull. Verendum saith he, 
Pius 2. in Bull. retracta 〈◊〉 4. Concil.  ne talia nostris aliquando successoribus obijciantur, & quae fuerunt Aeneae dicantur Pij. It is to be feared lest sometimes hereafter such things may be objected to our Successors and those things which were Aeneas his be said to be Pius his. Which therefore he revoketh wishing others not to rely upon or give credit unto them in those things quae supremam Sedis Apostolicae authoritatem quovis pacto elidunt, aut aliquid astruunt quod sacrosancta Romana non amplectitur ecclesia. Which any way dash against the supreme authority of the See Apostolic or affirm any thing which the holy Roman Church doth not embrace. Which yet your conscience can serve you to conceal, taking the objection which he foresaw but leaving the answer which he made; that thereby you might better deceive men, with making them believe, as if there had been a Pope a Protestant: this is good Dealing Sir Humphrey, and like you.  
5. Doctor Harding cometh next whom in like sort you abuse, notably citing his words by halves, and making him to say, the faithful have since the primitive Church much complained of private Mass, as you call it, whereas he saith only, that the godly and faithful people have complained of the coldness of Catholics, in that they do not communicate so fervently and frequently as they did in the primitive Church; not of the Priests saying Mass, when there be none to communicate. This is therefore also Sir Humphrey-like to say one thing for another. Now for the translation of Scriptures, you triumph, as if those of Douai confessed that they did it importunitate Haereticorum; and for this you are fain to be beholding to Casaubon's epistle to Peron, which you cite; whereas you might have looked yourself in the book better than Casaubon, who was a French man, and is supposed not to understand English so well as you; but it may be you looked in the book, and finding Casaubon tell an untruth; you would tell it after him though you knew it to be such, because you thought it made against us, and for the disgrace when you should be charged with it, you meant it should light upon your author but there is shame enough in store for you both. You should have cited the place, where these of Douai say so, for I find it not, those of Rheims indeed, who were the same authors say quite contrary in their preface, to wit, 
Rhem. test. Praef. initio.  that they do not translate the scriptures for any of those reasons, which Haeretiques urge; but for the more speedy abolishing of haereticall translations and they there, show that there have been some vulgar translations of scriptures long before Luther's time, and that the reading of them was neither generally forbidden, nor generally permitted in former times, no more than they are now: how near then do they come?  
6. As for that which you tell us out of my L. Cook's report's, that our Catholics did frequent your Churches till the eleventh year of Q. Elizabeth. I answer that for my Lo: Cook, I have not to meddle with him, 
Answ. to. Cook. reports cap. 16.  neither need I; he was so sound answered by a Catholic Divine and so exposed to the scorn of the world for his notorious falsehoods, and even in this particular among others that he never had the hart or face to make answer for himself. And yet now you are not ashamed to take up his false tales, and tell them again afresh. Now after this for a leaf together you talk your ordinary fustian; that many Catholics hold this, and that, and other point of your doctrine, though they dare not communicate openly with you. For why I pray should they not dare here in England, where they are compelled thereunto? But I let this pass as being all your own discourse: except only one thing out of C●sterus, who saith that a Priest doth sin more grievously in marrying a wife, then keeping a Concubine. Which you seem to take for a great error. To which I say that in your Ministers who are mere lay men, and may marry as freely as any body else, it is a greater sin to have a concubine, then to marry; nay to marry is no sin. But in Priests, who cannot marry, it is a greater sin to marry, for it is no marriage and in this Sir I would know of you whether it would not be a greater sin, for a man to marry another man's wife, her husband being alive, then to live loosely with her at his pleasure? nay whether it be not worse for him to live loosely with her, with promise to marry her when her husband dyeth then without such a promise? sure it is. For a promise in such a case, according to the Canons is an impediment that they can never marry together. Likewise is it not a greater sin for a man to marry with a near kinswoman within the degrees forbidden: in which case it is no Marriage, then to live loosely with her? Sure it is, and yet this is it which you condemn in Costerus, but it makes no matter what you say.  
7. And so I come to Bishop Gardiner, who you tell us died a Protestant because when he came to dye he set the Merits of Christ in the gap to stand between God's judgement and his sins. I answer Sir Humphrey that if you can bring a Catholic that doth not do so, we will yield Bishop Gardiner to have died a Protestant. And so of Bellarmine whom you make men believe to have died a Protestant, because he craved pardon at the hands of God, not as a valewer of merits, but as a giver of mercy. For by this rule Bellarmine should not only have died but also lived a Protestant; for as often as he said Mass, which was every day throughout the year, that he was able, for 40. years together at least before his death, he said those words and so doth every Catholic Priest as oft as he saith Mass for they are in the Canon of the Mass, 
Cap Signifi●●sti.  which is never changed, but is always the same though the epistles gospels and prayers change, according to the several times and feasts. What a madness than is it here hence to make Bellarmine a Protestant? but it is like the rest of your inferences.  
8. But you have another thing out of Bellarmine, which is that he saith it is most safe to put trust in the only mercy and goodness of God. It is true Bellarmine sayeth so, but yet you leave out the former part of the sentence, which was to be the reason and rule of the later part; which is this, by reason of the uncertainty of our own justice, and peril of vain glory, it is most safe etc. Wherein I would fain see what there is to make Bellarmine a Protestant? For he doth not deny that there is any confidence to be placed in our good works proceeding from God's grace, as you Protestants do for he had proved in the same Chapter out of Scriptures and Fathers, that there might; but there he saith withal that because we know not whether we have such good works or Noah, or though perhaps we know we have, yet for fear of vain glory, it is the better way to turn away our eyes from them, and look only upon God's mercy: Which he proveth by many prayers which the Church useth in that manner and among others this very prayer whereby you gather him to be a Protestant: which as he used in his sickness, so he taught in health how it was to be used without danger of Protestantisme or any other such error but what? Doth this take away all merit of God works, or all confidence in them? nothing less good Sir knight as any man may see without farther declaration. Well but though you cannot make Bishop Gardner or Bellarmine-Protestants, 
Lib. 2. de iustif cap. 1.  yet you will make Pighius a Caluinist, in the point of justification? But Bellarmine even there where you cite him cleareth Pighius, though not from all error, yet from that imputation of Caluinisme in two respects: the one in that his opinion is not wholly the same with Caluin, for he acknowledgeth inhaerent justification, which Caluin denieth; though in this he err, that he thinketh that inhaerent justifying form to be imperfect and insufficient of itself to make men the adoptive Children of God without, the imputative justice of Christ. Which also is not so much Caluinisme as Lutheranisme. But be it what it will Bellarmine excuseth Pighius in another respect, to wit, because he did not obstinately defend the error as Caluin or Luther doth, which is the main difference. For it is not the error, but the obstinacy that maketh an Haeretique. And so you see Sir Knight you have not one true word in all this section: But let us now see your next.   


Chap. 5.  The Knights 5. Section. Wherein he undertaketh to show, how worldly policy and profit hindereth the reformation of such things as are unexcusable in themselves. CHAPTER V.  
1. OF this Section there is not much to be said. For there is nothing in it but a little of the knights own raving. For he telleth us that now he seethe Trentals, Masses, Diriges, Requiem, prayers for the dead, Indulgences, Purgatory, etc. made articles of faith, he despaireth of reformation. To which I need make no other answer, but that it is a good sign that he finds at last the strength of the Church so built upon a Rock, as no tempests or winds can shake it; but rather that by storms and tempests it groweth stronger; the practice of the Catholic Church being strengthened against all Haeretiques, by the greatest authority on earth, to wit, a general Council confirmed by the See Apostolic. Again he despairs, when he seethe Maldonats saying (as he telleth us) practised by the Church of Rome, against his Church and Doctrine, to wit, he, that is, Maldonate, interpreting a place of S. john, alloweth S. Augustin's explication as most probable, though he rather approve another of his own, because it more crosseth the sense of the Caluinists. This is it that driveth him in to despair. Alas poor Sir Humphrey: is all your bravery come to this: what your hart fail you so in the beginning? But it is no wonder; such a cause may well make you despair. And by your despair you show your Doctrine to be false; for true doctrine looseth nothing by being impugned, but rather gaineth, as experience showeth in the Catholic faith; of which is verified the saying of the Prophest. 
Psal. 11.7.  Eloquia Domini Eloquia casta: argentum igne examinatum probatum terrae purgatum septuplum. Words of our Lord be chaste Words, silver examined by fire, tried of the earth, purged Seven fold. Fire tries but consumes not gold, but dross it shown to be dross by consuming it. For Maldonat; he approveth and commendeth S. Augustin's explication, but addeth another of his own, not contrary, nor disagreeing, though different from it. He preferreth it, because it is more against an Haeretique so it is like S. Aug. himself would also have done, if he had been alive in these times: For it is well known how in expounding of Scriptures, he still had regard to the confutation of these heresies which then reigned and in one place he adviseth, 
Tract. 2. in ep. 1. Io.  that those passages of Scripture be most carefully observed and remembered which make most against Haeretiques.  
2. After this the Knight hath a great deal of foolish stuff which needs no answer, being but a bare recital of things: as for example our wresting the Scriptures; his agreement of doctrine with the Fathers; nothing to the purpose in this place: and then he crieth out against our altering the Commandments; which is before answered: Communion in both kinds: prayer to Saints: and in an unknown tongue: Which shallbe afterwards answered. Only in this place, I note in a word this wise question of his. What reason (saith he) can be alleged why an ignorant man should pray without understanding? To which I answer with a contrary demand, to wit, How an ignorant man, that is, one that wanteth knowledge or understanding, shall pray with understanding? and so I leave him.   

Of the 6. Section the title whereof is this. 
Chap. 6.  The common pretence of our adversaries refusing Reformation because we cannot assign the praecise time, when errors came in, refuted. CHAPTER VI.  
1. Here the Knight is up again with his reformation, and complaineth that we will not admit thereof, nor acknowledge our doctrine erroneous, unless he can assign the time, and person, when and by whom the error came in. Which he seemeth to acknowledge he cannot do; for he never goeth about it; but only laboureth to disprove our exception against him; by saying, that a man that is sick of a consumption, ought not to refuse the help of the Physician, upon pretence that he can not tell the time and occasion when his body began first to be distempered: and out of S. Aug. he saith that when a man is fallen into a pit, and calleth to a passenger for help, 
Ep. 19  the passenger must not refuse to help him out, upon pretence that he seethe not how he should come to fall in. He proveth it also as he thinketh out of scripture, because in the parable of the cockle, it is said that the enemy sowed it when men were a sleep: out of which he inferreth that they could not see or know him. Therefore he saith that this defection of the Roman Church is a secret Apostasy; 
Matth. 13.  and therein he maketh the difference between haeresy and Apostasy; that haeresy is preached openly, so as the time and person may be named, but not so this our secret apostasy; haeresy worketh in the day, apostasy in the night. And then he reckoneth up some points, as worshipping of images, Prayer for the dead, the primacy of S. Peter, and some others which he saith were not so meant a● first, as they are now practtized and believed in the Roman Church. This is his jolly discourse, framed in his own brain pan, and surely grounded as you shall find upon examination thereof, which now I come unto.  
2. He compareth the creeping in of error to the growing of a sickness in a man's body, and presuming that because he saith it we must therefore take those things which he would have us for error; he would presently have us also fall to correct them without standing to examine farther, no more than a Physician should, that cometh to a sick man. But his comparison faileth exceedingly. For though there be some little likeness between the creeping in of errors, and growing of a Disease in a man's body, because both begin little and stelingly and increase by degrees; Yet to our purpose none at all. For the question is not, whether we should fall to cure the disease without examining the cause, (though by your good leave Sir Knight, good Physicians use to inquire of the causes, effects, and other circumstances of the sickness, which they come to cure) but whether this that you say is a disease or sickness be so or Noah. And therefore all your labour is lost, when by similitudes you labour to prove that we are not to put you to the proof of our errors, by naming the authors, time, and place, for upon these circumstances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a disease or no which is our question. Neither is that authority of S. Aug. to your purpose; for he speaketh of a man fallen into a pit; of whom it is evident, that he is fallen into it. And though you would have it so, that the Roman Church is fallen into an error, as it were into a pit we say otherwise, and of this is the question. And this we would have you prove, by assingning the author, time, & place of this Change, for till you can show that we say according to S. Aug. rule, that whatsoever the Catholic Church doth generally believe, or practice, so as there can be no time assigned when it began, it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition. Such we say are all these things, which you are pleased only because they please you not, to call errors. And it stands you therefore upon, to prove when they began: else they must pass for Apostolical traditions, not for errors as you would have them.  

Tert. praescrip. cap. 31.  3. Besides it is Tertullians' rule for discerning of heresy from truth, to see which goeth before, & which cometh after, that which goeth before is truth, that which cometh after is error. We say then that in all these things, we go before; because we have antiquity, they are things that have been ever taught and practised, we plead prescription from the beginning and we say and prove that you come after, we assign you persons, times, & places, who have begun the Change; it followeth them that ours is true, till you can show us time person and place when it began, as we show yours not to be true by the same rule. Neither is it enough for you to say, we are in error; you must disprove us, by showing our prescription not to hold good, which you can never do, without assigning of persons times etc. If you should have a suit against a man in Westminster-hall, for land which he pleadeth to have been his and his ancestors, for so long time as is required by the Law to make prescription, and that you should go about to disprove it without assigning the time and manner, but only by your own bare word, would not every man laugh at you? How much more in this case? and yet you think you have spoken wonderful wisely and learnedly all this while.  
4. Which may yet appear more, by that which followeth of your comparison betwixt heresy and apostasy. In which you attribute this later unto us: but it seemeth hereby, you little know what Apostasy is. Wherefore to help you out Apostasy is a defection or forsaking of the name of Christ, and profession of Christianity, as all men understand it. Whereof sure you cannot tax us, so long as we believe the Apostles Creed, which you call the common cognizance of Christianity, and which you confess us to believe. How then can we be Apostata'es? In no wise certainly; but if we err, we err as Heretics; & if we be Heretics, you confess you must assign the person, who first taught our heresies, the time & place, where & when they were first taught. For so you say in plain terms, that heresy, because it worketh openly it may be discerned, the time and person known: though you be somewhat various in this, for you say a little before, that when there was any heresy that did endanger the foundation, or openly disturbed the Church, (supposing herein that there be some secret heresies which do not so,) the Fathers gave warning thereof by letters. But your supposition is false and foolish. False in that you think any heresy not to endanger the foundation of Faith; for the least heresy that can be imagined overthroweth all divine faith: Foolish in that you suppose some heresies to be so secret, as not to disturb the Church. For if they be secret how come you to know them and to know they are heresies, seeing they come to have the name of heresy only by condemnation of the Church. As for your last point of the Father's giving warning by letters, it is true indeed and thereto you might also have added, if you had so pleased, that the Fathers did forbear absolutely to condemn things for heresies, or to censure the authors for haeretiques, 
V Ep. Cyrill. Alex. ad Caelest. P P. in Conc. Ephes. p. 1. cap. 14. to. 1. Concil. ed. Post. Binii.  and consequently to send such letters till they had acquainted the Bishops of Rome and had his judgement. As is clear by S. Cyrill of Alexandria in the case of Nestorius.  
5. But we have this at least out of your discourse, that seeing you can produce no such letters against any point of those which you condemn us for that they do not endanger the foundation of faith. If not, what needed you make this huge breach from us, upon pretence of Reformation in things of no more moment or at least not of necessity in your judgement, but we are not to require more reason of your doings than your sayings: and therefore to come to the parable of scripture wherein the enemy is said to have over sowed his cockle in the night: Which parable you are pleased to expound of Apostasy. I answer that this parable is understood no less of haeresy than Apostasy, 
V Tert. de praesor. cap. 31.  nay more. For all the Fathers and Interpreters expound it of haeresy; none that ever I heard of Apostasy: Which therefore must be verified of all those which you acknowledge for open haeresyes. 28.  
6. And therefore you are much out of the way, when you think by that, that you are not to be forced to name the person, place, and time; when, where, and by whom our Doctrine began: because as you say the seed was sown in the night and the person not known. For in that parable you are to know, that as Christ is the Goodman of the house who sowed the good seed, so the enemy that soweth his cockle in the night, is the Devil, who indeed worketh in the night, and invisibly; and he is the one singular and principal enemy of Christ, and all Mankind. And he it is, that soweth all the several seeds of diverse haeresyes; the field wherein he soweth it, is the World. Then it groweth up and appeareth, when that seed of erroneous doctrine being sowed in the hearts of wicked men, and there taking deep root breaketh forth at last by their preaching and teaching thereof, or this cokle are Filij mali as the Scripture itself saith, evil Children, than the Servants of the Goodman, who are the Pastors and Doctors of his Church presently begin to complain thereof, and wonder how it should come, etc. 
So S. Aug. lib. q. Euang. in Math. cap. 11. to 4.  This is the true explication of this Parable not according to my private sense but according to the sense of the holy Fathers; and our Blessed Saviour himself, who voutsafed to explicate this Parable unto us: wherein as you see the Goodman's servants mark the growing of the cockle; so must you tell us what Pastors or Doctors did ever note any such thing in any point of our doctrine. But here Sir Humphrey what is to be thought of you, that take upon you to interpret Scripture at your own pleasure, and for your own ends even then where our B. Saviour himself doth explicate his own parable, and meaning thereof. What I say may men think by this that you will do else where? & so your chief gap or evasion, for not assigning the person time & place when our Doctrine began, is stopped, and the exception remaineth still in full force, to wit, that you must assign the time place & persons, or else we acknowledge no error.  
7. But you say it is an undeniable truth, that some things were condemned in the primitive Church for erroneous and superstitious, which now are established for articles of Faith: & this you prove by a place of S. Aug. saying that he knew many worshippers of tombs and pictures, whom the Church condemneth and seeketh to amend; Which yet you say is now established for an article of Faith. But by your leave Sir, this your undeniable truth, is a most deniable untruth. For first S. Augustine's time, was a good while, that is, about one hundred years after the primitive church. Secondly, that which S. Aug. condemneth, to wit, the superstitions and heathenish worship of dead and perhaps wicked men's tombs and pictures, used by some bad Christians, is not approved by the Nicene and Trent Counsels; but the religious worship of Saints images, & relics, which S. Aug. himself practised, 
Bell. de reliq. lib. 2. cap. 4.  as you may see in Bellarmine; with whom also you may find other good solutions of this place, which I suppose you cannot but have seen, and consequently you cannot but know that your undeniable truth, is flatly denied by him, and all Catholics.  
8. divers other things, as the Primacy of S. Peter, Prayer for the dead, justification, Masses, Monasteries, Caeremonies, Feasts, Images. You say are otherwise now used then at first instituted. Which for these five last, to wit, Masses Monasteries etc. You prove out of one joannes Ferus a friar, a man much in your books, and the books of all your Ministers; but not in any of ours, but only the Roman Index of forbid books. And therefore of no authority or account with us. For the rest of these points, we have nothing but your bare word & surmise, which is but a bare proof & not worth the answering. 9 After this, the knight thinketh to come upon us another way, saying that our own authors, who have sought the times and beginners of our errors, as he is pleased to call them, confess an alteration though they do not find when it began. For restraint of Priest's marriage he saith that Marius cannot find when it came in, Yet after he bringeth Polidore Virgil saying that Priest's marriage was not altogether forbidden, till the time of Gregory the 7. And this doctrine our knight is pleased to make all one, with that absolute forbidding of marriage which S. Paul reckoneth among the doctrines of Devils. For S. Paule's authority it hath been answered more often then the knight hath fingers and toes; and every child may see the difference between forbidding of Marriage generally to all sorts, as a thing evil in itself and unlawful, and forbidding marriage in one particular state or profession, to which no man is bound, but is left free whither he will embrace it with this condition or not. And this not because it is a thing evil in itself, but because it less agreeth with the holiness which is required for the exercise of Priestly function. For Polydore Virgil it is true he saith as the Knight telleth us and eue● as much more beside as any haeretique can say of that matter: but it booteth not; that work of his de rerum inurn ●o●●●● being a forbidden book, 
Conc. Nic. can. 3. Carthag 2. can. 2. V Bell. lib. 1. de cler. cap. 19  and the thing which he saith most evidently false as appeareth by infinite testimonies, but particularly by a Canon of that great Nicene Council 800. years before Gregory the 7. his tyme. And the 2. Council of Carthage, which testifieth it, as a thing taught by the Apostles, and observed by antiquity. The Knight may find more in Bellarmine for proof of this point. Hear I only ask how he maketh his authors, hang together, Marius cannot find the beginning, Polydore findeth it, and yet both for the Knight's purpose forsooth. But for Marius his authority it is nothing against us but for us. For it followeth by S. Augustine's rule, that because it is practised and taught in the Catholic Church, with out being known when it began, that therefore it is an Apostolical tradition.  
10. Another error as he saith, is Prayer in an unknown tongue, wherein it is to be wondered saith Erasmus as the Knight citeth him, how the Church is altered. But Erasmus is no author for us to answer: he is branded in the Roman Index. Neither need I say more of the matter itself in this place. A third error of ours as he pretendeth, is Communion in one kind, for which he citeth Val. twice; once saying it is not known when it first got footing in the Church; another time, that Communion in one kind began to be generally received, but a little before the Council of Constance. Which I see not to what purpose they are, if they were right cited, as the former is not. For Val. hath thus much. When that custom began in some churches, 
Val. de leg. usu Euch. cap. 16.  it appeareth not: but that there hath been some use of one kind ever from the beginning, I shown before. So Valencia. What doth this make for the knight? nay doth it not make against him? why else should he corrupt and mangle it? Doth not Valencia say he made it appear that this kind of Communion was somewhat used from the beginning? and that which he saith, of the not appearing when it began, is not of the Church in general, but of some particular Churches. Besides for a final answer I say it is no matter of doctrine, but practice, the doctrine having ever been and being still the same of the lawfulness of one or both kinds as the Church shall ordain, though upon good reasons the practice have changed according to the diversity and necessity of tyme. With all therefore that ever he can do, he can not refute that argument which we make against him and his, that our doctrine is not to be taxed of error, so long as they cannot show, when, where, and by whom it began: as we can and do every day of them and their doctrine.  
11. But because it is ordinary with these men to charge us with this same secret apostasy and defection, though they cannot tell when nor how it hath come, I shall here put this Knight in mind of two convincing arguments to the contrary, brought by the Catholic Divine that answered that part of my Lo: 
Answ. to Cook's reports. ep. dedicat n. 22. etc.  Cooke's reports before cited by this knight, to convince the folly and vanity of a certain similitude of a wedge of gold, that was dissolved and mingled with other metals brass tin &c brought by Sir Edward to prove the dissolution of the Roman Church by errors and innovations, just as this knight talketh. One of the arguments is theological; the other moral. The first, that if the Church of Rome was the true mother Church, which both my Lord Cook, our Knight, and all the rest of them confess, than were all the predictions & promises of the Prophets for the greatness, eminency, honour, certainty, and flourishing perpetuity of the said Church fulfilled in her; and Christ's peculiar promises in like manner: that he would be to the world's end with her that hell gates should never prevail against her etc. Were also performed in her, for so many hundred years, as they confess her to have continued in her purity; Whereof ensueth that either God is not able to perform his promise, or else it cannot be conceived without impiety, that this flourishing kingdom and Queen of the world should be so dissolved and mingled with brass, tin, copper, should be so corrupted with errors and innovations, as to fall away by Apostasy; this is the theological argument, which may be read there more at large.  
12. The moral is, that Christ having purchased his Church at so dear a rate as was the shedding of his blood, and having set over it so many Pastors and Doctors to keep continual watch, how is it possible that it should fall away and decay, without any one of all these watchmens once opening his mouth, to resist or testify this change. To any wise man this may truly seem as it is a thing wholly impossible. Of this also he may see a large & excellent discourse in the same place.  
13. But not to detain myself longer in it, I will here only represent a consideration of Tertullian's supposing that this so impossible a thing should happen. Go too, saith he, be it so; let all have erred, 
praescr. cap. 28.  let the Apostle be deceived in his testimony which he gave of the faith of some Churches; be it so that the holy Ghost hath not regarded any, (Church) so as to lead it into truth, though sent by Christ for this end, and desired of the Father to be the teacher of truth; be it so that the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, hath neglected his charge, suffering the Churches to understand otherwise, to believe otherwise then he (that is Christ) preached by his Apostles; What, is it likely, that so many and so great should err all in one belief? among many several events there is not one issue. Mark here, one Steward of God's household, one Vicar of Christ to whose office it belongeth, to see that particular churches do not teach nor believe otherwise then they were taught by the preaching of the Apostles. The error of doctrine of the Churches must have been several, but that which is found one and the same among or with many, is not error but a thing delivered, therefore may any man dare to say, that they who delivered it did err? Hitherto are Tertullian's very words. In which besides that every sentence is a weighty argument of moral impossibility of the Churches erring, which yet for disputation sake he letteth pass for possible, he hath that strong concluding impossibility, that so many several Churches in every country, so many several men should all agree in the same error, out of which Unity, he gathereth it to be a truth, no error. Therefore let this Knight, and all his babbling Ministers if they do not mean to be counted wholly out of their wits for evermore hold their peaces, without accusing the Catholic Church which containeth in itself so many Churches, so many kingdoms, 
Chap. 7.  so many millions of people all agreeing in the same faith, of error and apostasy.   

Of the 7. Section the title whereof is thus. The pedigree of the Romish faith, drawn down from the ancient Haeretiques: and the Protestant faith derived from Christ and his Apostles. CHAPTER VII.  
1. IN this Section Sir Humphrey you undertake a great task, which if you perform according as you promise, eris mihi magnus Apollo If you do not, than a man may say to you with out offence, magnus es ardelis. You undertake to derive us by Succession in person and doctrine from ancient Heretics, and yourself from the Apostles. Which how truly you have performed. I am in this chapter to examine. You begin with Latin Service and Prayer in a strange tongue, which you say out of one Wolphius a Lutheran Heretic, came into the Church by Pope Vitalian about the year 666. whereof you make a mystery noting thus in the margin numerus bestiae Apoc. 13. The number of the beast. From him you skip to the Heretics Osseni, who taught as you say out of Epiphanius, that there was no need to make a prayer in a known tongue. From them you go yet higher to the Apostle's time, wherein you say out of S. Ambrose, that there were certain jews among the Grecians, as namely the Corinthians, who did celebrate the divine Service and the Sacrament sometimes in the Syriake, and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue, which the common people understood not. And you say that against that the Apostle S. Paul wrote that 14. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians, from whom therefore you say your Protestant doctrine is derived as ours is from haeretiques.  
2. For answer of this, and what else you are to say of your Succession it is to be noted, that it is one thing to prove a thing to have been anciently taught, another to have been successively taught. For this later, besides antiquity which it includeth, it importeth Continuance, and perpetuity without interruption. So that though it should be true, which you say out of Wolphius, Epiphanius, and S. Ambrose, yet were not that enough. For there be some hundreds of years between Pope Vitalian and the Osseni, and more from S. Paul's time to this of ours, from which notwithstanding, you draw your doctrine without any body between, now for the space of 1500. years. Besides when we speak of Succession in person in these matters, it is understood principally of persons in authority one succeeding the other in place and office. For we see in kingdoms and commonwealthes, the Succession is to be considereth most in regard of the Governors and rulers, and in the Church the reason is more special, because the Rulers thereof are Doctors by office. As for Succession in doctrine to speak properly and clearly the Succession is not to be considered in the doctrine itself, for that must be always the same; but it is to be considered in the Men. So that they succeed one another, not only in place and office, but also in the same Doctrine; that is holding the same Doctrine which their Predecessors have held, as they hold the same place.  
3. This premised, which cannot be denied, I think no man willbe able in all that the Knight saith in this Section, to find so much as a shadow of Succession either in person or Doctrine, either against us or for himself. Wherefore I shall endeavour only to discover his falsehood and corruptions, in charging us with ancient heresies. For Latin service then, that it should be first brought in by Vitalian, it is a most strange absurdity for this knight to aver such a known falsehood, upon no other authority than Volphiu's, a professed haeretique; and who can have no other ground, but because that Pope lived about the year 666. which number is the name of the beast in the Apocalypse, though if he, that is, Wolphius would make a mystery of the year wherein S. Vitalian lived, I see not why he should take the 666. which was the eleventh of his Popedom, rather than the year 655. or 669. which were the first and last years thereof. which being so ridiculously false, I will forbear to bring proofs against it, lest I may give occasion to any man to think that there is any the least likelihood in it. For during those 600. and odd years, what other Liturgies were there in the Latin Church but Latin, of which the very name of Latin Church giveth sufficient testimony: if not Latin, let this Knight or his friend Wolphius say what Language was in use before.  
4. As for the Osseni whom our Knight would place upwards towards the Apostles, yet after their time, for he goeth ascendeing upwards as he saith, he is notably mistaken in the tyme. For Epiphanius maketh them one of the seven Sects, which were among the jews before Christ's coming. For thus he saith. Post relatas Samaritarum & superius Graecorum indicatas Sectas septem fuerunt haereses apud judaeos ante Christi in carne adventum? 
In principio cap. 14.  Having related and pointed out the Sects of the Samaritans and Grecians there were seven heresies among the jews before the coming of Christ in flesh. And then reckoning and treating of the heresies in order in the 19 chap. he cometh to this of the Osseni the very title being this. Contra Ossenos Sextam Iudaism● haeresim. Against the Osseni the sixth heresy of judaisme. Besides for the matter I only say, that reading that 19 heresy of Epiphanius, which he citeth, the title whereof is Of the Osseni, twice over, and the second time yet more attentively than the first, I could not find any such word as the Knight citeth out of him, to wit, that there was no need to make a prayer in a known tongue. Indeed it was one of Elxais heresies (who lived long after in Traian's time, and whom S. Epiphanius joineth with the Osseni) that men must not pray towards the East as then was the general custom of the Church. Which error, is not to be compared with the least of a hundred which our Heretics now adays maintain, and yet they forsooth make no matter of, because they are not fundamental.  
5. For the place of S. Ambrose, if a Catholic should urge him or his Ministers with an authority out of that work, they would make answer it were not S. Ambrose his, and they would fill their margins with citations taken out of our authors. Which exception though I might in like sort make, yet I do not; because the author is ancient, though not known, nor his doctrine in all things so currant. But for this place, the Knight hath so mangled & glossed it, yet putting all in a different letter, as if they were the author's words, that when I came to read the author, and see him so changed, I began to think whether that were the place. But finding that there could be no other, and that it is like in some words, I concluded that this must be it. The author then commenting upon the 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where S. Paul speaketh of some that did use the gift of tongues for ostentation: saith thus. High ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua, plaerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus utebantur ad commendationem: gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae. These were of the Hebrews who sometimes used the Syriack but most part the Hebrew in their treatises, that is, (speeches or exhortations) or Oblations, for ostentation. For they did boast that they were called Hebrews, for the merit of Abraham. These are the words of the author truly reported, and truly translated. Whereas the knight put this preface, that there were certain jews among the Grecians, as namely the Corinthians, which words are not in this author. Then he goeth on thus: (who did celebrate the divine Service and Sacraments etc. Whereas in the author there is neither the word (celebrate), nor the word (divine Service) much less the word (Sacraments); all that hath any show of a thing like is, that word (oblationibus); which signifieth offering, whereof some may be made by Lay men and women, as the Puritan Ministers find full oft to their profit, without any celebration or Sacraments, the word (tractatibus) signifieth speeches or exhortations by word or writing, and so S. Aug. calleth the expositors of Scriptures tractatores. 
de doct. Chr. Vinc. Lirin. aedu hear. cap. 27.  Lastly whereas the author declared the end for which they used those tongues, to wit for ostentation bragging that they were Hebrews, for the merit of Abraham, this knight leaveth all that out, and putteth in these words of his own which the common people understood not, as if they were the author's words. Now though this authority do not import much either one way or other, yet a man may by it see the honesty and fidelity of this knight, who in all this sentence which he maketh 9 lines in his book, he hath not one word right cited, but only these (Sometimes in the Syriac and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue) which being taken alone what sense can they have, and yet how many lines a man is fain to write to lay open his naughty dealing?  
6. Another point of our doctrine, to wit, transubstantiation he draweth from the Haeretiques Heliesaitae, which feigned a twofold Christ one in heaven another in earth, out of Theodoret. And from one Marcus an Haeretique who by his invocation over the Sacramental cup, as the knight saith, caused the wine to appear like blood, out of S. Irenaeus. And lastly from the Capharnaits in Christ's time, out of his own brain, and so concludeth our Succession in doctrine and person to be drawn from Idolaters, Haeretiques, and Capharnaits. Of the first of these three Theodoret saith, that those haeretiques made two Christ's one below, another above; of whom they say that he had dwelled in many before, and at last came down hither; or as others declare it; that at last he came and rested in JESUS the Son of MARY. An haeretical fable indeed, which no man can tell what to make of? but wherein is it like to our transubstantiation? these haeretiques make two Christ's we acknowledge but one; and the same both in heaven and in the consecrated host. Marcus, as Irenaeus saith, by the help of the Devil through art magic, changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice, which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramental, into several colours. The Catholic Priest doth the clean contrary; for the colour and other accidents remaining, he changeth the substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, by the Omnipotent power of almighty God. For the Capharnaits, they thought they should eat Christ's body piece meal, and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feed; we receive Christ whole and entire, not in the form and shape of flesh, but of bread; and in a spiritual, though real manner. What likeness then in all these doctrines with ours, to a man in his right wits?  
7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope, which he fetcheth from Phocas Emperor who he saith first gave it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. years after Christ. But to give us more antiquity, he saith the Gentiles were our first founders, and benefactors. For which he allegeth the saying of our Saviour. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, 
Luc 22.25.  and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Hear he saith we are derived from bloodsuckers and Gentiles, usurping power over kings in things spiritual and temporal: whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ: Whosoever willbe great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever willbe chief among you let him be your servant. This is his discourse. To which I answer, that the knight is egregiously mistaken in saying that Phocas gave that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople; though if he should have given it, or rather attempted to give that which he could not give to the Bishop of Constantinople, what is that to us? Do we derive our Succession from Constantinople? was there not a Bishop of Rome, and was he not acknowledged for head of the Church some hundreds of years before ever there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople, or even a Constantine himself? What then doth he tell us of the Bishop of Constantinople, or Phocas, or any such? rather the clean contrary: for all true history telleth us, that whereas john that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople, 
ut habetur in ep. Pelag. to. 1. Conc.  would have had that title of Universal Bishop whereby he might seem to equal the Bishop of Rome (though in words he protested never to do any thing against the See Apostolic) wherein he had been supported by Mauritius the Emperor, and upon whom therefore and all his, 
V Cedr. Lonar. & alias ap. Coqu. count. progr. 22. pag. 327.  almighty God shown the severity of his judgements, when Phocas came to be Emperor, though otherwise a naughty cruel man, he made a constitution, declaring that the Church of Rome, 
Plat. in Bonif. 3.  which is head of all Churches should be so called and held by all, forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the use of that title, which he took upon him of himself. Out of which commonly the Protestants object, that the Bishop of Rome hath received his authority from Phocas, which is a most absurd and foolish conceit. For the Bishop of Rome's authority is fare greater than can be given by any earthly man, and which being given by our B. Saviour himself here upon earth▪ the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercised continually for the space of more than 600. years before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him? But this showeth the knight's ignorance and absurdity (which is our business in this place) first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople, which showeth his ignorance, for that Decree was made by Phocas in favour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople. Secondly in alleging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority, which is commonly alleged even by Protestants against it, who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depress the Bishop of Rome.  
8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentiles. I see not what it is that he would say to the purpose. Our Saviour indeed telleth his Disciples, he will not have them imitate the domineering manner of government of those Kings; but contrariwise, that he that is chief among them, shallbe as a Servant to the rest. Which Council is & hath ever been most observed by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome; who therefore have used to style themselves. SERWS SERVORUM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANT'S OF GOD, but will this knight therefore have it that by reason of this humility there must not be any Superiority, that because he must carry himself like a servant, therefore he must not feed the Lambs and sheep of Christ? If he mean this, as I see not what else he should mean, I say no more but that it is a conceit worthy of him? But besides what a fine line of Succession is here? Doth the Pope succeed either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentiles? to what purpose then are they named?  
9 But to go yet on with his toys, he deduceth our worship of Images from the Basilidians and Carpocratians, who (saith he) did worship images; and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate, for which he citeth S. Irenaeus in the margin. His own doctrine he deriveth from the second of the ten commandments, according to his own translation, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved image. Hear again the Knight giveth yet more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing. For why, when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ, made as they said by Pilate, why I say could not he have gone on with S. Irenaeus, who, speaking of that, and other pictures both painted and carved, which they had, saith. Has coronant, 
Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24.  & proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram; to wit cum imagine Pythâgorae, & Platonis, & Aristotelus, & reliquorum; & reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt. They crown them, and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world, to wit, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest, and use such other observation towards them, as the Gentiles do. Doth not this answer you Sir Humphrey? Do you not here find a difference between that worship and ours between idolatry and religion? between their adoring the creature of wood and colour, in place of the creator; and our adoring the creator represented by the creature? between their adoration of idolatrous damned Philosophers, and our worship of the blessed Saints and Servants of God, living with him in glory? This is too too gross for such a subtle knight as you are. Now for proof of your doctrine by Succession from the 2. commandment, it is ridiculous to call it Succession; though you took the place of scripture in the true sense, as you do not. For how doth your doctrine succeed the commandment, a man may prove his doctrine out of scripture but not derive the Succession thereof out of that proof. For this Commandment it is neither the second, but an explication of the first; nor is it truly translated; for there is not the word Image in that place of scripture.  
9 A fift point is Communion in one kind, which he saith we have from the Manichees, and from the Nazarites, who it is not like as Bellarmine saith, did drink of the Chalice against their Vow, nor yet like that they did wholly abstain from the Communion: Out of which he gathereth that they did communicate in one kind only. And here saith the Knight, is their best Succession from Haeretiques, and an uncertain example of the Nazarites. Whereas his doctrine (he saith) is taught by Christ, himself, Drink ye all of this. This is the Knight's discourse. But to answer him, I say, that before ever there was Manichee in the world, the B. Sacrament was administered, sometimes in one kind, sometimes in both. The Manichees abstained indeed from receiving the chalice, out of one haeretical principle, as now our Haeretiques stand to have it for another like principle; against which as in that time the Church forbade the use of one kind, so now it forbiddeth the use of both kinds, and may again give way when it shall seem convenient for the use of both kinds, the doctrine ever remaining the same, as upon another occasion I said before. For that word of our Saviour Drink ye all of this, from whence the Knight draweth the Succession of his doctrine, it was spoken only to the Apostles and in them to Priests not to the Laity. Of which I shall have occasion to speak again afterwards.  
10. But to come to an end of this matter, the Knight draweth our invocation of Saints and Angels from the Angelici, our Works of Supererogation from the Cathari, our Worship of the B. Virgin from the Collyridians, our Forbidding Priests to marry from Tatianus and the Manichees, who he saith Forbade it in their Priests. Putting down the Latin words in Sacerdotibus. As if those special words were in S. Epiphanius, whom he citeth. But this serveth for nothing, 
V Gual. chron.  but to show the man's shamelessness more and more. For the Angelici they were Heretics, swerving from the rule of the Catholic faith, by excess, that is, honouring Angels more than their dew, or more than creatures; as Heretics of these time do by defect; that is, not honouring them so much as is dew nor as creatures specially honoured & employed by God, for the good of mankind. The Cathari or Puritans as he interpreteth the word himself, a man would think should belong more to him that is either a Puritan or a Brother, or at least a Reformer, then to us Catholics. But the Cathari were No●atians, who out of pride and self conceit, as if they were more clean and holy did condemn Catholics, for admitting men to penance, though they sinned never so often & so grievously, whereas they, Saints forsooth, if a man did for fear deny his faith, they would have nothing to do with him any more. Now what is in this, like our works of Supererogation that is works which a man is not bound unto? The Collyridians exceeded the measure of honour dew to our B. Lady, for they did offer sacrifice unto her, as the Antidico Marianitae did err contrarily denying her due honour, whom the Knight did forbear to name, lest he might seem to name his own sect. Now Catholics go in the middle they do not offer sacrifice unto her, that honour being dew to God alone, but they give her all the honour that can belong to a pure creature. Tatianus and the Manichees disallowed all marriage, but that they did disallow it specially in Priests I do not find in Epiphanius as the Knight would make men believe by putting the words (in Sacerdotibus in Latin and in a distinct letter. Though indeed it be less allowable in Priests then in other men.  
11. It being then so, that of these heresies which here the Knight reckoneth, & whereof he would make us guilty, there is not one of them that any way concerneth us, but rather as a man might easily prove that he & his Church are guilty of almost all of them, how vainly and fond doth he conclude this Section, by saying these and the like errors taught in the church of Rome, are either lineally descended from the aforesaid Haeretiques, or at least have near affinity with them? how vain I say and fond is this saying of his? how near they come, any man may judge, by what I have here said; as also of the linealnes of the descent of our Doctrines from former Haeretiques or of his from the Apostles. For whereas the line should be drawn along by a continued Succession, from the beginning to the end, he nameth sometimes one only man or time for the whole 1500. years, sometimes not so much as one man, but only a bare place of scripture corrupted or misinterpreted. Which what Succession it may make, let any indifferent man be judge. Wherein it seemeth the very guiltiness of his own conscience doth make him misdoubt a little, that he hath not sufficiently performed his promise, as may be gathered out of these words of his. (If I have failed in calculating the right nativity of their ancient doctrine, etc.) but for all that, he saith, he is sure, that we are utterly destitute of a right Succession in person and Doctrine from the Apostles, and ancient Fathers, as he saith shall appear by many testimonies of the best learned among us. But the knight hath so ill performed his promises past, that he cannot look any man should give him credit for those that are to come. And for that which he is sure of, that we have no Succession in person and doctrine, that is so false and so apparently false, as that it is not to be doubted, but he that shall aver it will make no scruple of any lie how loud soever. For do not our catalogues of Popes sold and printed in London testify the contrary? for Succession in person what clearer testimony can there be in the world of personal Succession then to have two hundred and odd Popes one succeeding the other in place and office, exercising the same authority and jurisdiction in the sight of the whole world? Now out of this personal Succession, we Catholics draw a most firm argument of Succession in faith and belief as he calleth it, as the holy Fathers have ever done against Heretics of their times. Which so long as it standeth good; it is in vain for Sir Humphrey and such men to cry out that we have no Succession in doctrine. Let them show when, where, in what Pope's time, and by whom it was interrupted or broken of, or else they say nothing. And so leaving him to find that out I pass to another Section.   


Chap. 8.  Of the 8. Section, entitled thus. The testimonies of our adversaries touching the antiquity and Universality of the Protestant faith in general. CHAPTER VIII.  
1. THe title of this Section promiseth much, and the beginning of the Section itself much more. For in it he saith, that if the Church of Rome do not plainly confess the antiquity of his Church, his Tenets, and the novelty of her own; if she do not proclaim the Universality of the Protestant faith, and confess it both more certain and safe, he will neither refuse the name nor punishment dew to haeresy; Which how bold and unlikely an adventure it is I presume there is no man of judgement be he never so much friend even to Sir Humphrey himself that doth not at the very first sight perceive? how shameless and impudent it is, I doubt not but upon a little examination I halbee able evidently to declare, and consequently how truly both the name and punishment of haeresy is dew unto him, even by his own doom. Wherein I shall crave thine attention Good Reader, that perceiving how well and truly he performeth this promise so great, and upon so hard conditions Voluntarily undertaken in case of not performance thou mayst frame a right judgement of the whole book by this one chapter. And as thou findest him to deal here so to think of his dealing else where. But not to say more I come to the trial of the matter.  
2. He pretendeth then to bring the testimonies of our authors, or to speak in his own phrase, the confession of the Church of Rome touching the Antiquity and Universality, Certainty, and Safety of his faith; which whosoever heareth, would he not expect the man should bring some definition of a Council approved, or some Decree of the See Apostolic, for that only is the confession of the Church of Rome? would not a man expect, he should bring some few authors two or three at least, acknowledging all these points, or some one author for each point; or some one author at lest for some one of them? surely he would. And yet doth the Knight nothing of all this: he bringeth not one author, I say not one, for the Universality or antiquity, etc. of his Church. Though if he should have one, two, three, or ten men, it would not be sufficient for him; unless he have the authority of the Catholic Church, or Church of Rome. For that is it which he promiseth. But let us hear what he saith.  
3. In all this Section he bringeth only three Catholic authors; Adrian, Costerus, and Harding, for the three several points of Transustantiation, Communion in one kind, and private Mass, as he calleth it, in this manner. He saying of himself, that when Protestants accuse us of adoring the elements of bread and wine, we excuse it by saying we adore it upon condition: and for that end bringeth these words of Adrian. Adoro te si tu es Christus. I adore thee if thou be Christ. So of Communion in one kind, when they accuse us of taking away the cup from the Laity, we excuse it: and thereto he bringeth Costerus saying, that Communion under one kind was not taken up by the commandment of the Bishops, but it crept in, the Bishops winking thereat. Thirdly when they accuse us for our private Masses contrary to Christ's institution, we excuse it; and for that end he bringeth these words of Doctor Harding. It is through their own fault and negligence; whereof the godly and faithful people, since the time of the primitive Church, have much complained. These three be all the authors he hath and this all he saith out of them, in which any man may see whether there be a word, or shadow of a word for the antiquity or Universality of the Protestant faith in general, as the title of his Section goeth.  
4. I say nothing here of the man's notable cunning and falsehood, in pretending & making his Reader, believe as if we did excuse ourselves in those things whereof they accuse us: whereby we might seem to acknowledge some fault, whereas there is no such matter in the world, nor one word spoken by any man, by way of excuse as shall appear. For no Catholic but scorneth an excuse in matter of his belief though for life, some may have some what which may need excuse, though in that case, we teach an humble confession to be the best excuse.  
5. But to come now to the matter let us hear what it is these authors say. Adrian as he telleth us excuseth our adoration of the elements of bread and wine, because we adore it upon condition if the consecrated bread be Christ; the Latin words of Adrian in the margin are these Adoro te si tu es Christus. Which words indeade Adrian hath, but they are very different from Sir Humphrey's English as any man may of himself see, and spoken by Adrian upon a very different occasion, as I shall now show. He then disputing whether a judge may without sin wish he might lawfully give judgement against justice, and bringing arguments pro and con, (as Divines do), for the affirmative, he bringeth this. That the deformity of the sin is taken away and cleared by the condition which is added: which he farther proveth by two arguments: the one that the Council of Constance doth excuse ignorant people adoring an unconsecrated host, because this condition is tacitly implied if the consecration be rightly made: the other that all Doctors agree that a man may avoid perplexity between idolatry and disobedience when the Devil so transfiguring himself as to seem Christ commandeth one to adore; if upon condition he adore thus. I adore thee if thou be Christ. This is what Adrian hath. Wherein first any man may see he speaketh nothing of his own opinion but of others, and that by way of dispute only. Secondly the condition which is tacitly implied in the adoration of an unconsecrated host according to the Council of Constance is not that which Sir Humphrey putteth, to wit, if the consecrated bread be Christ, but this other, if it be righty consecrated which is clean another matter; for his condition ever supposing a right consecration maketh doubt whither Christ be there or not which is most false, the other condition maketh no doubt of that but only whither this particular host be rightly consecrated manifestly supposing that if that be, Christ is truly there. Thirdly that other condition or words. Adoro te si tu es Christus: which he would make a man believe were spoken by Adrian of the most B. Sacrament are spoken of the Devil taking upon him the shape of Christ.  
6. Now what gross delusion is this? What excuse can you find for it Sir Humphrey? But suppose Adrian had erred in this or in any other particular point, either ignorantly as a Catholic may, or wilfully as only Haeretiques do: Doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other or that hee-counteth your faith ancient, universal, certain, or safe? noe such matter; nay how on the contrary he abhorreth & detesteth your doctrine as most wicked and damnable is plainly to be seen by a Bull which he writ to Frederick Duke of Saxony against Luther and his Doctrine disproving every point thereof, exhorting the said Frederick to forsake it and return to the true Catholic faith now in the days of Adrian Pope and Charles Emperor as the Saxons did at first embrace it in the time of the first Pope and Emperor of the same names and then living together. With a great deal to the same purpose. What madness then is it to allege a Catholic Divine, a Pope and such a Pope for the antiquity and Universality of your belief.  
7. Now for Costerus you say he excuseth the taking away, of the cup from the Laity. But if you would give a man leave to be so bold with your worship, I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lie? If he excuses it he acknowledgeth the thing to need excuse and consequently to be ill; and I pray you where do you find him do that? noe where verily. For he hath one special title of this controversy; wherein he proveth the truth of the Catholic faith in this point, by ten several reasons, and solueth sixteen objections as well of former as later Haeretiques against it. If this be to excuse, I know not what it is to maintain and make good a thing.  

Enchirid.  8. But now to come to Costerus, he by occasion of soluing an objection, saith that the custom of communicating in one kind began from the people; for it having ever been free to communicate in one kind, or both, as Costerus there often repeateth, the people for diverse incommodityes, by little and little abstained from the chalice, which abstaining of theirs the Bishops for other reasons also, by silence approved. Whereby you see his meaning is plain and clear against you. And for his words, whereas you relate them thus. It was not taken up by the commandment of the Bishops, but it crept in the Bishops winking thereat: They are indeed thus. It is to be diligently noted, that the communion of one kind crept in, not so much by the commandment of the Bishops as by the use and practice of the people, yet the Bishops winking thereat. Wherein though there be but a little difference yet it showeth your fidelity according to our saviour's saying: 
Luc 16.10.  Qui in modico iniquus est, & in maiori iniquus est. He that wicked in a little is wicked in a greater. For Costerus doth not say, that it did not come in by the commandment of the Bishops, but not so much by that as by the people's use and practice.  
9 Now what is this to your purpose, where is Costerus his testimony for the antiquity, universality, certainty, and safety of your Protestant religion? is not that whole book written Only to maintain the Catholic Roman faith in the points now adays in controversy, and to condemn the contrary of vanity folly and error? how then can he think it self? But because I will not stand to deduce it by way of argument. I will only cite one place directly opposite to the scope of this your section; Where he saith that only the children of the Church, 
Cost. enchir. cap. 2. n. 3.  (by which Church he meaneth the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as he often declareth himself) merit increase of grace and aeternal life; that they only are grateful, & pleasing to God, they only the children and friends of God; they only have communion with the Saints and merits of Saints, they only are adorned with true and Christian virtues; they only have the promise and certain expectation of aeternal life. Which saith the are great and most true privileges, for out of the Church, nothing of all this is found; no holiness, no Christian virtue, no work pleasing to God, no merit, no hope of Salvation. Thus he. Now good Sir knight is not here good comfort for you? are you in Costerus his judgement in the more certain and safe way? Do not you then abuse authors to your own, and other men's perdition? but though you being become a Sectmaister or at least a great Master in the Protestant Sect there is little hope that this laying open of your dealing will make you better but rather make you more enraged: Yet I trust some well meaning people, deluded by you may hereby come to understand themselves better, and come to the only safe way indeed the Catholic Church, and leave you to your Protestant safety.  
10. But since you are also so shameless here as to say that we do not condemn you for receiving in both kinds, look in the Council of Trent and see whether you do not find an heavy curse, against any that shall say, that all and every of the faithful aught by the precept of God, 
Sess. 21. can. 1.  or necessity of salvation, to receive both species or kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto vel necessitate salutis omnes & singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae Sacramenti sumere debere, anathema sit. The like hath the Council also of Constance so plain, 
pag. 174.  that you yourself afterwards confess that the one doth accurse, the other accuse all for Haeretiques, that deny the lawfulness of one kind, as you do. If then we not only write against your Doctrine as against an haeresy, as may appear by all our controversies and school divines, and even by Gerson's treatise against the haeresy of Lay communion under both kinds. Which treatise you yourself cite elsewhere in the margin; but also condemn it in two general Counsels, how can you have the face to say we do not condemn you. Good God what shall a man say to such men as you are?  
11. But to come to Doctor Harding, the third author of ours, which you bring to prove the Antiquity, Universality, Certainty, and Safety of your faith, let us hear how you use him. You say when you accuse us of private Mass contrary to Christ's institution, and custom of the primitive Church we excuse it, that it is through their own default and negligence whereof (saith Mr. Harding) the godly and faithful people since the time of the Primitive church have much complained. So you. Wherein first any man may see there is no sense. For here is a relative (their) without an antecedent: which fault if you had commited in a theme, when you were a schoolboy, it might perhaps have cost you somewhat. For you do not express who it is that Doctor Harding speaketh of, when he saith it is their own default; neither can it be himself or Catholics in general, for than he would have expressed it in the first person: saying it is our own fault: and if it be not himself nor Catholics in general, then can it be no excuse; for they be Catholics in general or the Catholic Church which you accuse; and the accusation and excuse must answer one the other.  
12. Secondly it is no excuse in regard of the Mass: for an excuse hath no place, but where the thing whereof a man is accused is acknowledged for a fault. Now that is not here: for that whereof you accuse us is, that our Priests say Mass without any communicants, which thing Dr. Harding is so far from acknowledging to be blame worthy, that he doth expressly and stoutly maintain it against your jewel, as a special controversy in that whole chapter which you cite. How then doth he excuse it? Thirdly he doth maintain the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this as in all other points where this Canon is decreed, 
Sess. 22. can. 8.  citing also this very Decree. Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat illicitas esse, ideoque abrogandas: anathema sit. If any man say that Masses, wherein the Priest only communicateth sacramentally are unlawful and therefore to be abrogated let him be anathema. Fourthly in another place he denieth your very term of private Mass; and noteth, upon the conference between Luther and the Devil, which he there setteth down, that that term in Luther's sense and your, came first out of the Devil's school: and saith that all Mass is public in regard it is offered by the Priest, who is the public Minister of the Church, and availeth all not only not communicants, but even not present. Which is also the doctrine of the Council. Fiftly I answer, that though you set down this authority lamely in this place, so as no man can tell what to make of it, yet citing the same else where, you say out of him, that it is the people's own fault and want of devotion that they do not communicate with the Priest: Which is but the same that the Council of Trent also saith: Which is a clean other matter. For you do not accuse our people's coldness of devotion; for that would fall much more upon your own; but our Priests for saying Mass without the people communicating, which is no fault: and this Dr. Harding maketh good: the other he excuseth, or rather not excuseth, but acknowledgeth and condemneth as a fault.  
13. And for his opinion of your religion in general look but in his Epistle to jewel before his rejoinder to jewel's reply. And there you shall find he showeth you to have no antiquity; For that you began with Luther. Which he proveth by your own confessions, more than 7. times in the apology of your English Synagogue: where you say, that Luther and Zuinglius were the first that began to set abroad the Gospel, and that all the light was quite extinct; and that all the fountains of the pure water of life, were utterly dried up before they came. He showeth you to have no universality, because you separate yourselves from the unity of the Catholic Church, dispersed over the whole world. He showeth you to have no charity, because charity cannot consist without unity; nor even faith, which he proveth by the authority of Saint Augustine, and consequently that you have no hope of salvation: and so he refuseth even to bid Mr. jewel farewell. Have not you then great reason to have affiance in Mr. Dr. Harding's testimony of the antiquity, universality, and safety of your Faith? Do not you then herein notoriously abuse all manner of men both authors and readers! but this is so ordinary with you that there is no wondering at it.  
14. Well thus much then for these three authors whom you have so egregiously belied. Now let us hear what you say of your own or of yourself. You say our best learned (yet you name none) decline those our traditions which you deny: and that the most ingenious of us are ashamed of those additions which you deny. (Neither do you name any of these ingenious people.) For example you say when we are charged with worshipping of images we deny it, or excuse the manner of adoration, but do not condemn you for not worshipping them. But good Sir I pray you what Catholic denieth the worshipping of images what? Catholic doth excuse the manner of worship. Name the man if you can? Our Divines declare adoration to be dew, and the manner how it is dew: but to excuse this, or deny that, no man doth, no man (I mean a Catholic) ever did; no man can ever do. Now for you can you have the face, to say that no man of ours condemneth you for not adoring them? this is to Sir Humphrey. Doth none of our writers condemn you? noe Bellarmine, no Baronius, no , no Alanus Copus, no Costerus, no Vazquez to omit the more ancient Writers against the Iconomachis? Doth no Council of Trent say anathema to you, for denying due honour and veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints? 
Sess. 25. decr. develiq. & Sanctoris imaginib. Conc. Nicaen 2 act. 7.  Doth no Council of Nice say anathema to such as do not salute holy and venerable images? His qui non salutant sanctas & venerabiles imagines anathema. Was the acclamation of the whole Council, consisting of 350. Bishops and yet no man condemneth you? What shall a man say to you? What answer may a man make but only to say that all this is your own.  
15. The like I may say of all the rest of your fond accusations, and more fond excused; which you heap together which it would be too long to stand answering one by one. Only the last I cannot omit; which is, that you accuse us of flat idolatry (not knowing that the Council of Nice in the place last cited hath a special anathema for you, for that very word;) and you take comfort that we cannot charge you with the least suspicion thereof, in your positive points. To which I answer Sir Humphrey, that if you mark the matter well, you will have little cause to take such comfort. For it is a far greater evil for you to be truly charged with haeresy, then for us to be charged falsely with idolatry. And though the charge of idolatry against us were as true, as that of haeresy is against you; yet would you not have any such special cause of comfort, haeresy coming not much short of idolatry. For Tertull: doubteth not to equal them. Nec dubitare quis debet, neque ab idolatria distare haereses; 
Tertul. de praeser. cap. 40.  quum & auctoris & operis eiusdem sint, cuius & idolatria. Neither ought any man to doubt, that heresies do not differ from idolatry, since their author and work is the same, which idolatry. Nay in some respects haeresy goeth beyond idolatry as S. Thomas well showeth and S. Hierome saith absolutely and without limitation. 
2.2 q. lib. 7. in Esai.  Nemo tam impius est quem Haereticus impietate non vincat. There is no man so impious whom an Heretic doth not surpass in impiety. Therefore your comfort is vanity, since your profession is impiety. And so much for that matter.  
16. Now if any man will but lend an ear he shall hear a fine conceit of yours, whereby to prove your Faith ancient universal and what not. That is by answering our question where your Church was before Luther in this manner. Of the four Creeds, to wit, of the Apostles of Nice, of Athanasius and Pius 4. You believe 3. which were believed before Luther: of the 7. Sacraments you believe 2. which we confess also to have been instituted by Christ, of Scriptures you acknowledge 22. books. For canonical, which we allow, & which were so believed before Luther's tyme. 
why rather 7. Counsels then 17. or 19  Of the 7. general Counsels 4. are confirmed by Parliament in England, not called by Luther. The traditions universally received and which we confess to be Apostolical, are derived from the Apostles to you, as you say, not from Luther. The prayers in your common prayer book, are the same, Say you in substance with our ancient liturgies, not broached by Luther; the ordination of Ministers is from the Apostles, not from Luther. If therefore say you the 3. creeds, the two principal Sacraments, the 22. books of canonical scripture, the four first general Counsels, the Apostolic traditions, the ancient Liturgies, the ordination of Pastors were anciently & universally received in all ages, in the bosom of the Roman Church, even by the testimonies of our adversaries, is it not a silly and senseless question to demand where our Church was before Luther? all this is your discourse Sir Knight, and most part your very words: wherein you seem to think you have so satisfied our question that in your judgement it is silly and senseless to demand it any more. But it will easily appear on the contrary side, what a silly & senseless thing it was for you to frame such a discourse to yourself, and much more so to publish it to other men, as if any body else had so little wit as to be pleased therewith. For be it so, that these points of doctrine were anciently taught, as they are now taught by the Roman Church, what followeth? that you had a Church before Luther? nothing less. For a Church consisteth not of points of Doctrine or faith only, but much more of men professing such and such Sacraments & rites, such a faith & religion. If therefore you will show us a Church you must show us such a company of men which till you can show, the question remaineth unansweared. If you say, they were the same men of which the Roman Church did then consist, which you seem to say in that you tell us your Church was in the bosom of the Roman Church, I answer, that is not to the purpose▪ For as now since Luther's time, you are a distinct company making a Church such as it is by yourselves, so you must show a company of men in like manner distinct in former times from ours, and your antiquity is only to begin from such a time as you began to be a distinct company from us: You must not think to stand and contend with us for antiquity, and then pretend our antiquity to be yours. But you must show a distinct Succession of Bishops, a distinct common wealth or people, professing that Faith only which you believe, & practising those rites, ceremonies and Sacraments only which you have; when you have done this you may better demand what a silly & senseless question it is to ask where your Church was before Luther.  
17. But because you mention your being in former ages in the bosom of the Roman church, not only here but else where often in this your treatise; as if thereby you would make your Church seem one and the same with ours, or at least to descend from ours, 
Tertull. de praes●r. cap. 36.  and so to participate of our Visibility and Universality, I will allege you a saying of Tertullians', which doth so fully answer the matter, that you will take but little comfort in the manner of your descent. Thus it is Tertullian having alleged for his eight prescription against Haeretiques the authority of the Apostolic churches, which then kept the very authentical letters written. To them by the Apostles, and especially of the Roman Church, which he calleth happy for that to it the Apostles poured forth all their whole doctrine, together with their blood, and there putting down a brief sum of some special points thereof concludeth in these words. Haec est institutio non dico iam quae futuras haereses praenunciabat, sed de qua haereses prodierunt. Sed non fuerunt ex illa ex quo factae sunt adversus illum. Etiam de oliva nucleo mitis & opimae, & necessariae, asper oleaster exoritur. Etiam de papavere fici gratissimae & suavissimae, ventosa & vana caprificus exurgit. Ita & haereses de nostro fructificaverunt, non nostrae: degeneres veritatis grano, & mendacio siluestres. This is the institution I do not say now, which did foretell Heresies to come, but out of which heresies have come. But they were not of it from the time that they became against it. Even out of the kernel of the mild, fat, and necessary (or profitable) olive, the sour bastard olive groweth. From the seed also of the most pleasant and sweet figtree ariseth the windy and vain or empty wild figtree. And so have heresies fructified out of ours but they not ours degenerating from the grain of truth, and becoming wild by untruth or lying. Thus far Tertullian. Acknowledging indeed that heresies have their beginning from us that is that the men that broach them come out of our Church, but that they are no more ours when they begin once to be against us. And that the dishonour thereof redoundeth not to us, but to themselves he declareth by the two similitudes of the olive and figgetree, comparing us to the true and fruitful trees, and them to the bastard vain, and wild trees, issuing out of the former. All which if you consider well Sir Humphrey you will find it but a small honour for you to have come out of the Roman Church, though you have lain never so long in the very bosom thereof as you brag for from the time you have begun to be against it you are not of it. And so much for that.  
18. Now for these points of Doctrine by you named, wherein you agree with us, and which you having no Succession of your own, you cannot have it by any other means but by and from us, which therefore are ours and not yours we do not question you for your antiquity and universality: but for these other points wherein you disagree; as when you deny the doctrine declared by the Council of Trent when you deny our seven Sacraments, deny the truth of one of these two Sacraments, to wit the real presence of our saviour's body & blood, & necessity & efficacy of the other, to wit, Baptism. Deny our canon of scripture, our number of Counsels, our traditions etc. For this is your faith properly, as you are a distinct company or Church. Show your doctrine in all these points that is your denial of them to have been anciently and universally taught, or even before Luther's time, and you have said something; which you not doing; I cannot but wonder to see you so silly and senseless (to use your own words) as to think you have said something to the purpose. We ask you the antiquity of your doctrine that is wherein you disagree from us, and you answer us with the antiquity of so much as agreeth with ours which is to answer us with the antiquity of our own. You have been pleased to shape yourselves a religion out of ours, and you plead the antiquity of ours. But that will not serve your turn: that shape which you give it, is the form and essence of your religion; so long then as that is new, your religion is new. Neither can you say the same of our points defined in the Council of Trent, as you seem to say by ask. Where our Church was● where our Trent doctrine and articles of the Roman Creed, were received de fide before Luther? this you cannot likewise say to us for the defining made not the Doctrine new, but bound men by authority of a Council to believe what they did believe plainly by tradition, 
Vinc. Lerin. cap. 32.  as Vincentius Lerinensis saith that the Church by the decrees of her Counsels hath done nothing else but that what she had before received by tradition only, she should also by writing consign to posterity. Nec quicquam Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit ecclesia nisi ut quod prius a maioribus sola traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturae chirographum consignaret. Of which see more in the first chapter here.  
19 After this you ask again if your doctrine lay involved in the bosom of the Roman Church, (which say you no Romanist can deny,) if it became hidden as good corn covered with chaff, or as fine gold overlayed with a greater quantity of dross, whether it must be therefore new and unknown because the corn was not severed from the chaff, the gold from the dross before Luther's time? and than you bid us because we call your Doctrine novelty, to remove the three Creeds the two Sacraments the 22. canonical books the 4. first general Counsels, apostolical traditions, and see whether our Church will not prove a poor and senseless carcase. This is your learned discourse Sir Humphrey, to which I answer ask: First what Romanist doth acknowledge your doctrine to have lain involved in the bosom of the Roman Church? Did ever any man writ so, did ever any man say so unto you? nay what Romanist hath ever forborn upon occasion offered to deny and deny it again? you teach not only those be two but that there be but two Sacraments, which what Romanist ever acknowledged to have been taught in the Roman Church? one of your Sacraments is an empty piece of bread and a sup of wine which what Catholic will ever say was Taught in the Roman Church? you allow 4. Counsels and but 4. you allow 22. books of canonical Scripture and but 22. will any Catholic ever allow this to have been Catholic doctrine? take away your (but) and then it may pass; but than you take away your religion. But here is one thing that giveth me much cause of wonder, which is that you talk of traditions as distinct from Scripture, which is a thing that I did little expect from a man of your profession: and I ever took you to be so fallen out with them, that you made the denial of them, a fundamental point of your Religion; and that therefore you would not endure the word traditions; even in holy Scriptures where it might be taken in a good sense, but always translated or rather falsifyed it into ordinances, though both the Latin and Greek word did signify traditions most expressly. But this your allowing of traditions is not a thing that I reprehend in you: (though some Puritan Ministers may perhaps not let you pass so gently with it): but that that followeth, to wit that you should be so unadvised as to acknowledge your Church or Doctrine, (which you simply and confusedly take for the same being very different as I have often said) to have been involved in the bosom of the Roman Church, and to have become hidden like good corn covered with chaff, and like gold covered with dross till Luther's time, and yet to say that it was visible before that time? is the corn seen when it is covered with chaff, the gold when it is covered with dross?  

Answ: to Cooks rep. ep. dedicat. nu. 20.  20. My Lord Cook shown himself somewhat wiser when ask himself the question which we ask you, to wit, where your Church was before Luther, he answered, it made no great matter where it was, so he were certain it was; confessing thereby that his Church was indeed invisible; but yet in being; which because it seemed hard to persuade any man, he brought a fine similitude of a wedge of gold, dissolved and mixed with brass, tin, and other metals, which he said did not therefore lose his nature, but remained gold though we could not determine in what part of the mass it was contained. This was somewhat more like for a man, by such a similitude to go about to prove that a Church might subsist invisibly, (for the which nevertheless a Catholic Divine told him his own very sound,) but for you Sir Knight to prove the Visibility of your Church by such a Similitude, it were not to be believed unless a man did see it in print. You labour to prove your Church to have been visible before Luther's times, and yet you confess her to have begun her Visibility by Luther: for thus you ask, was there no good corn in the granary of the Church, because for many year's space till Luther's days it was not severed from the chaff? to sever the corn from the chaff wherewith it was covered, is to make it visible: if then Luther did first sever it, he first made her visible, which is that we desire. And so Sir you have spun a fair thread. You would fain make your Church visible before Luther, and you make it invisible; you look well about you mean while. Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you profess, two Sacraments, 4. Counsels and 22. book of Scripture, without which our Church would be a poor senseless carcase, is most foolish, for who doth speak of taking them away: who doth say they are yours? you will not say yourself, but you had them from us? What then do you talk of taking them away? and whereas you are bold to say that we now style them chaff and new heresies, it is to shameless an untruth for any man to tell but yourself: and therefore deserveth no other answer but that it is SIR HUMPHREY LIND'S, you understand my meaning Sir.  
21. One little thing more there is in this Section, which is, that whereas some of ours have termed your religion negative, in regard it consisteth most in denial of such things as we teach, as they may well call it, you would retort that term upon us; because we deny many things which you affirm. But this is not a matter of any moment. For they who call your religion negative, do not mean that you do not teach any positive erroneous point, but that most of your doctrine I mean that which is properly yours, not taken from us, is negative; and even those affirmative propositions which you teach, if you teach any, are but contradictions of other things, which we teach are not, or may not be done. In which respect, they may be also called negative. But for ours it is nothing so, for it consisteth of positive points, delivered not by way of opposition or denial; for it was before all haeresy; though it is true that it hath many negative propositions and precepts. Besides out of every positive point a man may infer the contrary negative: Which yet maketh not that a negative, as you do in some of those propositions which you allege; for example you make this a negative point, that we deny the substance of bread to remain after consecration, whereas that is only a negative inferred out of this positive, that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour, which is our doctrine, & ever was before any haeresy arose: but an haeresy arising to the contrary, as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration: the Church out of that positive point deduceth this negative, that the substance of bread doth not remain, for destruction of that haeresy. But of this there is enough, and of this whole Section, wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight do not deserve the name and punishment of an Haeretique, by your own Doom not having proved either the antiquity, or universality, or certainty, or safety of your Protestant faith, out of any author of ours, or even of your own, or any show of reason, or said any thing to the purpose, though you have taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you allege & utter such gross falsityes than I do not say honesty but even shame would give a man leave: but which is most to be wondered you have laboured to prove the visibility of your Church, by such similitudes as prove the contrary; Which is not any praise of goodness, for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driven by the badness of your cause, and a dispraise of your judgement in that you see not what you say.   

Of the 9 Section. The title whereof is this The testimonies of our Adversaries touching the Protestant and the Roman faith in the particular. CHAPTER IX.  
1. OUR Knight having promised to prove the antiquity and universality of his faith, and novelty of ours in general by the testimony of our own authors & Church and performed it bravely forsooth as hath been showed in the former chapter, he professeth now in this ninth Section, 
Chap. 9  to prove the same in like sort out of our authors in diverse particular points; as justification by faith only, the Sacrament of the Supper, and Doctrine of transubstantiation, Private Mass etc. treating every one here ex professo and severally in distinct paragraphes, whose method I shall also follow in answering of him.  

§. 1. Of justification by faith only, examined.  
1. This point of his Protestant justification by faith only the Knight proveth, as he saith, out of a book published in Anselmes' time, which is called Ordo baptizandi & visitandi &c. Of which he citeth two or three several editions to fill up the margins with quotations: and to authorise the book more, he telleth us that Cassander saith it is obvious every where in libraries. Out of this book he citeth a whole page and a half, which I list not here stand writing out, but only I will take the worst word in it all, that is, which may seem to make most against us and for the Knight which is this, the Priest is appointed to ask the sick man whether he believe to come to glory, not by his own merits but by the merits of Christ's passion, and that none can be saved by his own merits; or by any other means but by the merits of his Passion: to which the sick man was to answer, I believe. Whereupon the Priest gave him council to put his confidence in no other thing. This is the utmost he can say out of this book: and what is all this to the purpose? For first the knight doth not show us any authority for this book, or that S. Anselme had any thing to do with it; nor telleth us of any ancient edition before the year. 1556. but only a mention thereof by Cass●●der (a classical author indeed and of the first class in the index librorum prohibitorum) in an appendix also to a forbidden book falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia & misericordia Dei, than which he could have said nothing more to disgrace it.  
2. Besides he telleth us that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition, willeth those words of comfort (as he calleth them) spoken by the Priest, to be blotted out, which were answer enough, seeing the knight is to bring us authority, which we may not except against, as I told him in the first Chapter. And this very alleging of the Index expurgatorius, is a manifest proof that it is set out and corrupted by Haeretiques, in favour of their own doctrine. 
De correct. lib. §. 3. & 4  For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it, or any other author set out before the year 1515. to change or blot out any thing therein but only where a manifest error is crept in by fraud of Haeretiques, or carelessness of the Printer. Thirdly and principally I answer that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well, being rightly understood, with the Catholic faith which we now profess. For here is nothing but what I shown before out of Bellarmine, 
Lib. 5. de iustif. cap. 7. prop. 3.  to wit, that in regard of the uncertainty of our own justice, that is whether we be just or Noah, and for the peril of vain glory, it is most safe to put our whole confidence in the Sole mercy and benignity of GOD. Which word Sole doth import confidence in that, and in nothing else. With which it may stand very well, that men in the favour and grace of God, may do works meritorious of increase of grace and glory, which is the controversy between Us and Haeretiques. For men may be in grace and not know it, they may do those good works and yet not know that their works have that supernatural goodness, purity of intention, and other perfection which is necessary to make it meritorious, all which makes us uncertain whether we merit or not, though we be never so certain that if our Works be such as they should be, they are meritorious. And to this purpose is the discourse of the Council of Trent in the end of the 16. Chapter of the 6. Session, where having explicated the merit of good works and reward dew unto them, it hath these memorable words to stop the mouths of all insulting Haeretiques. Absit tamen ut homo Christianus in seipso vel confidat vel glorietur, & none in Domino. God forbidden that any Christian man should trust or glory in himself and not in our Lord. What more than is there Sir Humphrey in that book which you allege, than here is in Bellarmine and the Council of Trent, or which may not be easily explicated to this sense? And all this answer is, supposing you cite your author true, for I have not seen him: nor doth it so much import to see him. But if it be not against us why will you say doth the Inquisition correct it. I answer not for the doctrine but for the doubtfulness & ambiguity of the words which being not rightly understood might endanger the less wary Reader's fall into your Lutheran error of denial of all merit of good works, which was never intended by the author, though it may be he might speak securely in those days where there was no thought of any such haeresy. But how soever the book is not of any known good author and it hath been printed and reprinted now in this time of haeresy & by Haeretiques and therefore may well fall under the Inquisition's correction as giving just cause of suspicion that they thrust words in for their own purposes. What poor authority is this then for you to build upon? Wherefore to begin well, you have wholly failed in the proof of your first point of justification, producing but one only place and that of no special good authority as you allege it out of Cassander, and even nothing against us: If then you begin so well with justification, how are you like to justify yourself in the rest of your points which follow; to which I now pass.   

The Knights 2. §. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's supper (as he speaketh) and the Doctrine of transubstantiation examined. §. 2.  
1. HE beginneth this §. with a preamble concerning his Church's Baptism, which he saith no man will deny to be the same substantially, with that of the Primitive Church, and that our salt, spittle, and other caeremonies do not transsubstantiate the element, nor want of them enforce rebaptisation. Which serveth for nothing else but to show the man's folly and vanity; for what Catholic did he ever hear speak against the Validity of the Sacrament of Baptism administered in due matter and form, and with intention of doing what the Church doth though the Minister were never so much Haeretique, jew, Turk, or Infidel or affirm that the caeremonies therein used did cause any transubstantiation of the water? or that for the want of them the party were to be rebaptised? noe we say none of these things; but only, that they that administer this Sacrament without these caeremonies ever used in the Church from the Apostles time, unless in case of necessity, do commit a great sin, as Protestants do; and the more because they omit them, out of an haeretical contempt. Which notwithstanding the Baptism is available.  
2. But letting this pass the knight cometh to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein he triumpheth mightily about a certain Homily of one Aelfricke an Abbot here in England, about the year 996. Which he saith was approved by diverse Bishops at their Synods, and appointed to be read publicly to the people on Easter-day, and two other writings or Epistles of the same authors, one to the Bishop of Sherborne, the other to the Bishop of York. The words of the Homily are these, as he citeth them out of D. Vsher. There is a great difference betwixt the body, wherein Christ suffered and the body which is received of the, faithful. The body truly that Christ suffered in, it was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable Soul living: and his Spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful Spiritually is gathered of many corns without blood and bone without limbs without soul and therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but Spiritually &c. Thus fare the authority or words of this author: wherewith Sir Humphrey maketh much ado spending 2. or 3. leaves in it.  
3. To which I answer first for his Synods, that it is strange he nameth not any Synod nor any author or place where any such is extant, For the Counsels I have examined them, and yet do not find any Synod held in England about that time or any thing of that nature handled. Let him name the Synod, and bring the words, I doubt not but we shall find a sufficient answer: therefore to let his Synods alone for the present, we come to Aelfrike whom I have not also seen, nor can find so much as named in those books which have most of our Catholic authors, both modern and ancient (save only by Harpsfield in his history where I find also no more but that the Berengarian haeresy began some what to be taught and maintained out of certain writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke this is all) and therefore cannot say so much in confutation of this place, as it is like might be said if a man did see the author himself and not set out or translated only by Haeretiques, but yet I trust I shall say enough even out of Dr. Usher who citeth the Latin in the margin to show Sir Humphrey's bad dealing and to satisfy any indifferent Reader.  
4. First you Sir Humphrey to turn my speech to you I say, that Aelfrick was a Catholic author and delivereth nothing but Catholic doctrine in this Homily or place by you cited: which a man may prove even out of yourself. For you confess that transubstantiation is suggested in that Homily, by two miracles, which you say are feigned, contrary to the author's meaning, but your common fashion is to call all Miracles feigned because you can work none yourselves: besides if they go along in the narration as the rest of the text (as if they did not I suppose you would note being a good proof against them) what colour is there that we should suggest them and not the author writ them himself? or why should you take the other words here rehearsed to be the author's and deny the miracles which go along with them, in the same narration? You will say they are against his meaning and scope: that were somewhat indeed Sir Humphrey, but it is but your misunderstanding of the author, for even in those words which Mr. Usher citeth in Latin and which he culleth out as making most for his own purpose I find the author to speak very well and plainly of transubstantiation as I shall now show, 
Usher's disp. pag. 78. & cap. 3.  the words are these. Multâ differentiâ separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus, & hoc corpus, quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur, illa namque caro quae crucifixa est, de Virgins carne facta est, ossibus & neruis compacta, & humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. At vero caro spiritualis; quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti granis manu artificis confistet, nullis neruis ossibusque compacta, nulla membrorum varietate distincta, nulla rationali substantia vegetata, nullos proprios potens motus exercere. Quicquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam, spiritualis est potentiae, & invisibilis efficientiae, divinaeque virtutis.  
5. These are the Latin words cited in the margin by D. Usher, which he translated fare otherwise in his English text whom you also follow, taking his English words, either because you understood not the Latin, or perhaps because you would be loath but to follow any error or corruption that cometh in your way. I will therefore truly translate them; and then observe your Doctor's corruption and yours the true translation is this. The body in which Christ suffered, and this body which is celebrated every day by the faithful in mystery (that is, as a mystery, or mystical representation and commemoration) of the passion are separated by much difference (that is, are very different, or do much differ) for that flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin, compacted with bones and nerves (or sinews) and distinguished by lineaments of humane limbs lived (or made living) by the spirit of a reasonable Soul unto proper life and congruent (or agreeable) motions; but the Spiritual flesh, which Spiritually feedeth the believing people, according to the show which it carrieth outwardly, consisteth of grains of corn, by the hand of the artificer, not compact (or knit together) with any finewes and bones, not distinguished by any variety of members, not vegetated or lived by any reasonable substance, not able to exercise any proper motions. For whatsoever in it giveth the Substance of life, is of Spiritual power, invisible working, and divine virtue. Now let any man compare Dr. Vsher's and Sir Humphrey Lind's English, and see whether agree better with the Latin theirs or this, though they differ somewhat between themselves; but I will chief follow my own chase of the Knight's translation. He shall find first in these words, (Hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur. This body which is daily celebrated by the faithful in mystery of the passion) the word (hoc) left out. And all the other words, save only the word (Corpus) the rest (because there is mention made of daily celebration as a mystery of the Passion of Christ, as is practised in the Catholic Church) they change in the translation. The Knight thus, the body which is received of the faithful; the Dr. a little otherwise, but I let him alone, wherein any man may see the knight's bad meaning.  
6. Secondly the knight saith the body that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary, etc. Whereas the true English is this. The flesh which was crucified was made of the flesh of the Virgin. Wherein though to the Vulgar Reader there may appear but small difference between (borne) and (made:) yet there is a great deal: for Aelfrick's opposition doth not consist in this, that the flesh crucified was borne of the Virgin, and the other not; as the knight would make a man believe; but it consisteth in the matter whereof the body on the cross, and the body in the Sacrament are made. For as it is in the Sacrament, it is made of bread, tanquam materia transeunte as Divines speak: and not of the Flesh of the Virgin, but that flesh is the terminus ad quem of the transubstantiating action or that whereinto the substance ob bread is changed, though it be the same body that was borne of her. And this showeth the knight's cunning corruption, how great it may be in matter and substance, though the word be never so like, or little.  
7. Thirdly whereas the knight saith with blood and with bone, with skin, and with Sinews, in humane limbs with a reasonable soul. The Latin hath not the word blood, nor the word skin. And the Knight on the other side leaveth the word (compacta.) Compacted with bones and sinews. And those words (in humane limbs) are fare otherwise in the Latin, as any man may see to wit thus distinguished by humane limbs. All which putting in and putting out chopping and changing though it may seem not to make much either way, yet it is very like it is used by this Knight to obscure the author's meaning and drift; which is by all these particulars to show the difference between Christ upon the cross, and Christ in the B. Sacrament; that is the difference in his manner of being, not in his being itself; nor denying him to be really in both; which is that the knight would obscure and make seem as if this author meant, it were not the same Christ that were in both. Which is very false; which his bad meaning is farther discovered in that which followeth. For having put down these words (with a reasonable soul living) which yet do not altogether so well answer to the Latin words (rationalis animae spiritu vivificata) he leaveth out these other immediately following, in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. By which it is signified that Christ's flesh crucified upon the cross, had a reasonable soul, whereby not only to live, but to be able to show this life by action, and motion agreeable thereunto, which words explain the former, and are very pertinent to declare the meaning of what is said on the contrary of Christ's body in the B. Sacrament, as by and by shall appear.  
8. Fourthly whereas the Latin saith, Caro spiritualis, spiritual flesh, the knight translateth it the spiritual body: which I only note without standing upon it, for it is no great matter. But that which cometh next is the main corruption of all: For whereas Aelfricke saith that this spiritual flesh, which is as much to say as our saviour's flesh in the B. Sacrament, according to the outward show which it carrieth, doth consist of grains of corn, hath no bones nor sinews, no distinction of limbs, no life or motion of itself the knight leaveth out those words (Secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, according to the show which it carrieth outwardly) which are the very life of all that which followeth, to wit, that to see to, it consists of corn; to see to, it hath no bones, and sinews; to see to, it hath no distinction of parts; to see to, it hath no soul, nor power to exercise any motion of itself, the knight making his Reader think, that Aelfricke saith our saviour's flesh in the B. Sacrament hath no bones, no parts, no soul, etc. which is a notorious falsehood. Lastly whereas the knight maketh this inference in the same place, as if they were Aelfrick's words, therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but spiritually. Aelfrick saith not so, though that might be said in a good sense but thus he saith. For whatsoever therein giveth the substance of life, is of spiritual power, invisible working and divine virtue. In which there is a great deal of difference between Aelfrick's (for), which giveth a reason for that which goeth before, and the knight's (therefore) which maketh an inference upon that which was said, which a learned man will easily perceive to make a great deal of difference in the sense, nay any man may see the difference between a reason and an inference. Aelfricke therefore plainly teacheth in these words that that flesh doth live, but with all that that life proceedeth from a spiritual power and invisible working. Which agreeth very well with what he had said before, that according to the outward show, that flesh hath neither bones, nor sinews, nor limbs, nor life, nor motion, but that all these things are not seen, and that the life which it hath proceedeth from a spiritual power, and working which is not seen.  
9 Now let any man see whither this Knight have not egregiously abused this ancient author, corrupting this little sentence of his, by five great corruptions besides other more of less moment, which I have been somewhat longer in discovering, because it is the man's main proof in this place and one of his two records as he calleth them, wherewith as it were with two special and ancient evidences he presenteth his Reader in the very beginning of this Section §. 1. and wherein therefore he hath used all the cunning he could device, to make this author speak his Protestant language, and consequently also the Bishops and other learned men of that time, who approved this Homily, if they did approve it; as he saith, but in vain as you may see by this that is said, and by one place more which I will bring even out of this Knight's master Dr. Usher, which shall plainly show this Aelfrick's perfect Catholic belief in this point. The words are these. Sicut ergo paulo antequam pateretur, panis substantiam & vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus, quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto manna & aquam de petra in suam carnem & sanguinem convertere praevaluit etc. as therefore a little before he suffered, he could change the substance of bread and the creature of wine into his proper body which was to suffer, and into his blood which was extant to be after shed. So in the desert, he was able to change manna and water into his own flesh and blood, etc. Where he showeth plainly a conversion of bread and wine into that own body of Christ, and blood which was a little after to suffer and be shed which is nothing more than that which we call transubstantiation. And out of this as a certain truth he gathereth that Christ had also the power to turn manna and water into his body and blood, as well as bread and wine. And so it is, in regard of the power it is all one; but in regard that Christ was not then in being, according to his humane nature, the manna could not be changed into his body and water into his blood. Which place as plain as it is, it is a strange and almost incredible thing to see how D. Usher (which I only note by the way for my quarrel here is not so properly against him) doth pervert by his interpretation. For thus he putteth the English in the text. So he turned through invisible virtue the bread to his own body, and that wine to his blood, as he before did in the wilderness before that he was borne to men, when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his blood. Wherein there is scarce one word truly translated, which I will not stand to show particularly, but not only the main corruption: that whereas Aelfricke saith that as Christ was able to turn the bread and wine, so he was able to turn the manna and water. This man turneth it quite contrary, that as he turned the manna and water, so he turned the bread and wine: which is a foul corruption. But D. Usher I hear is sufficiently answered, and his corruptions laid open to the world if the books might be as freely printed and sold as his. But therein they have the advantage of us Catholics that they have free use of libraries and prints and public allowance for the sale. All which we want and therefore no marvel if books be not answered as freely as they are written. But this is but by the way.  
10. Now than if thus much may be said out of what D. Usher picketh out for his own purpose, what may a man think might be said, if a man saw the author himself, who though he were printed in London as Sir Humphrey noteth. 1623. yet is he not now to be heard of. But as I was saying all this showeth this Aelfricke to have been a Catholic and that his doctrine was none other than the Doctrine of the Catholic Church at this day. Wherefore Sir Knight, Campian's saying (which you account a vain flourish) stands good still that you cannot espy so much as one town, one village, one house, for 1500. years that savoured of your Doctrine, and should still be true, though you might find some one man or two or more, that did agree with you in your Berengarian haeresy; (though also one man do not make either town Village or house:) For your faith doth not consist of this point alone. Nor did Campian mean, that there was never any man that did agree with you in any one of your erroneous points, but that there was never any house village or city that did agree with you in your whole faith and religion or made the same Church with you. And for the mangling and razing one of Aelfrick's latin epistles, wherewith you charge us first Sir it is not like by this that he saith in his Homily, wherewith you say the Epistles agree, that there is any thing against us; and if there were know you Sir it is not our fashion to deal so with authors; but if there be any thing contrary to the Catholic faith, we do what is to be done publicly, as having authority; and knowing what we do: correcting modern authors in what they err, & for ancient authors, noting only what is amiss, 
V reg. indi de correct. lib. §. 4.  but not razing or blotting out any thing, that corner correcting we leave for such corner companions as shun the light. And so your principal argument being answered, I go on to the rest.  
11. First, you tell us we are divided among ourselves touching the antiquity and Universality of transubstantiation: some deriving it as you say from the words of Christ, some from his benediction before the words, some from the exposition of the Fathers, some from the Council of Lateran, some from Scriptures, some from the determination of the Church: where to fill paper and make a show, you repeat again the same things. For what difference, for as much as pertaineth to this matter, is there between the determination of the Church, and the Council of Lateran? between Scriptures and the words of Christ? But to let that go I say, first, your phrase of deriving is improper, as you use it. For we derive our Doctrine by Succession from those men that have gone before us by degrees to the Apostles time, showing that in all ages and times it hath been taught and believed, but to speak properly we not derive but prove the truth of our doctrine, out of Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, etc. though the derivation be also a proof, but yet different from that of Scriptures and Counsels. Secondly you speak very generally and confusedly. For whereas there be diverse things in question between you and us, as the realnes of Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and Transubstantiation: others among Catholics themselves, as whither or how far these points may be proved out of Scripture, Tradition etc. or by what words or actions this change is made, you make no distinction at all of any of these things, nor speak any thing certainly, or constantly of any of them, but run hopping up and down from one to another; now forward, now backward, that no man can tell where to find you but though this confusion of yours, cause a little more trouble and length in answering, yet in the end it will discover your ignorance and vanity the more.  
12. To begin then with you, I would know to what purpose you allege our authors in things controverted among themselves only, either now because they are not defined, or heretofore when other things then controverted were not defined, though they be since, and consequently out of controversy? Doth this difference of our authors make any thing for you? noe verily but much against you: for their modest manner of disputing of these things with due submission to the Catholic Church, to whose censure they leave themselves, their opinions, and writings, & their silence as soon as She doth speak, is a manifest condemnation of your haeretical pride that will stand to no judgement but your own: and even those opinions of theirs which you take hold of, they virtually retract, so fare as either they may be any way against the authority of the Catholic Church, or in favour of Haeretiques, which are the only things you seek. Therefore in any thing wherein they may descent from the common belief, as they do not bind us, so they do not favour you. But of this I said enough in the first Chapter. Though in the authorities which you here allege, there be not much need of this: for either they say nothing against us, or you corrupt them as I shall show.  
13. And to begin with Caietan in matter of the real presence, you say out of Suarez he taught that these words (THIS IS MY BODY) do not of themselves sufficiently prove transubstantiation, without the supposed authority of the Church, and that therefore by command of Pius V that part of his commentary is left out of the Romish edition. Thus you. Where first according to your usual liberty of falsifying, you put in the word (supposed) of your own, to make the speech sound somewhat contemptibly of the Church. Whereas there is no such word in Suarez his Latin text which you cite in the margin. Secondly you put in the word (Transubstantiation) which Suarez there speaketh not of, as is evident, but only of the real presence, which is a distinct thing, though you confounded them. And in that Suarez indeed, & the whole School of Divines do worthily condemn Cajetan, for saying that those words (THIS IS MY BODY) do not sufficiently prove the real presence of our saviour's body. For singularity whereof Caietan is often noted, in matters of such moment, is very much to be condemned in a Divine, & therefore Pius V with great reason commanded that to be blotted out, agreeably to the rules prescribed in the Roman index, for correcting of books. Whereof you complain much, as thinking Cajetan somewhat to favour your side, yet you are extremely mistaken and by alleging caietan's authority in this, you give yourself a wound. For though he do not give so much to the bare words of the Scripture, as to be sufficient of themselves to prove the Reality of Christ's presence, yet he saith that joining the authority of the Church's exposition of them, they are sufficient: as he saith in express words which yourself after cite and yet you can allege him for you as you think here, and which is more impudence, you are not ashamed to say that Caietan denieth the bread to be transubstantiated by those words: For where hath Caietan such a word or even shadow of a word. You think perhaps because in his opinion those words do not sufficiently of themselves prove the verity of Christ's presence, that therefore they do not sufficiently cause it: but if you think so as you seem, you are much mistaken, for those are two different things. For example in Baptism the words I baptise thee etc. besides the cleansing of the soul from sin original & actual, cause also the remission of the temporal punishment & imprint a spiritual character in the Soul though these effects cannot be proved out of the signification of the words: and so also a man might say of the form of the Eucharist, the proof depending upon the speculative signification of the words, the presence of Christ depending upon their efficacy, which they have by the institution of Christ as they are the form of this Sacrament, which might be separated from the signification though de facto it be not. 
Caiet in come. 3. p. q. 75. a. 1.  And so Cajetan though he think not the bare signification of the words without the authority of the Church sufficient to prove the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; yet he doubteth not to affirm with the Council of Florence alleging the very words thereof, quod ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, & substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur. That by the power of the very words the substance of the Bread is turned into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into his blood. So as Caietan is nothing for you, but very much against you.  
14. But yet you go on confidently telling us that you will produce Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolmen to testify that there are no words in scripture to prove transubstantiation. Secondly that those words This is my Body, are not of the essence of the Sacrament. Thirdly that the ancient Fathers did not believe the substance of the Sacramental bread to be converted into Christ's real flesh. Fourthly that transubstantiation was not believed de fide above 1000 years after Christ. Which four points how well you prove I must now see Sir Humphrey. First noting by the way that though you set them down severally as if you meant to prove them in order one after another bringing one Cardinal, one Bishop and one Schooleman at least for every one, yet you neither observe order, nor so allege authors as shall appear. Though for the first of your 4. points you need not many authors, if you add the word (expressly) thus, that there be no words in scripture to prove transubstantiation expressly: Which word if you put in, your proposition may pass for true; if not, it is false, and without author. For though all Catholics save only Caietan agree, that the words of consecration of themselves, prove the reality of Christ's presence, yet all do not so agree that of themselves they prove Transubstantiation. For some think they might be verified, though the substance of bread should remain together with Christ's body. Yet all agree that out of the words as they are understood by the Church, transubstantiation is also proved. You might therefore have spared Gabriel's authority, which you begin with in these words. How the body of Christ is in the Sacrament is not expressed in the canon of the bible. Which I would have spared also, but because I mean to lay open your falsehood in alleging the same by halves. 
Cab. lect. 40.  For thus he saith. Notandum quod quamuis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur, & a fidelibus sumitur, tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi, an per conversionem alicuius in ipsum, an sine conuersione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus panis, non invenitur. It is to be noted, that though it be expressly delivered in Scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread, and received by the faithful, yet is it not so expressed how the body of Christ is there, whither by conversion of any thing into it, or whither it beginneth to be there without conversion or turning, the substance and accidents of bread remaining. In which saying of Gabriels' as you left out the former part, because it made clearly against you, so you might also have left out the later as making nothing against us, as is evident of itself without farther declaration.  
15. Your next author is Cardinal de Aliaco. who you tell us thinketh it possible that the bread might remain with Christ's body and that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceive. Whereto I answer, what then? what is this to your purpose? if you were a Lutheran you might have a little colour: but seeing you are a Caluinist, or Protestant, or some such I know not what, it maketh nothing at all for you, not even in show. But be you Caluinist, Protestant, Lutheran, or what you will, it maketh not for you. Suppose that may be possible, more easy etc. What is that to our purpose: that is not matter of faith; for Faith doth not stand teaching metaphysical possibilityes or impossibilityes, what may be or not be, but what is or is not: and which is chief to be considered, though this author think that way more possible and more easy to be conceived according to humane capacity, yet even herein he preferreth the judgement of the Church, before his own, as his very words by you cited do testify. For he saith, that it is more easy and more reasonable to conceive if it could accord which the determination of the Church. But what is this authority to you Sir Humphrey. Which of your 4. points doth it prove? Doth it say that transubstantiation is not proved out of Scripture? or that the words THIS IS MY BODY is not of the essence of the Sacrament? and so of the rest; not a word of all these. By which it is plain you only look to say somewhat, but care not what.  
16. After this Cardinal, you bring Bishop Fisher, whom you might better have called Cardinal Fisher, than some others whom in this book you call Cardinals. For he was created Cardinal indeed, though he had the happiness to receive the Laurel and purple Robes of Martyrdom in heaven, before he could come to receive the honour of his cap and Scarlet robes of his Cardinalship here on earth. But you say out of him, that there be no words written, whereby it may be proved that in the Mass is made the very presence of the body & blood of Christ. You cite him in English, and though in the margin you put the Latin a little more truly, whereas you say in the English in the Mass, the Latin is (in nostra Missa) in our Mass, wherein you shall find some difference in this place, yet you put the whole sentence so lamely, that a man would think the Bishop by your citing him, to be quite of another mind than he is. For you would make one think he did not believe the real presence could be proved out of scripture. 
Io. Roffen. count. captiu Babylo. c. 4.  Whereas the 4. Chapter of the Book here cited is wholly employed in proof thereof against Luther, out of the very words (hoc est corpus meum: this is my body) by which he destroyeth Lutheran companation, and consequently establisheth our transubstantiation: and teacheth plainly both there, and throughout this whole book, that Christ himself did change the bread into his own body, and this out of the very words of scripture: but in this 10. chapter which you cite, he proveth that the true sense of the Gospel is rather to be had by the interpretation of the Fathers, and use of the Church, than the bare words of scripture, and proveth it by this, that if we lay aside the interpretation of Fathers and use of the Church, no man can be able to prove that any Priest now in these times doth consecrate the true body and blood of Christ. Which is the same that he saith after in other words in nostra Missa in our Mass, that is Mass in these times. Not, saith he, that this matter is now doubtful, but that the certainty thereof is had not so much out of the words of the Gospel, as of the interpretation of the Fathers and use of so long time, which they have left to posterity. For, saith he again, though Christ of bread made his body, and of wine his blood, it doth not follow by force of any word there set down, that we as often as we shall attempt any such thing, shall do it which unless it be so said we cannot he certain thereof. These are his very words, where you see how together he delivereth two points of Catholic doctrine, the one of the real presence, the other of tradition for understanding of the Scriptures. Neither doth he say, that the real presence in our Mass now a days is not proved out of Scripture, but not out of it alone without the interpretation of the Fathers, which we acknowledge generally necessary in the exposition of Scriptures, neither do you therefore rightly argue the real presence is not proved so much out of the bare words of Scripture, as out of the interpretation of Fathers and Tradition of the Church, ergo not out of scripture. This I say is an idle argument. For the Father's interpretation & Tradition of the Church, Doth but deliver us the sense of the Scripture.  
17. What then have you here out of Bishop Fisher, to prove any of your 4. points? not one word. For if his words did prove any thing, they should prove against the real presence not against transubstantiation: which is your controversy. And for those other words which you bring out of this same holy Bishop and Martyr for a conclusion thus, non potest igitur per ullam Scripturam probari, it cannot be proved by any scripture, they discover your dishonesty most of all. For by breaking of the sentence there, you would make your Reader believe, they had relation to the words next before by you cited; as if the Bishop did say that it could not be proved by any scripture, that Christ is really present in our Mass; whereas there is a whole leaf between these two places: but the only bare recital of the Bishop's words, shall serve for a confutation, which are these. Non potest igitur per ullam Scripturam probari, quod aut Laicus aut Sacerdos, quoties id negotij tentaverit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus & sanguinem, atque Christus ipse confecit, quum nec●stud in scriptures contineatur. It cannot therefore be proved by any Scripture that either Lay man or Priest, as often as he shall go about that business, shall in like manner, of bread and wine make the body and blood of Christ, as Christ himself did, seeing that neither that is contained in Scriptures. By which it is plain that his drift is only to prove that there is no express words in scripture, whereby it is promised that either Priest or Lay man shall have power to consecrated: & that though Christ did himself consecrated & commanded his Apostles so to do in remembrance of him, that yet he did not add any express promise that the same effect should always follow, whensoever any man should offer to consecrate. Which is not against us. For we gather that power to pertain to the Apostles Successors in Priesthood out of the words. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. q. 1.  Hoc facite in meam commemorationem not barely, but as they have been ever understood by the Church which is so fare from being against us that we might rather urge it against you upon the same occasion that Bishop Fisher doth, to wit, for proof of the necessity of traditions and authority of the Church for understanding of scriptures. And so by this it is manifest how much you have abused this holy Bishop's meaning, as you do other two Bishops that follow.  
18. The one is Gul. Durandus, Bishop of Mand, out of whom it seemeth you would prove the words, This is my body not to be of the essence of this Sacrament. For what else you would have with him I see not, but specially because having cited him thus in English. Christ blessed the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by virtue of that word the bread was turned unto the substance of Christ's body. Then you put these words in Latin, tunc confecit cum benedixit, them he made it when he blessed it. Whereby you seem to put the force of this testimony in those words, as if by them you would prove out of Durandus, that Christ did not consecrate by the words, (this is my body) but by that blessing. But Durand himself shall disprove you Sir Knight. For thus he saith. Benedixit benedictione caelesti, & virtute verbi, qua convertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi, to wit, (HOC EST CORPVS MEUM.) He blessed it by the heavenly blessing, and power of the word, by which the bread is turned into the substance of the body of Christ, 
Durand. rat. cap. 41. n. 14.  to wit, THIS IS MY BODY (Hoc est corpus meum.) Which last words I would gladly know Sir Humphrey why you cut of? but I need not ask, for any man may see it was because you would not have that powerful benediction whereof this authors speaketh to consist in those sacred words but Durand both in this very sentence and often in the same place attributeth most plainly that power to those very words, not to any other blessing, as may appear in that he saith that we do bless ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis. By that power which Christ hath given to the words.  
19 Odo Caemeracensis is the other Bishop that followeth whom for the same purpose you cite, and as much to the purpose: his words are these, as you bring them. Christ blessed the bread, and then made that his body, which was first bread and so by blessing it became flesh for otherwise he would not have said, after he had blessed it, this is my body, unless by blessing it, he had made it his body. Which words you put in the margin in Latin imperfectly, and translate even them corruptly. Benedixit suum corpus. You translate Christ blessed bread; qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro: which in true English is thus. That which was bread before, by blessing is made flesh. You translate otherwise as may appear by your words, though I see not to what end, you should so translate them. But because your intent in this place is to prove out of this Doctor, that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ, but by his blessing: for else I see not what you should aim at, I will bring you a place out of himself expressly to the contrary; which is this. Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi. 
Odo Cam. exp. in can. Miss. dist. 3.  Vis fieri corpus & sanguinem? appone Christi sermonem. Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ. Wilt thou have the Body and blood of Christ made, put thereto the word of Christ. In which words he showeth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words, so as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholic Church teacheth. And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the word of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body. Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainly a little before, in this manner. In specie panis & vini manducamus & bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis & sanguinis, subijsdem qualitatibus, mutata: substantia, ut sub figura & sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis & sanguinis. In show of bread and wine we eat and drink the very substance of the body and blood, under the same qualities the substance being changed, that under the shape and taste of the former substance, the true substance of Christ's body and blood be made. Which words are no less evident for proof of the reality of Christ's presence, and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Blood or transubstantiation then the other are for proof that the change is made by force of the words. Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you allege for the blessing, as if that did cause this change. For he as many other Fathers and Doctors call the very form of consecration a benediction, both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for so holy an end; and because they produce so noble an effect, or because they are joined always with that benediction, and thanksgiving used both by your B. Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priests in the Catholic Church, in the consecration of the same. You have then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by. Odo, as by any of the rest.  
20. But after all these authors you put one in the rear who must make amends for all that the rest have failed you in; and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium, Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his book the correctione theologiae. Who indeed speaketh plainly for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration, if you cite him truly, as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable; but because he is not, I do not so much as look in him; but remit you to the Roman Index, where you shall find his book by you here cited forbidden; which may be answer enough for you; and even the arrogancy of the title showeth it to deserve no better a place, for it is entitled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae. As if he alone were wiser than all others Schoolmen put together. Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a gross historical error which every man may perceive at the very first sight, to let pass his theological errors: and it is in this, that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Council of Trent and all writers did agree, till the late times of Caietan; as if Caietan were since the time of the Council of Trent. Whereas indeed he died above a Dozen years before the first beginning thereof. And withal you do not mark how in citing this place you are against yourself. For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same, here this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him, but only Cajetan. Whom then shall we believe you Sir knight, or your author?  
21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card, yet cannot I omit though after him to answer here a certain authority which you bring before somewhat out of season, out of Salmeron, telling us that he speaking in the person of the Grecians, delivereth their opinion in this manner. For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vain, neither gave he simply bread, it followeth, that when he gave it, the transmutation was already made, and these words (this is my body) did demonstrate what was contained in the bread, not what was made by them. Whereto I answer first; that you mistake your terms when you call this an Opinion, which is an error of the Grecians. Secondly I might answer, that this is not Salmeron's authority, whom you seem to cite, but do not indeed; you citing only for author a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier, who also citeth those words out of Salmeron, but without any the least mention of the place, where they may be found. So as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes, to look for such a place as this without any light or direction, is almost as good as to look for a needle in a bottle of hay. Yet I did look in that part of his works, which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not. Which notwithstanding, I will not say but it may be there, for it is true that there have been some Latin authors that have held that our Saviour himself did consecrate not by those words, but either by other words, 
V Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 58. Sect. 1. & seq.  or by the power of his own will, without any outward sign; or by some outward sign other than words; or by these very words twice spoken. Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Grecians might fall being so prone to err, as they have been these later ages: 
V Aund.  though in other authors I do not find this error of theirs of the benediction, before the words, but rather the contrary, 
Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 58. Sect. 3.  that these words (this is my body) wherewith Christ did consecrate, are not now sufficient to consecrate, without certain prayers coming after in the Canon of the Mass. appointed by the Church. But of this it maketh not much matter; and it may be some of them so think, and therefore, I answer thirdly for Salmeron, this is no opinion by him allowed (as you would seem by your manner of citing him to insinuate,) but by him condemned of error, as your friend Chamier saith expressly, citing to that purpose Salmeron's own words also, even there where he bringeth these: which you could not but see. Wherefore in this you come short of the very Minister's honesty. How little then must you needs have? Lastly I answer this very authority is against you in the two things in controversy between us, to wit, the real presence and transubstantiation; both which it alloweth; and is against us only in one, not so properly in controversy: to wit, in that it saith this change is wrought not by the words (this is my body) but by the benediction that goeth before. Which benediction it doth not say whether it were a word or a deed; and it is as like to be some word as otherwise but whether word, or deed, it is as easy to consecrate by these words (this is my body)) as by any other words; or outward deed. So as herein Sir Humphrey you have no help from any man, either Salmeron, or the Grecians, or even your friend Chamier for he discovereth your bad dealing.  
22. After this matter of the Blessing, you come back again to the proof of transubstantiation out of Scriptures, telling us that Bellarmine saith it is not altogether improbable, that there is no express place of Scripture to prove it, without the declaration of the Church, as Scotus said: for though, saith Bellarmine, that place which we brought seem so plain that it may compel a man not refractory, yet it may justly be doubted whether it be so or no: seeing the most learned and acute men as Scotus have thought the contrary. In which words Bellarmine saith but what we granted before, to wit, that though the words of consecration in the plain connatural and obvious sense infer transubstantiation, yet because in the judgement of some learned men they may have another sense which proveth only the real presence without transubstantiation, it is not altogether improbable that without the authority of the Church, they cannot enforce a man to believe transubstantiation out of them. What of all this? nothing to your purpose Sir Knight: though in translating this saying of Bellarmine's you have corrupted it in two places. The one, that whereas Bellarmine said one scripture, or place of scripture which he brought to prove transubstantiation, was so plain as to enforce a man not refractory. You change the singular number into the plural, as if Bellarmine had said the Scriptures were so plain etc. Which is a corruption of yours thereby insinuating, as if Bellarmine taught the Scriptures to be plain and with out difficulty so as every body may understand them, which indeed is an ordinary saying of you Protestants, but as ordinarily denied by us Catholics. The other is, that whereas Bellarmine saith men most learned and acute as Scotus was. You say the most learned and acute men such as Scotus. Which word (the) you cannot but know altars the sense much. For it importeth as if the better part of learned and acute men went that way; which is false and contrary to the Cardinal's words and meaning.  
23. You tell us now in the next place, that you will proceed from Scriptures to Fathers, as if you had said mighty matters out of scripture, not having indeed said one word out of it, either for yourself or against us. Well, let us see what you say out of the Fathers. Alfonsus' a Castro, say you, was a diligent reader of the Fathers, yet after great study and search returns this answer; of the conversion of the body and blood of Christ there is seldom mention in the Fathers. But Sir you are no diligent reader nor faithful interpreter of Alfonsus a Castro. For his words as you yourself put them down in Latin in the margin are thus. 
Alphon a Castro lib. 8. verbo Indulgent.  De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio. That is. Of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, there is sedome mention in ancient writers. Wherein he saith true and you most false. For though of transubstantiation there be rare mention, yet of the conversion of bread into the body of Christ there is most frequent mention, as Bellarmine showeth at large And herein it is that you show yourself a faithless interpreter. 
de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 20.  But if a man consider Castro his meaning, he shall find you to have abused that much more than his words. For his drift in that place is to show, that though there be not much mention in ancient Writes of a thing, or plain testimony of scripture that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient; bringing for an example this point of transubstantiation whereof he saith there is seldom mention, and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, whereof saith he there is more seldom mention, and then maketh his inference upon it thus, yet who but an Haeretique will deny these things? you might then as well Sir Humphrey and better too in Castro his judgement have denied the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, than the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body. And herein it is that you show yourself no diligent nor understanding reader of Castro.  
24. After him cometh one Yribarne a disciple of Scotus, whose words you also corrupt in the translation, which it is enough to tell you of. For the matter he saith it was of the substance of faith in the primitive Church, that Christ was really present under the forms of bread and wine, yet was it not so of transubstantiation wherein he seemeth to hold with his Master Scotus. Who was of opinion, that transubstantiation was not a point of faith till the Council of Lateran. For which you yourself confess he is censured by Bellarmine and Suarez which were answer enough. For as I told you in the beginning we do not bind ourselves to defend every singular opinion of one or two Doctors contrary to the common opinion of others. But beside, I answer that Scotus plainly averreth transubstantiation and proveth it out of the ancient Fathers who use the very word of conversion, which is all one with transubstantiation. For thus he saith in a certain place Respondeo quod nec panis manet, contra primam opinionem; nec annihilatur vel resoluitur in materiam primam, 
S●●t. 4. dist. 1●. 9.3.  contra secundam opinionem; sed convertitur in corpus Christi. Et ad hoc multum expresse videtur loqui Ambrose, cuius undecim authoritates supra adductae sunt; & plures habentur de consecrat; dist. 2. I answer that neither the bread remaineth, against the first opinion; nor is annihilated or resolved in to materia prima, against the second opinion; but is changed into the body of Christ. And to this purpose S. Ambrose seemeth to speak very expressly out of whom 11. authorities are brought before and more are to be had the consecr. dist. 2. 
S. Amb. de iis qui mist. initiant. cap. 9 & de Sacrament. lib. 4. cap. 3. & 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.  Thus Scotus; not only teaching transubstantiation himself, but proving it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change, and conversion of the very nature of bread; Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiation. By which it is plain, that Scotus must have held this Doctrine for the substance thereof, to be as ancient as S. Ambrose at the least and if so ancient then even from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Council of Lateran is only this, that whereas the words of consecration may be understood of the real presence of our Blessed saviour's body either by transubstantiation, that is, by change, of the bread into his body or otherwise so that the substance of the bread do remain the Church hath determined that the words are to be understood in the former sense as may be gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was delivered to Us, to wit, by the Spirit of truth. 
V Scot in 4. Sent. dist. 11.9.3.  Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantiation. And though it were also the common belief of the Church from the beginning, yet it might well be said not to have been de substantia fidei, Yribarne, speaketh; because it had not been so plainly delivered, nor determined in any Council till Greg. the 7. his time, wherein it was first defined against Berengarius, and that but by a particular or provincial Roman Council. Which notwithstanding the article in itself might be ancient, though not so expressly delivered; as I declared more amply in the first chapter.  
25. You have little help then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro, Scotus, and Yribarne; which although you had, yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit, you having promised us acient Fathers against transubstantiation: which these three are not; for one of them, to wit, Yribarne is perhaps now alive: another, to wit, Alfonsus a Castro lived not passed 100 years ago; the third, to wit, Scotus about 300. years since; which is far from the antiquity of Fathers, as we ordinarily speak of them: Wherefore bethinking yourself at last; you bring us a Father or two, to wit S. Aug. and Theodoret, telling us that S. Aug. is so wholly yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. john saith that he is persuaded that if S. Aug. had lived in these times, and seen that Caluin expounded the same place as he did, he would have changed his mind: and for Theodoret you say, that Valentia observing him to say that the consecrated elements did remain, in their proper substance and shape, and figure, he maketh the like answer, that it is no marvel if one or more of the ancient fathers, before the question was debated, did think less considerately and truly of transubstantiation. This is all that ever you have out of the Fathers. Which how little it is, and how much to your shame shall upon examination appear.  

Aug er. 26. in Io.  26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in favour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. john where our Saviour saith. Your Fathers have eaten Manna and are dead, he that eateth this Bread, shall live for ever. He saith that their Fathers, that is the naughty and unbelieving people of the jews died, to wit, spiritually in their souls, because they in eating Manna, did consider only what it presented to their outward senses, and not what it represented unto their minds by faith; whereas the good men among them, as Moses, Aaron, Phinees, and others, who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs, did not dye, to wit spiritually, because they did not consider it only according to the sense, but according to faith, remembering that it was but a figure: and a figure of this heavenly bread which we have; as the same holy Father saith expressly in the same place Hunc panem significavit manna. Manna signified this Bread: and he saith it is the same of judas, and other bad Christians which receive of the Altar and by receiving dye, because they receive it ill. Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey? Do not you see how wholly S. Aug. is yours. How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heavenly bread? that we receive it from the altar? Doth not all this make finely for you? but you will say then if it make nothing for us, why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had lived in these times, he would have interpreted otherwise. I answer not that this interpretation is for you, but because the other is more against you, to wit thus. Whereas S. Augustine gives the reason why they that did eat Manna died, to be, because they did not eat it with faith, Maldonate maketh the difference to be not so much between the persons which did eat, as between the food which they did eat saying, that our Saviour maketh this a special prerogative of the B. Sacrament fare above the Manna, that this holy Sacrament giveth life to them that eat it, which the Manna did not give of itself. And indeed with dew reverence be it spoken to S. Augustine's authority, this interpretation is more suitable to the text and discourse of our Saviour in that whole chapter, which is to compare and prefer that true bread which he said his heavenly Father did give before that of Manna which Moses gave their Fathers. It is more also against the Haeretiques of these times in regard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament, which they labour might & main to depress: and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpretation, not for any love to Truth, or reverence which he beareth to S. Augustine's authority.  
27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speech of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leaf of your book, where you say ironically thus. S. Augustine did not rightly understand the corporal presence: For he would have changed his opinion, if he had lived in these days, as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly understand the real presence, and that he would have changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had lived now in these times: You hereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach. But how grossly false this is may appear plainly; by what I have here said, to wit, that it is not the real presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh, but how they that eat Manna have died, and they that eat the body of our Lord shall live according to our saviour's saying, which is clean a different thing. Wherein Sir HUMPHREY you be- LINED S. Aug. somewhat, but Maldonate you be- Lined much more, by making as if he acknowledged S. Augustine to be against the real presence, and that he should therefore correct him with one of your scornful taunts, and say he understood it not; whereas Maldonate speaketh only of S. Aug. his exposition of that place of Scripture, which he doth not also condemn, though he bring another more agreeable as he thinketh to the true meaning of our Saviour in that place; which truly a man may do without any such arrogancy and scoffing as you are pleased out of your ingenuity and gentlemanly breeding to fasten upon Maldonate.  
28. And so having cleared the matter of S. Aug. I come now to Theodoret, who indeed hath a place in show a little hard, to such as want will to understand him, as it seemeth you do Sir knight. For it hath been often clearly and several ways answered by many and even by Valencia; 
Val. de Transub. lib. 2. cap. 7.  of one of whose answers, you think to make your advantage: but it will prove to your disadvantage. For he having brought two or three several and substantial answers, at last concludeth somewhat roundly with the Haeretiques in this manner. That if no other answer will serve the turn; but that they will still stand wrangling, it is no marvel that one or two (he meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius, who both speak in the same manner) might err in this point before it was discussed Which last answer you only take hold of, as if that were the only answer not taking notice of any of the rest, which as in the one side it showeth your bad dealing, so doth it on the other show the goodness of his solutions to be such as you could not tell what to reply against them. 
b. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 46. sect. 4. fine.  Bellarmine, Suarez and others answer it in like manner diverse ways, to whom therefore. I remit you, only for the Reader's sake, not to leave him in suspense, I shall here make one plain and brief answer, and as I conceive out of the very words which you here object against us, 
Dialog. 2.  which are these. Neque enim signa mystica post Sanctificationem recedunt, a sua natura, manent enim in propria substantia, & figura & forma & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius, intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur & adorantur, ut quae illa sint, quae creduntur. For neither do the mystical signs depart from their own nature after the sanctification; for they remain in their proper substance, figure, and form: & they may be seen and touched as before; but they are understood to be that which they are made, and they are believed, and adored as being that which they are believed to be. These are the words of Theodoret which Sir Humphrey you partly cite by halves? and partly corrupt by mistranslation. For thus you cite him only. The consecrated elements remain in their proper substance and shape and figure leaving out all the later part of believing and adoring, and all words which might signify any change, as there be many. As first in that he saith; the mystical signs do not change their nature by Sanctification, which why should he deny, unless the Sanctification did work some change: or why should he make such a special matter of that, that the (mystical signs that is) accidents as I shall by and by show, should not change their nature, unless the substance whereto they did belong, did change it own nature. For it were a ridiculous thing for any man to make a wonder of that, that the colour, figure, and taste of bread should remain, the substance itself of the bread remaining; but this being changed for them to remain is a wonder, which may beseem a wise man to speak of. Secondly whereas he saith these mystical signs may be seen, and touched, as before, you leave that out, because it plainly shows there is some change; for a thing cannot be otherwise then it was before, without some change. Now the change he saith is not in the accidents themselves, or in their own nature, for that remains, therefore it must necessarily be in that their subject, as Philosophers speak, or substance, in which they did inhere, or rest, is changed. Thirdly Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by sanctification, and which is understood, and adored. What is this, that is made here? not the accidents, for they remain the same, not the substance of the bread, for that was before. Neither is that said to be understood or believed, but seen and felt, much less is it or can it be said to be adored. All this than you leave out Sir Humphrey, we need not ask you why, for every man seethe the reason. Thus much of your mangling of this authority.  
29. Now to come to your mistranslation. Whereas you translate (Signa mystica) consecrated elements. I would be glad to know in what Dictionary you find (Signa) to signify elements and (mystica) to signify consecrated? For though the holy Fathers many times use the word, mystical, when they speak of the Blessed Sacrament as being a Mystery, and which indeed cannot be so without consecration, yet mystical, and consecrated, are two several things, and they have several relations or respects, and consequently several Significations. For consecrated hath relation to the words and action of the Priest, whereby it is sanctified and changed mystical hath relation to the secrecy or hiddenness of it, as far surpassing the knowledge or comprehension of man; or as being another thing than it seemeth outwardly to be. But for the word (Signa) I see not what colour any man can have to translate it elements: being two such different things without any connexion. For elements pertain to the very substance of a thing, they being the prime principles of which any thing is made, and consisteth. Signum or a Sign properly pertaineth to the accidents of a thing which are the proper objects of our senses, and which do notify or signify unto us the substance of the thing, bringing it so to our knowledge, and every thing is called a Sign so far as it is apt to cause in us this knowledge. Wherefore this is a notable cunning trick of yours Sir Knight by changing Signs into elements, to make all that Theodoret saith of the accidents of bread, to be understood of the elements or substance of the bread, as if that did remain, whereas he only saith that the accidents remain in their own substance: that is their own entity nature or being, which to them is not accidental and therefore may be termed their substance. For it is plain that accidents have a certain being of their own, different from that of their subject wherein they inhere or rest. And this is that nature or substance which Theodoret saith doth remain. For as for the change of the substance of bread besides that there is enough in this very place to convince it, I could bring diverse other plain places out of him, as that: 
Ap. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 49. Sect. 2.  Non est attendendum ad naturam eorum quae videntur, sed credendum mutationi quae hîc fit ex gratia. We must not consider the nature of those things which are seen, but believe the change which is here made by grace, as also that other place where he noteth it for an haeresy springing up among the Grecians, of some, that did deny the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Christ. Eucharistiam & oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri IESV CHRISTI. But not to stand longer upon it, 
Dialog 3. ut. habeatur ap. Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 46. sect. 1.  here is enough I trow to make it evident, that Theodoret in this point agreeth with other Fathers and the whole Catholic Church.  
30. And so much for these two fathers S. Aug. and Theodoret, which are the only ancient authors it seemeth you can find of yourself. But because you would make your Reader think there be more for you. And that our authors acknowledge so much, I must examine what you say out of Cusanus for that purpose, for he is the only author which you here bring. Thus than you say Their learned Cusanus is not so reserved in his opinion of the Fathers he speakeht plainly and openly, that certain of the ancient Divines are found of this mind, that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated or changed in nature, but remaineth still, and is clothed with another substance more noble than itself. So Cusanus as you cite him. Whereby you would make it seem as if Cusanus taught the Fathers to be against transubstantiation, and even as if it were Cusanus his own opinion: For though you do not say it expressly, yet you allege, him in such manner, that any man would think it. But in this you play your part as you are wont to do. For first where doth Cusanus speak one word of the Fathers? he speaketh indeed of some ancient Divines, but of Fathers not a word? this then is false which you say that Cusanus is not so reserved in his opinion of the Fathers, seeing he is so reserved as not once to name them. Secondly for that which you say of certain ancient Divines, it is true Cusanus hath somewhat to that purpose, but not just as you say. For these are his words. Si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari sed superuestiri nobiliori substantia, prout quidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur, qui dicebant non solum panem sed & corpus Christi esse in Sacramento etc. If any man should understand the bread not to be transubstantiated, but to be overclothed with a more noble substance, as some ancient Divines are found to have understood, who said that not only bread but the body of Christ is in the Sacrament etc. Which last words of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament you leave out, because they make as much, or more against yourself, than the former of the remaining of bread, against us. But for the ancient Divines you needed not have gone so fare as Cusanus, you might have their names and errors in our late Schoolmen. 
Suar. disp. 49. sect. 2 3 4.  Thirdly concerning Cusanus his own opinion, there can be nothing more manifest than his true & constant belief of transubstantiation: 
Excit. lib. 6. edit. Bas●● 1565. pag. 522. lib. 4. p. 446.  in this very place he saith, ita manent accidentia ut prius, sed substantia conversa est. The accidents remain as before but the substance is changed. And in another place. Huius sacramenti institutio ita facta est per Christum, quod panis in corpus Christi, & vinum in sanguinem convertitur, pro esca spirituali sub speciebus sensibilibus. The institution of this Sacrament was so made by Christ, that the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and wine into his blood for spiritual food under the sensible species or accidents. And there he goeth on with a large & excellent discourse, expressing all things now in controversy, as transubstantiation, I mean the very word, Concomitancy, the efficacy of the very words, Christ's manner of presence whole in the whole host, & whole in every part thereof, illustrating and proving all by reasons and examples of natural things, and this not briefly, or in one place only, but so largely & in so many places, as a man by only opening the book without an index may presently find enough, to show his Catholic belief, & confute your errors. What strange malice and boldness than is this Sir Humphrey so to lead your reader into tentation, by making him believe Cusanus is for you. I omit to note your ignorance in citing Cusanus his book Exercit: that is either Exercitiorum or Exercitationum, whereas he hath no such work but Excitationum? Which by your great ignorance every where shown I have good reason to think not to be the Printers fault, but yours. But here is an end with Cusanus in whom you have no refuge more than you had in the Fathers.  
31. Now then having done with Scriptures and Fathers you come to the Schoolmen, telling us that Scotus taught that before the Council of Lateran, transubstantiation was not believed as a point of faith: Which Bellarmine disalloweth in him: & Suarez saith that the Schoolmen which teach that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not very ancient are to be corrected such as Scotus was. Of Durand you say that in like manner he & some of his fellow Schoolmen after him professed openly, that the material part (or substance) of the Sacramental bread was not converted: but that Bellarmine condemneth this doctrine for heretical, yet excusing Durand from being an Haeretique because he was ready to submit to the judgement of the Church. Then letting pass Wickliff and the Waldenses you say our own Proctors Osiensis and Gaufridus tell you that there were others in those days, who taught that the substance of bread did remain, and this opinion say they, (as you cite them) was not to be rejected. Lastly to come to this last age you say Tonstall thinks it had been better to leave every man to his own conjecture for the manner of the real presence whether it be by transubstantiation or otherwise as it was before the Council of Lateran: And Erasmus saith it was defined but of late by the Church These are all your authors and your whole discourse out of Schoolmen.  
32. To which I say first for Scotus that I have sufficiently answered that of him before in answering the testimony of Yribarre his Scholar, 
Sup. hoc §. n. 24.  where I shown that he meant not so much of the substance of the doctrine, for he acknowledgeth the antiquity of the conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood as either of the word transubstantiation or of the proof thereof by determining the sense of scripture. And this it may be is it wherein Tonstall also followeth him. If they mean otherwise the matter is not great; for one single author or two contradicted by others carry no credit with us in matter of belief though to say truly Tonstall was no Schooleman but a Canonist, as Cardinal Pole answereth him very well by letter upon another certain occasion, wherein he did swerve from the rules of true Divinity: as I have seen by the letters of both, in both their own hands. Erasmus is no author to be answered nor named as you know I have often told you.  
33. For the Waldenses and Wickliff you do well to let them pass. But the very naming of them shows you had a good mind to fill out your number of Schoolmen with them: though for the Waldenses I do not find that they agree with you much in this point of the Blessed Sacrament. For they had Mass but once a year, & that upon Maundy thursday neither would they use the words Hoc est Corpus meum. This is my body but 7. Pater nosters with a blessing over the bread. Whereas you may have your Communion oftener, and you use the words This is my body. Not 7. Pater's as they did. But what need I say more of them or the Wickliffists either, being known condemned Haeretiques.  
34. Now for Durand he is a Schoolman indeed and a learned one, but yet not wholly free from error in some points, and particularly in this, of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For he is of opinion that the change in this Sacrament is no other than as the natural changes of other substances one into another; 
Durand. 4. dist. 11. q. 3.  and that it is supernatural only for the manner because it is done in an instant and without the concurrence of natural causes. And that as in these natural changes of the elements one into another or other mixed bodies the form only is changed the material part or subject as Philosophers speak remaining still the same, so also that here the form of bread is changed only the matter or material part of bread and wine remaining. Which yet he thought to be sufficient to verify not only the realnes of Christ's presence, but also the conversion of bread into the body of Christ. For to that purpose he hath these two express conclusions. 
4. dist. 10. q. 1.  Dicendum saith he quod verum corpus Christi natum de Virgin & passum in cruse est realiter in hoc Sacramento. I say that the true body of Christ which was borne of the Virgin and suffered on the cross is really in this Sacrament. The other conclusion is this. Dicendum quod substantia panis & vini convertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi. 
Dur. 4. dist. 11. q. 1.  It is to be said that the substance of bread and wine are turned into the substance of Christ's Body. Whereby it is plain he held a true and real presence by a true and real conversion of the bread or substance of the bread into the body of Christ discovering also therein your cunning and deluding corruption whereby you would make it seem to your Reader that these two be all one (the material part of bread, and substance of bread) for so in the citation of Durand's sentence you gloss the words material part with this parenthesis of your own (or substance) whereas the material part of bread and substance of bread are two things. For the matter in every compound is but a part of the substance and the absolute denomination of such a specifical substance doth not belong even to the form itself alone though it be the more noble and more essential part, much less to the matter or material part. For we do not say the form of fire or water is fire or water but it is that which giveth the being of fire or water to the material part or matter which of itself is so far from having any such denomination as some Philosophers do scarce give it any proper being of it own or even the common name of ens. And all agree that it hath no quality no active power nor force of itself to do any thing as being but a mere passive power.  
35. Wherefore though the matter of bread should remain in this conversion or change yet could not the substance of bread be said to remain so long as the form is changed no more than all the bread and meat which you eat may be said to remain because the material part of all the bread, beef, mutton, capon, pheazant, and whatsoever else you eat, remaineth unconuerted which as it were a great absurdity in any man to affirm, so is it as great an one in you to affirm that the substance of bread in this Sacrament should not be converted though the material part should remain, for as the only change of the form in all natural conversions is sufficient to verify that this thing is changed into that, for example Fire into Water, so might it be in this: For as much as pertaineth to the truth of that manner of speaking. Which I only urge in Durand's defence not that I allow his doctrine. For this was his very reason why he did hold that opinion because he thought it sufficient to verify not only the real presence but even transubstantiation also. Which very word he useth in another place, for making answer to a certain objection drawn out of the words of S. john Damascen wherein that Father said that the nature of bread was assumed by Christ. As if by that manner of speaking he should seem to insinuate that the bread remaining the same in nature was Hypostatically united to Christ, Durand saith thus. 
Durand. in 4. dist. 10● q. 1.  Sicut in baptismate aqua assumitur ut materia Sacramenti permanens sic panis & vinum assumuntur ut materia Sacramenti tranfiens quia materia Sacramenti convertitur in corpus Christi & per consequens dicitur aliquo modo uniri divinitati non per assumptionem manente natura panis aut vini sed per transubstantiationem in humanitatem priùs assumptam. As in baptism water is assumed as the permanent matter of the Sacrament so bread and wine are assumed as the transient or passing matter of the Sacrament, because the matter of the Sacrament is turned into the body of Christ. And by consequence is said in some sort to be united to the Divinity not by assumption or hypostatical union, the nature of the bread or wine remaining; but by transubstantiation into the Humanity before assumpted Which words declare his opinion both fully and plainly of the change of the matter of this Sacrament into the body of Christ by Transubstantiation.  
36. But howsoever he fail in declaring this transubstantiation in that he taketh not the whole substance of the bread to be changed into the whole body of Christ he doth not say it confidently and certainly but doubtfully and with due submission to better judgement, and especially to the Church. Saluo meliori iudicio existimari potest etc. are his words. 
4. dist. 11. q. 3  Saving better judgement it may be thought etc. and in answer of an argument to the contrary wherein was objected the common consent of others against him, he saith that that notwithstanding yet so long as their saying is not confirmed by the Church it is lawful to think the contrary. In which words he showeth two things; one, that his Opinion was contrary to the common current of the Catholic Doctors of his own tyme. Which is contrary to that which you said that he and his fellow Schoolmen professed that doctrine openly; for you see he acknowledgeth all others to be against him, neither doth he himself profess it so openly, for he speaketh it doubtfully and with submission to better judgement: The other thing is that he plainly acknowledgeth the authority of the Church to be such as that it is not lawful for any man to hold opinion against it. But though he should have said nothing thereof in this place it is sufficient that in the preface of his Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, he submitteth all his works to the correction of the holy Roman and Catholic Church to which he acknowledgeth the interpretation of all doubts of the holy Scripture to belong: Which profession without more may serve to excuse and free him from the crime of haeresy either in this or any other point wherein he may have chanced to err as Bellarmine doth therefore justly excuse him.  
37. Now for Gaufridus and Ostiensis our own Proctors as you call them, as you have the objection so you shall have the answer also out of Durand. 
Durand. in 4. dist. 10. q. 1.  Thus than he objecteth against the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Ostiensis and Gaufridus note 3. opinions concerning the manner of being of the body of Christ upon the altar: of which one saith that the bread is the body, of Christ: another saith that the bread doth not remain but is changed; and that the accidents alone do remain; Which seemeth to be approved by that text of Cap. firm●ter. The third opinion saith that the substance of bread doth remain and is together with the body of Christ upon the altar. Behold that they call it an Opinion of the remanency of the substance of bread neither do they say it is reproved nay rather they refer it to the confession of Berengarius which was approved by the Council. Thus the objection set down and urged by Durand, not cited out of them. Now his answer is this. For that which is afterwards said of Gaufrid, Ber. and Hostiens. Glossers upon the Chap. firmiter it is to be answered, that though they recount three opinions they approve none for true but only that of the body of Christ's being upon the altar by transubstantiation of the bread and wine. And if they do not expressly call any of them erroneous, it followeth not therefore that it is not erroneous. For they did not know all the passages of holy Scripture from which the fore said opinion doth differ. Thus the objection & answer in the very words as they lie in Durand. Out of which first it is clear, these men are only Canonists no School Divines; such as you pretend here to allege. Though you also insinuate the same somewhat, in as much as you call them our Proctors. Wherein yet you mistake your terms, the word Proctor being not so fit for so great Doctors of the Canons as they were: for how think you vould your Civil or Canon Doctors of the Arches take it at your hands to be called Proctors? or your great Lord Sir Edoward Cook and Doctor as I may say of your common Law to be called an Attorney at Law? Secondly hereby appeareth also your corruption in saying that they taught that this opinion, was not to be rejected; for thus you put it in a different letter. (This opinion say they was not to be rejected) whereas they say no such thing. But only Durand enforcing the objection to the utmost as Divines are wont to do the more fully to answer; taketh hold that they call it an opinion, and likewise taketh hold that they do not say it was reproved or that it ought to be held for an error. Thirdly hence it appeareth that both they themselves did not allow of it in that they held only that middle opinion of transubstantiation for true; and that though they did not so expressly condemn it of error yet it doth not follow but that it was error for they knew not all the passages of scripture: Scripture being not their study. Thus than all your Schoolmen are answered and consequently this whole §. of Transubstantiation.   

PARAGRAPH. 3. OF PRIVATE MASS.  
1. In this third § Sir Humphrey pretendeth to make good the doctrine and practice of his Church, and overthrew outs in point of private Mass as he calleth it: beginning with the curse of the Council of Trent, against such as condemn it for unlawful. And then bring an article of Ireland to the contrary, which saith, that for the Priest to receive the Eucharist without a competent number of Communicants, is against the institution of Christ, & practice of the primitive Church. For proof of this his doctrine he bringeth the words of Christ; 
1. Cor. 11.1.  Take ye, eat ye. And those of S. Paul. Be ye followers of me, even as I am also of Christ. As likewise those other. When you come together tarry one for another. And the cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? and here the knight saith out of Hugo de S. Victo. (whom he of his own free goodness is pleased to create a Cardinal, both here and else where, to make up the number of his Cardinal's Bishops etc.) that it is called a Communion, because the People in the primitive Church did communicate together. And he saith of himself, that it is so called because the Priest and people communicate together. After this he bringeth a Canon of the Council of Nantes, forbidding Priest to say Mass alone. For to whom, saith the Canon, doth the Priest say The Lord be with you to which he addeth 12. or 13. of our authors in proof that anciently the people did communicate every day, witnessing therein as he saith the antiquity of his Doctrine and intimating the novelty of ours and he telleth us also that the Council of Trent concludeth with a well-wishing to his Doctrine, in saying that it wisheth that the people would communicate not only spiritually but also sacramentally, adjudging his communion to be more fruitful. This is the sum of this whole §  
2. To which I answer, beginning with this last of the Council of Trent, that the Rearder seeing the Man's abominable Lying by this one thing, may give a guess of the rest. The Council as he confesseth in the beginning accurseth him and his Doctrine, and here he saith it concludeth with a well wishing thereunto. Is it even so good Sir your Communion is allowed by the Council of Trent? you tell us News; I pray you what Canon, what Chapter, what Session is your Communion once named in? there you will say, where the Council wisheth that the people that hear Mass would communicate, not only spiritually but also sacramentally? is this your Communion? what? have you Mass Sir Humphrey? take heed it may cost you money. An informer that should hear this might catch you by the back, and bring you in for so many hundred marks, as you have received bytts of bread, in your Church; Which truly might prove a dear ordinary for you. And this you must either confess, or let alone the Council of Trent, which acknowledgeth no Communion without Mass. For if you deny your Service to be Mass, we deny your Communion to be Communion, for no Mass, no communion: therefore bethink yourself, whither you will be content to have a Mass or no Trent-Communion? and while you stand studying of this, I will put you another thing to consider of. Which is this, that it is one thing for the Council to wish that the people would communicate; because to hear Mass and receive withal would be more profitable; another, to say that if there be no body to communicate, or that such Mass is unlawful as Haeretiques say; the Priest must not say Mass: what think you Sir are not these two things? study the matter a while and tell us. Do not you then speak wondrous wittily, when you say that there cometh blessing and cursing out of the same mouth, as if the Council did approve and condemn the same thing when it commendeth sacramental communion of the people together with the Priest, and yet condemneth not those Masses as unlawful, wherein the people do not communicate: yea approveth them? the like wit and less honesty you show also in that you say, that from the Confession of a general Council your Communion is concluded to be more fruitful; what affinity between your empty communion which is but a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine, and the true real & substantial Body and Blood of CHRIST JESUS which the faithful Catholic receiveth: the Council commendeth daily receiving of the Blessed Sacrament as more profitable therefore say you it commendeth your Communion which you use, once, twice, thrice, or 4. times a year. It wisheth that the people would receive sacramentally as the Priest doth, you make it say no; but that the Priest must do as the people doth, that is, not celebrate but when they are disposed to receive: is it not mere madness for you Sir Humphrey thus plainly to abuse the Council so contrary to the plain meaning thereof?  
3. Like to this is your folly, in alleging so many authorities in favour of your Communion, as you think. Which whither you cite them true or no I do not stand to examine, for it maketh no matter. They say it was the practice of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest; I grant it. What then? therefore the Priest now must say Mass but once in two or three months, or once in a twelve month, or not once in seven year, unless the people be so devout as to come & receive with him? this followeth of your doctrine: is not this wise arguing? but to answer you another way Sir Humphrey, you cannot be ignorant that there is not one of these authors which you cite for the people's daily communion that saith that either it is or was of necessity so to do, but only bear witness of the practice: 
Bell. lib. 2. de Mis. cap. 9 & 10. Durant. de ritib. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5.  Whereas some of them as Bellarmine and Durantus do prove most manifestly that there was no such necessity, or dependency of the Priest's celebrating upon the people's communicating, that they might not celebrate unless the people did communicate. Nay they prove clearly that it was ordinary for Priests to celebrate, though no body did communicate. Do they not prove by manifest authorities that in the Eastern Church, in the time of S. Ambrose, S. Aug. & S. Chrisost. the people did communicate but once a year, and yet S. Chrysost. even there where he complaineth of the people's coldness, saith of himself, that he celebrated every day though there were no body to participate with him? but because these Fathers lived after the Primitive Church, though not long, and that your authors speak most of the Primitive Church it is manifest that even in that time the people did not still communicate every day as they had done in the beginning for whereas people did communicate before without command, only of their own devotion, they were grown so cold by Pope Fabian's time, 
Fab. epi. 3.  which was about the year 240. being but the one & twentith Pope, that he was fain to make a Decree to compel the people to communicate at least thrice a year, and this was almost one hundred years before the end of the Primitive Church, the like decree I might also bring out of Soter about the year 175. which was 60. years before Fabian. Whereas notwithstanding then Priests and Bishops did celebrate every day as appeareth by S. Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Hierome, 
Lib. 2. cap. 4.  etc. cited by Durantus. And which is more those Fathers, S. Aug by name, saith he doth neither commend nor discommend the daily Communion of the people; but wisheth that at least upon Sundays they would communicate, but with a mind free from desire of sinning, whereas he together with other Fathers make frequent mention of daily sacrifice. But what is all this to your purpose, or to your communion? as of all that is said by the Fathers of the holy Communion were meant of your sacrilegious communion?  
4. Now for your proofs out of Scripture, as that, that our Saviour said to his Disciples, (take ye, eat ye). I answer that as our Saviour there spoke to all his Apostles who did all eat, so out of this place a man might even as well say, that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time, and that the Priest must not say Mass, unless not only one 2. or 3. communicate, but all that are there, which I do not believe you will grant. For I do not think that when any one man among you receiveth your communion, all receive it. Solve this objection then of mine, and you answer your own. For S. Paul's words where he inviteth Christians to imitate him, as he did imitate Christ, out of which you would gather that Priests must not say Mass, unless there be some body to communicate, if a man should tell your Ministers and yourself too Sir Humphrey of many things which S. Paul did, and wherein he did desire to be followed, as the chastizing of his body, his fasting and praying, his chastity, his labours, and the like. Both you and they would have wit enough to find a solution for yourselves, and would easily find something else wherein to imitate him: neither would you be so well able to prove yourselves followers of him in those things, as we can do ourselves in this. For first the thing wherein S. Paul desireth the Corinthians to imitate him cannot be the distributing of the communion, which belonged only to the office of Priests, whereas S. Paul●s imitation is directed to all. Secondly the thing, that he desireth to be imitated in, 
1. Cor. 10.31  is that which goeth next before in these words. Wither you eat or drink, or do any thing else, do all to the glory of God. Be without offence to jews and Gentiles, and to the Church of God, as I please all in all things, not seeking what is profitable for myself, but for many that they may be saved. Then come very fitly, and consequently these words. Be imitators of me, as I also of Christ in this therefore as Christ did seek not his own pleasure but the good of many, wherein S. Paul did imitate him so he would have the Corinthians, and in them all Christians to imitate him. Now that which followeth is a new matter; for he goeth from exhorting them, to praise them thus. I praise you my bretherem, that you are mindful of me in all things, and Keep my precepts as I have delivered unto you. And there also delivereth a great many good precepts of other matters, before he come to the B. Sacrament. Thirdly in this matter of Mass we imitate him: for our Priests are ready to communicate such as come worthily to receive, but you must prove that S. Paul would not say Mass or communicate himself, unless others would communicate with him; or that he did teach that other Priests must not. But that you will never be able to do.  
5. That other place of staying one for another, is spoken to the people; who made the suppers called agape, as is plain by the text. Wherein he reprehends the abuses that were committed as that some did exceed, others did want; some were drunk, some went away hungry which could not pertain to the blessed Sacrament, as every man knoweth beside the distribution of that belonged to the Priests, not to the people, who are here instructed and reprehended for their manner of making their suppers; for he speaketh to the same people here, that he doth in all the epistle, and to whom he had a little before in the beginning of the chapter given such precepts as no way belong to Priests but are common to all. As for example that men must not pray or prophecy with their hats on, and that women must not contrariwise pray or prophecy bore headed: that a man may not nourish his hair, that a woman may &c. And then speaketh of this matter of their suppers, without any change of person: beside that there were not many Priests then in that church & at that time: For I do not find much mention of any Bishop or Priest at that time among the Corinthians, but only of Sosthenes who also was with S. Paul at that time when he writ that epistle to the Corinthians and joined with him in the writing, as appeareth by the beginning, and indeed he is most like to have come to S. Paul, to acquaint him with those disorders, and to desire his authority and help for redress of them. It is true S. Paul speaketh also immediately after of the B. Sacrament which went always with those suppers which he teacheth them, with what praeparation and examination of themselves they are to receive, which is nothing for our purpose in this place.  
6. Your last place of S. Paul is, where the chalice is called the cup of Communion; the reason of which name you say is because the Priest and people must communicate together; or as Hugo de S. Vict. saith because the people in the Primitive Church, did communicate every day. What of that which Hugo de S. Vict. saith? nothing to the purpose. For we acknowledge that this holy Sacrament is called the communion because it uniteth us to Christ our head, and uniteth us among ourselves as members of the same body. And though it do this most perfectly, when it is also received sacramentally, yet not only so but it doth the same also in some measure, being spiritually received: and as this union may remain among us members, though every one do not receive every day, so it may also be or remain between us and the Priest, though he say Mass and we not receive. And if this argument of yours be good, it will follow that not only some but all the people must receive together with the Priest for if because it is the communion, the Priest must not receive without the people, it followeth that the people also must not receive one without another: for it hath the name of Communion as well in regard of uniting us one to another, as to the Priest, and indeed not to the Priest but as he is one of them. For as he is Priest he doth offerr it as a sacrifice, and therein excelleth the people, but as he receiveth it sacramentally or formally as a Sacrament, therein he is but as one of the rest or participateth thereof but as others do, though his receiving be more necessary, in regard of finishing the Sacrifice.  
7. Now to come to your authority of the Council of Nants, (which you have not reading enough to cite out of any original, or any good author yourself, but out of Cassander only, beyond whom, and one or two more such fellows it seemeth your learning doth not stretch. I answer that, there is such a Decree cited by Bell. and others out of Burchard and therefore I allow of it: though it be not extant among our Counsels now. I mean that decree is nor now extant in any Council of Nants that we have: but the matter is not great, for there be many such decrees in other Counsels, which although there were ten for one, yet were it not one jot the better for you Sir for this and the like Canons speak only of not saying Mass all alone, without one or two to answer, and to whom the Priest may seem to speak when he saith Dominus vobiscum. Our Lord with you, and the like: but what is this to saying Mass without some body to communicate with him? Where is there any one word in this Canon, or any other, any Father, any Council, any authority of an approved author of not saying Mass without communicants? who did ever hear that the Priest must go first and ask his parishioners, whether any will communicate with him, before he will go to Mass, as it is prescribed in your book of common prayer published by Parliament-authority, that you must do before your communion, 
Annotat. after the order of administering the communion.  neither will it serve the turn to have one or two to bear the Minister company, but there must be a competent number: for example saith your book if the Parish consist of 20. persons, there must be 3. or 4. at least otherwise the Minister must not communion it. And by this rule a man may say proportionably if the parish have twenty hundred or 20000. there should be 3. or 4. thousand to communicate at once. And if a sick body would receive he may not receive alone, but he must have some body to bear him company, and not only one or two, but many, or a competent number, as your book saith, which therefore is to be considered according to the number of Parishioners. This and much more may be said of the prettiness of your service and good fellow communion: but here is enough of such an idle subject, and so having answered your third Paragraph of private Mass as you call it I come to the 4.   

PARAGRAPH. 4. OF THE SEVEN Sacraments.  
1. In this 4. paragraph which is of our Seven Sacraments, the Knight hoiseth up all the sails of his eloquence, and putteth to all the force of his wit as if both by wind and oar he would go quite beyond us in this point of our faith: wherein for that cause he doth enlarge himself beyond the ordinary measure of his paragraphs, and filleth his margins with citations of Fathers and of Schoolmen laying first for a foundation a wise discourse of his own. Which I will also begin with without longer prefacing with him. He setteth down first the Canon of the Council of Trent accursing whosoever shall say the Seven Sacraments of the new Law were not instituted by Christ, 
Sess. 7. ca●. 1. de Sacr. in gen.  or that there be more or fewer than Seven; or that any of them is not properly and truly a Sacrament. Which decree saith Bellarmine, aught to suffice though we had no other. For if we take away the authority of the present Church and present Council, the decrees of all other Counsels, and the whole Christian Faith may be brought into doubt. Which canon of the Council, and authority of Bellarmine he cryeth out against; and saith it is a foundation of Atheism, for in his judgement the word of Christ alone is sufficient for all Christians: which he proveth by those words of S. Paul. I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 
Act. 20.  And that we may know he speaketh of the written Word, he bringeth Bellarmine's authority saying, that those things are written which were by the Apostles preached generally to all. And he is so confident against this point of the Seven Sacraments, that he is content the curse shall light upon him, if any learned man shall show it out of any Father of the Primitive Church, or any known author for about a thousand years after Christ. This is his beginning; whereat I will make a stay and answer, not to take too much at once. He thinketh it then a foundation of Atheism, to say that if we take away the authority of the present Church, and present Council we may call in question the whole Christian Faith. And why so good Sir Humphrey? What Atheism is it to say that there is one Faith: that that Faith is to be found only in the Church? that, that Church cannot fail or err at any time: and consequently that that Faith which it teacheth cannot fail or err? and especially that then the Church can least err, when it is gathered together in a General Council, and defineth matters of Faith with approbation of the Supreme Pastor of God's church and that if such a Council may err, the Church, may err? that if the Church may err, the Faith which that Church teacheth may fail, and consequently that there can be no certainty? is this the way to Atheism to teach that there must be some certain means to learn true faith, and belief in God? and that if there be none such there can be no certainty? would a man think that it should ever enter into any man's mind to say that the affirming of this infallibility were the way to Atheism. Whereas the denial thereof is the most direct way that can be imagined unto Atheism. For take this infallibility away and there is no rule of faith, if no rule, no faith, if no faith, no right belief in God, which is the height of Atheism.  
2. But because you Sir Humphrey are not capable of this Discourse, as evident and demonstrative as it is, I will go about with you another way. I would know of you whither if we should take away the holy Scripture or written word, it would not follow in you judgement, that the whole Christian faith might be called in question? I say in your judgement: for whether it would or would not in mine I do not say any thing here: certainly it would. For some rule men must have, and that is your only rule. Now again do not you know that S. Gregory the great did often say & write, that he did hold the four first Counsels in the same honour, that he did the 4. Ghospels, which was the same as to say, they could as little err as the 4. Ghospels. Why may it not then follow that upon denial of the authority of those 4. Counsels, the authority of the Christian faith may be shaken, as well as by denial of the Gospel? 
V B●ll. lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 3.  and this which I say of S. Gregory I may say of many other Fathers in regard of all or some of those 4. Counsels, and particularly of that of Nice which whosoever should have denied, was no less to have been counted an Haeretique then if he should have denied the Gospel. 
1. Eliz 1.  & you yourselves in your Parliament Laws give great authority to those 4. first Counsels, & even as much if you understand yourselves well, & speak consequently as S. Gregory doth: for you are content to acknowledge for heresy whatsoever is condemned for such, by any of them. Which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, & consequently of infallible authority? you join them in the same rank with the canonical Scriptures. You give also the like authority to other general Counsels; but with this lymitation, that these later must have express scripture, whereby to condemn a thing for heresy: but which is most of all to be noted, in the same statute you give power to the Court of Parliament, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation, to adjudge or determine a matter to be heresy: Which is the very same as to give it power to declare faith, or to be a rule thereof: which if it may agree to such an assembly or Court of a temporal Prince and Kingdom I see not why it may not agree to a General Council, as being the Parliament of Christ his Church, to which he hath promised his special assistance. But this is by the way.  
3. Now out of this authority which you grant to those ancient Counsels, I go a little farther with you, and ask what you can say more against the present Church, and present Council of Trent, then against the Church of that time & Counsels of those times? whatsoever you can say of the Church now, that it may err, may as well be said of the Church of that tyme. For our saviour's promise for the perpetuity & infallibility thereof is as much for one time, as another; for our time now, as for those then. What you say now of the Council of Trent that it is disclaimed by a great part of the Christian world, may be said much more of the Council of Nice: which was gain said both by more, & other manner of men than the Council of Trent. & the same may be also said of some of the rest. & so forth of any thing else, that you can object. Wherefore to conclude, if it were not atheism to say then, that by questioning the authority of the Nicene Decrees, the authority of the whole Christian faith might be questioned, I see not why it should be Atheism to say the same of the Council of Trent. But you think it is Atheism to deny the Scriptures alone to be sufficient? For that is the sense of your inference. But it is fare otherwise. For all Catholics say they are not so; and yet they believe that there is a God, and honour and worship him as their God. But this of the alone sufficiency of Scriptures is a several matter of itself. Only for your place of S. Paul, it is plain you pervert it. For he speaketh not of the written word but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached, as is manifest by his own very words there. Which are these. 
Act. 20.20.  Vos scitis quomodo nihil subtraxerim utilium quominus annunciarem vobis, & docerem vos publice & per domos testificans etc. You know how I have withdrawn nothing that was profitable but that I preached it unto you, and taught you openly and from house to house testifying to jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord JESUS CHRIST. For neither had S. Paul then written his Epistle to the Ephesians, to whom he there spoke. For he wrote it out of prison from Rome, and even the second time of his imprisonment, which was many years after this speech. Whereas at the time of this speech he was but going to Jerusalem where being taken, after some time of imprisonment, he was sent to Rome. And you might as well have aleadged those words of our Saviour to his Disciples All that I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you. 
Io. 15.15.  As these of S. Paul; and yet is well known our Saviour did not deliver any one word in writing to his Apostles. Neither doth Bellarmine's saying help you any thing: for though those things which are necessary for all in general to know, which are but few, be written; there be yet many more not written which are necessary to be known by some in the Church, though not by all. Now for the curse, which you are content shall light upon you if we show the number of Seven Sacraments to have been the belief of the Church for a thousand years after Christ, be not too forward to draw malediction upon yourself; it will come fast enough to your cost. It is an heavier thing than you are ware of, to have the curse of a Mother; and such a Mother as the Church, which doth not curse without cause nor out of passion. For as the Scripture saith: Maledictio Matris eradicat fundamenta. 
Eccle. 3.11.  The malediction of a Mother doth root out the foundations. 4. Having thus praefaced against the authority of the Council of Trent, you come nearer to the matter, giving us a new definition of a Sacrament, to wit, that it is a seal witnessing to our consciences that God's promises are true. For as you say, God by his word declareth his mercy, and sealeth and assureth it by his Sacraments, and in the word we hear his promises, in the Sacraments we see them. Out of which you infer Baptism and the Lord's Supper, to be proper Sacraments, because in them the element is joined to the word, and they take their ordinance from Christ, & are visible signs of an invisible saving grace. In which words is contained another fare different definition of a Sacrament having no manner of connexion or dependence upon the former. Out of which again you infer that the other 5. beside Baptism and the Eucharist are no Sacrements; not Confirmation; because it was not instituted by Christ; not Pennance & Order; because they have no outward element; not Matrimony because it was before Christ's time, and is common to, Turks and infidels; neither do you see forsooth how it can be a holy thing, and yet forbidden, as it is to Priests. And from this you tell us that if the curse of the Council take place, than Woe to all the ancient Fathers: of whom you name these following, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostome, Bede, Isidore, Alexander of Hales, Cyprian, Durand, and Bessarion. This is your discourse.  
5. To which I answer. That for your formet definition it is a senseless one, without ground in any father, 
Lib. 1. de S●t●r. in gen. cap. 14. & 16.  or other author but only Kemnitius and Caluin, and which is largely refuted and proved most absurd by Bellarmine to whom I remit you. For how can the Sacraments be seals, or give us a●●urance of his words, when all the assurance we have of the Sacraments is his word: this is idem per idem. Besides what promises are these that are sealed; or if they be seals what need we more seals or Sacraments than one: or if there may be more why not seven as well as two? Again how do we see the promises of God in the Sacraments? when a man hath received the Sacrament of Baptism, what other assurance hath he that his sins are forgiven or that he is the Child of God and heir of his kingdom, than the word of God promising that virtue to the Sacrament, or how can any man see by the Sacrament that he is so? these are but foolish fancies bred in haeretical brains; and so to be contemned. For your other definition it is not much better, being Melancthons'; 
Vbi supra▪  related and refuted by Bellarm. which therefore I leave, and answer only that which you say, that two Sacraments have the word and element and ordinance of Christ. The other 5. not. For Confirmation and Extreme Unction you cannot deny the element and word to wit oil and the form: but you deny the ordinance of Christ. For proof of which and other particulars, it will be too long to stand upon it in this place, you may see Bellarmine and others namely Suar. who beside scriptures bringeth irrefragable proofs of ancient Popes of the Primitive Church, Counsels, 
3. p. to. 3. disp. 32.  and ancient Fathers. And for Halensis and one Divine or 2. more which may say somewhat to the contrary they are not to be heard against the whole torrent of Fathers & Doctors. Though even these acknowledge them true Sacraments & instituted by Christ, for as much as pertains to the effect or promise of grace annexed to them, though not for the outward ceremony and words; which they think was afterwards appointed, of which I shall say more by and by.  
6. For Order and Penance, you deny not the institution of Christ but you deny them to have any outward element joined to the word. This is strange is not the paten with an host and chalice with wine in it, which is the matter in ordaining of a Priest, as much an outward element as is the host and wine alone, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist? a man would think So, and a little more too: and so of Penance, is not the true sorrow of hart declared by humble confession together with Prayer Fasting or alms deeds enjoined for satisfaction, an outward element or thing to be perceived by our outward senses? Why not then matter for a Sacrament? so also the bodies of man and woman, are they not as much an outward element in the Sacrament of Matrimony as water in Baptism? but you say it was before Christ. What then? might it not be a natural contract before and yet after be exalted to the dignity of a Sacrament by Christ. Water had the use of washing from the beginning, might not Christ therefore give power unto it to cleanse our souls, and exalt it to the dignity of a Sacrament? the same I say also of bread and wine: but say you again if it be a holy thing, why is it forbidden to some men? I ask you again wheter Order be not an holy thing? You will not deny it. If it be why then is it forbidden to all women? which showeth the ridiculousness of your discourse. You must know then all good is not for every body: and in good there be degrees of comparison as well as in other things; Marriage is good but of an inferior rank, and not so agreeable to the high state of Priesthood, or religious Life. And so to offer Sacrifice is a good thing indeed, and too good for Lay men to exercise, as we see by the reprobation of Saul, for presuming to do it, and Ozias his Leprosy wherewith he was strucken by the hand of God for presuming to offer incense in the Temple. 
1. Reg 15.2. Paralip. 26.19.  Why then may not these be Sacraments? by the way you note in the margin that Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly, citing a place after in this your own book, which I shall answer there, and discover your notorious falsehood.  
7. Now to the curse whereof you will make the Father's guilty, as well as yourself. I answer first, that of these Fathers which you name, two, to wit Halensis and Durand are ordinarily counted among the Schoolmen, not among the Fathers, as also Bessarion, who lived little more than 150. years since. Secondly that though it be true that the Fathers upon several occasions mention the Sacraments severally, sometimes they mention two, sometimes three, sometimes 4.5. or 6. more or less, as the particular matter which they handle gives occasion: yet never did any man say there was only 2.3.4 etc. Show this if you can Sir Knight, and you say something: else all is but babbling that you talk of the Father's mentioning 2.3. or 4. etc. And this answer hath been often made, and cannot be impugned; to which yet you stand still repeating your frivolous objections over and over again, without replying upon the answer, or even taking notice thereof. For a chief part of your discourse in this §. is but taken out of Chemnitius, 
Bell. lib. 1. de Sacram in gen. cap. 14.  as may appear by Bellarmine in his controversy de Sacramentis in genere, where he answereth all the arguments fully, which shall therefore save me some labour; so as I shall not need to do more than point at somethings briefly, and discover your own proper corruptions.  
8. Well then you tell us the Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, & Bede teach, that out of the side of our Saviour when the blood & water issued upon the cross, there came out the Sacraments, Baptism & Eucharist. Which I do not see to what other purpose you bring but only to insinuate thereby as if in their opinions, there were but two Sacraments. To which I answer that true it is, that some Father's interprett the blood and water issueing out of our saviour's side to signify those two Sacraments: but yet you are best look in your friend Chemnitius from whom you borrow this argument whether he cite all these Fathers for this explication: I do not think you will find S. Ambrose and Bede there, for S. Aug. it is true he explicateth it so in some places; and otherwise also in others, as I shall show after. But for that place which you cite here I am sure he hath nothing of two Sacraments only, or of any number of Sacraments at all, but only thus in general. 
Aug. in Io. tra. 15.  De latere Christi in cruse pendentis Lancea percusso Sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt. Out of the side of Christ hanging upon the cross smitten with a spear issued the Sacraments of the Church. Which words may as well be verified of seven as of two Sacraments. But be it as you say, that all the Fathers explicate that scripture of the two Sacraments Baptism and Eucharist. What then? Do they say that they were then instituted, or that there were no more Sacraments instituted, or that other Sacraments did not issue from thence also? noe such matter. All they say is only, that those two Sacraments came from our saviour's side simbolically or significatively, to wit the water signifying Baptism, the blood the Eucharist. But now other Fathers as I touched before to wit Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierome, Saint Cyril, S. Leo, Bede, and even S. Augustine in another place say that both blood and water did signify but one Sacrament only, to wit Baptism, either of blood by Martyrdom or water: or rather that they did signify but only the Baptism of water. The water of our Saviour's side signifying the Sacrament itself, and the blood signifying the origen or well spring from whence the Sacrament hath all his force and efficacy. Which explication Bellarmine well showeth out of scripture itself to be more literal: 
Bell. lib. 2 cap. 27.  Shall a man therefore say there is but one sacrament? he might truly as well say so and better too, then to say from thence that there be but two.  
9 And whereas you say a little after again, that S. Ambrose writing a treatise of Sacraments divided into six books, maketh mention but of two. I would wish you to see what answer Bellarmine maketh to Chemnitius, making the same objection; you shall find there that he telleth him flatly it is false, as it is indeed. For S. Ambrose maketh express mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation both in that book de Sacramentis, and in the other, de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur. And withal giveth the reason why S. Ambrose mentioneth no more but three Sacraments, to wit, because his intent in that work, is only to instruct the Catechumen in those things which are to be done, at the time of Baptism, for to them he writeth those books, as the very title of the one and matter of the other showeth. For one is written to the persons that are initiated, that is begun or are entered into Christianity by the mysteries or Sacraments, the other of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated, which are those three Baptism, Confirmation, & Eucharist, which to people that are come to years of discretion before they are made Christians, were & are still to be administered together. Whereby is also discovered your gross corruption in saying that S. Ambrose proclaims to the believers of his age. 
Ambr. de Sacram lib. 1. cap. 1.  De Sacramentis quae accepistis sermonem adorior: Which say you is as much to say, as I speak of those Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared unto you. For he neither writeth to the believers of his age, but only to some beginners as I say is manifest by the very title of one of the books; Neither doth he speak of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacraments, which those beginners that he spoke to had newly received, as these very words which you bring testify: wherein there is not the least mention of the Church, nor of any general doctrine of Sacraments; but only of those which as I said they that he spoke unto had received. Which to be so may yet more plainly appear in that Bellarmine bringeth a most express authority for the Sacrament of Penance out of this same holy Father. 
Bell. lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24   
10. Now for S. Aug. it is no less clear, that he never meant, in any of those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments, to restrain them to two only, for thus he saith in one. 
Conc. 1. in Psal. 103.  Respice ad munera ecclesiae, munus Sacramentorum in Baptismo, in Eucharistia, & in caeteris sanctis Sacramentis. Cast thine eye to the gifts of the Church, the gift of the Sacraments in Baptism in the Eucharist, & in the rest of the holy Sacraments By which words it is clear, that in S. Augustine's judgement there were more holy Sacraments besides Baptism & Eucharist & not only one or two more, for they had been easily added, but more; as that general clause of the rest of the Sacraments doth import: and not Sacraments in a large sense, but Sacraments in that very sense, wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments as the word caeteris doth show. Neither doth that place which you cite out of the same Father, lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana avail you, where speaking of the Sacraments of the new Law as you tell us he saith that they are but few in number, easy in performance, excellent in signification, naming only the two Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. 
Ep. 118.  For it is plain by the words sicuti, that he bringeth those two for example only which doth no way restrain the number. Besides this holy Father repeating the very same saying almost word for word in another place when he had brought those two Sacraments for example as he doth here he addeth this general clause & siquid aliud in scriptures canonicis commendatur, and if there be any thing else commended in the canonical Scriptures. Which showeth also that he did not mean to restrain his speech to those two only. Neither is his intent in either of those places, to number the Sacraments, or even to speak of Sacraments as Sacraments but as they are only Signs; comparing the signs of the new testament with those of the old; and preferring them for fewness in number, and excellency in signification: And therefore S. Aug. his word in this place is not Sacramenta, Sacraments, as you cite him, but Signa, panca pro multis & Signs, which therefore is a corruption of yours.  
11. This may then serve for all such testimonies either out of S. Aug. or any other Father. Only that it may not seem strange why there should be such frequent mention of these two above the rest, which might give suspicion as if they were the only Sacraments. I add this reason thereof: to wit, because they are the first, most common and most necessary Sacraments. The first because Baptism is called the gate of all the Sacraments, and by it men enter into the Church, and become Christians. With which the Eucharist was also wont to be given. And though Confirmation be next in order after Baptism, yet was it not so frequently given, because it is ordinarily administered only by a Bishop, who is not always so ready at hand; whereas the other two are administered by Priests. They are the most common, because they pertain to all: as also Confirmation doth; and therefore in that respect goeth often with them. They are most necessary because. Baptism is absolutely necessary or as Divines say necessary necessitate medij; that is a necessary means, without which a man cannot be saved, the Eucharist is necessary by another kind of necessity, to wit, of precept or command given by our B. Saviour all which considerations together are not so easily found in any other of the Sacraments. Confirmation also was in those times necessary by force of an ecclesiastical precept or at least custom.  
12. Another of the Fathers which you bring is S. Cyprian reckoning but five Sacraments: 
Ser. de ablut. ped.  and among them our saviour's washing of his Disciples feet for one. Whereto I answer that he reckoneth but 5. not that he thought there were no more, but that it pertained not to his purpose to speak of more in that place: his scope being only to speak of such Sacraments as had relation to our saviour's last supper, by way of institution, blessing of the matter, or some connexion at least with some thing which was then done. As the Sacraments of Eucharist and Order which were then instituted; of Confirmation, because the matter thereof that is Chrism, was then blessed; of Baptism and Penance by occasion of our saviour's washing of his Disciples feet. Which washing in what sense it is called a Sacrament by this author, 
Lib. 2. de Sacr. cap. 24.  (be he S. Cyprian or whosoever else) you may see in Bellarmine & there find sufficient answer. He saying that it is called a Sacrament not in a proper and strict but a large sense only: wherein as I agree with him, for so much as pertaineth to the washing itself, so do I think that if a man read the place attentively, he shall find that author by that washing to mean the Sacrament of Penance, in a strict and proper sense. For he giveth unto it the same power of remitting of sins, as to Baptism. He saith it was instituted for such sins, as men should fall into after Baptism; which he saith cannot be iterated; which are the proper attributes which we teach to belong to the Sacrament of Penance. Whereof that author making a long discourse I cite only these words following for a sign of his meaning. Propter hoc benignissime Domine pedes lavas discipulis quia post Baptismum quem sui reverentia iterari non patitur, aliud lavacrum procurasti quod nunquam debeat intermitti. For this most benign Lord thou dost wash thy disciples feet because after Baptism which may not be iterated for reverence thereof, thou hat procured another laver which must never be intermitted. By which it seemeth plain he doth not mean that that washing was a proper Sacrament itself, but that it did signify another thing which was to take away sins after Baptism, which was to be a sacrament, because it was to be instituted by our Saviour; it was to be a laver, and to have like force as Baptism, all which showeth it to be a true Sacrament.  
13. Besides S. Cyprian you will needs bring S. Isidore, with in compass of the curse for say you he accounted of 3. Sacraments, to wit Baptism, Chrism, and the body and blood of Christ. citing his 6. book of Etymologies. chap. 18. wherein Sir Humphrey according to your usual custom you do notably abuse this holy Father. For in that place he doth not so much as intent to speak of any Sacrament at all: but his only intent is to treat of the names of certain feasts, as the title of the chapter showeth which is this De festivitatibus & eorum nominibus. Of Feasts and their names; among which he putted Coena Dominica. Our Lord's supper. Which (saith he) is so called because upon that day our Saviour did make the Pasch with his Disciples which is celebrated even to this day, as hath been delivered; & the holy Chrism is made therein. These are S. Isidor's very words, neither hath he one word more in all the chapter of any Sacrament. Where then is there any mention of Baptism? nay where is there any mention of our saviour's institution or celebration of the B. Sacrament but only that S. Isidore saith that the celebration of the Pasch is observed to this day. Which because it cannot be understood of the Paschal Lamb, giveth us cause to think that by our saviour's celebration of the Paschal, he understandeth the institution of the B. Sacrament which is now daily commemorated in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The chief or most clear mention here is of Confirmation, by the name of Chrism, as it is ordinarily signified by ancient authors. But all this that is said, is not said by way of delivering any doctrine concerning Sacraments, but as they have relation to such a feast. Is not this then a notorious abuse of S. Isidor's authority? But because you shall see plainly that if he accidentally or for some special reason make mention of those. 3. Sacraments as it is like he may do as other Fathers, 
Isid. de offi. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 16. & cap. 23. cap. 19  are also wont, that therefore he doth not mean to limit the whole number of Sacraments to three, I will put you down one place where he mentioneth two more, of which there may be most doubt, to wit Pennance and Matrimony For Penance, he maketh it a Sacrament and compareth it with Baptism in these words. Sicut in Baptismo omnes iniquitates remitti, ita poenitentiae compunctione fructuosa universa fateamur deleri peccata: ut hoc tegat fructuosa confessio quod temerarius appetitus aut ignorantiae notatur contraxisse neglectus. Let us confess that as in Baptism all iniquities are forgiven, so all sins are blotted out by the fruitful compunction of Penance: that fruitful confession may cover what temerarious desire or ignorant neglect hath contracted. Where you see how to compunction and confession joined together in this Sacrament he giveth the like power of blotting out sins as to Baptism. And for Matrimony he saith the three goods or perfections thereof are fides, proles, Sacramentum. Fidelity, offspring, Sacrament. Where beside the fidelity or mutual obligation which hath ever belonged to Marriage before our saviour's time, and still belongeth among Infidels, though the obligation be not so perfect among them, he putteth down that special perfection of a Sacrament, though for this word Sacrament perhaps you may wrangle; but it is but wrangling, as I shall by and by show by occasion of S. Austin's like use of the same word. But by this that hath been said of the Fathers, it is plain that no words can be sufficient to declare your exorbitant bad dealing in citing the Fathers in this place, & drawing them with in compass of the Council's curse; they being so far from it. For it doth not command that whensoever a man nameth one Sacrament he shall name all or that he shall say they are seven in number nor more nor less, or that he shall say they were instituted by Christ. But that no man shall say against this, as indeed not one doth. For not one of all those you name saith that there be not Seven or that there be more than Seven, which is the thing that you dare So boldly say contrary to the most sacred authority of so great a Council as that of Trent, than which greater is not to be found or imagined upon earth. And this might serve for the Fathers.  
14. But before I have done with them in this point, I must in a word take notice of one frivolous thing whereof you make a great matter and whereby you think to avoid all that can be said out of the Fathers, for the proof of 7. Sacraments; which is, that they use the word Sacrament in a general signification for any sacred sign, or for a mystery, & such like: Wherein you are very copious to no purpose. For we deny it not: but only we deny that which you would build thereupon to wit that therefore they do not at any time use the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense when they speak of our other 5. Sacraments which you deny. This I say we deny, as a false fiction of yours & your Ministers whereas you confess the Fathers to use the word Sacrament strictly and properly, when they speak of Baptism and Eucharist, we show that they use the same word and in the same sense when they speak of the other Sacraments joining them with these two, as I shown before out of S. Augustine where he having spoken of those 2. Sacraments addeth and the rest of the holy Sacraments: Where any man of common sense may see he meaneth Sacraments in the same sense: neither do we ever gather any of them to be a Sacrament out of the general word alone, unless there be something to limit the signification thereof, or that there be something added which showeth the proper effect of a Sacrament and which cannot be done without it. And in this manner Sir Humphrey you shall find plain and express proofs for every one of these Sacraments out of S. Augustine in Bell. which S. Aug. you cannot deny to be a good & undoubted author. 
Bell. de sacr. in genere cap. 24.  Wherefore I cannot but dread to think of that fearful curse which you draw upon yourself in the beginning of this Paragraph: Where you are content the anathema shall fall upon your head if any man alive shall prove out of any ancient Father or good author within a 1000 years after Christ that there be no more nor no fewer than 7. Sacraments. For though S. Aug. do not say there be 7. in actu signato, as Scholars speak: that is saying there be 7. and no more, yet he doth it in actu exercito, as by saying this is a Sacrament, & that is a Sacrament, and of one in this place, of another in that place, (as the holy scripture doth of the 9 quires of Angels,) which all make up seven and no more. Which manner of reckoning you are content with and allow for good. And indeed cannot disallow, (for as Bellarmine saith well, that is the Father's manner of writing such things. 
pag. 149. edit. 3. ) So long as we show the word Sacrament to be taken in a strict sense, or that some other circumstance doth show they speak of a Sacrament properly.  
15. Now because you love malediction so well, that you may be sure of it, I will cite you two places out of S. Aug. for two Sacraments which you most doubt of, and one specially wherein there may be most difficulty. These two are Confirmation and Matrimony. 
lib. 2. cont. litter. Petelia. cap. 104.  Of the former he saith thus. Sacramentum Chrismatis in genere visibilium signaculorum sacrosanctum est sicut ipse Baptismus. The Sacrament of Chrism in the kind of visible signs is holy, as Baptism itself. By which words it is most plain that Confirmation is a visible sign holy in the same kind as Baptism. And therefore leaving no place of doubt they need no further explication. Of Matrimony the same Saint speaketh in one place thus. In nostrorum nuptijs plus valet sanctitas Sacramenti quam foecunditas uteri. 
De bon. Coniug. cap. 18.  In our marriages or in the marriages of ours, that is of Christians, the holiness of the Sacrament is more worth than the fruitfulness of the womb. And in another thus. 
cap. 24.  Bonum nuptiarum per omnes gentes & omnes homines in causa generandi est, & in fide castitatis; quod autem ad populum Dei attinet, etiam in sanctitate Sacramenti, per quam nefas est etiam intercedente repudio alteri nubere. The good of marriage among all nations and all men is, or consisteth in generation, and fidelity of chastity; but for as much as pertaineth to the people of God, also in the holiness of the Sacrament; whereby it is utterly unlawful even upon bill of divorce to marry to another. Which two places do evidently convince marriage in Christians to be a Sacrament not only because he useth the word Sacrament (which though it be general, yet considering the particular circumstances, and that the common use was most to take it for a Sacrament properly, might be some argument) but by reason of the sanctity, and by reason of the signification and insolubility; insoemuch as this Saint maketh the proper difference between our marriages and those of others, to be by reason of the insolubility of our marriages, which this Saint attributeth properly thereunto. For the sanctity or holiness than it is manifest out of S. Augustine against you Sir Humphrey that marriage among Christians is an holy thing, and that it hath some perfection in the new Law instituted by Christ, which it had not before, both which things you deny, to belong thereunto and therefore exclude it from the number of the Sacraments, but falsely as you, see which is enough against you.  
16. Now this sanctity cannot consist only in the signification of the conjunction between Christ and his Church. For it had that from the beginning, 
Genes. 2.24.  when it was first said erunt duo in carne una. They shall be two in one flesh. Which because it is verified by the carnal copulation of man and woman bound together by the band of mutual society, may be found in all marriages, though nothing so perfectly as in Christian marriage. But this showeth that seeing this signification might be in other marriages, the sanctity which S. Aug. saith is proper to our marriages, cannot consist in that signification only, but there must be another sanctity; and a sanctity which may have relation to the persons, which cannot consist wholly in that absolute insolubility which in Christian marriages as Divines say, is an effect of the Sacrament. For our Saviour by his own words Math. 19.9. sheweth that that was in some sort natural and belonged to marriage even from the very beginning of the world. Wherefore it followeth clearly out of S. Aug. that there is some sanctity belonging to this Sacrament and sanctifying it, in as much as pertaineth to this conjunction of man and woman by the bond of Marriage: and here in this saying of S. Aug may be noted those three goods, which I spoke before out of S. Isidore; and which Catholics commonly attribute to marriage. Proles, Fides, Sacramentum. Whereof the former two may pertain as S. Augustine saith to other marriages: the third only to Christians. And so all being cleared which you have out of the Fathers, I come to the Schoolmen and other authors.  
17. And first I begin with Bessarion, whom you will needs have accursed by the Council of Trent, together with the Fathers. For saying we read of two only. (Or as you say in another place) of only two Sacraments which were delivered us plainly in the Gospel. But I must tell you Sir Humphrey that in the alleging or translating of these words you are bold to use your ordinary tricks of legerdemain, as I shall show. Bessarion's words in Latin as you yourself cite them in the margin are these. Haec duo sola Sacramenta in Euangelijs manifestè tradita legimus. These two Sacraments alone, or only, we read manifestly in scripture. Which is a very true saying: for it is nothing more but this, that we find these two Sacraments expressly delivered, and that we find none other or none of the rest so delivered; that is plainly. Whereas the meaning of it as you translate is fare otherwise, to wit that there be but only two Sacraments in all. For first you leave out the demonstrative pronoun (haec) making the speech more general, as if Bessarion did say there were but two Sacraments; whereas he doth not speak any thing that way in these words, of the number of Sacraments in general; but restraineth his speech to these two in particular; which rather importeth, that there be other Sacraments. For if one should say these two men came this way, or these two horses belong to me; would not any man gather that there were more men besides those two that came this way, and more horses besides those two that I say belong to me. For otherwise it were needless to add this determining or distinguishing pronoun (these) unless, there were other things of the same kind, from which they are to be distinguished. Secondly the word (Sola) you place in a certain odd and crafty manner, to make the sentence sound as if there were two Sacraments, and no more. For you put it before the word (Sacraments) whereof it followeth that the negation included in the word (Sola) falls upon the word (Sacraments) as if there were but two Sacraments or two and no more; whereas it is to fall upon the words (expressè tradita) expressly delivered; that is to say, that these two Sacraments and none other are expressly delivered, which is another thing. Neither will it serve your turn to say, you place it in English as it is placed in the Latin: for the placing of words just so in English as they are in Latin may many times alter, & many times also make no sense at all: and in translation the sense is chief to be regarded. Thirdly you put in the pronoun relative (which) of yourself, and change the participle (tradita) in to the verb (traduntur) whereby of one proposition, you make two, in this manner we read of two only Sacraments, that is of two and no more; which two are expressly delivered in the Gospel. Whereas Bessarion maketh but one proposition: in which one also, his intention is not so much to affirm these two Sacraments to be expressly delivered, as you make it, as to deny the other Sacraments to be expressly delivered; as shall farther appear by his own words. Here then in this little sentence of not past a line in length, you commit 4. faults: besides one which I pass over as not so much altering the sense. One, in leaving out (haec). Another in putting in (quae). a third in changing the word (tradita) into (traduntur) thereby making 2. propositions of one. A fourth in so placing (sola) in the English, as quite to alter the sense; thereby making affirmatives of negatives, and negatives of affirmatives. The least of which in as much as it alteres the sense, cannot be excused from corruption: especially seeing it is by you expressly intended: for you say that Bessarion concludeth with the Protestants, and for proof you bring his words thus translated, which showeth that you intended his authority should sound so, as if there were but two Sacraments as you teach, whereby you would lead your Reader into an error. Which yet you do in such a manner, that I cannot say but that a wary & careful Reader, may pick out, or at least guess at Bessarion's true meaning. But that is your cunning to have a double sense, the one to deceive the simple, and another to excuse yourself against the objections of the learned. But you should remember Sir Hum. there is a Woe in store for such cunning men. 
Eccles. 2 14.  Vae duplici cord, & labijs scelestis et manibus malefacientibus, & peccatori terram ingredienti duabus vijs. Woe to the double of hart and wicked lips & hand ill doing, & to a Sinner going on the earth two ways. In which last word of going two ways is touched this your cunning in this place. Though if you examine your conscience well, you may find yourself guilty of all the particulars of this sentence.  
18. But now to Bessarion I answer, that in saying that the two Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, are the only Sacraments expressly delivered in scripture, he comes not near the curse of the Council. For that canon doth not command us to believe that these two, or more or less, are delivered plainly or not plainly in Scripture: it leaveth that to the disputation of Divines: only it will have us believe there be 7. Sacraments that they were instituted by Christ, that they are all properly Sacraments against which Bessarion hath not a word: but rather much for it. For writing that Oration in defence of the Roman Church to show that the consecration in the Eucharist, is performed by words; he proveth it by the example of other Sacraments thus. 
Bessar. de verb. conse.  Hunc modum & Apostoli a Saluatore ut cr●dendum est, & ab Apostolis Sanct: Patres postea sumentes, in singulis ecclesiae Sacramentis, quemadmodum materiam propriam sine qua nullo modo fieret quod proponitur ita etiam propriam formam statuerunt. Quod manifestum est si quis ad Chrismatis Sacramentum mentem converterit. This manner the Apostles receiving from our Saviour as it is to be believed, and our holy Fathers from them, as in each Sacrament they have appointed a proper matter, without which that cannot be done which is purposed, so also a certain form. Which is manifest, if a man turn his mind to the Sacrament of Chrism. By which words it is manifest, that besides the two Sacraments which you speak of he acknowledgeth not only the Sacrament of Confirmation in express terms, but the other Sacraments of the Church which you cannot but know to be the same 7. which now we hold. But what need any man more argument for Bessarion's belief in this point, than the Council of Florence, wherein he was a great man; and wherein was delivered that Decree of Eugenius the 4. to the Armenians, wherein the Seven Sacraments are precisely and distinctly taught with the uniform consent both of the Latin and Greek Church; so as impiety itself cannot find what to object against it.  
19 Thus then having delivered Bessarion also from your Worship's imaginary curse I come to the Schoolmen among whom you are not ashamed to promise your Reader that he shall find as little unity as among the Fathers; which as you say in an evil sense, as though there were not unity among the Fathers: so do I yield to you in a good sense, to wit that as there is unity among the Fathers in this point, no less then in others of our faith, so also the School Divines their children succeeding them have maintained this point no less than others, with the same unity and consent; as I shall show by answering your fond cavils. Though some Schoolmen out of the common ignorance and infirmity of mankind, in some points not throughly discussed nor defined by the Church, did swerve from the common belief of the rest, but still with dew submission to the Church.  
20. I begin then with Halensis, of whom you say two things: one, that he saith there are only 4. which are in any sort properly to be called Sacraments of the new Law; & that the other three supposed Sacraments had their beginning before. The other thing which you say out of him is, that the Sacrament of Confirmation, as it is a Sacrament was not ordained by Christ or his Apostles, but by the Council of Melda. This last place is cited in a different letter as the author's own words, the former not, which to any man may be a sufficient argument that it is but a false charge of your own Sir Knight. For where there is a word for you, you put it down, or where there is but any little shadow that either by corrupting, or mistranslating you can draw it towards your purpose: therefore any man for this very reason may take this to be your own, and then no doubt but it is as true as touch? For my part I have looked in Hales in the place here by you cited, but can find no such thing, but rather the contrary: for he speaking of the 7. Sacraments (as other Divines did) without the least show of doubt, and putting that question whither Christ did institute them all, his resolution is this. Omnia profectò authoritative, sed non omnia dispensative (uz. institutionem a Christo habuerunt. 
Hal. §. 4 q 5. m 2 art. 1. deinde are 2. ) All indeed had their institution from Christ authentatively, but not dispensatively. Which is as much to say, as that he did not institute them all by himself, but that he gave the authority whereby some were instituted. Which is clean an other matter, than to say they are not Sacraments, it is one thing to inquire whither a thing be a Sacrament, & another who immediately made it a Sacrament, though you make no difference▪ For that matter whither Hales said well or Noah in saying that Christ did not dispensatively or by himself institute all, I shall speak now in his second place by you objected which is of Confirmation. But before I leave this, though in the place by you cited I find but as I tell you, yet in another not far of, where this Dr. putteth the question precisely & directly of the number of the Sacraments, I find him give this resolution. Nec plura, nec pauciora, quam septem numero Sacramenta Euangelica sunt. There be neither more nor fewer in number then seven Euangelical Sacraments. 
Hal. par. 4. q. 5. mem. 7. ar. 2.  Which is no less clear and plain then true and Catholic a resolution. How then can you say Sir Humphrey that Hales makes account but of four? but this is like the rest. But now come to the other place of Confirmation.  
21. Well now to Confirmation; it is true I confess Hales is of opinion (as I said before,) that our Saviour did not appoint the matter & form of Confirmation, but gave the grace or effect thereof in a higher manner, which he thought like wise of the Apostles, & that the form & matter which we now use, was appointed by the Church in the Council of Melda: which as it was an opinion of his somewhat different from the common of his time, so he propounded it  doubt, and with that humility which befitteth a good Catholic to do. For thus he saith, Sine praeiudicio dicendum quod Dominus neque hoc Sacramentum ut est Sacramentum instituit neque dispensavit, neque Apostoli etc. institutum fuit in Conc. Meldenti, 
Hal p. 4. q. 9 m. 1.  quantum ad formam verborum & materiam elementarem cui etiam Spiritus sanctus contulit virtutem sanctificandi. Without prejudice I say that neither our Lord nor his Apostles did institute or dispense this Sacrament, it was instituted after in the Council of Melda for as much as concerneth the form of words and elementary matter, whereto the Holy Ghost also gave the force of Sanctifying. This Hales saith without prejudice, that is with leave: not stiffly not arrogantly not maintayningly. Sir Humphrey, let us hear but such a word from your mouth; and you shall see the matter will soon be ended. In this one word consisteth the difference between a Catholic and an Haeretique: but Sir mark the matter well and you shall find Hales more against you then for you. For he confesseth Confirmation a Sacrament which is against you, though he thought it not instituted by Christ, because he thought a Sacrament might be instituted only by authority from Christ; and it is plain he would sooner have denied this later than the former. For he holdeth this later but doubtfully, whereas he holdeth the former resolutely, and without doubt. Which is the thing in question properly between you & us.  
22. The next Divine is Hugo de S. Vict. whom you make a Cardinal out of your ignorance, for because there is one Hugo a Cardinal you think all Hugoes are so. But it is not for any good reason, either of love to Hugo, or honour to the dignity but hate of religion, against which you think if you can bring the name of a Cardinal, you may quite overthrew it. But you are as much deceived in this, and in Hugo's doctrine as you are in his Cardinalship. You say then of him that he excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments, and admitteth holy water. For both which Sir Humphrey a man may hold up his fingar to you, and wag it, you know what I mean. But your author for this your saying is Perkins in his Problems whom you cite in the margin, and he it seems citeth Hugo whereby you may perhaps excuse yourself: but that excuse will little avail you for every man seethe how easy a matter it had been for you having such abundance and freedom of books to look in the author himself but only that you were willing either to be deceived or to deceive. Well I have looked for you and found Hugo to say thus. 
Hug. Vict. in Spe●ul. de mist. eccl. cap. 12.  Septem sunt principalia ecclesiae Sacramenta, quorum qumque generalia dicuntur, quia omnibus conveniunt; nimirum Baptismus, Confirmatio, Eucharistia, Paenitentia, Extrema unctio, duo vero specialia, nimirum Matrimonium & Ordo: There be Seven principal Sacraments of the Church whereof five are called general, because they belong to all, to wit Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme unction; and two special, to wit Matrimony and Order. And because you may less doubt of Penance whereof for thus abusing your author and Reader you deserve no small part, he hath a particular chapter; 
cap. 23. ubi sup.  wherein he calleth it as we do with S. Hierome, the second board after shipwreck. Because if any man saith Hugo endanger his cleansing, which he hath received by Baptism, he may rise and scape by Penance. How say you to this Sir Humphrey? have I not just cause here to tell you your own? but I forbear you.  
23. Extreme unction is next, of which you tell us that Bellarmine saith that, that anoyling which the Apostles used Mar. 6. was not Extreme unction, & that Caietane saith the same of the anoiling which S. james speaketh of. 
p. jacq. 5.  Likewise of Hugo, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, & Altisiodorensis; You say that they held it was not instituted by Christ. Well what of all this? be it so that one think it not to be mentioned in S. Mark, another not in S. james, others not to have been instituted by Christ. What then? Doth therefore any one of all these deny it to be a Sacrament? nay do they not all say and maintain the contrary most expressly? & which is more, do not you yourself out of your friend Cassander acknowledge that in Peter Lombard's time the number of seven Sacraments was determined, though not before, as out of the same Cassander you wisely say? For Hugo Vict. as I shown before determines the number of seven Sacraments somewhat before, Peter Lombard's time; but to let that go: if in Peter Lombard's time there were seven Sacraments acknowledged, then was Extreme unction one. But you will say that out of that which those 5. ancient Divines say, to wit, that it was not instituted by Christ, it followeth that it is no Sacrament? I answer, had you lived in their times, they would have denied your consequence. But had they lived now in yours, they would have said that Christ did institute it. For that is now defined, which then was not: & so for them you are answered. Now for Bellarmine he saith well, it is not deduced out of that place of S. Mark, what then? out of no place else? or if out of no place else but by tradition should it be no Sacrament? What arguments are these Sir Knight to convince a Catholic, or any man of learning withal? but Catetan you tell us saith it is not that which S. james speaketh of? what then? Suppose he say well and truly? Doth he therefore say it is no Sacrament? noe surely no more than he denied the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the true body & blood of Christ, though he thought the real presence not to be sufficiently proved out of the very words of Consecration, without the interpretation of the Church: but as both in one and other he did err for as much as pertains to the proof of those articles out of scripture, which is not so much the matter between you and us, so did he not err for the things themselves. But had he lived to see this sense of the scripture declared, and this verity of Extreme unction defined out of: hat place of S. james by the interpretation of the Council of Trent, 
Conc. Tried Sess. 14. de extr. unct. c. 1.  he would have submitted his judgement.  
24. As for the Sacrament of Order, you say that Soto telleth us, that Ordination of Bishops is not cruelly and properly a Sacrament. Well be it so, let Soto say so; Doth he deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church? others deny the four lesser orders to be Sacraments and some deny Sub-deaconship to be so: what then? Do they deny the Sacrament of Order in the Church, to be properly and truly a Sacrament as you do? this is boys play Sir Humphrey. There is a question among Catholics concerning the Episcopal power and character, whither as it is distinct from Priesthood it be a Sacrament of itself, whether there be a new: character or the same extended and the like: some say I some say no: what is this to you? it is not matter of faith, whereof we are not to dispute with you but keep you off at the staffs end, or rather out of doors. When you are once received into the Catholic Church we may admit you to speak of a School point: not till then.  
25. Lastly about Matrimony you make much ado. First you tell us Durand denieth it to be a Sacrament strictly and properly. To which I answer that he saith indeed it is not a Sacrament univocally agreeing with the other six, which cometh much to one, with what you say, neither will I stand with you for a small matter: but look in Bell. for answer, 
Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 5.  who handleth that matter of Durand largely lib. 1. de Matr. c. 5. I only say briefly that all acknowledge an error in him & Divines of his own time did note it for such, though then the matter were not so clearly defined. Secondly you say Caietan saith the prudent Reader cannot infer out of the words of S. Paul Eph. 5. Sacramentum hoc magnum est; that Matrimony is a Sacrament, he doth not; be it so Neither do we infer it upon that word Sacramentum, but doth Caietan deny it to be a Sacrament because it is not inferred from that word? No surely: What then do you bring him? for though it be not inferred from this place may it not be inferred from another; or if neither from this nor other may it not be deduced out of Tradition? Thirdly you say that for a conclusion our own Canus telleth us that the Divines speak so uncertainly of the matter and form of Matrimony, that he should be accounted a fool who in so great difference of opinions would take upon him to establish a certain and known doctrine: Canus saith rem aliquam certam. Which you translate a certain and known doctrine. Which you might as well and as easily, have translated any thing certain, and more truly; though this be but a small matter to stand upon: only I note it because I see your drift is from the diversity of opinions; which is among Catholic Divines in assigning the matter and form of Matrimony, wherein Canus saith it were a foolish thing for a man to take upon him to determine any thing for certain and clear; Your drift I say is to make your Reader believe that Canus saith the doctrine of Matrimonies being a Sacrament or not, is uncertain and unknown, but this is but one of your ordinary tricks. Well to come to Canus. He saith true that there is difference among Divines concerning the matter and form of this Sacrament but he himself maketh the chief difference by bringing, 
V Bell. lib. 1. de Matr. cap. 7.  in a new and singular opinion of his own. By which he saith that the words which the Priest speaketh are the form of this Sacrament: and consequently that if there be a Marriage made without a Priest it is no Sacrament in his opinion. But whither it be true that, you Sir knight would make us think, that in his judgement Matrimony is no Sacrament, he shall bear witness himself. 
Can. loc. lib. 8. cap. 5.  Sive nostra opinio vera sit, sive falsa, nihil moror. Si Lutherani de hoc matrimoniorum genere disceptare voluerint, intelligant se in scholae disceptationem incidisse. Nec oportere Catholicum ad eorum argumenta respondere. Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs, cum sacra materia, cum sacra forma, a sacro Ministro administratum, quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper usque ab Apostolis administratum est, si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse, tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter, animose defendat, secure contra pugnet. Wither our opinion (that is his own) be true or false, I stand not. If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages, let them know they fall upon a school disputation, and that a Catholic is not to answer to their arguments. But if they argue that Marriage administered with sacred caeremonies, sacred matter, sacred form, & by a sacred Minister as it hath ever been administered in the Roman church, even from the Apostles time, if I say they argue that this is not a Sacrament of the Church, then let a Catholic answer confidently, let him defend stoutly, let him gain say securely. So he.  
26. Now Sir knight with what face could you allege Canus against Matrimony; and that for a conclusion as you say? though I say no; for you have reserved yet a far louder lie to conclude with all. Which is concerning Vazquez whom here you honour with an epithet, calling him Our learned jesuit. You say then, he knew well that neither modern Divines, nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church; and than you say he makes a profession to his Disciples, that having read & considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament, he spoke not of a Sacrament in a proper sense; & that therefore he doth not allege S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controversy; this you say here, whereto I will put your marginal note which you have pag. 145. which hath relation to this place, & it is this. Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly. Now to sever the true from the false. Vazquez indeed saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth use the word Sacrament, but in a large sense; This is true but it is but Vazquez his private and singular opinion not in a point of faith, nor any thing near it: but only of the meaning of one Father in the use of a word; which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proof for a point of Doctrine, if not it is no proof against it; but there may be other proofs in the same Fathers, and other Fathers may have that very word, in in the proper sense. But even this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholic Divines, 
Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. ●●.  and Bellar. particularly by diverse good reasons showeth S. Aug. to use this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony. This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez.  
27. Now I come to the false; first ask you a question, if Vazquez say Matrimony is no Sacrament, as your marginal note which I spoke of before saith, I would know what controversy that is that Vazquez saith he hath with Haeretiques; and for proof whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament; because in his judgement it is not effectual? what think you Sir Humphrey? is it not of Matrimony? and what controversy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or no? Which Haeretiques deny, and Vazquez affirms, else he can have no controversy with them about it. See Sir Humphrey how you look about you, for in this very place and words which you bring to show Vazquez for you, he shows himself against you, besides Sir Humphrey look again in Vazquez to. 4. in 3. p. and so whether he have not one whole disputation expressly for the proof of Matrimony, calling it a Sacrament truly and properly, proving it by the definition of the Church, and by the authority of other Fathers, (though he forbear to use the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said) & reproving Durand's error for saying that it was not a Sacrament univocally with the rest. Nay his express conclusion concerning the same is this. 
Vazque de Matr. disp. 2. cap. 3.  Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione, pront est signum coniunctionis Christi & ecclesiae, fed press & propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes, sicut reliqua sex. Matrimony is a Sacrament not only in a larger signification, as it is a sign of the conjunction of Christ and the Church, but precisely & properly, as it is a sign of grace sanctifying the receivers as the other six. And because you tell us, that he knew well that neither ancient nor modern Divines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church, I will add his other words in the same chapter, which are these. De Sacramento in hac significatione, semper hucusque locuti sumtis; & Scholastici locuti sunt; &c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt, & nunc etiam credunt. And of a Sacrament in this signification always hitherto we have spoken, and other Divines have spoken; which truth the Grecians have ever believed & still believe. So as not himself only but other Divines also, & even the Greeks or Greek Church, not only do believe and speak, but have believed and spoken of Matrimonies being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense. Which considered what intolerable impudence is it in you to tell us, that Vazque should say that neither modern Divines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament? it were not to be believed of any man but that we see it. And with this I was thinking to end this §. Thereby to leave a good relish in the Reader's mind of your honest and faithful dealing. The rest being nothing but such foolish stuff, as you are wont to talk without rhyme or reason but only that there occurred a place of Bellarmine, which you abuse so strangely, as that I could not pass it over without noting. It is thus.  
26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are known and certain, because they were primarily ordained by Christ, touching the other five, they had not that immediate institution from Christ. Whereupon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margin is forced to confess. The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of justification; the passion of Christ, and eternal life. Touching Baptism and the Eucharist, the thing is most evident concerning the other five it is not so certain. So say you: where in a few lines you have so much falsehood so patched up together, that a man knoweth not well what to begin with. But to begin, you say your two Sacraments are known and certain, you mean known and certain that they are Sacraments, because ordained by Christ primarily, the other 5. not. And for proof you bring the Cardinal, as if he said the same. But in this place the Cardinal speaketh not one word, either of their being or not being Sacraments, or being or not being instituted by Christ; as these very words themselves do show, and any man may see more plainly in Bellarmine himself both here, and elsewhere, where he handleth those matters: teaching the contrary expressly and of purpose. What madness then is it for a man to say the Cardinal is enforced upon a thing that he dreameth not of to confess clean another matter? Now Bellarmine's meaning in that place, is only of the signification of the Sacraments, that is, what thing they signify: because they are sacred signs of something. And he saith they signify three things, one thing past; to wit, the passion of Christ: another present, to wit, sanctifying grace which they work in our souls: another thing to come, to wit, aeternal life, which is the effect of grace; which three things he saith, every Sacrament doth signify. And he saith it is certain that they do so signify. But withal that the signification of these three is not so express and alike apparent or known in all. But most apparent in Baptism and the Eucharist, not so apparent in the rest. Which last words being in Latin thus. De alijs Sacramentis non estita notum. Of the other Sacraments it is not so known, (to wit that they signify all these thing;) you translate or rather corrupt them thus. Of the other 5. it is not so certain. Notum, with you, is certain. And whereas the opposition in Bellarmine's saying is between known and not known, 
Bell. de sacr. in gen. lib. 1. cap. 9  you make it between known or apparent; and certain, which are not opposite. For a thing may be certain though not manifest, as all matters of faith are. And then you leave out that which Bellarmine saith of the certainty thus. Tamen certum est saltem implicite illa omnia significare; quia cum omnia significent gratiam, consequenter etiam significant principium & finem eiusdem gratiae. But it is certain that they signify all these things at least implicitly. Because seeing they signify grace, they consequently also signify the beginning and end of the same grace. That is the passion of Christ, which is the cause, and aeternal life which is the effect of grace. Whereby it is evident how shamefully you abuse this good Cardinal and so I end this §.   

Communion in both kinds. §. 5.  
1. In this §. Sir Humphrey beginneth with the 6. article as he calleth it of the Roman Creed. I confess that under one kind only, all and whole Christ, and the true Sacrament is received. And the Decree of the Council of Constance which saith, that notwithstanding Christ did institute in both kinds yet the Laity are to communicate in one kind. Which word notwithstanding the Knight is pleased to gloss thus. As it were in despite of God and Man. with which he joineth the Council of Trent saying thus. Although our Saviour did exhibit in both kinds, yet if any man shall say, the holy Catholic Church was not induced for just causes to communicate the lay people, and the non-Conficient Priest under one kind to wit of bread only, and shall say they erred in so doing, let him be accursed. Against this he bringeth two places of scripture & the practice of the primitive Church, and so concludeth the antiquity and universality of his Church. This goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey. But now you must take us along with you, and give us leave to coming with you a little upon the matter.  
2. This you say is the 6. article of our Creed: by which a man may see I said true in the beginning, when I told you (if it had been your good pleasure so to do) you might have divided this Creed into 24. articles as well as into 12. for this is but a little libbet in the very later end of that article, as you have put it down in the beginning of your book. Which piece also you translate out of the Latin falsely, and absurdly the Latin being thus, Fateor etiam sub altera specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi. I confess also under one kind only to be received Christ whole and entire, and a true Sacrament. Whereas you say all and whole Christ; as if the Council had said omnis & totus Christus: where the word all is improper; for who speaketh thus: all Peter, all Paul: and it imports as if Christ had many things pertaining to him, which were himself; but yet did not make one and the same thing with him: which is not imaginable how it can be; whereas totus Christus doth signify One whole Christ. And Omnis Christus, and totus Christus, to any man that understandeth Latin, are two weary different things. And in your translation you confound totus and integer; making them both to signify the same; whereas in the Council they have a several signification; totus pertaineth to the integrity of Christ, as consisting of essential parts of body and soul, and of his personality and Divinity; and integer pertaineth to the integrity of all the parts of his body, as head, hands, feet etc. which the Philosophers call parts integrantes. By this than you see how a man that were disposed to stand about you might trouble you, when in such a small thing as this there may be found so many faults.  
3. For the Council of Constance which you are so displeased withal, for contradicting the word of Christ as you conceive; me thinks there might be found a means to appease your displeasure, if you would but remember that at the same time, and in the same decree it was also declared, that notwithstanding that Christ, did institute the Bl. Sacrament after supper, yet men should now receive it fasting: which decree I presume you will not condemn. Neither will you (I dare say) gloss the words notwithstanding so favourably in your own behalf, as you did in ours; as in despite of God and Man you would receive your communion fasting, though Christ did receive it not fasting, but even after supper and bid us do, what he did in remembrance of him: and notwithstanding also that it is not to be doubted as you tell us out of Bellarmine, but that is best & fittest to be practised which Christ himself hath done? Do you not then see Sir Humphrey how you may be made friends with the Council of Constance, seeing it hath done you as good a turn as it hath done to us. But because I see not how you could but know this before, and therefore have erred as I may well say wittingly this is too friendly language to talk to you, therefore I answer you plainly in bringing this Decree this you have brought a staff to beat yourself withal. For the non obstante, which you would join with Christ's institution in both kinds, as if the Council did forbid it in both kinds notwithstanding that Christ did so institute, is not so joined by the Council: but otherwise, thus though Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after supper, 
Conc. Const. sess. 13.  and administer the same to his Disciples under both kinds of bread and wine, yet this notwithstanding the authority of the holy canons & approved custom of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament is not to be consecrated after supper; nor to be received by the faithful but fasting; Unless in case of infirmity or other necessity allowed by the law or Church. These being the very words of the Council. By which it is plain that the Council speaketh not in this place of the institution of this Sacrament in one or both kinds; but only of the time of the institution thereof or manner, to wit after supper, or not fasting, and of the administration thereof to his Disciples in both kinds at the same tyme. So as I see not how you can be excused from a notable and wilful corruption in citing the words of the Council often and upon several occasions thus. Though Christ did institute in both kinds the Council having no such word, and it being likewise noted by Bellarmine for a flat corruption in Luther, 
V Bell de Euch lib. 4. cap. 26.  Illyricus, and Che●nitius. Though if the Council had said so, it had said truly, but nothing to your purpose. For it is one thing to say that Christ did institute the Blessed Sacrament under both kinds and another to say that he did institute and command all should receive under both kinds. For this later is a command against which no man may do. The former is only the Example of Christ which every man is not always bound to follow. And which even you yourselves do not follow in the time and manner of your receiving.  
4. Now for us you must know, this was no new thing begun by that Council, (in which respect you might temper your choler against it,) but it being grown the general practice which from the beginning also was somewhat practised, and certain Haeretiques arising and condemning the practice & belief of the whole Church this Council condemned them and commanded the former custom to be still retained. This is the truth of the matter against which I do not see that you say a word, but only chafe and say this Council was approved for so much as pertaineth to the Doctrine againct Haeretiques, but not for that that pertaineth to the power of a Council over a Pope. Which is all against yourself, and showeth you are in a vehement passion and know not what you say. But since you are so out with this Council which yet maketh as well for you as for us in the point of receiving fasting and not after supper as Christ did, no wonder if you be wholly out with the Council of Trent: which therefore you cite in a strange manner to disgrace it.  
5. The sentence as you cite it, is this. Although our Saviour did exhibit in both kinds, yet if any shall say the holy Catholic church was not induced for just causes, to communicate the Lay people and the non-Conficient Priest under one kind, to wit of bread only, and shall say they erred in so doing, let him be accursed. Which sentence is peeced out of two several places of the Council, the former part contained in these words. (Althouhg our Saviour did exhibit in both kinds yet.) is taken out of the 3. chap. of the 21. Sess. the later part or rest, is the 2. canon of the same Sess. which canon as it is set down in the Council hath neither a (Yet) in it, nor an (Althought): and the (Yet) in the said 3. chapter inferreth another thing, thus. Though Christ did institute and deliver the Bl. Sacrament to his Apostles in both kinds, in the last Supper, Yet is Christ contained whole and entire under one kind, and a true Sacrament received. Which is another matter, then that which is commanded in the Canon. For in this is only taught, that Christ is wholly and entirely contained under one kind: in the Canon, there is a curse denounced against such as shall condemn the practice of communicating under one kind, as wanting just cause or being erroneous. Where besides the difference in the matter, there is great difference in the manner. The one being a plain definition of a speculative truth; the other being a command pertaining to practice, or a declaration of the Lawfulness of the Church's practice, condemning whosoever shall say against it. So as here you piece two several matters out of the Council together without any connexion, just as you are wont to do, in your own arguments and discourses. But in this a man may see your ill dealing for you would fain make it seem as if the Council did decree something in opposition to Christ, and accurse all such as should do as he did. But this device of yours, is as silly as it is malicious. For it is plain to any man that shall but look in the Council, that there is no such matter intended or said but all the contrary; for the Council saith but this, in the one place. That though Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds and so give it in his last supper to his Disciples, that yet he is whole under each kind. Wherein I would fain see what opposition the subtlety of your wit can find? what reason can you give, why it may not stand with Christ's institution in both kinds, that he be whole under both? and if whole why not also a true Sacrament? This is a point worthy of such a wit as your to work upon: So as in this the Council decreeth nothing against Christ. No nor in the other part neither, it being only a defence of the Catholic Church's practice, against Haeretiques; without reference to Christ's institution or command, which is neither for, nor against that practice.  
6. So as when I consider how in this place you first mention Christ's institution, and then bring the Canon of the Council, as it were contrary unto it, I cannot but wonder what it is you mean, or what absurdity it is that you would make the Council guilty of thereby. For though the Council should say thus, as it doth not. Though Christ did institute in both kinds yet it is lawful to receive in one: what absurdity were there in this so long as Christ doth not command us to receive in both, as he did institute, which you will never be able to prove. For Christ may institute a thing without commanding it. For example he did institute Marriage yet commanded not every man to marry, so he might do also in his manner of institution and our manner of receiving this Sacrament. But besides this your abusing the Council by patching up one sentence out of several places you offend in another kind. For whereas the Council saith that though Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrament in both kinds, and so give it to his Apostles, you leave out that of the last supper and that of the Apostles both which were put down there for very good reasons, and to our purpose. That determining of the time of the last supper leaveth it free for us to think, that Christ might at some other time after his resurrection, communicate some of his Disciples in one kind, as some Fathers think he did his two Disciples at Emmaus, or at least thereby did foreshow the lawfulness of Communion in one kind, as Suarez showeth out of S. Aug. and others. 
Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp. 71 sect. 1.  That word of the Apostles is likewise put down to show that, that particular fact of Christ and command, did pertain only to the Apostles, who were then ordained Priests; and in them to such as should succeed them in that office; whereas you by leaving out that word, would fain have it seem as if that of both kinds did pertain to all. Thus much then for the Council of Trent.  
7. Now let us hear what you say against this Communion in one kind. First observing your strange folly in saying that one that shall hear two Counsels, one accursing, another condemning for Haeretiques, such as shall deny the lawfulness of one kind, would gladly know the reasons: whereas you yourself note in the margin a treatise of Gersons against the haeresy of the Lay communion in both kinds acknowledging that he shows the causes. For if he show cause why do you call for 〈◊〉, as if there were none given? if he do not why do you say he doth? But to let that pass with the rest of your non sequiturs. You bring the two places of scripture before cited. Drink ye all of this: and do this in remembrance of me. Which places you may see answered in Bellarmine with all the enforcement and urging that Luther, Caluin, Kemnitius, Melancthon, 
Bell. de Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24.  Brentius, and all the rabble of them can bring: The answer in a word is this, that the former words were spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark who showeth all which our Saviour meant of, 
Mar. 14.23  when he said Drink ye all of this. For saith S. Mark and they did drink all thereof. The later words import only the distribution in one kind, being spoken as appeareth by S. Luke immediately after the consecration of the bread, 
Luc. 22 19  before the consecration of the Chalice. And though they should have been spoken after both, How will you prove to which action of our Saviour's (for he did more than one at that time) that pronoun (Hoc) had relation, or which it did demonstrate? The sense therefore and explication thereof, is to be taken from the Fathers and Church who understand no such precept in those words, as is the giving of both kinds.  
8. Another argument of yours is the practice of the Primitive Church; for which you bring ten or eleven authors, which needed n●t. For we would have granted you that, without all that labour, but what proue●● out that? that all must do so now? You must first prove it a practice grounded upon some divine precept indispensable, or else it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practice in the use and administration of the Sacraments: as it was to change the Sabbath into the Sunday; though the observing of the Sabbath were a divine precept; Nay you must prove that it was general, so as none did or might do otherwise; but that you cannot do. For Bellarmine even in the place here cited by you teacheth that even than all did not receive in both kinds; and here by the way I note two things: One is that whereas Bell. in the place here cited, saith he proved before, that all did not receive in both kinds; that of the proving you leave out, putteing a little line, which might give a man some notice of something wanting; which yet is a little better dealing, then commonly you use, though not so good as you promised us at first. Another that whereas Bell. bringeth six main reasons deduced out of scriptures, partly out of the figures of the old testament, and partly out of the doctrine and examples of our Saviour and his Apostles in the new; and in one of those reasons which is deduced out of the practice of the Primitive Church, he bringeth six several rites or practices, which our adversary's cannot deny, evidently convincing the frequent use of one kind, you in your 7. Sect. here before bring but one coniectural place (which I there promised to answer) as if Bellarmine had no more, nor no better proofs: even which conjecture you neither do nor can impugn. For it is grounded upon two places of scripture, thus Bellarmine saith it is a probable conjecture that the Nazarites among the first Christians in Jerusalem did communicate in one kind: 
Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24.  He proveth it thus one scripture saith of these first Christians in Jerusalem, that they were all persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and breaking of bread, which is the receiving of the Eucharist as all agree. Among these, there were many Nazarites, as it is most probable, for there were many continually among the jews. Which being so, there was another scripture that did forbid a Nazarite to drink wine, or even eat a grape, raisin, or so much as the stone; it was not like than that they did receive in both kinds. For either they must make the former scripture false, if they did not communicate at all; or they must break the command of the later, by communicating in both kinds. This Bellarmine doth not say is a convincing proof, for such he hath a great many others; but only probable and such no man can deny it to be. Why then should you stand jeering at it, without once saying what is false or improbable.  
9 Touching the rest of your authors which you bring for proof that it was the common practice of the Primitive church for the Laity to communicate in both kinds, I allow of their authority they affirming only that it was the practice, not any command. But for as much as you bring one authority to prove the more conveniency of Communion in both kinds quite contrary to the author's meaning, I mean here to have a saying unto you for it: this author is Ruardus Tapperus whom you cite thus. It were more convenient the communion were administered under both kinds, then under one alone, for this were more agreeable to the institution, and fullness thereof; and to the example of Christ, and the Fathers of the Primitive church; 
R●ar. Tapp. 〈◊〉 15.  the Latin being thus habito respectu ad Sacramentum eiusque perfectionem, magis conveniret sub utraque specie fieri communionem, quam sub altera tantum, hoc enim magis consonum est eius institutioni, & integritati, & refectioni corporali, & exemplo Christi etc. that is. If we regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof, it were more convenient to have the communion under both kinds, then under one. For this is more agreeable to the institution thereof and the integrity and corporal resection, and the example of Christ etc. Where first you leave out in your English translation, those words habito respectu ad Sacramentum though you put them in Latin in the margin. Which words are the life of the sentence, and plainly show that Tapper doth not speak of the conveniency absolutely, and all things considered, but in some respect, to wit, in respect of the Sacrament, or in respect of the signification of our saviour's passion, which is more express in both kinds then in one; & in respect of the institution, which was in both, & in respect of the integrity, because as the Divines say, both the Species, are parts integrantes, as two pieces of bread in one loaf though both together have no more essential perfection than one alone. And in respect of corporal refection, which as it requireth meat and drink, so the spiritual refection is more expressly signified by both; though no less effectually performed by one. So that this while Tapper speaketh not of the absolute conveniency, but only in some respects: wherein I appeal to the Reader whether you have kept your promise of not wilfully or wittingly misciting or mistranslating any author. For here it appeareth how you have mis-translated, leaving out as a man may say the principal verb: which shall yet more appear by that which followeth immediately in the same author, which is this. Alia tamen consideratione reverentia uz. Quae huic Sacramento dbetur, utque in eius usu vitemus omne●●●reuerentiā, minus convenit, atque etiam malun est, nulloque mod● expediens ecclesiae ut populus Christianus sub utraque specie communicaret. B●● in another consideration, to wit, of the reverence which is dew to this Sacrament, and to the end we may avoid all irreverence, it is less convenient and even it is ill and no way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should communicate under both kinds. Lo you Sir Humphrey, was it honestly done of you to leave out this being the other half of the sentence, answering to the former which of itself was imperfect, and which was the author's absolute judgement and determination. Can any man ever give you credit more? but because Sir I will not leave any scruple in any man's mind concerning this author's meaning, and that by the perfection and integrity which he spoke of in the former part of the sentence, he did not mean the want of any spiritual fruit, I will add one word more out of him, which is this. In omissione calicis nullum interuenit peccatum, aut periculum nec aliquod gratiae spiritualis iactum, in the omitting or leaving of the Chalice, there is no sin, or danger, or loss of any spiritual grace. What could he say, or we desire more?  
10. Wherefore to come to your conclusion which you draw out of that, that because many Fathers and learned men do agree in saying, that the Communion in both kinds was most frequent in the Primitive Church, therefore they give testimony of your doctrine, it is most foolish, for we also agree with them in the former, and yet deny your doctrine which is, that all men are bound to receive in both kinds, & consequently that it is not lawful for them to receive it in one kind and that so to receive it, is to receive but an half Communion, and such like absurdityes. This is your doctrine for proof whereof you have not brought one word out of any author, but brought some that say absolutely and expressly the contrary, as Val. Tapper, Bell. etc. Nay what will you say, if a man shall show you out of your own statute Laws made now in this your time of Reformation, some approbation or allowance of the Communion in one kind, 
1. Edw. 6. cap. 1.  which is the thing you exclaim so against us for. See in the Laws of K. Edw. 6. revived and confirmed by Q. Elizabeth. whether they do not say only that the Communion is to be commonly delivered & ministered to the people, under both kinds; 
1. Eliz. ca 1.  & with this exception also, unless necessity otherwise require. Look you Sir Humphrey, is it not here allowed upon necessity, though the necessity be not expressed, what or how great it must be; but hence it followeth that if particular necessity may excuse in a particular case, if the necessity shall prove great & universal it may be also sufficient, for abstaining from one kind universally or generally: and howsoever it showeth Communion in both kinds not to be so strictly commanded by Christ. For if it were no necessity could excuse it in one Kind.  
11. And so this might serve for this matter; but that I am loath to let pass a worthy saying of yours in the very end of this §. Which is this. And as concerning the half Communion which is received in the Roman Church for an article of faith, as it wants antiquity and consent of Fathers by their own confession, so likewise it wants a right foundation in the Scriptures, which an article of Faith ought to have. Thus you: where with your worship's good leave, a man may tell you, you have as many faults as words; we teach all the contrary, to wit, that it is not half communion, but that Christ is received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament, and as much spiritual fruit necessary to salvation in one kind as both, as the Council of Trent by your confession defineth. We say it neither wanteth antiquity, nor consent of Fathers as you may see in Bellarmine and many others. We say it doth not want a right foundation in the Scriptures; for as I said before, we prove it out of the scriptures, 
V Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 24.  both of the old & new testament, the doctrine and example of our Saviour. And his Apostles, expressed in scripture. We say also to conclude therewith, that it is most false of all which you take every where for a very truth, as if it were agreed upon on all sides, to wit, that an article of faith must have sufficient and express proof of scripture. Whereas the clean contrary is truth: and as generally concluded among all Divines and Fathers, as you boldly affirm yours which assertion therefore of yours I here absolutely deny, once for all, and though I need not stand proving it being every where in all our authors, yet for the Readers sake I will cite one place of S. Jerome coming first to my memory, who having proved a point of faith against the Luciferian Haeretiques out of scripture which they stood upon, he answereth thus. Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset, 
Dialog. 2. con. Lucifer.  totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting, the consent of the whole world on this side should have the force of a precept. And so there is an end of this 5. §.   

Of Prayer and service in a known tongue. §. 6.  
1. In this §. the Knight speaketh against the practice and doctrine of the Catholic Church in two things. One is for using the public service in a tongue not known to the vulgar people, another for saying some part of the Mass with a loud voice, so as the people cannot hear. The practice of which two things (though the Knight confound them into one) was severally and distinctly approved by the Council of Trent, & anathema pronounced against whosoever should condemn either of them. Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Council's own authority, thinking also even by it to make good the contrary practice of his Church. For saith he, the Council in saying that the Mass doth contain great instruction of the faithful people, or as he translateth the words of the Council in the beginning of this §. great instruction for the common people. And that it is to be interpreted unto them, doth consequently affirm that the service and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue, was better for the aedification of the Church: and this he confirms with an argument of his own thus. And without doubt (saith he) the Apostles being commanded to show forth the Lord's death till his coming, it was not intended to show it to the walls, or in a silent & unknown voice, as it is now used in the Roman Church, but to pronounce it openly to be heard and understood of the hearers. So fare our Knight. Now to reckon with him.  
2. Because the Council of Trent saith, that the Mass containeth great instruction of the people, and that for that end it is to be interpreted unto them, he saith it consequently affirms the practice of the reformed Churches to be better for aedification of the Church. Doth it so Sir Humphrey? by what Logic doth this consequence follow, or by what figure of Rhetoric do You take one thing for another? the Council saith that though the Mass contain great instruction, yet it doth not follow, that it should be in the vulgar tongue, you tell us the Council by consequence doth affirm it to follow; the Council thinketh it better to retain the general and long continued practice of the Church, of not using the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but for instruction of the people to interpret something of what is read: you say it approveth the contrary custom of your Church? if it had so, had it not been an easier matter to have appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue: but the Council knew well that course was not so fit, neither in respect of the public good of the Church, nor in regard of the private good of the faithful people: for many reasons.  
3. First, for the general practice and custom which hath been observed in the Church of God, of having the Mass and public office in Latin all over the Latin or Western Church, both in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England, Africa, & all other places: and so likewise in Greek in the Grecian or Eastern Church, though it were as large in extent, & had as much variety of vulgar languages in it, as the Latin Church hath. Which custom is not to be forsaken, especially for Haeretiques, & out of that their false persuasion, that it is no good or lawful practice. Secondly for the uniformity, which is fit to be used in such things, and unity of the Catholic Church, which is excellently declared, & also much maintained by this Unity of Language in the Church-office. For as language is a thing most necessary for commerce among men in civil matters, so also in ecclesiastical: and without this use of Latin in this manner, there could not be that communication between men of learning: neither would men of one country be the better for the writings of others there would be little meeting of men of several nations in Counsels, little study of Counsels, of Fathers, & others, who have all written in Latin, or some learned language: whereas the use of the Latin tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects, as we see by experience. Thirdly, the use of vulgar tongues in the Mass and Church-office would cause not only great confusion but breed an infinite number of errors by so many several translations, not only in several countries, but by several translations in every country of any small extent, even in the same place upon a little change of time: for as we see in every age the vulgar language reciveth a great alternation; of which translations the Church would not be able any way to judge, scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other, & which therefore for the well translating thereof, requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost, which no private man can promise himself. Lastly the use of a vulgar language in such things, would breed a great contempt of sacred things, with profanes and irreligiosity; besides the danger of haeresy, which cometh no way sooner, than by misunderstanding of holy scripture. Neither are any more apt to mis-understand it, than the simpler sort of people if they once take upon them to understand. These reasons then among others, but most of all the tradition of the Church, drawn even from the Apostles by perpetual Succession and practice, might persuade the Council to think that though some benefit might come to some few particular men by understanding what is written, yet it was absolutely better to retain the same custom still: and even to remedy that inconvenience another way, to wit, by explaining something of what is read in the Mass, which the Council declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose, to wit, by breaking of bread to little ones: fort it is even as necessary for ordinary people to have the Scriptures so declared, as for children to have their bread broken, and as unfit to give such men the Scripture itself whole to read, or to read it so unto them, as to give a little child a whole great loaf. Neither if a man mark the Council of Trent's words well, doth it say that the Mass doth contain instruction in that sense, as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would be an instruction, but only that it containeth great instruction, that is many things, which might be good for the people to learn being explicated, which a man might truly say, though even when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be understood without help of an expositor, how then Sir Humphrey doth the Council acknowledge your practice, to be more for aedification of the people. Nay doth it not in the Canon expressly condemn it? saying anathema to whosoever shall condemn the practice of the Roman Church in reading some part of the Canon softly, or to whosoever shall say that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue?  
4. Now for the place of Scripture which you bring, to wit, that we must show forth the Lord's death, till his Coming; which you say is not intended to the walls, as we do, it showeth sufficiently how well you understand Scripture; and consequently how well the common people, between whom and yourself, you I dare say think there is a great deal of difference, would understand them, when you being even a writer so little understand them. For that place of announcing our Lord's death, is not understood by words, as you understand it, but by deeds, as it is most plain by the circumstances wherein they were spoken, to wit, by consecrating and changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord; as we do daily in the Mass, in memory of our Saviour's passion. For so S. Paul, having spoken of the institution and manner to be observed in the consecration expressly saith, as often as you shall do this, you shall announce the death of our Lord. The doing therefore is the announcing, not the Saving. Besides these words, at least in the manner of speaking, do not import any command: For you shall find the word annuntiabitis is the indicative mood, and future tense, if you look well into your Accidence Sir Humphrey. And withal it is somewhat conditional, to wit, that as often as we shall do that, we shall announce the death of our Lord. Besides Sir Humphrey I never heard before, that it was, all one to speak Latin, and to speak to the walls: if a man should speak a word of Latin to you, were that to speak to a wall? You see then you do not mark what you say.  
5. But now you have spoken so well of yourself, let us hear what you can say out of other men. And first for Haymo, whom you cite for your purpose, ask this unanswearable question as you call it. If a man that knoweth only his Mother's tongue stand by, or make a Sermon, or give a Blessing, how shall he say Amen, since he doth not know what thou sayest? So you. To which I answer, it is true, Haymo hath a question to this purpose, but not so much to yours, if you mark him well, nor so unanswearable, if you take him altogether, with what he saith before and after your question. For so you shall find he doth not require, that all that are by shall understand, but that he that supplieth the place of the Idiot, or lay man in answering for the people shall understand: for before that Question of yours, he maketh this other first, quis supplebit vel quis adimplebit locum illius, qui te audit & non intelligit verba tua? who shall supply or who shall fulfil the place of him, that heareth thee and doth not understand thy words? Which showeth that he doth not speak of the idiot or ordinary bystander, but of one that is to supply his place, or make answer for him; which appeareth yet more by that which followeth immediately after your question, thus, Si non aderit alius pro illo, sciens quid tu dicas, qui respondeat Amen. 1. Verum est, quod tu dixisti, vel fiat ita. If there shallbe none other for him (that is in place of the ignorant man) who knowing what thou sayest, may answer Amen. That is to say; it is true which thou hast said, or be it so done. Which plainly showeth that in Haymo his judgement, it is sufficient if there be one understander to answer for the rest, or for him that doth not understand. Nay he doth not seem to require so much, as that this answearer shall understand all so perfectly, but only so fare as to be able to answer Amen. for this is the inconvenience which he maketh to follow thereupon, if the answearer do not understand the language, that he doth not know where the prayer endeth for him to answer. Nescit quip, saith he, ubi sermonis clausula firmatur. For he knoweth not where the conclusion of the speech is ended. For which truly, there doth not need any such great understanding of Latin. So that though Haymo think, that the Apostle speaketh in that place of the public prayers of the Church offered by the Priest, as some few other Doctors do, though not so rightly nor so conformably to the true intent and drift of the Apostle, yet he requireth no more but that there be one to answer Amen; which surely may be more easily had, then for want thereof to be fain to change the whole office of the Church in to English. And so Haymo his unanswearable question is without any such great ado answered. Now for S. Paul's meaning, though your objection require it not and that it require also a longer disputation, yet not to leave the Reader wholly unsatisfied thereof, I say in a word that S. Paul his meaning in that place where he asketh how he that understandeth not the prayer shall say Amen, is not of the public prayers of the Church offered by the Priest, which no man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodness, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, but of private prayers or prayers made by private and Lay men ex tempore, and on the sudden not in Latin, Greek, or any ordinary known tongue, but in an extraordinary unknown tongue, such as men spoke by the gift of tongues, which gift was given in those beginnings not only to the Apostles, and Preachers, but even to Lay people and to many among the Corinthians, which they it seems grew proud of, and used for ostentation. For correcting of which abuse the Apostle writeth here unto them preferring Prophecy, that is exhortation before tongues, and giving many reasons therefore: among which this is one, that others that hear that prayer in a strange Language, are not the better, nor can say Amen to it. And this to be the Apostles drift the circumstances of the text and persons to whom he writeth plainly show.  
6. After Haymo cometh justinian the Emperor, who (say you) made a constitution that Bishops and Priests should celebrate the Lord's supper and prayers in Baptism, not in secret, but with a Loud and clear voice; to this Bellarmine maketh two answers: 
Bell. lib. 2 〈◊〉 Miss. cap. 12  one that justinian being a mere secular man had nothing to do to make Laws in such matters as it is most true; and you cannot but know he is ordinarily taxed, for too much taking upon him in that kind. The other that even that Law doth command nothing more, but only that Bishops and Priests shall pronounce distinctly and clearly, that which according to the custom of the Eastern Church was to be spoken aloud. For saith Bell. there were many as may be gathered out the very constitution itself, who to hide their own ignorance, did contrary to the received custom pronounce those things softly, which should have been pronounced aloud. And this to be so may appear plainly by the Law itself which you do not seem to have read, for you cite it only out of your Cassander▪ who serveth you to great steed for most of your citations.  
7. You have in the next place a text out of the Canon law, the former being out of the Civil, to show your learning in all sciences: 
Cap. Quonian in plaerisque de off. iud. Ord.  you cite it thus. We command that the Bishops of such Cities and Dioceses, (where nations are mingled together) provide meet men to minister the holy service, according to the diversity of manners and languages. The words are these in Latin. Pontifices huiusmodi civitatem sive dioceseon provideant viros, qui secundum diversitates rituum & linguarum, divina illis officia celebrent, & ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministrent, instruendo eos pariter verbo & exemplo: in English thus, Let● the Bishops of such cities ordiocesses, provide meet men, who according to the diversity of rites and languages, may celebrate unto them the divine offices and administer unto them the ecclesiastical Sacraments, instructing them both by word and example. Whereby you see Sir Humphrey, you might have cited the place more truly, though that be not so much the matter I cite it fully for, but for another purpose, as you shall see, when I have told you Bellarmine's answer to this objection, which is this: that this decree speaketh only of the 2. languages Greeke and Latin: for it was made by Inno. 3. in the Council of Lateran, because Constantinople having been taken not long before by the Latins and then there being a Latin Emperor and Patriarch and many Latins by that occasion being mingled with the Grecians in the same city, they made a proposition in the Council, that they might have 2. Bishops one Latin another Greek; to this the Pope and Council make answer, that it is not fit to have 2. Bishops, of one city, but that the Bishops of the city should substitute another in his room, to celebrate the divine office and administer the Sacraments according to their own rites and language▪ and this Bellarm. proveth to be the true meaning of this decree, not only out of the story, but also by the effect. For if this decree had concerned the Latin Church any way, it should have been put in practice in some place thereof, and most of all in Italy, in the Pope's sight, but there is no sign of any such thing, but plain proof to the contrary. Which answer is clear and . But besides this answer of Bellarmine's, a man may answer also, that the Council speaketh of two things here, to wit, of celebrating the divine offices, and administering Sacraments, and then putteth two things more answering unto those two, to wit, rites and languages, rites answering to divine offices, and languages to Sacraments, as if it had said, let such Bishops provide men who may celebrate the divine offices according to the diversity of their rites, and administer the Sacraments according to the diversity of their languages. For indeed it is a matter of necessity in administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar language, as in marriage & Penance; but it is not so of other things. For this reason than I cited the place as it is: and though you may cavil at this answer, yet I see not though there were no other why it might not serve for as good an objection as yours.  
8. But now you say you will not stand proving this point any more, by citing the particular Fathers, but you will bring our own men confessing, that Prayer and Service in the vulgar tongue was used in the first and best ages, according to the precept of the Apostles; and practice of the Fathers. And then you bring Lyra, joannes Belethus, Gretzerus, Harding, Cassand. and 2. or 3. more. To which I answer that it is true, as these authors say, that in the beginning it was so: but what think you was the reason? even because those three holy Languages Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were most vulgar, and common: the Hebrew in Jerusalem and the parts adjoining, the Greek in Greece where S. Paul preached most, and Latin at Rome & other parts subject to the Roman Empire. For if you mark it Sir Humphrey, most of your authors which you bring speak this of prayers and benedictions being wont to be made in the vulgar language, by occasion of that 14. Chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians where Greeke was the vulgar. And indeed that it was the vulgarnes or commonesse of the tongue, that the Apostles regarded most in their writing of scriptures, and the like, it is plain, by that, that S. Paul of his 14. epistles which he writ to so many several Nations and persons he writ only one in Hebrew to wit that to the Hebrews; the other thirteen in Greek even that to the Romans though Greek were not their vulgar or natural Language: and so did all the rest of the Apostles and Evangelists, save only S. Matthew who writ his Gospel in Hebrew, and as some say S. Mark who writ his in Latin, though many doubt of that, and say rather, that he writ it in Greek. Whereof what other reason could there be, but the uniformity which the Apostles, would have to be observed in the Church, by using for scriptures and divine Offices those languages, which were more universal, and common to most nations, thereby to draw all to unity. Which though it could not be so absolute, as to come to the use of one only language, yet they restrained it to those few most universal languages, Hebrew, Greek, 
S. Hillar. ap Bell. lib. 2. de verb. D●i. c. 15.  and Latin; Which were dedicated upon the cross, our Saviour's title being written in those three languages by mystery, as holy Fathers, note, to signify that by them Christ his name and faith was to be most published and preached over the whole world. And for proof hereof, we say it hath not been ever heard of, that any part of scripture was originally written in other language: or that there was any Liturgy of the Apostles, or near their times, or any translation of Scriptures in other language: much less was it ever heard, that the Scriptures were read in the meetings of Christians, or celebration of the divine Mysteries in other language, then that wherein they were ordinarily had and read, to wit, in some one of those languages. Of later times we confess there hath been use of other languages, as Arabic, Chaldaic, and the like, but yet so as that the Church hath ever made choice of some one language which hath been very common to many kingdoms and Nations; not proper to any particular province or country.  
9 And here it is to be noted further, for answer of your authorities in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion, that S. Paul, in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth. where he speaketh of prayers in a known tongue is to be understood of the public prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authors; and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it; as namely that the men which are here reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests: as appeareth by the whole epistle, as I noted here before §. 3. n. 5. upon another occasion; as also because this pertaineth to women also, who it seemeth did use to speak among the rest, which S. Paul, therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth. Thirdly S. Paul, speaketh of the infidels coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferences: Which therefore could not be of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Mass to which Infidels were not admitted. Wherefore it cannot be of the public prayers of the Church which belonged only to Priests to make publicly for others in the Church: But though it were so and that some do put themselves to more straits than they need, in interpreting S. Paul, of public prayers, yet doth it not avail you Sir Humphrey. For even those men give a reason of difference, why now it needeth not; to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine, saith, People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites, and men know very well what is done by being present, and seeing, though they do not understand the particular epistles and Ghospels, which are several according to the Sundays and holy days; but the rest of the Mass being the same continually they understand it sufficiently for exercise of their devotion, though not to satisfy the vain curiosity of such people, as you breed up in the pride of an heretical spirit, to believe nothing but what they see, and contemning whatsoever they do not see or understand: our people know sufficiently, what the Priest meaneth by turning to them & saying Dominus Vobiscum, Oremus, Orate Fratres, and the like; I say sufficiently to lift up their minds to almighty God, to join in their hearts & minds with the Priests in that prayer, which he maketh public for them, as well as any learned Clerk that understandeth the English of the words. So as our authors by you cited help you not a whit in this matter.  
10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was used by the precept of the Apostles, and practise of the ancient Fathers, I would know of you, where this precept is expressed, either in scripture, or out of scripture, in any author of credit? I do not find so much as any shadow of a precept in scripture. S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand upon, doth not condemn that Prayer in an unknown tongue, as you do; for he both saith it is good, though he prefer the gift of Prophecy before it: and also he alloweth the use of it, but wishing withal that some other should interpret it; as you see the Council of Trent wisheth Pastors and Curates to do of the Mass, and mysteries therein contained. Where then is the precept commanding a known tongue or forbidding an unknown tongue? and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things, which are neither of them so: to wit, that S. Paul there speaketh of public prayer of the Church-office; and that the Latin Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called unknown tongues, or any way comprehended under that appellation in S. Paul.  
11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speak of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you have whose authority or example you can bring for yourself in this matter? name him if you can. We show you Fathers and learned men of many several nations and of different times using the Scriptures only in some one of these 3. holy languages. For example Italians, Spaniards, French, Germane, English, Polish, Africans, and others using the Latin: and diverse ancient Fathers of several countries, as S. Cyprian, S. August. in Africa. S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France. Others in other countries, citing the very words which we to this day use in our Mass: 
Duran. de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. & Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei. cap. 15. & 16.  as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum, and the like, whereof you may see more in our authors. And yet being so destitute of all proof for yourself, and so ignorant of ours which we have in abundance, you can talk so confidently of the precept of Apostles and practice of Fathers. But you will say you bring Lyra, Belethus, Gretzerus, etc. to prove what you say. Whereto I answer no such matter: for first they speak not a word of any precept. Secondly some witness only the practice of that time yet withal giving the reason why it need not be so now: others speak nothing that way: for example Io. Belethus, even as you cite him saith only that in the Primitive Church no man was to speak in tongues unless some body were to interpret; from whence he saith is grown our custom when the Gospel is read to expound it: which is quite against you; for he acknowledgeth speaking of languages which you deny, and expounding, which according to you will not be needful. Others again speak but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine, Dicendum fort saith he It is to be said that it may be that in the Primitive Church Benedictions were used in the vulgar language: whom yet you make to speak absolutely and certainly. Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were used in a language understood by the people yet no man saith that, that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeed other than Hebrew Greek or Latin. Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing avail you.  
12. Now for your citation and translation of such authors as you bring I could find many faults but I pass them over only Bellarmine I cannot let pass because you abuse him somewhat more grossly; for you bring an objection of his out of one place, and an answer out of another there being no connexion or correspondence between the answer and objection as you make it, thus. It may be objected, say you out of him, that in the time of the Apostles all the people in divine service did answer one Amen. And this custom continued long in the East and West Churches, as appear, etc. Which is true, but nothing to the present purpose: for men may answer Amen, to the public prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language. Neither is it the thing which, Bellarmine objecteth against and answereth: but he having proved that those prayers and spiritual canticles which the Apostles, would have to be made in the Church in the vulgar tongue, that the people might understand & answer, Amen, were not the public prayers of the Church but private extemporary devotions though in the Church with others: he objecteth in behalf of an Haeretique thus; you will say that as the Apostle would have those prayers to be made in a vulgar tongue, to the end the people might answare Amen, so he ought in like sort to wish, that the divine Office might be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, that the people might answer, Amen. To this he answereth denying the consequence: because the divine Office was celebrated, in Greek, which was understood by many though perhaps not by all, and this was enough, for the Apostle did not desire that all should answer, whereas the other languages which they spoke by the gift of tongues, were such many times, as not one man there understood them, not even the speaker himself: and this was Bell. First answer which you leapt over Sir Humphrey, 
Lib 2. de Ver. Dei cap. 16.  because you saw it was a good and proper for our case: for it is the same of our Latin and their Greeke; for though all do not understand Latin yet many do and almost every body enough to answer, Amen. Bellarmine's second answer is that which you make or rather mar by mistranslation: besides saith he because then the Christians were few all did sing together & answer in the divine Offices: (which is a reason why it was more necessary for the people to understand the language): but afterwards the people increasing the Offices were more divided, and it was only left to Clarks to perform the common prayers and praises in the Church: so as though it might be then more needful for the people to understand because they were to answer yet now it is not because they are not to answer and sing but that belongs to Clarks. Now in Englishing Bellarmine's words besides other smaller faults, you have these two, which I note. You say the office of public service was divided: whereas Bellarmine saith not so, but that offices were more divided, that is, the several functions in the Church, to wit, that which belonged to Priests and Clarks was left to them, and that which belonged to the people was left to the people or they to it: for to them it did not so properly belong to sing and answer, but only for that time of necessity, when the number both of Clarks and people was but small, the other fault is, that you translate Solis Clericis: only to the Church: whereas it is to the Clarcks' alone, or by themselves: which though it may be the same in sense, I see not why you should take that liberty, to alter at you pleasure in the translations of other men's words? And so much for your authors.  

Honor. gemma anime lib. 1. cap. 103. Innoc. 3. lib. 3 de M●ss. cap. 1.  13. Now to come to your conclusion of this §. you tell your Reader, that you will let him understand one special cause of the alteration of the office in the Roman Church: which is a story out of one Honorius, of certain Shepherds who having learned the words of consecration, because in the primitive times say you the Canon of the Mass was publicly read and understood of all, 
Io Beleth. de diu. offi. cap. 44.  and pronouncing the words of consecration over their bread and wine in the fields, the bread and wine were suddenly transubstantiated into flesh and blood; and themselves strucken dead by the hand of God. Whereupon you say that by Honorius his confession the canon of the Mass was anciently read aloud, and which is strange say you, also, that Shepherds did transubstantiate bread and wine, by which you tell us farther, it seemeth the alteration of the Church service into the Latin and unknown tongue was occasioned: the same story you say is told by Innoc. 3. and Io. Belethus: adding a reason withal out of them why the words of consecration are pronounced secretly, to wit, ne Sacrosancta verba vilescerent. Lest the holy words should grow contemptible. Thus you talk freely Sir Humphrey as if all were Gospel you say.  
14. But you must give other men for all that, a little leave to make doubt thereof: and first you run here from one thing to another, to wit, from service in a known or unknown tongue, to soft or loud pronouncing of the words of consecration, or of the Canon of the Mass. Secondly you say that by occasion of this Story which you tell us, the Church altered the service in to the Latin, and unknown tongue: wherein Sir Humphrey you forget yourself much: for you told us before that, that alteration was brought in by Pope Vitalian, about the year. 666. which cannot well agree with this story of yours: for if it were a late story near Honorius his time, that relateth it, that was near 500 years after Vitalian's time, if the story be an ancient one as there is one some what like, which I shall by and by speak of, in the book called Pratum spirituale then that was a good while before Vitalian's time: for the man that writeth it lived in Honorius, 1. his time which was the 6. Pope before Vitalian, and that author writeth it by the relation of a grave ancient man who knew one of the persons that were actors in this business, now an old man, the thing having happened when he was but a boy, so that there might very well be 80. or 100 years between the time of this story and Pope Vitalian. Thirdly I see not why this story should cause so great an alteration, as to change the Church-Office or Mass into another tongue: for it might have served the turn very well to read the Canon or speak the words of consecration softly, that others might not hear or learn them. Or if they must be changed into an other tongue, not to be known, why into Latin the most known tongue in the whole world: besides where this thing happened the Church-language was Greek, which was not so common to the vulgar, which if it did not hinder the irreverence committed there, how should it be likely that changing it into Latin only would hinder it here? Moreover if it did not cause any change in the Eastern Church where it happened, why should it cause any in the Western Church where perhaps this story was not heard of for a long time after? And indeed let the language be what it will, any man may learn some few words and abuse them if he will, therefore that will help little. Lastly me thinks it had been meet for you Sir Humphrey, to have said somewhat when this change was made, or what language it was that was used before: or bring some author for yourself; for of these 3. which you say mention the story, there is not one that maketh any mention of changing the Church-Office into Latin upon it, but only they allege it by occasion of the secret reading of the Canon of the Mass, which was the thing they had in hand.  
15. Now for the story itself you cannot but know that it is answered by Bellarmine it being objected formerly by Kemnitius: 
Bell lib. 2. de Miss. cap. 12  his answer then is, that there is such a story related by good authority in Pratum spirituale: but there, neither the bread nor wine were transubstantiated but consumed by fire from heaven; nor the shepherds strucken dead; but only laid for dead 24. hours; after which they came to themselves again, which is neither impossible nor improbable. Now for these three authors, that you cite, none of them doth relate it out of any author or with any special credit, but only out of a report which they express by the word Fertur and therefore some of them as Honorius and Belethus, might be mistaken in some of the circumstance, though Innocentius be not: 
Innoc. 3 lib. 3. de Miss. cap. 1.  for he saith no more of it, but this, that it is reported that when certain shepherds did sing the words in the fields, they were strucken from heaven: which is true. Now this supposed as the story doth not make any way against us, for we grant that the words were anciently pronounced aloud in some place; So it maketh against you, who deny that any where they were spoken softly: for the author of this story giving a reason, how the boys came to learn the words saith thus. 
Prat. Spirit. cap. 196.  Quoniam verò quibusdam in locis alta voce consueverant presbyteri sancti sacrificij orationes pronunciare, pueri ut propius astantes saepius eas audiendo didicerant. Because in some places the Priests were wont to pronounce the prayers of the holy sacrifice with a loud voice, the boys as standing nearer by often hearing had learned them. Lo Sir Humphrey it was but in some places; that they did say those prayers aloud. So that withal this labour you have proved nothing but against yourself. Well then you have failed in the proof of your doctrine in this as in the rest withal the corruption and tricks you can use; let us see what you do in the next.   

§. 7. Worship of Images.  
1. This 7. §. of Image-worshipp our Knight beginneth after his ordinary manner with an article as he calleth it of our Roman Creed, wherein we profess that the Images of Christ, our Lady, and the Saints are to be had and retained, and that due honour and Veneration is to be yielded unto them; and then bringeth the Decree of the Council of Trent, 
Sess. 25.  for the same point, in these words. We teach that the images of Christ the Virgin mother of God, and other Saints, are chiefly in Churches to be had and retained, and that due honour and worship is to be given them. Which Decree he might have translated a little better, and more clearly, by saying that those images are to be had and retained especially in Churches: the Latin word being (praesertim) and his translating thereof chief and placing it so oddly, giveth cause to think he had an evil meaning therein, as if he would have his Reader think that the Council taught that these Images were the chief things to be had in Churches, which is not the Council's meaning, as is plain the words being very clear in Latin. But this is but a note by the way not as a thing that I stand upon.  
2. This our Doctrine of image-worship he doth absolutely deny and condemn, as a wicked and blasphemous opinion: first because it not only wants authority of scripture, (which he saith an article of faith ought to have) but because the scripture doth flatly and plainly forbidden it: and in the margin citeth Levit. 26. Ex. 20. Deut. 4. Esay. 40. This censure is somewhat deep Sir Humphrey, upon such sleight ground, because forsooth we have no proof of scripture; for though you think it necessary to have express proof of scripture to make a matter of faith, yet as I said before you are much mistaken; wherefore you ought not to stand still urging it in such manner as if it were a certain and undoubted principle; yet this I grant you that though express Scripture be not necessary to make a matter of faith, yet if you have express scripture against it, it is true, it can be no matter of faith: but by your leave none of those places which you note, make any mention of image-worship but idol-worship which you cannot but know to be a different thing having been so often told it, as you have been by us: therefore your first proof failing all faileth, for though you put a First, yet I see no second. and so much for that.  
3. But because here had been an end too soon of so good a matter: you tell us Vazq. saith, all images were forbidden so far forth as they were dedicated to adoration, and Cornelius Agrippa, saith the jews, did abhor nothing more than images: to the same purpose you allege Philo the jew, speaking of the jews, of those times: and Sir Edwin sands of the jews that are now adays. Whereupon you conclude that it is agreed upon on both sides that the jews, never allowed adoration of images for 4000 years and from thence you descend to the new Testament wherein you say the same law remaineth, because it was moral; for though some Catholics, teach that it was a positive caeremonial law, yet others say it was natural; and for that you allege Bellar. wherefore the law being not abrogated, you would have some example or precept in the Gospel for adoration: of which you say, Mr. Fisher, acknowledgeth there is not any express, but that there be principles, which the light of nature supposed, convince adoration to be lawful. So as from the light of nature say you, an article of faith must be declared. Well this is your discourse Sir Humphrey, which in a word is but this. The jews might not have nor adore images, ergo, we may not. For asweare whereof I might say in like sort the jews might not eat blood nor swine's flesh nor many other things ergo, we may not: but because you may say these precepts are caeremonial & therefore not now in force the other natural & therefore in force, for the present, I will only make this argument to show the connexion of your antecedent and consequent: the jews might not make any similitude or likeness of any thing in heaven or earth to adore it for a God, ergo, we may not make or have the images of Christ and Saints to reverence and honour them, as the pictures of Saints only, and not Gods: is not here a good and a substantial argument trow you? and yet it is yours Sir Humphrey.  
4. But say you there was such a command of not making any images in the old Testament which is still. True: I grant there was such a command then, but whether it be still in force or no or how far it is in force there is the question: for resolving whereof it is to be considered that there be two opinions among our Divines as you take notice; of which some say it is moral: others caeremonial: & according to both I answer you two ways; one according to Vazq. and his authors: who say that there was such a command indeed but that it was but for that time only, and is now expired being but temporal and caeremonial, made and observed then in regard of the proneness of the jews to idolatry. Which if it were not so then, but that it were yet in force as you would have it, than could not you how have your wife's picture nor she yours without breach of that command: therefore in that sense you cannot urge it more against our pictures then we against yours. Neither can you save yourself by saying that your pictures are not dedicated to adoration as ours are. For in Vazq. his sense they are every jot as much: as is plain by his very words which are these that follow. 
Lib. 2. de ●dor. disp. 4. cap. 3. n. 76 & cap. 6. n. 98. & ●q.  Modus accommodatus adorationi est cum imago depicta aut sculpta est per se, non veluti appendix & additamentum alterius rei in ornatum illius, etc. The manner accommodated or fitted for adoration is when a Picture is painted or carved by itself not as an appendix or addition to another thing by way of ornament By which rule your pictures are in state of adoration, or so that they may be adored because they are whole and complete pictures of themselves, not additions, ornaments or appurtenances joined or belonging to another thing: as the Cherubins in the temple were, which he saith therefore were not in state to be adored because they were not there as complete of themselves, but only by way of appendix or appurtenance for ornament of the ark: for hence he inferreth, that all manner of pictures were forbidden even out of the Temple: Wherefore even in Vazq. his opinion whose authority you allege you must acknowledge this commandment to be only caeremonial, and but for that time of the old law. For by it in this sense all making or having any image or picture whatsoever was forbidden, which certainly is not now in force and so not against us any way.  
5. Now according to the other opinion also I may answer that the precept was moral; and therefore doth bind still, but that by it were not forbidden all images, but such as were made to represent false Gods, and were to be so adored: and that therefore it is no distinct precept or commandment but only an explication of the first of the ten commandments which is that we should have no other Gods but him; to wit, that we should not make a God to ourselves of any thing else, either in heaven or earth, making any Idol or likeness of any of all those things to adore it. So that whether with Vazq. we deny the very making or having of pictures or whether with Bell. we allow the making and having them & deny only the adoring them with divine honour the diversity of opinions helpeth you not one whit. Both standing very well with the Catholic faith and both against yours: for even Vazq. though he deny the making of pictures and consequently all adoration of them yet he granteth and proveth even out of the old testament that honour and reverence might and was given to things insensible and as little deserving reverence in themselves as pictures so it were with reference to almighty God: as for example the ark and Temple understanding that place of the Psalm adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius, 
Psal. 131.7.  We will adore in the place where his feet stood, 
Psal. 5. v. 8.  of the ark; as it is indeed to be understood: and that other of the Temple, adorabo ad templum Sanctum iwm in timore tuo. I will adore at thy holy temple in thy fear; 
Vazq. de ador. disp. 4. cap. 4.  and proveth that ad, which I interpret, at, to be a spare particle according to the Hebrew phrase, and that the true meaning is I will adore thy Temple. You may find his proofs out of the hebrew if you have wherewithal to understand him. Whereby it is clear his authority is nothing for you.  
6. Now for Philo his authority it maketh not against us; for he saith nothing, but that the jews were not wont to admit any image into their Temple: and that their ancestors did account it a wickedness to paint the invisible God, or fain a representation of him, and that the work of Painters and Carvers are the images of material Gods: this I say is not against us, for neither do we paint the invisible God, or fain a representation of him: that is, any picture representing his nature or deity? What is this to the decree of the Council of Trent, allowing the pictures of Christ and his Saints: we may not make a picture of the invisible God therefore not of a visible man? a good consequence Sir Humphrey and fit for so good a Scholar and so wise a man as you are: the former part of the same sentence is as much to the purpose. You say they were not to have images in their temple; I say also not in their houses, therefore must you have none? or if you deny the consequence, I infer upon you again. If notwithstanding that practice, command, or be it what you will of the jews, you have your friend's picture in your house, may not I have the picture of God's friend in mine? may not a man by being God's friend, have a much privilege as by being yours? beside what pictures could the jews have in their Temple? not the picture of God for he cannot be painted, not of any Saint: for there was none as yet might have that honour to have their pictures in the temple, themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly temple of God. all other pictures are profane & unfit for such a place: the people withal were gross, carnal, and prone to idolatry, none of which reasons have place with us. Touching the last part of Philo his saying, that the works of Painters and Carvers are the images of material Gods: it is true, if it be understood that the material Gods are the work of men's hands: but if he say that all the works of Painters and Carvers are material Gods, it cannot be true. For suppose Sir Humphrey some of your Ministers or other your devoted Clients out of the opinion they have of your worth and great desert in writing this book of your should erect you a statue in the corner of two high ways, pointing out your fingar to show a travailler the way, would you think they made you a material God? Philo's authority than is not to the purpose.  
7. For the jews now adays who, Sir Edwin Sands saith, are averted from the Christian faith, by having the Crucifix shown unto them. I answer it is no wonder: they that cannot endure Christ how should they endure his cross? S. Paul preached Christ crucified though he were a scandal or stumbling block to their ancestors, and must we leave to preach him though their children stumble at the same block? noe Sir Humphrey we must not cease to preach Christ nor can we preach him without his cross. They go both together, no man can love him and hate his cross, nor hate his cross and love him. Wherefore you in alleging their hate of the Cross, as an argument why you should also hate the same, you tacitly confess you love Christ as well as they do.  
8. But now for your conclusion which you infer hereupon, that it is agreed upon on all sides, that the jews in the old law for 4000 years never allowed adoration of images and (this say you) was concerning the Images of God the Father. I see not what premises you infer it upon: nor who agreeth with you in it: you name four authors, one Catholic, one jew, one Magician, one Protestant; the Protestant, to wit, Sir Edwin Sands speaketh not of any picture of God the Father, as you say you mean, but of the Crucifix or image of Christ upon the cross: the Magician to wit Cornelius Agrippa saith the jews did abhor images; but he is no man to build upon: be it true or false which he saith: all is one coming out of such a fellow's mouth. The jew, to wit, Philo saith that the invisible God is not painted, which we grant, as I said before, according to his own nature. The Catholic indeed, to wit, Vazq. saith that Images in state of adoration were altogether forbidden: but yet granteth the adoration of other things of the same kind as the ark and temple, neither doth his opinion avail you for even according to it you must confess that the example of the jews in that is no Precedent for our times: but besides others say adoration of images was somewhat allowed even then and they prove their saying by the example of the Cherubins in the Temple, which were adored: how then is it agreed upon on both sides? but much more I may ask how you come to say the jews never allowed adoration of images for almost 4000 years, when as the people of the jews were not such a people above 2000 years? 
V Bell. in chronolog. Moses' lived about the year 2403. Christ was borne anno mundi. 3984  nay Moses lived not passed 1500. before our Saviour so that of your own liberality, and skill in chronology, you have added 2500. years to make your doctrine seem ancient. Lastly you do not mark your own impertinency and contradiction in all this, which you have said. Your contradiction in that you say that this which you have said is concerning the images of God the Father, whereas your authorities are to the contrary, to wit, of other images: your impertinency, in that you stand bringing these things against the Decree of the Council of Trent which speaketh not of God the Father his pictures, but only of Christ and his Saints pictures, against which they make nothing.  
8. But bethinking yourself a little after, you say, you will descend to see what order was taken by Christ and his Apostles in the new Testament for representation of him and his Saints; and all the order that you find taken, or that you yourself take, is to say, that this law of the old Testament was moral, which though Vazq. and other Divines contradict, yet you say Bellarmine is of that opinion. Well be it so, let it be moral, as you would have it, what are you the better? Doth Christ or his Apostles say so, or is this the order that they have taken? if it be not, you are never the nearer? For it is but a matter of opinion, between Divines in the Catholic Church, far from any such authority as you promise. By which a man would have expected some evident clear place, either of the Gospel, or Apostolical writings, to prove that Images were not to be adored at all, or no more than in the old law of the jews. But whereas this was to be expected at your hands, you put us upon it, to bring some example or precept out of the Gospel for adoration of images: but we say that needeth not: for as in the old law notwithstanding that command, be it moral or caeremonial, men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple, the ark in the Temple, and the Temple itself, so may we much more in the new adore the pictures of Christ and Saints: and this is enough without any new precept or example.  
9 Moreover we are not to be urged to this, considering we teach many things out of unwritten traditions; and therefore there may be some precept and example both of our Saviour and his Apostles, 
Io. 20.30. & 21.25.  though not written in Scripture, because as S. john saith, all is not written, or rather, a very small part is written, as his words import. Thirdly we say we have the example of our Saviour and his Apostles testified both by good authentical histories, and the perpetual practice of the Church, against which it is insolent madness to dispute as S. Aug. saith. Many great: and grave authors make mention of 3. several images made miraculously by our B. Saviour himself: 
V Durant. de rit. lib. 1. cap 5. Euseb Eua. Procop. Adr. 1. Damasc. Const. Porphyragenitus. ●onar. Nicep. Pho. Niceph. Call.  one was that which he sent to Abgarus king of Edessa, who had desired to see him: which request of his, our Saviour did in some sort satisfy, by sending him his picture: another was that of Veronica, which he made with wiping his face as he was carrying his Cross, and gave to that devout woman that took so much pity of him, as to give him a handkerchief at that time to wipe his face all bedewed with blood and sweat. A third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel; all which are testified not only by grave and learned authors but I may say even by God himself; though not inscripture, yet by great and wonderful miracles; whereof there can be no doubt in regard both of the number and credit of the authors which report them. We have the example also of S. Luke's painting our B. Lady, which very pictures are kept to this day, and authorized likewise by God himself by many and wonderful miracles. Which though you perhaps may make yourself merry withal with your Ministers, yet I hope the judicious Reader will more regard the authority of the lest of these authors who are not in number so few as 20. I mean for ancient authors, than the impious scorns of a hundred such yesterday people as you and they are.  
10. As for that which you say out of Mr. Fisher that though there be no express practice or precept of worshipping the image of Christ, yet there be principles which, the light of nature supposed, convince adoration to be lawful, it is as well and truly said by him, as that is falsely, foolishly & impertinently which you say thereupon, that from the law of God and grace we are come to the law of nature, and to declare an article of faith by the light thereof. Mr. Fisher saith the light of nature showeth it to be lawful, which is true: you say he declareth it an article of faith from the light of nature, which is false: there is great difference between those two; to be lawful, and to be an article of faith; the light of nature may reach to show a thing to be lawful, but not to make an article of faith: for that must be grounded upon the supernatural light of divine revelation which is far above the natural light of humane reason: though by your favour Sir Knight as scornfully as you speak of the light of nature, it have somewhat more to do also in matters of faith, than you are ware of. For out of one premisse revealed, and another evident by the light of nature, there may be drawn a conclusion of faith, or at least such as may sufficiently ground a definition of a Council and practice of the Church: and likewise the light of nature hath place also in all the mysteries of our faith; in some showing the reasons or congruences; in all showing that there is no falsehood, or impossibility. And the light of nature is the gift and law also of God. Why then should you speak so contemptibly of it, but only that you want it in great part and consequently know not the worth thereof.  
11. But it is strange here to see how, though you cannot find in your hart to allow the light of nature alleged for adoration of images, you can allege it against them; but even as wisely as you deny it for them You say Varro an heathen Philosopher by the instinct of nature professed the contrary by saying the Gods are better served without images. The Latin is, castius Dij obseruantur sine simulachris. 
Aug. 4. de Civit. ca 31.  Which saying you tell us S. Aug. commendeth: and so he doth indeed, but understandeth him far otherwise than you do. For he doth take Simulachrum not for an image as you do falsely, but for an idol, as it is indeed, and so commendeth Varro for coming nearer to the knowledge of the true God, and going farther from idolatry, in that he neither acknowledgeth any Deity in those material idols nor that multiplicity of Gods but rather alloweth the opinion of them that held that God was the soul of the world: which though it were also an error in him, yet S. Augustine saith it cometh nearer to truth in that it teacheth but one God and him not a material or corporal but a spiritual and invisible substance: for proof whereof Varro allegeth that for above an hundred years the Romans had worshipped their Gods without those material idols, which whosoever brought in, saith he, did take a way the fear and added or increased the error: he meaneth that they that brought in those idols took away all fear of the Gods, because men seeing those idols proposed for Gods contemned them: and this is that which he saith castiùs dij obseruantur sine simulachris: The Gods are more chastely or purely observed or feared without those idols. Now what is this against us. do not we say the same thing much more amply, and more fully? I see not then why you should bring it, unless it were to usher in a thing which you have out of Eusebius, to give the reason, as you say, why these Fathers condemned the worshippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters in these words. Because, saith Eusebius, the men of old, of an heathenish custom were wont after that manner to honour such as they counted Saviour's. Whereupon you say that after images had got footing among Christians, the Bishops and Emperors by Counsels and commands took special care to prevent, both the making and worshipping them: and thereto you bring a Canon of the Council of Eliberis, that no pictures should be in Churches lest that which was worshipped should be painted on the walls. And an authority out of the Civil law of a Decree made against adoration of images which I shall cite when I come to answer it. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey. Wherein you have given so sufficient testimony of notorious bad dealing, especially in the 2. places of Eusebius and of the Civil law: that if there were nothing else falsified or corrupted in your whole book, this were enough utterly to deface all memory of you, from among honest men.  
12. The matter is this, having brought only S. Aug commending Varro his saying against Idols you say in the plural number, these Fathers as if you had brought some great number of Fathers: and withal you say these Fathers condemned the worhippers of images for Haeretiques and Idolaters: what words have you brought out of any father one or other to this purpose, from the very beginning of this §. either condemning the woship of images in us Christians, or calling us Haeretiques or idolaters for it? how then can you have the face to say it so boldly? but we must not ask you reason for any thing you say, but take it as you say it. Well you tell us Eusebius giveth the reason why the Fathers condemned us for Haeretiques and idolaters, which importeth that Eusebius concurreth with those Fathers in judgement, whose fact he gives a reason for. But what if Eusebius do not condemn it, can you desire to be counted an honest man? I presume you cannot: Well let us then see whether he do so or not. Making mention of the City of Caesarea Philippi by occasion thereof he relateth a story of the Woman which was cured by touching the hem of our Saviour's garment, 
Eus. hist. lib. 7. cap. 14.  and how coming home after her cure to Caesarea Philippi where she lived, she made herself a brazen statue set upon a high stone before her own door as if she were kneeling upon her knees and holding up her hands like one praying and looking towards another statue of a man standing strait up, with long garments down to the foot, stretching out his hand to the Woman: which statue the people said was the Statue of JESUS. Upon the very basis or foot of this statue, they said there grew a certain strange and unusual kind of herb, which as soon as it grew up so high as to touch the hem of the brazen garment, it had virtue to cure diseases of every kind: Which statue Eusebius saith continued to his time and that he saw it himself. Neither is it to be wondered, saith he, going on with his discourse, that those that were sprung of the Gentiles, and received benefits of our Saviour while he lived here on earth, did thus; seeing we also have seen the pictures of Peter and Paul Apostles, and of our Saviour himself, expressed in variety of colours, and kept: and that, as it is like, because our ancestors (maiores nostri which you Sir Humphrey translate the men of old you know best why yourself) would come as near as might be to the fashion of their own people or kindred, who were wont to honour such as had done them any benefit or help in that manner: by way of parenthesis I note the Latin word of heathenish custom as you Sir Humphrey translate it, is Gentilis consuetudinis. For which you are best look in your dictionary of Thomas Thomasius whether among all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there set down you can find heathenish? Which I dare say you cannot. The Greek word in Eusebius his text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the same that Gentilis in Latin, to wit, belonging to a Country, people, nation, Stock, or family: though Scapula do add in his Lexicon that by ecclesiastical Writers it is used to signify heathenish or averse from Christian religion: but it is clear that in this place the sense requireth the plain and native signification which I have expressed in the translation: though you be pleased to draw it violently to the worse sense. But to go on with Eusebius, he saith following on the same discourse, that the Bishops of Jerusalem had successively kept and highly esteemed the Chair of S. james the Apostle, and first Bishop of Jerusalem. Whereby saith he they plainly declare how the ancient Fathers even to our times have given, and do still give due veneration to holy men, for their true piety towards God. Thus Eusebius: wherein for my fidelity in citing and translating I refer myself to the judgement of what Aristarchus soever you yourself Sir Humphrey shall choose. And if this be true which I say out of Eusebius, then doth your credit lie a bleeding. For doth not Eusebius relate this story of the Woman's statue with approbation? doth he not relate a continual miracle wrought by God, showing his approbation also thereby? doth he not acknowledge the use of pictures of our Saviour and his Apostles, as a thing coming from our ancestors? doth not he approve that custom of the Gentiles in keeping the statues and thereby honouring the memory of their benefactors? doth he not acknowledge the ancient fathers were wont to honour the memory of holy men, by reverencing those things that belonged unto them? What say you to all this Sir Humphrey? Look now into your own conscience, and see whether it can flatter you so much as to say you are an honest man? Or that you have dealt truly in this citation of Eusebius?  
13. Now for the Council of Eliberis, it is a trivial objection, and hath been answered an hundred times over. 3. or 4. several ways. First the authority of the Council is little, being an obscure provincial Council of, 19 Bishop's only, without any certainty of the time, when it was held. Neither doth it appear that it was ever approved: to which we oppose one of Constantinople: another at Rome under Greg. 3. of 3. Bishop's: a third at Nice general of 350. Bishops whereof you may see more in Duran. de rit. lib. 1. cap. 5. Secondly it might perhaps seem convenient at that time to forbid the use of images, in that part of Spain, when the people being but newly converted from their heathenish superstition, were not throughly weaned from it, and did not understand the use of Images: so it may be they were forbidden for a time only till the people were better instructed. Thirdly that Canon forbiddeth not pictures absolutely but only painting them on the walls: whereof there be two reasons ordinarily given, but both drawn from the honour and veneration dew to pictures: one is because that being a time of persecution when the Christians were fain to fly many times they could not carry away or hide them being painted on the walls, as they did other sacred things; but were forced to leave them to the fury and scorn of the Gentiles another least the plaster breaking of in some places, they might become deformed and so contemptible. Lastly it seemeth plainly by the Council that it was out of honour to Images, that they did forbid it, because they thought not the walls a place convenient. For so it seemeth to say, Lest that which is adored should be painted on the walls. In which words it expressly acknowledgeth the adoration of images and because they are to be adored therefore not to be painted on the walls. More you may find in others Sir Humphrey which you if you had dealt honestly should have replied upon, and not stood still repeating your thread bare objections as if they were new.  
14. But now for your authority out of the Civil Law there be so many foul fauts committed by you in it that I know not where to begin, but begin I must: your words of it are these. The good Emperors Valens & Theodosius made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ in this manner. Forasmuch as we have a diligent care in all things to maintain the religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer not man to fashion, to grave, or paint the image of our Saviour eitherin colours, or in stone, or in any other kind of metal or matter: but wheresoever any such image shallbe found, we command it to be taken down, assuring our Subjects, that we will most strictly punish all such as shall presume to attempt any thing contrary to our Decrees and commandments. Thus you preface & cite the place. Where first you call Valens a good Emperor; whereas he was a man far from all goodness: for he persecuted good Catholics in most cruel manner, being himself a wicked Arrian Haeretique, 
Socr. lib. 4. cap. vl●. Soz. lib. 6. cap. vlt. Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 3. Cod. Theod. lib. 1. tit. 8. Nemini licere.  upon whom almighty God also did show his iudments by a disastrous end. Secondly this Valens and Theodosius whom you join together in making this Law, were not alive together Valens being killed 23. years before Theod. was borne. For this was Theod. the younger, grand child to Theodosius the elder who came to be Emperor in Valens his place, when he was gone. Thirdly the Law itself is most foully corrupted, and the meaning wholly perverted, for the Law was made in honour of the Cross, to wit, thus. We command that it shall not be lawful for any man to carve or paint the sign of our Saviour Christ either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lying on the ground: which to have been meant in honour of our saviour's Cross and picture, appeareth by a Canon of the Council called Trullanum in these words. 
Con●. Const. in Trull. cap. 37.  We command that all the figures of the cross, that are made upon pavements be taken away or defaced, to the end that the triumphant Sign of our Victory, be not unworthily defiled by men's feet. And the very title of the Imperial Law is this. Nemini licere signum Saluatoris Christi humi vel in Silice vel in marmore, aut insculpere aut pingere. That it is not lawful for any man to paint the sign of or Saviour upon the ground in flint or marble. Now your leaving out the two words humi & in solo upon the ground, is it not a manifest corruption, both of the words and meaning of the Law? but which is more this was a corruption of which Plessy Mourney was convinced by the Bishop of Eureux, in that public assembly of France. And he labouring to excuse himself as perhaps you will do, said that he did not look in the law itself, but had it out of one Petrus Crinitus: whom you also cite here for author; which was shame enough for him, and will be for you also, professing so much Scholarship as even to write books: and yet not to be able to take such an authority out of the original but borrow it of another or take it upon trust, in a matter of such moment: but withal it was urged against him that Crinitus had been noted by diverse learned men, to be but a bold and rash Grammarian of later times. So as Plessys was foiled on all sides, not knowing which way to turn himself. And Suthcliffe after him again undertaking the defence of the same cause, was worse foiled: & yet after all this Sir Hum. you are not ashamed to take up this notorious corruption again & vent it to the world, as if it had never been excepted against but were so authentical and good, so free from exception, as nothing could be more. May not you then bear away the bell from all lying and corrupting fellows that have ever gone before you? where is your great promise of sincerity? nay where is your shame? but I say no more this is enough I suppose. Now by this any man may see whither I have not discharged myself of my promise, and whither I may not henceforward when I take you tripping tell you, you Lind it?  
15. Having then thus notoriously discovered your falsehood Sir Humphrey I hope it will not be hard to persuade the Reader the same in other places hereafter which I must pass over more briefly, for it willbe to long to stand upon all, there being not that place in the whole book, that is not either falsely, or impertinently alleged. But to go on with you; you say you forbear to cite the particular Fathers, that opposed and condemned the worship of images in the Primitive Church only you will make it appear by the confession of our learned Romanists, that we want Visibility of the ancient Church. You forbear to cite the particular Fathers, Sir Humphrey? I cannot blame you there is good cause why? to wit, because you cannot; for if you could, it had been as easy a matter to have cited one Father or two, as 8. or 10. obscure and unknown authors: filling two whole leaves with their authorities partly false, and partly impertinent: as I shall show, but what Romanists are these trow you, whose confessions you bring? you have 10. authors whereof there be only two free from exception, 
V Bell. de scrip. verb. Hincmarus Rhemansis.  to wit, Agobardus and Peresius who are not against us. Hincmarus is a Catholic indeed but that place by you cited is noted of manifest error, not in matter of Doctrine, but in matter of fact, which he relateth of the Council of Francfort falsely; being mistaken, as our authors show: and as I shall after declare more. 
See Exam of Fox his Calendar.  Nicolaus Clemangis and Polydore Virgil his work by you cited, marked in the Roman Index: though I shall show you to abuse Polydore egregiously: besides Clemangis himself is a Wickleffian haeretique. Cassander, Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Wicelius, every man knoweth what goodly and learned Romanists they are, and of what account. The last of your Romanists is Chemnitius in his Examen of the Council of Trent, as good a Romanist as yourself: who telleth us it is not to be found that any of the patriarchs and Prophets for Fathers did adore images but that the scriptures cry out to worship one God & him only to adore and glorify: and that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did forbid the adoration of Images, as he saith, appears by Epiphanius and Augustine who reckon the Worshippers of images among the Symonians and the Carpocratian Haeretiques. Wherein you are also pleased to show us a trick of your wit: for in the text you put these words (the Council of Francfort) in the beginning, as you do your other authors, as if the text following against Images were the very words of the Council: but in the margin you put Chemnitius; which is wicked dealing to make the less careful Reader fall into error, by taking the Haeretiques words for the words of the Council; whereas the Council hath not one word of that, that is there set down, nor indeed at all of images: all that we have is by relation of some histories; whereof 3. or 4. have erred in the relation of a matter of fact concerning the same Counsels condemning the 2. Council of Nice as is most manifest not only by contrary authorities of greater weight, but by the very contradiction which out of ignorance, they show in their own narration for they say that the false Council of Constantinople under Constantine and Irene, was condemned at Francfort. Which is manifestly false, there having never been any such Council at Constantinople in their two times, 
Binius in annot. ad Conc. Francfor. 794.  but because this requireth a longer dispute, I turn you Sir Humphrey to Binius, Bell, and others with them. Only here I tell you, that whereas you bring Hincmarus his authority and the Council of Francfords' out of Chemnitius; Bellarmine showeth by testimony of the same Hincmarus, the Magdeburgian's, 
Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 14.  and other your own authors, that that very Council did say Anathema to all such as deface images: is not this then abominable falsehood in your friend Chemnitius, to cite nay forge it against images & in you follow him in it.  
16. Polydore Virgil shallbe next: out of whom you say. 
Poly. Vir. de rerum inventor. lib. 6. cap. 13.  The worshipping of images not only those who knew not our religion but as S. Hierome witnesseth almost all the ancient Fathers condemned, for fear of idolatry. This place was brought by Dr. White in his reply to Mr. Fisher's 9 points and so answered again in the Rejoinder to his reply, as if you Sir Humphrey had had any regard to Dr. Whites credit you would never have given occasion to renew the memory thereof again. The answer is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament, but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres, the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moses and Ezechias, the reason indeed why they did condemn the worship of images, was fear of idolatry; but the reason of that fear was as he saith because no man having seen God they knew not what shape to give t'him? and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ upon the cross, he saith, a long time after God put on humane sharp and being made man was seen and known by mortal men: and in that humble shape by his own power, wrought miracles beyond credit: the same whereof made men come flocking unto him, who did so behold and reverence his face without doubt shining with the brightness of divine light, that they then first began to paint and carve his effigies, now already imprinted in their minds. And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Saviour made by himself one sent to Abagarus, the other given to Veronica he also saith thus: it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certain tables the figure of our Lady, which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously, Then relating out of Eusebius, how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christians citeth the words following out of him. Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorum memoriam, illorum honoris, horum vero amoris iudicium est. For the reserving of the signs, marks, or thing belonging to the ancients to the memory of posterity is a sign of honour to them & love in these. Hence, saith Polydore, is grown worthily a custom of placing in the Churches & reverencing the statues as well of our Saviour as his SS. But because by the memory of Saints, as it were an example or sample set before our eyes which the images represent, men are stirred up to virtue & imitation, & the honour of the image passeth to the honour, of the original as S. Basil saith; therefore the Fathers have not only admitted that custom, but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Constantinople under Constantine & justinian the 2. his son, it was decreed as may appear by the canonical decrees, that the holy images of SS. should be had in Churches, & worshipped with great veneration: being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture: whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted: and there adding 2. or 3. Counsels more decreeing the same again, he concludeth thus. Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare, seu aliter somniare, ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu, ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum? What man is there therefore so dissolute and endued with so much boldness, who will or can doubt, or otherwise dream, that I may not say judge or think of the worship of images, then at last hath been approved by the Decree of so many most holy Fathers. Thus far Polydore: to whose demand why may not I answer that Sir Humphrey Lined is the man so dissolute and audacious, that dares not only dream but waking with all his wits and senses that he hath about him, and speaking and writing dares I say not only doubt of, but absolutely deny the lawfulness of the worship of images. And not only this, but even to bring thee o Polydore Virgil to witness with him against the Roman Church, that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church condemned the same. What would this author say to you Sir Humphrey if he were alive, to see himself abused by you? and which is yet more even after Dr. White was convict of this dissoluteness, and audaciousness, yet you would be at it again. Hereby a man may see there needs no other confutation but only right citing of your own authors.  
17. For Peresius; his words are nothing against us, for they touch only upon a school point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented, or with an inferior worship: the former opinion only he denieth, because saith he there is neither proof out of scripture, tradition of the Church, common consent of Fathers, or determination of a general Council? which very saying of his is enough to condemn you, who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition, Fathers, or Council to believe a thing which you like not. But to make it plainly appear how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaves before that which you cite out of him it is this.  habes, etc. 
Peres. de tradit. cap. de imag.  It is manifest that the use and worship of images hath been universally in the Church from the time of the Apostles and that the disesteem of them began from forlorn and infamous men 500 years after the Church was planted: and truly if the worship and reverence be done devoutly and sincerely, this institution is holy and profitable, which both Apostolic tradition hath introduced, the use of the universal Church affirmed, the consent of very famous and general Counsels both in the East and West being added thereto: which also even natural reason doth dictate. Thus fare are Peresius his own words: whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deal well with him or not, to pretend his authority against our use and worship of images.  

Agobard. de pict. & imaginib. in bibl PP.  18. Now for Agobardus whom you seem to make great acount of, if you consider him a little, better, you will find little cause: he writeth indeed a book de picturis & imaginibus, the whole drift whereof is only against the idolatrical use or abuse of images, against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his time as it is meet he and every good man should. And for the same end, he bringeth many authorities of the ancient Fathers all which speak plainly against idolatry: and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Council of Eliberis which you bring out of him, that no picture should be painted on the walls, understanding it in the same sense which I alleged in my second answer to that Canon before, to wit, for avoiding superstition in some young and unexperienced Christians, converted from gentility. But for those words which follow in your citation of him, to wit, these. There is no example in all the scriptures or Fathers, for adoration of images: I do not find them in him: this I am sure of, that they are not joined with the former as you here join them. Thus indeed he saith in a certain place: habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad recordandum non ad colendum. The ancients had the pictures of Saints painted or carved for history to remember not to be worshipped: this it may be is it you would be at; but I answer that both these and those of yours if there, be any such are to be understood in the sense of his whole discourse, to wit, that there is no example in the Scriptures or Fathers of such idolatrial adoration as he speaketh against there: which is true. Which to be his meaning I shall by and by demonstrate more plainly. Now for the last words; to wit, that images ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight, not to instruct the people. I do not also find them, but these. Aspiciamus picturam quasi pictura sensu & ratione carentem: pascatur hac visione oculus Deum vero veneretur animus. Let us behold the picture as a picture wanting sense & reason. Let the eye be said which this sight but let the mind worship God: which is very true Catholic doctrine: for we teach men to make a difference between the wood & colour of the picture or the picture in itself, and the thing which is by it represented: but here is not that which you say out of him, that images are not to be used to instruct the people: but the contrary for in the words here next before cited he saith they are to be used for history which is all one as to say for instruction. Wherefore I wonder how it should come into your head to father so fond and senseless a thing upon so wise and learned a man? & so contrary to the light of nature & even to your own practice. For if pictures may not be used for instruction of the people, why do your painters draw the King, Prince, & Lords in the parliament house, the siege of Rochel, Berghen op Zoome, Bolduc, Breda. & the like, but for instruction relics of S. Polycarpe: and withal he relateth with applause and commendation, how the people of Alexandria having destroyed their idols, and being converted to Christ so great fervour of Christianity inflamed their hearts, that every one painted the sign of the Cross on their posts, doors, windows, walls, & pillards: and to conclude telleth of S. Gregory the great how he reprehended the Bishop of Frioly; for beating down out of his Curch the images of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, in regard of the superstition of the vulgar sort, adoring them contrary to the rule of faith, as also for that he did not rather by his authority correct their error, letting the pictures stand for the memory of posterity then by indiscreet zeal beat them down: wherein then is Agobardus different from S. Gregory, and other Fathers? nothing at all: but rather his authority joined here together with S. Gregory's in the last place may serve for answer to all the rest of your frivolous objections which you bring to the paragraph, of the abuse and danger of images.  
20. As for the abuse it is not such as you talk of; but suppose it were; that is to be taken away, as the Council of Trent, & in it the whole Catholic Church doth teach: the good must not. For if every thing should be presently taken away, because it is ill used by men, what would become of this world? You must therefore learn an axiom of the Law, 
De reg. iur. n 6.  Vtile per inutile non vitiatur: the profitable is not vitiated or spoiled by the unprofitable. Separate that which is unprofitable from the profitable, and keep, the later that is the profitable or good. Which I dare boldly say is far better to counsel, than that which you give, to wit, that images should be absolutely forbidden, till some conditions set down by Bellar. or rather by the Council of Trent (for they are the same), be performed; which as you think (though falsely) are not performed, to wit, that images be honoured only for them whom they represent, without placing confidence in them, or requesting any thing of them, or conceiving any divinity in them. For where shall you find so simple a soul one among 10000 in the Catholic Church, that doth not perform the forenamed conditions? or if there should be one such, silly old woman, must the other 10000 be debarred of all that fruit, & God & his Saints of all that honour: that cometh by having, seeing, & adoring them in their images as we all do? this Council I say of mine, or not mine, but of the holy Catholic Church, you shall find to be better, by the very testimony of Gabriel, whom you bring in reprehending the blockishness of some people, for not observing the foresaid conditions in the worshipping of images, in his 49. lect. which is the place by you cited though you Sir Humph. falsely cite it lect. 14. but that may be your printers fault the title whereof is: Of the veneration of the most divine Sacrament of the Eucharist. In which he treateth largely of three kinds of worship, Latria, Hyperdulia, and Dulia, as our Divine do; Which he saith belong properly to a rational nature, improperly to irrational; either in regard of representation, or connexion which may have with the rational or reasonable nature: and then reprehending the foolishness of some, who neither know themselves, nor will with humility learn of others, the true nature of adoration, concludeth at last thus. Nec tamen propter hoc imagines proiiciendae sunt etc. Neither for this are images to be thrown away, or thrust out of oratory's by occasion or pretence of avoiding idolatry, or pilgrimages to certain pictures or certain places either consecrate, or not consecrated to be reproved. So Gabriel which words you could not but see; if you saw the other which you cite, for they follow immediately: and therefore it had been more honesty for you, to have forborn the citing of the former, if you did not mean to cite the later, as it seemeth you did not. For that which you conclude with comparing us to Demetrius in the scripture, that made a living of making silver shrines for Diana's temple, as if we maintained images to bring money to our purses, it is Lindinge Sir Humphrey, you know my meaning: you and such as you that perhaps have had your shares in pulling down of images and silver shrines this last hundred years: are more like to be drawn with the love of gain, to the pulling down of images than we that lose all for maintaining and setting them up: for what we and our ancestors have parted with from ourselves and out of our own purses for the honour of God and his Saints you or men of your religion pull back from God & his Saints, to bestow upon your backs and bellies and upon you Ministers, their wives, and bats. Werefore you might have held your peace of that matter. And so now I conclude this §. where I hope I have made it appear that all your great words against Images are but wind.   

INDULGENCES. §. 8.  
1. We are now come to the last. § of this chapter which is Indulgences; which you Sir Humphrey begin after your wont manner with the tenth article of our Creed as you call it, and the Decree of the Council of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church: and that the Church hath used the same from most ancient times, and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church, condemning also whosoever shall term them unprofitable, or deny authority in the Church to grant them. Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreeable to Christ institution, nor the practice of the primitive Fathers. You confess indeed that in the Primitive Church there was a power in the Bishops, to remit or mitigate the severity of the punishment, which by the Canon's men were to undergo for certain great crimes: which mitigation you allow to have been called by the name of Indulgence; and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul. Thus far you go well with us: but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment, by application of the merits of Christ & his Saints, termed the treasure of the Church. Which treasure you say is applied to the souls in Purgatory: and that which was formerly used for mitigation of punishment, is now reduced to private satisfaction, and that which was formerly left to the discretion of every Bishop in his Diocese, is transferred wholly to the Pope; and this not only for some few years in this life, but for many thousands in Purgatory after death. 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey. Which though you seem to take to be a very good and substantial one: yet is it nothing so. For first it neither proveth any thing, nor overthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences, though that were true which you say of the difference between our Indulgence of these times and those of the primitive Church, for the use of those times is not our only ground for this point of doctrine: but we have others both of scripture, tradition, & undoubted practice of the Church for above a thousand years at least: and this of the practice of the Primitive church in relaxation of the punishment of the penitential canons is not urged by us at lest by some of our Divines as an evident convincing proof but only as coniectural and probable, 
Suar. to. 3. in 3. pars. disp. 49 sect. 2. n. 4.5. & s●. q.  it is not then to the purpose for you to stand so much urging the difference between the Indulgences of our times and those of other former times, as if by doing that you had done all that was to be done.  
3. But beside to answer Secondly, you have not done even that: for you do but only make show as if you would have men think they were different without showing wherein the difference consisteth. Nay even out of that which you grant of those ancient Indulgences you may be disproved in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word (Indulgence) you grant it to have been in use in those times. But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment, by application of the merits of Christ. Which though alleged as a difference yet do I not see wherein the difference is. For theirs was an absolution, because it was an unloosing or untying. For whereas by the Canons for certain great crimes men were bound or tied to undergo such penance, for example to fast with bread and water so many days in a week, for so many months, or years not to be admitted to the Sacraments, and Sacrifice of the Mass and the like, By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were untied or loosed from so much, or so little as by that pardon they were freed from: and so is it in our Indulgence, wherefore the difference is not in the absolution, which is nothing but losing or untying. It can not be also in the guilt, which must needs be remitted in your indulgence as well as in ours. For a man is not free, so long as he is guilty; if then they were freed by that pardon, the guilt was taken away thereby. It is not likewise in the temporal punishment, which is alike remitted in the one and other. For it was temporal punishment or penance, which men were freed from in those times by indulgence and so it is temporal punishment which we are now adays freed from by our indulgence. Wherefore I do not understand what you mean Sir Humphrey when you seem to make a difference in this; saying that Indulgences which were first used for mitigation of punishments, are now reduced to private, satisfactions. For what? were not those Indulgences given to private men, for satisfaction: or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons? and are not ours mitigation of the same? unless you put the force in this that there the punishment was only mitigated or lessened, & that in our Indulgence all is taken away; which yet is false on both sides; for neither in ours, is all the punishment taken always away; and in those, sometimes all was taken away, as we see by the example of the Corinthian, whom S. Paul doth forgive without limitation: besides this I do not imagine what you can mean in these words.  
4. The difference also is not in the authority or power, whereby this pardon is granted: for than it was granted by the Bishops: and so it is also now. For every Bishop in the Catholic Church hath this power. But you will say Humphrey not so much now as then be it so? that is against yourself for that is your complaint, that it is more used now then in those times. But you say again the Pope hath more now than he had then; and that all is transferred wholly to him. To which I answer that this later part is false: all is not so wholly transferred but that every Bishop: hath his part of this power, over his own subjects; though with some limitation: and though the Pope should take it wholly to himself and from other Bishops, what is this against Indulgences? doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giveth them either more by himself, or more liberally than he did heretofore by others? The power was in many before, now it is in one that one than hath more power than he had before, but is it not the same kind of power? wherefore the difference cannot consist in this? but think not Sir that I grant you the Pope's power to be more now then at that time it was, nor less than than now it is. It was the same of this power, as of all other his power of binding & losing, whereof this is one branch; which did ever extend over the whole Church over all pastors, and all and every one of their subjects, though he did permit the use thereof to others some times more, sometimes less according to the difference of times, places, and persons. But this of the extent of the Pope's power in this kind, is not a matter for this place, but it pertaineth to that disputation of the Pope's authority in general. It is enough here, if we prove the same power and use of giving Indulgences now, as was in most ancient times, as the Council of Trent declareth and you yourself confess in as much as you grant that Indulgence and Pardon was granted by the Bishops then; Which we prove to be the same now: for neither doth the Council of Trent, stand saying who hath more, or who hath less of that power, for that was needless; the question being with Haeretiques, who denied the power wholly to be in God's Church.  
5. The difference then between our Indulgence, and that of the primitive Church, is not in this: that is in the power of granting it: Wherein then? you may say as you seem indeed to say that it consisteth in this, that ours is by application of the merits of Christ and his Saints, which we term the treasure of the Church. And that their was a free relaxation without any such regard to this treasure. But the difference cannot also be in this: for the Bishop's power whereby he did pardon then, was grounded in the merits of Christ; for what he did, he did in the person of Christ, as S. Paul saith of himself, in forgiving the Corinthian. Neither did he forgive the guilt of the temporal punishment wholly gratis, or freely without any manner of satisfaction to the justice of Almighty God, in as much at lest as these penances were imposed for satisfaction for the fault in the sight of God also: this I say the Bishop neither did, nor could do for Christ himself did not forgive sin so: but by shedding of his blood. For as S. Paul saith in lege sine sanguine non fit remissio. In the Law there is no forgiveness without blood. 
Heb. 9.22.  Whereby the holy Apostle proveth that without the shedding of Christ's blood, there is no remission of sin, and all forgiveness of sin, as well for the guilt, as punishment, is dependent thereof. Wherefore what the Bishops did forgive in this manner, they did forgive by application of Christ his merits. Now these merits were not new, but the former merits of his life and passion: for Christ did consummate all by one entire oblation of himself as S. Paul saith: 
Heb. 10.14.  if then it were by virtue of those merits, then must they needs lie in store ready to be applied to men, as they did dispose themselves to receive the fruit of them, and the Pastors pleased to dispense them; and why then may not Christ's merits lying thus in store for the need of all men, be compared to a common treasure and be called by that name? So far forth then as those Pardons were grounded in Christ's merits or granted by application of them to the penitent, there is no difference between theirs and ours.  
6. Now for the merits of the Saints: you seem to say that they had no part in those indulgences; that is, those Indulgences were not given by application of the merits of the Saints. But therein you are also mistaken Sir Humphrey. For even in that place of Saint Paul, wherein you allow him to speak of Indulce, he saith he doth forgive the Corithian, not only in the person of Christ, but for their sakes also: which importeth the prayers and deserts of Saints, to have some place in the bestowing of that indulgence, and so likewise it was the practice of the Primitive Church, as you cannot but know, for Martyrs that had made a good confession of their faith, and endured torments for the same, to make intercession to the Bishops, for releasing part of the punishment dew to others, who out of weakness failed therein: and what was this but by applying the superaboundant merits of the one, to supply the want of the other: and that this was not by way of impetration or favour only at the Bishop's hand, but by application of the very Martyr's merits, appeareth by Tertullian, 
Tertull. lib. de pud. cap. 12.  who being become now an Haeretique did reprehend that custom saying, that a Martyr's merits were little enough for himself, without having any surplusage to help others withal: wherein yet he doth not seem to deny this application, if men have to spare of their own satisfactions, as no question many and almost all great Saints have. For though they may continually as long as they are in this world increase in grace and merits for so much as pertaineth to essential merit, without having to spare but rather still needing: which kind of merit, they cannot part with to others, yet for that other fruit of their works and sufferings, which pertaineth to satisfaction and temporal punishment dew for their own sins, they may have sufficient for themselves & to spare also to help others. For example a man falleth into some one sin, for which he cometh to be so sorry after, that he betaketh himself to a state of penance during his whole life, leading the same in great austerity of fasting, watching, praying, and in the exercise of all Virtues: and it may be having first obtained pardon of the fault itself by hearty contrition and humble confession, by those good works obtaineth also remission of the temporal punishment within the space of 1. 2. 3. 7. 10. or 12. years for examples sake: he then leading the same life still 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. years more as many have done what shall become of all that satisfaction, which is over and above for that sin or sins, which he committed before? it doth not perish nor pass without fruit, though not of him, yet of others at least, who are members of the same mystical body with him? so than some men have merits superaboundant to this effect, and these merits may be communicated to other members of the same body, and these merits are not lost nor forgotten by almighty God, though they be not applied presently; why may not they then be said to lie in deposito as money in a treasury?  
7. In this therefore is not the difference between our Indulgence and those which you allow; wherein then? I see not unless it be, that we extend our indulgence to the dead as indeed you seem to make it in part. To this I may answer first that it is another controversy, or another point at least of the same controversy. For Indulgences are applied in a different manner to the living and the dead: and that definition which you give that Indulgence is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment doth not pertain to the dead: for absolution is a juridical act to be performed by a Superior and judge towards an inferior and a subject being under his power: which the souls in Purgatory are not in respect of the Pope. Wherefore you in going to indulgence for the dead seem to allow them for the living, or rather show you cannot say against them. Now for applying indulgences to the dead though the manner of application be different and that we do not find examples altogether so ancient as of the former, yet the things is in some sort the same, supposing you grant the power of applying Indulgences to the living, as you cannot deny, your own ground being laid; thus therefore I show the matter to be the same, supposing another point also of faith, which is not here to be disputed of, to wit, the communion of Saints, or communication which is between the Saints living and dead, either reigning in heaven or suffering in satisfaction of their sins in Purgatory. This I say supposed the punishment which was dew here by the penitential canons may be taken away as you confess; which being not taken away by indulgence, nor suffered here according to the Canons, must be suffered there? why may it not then be taken away by applying indulgences to them there, as well as by works which other men may do for them here on earth. Which according to the Catholic faith are available for them there in Purgatory. Which communion, or communication among themselves being grounded in the society and unity which they have with Christ, why may not the same Unity and society be sufficient for them to partake of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and his Saints, who have gone before, and left that treasure of their merits, as well, as by the merits and sufferings of men living here upon earth? there is no difference then, nor reason why you should grant that ancient manner of indulgence and deny ours now a days; or why you should grant indulgences for the living, and not for the dead, so long as they pertain to the communion of Saints, and have need thereof.  
8. Now for that which you add here to make our Indulgences applied to the souls in Purgatory ridiculous, by saying we grant them for many thousand of years after death, thereto citing an old Sarum book of the hours of our Lady: it is false and idle. False both because your authority which you cite doth not mention Purgatory, but only saith that whosoever shall say these & these prayers, shall gain so many thousand years of pardon. Which is no more for the dead then for the living, but only that you do not understand the matter either of the one or other; or rather they are for the living only. For Indulgences are not to be applied to the dead, unless that be expressed in the grant, which is not so expressed in this grant of yours. It is also false because the very thing which you say, and would prove by your authority is false, to wit, that we give Pardons for thousand of years in Purgatory after death. For we do not so, neither do we understand those Pardons wherein are mentioned such numbers of years so, as if men were without those Pardons to remain so long in Purgatory. But we understand those years according to the penitential canons, by which many year's penance were dew for one sin. And many men's sins being both very grievous, and a man may say without number according to the account of the ancient penitential canons, they may soon amount to thousands of years; which though a man cannot live to perform here in this world, nor even in Purgatory for the length of time, yet he may in Purgatory in few year's space, nay few months or few week's space suffer so much punishment, as is answerable to all that penance of many thousands of years, which a man should have performed here if he could have lived so long: in which case a man may have a pardon of so many thousand years as well as a plenary, both coming to one. What strangeness then or impossibility is therein this discourse if you did understand it that you should think only by a scornful laugh to disgrace or disprove it? It is also idle for you to urge any thing that you find in any old book, as if that were presently of uncontrollable authority, being nothing so. For we defend nothing but what hath sufficient approbation or allowance of the Catholic Church, which many such old books as you cite want: you should therefore have added that withal if you had meant to prove any thing thereby.  
9 Now after this, you tell us, that long before Luther's days by relation of Thomas Aquinas, whom yet you cite not but only out of Valencia, some whereof opinion that ecclesiastical Indulgence of itself could remit no punishment, neither in the Court of God, nor of the Church, but that they were a pious kind of fraud to draw men to do good works, but this opinion you say the jesuit condemneth for erroneous? and why I pray you Sir could you not as well say that S. Thomas did condemn the same not only for erroneous, but impious also; but only because you would make your Reader think it was condemned only by the jesuit, and not by S. Thomas, or rather that he did as it were wink at it: but how fare S. Thomas was from that, and how free on the other side any man may see, by this, that putting the question in the 1. ar. of his ●5. q. of the Suppl. whither indulgences avail any thing, he maketh answer, that all grant that they avail something, because it were impious saith he, to say that the Church did do any thing in vain: and in the 2. art. ask how much they avail, he saith that some say they avail to every one but according to their faith and devotion he himsef saith, it is very perilous to say that they do not avail so much as they sound: that is, to so much effect or pardon, as they are given for. Wherefore the antiquity of this opinion nothing availeth you but rather doth you harm it being then condemned for an error: as likewise it availeth you not, that you bring half a dozen of our authors, witnessing that there is no express proof of Scripture nor of some ancient Fathers, as S. Aug. Hilary, Ambrose, etc. for Indulgences. For we grant there is not so express mention of them as of many other points, because there was not so much use of them, though out of some Fathers also much more ancient then S. Aug. Hilary Ambrose, etc. we prove the use of them, to wit, out of S. Cyprian and Tertullian as you may see in Bell. the one above 100 
Lib. 1. de indulg. cap. 3.  the other above 200. before any of these Fathers, and besides them the authority of certain Counsels as that of Nice, Ancyra and Laodicea though if we had not either of these Fathers, nor any else, nor of these Counsels yet would not that follow which you ground thereupon, to wit, that we want antiquity and consent of Fathers. For it is a most strong argument of antiquity, that it is the practice of the Catholic Church, time out of mind; and of consent that no man is found to have spoken against it, but only known Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences: 
Bell. lib. 1. de indulg. cap. 1  therefore you are still out of your bias, when you think to prove the novelty of our doctrine, by our want of testimony of antiquity. For though we have such testimony for superaboundant proof, yet it is enough that such a thing is thought and practised in Catholic Church, without any memory when it began, for that is S. Augustine's rule continually to prove a thing not only ancient, but even Apostolical.  
10. But now to come to your authors in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences. 
ap. Bell. lib. 1. de indulg. cap. 2.  Whereto I answer that it is true, Durand doth not speak so constantly and resolutely of the treasure of the Church, in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints, whereon Indulgences are partly grounded; but he is far from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof, much less of Indulgences; for, supposing them as a thing most certain, he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Divines of his time did: and making this the first question: 
Dur. in 4. dist. 20. q. 3.  an aliquid valeant indulgentiae: whether Indulgences avail any thing, after the manner of Schools he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument, Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expressly in this place, he saith thus. In contrarium est generalis consuetudo & doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita. On the contrary is the general custom and doctrine of the Church which would contain falsehood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiven by indulgences; and then having set down his resolution that there cannot be much said of certain because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers, whom he there nameth, yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences; the common manner is to be followed: and so goeth on with other questions, per quem modum valeant, ex qua causa vaeleant, quis eas possit concedere: in what manner they avail, out of what cause, who can grant them, etc. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it, yet in others he speaketh plainly and clearly in these words. 
Dur. 4. dist. 20. q. 3.  Est in ecclesia, etc. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments than their sins deserved and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may be sufficient to satisfy for their sins either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or less which are nothing else but the communication of the pain of Christ and the Saints to us to satisfy for our sins. Wherefore indulgences avail by way of solution or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the pain dew to us is paid. So far this author most clearly, truly, & catholicly; though after again he somewhat doubt of this treasure, as I said before, in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saints. Now for the very place which you allege you commit a fault in making it seem as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences, and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome only for examples sake: whereas it is far otherwise. For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome. So as it is plain he spoke only of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general. And so much for Durand.  
11. As for Alphonsus à Castro another of your authors, he denieth not all testimony of Scripture, as none of the rest do, but only plain & express testimony; and though he also confess the use of Indulgences not to have been so much in those ancient times, as since, yet he alloweth of them so far, as to condemn any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them: these are his words. 
Alph. a Castr. de haeres. lib. 8. verb. Indulgent.  Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione, S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit, non tamen ideo contemnendae erant, quoniam ecclesiae. Catholicae usus a multis annorum centurijs, tantae est authoritatis, ut qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur. But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences, they are not therefore to be contemned, because the use of the Catholic church for many hundreds of years, is of so great authority, that whosoever contemned the same is worthily esteemed an haeretique. And again in the same place. Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum (to wit, indulgentiarum) usus ut ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis utrumque colligi potest. Among the Romans this use of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Stations at Rome Look you Sir Humphrey what a witness you have brought for yourself? Do you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences; Confessing even the use of them to be most ancient and of many hundred years standing? nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did grant some Indulgences, which is above a thousand years? Do you not hear how much he giveth to the Church acknowledging the practice thereof to be of so great authority that whosoever denyeth the truth of a thing so practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique? What think you now of yourself? to be called haeretique out of your own mouth as it were, that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you? For Castro his authority then though it had been more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had been better have let it alone then to have it with such a condition. The like a man may say of every author you bring here for the same purpose but that it is needless to stand so long upon examining every one in particular.  
12. Now after such good authorities as you bring against Indulgences you think you may with authority prate very freely of the Pope's selling of Indulgences, and bringing money to his own coffers by them, but to that I need make no other answer but that it is such riff-raff stuff as your Ministers are wont to eke out their books and sermons, without being able to show any bull of Pope, or testimony of good author of any Indulgence so granted, which though you or they could, yet were is not to the purpose, no more than your profane jest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence? For what? suppose that were true, might not a man think you tell as good a tale of some Protestants, who in their pots have made so bold with almighty God himself, as to drink an health unto him? and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God? besides Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite, for it is most like you are no Italian, is forbidden in the Roman Index: that Curio being an Haeretique of the first class. But passing from your merriments you tell us seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Council to determine an uncertain Doctrine, upon the Pope's infallibility and opinion of Schoolmen? but you venture to say it is a weak and senseless faith that giveth assent to it without authority of Scriptures, and consent of Fathers. Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure, to say it is presumption, by saying you will not say so: but Sir Humphrey I will go the plain way to work with you; and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you, suppose you were a man of learning, to take upon you to censure of presumption so great a Council as that of Trent, wherein the whole flower of the Catholic Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together, the splendour whereof was so great that your night owl Haeretiques durst not once appear, though they were invited and promised to go and come freely with all the security they could wish: and for such a fellow as you, to make yourself judge thereof what intolerable presumption is it? it is presumption with you forsooth for a Council to define a point of faith upon the perpetual and constant belief and practice of the Catholic Church & upon the common consent of Doctors, being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselves, there being withal sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath ever been understood by Catholic interpreters: and yet it is not presumption for you, without Doctor, without Father, without Council, without Scripture, without any manner of authority to go against all this authority.  
13. Now whereas you say it is a senseless and weak faith that gives assent to doctrine as necessary to be believed, which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers. I answer, you do not know what you say: it showeth plainly you have not read one of those Fathers of whom you so much brag, who all agree, that there be many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten tradition, whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine: 
De verbo Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7.  but for consent of Fathers: it is true, it is requisite because we have not the tradition but by consent of Fathers: but this consent of Fathers is no more required to be by their express testimonies in writing, then in the Scripture itself. For where do you find that the holy Fathers did know, believe, or practice no more but what they did write? or that any one did write in particular all the whole belief of the Catholic Church? the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs, that is write of this or that particular matter, as the particular occasion of answering some Haeretique or instructing some Catholic did require, and therefore mentioned no more than was needful for that end. But the consent of Fathers is most of all proved, by the practice of the Catholic Church, of the present time, seeing that practice being without beginning cannot otherwise have been but from those that have gone before from time to time: and though you make a difference, yet certainly it is the same of the consent of Catholic Doctors in the present time, as it was of holy Fathers in former times who were the Doctors of those times; and as they were Fathers not so properly in respect of those times wherein they lived, as of succeeding ages, so the Doctors of these times are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them. Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholic Church more err in one time then another; the authority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being always the same, no less in one time then another. 
Tert. de praescr. cap. 28.  And Tertullian's rule having still place as well in one age as another, to wit: Quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum. That which is the same amongst many is no error but a tradition. The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is always a sufficient argument of tradition, and antiquity; and consequently a sufficient ground for a Council to define a matter of faith against whatsoever novel fancy of any Haeretique, that shall take upon him to control the same. This I do not say, that we want sufficient proof of antiquity for any point; but to show that we need it not so express in ancient authors but that the very practice of the Catholic Church is sufficient to stop the mouth of any contentious Haeretique, no less then in ancient times, when that proof of foregoing Writers could have no place. For so S. Paul thought he answered sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy, 
1. Cor. 11.  when he said: Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei. If any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom, nor the Church of God. And so much more may we now say of our long continued customs of many hundreds of years. Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Council of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences, without such testimony of scripture & antiquity as you require, is vain; as that is also false which you here again repeat, that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures. For faith is more ancient than Scripture: for to say nothing of the times before Christ, faith was taught by Christ himself without writing, as also by his Apostles after him for many years without any word written, and so it hath been ever the common consent of all holy and learned men that as no less credit was to be given to the Apostolical preaching, then Writing; so no less credit is still to be given to their words delivered us by tradition, then by their writings, the credit and sense even of their writings depending upon the same tradition, among whom the clean contrary principle is as certain and undoubted, as this of yours is with you and yours Ministers.  
14. 
See Tert. de praescr. cap. 21. Epiph. Chrisost. Basil.  The particular testimonies you may see in Bellarmine to whom I remit you only for S. Aug. I cannot omit to make more particular mention of him in this place, by reason of a certain sentence which you have brought in the end of this §. as also of every one of the 6. 
Damascen. & alios. ap. Bell. de verb. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7.  foregoing §§. still concluding with this saying of that holy Father. Sive de Christo, five etc. Whether concerning Christ, or concerning the Church, or concerning any other thing that pertaineth to our faith, I will not say we, who are no way to be compared to him that said, but if an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you beside what you have received in the legal and evangelical scriptures, let him be anathema. And in the end of every one for the most part adding the particular controversy of that §. as for example in this of Indulgences you say, if we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any thing concerning the faith of Indulgences, besides that you have received etc. and so in every of the other particular points. Whereby you would persuade your Reader that Saint Aug. would have nothing believed but what can be proved by express words of Scripture. Wherein I appeal to your own conscience as bad as it is, whither this be not damnable dishonest dealing both towards S. Aug. and towards your Reader. For if you have read S. Aug. as you pretend, how can you be ignorant how many points of faith he doth defend against several Haeretiques either only or chief by the tradition and Practice of the Catholic Church: 
De Bap. c●nt Donat. lib. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 5. cap. 23.  as single Baptism against the Donatists, Consubstantiality of the son, Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and even unbegottenesse of the Father the first person in Trinity against the Arrians: and the Baptism of Children against Pelagius? to say nothing of prayer for the Dead. 
Cont. Maxi. lib. 3. cap. 3. & ep. 174. de Genes. ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. De cura pro mortuis. ep. 118.  Observation of the Feasts of Easter, Ascension, Whitsuntide and the like; nay this truth was so grounded with him, that he counted it most insolent madness to dispute against the common opinion and practice of the Catholic Church. Which is of so great authority with him as that he saith in one place that when we follow it, we follow the truth of the Scriptures; these are his words. Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus etc. 
Lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 33.  The truth of the Scripture is held by us when we do that which seemeth good to the whole Church: which Church the authority of the Scriptures themselves do commend, that because the holy Scripture cannot deceive whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question may have recourse to the Church, the which the holy Scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate unto us: so he there: and, that it may farther appear that to deny this authority and practice of the Church is not only to deny the authority of Scripture but even of Christ himself. I cannot here omit to note a place of the same Saint his book de unit. ecclesiae. Where he treateth this very point very particularly and excellently so as to take away all doubt of his opinion therein. For here he doth of purpose intent to show that where plain proof of Scripture is wanting we must have recourse to the Church: proving it thus, by occasion of the question of rebaptisation and supposing that there is no proof of Scripture either way. Puto si aliquis sapiens etc. I think (saith he) if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony (to wit, 
Aug. de Vnit. eccles. cap 22.  of his wisdom) and that he should be asked in this question we should not doubt to do what he should say lest we should seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was commended. Now Christ beareth witness of his Church. And a little after again he saith, that Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself. Who by his testimony commendeth the Church. By which discourse and comparison any man may see that in S. Augustine's judgement the Church's word is warranted by Christ as much as if he should have named any one man in particular whose words he would make good and whom consequently we should follow & that by refusing or leaving him: we should leave Christ himself. So as nothing can be more plain and evident to declare this holy Father's opinion in this point of the Church's authority in the belief and practice even of things not expressed in Scripture. And this may sufficiently convince you Sir Humphrey of malicious deceit, in alleging that other place of this holy Father so contrary to his meaning, declared in so many places, and so plainly.  
15. But because you may yet make difficulty in this testimony, which you allege as though it alone should stand against all other that can be alleged out of him, and that no interpretation of any man else, can be able to satisfy you, I will allege his own words interpreting the meaning of S. Paul's words, which he allegeth & useth in this testimony to show that the word (beside) doth not import, that a man must not believe any thing but that which is expressed in Scripture, but that a man must not believe any thing contrary. For thus he saith. The Apostle did not say if any man evamgelize to you more than you have received, 
Aug. to. 98. in Io.  but beside that which you have received. For if he should say that, he should prejudicate (that is go against) himself, who coveted to come to the Thessalonians that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith. But he that supplieth addeth that which was lacking taketh not away that which was &c. These are the Saints very words in that place. By which it is plain that he taketh the word (praeter) beside not in that sense as to signify more than is written as you would understand it; but to signify the same that (contra) against or contrary to what is written. For otherwise there would be no sense in his saying or opposition consisting of two members with difference of the one from the other. Which to be his meaning is yet more plain by his whole discourse, which is to show what manner of knowledge or private revelation is to be admitted: & indeed there he alloweth of such as it not against the rule of the Catholic faith contra regulam Catholicae fidei: & reprehends only in Haeretiques such kind of knowledge as is also contrary or against the rule of faith, and then objecting this very place which you so often repeat out of S. Paul to himself, he answereth it by expounding the word praeter in the same sense with contra. Which standeth very well also with the propriety of the Latin word: and for the Greek it the same both here Gal. v. 8. and Rom. 16.17. Where there is a like sentence of S. Paul's wishing the Romans to mark & avoid such as put scandals and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine, which they had received. The word I say is the same; (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusative case which doth signify as well if not better contra then praeter; and in your own bibles you translate it in that place to the Romans contrary to the doctrine. I see not therefore why you should not understand it alike in both places? But to return to S. Augustine, the thing being so; I may justly ask of you Sir Humphrey whether you have not so often affronted this holy Father as you have repeated this sentence so contrary to his meaning, in your own most false and absurd sense, to the subversion of your Readers, drawing his words from their true Catholic sense which he hath so often and so seriously inculcated upon several occasions, to the establishing of your perverse and haeretical principles, so much by him ever detested. But there is a counting day Sir Humphrey, as little as you think of it, for this & all other matters, wherein also this Saint will reckon with you in particular & you are like to feel the heavy doom of him and all others whom you have so freely affronted in this kind. But mean while I trust in the goodness of God by the prayers of this holy Saint that those well meaning people that shall take the pains for their own souls good to peruse this answer, willbe able thereby to discover, and proclaim to others so much of your dealing, as that any thing you have said, or shall ever say will be able to do little harm to any, but such as shall wilfully run upon their own ruin. And so Sir Humphrey I shall make an end of this §. and Section wherein is contained the chief matter of your whole book so as I hope there willbe less to do with that which followeth.    


Chap. 10.  Of the 10. Section entitled thus. The testimonies of our adversary's touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith and the uncertainty of the Romish. CHAPTER X.  
1. SIr Humphrey having in the two former Sections proved the antiquity and Universality of his faith both in general & in particular, (as he would have us think;) cometh now to prove the certainty thereof and uncertainty of ours. Where a man would expect he should bring some new thing either reason or authority, but he doth neither, but only upon the rotten ground which he supposeth he hath laid very sound in the precedent Sections, he goeth on very confidently with the certainty of his faith, and making a short preface, how he hath out of our own authors proved, that the faith & doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome was not known informer ages: and that though the Priests, especially jesuits are bound by oath to maintain the Papacy, yet that it can not be denied, but that we have testified against ourselves in behalf of his doctrine, and howsoever we excuse the matter, yet we are divided among ourselves, and so want unity of faith. After this preface I say, he maketh a short review of our confessions for him, in matter of justification, transubstantiation, private Mass, Sacraments, Communion in one kind, prayer in an unknown tongue, Worshipping of Images and Indulgences. Upon which he calleth men & Angels to witness, that we have no antiquity, & universality, and that consequently we have resolved the grand question touching their Church before Luther, to wit, that it was in Christ, in the Apostles, in the Fathers, in the bosom of the ancient Church before Luther's tyme. This is the sum of almost half this Section, in all which I must appeal, gentle Reader, to thy indifferent judgement. Whether there be a true word or no? For supposing that thou hast read what is gone before, thou wilt easily see, that though it were not my task here to prove the antiquity of the points of our Faith, or universality, or any thing else; but only to answer the fond objections of Sir Humphrey; Yet I have accidentally and by the way proved the same in most points, and by the same authors, and places, which he bringeth against us; and his failing in his proofs of our novelty, is sufficient proof of our antiquity, and his own novelty.  
2. What a shameful boast than is it for him to say, that most of our points now taught were unknown to antiquity: For though some might perchance not have been so anciently defined, and consequently doubted of by some, yet to say they were not commonly believed and much more to say they were not known, cannot come from any man but such a blind but bold Bayard as Sir Humphrey Lined. For if one man or two doubt of a thing, must it therefore be unknown? when not only one or two on the other side, but two for one, or rather ten, nay a hundred for one say the contrary. Now let him name that one of his points of faith here by him disputed, wherein not only since it was defined, which is enough for our purpose, but even before that; we shall not bring him a great many, that held that way, which it was defined, for every one of those that held the other way. How then could it be unknown? The next thing in his preface is of an Oath, which our Priests, especially jesuits take, to defend the Papacy and doctrine of the Church of Rome. But if a man should ask him where he findeth this Oath, he would not be able so readily to tell us; though if he could, I see not why any man should be ashamed of it: nay why he should not glory of so heroical an act, as is an oath: whereby he bindeth himself to the defence of the authority, whereon the weight & frame of the whole Catholic Church, and salvation of all souls from Christ his own time to the very end of the world, hath, doth, and still shall depend. But this I only note for the Knight's ignorance; for I believe the thing he would be at, is the fourth vow of the jesuits, Whereby they specially bind themselves in Obedience to the Sea Apostolic, to go in Mission to any part of the world, whether infidel or haeretique; which is a little different at least from that which he talketh of an oath to defend the Papacy.  
3. The third thing in his preface is want of Unity wherewith he chargeth us. Whereof I only say that as we confess there may be difference of judgements before a definition of faith, so let him show the division after such definition. Let him name that man, and we will give him leave to take him for his own, to increase his Church and make up his number of learned men: for no man but an haeretique can dispute against what is once defined. Catholic Doctors may indeed differ in opinion so long as a thing is undefined. For so long it is not faith, but when it is once defined they must be silent and concur all in one, because than it is matter of faith. Which agreement and concurrence of opinion in such a case showeth there was still before a kind of radical union, that is, a praeparation of mind or promptness to submit to Authority of the Church when it should show itself: Wherefore whatsoever he or any man else shall say of our differences are but arguments for the unity and certainty of our belief.  
4. Now for his review of all his. 8. points, it is but a review indeed; wherein he taketh all that he said before for true, as if he had carried all smooth before him, which proving quite contrary, all this review and discourse builded thereon, falleth to the ground. Neither will I stand examining them all here again, but remit the Reader to what is said particularly of each one in his own place. Only here I will reflect upon his conclusion, which is a witnessing of men and Angels, that we have no antiquity and Universality for proof of our articles. For his protestations and witnessings, there are many examples gone before which show how foolish, false, and hypocritical they are: of this therefore I say no more, but that it may go with the rest. But I ask him how he proveth, we have no antiquity? For his first point, he laboureth to prove against our justification by words out of a Ritual in S. Anselmes' days some five hundred years since, that the sick party was to put all his trust in Christ's merits. Which thing I shown to be nothing against us. Wherein then hath he derogated from the antiquity and Universality of our Doctrine? and though that proof had been good, that is to say, against what we teach of justification, what could the bare authority of so late a work have prejudiced our antiquity, which we maintain 1000 years before that time? Or what could that doctrine taught in such an obscure book of I know not whose writing, nor of what authority and but in a corner of the world, prejudice the Universality of our doctrine taught in all times, in all countries, by Fathers and Doctors in their several times, and in general Counsels? or doth it show his doctrine to be ancient because it was taught 500 since, or Universal because it was taught in England? noe such matter. In his second point of transubstantiation he bringeth one man saying the words of consecration do not of themselves without the explication of the Church prove the realnes of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, another man saying they do not prove transubstantiation, or that it was defined but in the Council of Lateran about 500 years ago, to which: We answer again that those one or two say nothing against us, in the points of controversy with haeretiques, and even in that which they teach contrary to the common consent of Divines, though in matters not defined, we say they are reproved not by one or two, but by all the whole current of Catholic Divines, what is this then against the antiquity of our Doctrine? or doth it prove his Doctrine to be ancient or universal? nay doth it prove it any Doctrine at all? For what can any man tell by this what he believes, much less whither it be true or no which he believeth? may not another man that denieth the Protestant-Lord's-Supper prove the antiquity and universality of his doctrine or rather his denial of doctrine as the Knight doth his, and by the same argument: Because a man denieth one point of ours, doth he presently allow all his? may not he find a third way of his own different from both: and if the Reader please to mark it, all the knight's proof of antiquity is the denial or doubt made by some one of our Writers though that one of ours be much more against him in other things, as a man may see both in Caietane, Scotus, and the rest as I said before. His discourse then in this is as devoid of reason, as his Doctrine is of antiquity.  
5. In his ●. point, he bringeth a great many authorities to prove that anciently the people did communicate every day with the Priest, which we grant: and ask again what this derogateth from the antiquity of our Doctrine or how it proveth that a Priest is bound to forbear saying Mass, if there be no body to communicate or that it is ill and unlawful for him to say Mass in that case? or how it proveth the antiquity or universality of his doctrine, that denieth all Mass? nay do not we moreover ex abundanti prove, that the custom of the people's daily Communion did cease, even in the Primitive Church, and yet that some Priests did say Mass daily? Do not we then prove our antiquity not only by disproof of his erroneous novelty, but even by positive proofs drawn from antiquity? Concerning the number of Sacraments he saith, some teach there be 3. some 4. some 5. some 6; that some say of this Sacrament it was not instituted by Christ, others of that, some say this Sacrament is not proved out of this place of Scripture, another not out of the other. Now suppose all this were true, as I have disproved him almost in every word he sayeth, and shown his folly, Doth this prove the antiquity or universality of his Doctrine? is not the number of 5. or 6. as fare from his number of two, as from ours of 7. and the number of 3. or 4. as incompatible with his number of two as with ours of seven? What madness is it then in a man, to think by this disproving of our number, to think his own to be so presently proved, as if a man could not deny 7. but he must affirm only two? For as for his proof out of some Fathers, naming of two, he confesseth others name three, others 5. some more some less: which he bringeth to disprove our seven: but how doth it stand with his two? So of his Communion in one Kind he saith out of many of our authors it was anciently used in both, and we grant it; but we say it was also used in One many times, and might have been more and may also be now in One or both, as it shall seem good to the Church, according to diverse circumstances, in whose power is the administration of the Sacraments. How doth the affirming of the former part, or denying of the later prove the antiquity of his doctrine which is, that it is not lawful to administer in one kind. For public Prayer he saith out of some of our authors, it was used in a known tongue in the Primitive Church. We grant it and say it is so still. For as Hebrew, Greek and Latin were then the most known tongues in which only the Scriptures were written and publicly read, so the same languages are still used partly because they are sacred and partly because they are most known. What then maketh that against our Latin Mass? or rather is it not a proof of our antiquity and disproof of his novelty? Against image-worship he talketh of the 2. Commandment, and the hate of the jews against Images. He bringeth the testimonies of some Haeretiques against them, and the saying of some one Divine of the manner of worship, and the reprehension of others against the abuses committed in the adoration of them: out of all which setting the testimonies of Haeretiques a part, I ask what he would conclude? Or how he disproveth our Worship which we allow? or how the reprehension of abuses in some of the simpler sort of Catholics, suppose there be some such abuses, proveth the lawfulness of his Image breaking, or the truth and antiquity of his doctrine? though his Doctrine, in this point be but only the denial of ours. Now we prove over and above out of ancient Fathers and Counsels the antiquity of our Worshipping of Saints and their pictures. Lastly of Indulgences he saith out of some of our Divines, that there is no express testimony of Scripture and Fathers for the antiquity of them. To which we answer that as, this notwithstanding these very men do not deny the antiquity of Indulgences for want of such proof, so others also prove the ancient use of them, even out of other most ancient Fathers of the primitive Church. Howsoever the controversy amongst those Divines is not of the Indulgences themselves, or doctrine, but only of the Use of them: or suppose it were so that one or two Divines did think amiss of them, doth that prove the antiquity of his Doctrine? may not those very Divines, be against him in other things. What ancient author of authority hath he brought to prove his Doctrine? not Durand, nor any man else whosoever is by him pretended to think hardest of them: & though he had Durand wholly for him, how could his bare authority or saying make the denying doctrine ancient being but 400. years ago, or universal being but one man and contradicted by others.  
6. And thus having made a review opposite to his, I would fain see what any man can find should move Men, much less Angels to witness the antiquity or universality of his Doctrine? nay doth not his manner of proof rather show the sleightness and novelty thereof together with the strange vanity of a braving Knight that braggeth his Church before Luther was in Christ, in the Apostles, in the Fathers, in the bosom of the ancient Church: praetending right to the Fathers, Apostles, and CHRIST without showing any shadow of Succession, that being the only thing which he was to have done here, and indeed the only proper proof for a man that will profess right to such ancestors. And this was indeed the proof which Tertullian did exact at the hands of some Haeretiques who claimed antiquity and would needs have their Doctrine pass for Apostolic because they were in the Apostles times. 
Tert. de praescr. cap. 32.  Edant ergo, saith he, origines ecclesiarum suarum, evoluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis etc. Let them show the beginnings of their Churches, let them unroull or lay open the order or Catalogues of their Bishops so running by Successions from the beginning, that that first Bishop had for author or Praedessor some one of the Apostles, or Apostolical men, who yet have persevered with the Apostles. For in this manner the Apostolic Churches draw down their pedigrees, as the Church of Smyrna recounteth Polycarpe placed by john, the Roman church Clement ordained by Peter: & so other Churches show whom they have had placed Bishops by the Apostles, as it were branches of the Apostolical seed. Let the Haeretiques feign any such thing. So he. Do you hear Tertullian Sir Humphrey? brag then if you think good still, we give you leave, that your Church was anciently in Christ, in the Apostles, Fathers, and bosom of the ancient Church, without showing any such Succession of Bishops drawn down from the Apostles.  
7. Now than that you have spoken so well of the certainty of your own belief, let us hear what you say of the uncertainty of ours, wherewith you begin thus. That for farther proof of your cause, you will give another summons to the prime men even of our grand inquest, who without partiality will testify on your behalf, that your Church is built upon a more stable and sure foundation, than the now Roman Church; and that your doctrine is more fruitful and profitable, and every way more safe and comfortable for the belief of every Christian, and salvation of the believer. Which you prove laying way for a ground what Bellarmine saith, that no man can be certain by the certainty of faith, that he doth receive a true Sacrament; because that depends upon the intention of the Minister, whereof no man can be certain. By which one tenet (you say,) we overthrew all certainty of true faith. Which you exemplify in Baptism wherein if there want the intention of the Baptizer, the Baptised is still an heathen, and in state of damnation: So of Order if the intention of the Ordainer fail, it is no Sacrament; and consequenty, if this intention were wanting in the ordination of Popes, all succeeding Ordinations would be void so also. Of Matrimony if the intention of the Minister want, it is but Fornication, etc. Thus you roll on Sir Humphrey in your discourse, but you must give us leave to have a word or two with you, before you go farther. You give another summons to the prime men of our grand inquest, wherein notwithstanding I do not find that you observe any order or number of your jurours, as is wont to be observed in a jury: Whereupon I began to think that you used this phrase of summons, and grand inquest, for the ever honoured memory of your dear deceased Father who was one of the most famous grand jury men of Middlesex in his time, from whom it seemeth you have learned only the name of a grand inquest, but not the right order of impanelling your jury, nor even the right number of your jurours. The foreman of your jury (though you call him not so) is Bellarmine; whom you make to give up his verdict against the certainty of our faith, because he saith no man can be certain he receiveth a true Sacrament. Which you say overthroweth all certainty of faith. But I pray you good Sir Humphrey say truly, are you in earnest or in jest? me thinks by the matter you should mean only in jest it is so idle: but though this were your best excuse, yet because you may take that ill I take you in earnest, as you seem to mean it, and ask what certainty you or any Protestant hath, or can have that you are Christians, if you think that your Christianity dependeth upon the Sacrament of Baptism. If you think it do not, (as it is the doctrine of the Puritans indeed;) that Baptism is not any cause of grace, but only a sign or seal of the adoption, which they receive by carnal propagation from their faithful parents; and it seemeth also yours, by what you say both here and before in your 4. §. of Sacraments in the definition of a Sacrament; if, I say, you think so, than I confess you need not fear the Minister's want of intention, but that pertaineth to another disputation: but yet you have as little certainty or less of your christendom still, for what know you whither your Parents were of the faithful, or no; that is, whither they did believe there was a God, or what they did believe of him: and so of your own Children if their christendom depend upon yours or your wife's faith, it may be they may be much more uncertain thereof, than we are by depending upon our Priest's intention; for no man can know your inward belief: but find you what you will, we shall still find some man's intention or other that shall make your faith or Christendom uncertain, unless you can prove you were Christened by God himself: which sure you will not go about to do.  
8. But howsoever you extenuate the force and necessity of Baptism, for Matrimony, I suppose you will not wholly abrogate it, though you put it out from among the Sacraments; and of it I ask what certainty you can have of the lawfulness of your own Marriage, or legitimation of you children? You cannot say but the validity of that contract dependeth upon the intention and consent of the parties, though not of your Minister; as we also say it dependeth not upon the intention of our Priest, but of the parties which marry, which we say commonly are the Ministers in this Sacrament. Wherefore if (for example) your wife had no intention when she spoke the words of Marriage, it is no Marriage but fornication and consequently your Children are bastards, nay though the matter should have depended wholly upon your own intention in your marriage and that you be a great deal more sure of it than you can be as it is now depending upon your wife's intention also, yet is that surety fare from the certainty of divine faith, and so you are in no better case for that matter than we. For Order I might likewise instance the same among you but a small deal of Order serves your turns, for I see not any thing done by virtue of your Ordination; which any man or woman may not do without it. Therefore for us I answer, it is clean a different thing of the certainty of the Catholic faith, which we maintain, and of every man's private or particular belief of his own justification, or salvation which we deny to be so certain, the one being grounded upon the authority of God's divine truth and revelation, the other upon humane knowledge, or rather conjecture; it is one thing to say there be 7. Sacraments, and that these Sacraments, do give grace, where they are duly administered, with all things requisite on the part both of the giver and receiver; and another to say they are so to me: that is that in my receiving of any one of them, all things have concurred both on the Priest's part and mine; the former is revealed by God, and propounded by his Church; the later is not revealed in any scripture, and therefore by your own rule can be no matter of faith. For the inconvenience therefore which you say may follow (though any way that you can invent, I do not think but there willbe two for one, and fare greater) I answer, that though in matter of Baptism, Ordination etc. there may happen some defect in this, or that particular case for want of intention, matter, form, or the like, yet it belongeth to the providence of almighty God, not to permit any universal or even great defect to happen and so though we be not certain by certainty of divine faith, that this or that man in particular is truly baptised, and ordained a Priest, yet we are certain by the certainty of divine faith, that not only there be such Sacraments but that they are also truly administered in the Catholic Church so as there can be no danger of the failing of either, or of any danger which may ensue thereupon, to the notable prejudice of faith and salvation of souls; and withal though we be not certain by certainty of faith of every particular, yet we have moral certainty, that is as much certainty as there can be of any humane thing, which dependeth of the action or intention of any man; which as we see it is enough for men to rest themselves secure in all worldy matters, concerning their lives, and goods, which most men prise above their souls, so it may also give a man sufficient security in matters of his soul, especially since as we say, if he be not wanting to himself, almighty God will not of his goodness suffer him through another man's fault to want any thing necessary for his salvation: but will incite him to contrition for forgiveness of his sins, or to make doubt and seek whether he have those necessary things or no? But yet with this security there remaineth a place for an holy fear which may keep down our pride and make us shake of all torpour exercising ourselves in good works and working our salvation with fear and trembling. But of this kind of faith it is not that we mean when we dispute with haeretiques of the certainty of true faith, but of faith as it is a belief and doctrine delivered in general abstracting from this or that man, whether he believe aright or be certain of his belief, that is, that he believeth; wherefore Sir Humphrey in changing the question, herein, you commit a notable gross aequivocation of terms which is a fowl fault in a Scholar as you are forsooth.  
9 But from this you pass to another point of uncertainty, or rather an other kind of proof of our uncertainty thus. You say we are uncertain whether the Saints hear our prayers or not: and whither some that we pray unto be Saints in heaven or devils in hell: the later you prove out of Caiet. because he saith that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the canonisation of Saints, cannot be infallibly known, and out of Saint August. and Sulpitius, the one saying some were tormented in hell, which were worshipped on earth, the other saying that the common people worshipped for a Martyr one that was damned, and who appeared and told them so: the former uncertainty to wit whether the Saints hear our prayers, 
Gab. in can. lect. 31. Mag. in 4. d. 45.  you prove out of Gabr. and Pet. Lomb. the one saying it is not certain, but it may seem probable that God revealeth unto Saints all those suits which men present unto them. The other that it is not incredible that the Souls of Saints hear the prayers of their suppliants. Well be it so Sir Hum. let it be uncertain as you say it is whether the Saints hear our prayers or not: yet it follows not for all that, that our doctrine of invocation of Saints is uncertain. For as Bellar. well noteth, it might be good and profitable to invoke the Saints though they themselves should not hear us but only almighty God for them, what are you the better then? But besides it is not uncertain whether the Saints hear us or Noah, that is, it is not uncertain whether they know our prayers or not. For though there be question of the manner how they know them; yet there is no question but that they do know them. Neither is Gabriel's authority or Peter Lombard's by you alleged any thing to the contrary. For they only make doubt of the manner without any doubt of the thing itself, as is most manifest by their very discourse and words, in those very places where you took out your; for thus, saith Gabriel. Non invocantur Sancti tanquam datores bonorum pro quibus oramus, sed tanquam intercessores apud Deum bonorum omnium largitorem. The Saints are invocated not as the givers of good things for which we pray; but as intercessors to God the giver of all good. Where you see he speaketh not doubtfully, but certainly of invocation: and so goeth on with his discourse proving, that notwithstanding that almighty God be of himself most propitious and merciful, yet that doth not hinder but that the Saints may pray for us; and after that falleth to discourse of the manner how the Saints hear our prayers. The like, I may say of Peter Lombard. Who though he say only in those words which you bring, that it is not incredible that the Saints hear our prayers, yet for their hearing or seeing our prayers in the word of God as the Angels do, he maketh no doubt. Sicut enim Angelisit, a etiam Sanctis qui Deo assistunt, petitiones nostrae innotescunt in verbo Dei quod contemplantur, saith he: For as our prayers become known to the Angels in the word of God which they behold so also to the Saints who stand before God. So as here is something more Sir Humphrey with your good leave then probability and uncertainty, in the judgement of these Doctors, though you be pleased to conclude out of them that there is nothing but probability and uncertainty: though if there were but probability only it were more than you have for any point of your faith as it is yours.  
10. For Caietan's authority concerning the miracles whereon the canonisation of Saints is grounded, it is true as he saith, the authority of them is but humane as relying upon the testimony of man. But what then? ergo we are uncertain whether the canonised Saint be in heaven or no? this is your conclusion, and it is like one of yours indeed. But I answer that it followeth not; for the certainty of canonisation dependeth upon a more certain ground, to wit, the authority of the Sea Apostolic, and continual assistance and direction of the Holy Ghost the Spirit of truth, to whom it belongeth not to suffer Christ's Vicar using humane diligence, and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment to err: and the proof of miracles is only used, that he may proceed prudently, & upon good ground, & in that sense Miracles are said to ground the canonisation of Saints, not that the certainty of the one doth wholly depend on the certainty of the other. So as Caietan helpeth you not a jot to prove the uncertainty of our canonisation of Saints, no more than doth S. Aug. and Sulpitius in those authorities which you bring out of them. For they speak not a word of any canonised Saint. And as for the place of S. Aug. Bellarm. answereth that perhaps it is not his, which word perhaps you take hold of, as if you would make your Reader think it is but a slender answer, or rather a grant of the authority: whereas it is far otherwise. For Bell. useth that word out of modesty, because as he saith he could never find it in any work of S. Aug. Which notwithstanding, he will not say peremptorily it is not there, but if you will needs have it S. Augustin's, Sir Humphrey tell us where out of your great reading, & then you shall find 3. or 4. several answers ready in Bellarmine, without any peradventures: and indeed any man of ordinary wit will presently see the place doth not urge a whit. For who doth doubt but many dead men are mightily honoured by some men here upon earth, whose souls are buried full low in hell: another answer of Bellarmine's is; that if there be any such place in S. Aug. it may be very well understood of the Martyrs of the Donatists, who were honoured by those haeretiques for Martyrs whose souls were tormented in Hell: as the same B. Saint saith of them elsewhere. 
Aug. ep. 68  Vivebant ut latrones, honorabantur ut Martyrs. They lived as thiefs and were honoured as Martyrs: But what is this to our canonised Saints? is here any the least shadow thereof? For that story of Sulpitius, it is true, that there was one worshipped by the people for a Martyr indeed, but he was fare from any canonisation of the Church. For as the Story saith, S. Martin seeing the people worship a dead man, & not knowing what he was, nor having any certainty from those that went before, of him, he misliked their devotion, and prayed to God that he might know what Man that was, & so by the appointment of God the man appeared, and confessed himself to have been an high way thief that was put to death by the hand of justice for his wickedness. This is the story and this we allege as a reason among others why the judgement of the Church is necessary in the canonisation of Saints, that people may not be deceived in worshipping wicked men for Saints, giving the honour, dew to almighty God's friends, to his enemies. It is therefore good sport to so a right learned knight as you are forsooth by a new strain of wit to bring it to prove the uncertainty of our canonisation, wherein you must argue thus. Some people in S. Martin's time did err in worshipping a dead thief for a Saint, without any sufficient reason or approbation of the Church, ergo Catholics may err in worshipping of Saints canonised and authorized by the Church, upon great and evident proofs of their holy lives and deaths, and upon many and manifest miracles. Is not this a trim argument to be printed and reprinted?  
11. In the next place you come with the uncertainty of Purgatory whereof you say S. Aug. saith thus. It is not incredible that some such thing should be after this life, but whether it be so or no it may be a question. You say also for the place, where it is, or how long souls continue there, whither there be fire or water, or whither material fire or Noah, there is nothing certain among us: You cite Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and Bellarmine, whose words I pass over as needless; and than you tell us that S. Greg. who gave the first credo to Purgatory saith some are purged by fire, some by hit baths? and upon certain apparitions and revelations related by him and S. Bede you say it is come to be an article of faith: but you conclude with a place of S. Aug. quite against Purgatory, 
Lib. de va●it. Saecul. ●ap. 1.  where he saith that when the Soul is separated from the body, presently it is either placed in paradise for its good works, or cast into hell for its sins. I answer that you still go abusing S. Aug. who is so plain for Purgatory that no Catholic now living can be more plain: and in this very book of his Enchiridion and place by you cited he is so plain, that one Mr. Anthony Alcocke, a zealous disciple as it seemeth translating it into English, is fain to write certain animadversions upon the 110. chapter wherein he confesseth S. Aug. his opinion here for Purgatory, but he laboureth to obscure his meaning or reconcile him by fetching other places, as wisely and well to the purpose, as you are wont to do: but to be brief with you, that which S. Aug. saith may be a question is not of purgatory, or the being of Purgatory as you say most Lined like, but of the manner of pain: as whether even as men are here troubled in this world more or less with the loss of worldly things as they more or less loved them, which trouble or tribulation S. Aug. explicateth to be that fire, whereof S. Paul speaks saying, that those that build hay, straw, stubble &c. shallbe Saved as it were by fire; whether, I say, men be so punished in Purgatory, this S. Aug. doth not determine, but whether there be a Purgatory or Noah, 
Enchir. cap. 110.  let any man judge since he saith there. Neque negandum est defunctorum animas etc. Neither is it to be denied that the Souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, or alms given in the Church: 
Note here 3. or 4. controversies decided in this one sentence of S. Aug. Satisfactions, Mass, Purgatory, Prayers for the dead.  and there he also distinguisheth 3. sorts of dead people, some in heaven that need no such help, others in hell that cannot be helped by them, a third of those that are not so well, as not to need them, nor so ill but that they may be the better for these helps. This S. Aug. speaketh certainly and more we do not say certainly of Purgatory, the particulars of place, manner of punishment, durance etc. are things disputable among Divines, which you have nothing to do with: and if for such uncertainties you will reject the belief of Purgatory, by the same reason you may deny that there is an hell, as it is like you do in your hart, for else you could not say and write as you do. Now for S. Greg. who you say gave the first Credo to Purgatory, that is answer enough which I alleged last out of S. Aug. by which it appeareth he gave it an undoubted Credo, long before: for he died near 200. years before S. Greg. but for founding the belief thereof upon apparitions of dead men & revelations of this Saint, & S. Bedes relation, it is most false by the same argument still: For how could the faith of S. Aug. his time be grounded upon the revelations of men living two or three hundred years after? or indeed upon any revelation of any man: faith is grounded upon the revelation of God alone, delivered unto us by his Church. Therefore to the last place of S. Aug. I say it is understood that presently as soon as the soul departeth, it receiveth the doom either of Paradise or hell, that is, whether it is to go finally and that is both true, and his meaning, as appeareth by what he saith of the same matter else where thus. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem etc. The time between the death of a man and the general resurrection containeth the souls in hidden receptacles as each is worthy either of ease or pain according as it deserved whiles it lived. For it is not to be denied that the souls of the dead are helped by the piety of their living friends. This place is so plain as not only not to admit any tergiversation but also to explain any other that may seem obscure.  
12. A third point of uncertain doctrine as you object is Indulgences, for which you allege Durand and Gerson. For Durand, look in the § of Indulgences, & in Bellarmine, 
Lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 2.  and there you shall find him not to doubt of Indulgences, but of that which we call thesaurus ecclesiae, for as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of the Saints. And as for Gerson, who saith that whether the power of the keys extend only to such as are on earth, or also to those in Purgatory the opinions of men are contrary and uncertain, it is most frivolous to object him. For what doth this pertain to faith? or doth it pertain only to Indulgences? is not the question common to other acts of jurisdiction understood by the power of the keys? this is your argument. Divines dispute whether the Pope's power extend to the souls in Purgatory, ergo the doctrine of Indulgences is uncertain? This might be answer enough: but to display you a little more I will say a word or two more of Gerson: and first even in this point of extending the Pope's power over those that are in Purgatory even to the remission of pain, absolution from venial sin or excommunication before incurred, he is so favourable in this place by you cited as to grant the opinions on both sides probable: which is more than other Divines grant and is more than needeth for applying Indulgences to the dead. So as in granting that probable he maketh this certain: and this for Indulgences; in as much as they pertain to the dead. Now for the living or power of Indulgences in general thus he saith: 
●rs 2. p. de ●●ulg. con ●. 11. & 12  Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda, sed amplectenda in fide, spe, & charitate Domini nostri IESV CHRISTI, qui potestatem talium claurum ecclesiasticam dedit hominibus. The granting of Indulgences is not to be little esteemed or contemned but to be embraced in the faith, hope, and Charity of our Lord JESUS CHRIST who hath given the ecclesiastical power of such keys to men. So as it is plain that Gerson holdeth the doctrine of Indulgences certain no less than Durand & the whole School of Divines & even the Catholic church.  
13. The fourth point of uncertainty is of adoration of images, to which you say we are uncertain what worship we may give. For say you the 2. Nicene Council alloweth a civil kind of worship without any corporal submission: but many of our Divines allow them a higher kind of worship: that is, the very same which is given to their Samplers: Which Bellarmine you say, is against, and saith it is not fit to preach that opinion to the people,, because it requireth such subtle distinctions as the learned cannot well conceive, much less the ignorant people, and then you bring a place of Valencia allowing idol-worship as you say by a necessary consequence, these being his words. It is no absurdity to this 〈◊〉 that S. Peter did intimate that some worship of images was right or lawful, namely of holy images. When as he deterreth the faithful from the unlawful worship of Images: for to what end should he determinately point out the unlawful worship of Images, if he had thought altogether that no image-worship had been lawful. To which I answer that the doctrine which we teach of faith is not uncertain, that is, only that images are to be worshipped, not as God, nor as placing any confidence in them. Now whether they be to be worshipped with the same act & honour which we give the prototype directly, indirectly to the image, as our act of honour tendeth directly to the King's person, & indirectly to his purple, or with an inferior kind of worship tending directly to the picture itself, but yet as it is the representation of such a person, or with reference to the person represented, is a theological speculation out of your element, nor to be disputed of with an haeretique. Both may stand with faith, as many things more of which Tertull. saith they may Salua regula fidei in quaestionem devenire. 
de praesc. cap. 12.  Come into question the rule of faith being safe. Faith is certain not to be touched, other things may but you have nothing to do with them till you have faith. But because you speak of the 2. Council of Nice, as if it were for you, I cannot here omit to set down what it saith of you and your doctrine, for your comfort: to those that use the words spoken in scripture against idols, against venerable images, Anathema or be they accursed: to those that do not salut holy & venerable images Anathema: to those that call holy images idols Anathema; to those that say that Christians come to images as to God's Anathema; to those that say the Catholic Church hath at some time received idolatry Anathema. These are all the Counsels words & curses. Of all which you cannot but confess yourself guilty; & you can insinuate as if the Council were rather for you then us; would a man think it possible? But besides whereas you say the Council pretends nothing but a civil kind of embracing or kissing without any corporal submission unto the Images, I would know of you what it meaneth when speaking of images it saith they are to be worshipped so fare. ad osculum, & ad honorariam his adorationem tribuendam: to give a Kiss and honouring adoration. Doth not adoration include corporal submission and specially honorary adoration? Neither doth the Council mean only a civil kind of embracing or kissing, as you call it, but a religious worship. For it continually addeth some one or more of these epithets, Sancta, sacra, veneranda, or venerabilis. Holy; sacred, venerable to the word imago image. When it speaketh of images. But because you seem not to think corporal submission to be sufficiently employed by the Council either in those epithets or in the words colo, suscipio, veneror, & adoro, which go together for the most part in the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Council, (though among men it would be counted a poor kind of worship or respect which should want all corporal submission). I will bring you most plain and express proof both of prostration and kneeling by 2. several relations or histories. One is this. It is there related how when the Relics of S. Anastasius a Monk & Martyr were brought to Caesarea the people received them with great devotion & honour only one great Lady would not, but in her own hart slighted them. Whereupon the Saint appearing to her in her sleep she was taken with a very vehement pain in her back for 4. days together till the same Saint appearing to her again in the same manner, willed her to go to S. Anastasius in such a place of the town where his Relics & picture were kept, she not knowing all this while who it was that appeared unto her: and so awaking she was carried thither, & as soon as she came in the sight of the picture, she cried out that, that was the man that in her sleep foretold her the misery which she was fallen into: and when she had prostrated herself upon the ground before his picture and wept, and thereby appeased the Saint, she was restored to her former health. The other story is of S. Mary Aegyptiaca her conversion & the occasion thereof, and how she came into the Church, adored the cross, & picture of our B. Lady whereof there is a large relation, only this I bring for my purpose that she saith of herself that upon her knees she prayed before the picture of our B. Lady and there spoke unto it as if she had our B. Lady present in her picture. Which her miraculous conversion and other effects which followed did show to be pleasing to almighty God. These 2. stories with many more are there not only related but publicly allowed and approved by the whole Council. How then can you Sir Humphrey say that the Council pretends nothing but a civil embracing or kissing without any corporal submission to images? What greater submission can there be then kneeling and prostrating one's self upon the ground before a picture and speaking and praying thereto? but this is like the rest of your sayings.  
14. Now for Valentia his words which you bring as if he did allow some idol-worship, it is manifest by them that he doth not allow any such; but out of the words illicitis simulachrorum cultibus in S. Peter, taking the word Simulachrum in a good sense, that is for the same as imago, as some ancient authors do, and withal explicating his meaning in the use thereof, he saith it may seem to be gathered out of S. Peter's determining the word Simulachrum by the words illicitis cultibus that there is some good image-worshipp. Which argument be it good or bad, or be his use of the word Simulachra for images good or bad, it is all one for the matter, as long as you see his meaning to be absolutely to condemn idol-worship and approve image-worship. Neither doth your noting of the greek word in the margin in proof that S. Peter speaketh of idol-worship avail you. For Val. speaketh only of the Latin word, which is more indifferent and in some authors signifieth the same that imago and even the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be now by the use of Fathers, Counsels, and Doctors determined to signify an empty or vain image, of a thing which is not, according to that of S. Paul idolum nihil est in mundo: an idol is nothing in the world, 
Cor. 7.4.  yet if a man respect the primitive signification or etymology, it might perhaps be taken more indifferently, for it cometh from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth species or forma. the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person; but it is true that in the signification of words we must follow the ecclesiastical rule. Neither do I allow Valencia his use of the word Simulachrum, and explication of S. Peter's text, or even his argument drawn from thence though the point of doctrine which he defends be true, to wit, image-worship. But this is to show you how he might use the word harmelesly, especially declaring himself plainly by other words; though for you to stand trifling & contending about words when you see his meaning, is a sign of your want of matter. But here by the way I cannot but note how, to urge the matter more against Valentia you run yourself upon the rocks: for you observe that the word used by Saint Peter in that place signifieth idol-worship not image-worship. Wherein you seem plainly to confess that image-worship and idol-worship, and consequently an image and an idol are not all one. Whereby as you think to advantage you self in this place against the jesuit, so you do not mark that herein you contradict your self and the whole currant of your own Doctors, whose chief arguments against images are certain places of Scriptures against idols which you also bring before. For if an image & an idol be not all one then are all your arguments nothing worth, or if they be, then is Valentia's argument good: choose which you will. And therefore if you cast up your counts aright you will find you have lost more than you have gained by this citation of Valencia.  
15. A fift point of uncertainty you deliver in these words. Concerning the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist it is most evident saith Bellarmine, but concerning the rest of the Sacraments it is not so certain. And out of Canus you say the Divines speak so uncertainly of the matter and form of Matrimony that they do not resolve whether it giveth grace or no: thus you Sir Humphrey: to which I answer that for the place of Bellarm. you are convinced before of manifest corruption. For whereas Bellarm. saith it is certain, 
Cap. 9 §. 4. in fine.  but not so manifest you leave out not manifest, and change certain into not certain: besides what is that which Bellarmine saith is not manifest but certain? that these two are Sacraments the rest not? noe such matter Sir Knight, it is their signification, which he speaketh of, & yet not their signification of grace, which they cause, but their signifying of the passion of Christ which is the beginning, and aeternal life which is the end of the grace given by the Sacraments: this signification he saith is certain, but not so evident in the rest of the Sacraments. For Canus you corrupt him as foully also. For first you join two several places together as if they were but one in Canus himself, & then make him say that the Divines do not resolve whether it (that is Matrimony) gives grace or no which is most flatly false. For as I shown before he granteth it with all Divines to be properly a Sacrament: his two places severally are thus; the Divines speak so diversely of the matter & form of Matrimony that it were folly for a man to resolve any thing certain; this is one whereof I spoke more before & shown that his meaning is not to say that it is not certain whither it be a Sacrament or not or whither it have a matter and form: 
Cap. 9 §. 4.  for that I shown to be most certain and by most express words of his own: but that no man can say determinately which is the matter and which the form. Which as Bellarmine saith well is not so necessary for us to know, but that without it we may and aught to acknowledge a true Sacrament: it is enough to know what is requisite for celebrating a true Sacrament and what those things are without which it is not a Sacrament, though we do not know which of those things is the matter & which the form, For example if a Priest in baptism use true water and the right words he doth administer a true Sacrament though he should not know which is the matter, and which the form, nay though he should think the words to be the matter, and water the form though the clean contrary be truth. The other place of Canus is that he saith that Matrimony contracted without a Priest is no Sacrament, because in his opinion the words which the Priest speaketh are the form: and of that kind of Matrimony he consequently denieth it to give grace: but of Matrimony absolutely and as it is used in the Catholic church he never made doubt. See before his words.  
16. The last matter of uncertainty is of our traditions which you say you are uncertain whereas the Scripture is written to give us certainty. For this saying you allege no Catholic, truly nor falsely, and therefore it is not to be counted of being so manifestly false, For whence have we the certainty of the very Scriptures themselves, but by tradition, and much more of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures? Besides as I have often said and showed, this your prime principle is not only false, but contrary to express Scripture, and contrary to the common consent of all Fathers, which the Reader may see in whole treatises written hereof. Wherefore to come to an end of this your Section of certainty, we find nothing in matter of faith uncertain in the Catholic church, nothing certain on your side but only that you are always and every where Sir Humphrey Lined.   

Of the 11. Sect. entitled thus. 
Chap. 11.  The testimonies of our adversaries touching the greater Safety, comfort, and benefit of the Soul in the Protestant faith, then in the Romish. CHAPTER XI.  
1. FROM certainty you come to Safety, whereof you needed not have made so distinct mention and proof it following necessarily and manifestly that, that faith which is most certain in itself, is also most safe for men to follow as also it cannot be Safe without certainty: Wherefore as you were not able to prove it certain in your former section, so are you not able to prove it Safe in this. Wherein notwitstanding we must hear a little what you say. And first I wonder you talk still so much of proving the Safety and Comfort of your faith out of our authors, when you cannot name that man that saith any such word. For suppose you find one author or two of ours, that saith something different from the common opinion in this or that particular point of doctrine, doth he presently say the Protestant faith is Safe. For example one saith communion in both kinds of itself giveth more gtace, doth he therefore say your faith is safe? noe verily, but the same man doth condemn your doctrine for most unsafe, and dangerous, and leading to the very pit of hell. For even those, things which of themselves might perhaps seem indifferent, your disobedience and spirit of contradiction maketh them damnable: to eat is a thing indifferent, but yet to eat with offence of our neighbour is ill as S. Paul saith. 
Rom 14.20.  Malum est homini qui manducat per offendiculum. It is ill for a man that eateth by giving offence: and if the offending and scandalising of one of the little ones, which our Saviour shown, speaking of this matter of Scandal, be able to make a thing indifferent to become so ill, how much more is Scandalising of the whole Church, and rebellious stiffness able to make a thing otherwise indifferent, or perhaps in some respect good, to become not only ill but damnable? But leaving that, I come to the point.  
2. You prove the Safety of your doctrine above ours, because Bellarmine saith of the Scripture, that it is a most certain and safe rule of believing: and so also say we: but what then? wherein is your faith more safe than ours? we rely upon the same ground of Safety as much, and more than you, how then are we less safe? You say we rely upon the Pope and Church, which is but the authority of Man. Well grant for disputation sake it be but the authority of man? if it were so that we did leave the authority of Scripture, & stick only to the Pope, and Church, it were somewhat: than you might with some colour at least say your way is more safe but now that we acknowledge and reverence the authority of Scripture as much, nay much more than you, and join therewith the authority of the Pope and Church, for exposition of the same, though it should be but humane, how doth that diminish the authority of the Scripture, or make it less safe? A man in his right wits would think it would rather help then hinder. But what if this authority be more than humane, as indeed it is, are we not then much more safe? I say nothing of unwritten traditions which come not short for authority even of the written word itself, and which in two resspects seem even to surpass it. One respect is that traditions extend themselves to more things than the written word, and even to the authorising & expounding of the same. For by tradition we receive both the books of Scripture, & understand the sense thereof. The other, that they are less subject to the cutting knives of haeretiques, which maketh them so mad at them. For they cannot so corrupt them, by putting in and out at their pleasure as they can do the written Word. And this indeed seemed the Safest way in Vincentius Lerinensis his days: for he being desirous to learn how he might discern Catholic truth from haeretical falsehood received this answer from every body as he saith: that if he would avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretiques and remain sound in faith, he should strengthen his faith, two ways, to wit, by the authority of the divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Whereby you see the judgement of antiquity concerning your Safety and Ours.  
3. Again, you say it is safer to adore Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, then to adore the Sacramental bread. I ask how you prove it? for say I again it is as dangerous to deny adoration to Christ in the Sacrament, as to Christ in heaven. For he is as surely in the Sacrament as in heaven: the same Catholic faith teaching us both verityes: and to make you study a little, I may say in some sort more sure. For a man that would be contentious might deny Christ to sit at the right hand of his Father, because his Father hath neither right nor left hand. Wherein for answer you must fall to expound the Scripture and declare the meaning of that article which sayeth it: and therein you shall find as much to do, as we do in expounding the words HOC EST CORPVS MEUM. Besides do not we adore him in heaven too, as well as you. How are you more safe than we? Yea but you will say that we adore him on the altar too. It is true we do indeed: and to suppose it doubtful for the present, whether he be there or Noah, I ask wherein are you more safe than we? if he be not there, we are in danger of adoring him where he is not; if he be there, then are you in danger by not adoring him where he is: and it is as much danger not to adore him there; if he be there, as not to adore him in heaven. Wherein I say then are you more safe, though there were no more certainty of belief on our side then yours?  
4. Thirdly you tell us out of S. Aug. it is more safe to trust wholly in God, then partly in God, partly in ourselves. So we say also, and so we do. Wherein then are you more, or we less safe? you say we trust in our good works: it is true thus fare, that we teach that men by good work may cooperate to justification, meriting grace and glory, but that is but conditionally if a man do such good works: but yet we are fare from nourishing your confidence which you speak of, which is not grounded so much in that general principle of good works, as in the particular, that I for example do these and these good works. Wherefore I say it is false in your sense. For we do not teach any man to persuade himself, that he is just and holy, but teach him to fear and doubt himself continually, and in all his works according to the example of job. Verebar omnia opera mea. I did fear all my works: and if a man do good works we teach that he cannot be sure, that they are good as they are done by him: that is that he doth them with such a right intention and by help of supernatural grace, and that therefore no man can be sure of his own justification according to that also of job. 
job 9.28.  Etsi fuero simplex, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea. Although I shallbe simple (that is good) the self same shall my soul be ignorant of. 
job 9.21.  Again we say that, suppose he do know them to be good, yet they have not that goodness from him, or as they are his, but as they are from almighty God, and by his grace. And yet more we teach that he may fall again, and lose all his labour, which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's self: so as we leave nothing for a man to trust to of himself, but that he must give all to God, as S. Paul did in saying: 
1. Cor. 15.10.  non ego sed gratia Dei mecum: not I but the grace of God with me: & qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur. That he that doth glory may glory in God: and to show that we have nothing of ourselves we say again with the same Saint, quid habes quod non accepisti. What hast thou which thou hast not received. Now on the other side examine you your own doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vain confidence in most of these points: as that a man must assure himself, that his sins are forgiven; that he must assure himself of his salvation; that he cannot fall from grace and the like. Which ground supposed, how can he work his salvation with fear & trembling as S. Peter teacheth? And so we have answered 3. points of Safety which you begin withal out of your own invention. Now you come to other points of Safety which you prove by authority of other men.  
5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds, which you say is better than in one kind alone; you prove it out of Cassander, Vazq. Hales, and Valencia. I answer that for Cassander you know he is no author to be alleged against a Catholic. For Vazq. it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him, as to cite him out of his own works, but out of the french Minister Chamier, who is another great man with you. But for the matter it is true, some few Catholics as Vazq. Hales, 
p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar. 4. § 3.  (for Valencia I shall tell you more anon) are of opinion, that it is of greater merit and fruit to receive in both kinds, then in one. But I ask you why it should be more safe to follow those two, then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Divines to the contrary. For my part I do not see any reason for it, if you weigh the matter by reason, or by number, and authority of Doctors. Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind, but allow it for good and lawful. For so saith Hales, quia Christus integrè sumitur sub utraque specie, bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum, sicut fere ubique fit a laicis in ecclesia. Because Christ is received entirely under each kind, it is very lawful to receive the body of Christ under the kind of bread only, as it is used almost every where by the Laity in the Church. And Vazq. employeth a whole disputation in the proof of the same Truth out of Scripture, and tradition, showing withal that the Latin Church did with very good reason forbidden Communion in both kinds; and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it. So as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a clean different haeresy. For his is a School opinion, not of the safety, but of the fruitfulness of Communion in One or both kinds. Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind, and urging both, as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament, and fulfilling of Christ's precept, and denying also the authority of the Church, for dispensing therein. And though in speculation Vazq. rather allow both kinds to be more fruitful, yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better, for many great reasons pertaining to the reverence of the Sacrament and common good, which do not only countervail but fare surpass the want of that fruit which is given more by the other kind, all necessary grace being given by one alone as he teacheth. And for Hales, besides that he holdeth it very lawful to communicate in one kind only which is directly against you: I think a man that would go about it might easily puzzle you out of him: even for so much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit. 
p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar. 1.  For thus he saith, to that which is said, that he that receiveth under the form of bread only receiveth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answer, that this Sacrament is received two ways spiritually and sacramentaly. Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualem sumptionem perfectè accipit; for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiving, he receiveth it perfectly, but not so for the Sacramental receiving. Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which, saith he, is not so perfect in one kind, as both. Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds. See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake? Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margin saying that he affirmeth the same, to wit, with Hales and Vazq. let any man see whether you do not play him a Lindy-tricke. For these are his words, in the very same chapter by you cited. 
Val de leg. us. Euchar. cap. 6.  Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum & efficax in altera specie, quam in utraque specie. This sacrament is of itself as fruitful and effectual in one kind as in both: and so your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true.  
6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is, of your communion of Priest and people together. the safety you prove not by any thing but your own bare word. For the profitableness of the Sacrifice indeed, you prove it is more when the people communicate with the Priest, out of the Council of Trent, Harding, and Bellarmine: but Sir that is not the controversy between you and v●; but this whether the Priest may not say, Mass, unless he have some to communicate with him; or even whether it be more profitableness for the Priest, that he have some to communicate with him, or even whether the Sacrifice be less perfect in itself in that case or not? Of this you say not a word: as neither do your authors which you bring: for they speak only of the fruit which would redound to the people, which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not. But of the form, or matter of controversy, they all determine absolutely against you: their whole drift in those places being none other but to disprove you as may easily appear to any man that will look in them, and I have partly showed before in the §. of private Mass and else where.  
7. A sixth point of your safe doctrine is the Marriage of Priests, whereof you say it is better to live chastely in Matrimony, then by single life to hazard their souls by incontinency. This you prove by the authority of Aeneas Silvius, Panormitan, and Cassander. Of which three, the last is no author to be regarded: the first is answered before. The second only remaineth to be answered here, to wit, Panormitane whom indeed I find inclined in opinion for the Marriage of Clergymen; 
Panor. cap. Cum Plini. de Cler. coning.  yet fare otherwise, than you. For first he putteth the question, whether the Church can give way, that a Clerk may marry, as the Grecians do: to which he answereth affirmatively: and this he saith is out of doubt with him, for so much as pertaineth to them that are not obliged by  or express vow. And then he proveth it by reason, and showeth that it is not the iure divino, as we also grant. And thereupon saith, that he doth not only believe it to be in the Church's power; but he thinketh it would be a wholesome statute for the good and safety of Souls, to let such as will, contain themselves; and such as cannot, to marry since experience (saith he) teacheth the contrary effect to follow of that Law of continency, seeing men do not now live spiritually, nor are clean but are spotted with uncleanness to their grievous sin. This is Panormitanes' discourse: wherein first he acknowledgeth this whole matter to depend upon the Church's authority; & plainly showeth by his discourse that the law of continency doth bind: & that it is a grievous sin to go against it. For which cause though his opinion indeed be, that they should have liberty to marry, yet he would not have them marry against the Law standing in force: but he would have the Law taken away, which is a fare different doctrine from yours. Secondly he alloweth the obligation of a Vow  or express, & seemeth not indeed to speak of such as are so tied: now with you & your Ministers, that is all one, wheter Chastity be vowed or not vowed: nay you disallow all such vows. Thirdly he saith that where a man is bound by express or  vow the Pope cannot dispense without a great and urgent cause: which is against you, who require no dispensation nor any such cause. Fourthly he doth not speak of such as are already ordained: for they have a Vow either express or : but of those that are to be ordained, whereas you would have it as free for one as for another. Lastly this opinion of Panormitane pertaineth not to the point of doctrine but only to the point of prudence or conveniency wherein he differeth from the common judgement of Catholics and is therefore worthily noted by other Catholic Doctors. So as he concurreth not with you in opinion of the lawfulness of the Marriage of Priests against the laws of the Church but only in this, that he would have it made lawful by taking away the contrary law. But now though it be his opinion, that it is better to let such men marry, why should you think it safer to follow his judgement being but one single man against the judgement of all the other Doctors of the Catholic Church against all Fathers, against all authority of Counsels, against the continual practice of the Church from the very beginning, 
Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. c. 18. 19 20. etc. & lib. 2. de mona. cap. 21. 22. etc.  (Of all which you have abundant proof in Bellarmine,) and which was never contradicted by any but known wicked men? Why I say should you think it safer? What reason or colour have you? But perhaps you will strengthen Panormitane by S. Paul who saith. It is better to marry, then to burn. but that gives no strength; for it is not safety of doctrine, which S. Paul speaketh of, but practical safety for matters of life or manners, 
1. Cor. 7.9.  of this or that particular man, supposing his disposition, occasions, and dangers: and so it is free for every man to choose what he will do. No man is forced to it at first in the Catholic Church; but if he take upon him the office of a Priest, or obligation of a religious state he is then forced to make good what he hath promised, and to render his Vows to God, which the law of nature and moral honesty requireth. Neither is it so out of question, that it is always safer, even in that kind of safety for a man to marry. For there is no less difficulty perhaps and consequently danger for married men to contain themselues with in the bounds of wedlock, then for Priests to contain themselves within the bounds of perfect chastity: as both reason and experience teach; besides that though Saint Paul say it is better to marry then burn, yet he saith it is better not to marry supposing evidently that a man may forbear Marriage & yet not be forced to burn. Lastly in our case, though the difficulty may be greater. For as the proverb saith difficilia quae pulchra, high things are hard. Yet considering the helps of almighty God's grace, which are proportionable and I may also say superaboundant to the dangers of an office, or state, being undertaken for his sake, it becometh more easy, and more safe. For so it is that the evangelical Law is more easy, safe, and comfortable than the old law of Moses, though the things that are required therein, be fare more hard than those in the other. For it is the unction of the holy Ghost, which God hath poured forth abundantly in the new Law, that makes our Saviour's yoke sweet, and his burden light, which because your Ministers want Chastity, seemeth unto them an intolerable burden. Your way Sir Humphrey then is not more safe, even in this kind of safety, nor more easy, nor more comfortable. Let us see whether it be so in the next point, which is of Prayer in a known tongue.  
8. Of this you say S. Thomas of Aquin saith, it is manifest that he receiveth more benefit which prayeth & understandeth what he saith: for the mind of him that understandeth not is without fruit. You bring also Lyra to the same purpose, saying that people are better brought to the knowledge of God, & answer Amen with greater devotion, when they understand the Priest, as also Caietan saying that it is better by S. Paul's doctrine for the edifying of the Church, that public prayers were made in a vulgar tongue, to be understood indifferently by Priests and people, then in Latin With two authorities more, one of Gabriel, another out of the Rheims testament. To all which I answer, that first you are mistaken in the whole matter. For the question between you and us is not so much, whither public prayers in Latin be more or less profitable, as whither they be lawful or not lawful: we affirm them lawful you deny them to be so. Now show me one author of these which you bring here, that saith as you do, and then I will confess you bring them to some purpose, otherwise not. But these authors are quite against you, for that matter and even Caietan himself, 
1. Cor. 14.  who speaketh most in favour of you saith expressly near about the place where you cite him, that such Prayer is not only lawful, but good and fruitful, and Saint Thomas also in the Latin cited by you in the margin saith as much, though you corrupt him by your translation which is this. 
1. Cor. 14. lect. 3.  Constat quod plus lucratur qui orat & intelligit quae dicit: nam ille qui intelligit, reficitur & quantum ad intellectum & quantum ad affectum, sed mens eius qui non intelligit est sine fructu refectionis. It is manifest that he gaineth more, who prayeth and understandeth what he saith: For he that understandeth is refreshed, both for as much as pertaineth to his understanding, and as much as pertaineth to his affection: but the mind of him that understandeth not, is without the fruit of refection. In which place I forbear to note your imperfect manner of citing this authority. For who hearing Saint Thomas to make a comparison between prayer understood and not understood and to speak of a double fruit or refection, to wit, both of the affection and mind giving that for a reason why the former is to be preferred. Who I say hearing this will not expect that Saint Thomas should say something also of the later as indeed he doth. For thus it followeth in him. Vnde cùm meliùs sit refici quantum ad affectum & intellectum, quam quantum ad affectum solum, constat quod in oratione plus valet prophetiae donum, quam solum donum linguarum. Wherefore seeing it is better to be refreshed and fed both in the affection and understanding then in the affection alone, it is plain that in prayer the gift of prophecy (or interpretation) is more worth, than the gift of tongues only. which though it follow so connaturally that a man might presently suppose it to be there without ever looking in the book, yet you thought best to leave it out because it was not for your purpose.  
9 But having cited the Latin thus lamely you translate even that which you have cited as lamely. For you take the first and last part of S. Thomas his sentence and put them in to English leaving out the middle in which he speaketh of the double refection or fruit of both mind and Will and so join them together with the causal conjunction (for) of your own placing not of S. Thomas his and putting in an And instead of an (Of) thus; fruit and refection instead of fruit of refection; which makes a very great alteration of sense. For you make it thereby seem to your Reader as if S. Thomas meant that he that understandeth not his own prayer, were without fruit and refection, that is, without any fruit; Whereas Saint Thomas his Latin words say only, that he is without the fruit of refection, to wit, of the understanding, but not of the affection, and your sense is also helped by your changing S. Thomas his sed (but) in to your (name). (for). It is true that Saint Thomas hath a (for) but not as you have it; but joined with that which you left out in the middle of your sentence thus. For he that understandeth hath a double refection or fruit. Now between sed and Nam, but and for there is great difference. Sed being a discretive or severing conjunction, whose office is to make a separation or difference between the things which it joineth: and Nam being a causal conjunction which joineth two sentences together with dependency one of the other. Lastly you do not mark that you would make S. Thomas contradict himself. For he having said only in the first part of the sentence, that he, that understanded receiveth more benefit, in the last part you would make him say that he, that understandeth not receiveth no benefit. Which too if you look well into the matter you will find to be contradictories; which yet you would make to be both true, and one to be the reason of the other by joining them together with your (for) which is most absurd I could also have a saying to you for the Latin. Wherein you put the word effectum for affectum: effect for affection. For the word (effectum) being more fit to obscure the sense, or make it rather none, I have just reason by the rest of your good carriage to think it to be your doing; but because it is but the change of a letter, I will be content to lay it upon your Printer, and excuse you all I can: and thus much only for the very citation of the place though in that consist almost all. For as for the matter it is plain S. Thomas doth not disallow or discommend Prayer in a tongue which the party that prayeth doth not understand; but acknowledgeth some fruit therein. Neither doth any author you bring say the contrary. Whereby all your argument is answered.  
10. But yet gratis. (The lawfulness of prayer in a tongue not known to the party being no way disproved). I say farther our controversy is not, whether it be better for men to say, their private devotions in a language which they understand, than otherwise. For as for that we grant that it is better, as that note which you have out of the Rheims Testament acknowledgeth, but saying withal that the other is good: because as S. Thomas saith, it is better to refresh or feed both the understanding and will, than the will alone. For though the refection of the will be the principal fruit, the will being the principal power in the exercise of prayer: and whereon the fruit of prayer doth necessarily and essentially depend, yet the other helpeth; but not so, but that without it the prayer may be good and fruitful: and therefore S. Thomas putteth the will before the understanding in this his sentence. For if the will or desire be good, the prayer hath his fruit, though the understanding be distracted: as when a man is distracted unwillingly as it happeneth most frequently, and with the best men: in which case it were hard a man should be deprived of the whole fruit of his prayer, without any fault of his. Now a distracted understanding, is all one with a mind that understandeth not the words which he prayeth. So also with some proportion, or in some respect we say of public prayer, that the people perhaps might reap some more fruit that way if they did understand the public prayers: but the question than is whether that fruit which may come that way, can countervail the tenth part of the inconveniences which may happen by having public prayers in a vulgar tongue: which are well noted in the Rheims Testament there where you took out your note. All which annotation if you had read well & understood, 
Annot. in cap. 14. 1. Cor.  you could never have said more of this matter: the inconveniences are much vanity, curiosity, contempt of Superiors, disputes, emulations, contentions, schisms, horrible errors, profanations, and diwlgation of the secret mysteries of the dreadful Sacraments, which of purpose were hidden from the vulgar, as S. Denys. Eccl. Hier. cap. 1. and S. Basil. de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. testify: thus that note. Besides the very ignorance of the Latin tongue, and consequently of all sacred learning, which would follow thereof only in Clergy men, is ten hundred times more harm, than that fruit in the Laity is good: to say nothing of the unity of the Catholic Church excellently represented and maintained hereby, whereof and of other reasons also I spoke before: the Church therefore which is to regard the public good; & what is best and fittest all things considered, might most prudently have ordained the use of the Latin tongue, although it had not been in use from the beginning; as it hath been, and for the common good even with loss of some fruit to some private men: though indeed that fruit be no necessary or needful fruit nor even fruit at all, the inconvenience being well weighed and compared with the fruit. Now of this controversy in this manner also none of your authorities do urge, but only Caietans; who though he were a good & a learned man, yet in him the proverb is verified: quand●que bonus dormitat Homerus. He is noted to be often mistaken, in matters of Divinity which was his proper profession, but much more in scripture, wherein he was not so well skilled, and so committed many faults: and in this particular he is greatly mistaken, for he expoundeth that chapter of S. Paul to the Corinthians to be of public prayer of the Church, wherein being so plainly deceived, no wonder he might say it were better to have it in a vulgar tongue: & so also for that end he wishes there were not Organs nor Singing in the Church, that men might understand the words the better. Wherein if his judgement be good, and to be followed, why have you Organs and singing in your church? neither were you so well advised in alleging his authority, for a Puritan may also make use thereof against you and whereas Caietans' reason is the aedification of the Church: he is mistaken in the very end of prayer, which is not aedification or instruction of the people but the honour of God immediately. For in prayer the Priest doth not speak to the people but to God in behalf of the people wherein the people doth only join with him. For which understanding of the Priest's prayers is no way necessary.  
11. But now I come to Gabriel, who you say was so fare from approving vocal prayer in an unknown tongue, that on the contrary he giveth 7. special reasons why it should be understood by the people. But this is most false Sir Humphrey for Gabriel doth not speak of prayer in a known or unknown tongue, nor of public prayer: but only of private prayer, and of vocal prayer, as it is compared with mental prayer, and giveth these 7. reasons which you allege but not for proof of what you say, but only to show that beside mental prayer, it is also convenient to use vocal prayer; some of which reasons indeed have no place but where the words are understood, but yet other some have. For thus he saith. 
Gab. in can. lect. 62.  Sufficit oratio mentalis quoad Deum, qui inspector est cordis; utilis tamen est privata vocalis, propter plures causas quas assignant Doctores Alexander, Thomas, & caeteri. Mental prayer is sufficient for as much pertaineth to God, who is the beholder of the hart, yet private vocal prayer is profitable for many causes which the Doctors Alexander, Thomas, & others assign: & then assigneth those 7. reasons. So as it is plain he saith nothing in this, but what others say, & that his question is not of prayer in a known or unknown tongue: but of vocal prayer in general.  
12. Your 7. and 8. points of Safe doctrine of not Worshipping images and praying to Saints I put together, being short; & not needing much answer. For reason you allege none, nor authority but only Erasmus, Cassander, & Chemnitius. Who are all of as good authority as yourself. For as for a word which you allege out of S. Aug. though you note not the place, I say it is not to purpose, for it is but this: tutius & iucundius loqu●● ad meum JESUM. I speak more safely and more sweetly to my JESUS. You do not say then to whom: and from hence you might as well infer, that while S. Aug. was upon the earth he should not so much as speak to any man or desire their prayers: as well as infer there upon that he should not pray to any Saint.  
13. Your last point is our doctrine of Merits; whereto not having said sufficiently at first, you think to say more now; but the truth is, you have more words but not more matter. For here you prove it only out of a word of S. Bernard's saying, 
Ser. 1. in Psal. Qui habitat.  dangerous is the habitation of those that trust in their own merits: and so say we, but we say withal that to acknowledge that Almighty God, rendereth a crown of justice to good works done by his grace, and hire to those that labour in his vineyard, is not to trust in a man's own merits: but to acknowledge the mercy, justice, and fidelity of God. For this, not only a man may acknowledge that hath good works, but also a man that hath none, nor thinketh he hath any, and consequently no whit confideth in his own merits. 
Ser. 61. in c●nt.  Another place is out of the same Saint, but out of an other of his works, where he asketh, what safe rest or security can the weak Soul find but in the wounds of our Saviour. And so say we too: but what doth this hinder but a man may say, as I said before, that God rewardeth the good works of his Servants out of his justice and fidelity, which out of his Mercy he gave them grace to do? but here I note, that in the citing of this place, in the text you put the two first words in Latin, thus Vbi tuta? as if you would make one think S. Bernard pointed at your Safe way: may not a man without wrong to your wit, think such a conceit might come into your head? though S. Bernard were dead many ages ago? I will not say so of you Sir Humphrey but yet thought is free, as they say. Well your next author is Waldensis, who as you tell us thinketh him the sounder Divine, 
Suar. to. 3. de gr. lib. 12. cap. 1. n. 2.  that simply denieth such Merit: but you say not what merit? but it is true Walden. as Suarez well noteth though he speak not of this controversy, but against the Pelagians. is somewhat too strict, 
V Bell. lib. 5 de iustif. cap. 16.  and though he acknowledge the thing, yet he doth not so well like the manner of speaking of merit, as also some other Divines do not so approve the word meritum de condigno, though in the thing itself they all agree, to wit, that aeternal life is given to men as the reward of their good works, which is all that others mean by condign merit. Your last authority is a place of Bell. which hath been answered before, to wit, that it is most safe to trust wholly in the merits of Christ. Which I wonder why you should allege for your doctrine against ours. For it is ours as well or more than yours neither do we condemn you for not trusting in your works, 
Chap. 12.  or trusting wholly in Christ, if so be you do not deny the necessity and efficacy of good works; for purchasing grace and glory. And that is your doctrine which you should show to be Safe, but that you cannot, nor do not so much as go about. Wherefore to come to an end of this Chapter all your proofs sailing in every point, your vaunting conclusion of the Safety, profit, and Comfort of your belief vanisheth into smoke, as the rest doth.   

Of the 12. Sect. the title whereof is this. Our adversaries convicted by the evident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers either ridiculously elude them, or plainly reject them. CHAPTER XII.  
1. IT cannot be unknown to any man of learning or that hath but any the lest acquaintance with the controversies of this age, what great advantage we Catholics have by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly we esteem them, what confidence, we place in them, and how we appeal to them for decision of our controversies, and how small respect on the other side Haeretiques show either to their persons or writings, as being in their opinions but men and subject to error or rather how contemptibly they speak of them. For proof whereof a man need not go farther than that little treatise of Campians 10. reasons: the 5. of which is of the Fathers. Where a man may see what the Haeretiques say of them they call one an old doting man: another they call a childish writer; a third they call a dolt and forsaken of God; a fourth they call a fabler that knoweth not what he saith: a fift they say is bewitched by the Devil: a sixth they say is as damned as the Devil, injurious to the Apostle, blasphemous, wicked, impious? and what Fathers are these think you that they name thus? who but Denis the Areopagite, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome: and for the writings of the Fathers they say this man's are like dreams and most pernicious, another hath foul wens, another writeth like a mad or frantic man, another bringeth forth darnel and dreggs, others have left blasphemies to posterity: and the like. One haeretique preferreth one Caluin before an 100 Augustine's, another careth not for a thousand Augustine's, Cyprians, Churches, whose very words and places are quoted by F. Campian. And yet here is a Knight of the same brood that undertaketh forsooth in a particular Section to prove that we establish the antiquity of his doctrine, & decline the certainty and safety of our own: by saying that we avoid the proof of Fathers? wherein he showeth himself more & more impertinent, the farther he goeth. For whereas there hath been sometimes one father, that hath erred, or held some singular opinion different from the common, of other Fathers & one or two ancient writers that have even become Haeretiques: because our authors note those things so, as no Haeretique can but acknowledge that to be true which we say, nay and he himself cannot tell what to say against us, he accounteth this forsooth to be eluding of the Fathers or rejecting their evident testimonies. Neither doth he in all this Section bring one argument, or one word of authority to disprove any thing that any author of ours hath said; nor doth he allege even the reasons which our authors give of their saying, whereas they give very many & solid reasons: So that for my part I cannot tell what the man meaneth in this manner of dealing nor what to say to him: for even the words of our authors which he bringeth are very sufficient answers, so as I see not well what more he need to have: but because in the fashion or sleight manner of speaking he may delude some of his Readers and make them think the answers insufficient: I must a little more discover his impertinency in leaving out some of the answers and extenuating others, and even in bringing some nothing at all to this purpose.  
2. And so to begin with him: he saith in the first place that touching the all sufficiency of Scriptures S. Chrysostome saith the Church is known, tantummodo only by the Scriptures: & hereupon he asks this question, what say the Romanist to this authority? Bell. saith he, answereth, it is probable the author was a Catholic, but it seems to be none of Chrysost. thus he. To which I answer first that I find not this place objected in Bellar. whereto to give any answer at all: but there is another place not much unlike; and to that he answereth that the work out of which it is taken is not Chrys. but another's, commonly cited by the name of author. imperfecti, who Bell. saith was either an Arrian himself, or his work was corrupted by Arrians and this he doth not barely say, neither in his controversies nor in his book de Scripto eccles. 
De verb. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11.  Which is the book here cited by Sir Humphrey where Bellarmine saith the thing, but not by way of answer, (as he makes him) I say he doth not only say it, but also prove it by a plain example or two of Arianisme: 
Verb. Io. Chrysost.  but because he findeth Catholic doctrine in other places of the same work, and in the same points, he rather thinketh the author to be a Catholic, and his work only to have been corrupted: and this is most true and evident. Which had the Knight but set down thus plainly, what had there been more to be objected or answered? but he curtails it, as if Bell. had said only it is none of Chrys. Which is also so true & plain, as he himself cannot gainsay it and yet he is not ashamed for the credit of his objection, to call it Chrysostom's. But the place itself, is so fare from proving the all sufficiency of Scripture, as it proveth nothing at all but the insufficiency of Sir Humphreys wit. For how many ways may it be answered, even supposing that the words were S. Chrysostom's or some other good author's being but these that the Church is known only by scriptures? For I ask him what then, what is this to many other points which we say cannot be known by only scripture? Were this a good consequence the Church is known by only Scripture, ergo all things else and even Scripture itself is known only by scripture? surely no: and yet this consequence must be good or else Sir Humphrey your argument is not good. Besides these words may be understood of the Scriptures compared with other Writings, that is, that the Church is known to us only by Scriptures not by other Writings, whereof either none speak so clearly of the Church, or none are like thereunto for authority: which yet doth not exclude other proofs or marks of the Church. And indeed the Church is most known and best proved out of Scripture, of any point of our faith as may appear by this that S. Aug. proveth the same so notably out of Scriptures only 'gainst the Donatists, in a particular book of that matter, 
De unit. eccles. Aug. in Psal. 30.  and in another place he saith the Scriptures speak more plainly of the Church, then of Christ himself; because the holy Ghost foresaw it was more to be contradicted: and what? might not these words be taken somewhat in the same sense? but this shall serve for that place.  
3. You come next with two places of Saint Aug. whereof one was answered before, and it is only where you tell us he saith that many are tormented with the Devil, who are worshipped by man on earth: to this Bellarmine say you, answereth that perhaps it is not S. Augustine's making you Reader believe as if Bell. neither gave other answer, nor any reason of this answer. Whereas he doth both, his reason why he thinketh it not Saint Augustine's is both because he could never find any such place in him, & it is like he should find it if it were there; he having been so diligent a reader of S. Augu. as appeareth by his works he was, 
Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 9  as also because no Haeretique that objecteth it doth note the place where it is to be found, as they are want to do in their other objections; and it is like would do in this, if they could find it: but because Sir Humphrey you are a man so well read in S. Aug. and stand so upon answer of this place. Do you but tell us where it is, and you shall then see what we will say unto you; mean while look a little better in Bellar. again and tell us whether there be not 3. or 4. other answers. See also before cap. 10. The other place of Saint Augu. is as you say, touching the Pope's supremacy, because S. Augu. in those words of our Saviour. Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church, taketh not Peter and this rock to be all one: but the Rock to be our Saviour himself, and Petrus to be a derivative only of Petra, to which you tell us Stapleton makes answer, that it was lapsus humanus, for want of knowledge of the Greek and caused by the diversity of the two languages Latin and Greek. Which answer though you relate in a slight fashion as if you took it to be in sufficient yet you neither do nor indeed can say against it, if you know Greek and Latin: or if you do not, go but to some of your Ministers, and get them to look in their own Greek Lexicons I mean set out by Haeretiques: and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be an adjective and a derivative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be not a substantive signifying the very same thing: and let them look yet farther into the original tongue itself, to wit, the Syriake wherein our Saviour spoke, 
Lib. 1. Ro: Pontif cap. 25.  and see whither they be not more the same; to wit, the only word Cephas in both places. On the other side it is well known Saint Augu. professed no great skill in Greek as he witnesseth of himself in many places. 
Aug. in Psal. count. Partem Donat. & ep. 165.  Besides Saint Augu. doth not bring this exposition to derogate from Saint Peter's primacy, which he confesseth in 20. places as may be seen in Bellarmine and where for proof thereof he useth the very word Petra which here he distinguisheth from Petrus calling the Seat of Peter this rook. Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri, ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. Reckon, saith he to the Donatists, the Priests from even the seat of Peter, that is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. How then doth he deny S. Peter's primacy and perpetuity of his Sea? Again Sir Humphrey you might find other answers; for Saint Augu. himself in his retractations putteth both the explications wherein the word Petrae is spoken of Christ and of Peter, leaving the choice to the Reader: allowing both interpretations, which you do not, because one is flat against you: Whereas we do not reject either, as being against us; but only we show the one not to be so good; because it standeth not so with the original tongues (which that Saint was not so well skilled in,) and literal sense of scripture which no Haeretique can deny.  
4. The 3. place is out of S. Ignatius for proof of Communion in both kinds. 
Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 26  One cup is distributed to all to which you say Bellarmine makes answer that in the Latin books it is not found, that one cup is given to all, but for all: against which you can say nothing: but give me cause to say much against you. For first Bellarmine doth not say one cup is given for all: but saith unus calix totius ecclesiae. One cup of the whole Church. Which is the true reading, and indeed another thing. Secondly though you make as if Bellarmine did only barely say this without farther reason or proof: yet is it fare otherwise for as for the reading he saith that though the Greek have it as the Haeretiques commonly cite, that is as you do here, yet the true reading is as the Latin translation which we follow hath it, whereto he saith there is more trust to be had then to the Greek books of S. Ignatius, which we have now. Whereof he bringeth this proof that the testimonies cited out of him, as we find in the works of S. Anastasius and Theodoret, agree better with our Latin translation then the Greek which is now extant. Which is a plain proof of the betternes and greater pureness thereof as being taken out of the ancient Greek editions. Besides that Bellarmine proveth this even out of the Magdeburgians, because they cite this very place at we do. Neither doth he answer this authority only by the variety of the reading, but withal he giveth 2. answers more: one that S. Ignatius putteth all the force in the unity of the bread and cup. thus, that though many eat & many drink yet the bread and cup is but one, and the same, from whence it followeth not, that all must drink thereof but only that: all that drink, drink but of one and the same cup. Thirdly he answereth that at most, take the words how you will, they can signify no more but only the practice of that tyme. All this doth Bell. say which you could craftlly dissemble, and make your Reader believe, as if he shuffled over the matter only with a different reading without farther reason: but in this you Lined it as you do every where else.  
5. A 4. author is Origen out of whom you have these words touching the Sacrament of Christ's body. Thus much be spoken of the typical and symbolical body: to which you say Sixtus Senensis makes answer that he suspecteth the place to be corrupted: thus you here: and a little after you come about with Origen again, and say; if we produce Origen, Ribera the jesuit saith he was full of errors, which the church always detested. To the first place I answer that beside that answer of Sixtus Senensis; which I do not see you disprove, 
V Bell. de Euch lib. 2. cap. 8.  you know other Catholic authors give other answers. Some say not only that place to be corrupted; but that whole work of his to be dubiae fidei of uncertain authority. Others explicate that, & other places brought out of the same work by Peter Martyr against Gardiner not of the Sacrament of Christ's body, but of a certain holy bread, which was want to be given to such as did not communicate, in place of the Eucharist; whereof there is frequent mention in antiquity: but Bellarmine hath a plain and substantial answer, that these words are spoken of the Eucharist, and that they are nothing against the real presence; neither do I see any cause in the world, why a man should decline the authority, or try any other way of answer. For is it not most true, that it is the typical and symbolical body of Christ, in as much as it is representative of Christ himself upon the cross or even as he is now in heaven in as much as it is a pledge of aeternal life: especially seeing Origen in many other places alleged by Bellarmine speaketh most plainly of the real presence. Now for the later place I see not why you should be troubled at Ribera's words of Origen. For he doth not speak them by way of answer to any objection (though you please to say so, for your words are these: if we produce Origen; as if you did object some place out of him which you do not:) or weakening his authority for his own advantage, for he writeth no controversy, but only by way of general advice: he himself as he saith having anciently been well inclined towards Origen, for the fame of his learning; but finding him so deeply censured by many holy Fathers and general judgement of the Church, he altered his opinion of him: this I say he speaketh only by way of advice being to comment upon Malachias the Prophet and being there to treat which were the best interpreters of scripture without any regard to any objection or controversy. Now what is this to your purpose, or what can you except against it? I see not, nor any man else nor even yourself I think, if you mark what you say. But why should you allege Ribera the jesuit, as if he were the only man that did condemn him. See in Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. whether he be not censured of error by S. Basil, and condemned of haeresy and reckoned among Haeretiques by S. Epiphanius, as for S. Hierome, it is well known how deeply he condemneth him: Who also translated one of Origen's works full of errors to that end, to desplay them: and even in the 5. General Council to say nothing of particular men, there is anathema said to him, and his writings, even as to Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Nestorius, and Eutyches: and yet you could find no body that should tax Origen of error but one poor jesuit: though almost all this be mentioned by the same jesuit and in the same place which you cite so as you could not choose but see it. What then shall a man say to this your manner of dealing?  
6. A fift Father is Theodoret: touching transubstantiation. Who, say you, sayeth the substance of bread and wine ceaseth not in the Sacrament: to which you tell us Valencia makes answer that he erred in the Council of Ephesus, though afterward he repent him, as if this were all the answer, that either he or any man else giveth; or as if even that were not true which Valencia saith of Theodoret's erring in the Council of Ephesus: 
Chap. 9 §. 3  but to this place I answered before showing it neither to be against us, nor that to be Valencia his only answer but the last only of 3. or 4. besides other men's answers.  
7. The 6. is Epiphanius touching images: of whom you say out of a certain Epistle of his, he found a veil at the entrance of the church representing the image of Christ, or some Saint which he cut in pieces, and withal commanded that none such should be hereafter suffered to hang there: to this you say Sanders and Baronius make answer, that they are not S. Epiphanius his words but the words of some counterfeit, & image-breaker: as if these two were the only men that said so, or as if they said so only, because it was against the worship of images, without farther reason of their saying, or as if that were their only answer: but in all these you fail foully. For it is not the answer of these two alone, but the common of almost all learned men; nor the only answer, nor upon any one or more man's bare word. That it is not the only answer, may be seen in Bellarmine who bringeth two more, 
Bell. lib. 2. de imag. cap. 9  one out of Waldensis who supposeth it to have been so done by Epiphanius, in regard of the Anthropomorphit haeretiques reigning at that time, the other is of Marianus Victorius & some others saying that, that was not the image of Christ, or any Saint, but of some profane man hung there in the Church as if it had been the picture of some Saint, that being no fit place for it: by occasion whereof I cannot but note your corrupt citing of this testimony as you call it of Epiphanius: for whereas the pretended words are these. Cum invenissem imaginem hominus pendentem in ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti, nescio enim cuius erat. When I had found the image of a man hanging in the Church as if it were the image of Christ or some Saint, for I know not whose it was. You say thus that he found a veil representing the image of Christ, or some Saint: which is plain corruption. For S. Epiphanius saith in plain manner, it was neither the image of Christ or any Saint, but that it was the image of a man he knoweth not who. Which if it had been Christ's or any Saints he would have known whose it was: neither would he have called the image of Christ or any Saint the image of a man: and then he maketh a comparison or likeness between the hanging of that picture, and the picture of Christ or some Saint. Which showeth plainly both, that it was not Christ's nor any Saints: and also that it was the custom to hang the images of Christ and his Saints in the Church. It is also an idle senseless expression of yours, when you say a veil representing the image of Christ. For the veil was not the picture of a picture, and therefore did not represent the image but represented the man: You leave also out those words nescio cuius erat. I know not whose it was. By all which is discovered both your corruption, and the probability of this answer, suppose these words were Epiphanius his: whereas indeed they are not: and this is the third answer, which you only take notice of: but without taking notice or answering any of the reasons alleged by any man for the same; Whereas Bellarmine allegeth no less than 9 all very good, and substantial ones: and some of them moral demonstrations, as that those words are a piece added at the end of the epistle, put to no man knoweth how, nor with what connexion; another is that S. Hierome having translated that Epistle, whereto these words are added, maketh no mention at all of them, or any such veil; a third is, that in the 7. general Council where the Iconoclasts or image-breakers alleged all that ever they could out of any author, they never mentioned any such authority as this of Epiphanius; which showeth that either the words were not there or at lest that they had not any shadow of probability against the images of Christ: and Epiphanius the Deacon in that Council proveth two such places to have been corrupted by Haeretiques, and inserted in the works of S. Epiphanius; more may be seen in other authors; for this shall serve to discover your honest and upright dealing with Epiphanius, Sir Humphrey, and show what cause you have to complain of our eluding or rejecting the Fathers.  
8. But yet I shall discover the same more going thorough with the rest of the Father's testimonies the next of which is S. Cyprian's touching tradition thus. From whence is this tradition? for the Lord commanded us to do those things, which are written, to which you say Bellarmine maketh answer that S. Cyprian wrote thus, when he thought to defend his own error, and therefore it is no marvel if he erred in so reasoning: it is true Sir Humphrey, Bellarmine maketh this answer, and it is a very good one and of itself doth serve the turn. For it is most true, that S. Cyprian there writ in defence of rebaptisation which he maintained, and because he saw it could not be impugned by the written word; but only by unwritten tradition which S. Stephen Pope then urged against him, he rejected that tradition and fled to Scripture wherein the badness of his cause put him to that hard shift. For proof whereof I will but only ask you whether you think S. Cyprian was then in an error or not? I presume you will not deny but he was, otherwise you must grant that we may baptise such as have been baptised in your Church; and are converted to ours, or that you must baptise such of ours as fall to yours, because you may say yours is no haeresy, but rather ours. But whether soever you say of these two, you I suppose will not, nor indeed can grant rebaptisation: for it is contrary to your belief & practice. Well then, it is an error: Likewise this error is not otherwise maintained, but by denial of unwritten tradition, and cannot be overthrown but by holding them: and therefore it must follow of necessity that it is an error to deny tradition. Or thus, if this rebaptisation be an error and that it follow of that principle of holding to the written word only, then is that principle false. For it is an ordinary rule in Logic, that if a conclusion be false or impossible, the premisse or principle from whence it followeth must of necessity be false or impossible: and this rule is grounded upon a certain axiom, that ex vero nihil sequitur nisi verum. Of truth there follows nothing but truth: So rebaptisation being an error as you cannot deny, that principle of the only written word from whence it followeth, and whereupon it dependeth must needs be false. Whereby you may see Bellarmine's argument to be good, and your own to be of no force. 
Bell. de verb. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11.  But besides Bellarmine added some authority to his reason, thereby giving it a great deal of credit; which is that S. Aug. doth answer and confute that whole Epistle of S. Cyprian's out of which these words are taken. So that you might have said, that S. Augustine doth elude and reject S. Cyprian's authority as well as Bellarmine, but that for shame me you could not be so bold with S. Augustine as you might be with Bellarmine though both said but the same thing.  
9 The 8. testimony is S. Chrysostom's touching private Mass in these words. It is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then to be present and not to communicate. Bellarm. say you, maketh this answer that Chrysostome spoke this as at other times, by exceeding the truth, when he would only incite men frequently and worthily to communicate. Where first you wrong Bellarmine, in straining his words to the worst sense, and as I may say truly mistranslating them. For whereas he saith that S. Chrysostome spoke this by excess per excessum are his words, you say by exceeding the truth, which is false. For it is not all one to say, that a man speaketh by excess, and by exceeding the truth. For there is a figure in Rhetoric called hyperbole or excess. Which whosoever useth is not said presently to exceed the truth, or speak untruelly as you would make Bellar. say of S. Chrysost. but only to speak by hyperbole or excess wherein the intent of the speaker is not to be taken so precisely to the utmost of his words, but with a grain of salt, as we say, because by that manner of speech, a man intendeth only to signify the greatness of the matter, of which he speaketh; whither it be commending or discommending. And it is certain some men use this figure more than others, and specially those who are more eloquent and who are to frame their discourse to the moving of a popular or vulgar auditory such as S. Chrysost. was, therefore for answer of the matter, Bell. saith well, that this Saint being greatly moved with his people's coldness in devotion and backwardness in coming to the holy mysteries, spoke by excess to make them more apprehend the illness thereof as we are wont also to say, a man were better not hear Mass at all, than not to hear it devoutly, or a man is better not to do such, or such a thing, than not to do it well, or willingly, and the like; though indeed in our judgement we think it better the thing be done though with some imperfection, than not at all. But this we say to signify the desire we have to see it well done, or that we do not receive that content by the slender or slight manner of doing it. And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost. saying, 
Bell. de Miss. lib. 2. cap. 10  as Bell. maketh it to appear plainly: both by an example out of scripture and by other arguments out of S. Chrysost. himself which you may look better upon again, and consider well with yourself, whether you have dealt well with Bell. in alleging his bare words, so as if he had given no reason for his saying. Besides I do not find that S. Chrysost. speak the very words which you allege so crudely and harshly as you make him. For he doth not say plainly that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice, than not to communicate: but to show the indignity of it, bringeth a similitude of a man that should invite a friend to a feast, and that friend coming should only sit there, and not eat a bit of meat, 
Chrys. hom. 3. in ep. ad Ephes.  he asketh whether in so doing he do not put an affront upon his friend that invited him? and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all? wherein he saith most truly. Which for all that being but a similitude, doth not hold so rigorously in every particular. Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place, to disprove that which you call private Mass. For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had been better for the Priest not to say Mass, than not to have some to communicate with him, it had been something but to say of the people, that it was better for them not to be there, than not to communicate I do not see by what consequence it can be drawn against the Priests saying Mass without communicants: especially seeing it is evident, 
V Durant. de rit. lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5.  that this Saint did say Mass every day and many of his people did not communicate passed twice or thrice and many also not passed once in a twelve month.  
10. The 9 ancient author is Prudentius, whose words you cite not, but only say thus, if we cite Prudentius, Bellarmine answers I say no more of him, but that he playeth the Poet, but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbear to cite Prudentius his words or sense? any man may easily guess there is something in the wind; something that you think better concealed then discovered: but I shall for once supply your want herein. First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this section you told us you would show how we elude or reject the testimonies of the Fathers, or to use your own words the records and real proofs in Fathers and other learned authors touching the chief points in controversy betwixt us. Now let us see whither that for which Prudentius is objected in Bellarmine be such or not. The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned souls in hell feel any benefit by the suffrages of the living or Noah. For the affirmative he bringeth some sayings of Fathers, which may seem to insinuate as much, and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus.  
Sunt & spiritibus saepe nocentibus  
Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae.  
The English whereof is, that the wicked spirits have often times holidays, that is some ease of their pains, to which Bell. maketh no other answer indeed, but that he played after the manner of Poets, now I ask you whither this be a chief point of controversy betwixt you and us? it should seem you take it so: because you seem in all this Section, as if you alleged only such as make for you in your controversyes against us: and your very words which you use here thus, if we cite Prudentius etc. import, as if you did cite Prudentius for yourself in that matter, whereto Bellarmine answereth: yet it is plain on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and us in that matter. For I never heard that any haeretique of this time said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their pains by the prayers of the living. What say you then Sir Humphrey do not you allege Prudentius to very good purpose? doth not this show a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not, so it may seem somewhat against us, though indeed it be not. But now for Bellarmine's answer, it is true and good: and it is well known that Poet's words are not always to be so strictly interpreted, nor truth to be altogether so exacted at their hands, as at other men's: the restraint which they are fain to use in the number of their verse, giving them a little more liberty in the matter.  
11. The 10. Tertullian, 
Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6.  whose words you do not also cite, but only say that if you object him Bellarmine answers his authority is of no great account when he contradicteth other Fathers, and when it appeareth he was no man of the Church. His words I say you do not cite, but yet in saying, if we object him, and indeed in naming him, you seem as if you had some controversy with us in that point for which he is cited, which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our saviour's birth: that is, whether she were a Virgin in the birth also or not. But though the haeretiques of this age generally speak very meanly and contemptibly of this most sacred Virgin, yet I do not find that your Protestants are so earnest against her Virginity, as to make the contrary a point of your belief, much less a chief point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place. But for the matter it is this: Bellarmine speaking of an authority of S. Ambrose his, which might seem at first sight to make against the same, then saith that Origen and Tertull. have something like also; and so answering altogether he showeth of Origen & S. Ambrose, that they are not against us by expounding those places, which seem against it by other plain places out of them. For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure, nor much to be regarded when he contradicteth other Fathers; and when it appears he was no man of the Church. Which last words you translate falsely, and withal leave out an authority of special moment: the words falsely translated are these. (Cùm constet) since it appeareth. Whereas you say when it appeareth. Which is a different sense; for ask any schoolboy whether cùm with the subiunctive and indicative mood be all one: the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine allegeth thus. Seeing saith he it is evident as Saint Hiero. speaketh, that he was no man of the Church: these being Saint Hierom's very words: here than you see again that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reject Tertullian: nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him, but almost all the Fathers: Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many, 
Vinc. Lerin. cap. 24. Hilar. in comment. in Math. cap. 5.  and Saint Hilarius saith there, that Tertullian's later errors, did detract a great deal of authority from his approved writings. So than it is no wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers. And so you may say that S. Hierome, Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reject and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine.  
12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him, Canus makes answer Hierome is no rule of faith: 
Can. de locis. lib. 2. cap. 11.  but you tell us not where, or upon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome, no more than you do the three former Fathers: though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of, which is the Canon of Scripture, you have Saint Hierome a little more fore you in show then in any thing else, or more than you have any other of the Fathers: yet I dare say you willbe loath to stand to his judgement even in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament, according to the Canon of the jews, which you also follow, if a man should urge you with S. Hieromes authority even in this point, I believe you would say the same, or more than Canus doth, to wit, that he is no rule of faith, for S. Hierosme alloweth the book of judith to be canonical Scripture, 
Proef. in judith.  though it be not in the jews canon, which yet you reject; and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle, à plaerisque reijcitur: it is rejected by most: 
Descript. eccles. Verb. Petrus Apost.  wherein yet you do not follow him: this is for the matter. Now for the words you do not cite Canus right, for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is no rule of faith, (though that be true as I shall show presently) but thus: having alleged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus. For neither is it true, saith Canus, that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books. Which is most true. S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church, but the Church is his rule, 
Hier. praef. in judith.  as appeareth in that he reckoneth judith among the Canonical books, upon the authority of the Church. Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is no rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture, which not, and to say he is no rule of faith. Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is no rule of faith, he had said most true, and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words, in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome, and speaking even of his writings thus: 
Aug. ep. 19  Solis eye scripturarum libris, etc. I have learned to give that fear and honour to those only books of scripture, which are now called canonical, as to believe most firmly that no author (or writer) of them hath erred any thing in writing: but others I read so that though they excel never so much in any holiness & learning, I do not therefore think it true, because they thought so, but because they have been able to persuade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason, that they say true: and there he goeth on specifying even S. Hierome himself, and saying unto him that he presumeth he would not have him so wholly approve of his writings, as to think there is no error at all in them. The like he hath in another place showing plainly that any private Doctor may err, 
Lib. 2. de Bap. cont. Donat. cap. 3  and consequently can be no rule of faith. Yet for all that, the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others, or is not by them gain said. For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and belief of the Church, which is a sufficient rule. Is this then to reject and elude the Fathers, to say that one is no rule of faith? if it be, then doth S. Aug. reject and elude them: it is plain therefore you do but cavil: for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth?  
13. After S. Hierome you come to justin, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Oecumenius, whom say you if you cite, Bellarmine answers I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from error. 
Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6  Hear again as else where you forbear to tell us the matter, for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them: For this would have discovered your falsehood and vanity. The matter than is concerning the damned spirits, whether they suffer any punishment for the present time before the day of judgement or not, these fathers think not: the common consent of all other fathers, and of the whole Catholic Church is against them in it. How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error: but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethink yourself well, and tell us again whether this be any point controverted between you and us? I know it is a thing which you might better maintain, then most or perhaps any one point of your faith, having these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein, but yet I do not find by your 39 articles or any other sufficient authority, that you hold that error much less as a chief point of your faith. Wherefore it is false that you say (when you cite these Fathers.) For you do not cite them, neither is their error in a matter of controversy between us, I note here also in a word, that whereas Bellarmine saith only he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of justin, Irenaeus etc. from error you make him say, the opinion of these men, as if he did speak but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong. For though he do not in all things and always approve the opinion of every particular man yet doth he always speak with great reverence of the holy Fathers as all Catholics do.  
14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the uniform consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; Salmeron the jesuit makes answer, weak is the place which is drawn from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus. It is the sign of a poor man to number his Cattles. Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines discovering a great deal of falsehood. For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady. That being no controversy between you and us but only among ourselves: wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our own authors, you only out of the great good affection you bear forsooth to our B. Saviour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more derogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother: but what do crows look for but carrion? Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowledgeth any such uniform consent of Fathers against him, or that he makes any such answer to them. It is true indeed he saith the contrary part allege for themselves the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and specially of Saint Augustine. Which he answereth another way: but for those which he answereth as you say here, they are only later authors or Doctors: as shall after appear. Thirdly it is false that he acknowledgeth any uniform consent even of these later Doctors against himself: for he opposeth a fare greater multitude of Doctors against them using that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet: 
4. Reg. 6.16.  plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis: there be more with us then with them. Where then is the consent? Fourthly it is a cunning trick if not a false for you to make this answer seem Salmeron's only, whereas he professeth to have it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three several places of Saint Augustine but it is well at lest that, though you contemn their authority; yet you do not do it so openly but covertly only under the shadow of a JESVIT. This therefore might be answer enough for you to show that we do not reject or elude the Fathers: seeing we have our answers out of them: but to explain the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weak, a little more, I will allege S. Thomas of Aquine his objection and answer: he objecteth that the science of Divinity cannot be argumentative: 
1. p q. 1. ar. 8. and 2.  because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason; not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weak: not out of reason because then faith hath no merit: to this he answereth that it argueth out of Divine authority; and saith that Boetius is to be understood of humane authority, which he also saith is the weakest kind of proof. So as by this Salmeron's meaning is plain not to reject authority, but only to prefer reason before humane authority: as it is most plain that it ought to be preferred. Besides Salmeron giveth other answers as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctors; he opposeth the force of reason; he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church: concluding therefore that though some of the contrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very numbering showeth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus, it is only for a poor man to number his cattles: whereas a rich man's cattles or other wealth is not so soon counted: insinuating thereby that his authors are so many that they are not to be numbered: and indeed he hath almost as many Vniversityes, kingdoms, commonwealths, religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors: By all which it is apparent that there is no such absurdity in his saying as you would have it seem: for he slighteth not authority but preferreth only greater authority before less, and reason before both: which no man in his right wits can deny to be very good reason; where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron? it was straying after some haereticall fancy.  
15. By this than that hath been said in this whole chapter it may appear how like yourself you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader, that by what you have here said, he hath heard the proof of the Romish witnesses in the chief points, made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselves. For disproof whereof I should urong my Reader's judgement, if I should stand bringing other arguments than those, which I have done already in answering every particular place which you bring. Wherein I have shown not one Father of all these to be against us, unless it be in some one or two points, wherein they are as much against you, and in things which both you acknowledge for errors, and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers, wherein I hope my deeds will weigh more with any man of judgement than your words: 
Chap. 13.  and so I pass to another section.   

Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entitled by the Knight. Our adversaries convinced of a bad cause, and an evil conscience by razing of our records and clipping their own authors tongues. CHAPTER XIII.  
1. IN the later end of the former section, the Knight saith that many in our own Church have spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctrine with his, and against our tenets. For which the Inquisitours have passed their censure upon them, blotting out such lines or leaves as make against us: and now in this section he nameth some authors in particular. To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true, there be and ever have been some light new fangled people, who give too much liberty to their wand'ring thoughts and penns, suffering themselves like chaff as they are, to be blown hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy. And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques, though some also remain in the unity of the Catholic church, yet so as they suffer some things to escape, which deserve censure. Wherefore the Catholic church to prevent the danger and harm, which may come by such books, taketh the best order that can be in Catholic countries, that no such books be printed till they be reviewed, and approved not to contain any thing contrary to faith and good manners: but because there have been many such writings published this last age, by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith, to the great prejudice of the Catholic faith there hath been a course taken for the restraint of all such, not only writings of Haeretiques, but even of Catholics which have any tange of haeresy, either utterly forbidding them or correcting them, so as they may be safely read without danger of faith and good life. And this kind of care hath ever been used in the Catholic church, though more or less, as the necessity of times hath been greater or less. 
Act. 19.18.  So we see in scripture itself, some that followed curiosities, becoming Christians confessed their deeds, and burned their books. So we see afterwards the books of Arius were commanded to be burnt and men forbidden to keep them under pain of death, 
Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 6.  and so of others which I will not here stand upon, only contenting myself with one example of this kind, which for the antiquity and authority may be both proof and warrant for the practice of the Catholic Church now at this time, wherein the Haeretiques do so much cry out against the Inquisition, and index expurgatorius.  
2. This example is that of Gelasius 1. Pope about the year 490. who in a Council at Rome gathered for that end, made a Decree to declare what Scriptures were canonical, what Fathers and Doctors might be safely read, and what not: whereof having made a catalogue he addeth these words in the end. Item opuscula atque tractatus omnium orthodoxorum etc. Also we decree to be read the works and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers, who in nothing have strayed from the company of the holy Roman Church, nor have been separated from the faith and preaching thereof, but by the grace of God have held with the same even to the last day of their life; and then before he come to make a catalogue of the haereticall books, which he forbiddeth, he saith thus. Coetera quae abhaereticis etc. Other things which have been written or preached by Haeretiques or Schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church doth no way receive, of which some few that come to mind and are to be shunned by Catholics, we think good to set down here: and so there setteth them down. Now I would know of the Knight or any man else that crieth out so bitterly against our Index expurgatorius, what he can say against it, that he may not say against this decree and Council of Gelasius? and against which we may not defend ourselves by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts.  
3. But of this matter therefore I need not say more it being evident by the light of nature that supposing there be a certain rule of faith, to which all men must comforme their thoughts, sayings, and writings, and that the swerving from it is a declining to haeresy, it pertaineth to the Catholic Roman Church (which must of necessity be this rule of faith. For it hath neither spot nor wrinkle as Gelasius saith, which cannot be said of any Church else what soever) to prevent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the use of them; and a more dangerous and unnatural part it would be in her, not to use this care, than it were in a Mother that should see sugar and ratts-baine lie together, and seeing her child going to taste thereof should forbear to warn it; but leave the choice thereof to the child. But of this matter I said somewhat in the beginning, and there being diverse learned treatises of this subject particularly, I need say no more: but remit such as desire satisfaction to them or even to the very rules set down in the beginning of the Index expurgatorius which are grounded upon so good reason as I presume no indifferent man that readeth them can disallow of them: I will not therefore stand particularly to examine every particular author and justify the Inquisition, for it would be both a long & needless labour. Only I cannot omit one author called Bertram whom, to turn my speech to you Sir Humphrey, me thinks you among all men living should never so much as name, considering how much disgrace you have sustained by translating his book and venturing your own credit, and the credit of your Church upon the faith thereof: and for him I answer that though his book were proved plainly to contain good Catholic doctrine in the matter of transubstantiation: yet because it was obscure in many places and thereby gave occasion of erring: and indeed was of uncertain authority, this only being certain that it hath been in this last age published by Haeretiques, we know not out of what records with some errors of their own inserted, therefore it might well be forbidden by the Inquisition? but I say you should of all men living most labour to have the memory thereof blotted out, therewith to obliterate your own shame.  
4. Another thing which I am also to note is, concerning your coting of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in this section; whereat I wonder, that the inquisition having said nothing to it, why you should reckon it here among such authors, as you say are razed or clipped by the inquisition. But let us hear what it is that you say to it? you cite the Canon thus in English only. We ought not to leave the Church of God, and invocate Angels: saying withal that in the same Council published by Merlin and Crabbe, by change of a letter, Angelos is turned into Angulos, Angels into Angles and Corners, thus, that we must not leave the Church of God and have recourse to Angles or Corners. and this say you, lest so fair an evidence of an ancient Council should be produced against invocation of Angels, 
V Bin. to. 1. Concil.  thus you, Sir Humphrey: wherein first is to be noted your error in chronology, concerning the time of this Council which you make to be the year 368. which was 43. 
Con. Laodien. can. 35.  years after the 1. Council of Nice, whereas it was celebrated before that Council. Secondly your corruption in the translation and cutting of of the Canon, which is thus. Non oportet relicta ecclesia ad Angelos abominandae idolatriae congregrationes facere, quicunque autem inventus fuerit occultae huic idololaetriae vacans Anathema sit, quoniam relinquens Dominum (JESUM Christum) filium Dei accessit ad idola. No man must, leaving the Church of God, make congregations to the Angels of abominable idolatry: and whosoever shallbe found exercising this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because leaving JESUS Christ the Son of God, he hath come to idols. Now where in this Canon do you find the word invocation of Angels; Which is the thing that you pretend to be forbidden: and much less do you find such invocation of Angels as we use? For in this Canon is only forbidden such idolatrical invocation as the Simonian and other haeretiques did use, praeferring the Angels before Christ, and making them the creators of the world and the only or chief mediators, without whose help there was no access to be had to God, which is the same wicked haeresy which Saint Paul speaketh against Coloss. 2. as all interpreters understand him. By whose words it is plain that those Haeretiques left Christ and had recourse to Angels in this sense. Nemo vos seducat non tenens caput, etc. Let no man seduce you, not holding the head, that is, not holding by Christ. Now where do you find that we by invocation of Angels forsake Christ? this place than maketh nothing against us. Thirdly there is no reason why you should charge us with changing the word Angelos into angulos. For though some may read it Angulos yet others read it Angelos and even two for one. For whereas Binius out of whom you yourself cite this Canon, in his last edition of the Counsels hath the Greek text and three several Latin translations thereof; all these have Angelos and not Angulos, & Bellarmine, Baronius, and almost all other authors read it angelos and according to that reading answer that trivial objection which your people ordinarily draw from thence against our adoration of Angels and Saints no way excepting against the word, angelos, as if that were not the right reading, but showing the sense not to be any way against us.  
5. Is it not then shameless dealing in you, to make your Reader believe that we corrupt the reading, left so fair an evidence, to use your words, should be brought against us; whereas we keep the evidence so fair and entire, in our best editions that were it not for them, you would not know what the true reading were; you knowing withal, that there is no cause why we should go about to change the word, which is nothing against us: for we forsake not Christ; we acknowledge no angels to be the framers of the world, nor chief mediators, nor that with out them we cannot have access to God. These are all haereticall devices, which we together with S. Paul and the Council of Laodicea detest. But as I said before seeing you would needs bring this impertinent objection, I wonder why you did not bring it before, but here in this place, as if the inquisition had commanded something to be blotted out, or the word angeli to be changed into anguli. But you wanted matter to fill out your section; and therefore you put that in here, and withal to help it out yet a little more you tell us of one Henry Boxhorn a learned professor of Louvain, as you term him, and who as you say in your English text, being commanded to put the Decree of the Inquisition in execution, his hart was smitten, and his eyes opened to see the abomination of the Papacy; an idol in the temple, tyranny in the commonwealth, poison and infection in religion: and thereupon became a convert to the Protestant faith: thus you Sir Humphrey: but if such matter as this will serve your turn, you may have enough; neither need you search corners to find out such obscure: fellows as this Boxhorne whose hearts have been smitten, and their eyes opened; you might bring the Fathers of your religion for examples as Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Beza, Carolstadius, and who not: for though they might pretend several causes, yet there was one principal one, which consisted indeed in the smiting of their hearts, with a fiery dart of carnal love. And when they found an Eve to give them an apple, than their eyes were opened; and so it proved also with your friend Boxhorne, as I shall here show you by a brief story of his life most authentically related by that grave and holy man Oliverius Manaraeus of the Society of JESUS, in a certain written treatise, wherein he recounteth only the examples of his own time, and such as he himself knew had become Apostatas from the said Society: thus than he writeth.  
6. Henry Buxhornich Licentiate of Divinity and Dean of the church of Tielmond not fare from Louvain, did often confess himself to be so certainly called to the Society, that he hath been heard many times to say, that he did think he should prove a reprobate and be eternally damned, unless he did enter there into: and he was wont to say it with so great feeling that there was no doubt but he spoke it inflamed with heavenly fire. But his Mother endeavoured by all means to withdraw her son from so good a purpose, and indeed prevailed so fare as to make him differre it from month to month and from year to year. After some years falling sick he was heard by some that even told it me again saith F. Oliverius Manaraeus, to repeat and renew his vow but being recovered he went on as before, yielding to his Mother's enticements and concupiscences of the flesh, gave the raines to his sensuality. In that time the haeretiques sacked and spoiled the town of Tielmond, and killed all that did not either fly or hide themselves: here then the poor Licentiate hid himself in a certain cave or den the enemy running round about him on every side, and almost lighting upon him. But being in this danger he had recourse as he was wont to God and our Blessed Lady, renewing his vow nine times together, and craving pardon that he had not accomplished the same before: which almighty God hearing delivered him, and he magnifying the benefit, resolved presently to fulfil his Vow: but being again ensnared by the allurements of his Dalila he did so long differr it till he became publicly a sacrilegious concubinary giving himself so over to his lust, that he kept a nest of women in his house. Being then questioned by the Bishop's Vicar. he sent away all his women, & gave his oath that he would keep himself within his own doors as in a prison. But he breaking his faith, stole away the next night with a great sum of money whereof most did belong to the Church, carrying his concubine with him, and marrying her afterwards according to the custom of Haeretiques became a Preacher and Minister in Holland. A little after endeavouring to reconcile the Lutherans and Caluinists he writ a book which he called Concord. in which he speaks very bitterly of the Society of JESUS, calling the religious thereof Esavits: he became presently extreme wicked who seemed before endued with angelical virtues and adorned with admirable sweetness of manners so as by word and example he drew many to virtuous courses; but now he is become so ugly to behold as is related and his life so execrable in Holland that no man can endure him. His mother through the just judgement of God having been cause of his perdition was fain to leave him, not being able to endure his cruelty and wicked manners: and whereas before she lived in great abundance, she is now become so poor as to live upon alms all crooked and as it were double at Louvain getting what she can by washing and spinning, every man wondering at her, and admiring the just revenge of almighty God upon her: thus fare this most true and faithful relation. Whereto I may add one word more which is this that a certain Apostata Franciscan running away to Breda when it was in the hands of the Hollanders and where this Boxhorne was at that time chief Preacher and being lodged in his house and in the next chamber to him and his Woman, he heard such kind greeting between them that night the one cursing the other and imputing their apostasy and future damnation to each other, this poor Friar repent himself, and thereupon came back to his monastery and did penance, rather choosing to suffer a little outward austerity then to carry about in the bottom of his soul such an inward assured testimony and belief of his eternal damnation as he saw these two did. I might say more of the man's fine feats but there be books in dutch particularly of them as I hear: and so I say no more but that in this your learned Buxhorne whom you Sir Humphrey of Licentiate make a Doctor, as in all your other learned men that blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian hit the right vein and discovered the true cause of their apostasy, when he told the University men, it was not any Charks or Hammers that held them back: (as I may say also it was not any razing of evidences that made Boxhorne fall from his faith) but that there were certain Lutheran baits, wherewith many of them were catched, which were. Aurum, gloria, delitiae, veneres. Gold, glory, delights, and Venus: of which some are catched with one, some with another: and so you see this your learned Professor had so deeply swallowed the last of the four baits that it made his stomach turn at the Catholic faith, which exhorted him to contemn some of them as gold, & glory, and forced him to forbear others, as his base and bestial delights: and so forsaking all obedience to humane and divine laws, at one clapp became a rebel to his Prince, an Apostata to religion, and enemy to the Catholic faith: therefore of such fellows there is no other account to be made, but let them go, as the Scripture saith of one of their chief Leaders. 
Act. 2.25.   abiret in locum suum: That he might go into his own place.   

Of the 14. Sect. the title whereof is this▪ 
Chap. 14.  Our adversaries convicted of their defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture itself. CHAPTER XIV.  
1. TO this section the Knight giveth a beginning by occasion of Boxhornes words in the last section, of an idol in the temple. Whereupon he very wittily tells us, that when we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, we must fly to the mountains of the Scriptures, as S. Chrysostome saith: but yet he thinks we will not come to trial of scriptures, because saith he, are we not all eye witnesses, that Christ and his Apostles are called in question at the Pope's assizes? and there arraigned and condemned of obscurity and insufficiency in their gospel? is not the sacred bible saith he ranked inter libros prohibitos, in the first place, in the catalogue of forbidden books? & then he bringeth Corn. Agrippa complaining of the Inquisitors that they will not admit men to prove their opinions by scriptures. This is the Knight's discourse which upon examination will prove as foolish, as he thinks it witty. I answer therefore that though Catholics hold for most certain, that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith, nor that out of it alone all controversies can be decided: as for example that in particular which books be canonical Scripture which not; Yet for most things now a days in controversy, many Catholics have offered to try the matter by only scripture, some having also written books of good volume, 
Anchor of Faith.  to show the Scripture in the plain and obvious sense, to make positively for us, & our Doctrine in most points, & against us in none. Whereof a man may also have a brief taste in the defence of the censure, in the preface, in these points following of Supremacy, real presence, justification, absolution, Vows, traditions, observance of the commandments, satisfaction, prayer for the dead, prayer to Saints etc. in which respect therefore I may ask you Sir Humphrey how you come to be so sure that we will not come to the trial of Scriptures? for though we ground many points upon tradition and practice of the Church, yet do not we ground others upon plain and express authority of Scripture? from which you are fain to fly running into this or that corner, of I know not what figurative or tropical interpretation, or even denying the very books of Scripture: nay what point is there that we do not bring better proofs out of Scripture for it, which yet we need not, than you can bring against it, which yet is absolutely needful on your part, you standing so upon Scripture as you do.  
2. As for that which you say of the Pope's questioning Christ & his Apostles at his Assizes for obscurity and insufficiency this is a speech uttered I suppose by you only in the fervour of an haereticall spirit: wherein therefore a man is not to look for much truth? but yet I may ask wherein I pray you doth the Pope question, or condemn Christ of obscurity & insufficiency? what hath Christ left written to be questioned or condemned? his Apostles & Evangelists indeed have left some things in writing: of which some are hard even by the judgement of Scripture itself? 
2. Pet. 3.16.  for so saith S. Peter of the Epistles of S. Paul, which (saith he) the unlearned and inconstant do abuse as they do others Scriptures, to their own perdition: 
Aug. Conf. lib. 12. c. 14.  and S. Augustine findeth so much difficulty in the first verse of the whole Scripture which to a man seeming is as easy, as any other verse what soever, that he is fain to acknowledge the wonderful profoundness thereof: it is S. Peter and S. Aug. therefore that call to their assizes if you will needs have it so) and there arraign and condemn S. Paul & Moses of obscurity, not the Pope: & so for insufficiency if any body condemn it, it is S. john in saying that: 
2. Thess. 2.14.  all things are not written: & S. Paul in willing the Thessalonians to hold the traditions, which they had learned whither by speech or letter: by word of mouth or writing: they are the Apostles & Doctors of the Church that acknowledge that hardness of Scripture, or what soever it is, which your Worship is pleased to call insufficiency. What impertinent flaunting is this then in you Sir Humphrey, to tell us the Pope questioneth Christ and his Apostles. To talk thus of Assizes and arraigning, as if you would have us know you are the Son of a Grand-Iuror: whom it is pity, you did not succeed in the place, since you have the terms so ready in your mouth.  
3. But to let that pass I likewise answer you for our ranking the bible in the first place of prohibited books, as you say we do, that it is false and false again. For it is not in the catalogue of such books; only in the rules which concern the index there is mention how the free use of vulgar translations is not to be permitted, 
Reg. 4.  but for the Latin vulgar translation there is no manner of restraint: though if there had been, we might very well have warranted it by the authority of S. Hierome who did no way admit such free use even of the Latin bibles; for having spoken largely and learnedly out of Scripture of the hardness and obscurity of scripture, 
Ep. ad Paulin.  he complains that every body did presume to take, read, and teach it before they learned it themselves, disallowing that even such as himself should go from saecular learning presently to the holy Scriptures, and interpret them at their pleasure. S. Hierome then thought them hard, and was not so free in allowing the reading of Scriptures as you are. For if he do not allow the reading thereof in Latin to men and Scholars, how much less would he have allowed it in English to women and Children? Besides it is no such crime to forbid the reading of scripture to some sorts of people, as may appear by this testimony of this holy Father, who in the same place also saith moreover that the beginning of Genesis, with the beginning and end of Ezechiel were not to be read by the jews, till they came to 30. years of age; which kind of forbidding is no derogation but a great commendation of the holy scripture. And I call it but a kind of forbidding; for it is fare different, though you make it all one, from the forbidding of haereticall books. For these are forbidden as wicked, detestable, & of themselves dangerous; the other out of reverence and honour dew unto them and in regard of the danger which may come by them not of themselues, but in regard of the weakness of the Reader, for want of necessary learning & humility: both which a man that is to handle the Scriptures must come well provided of.  
4. For Cornelius Agrippa it maketh no more matter what he saith, than what you say: for it is but ask my brother if I be a thief? but it is fine that these fellows cannot be invited by a general Council with promise of all security that can be desired to come and propound what they can say out of scripture, or any way else, and yet when they come before a judge they will dispute forsooth and by disputing avoid the rigour of the Law. Indeed I cannot blame them; but if this seem reason to you, why do you deny Catholic Priests the like liberty of Disputation? How often and earnestly have they desired it but could never obtain it? But neither even in that case with us are people denied any convenient liberty: neither is there any credit to be given to Cornelius Agrippa. For being a Magician he may very well be said to have shaked hands with the Devil the father of lies. Which you yourself it seems knowing and suspecting that his testimony would not pass for currant, you tell us we shall hear our own authors how they speak of the Scriptures. For you tremble to speak it as your words are. You tell us some say they are dead characters, a shell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a wood of thiefs, a shop of Haeretiques, imperfect, doubtful, obscure, full of perplexities, with many more epithets, which I let pass, these being of the very worst and especially the last 4. for which you allege Lessius, alleging likewise for every one of the rest a several author. Whereto not to stand answering every one severally, the matter being the same of one and all; I say in general, that these things are spoken not of the Scripture, as it is in itself that is consisting of both words and meaning, as it were life and soul together, but of the bare words and letters only which Haeretiques still do and even have abused as the Devil himself did to our Saviour and in this sense it is a wood of thiefs. For as thiefs run into a wood to escape thereby, so do Haeretiques run in all controversies to the letter of the Scripture, leaving the true sense and framing a false one according to their own fancy. 
Tert. de praes. cap. 17  Which is that that Tertullian saith that there is no good to be done with haeretiques by Scriptures for that either they deny the book or pervert the sense, and whatsoever we say they deny or what we deny they defend: and so a wood of thiefs, and shop of haeretiques, dead characters, and the like are all one: the meaning of all being so as these speeches are not meant of the Scripture properly in itself, as I said before, but as it is yours or as it is made by you and other Haeretiques, and yet alas good man you tremble to hear the words that do but express your own deeds. Alac for you that your stomach is so queasy, that it cannot endure to hear that, which you are bold and hardy enough to do by your daily practice.  
5. But because you are so dainty that your stomach turneth at what our modern authors say of you, let us see whether it will brook any better what that ancient & learned Father S. Hierome saith. Let us see whether your tender conscience willbe so scandalised at his words as you seem to be now at ours. 
Hierom. 1. Gal.  Martion & Basilides saith he, & caeterae haereticorum pestes non habent Dei Euangelium, quia non habent Spiritum Sanctum, sine quo humanum fit Euangelium quod docetur. Nec putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse Euamgelium, sed in sensu, non in superficie, sed in medulla; none in sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis. Dicitur in Propheta de Deo. 
Michae. 2.  Sermons eius boni sunt cum eo. Tunc Scriptura utilis est audientibus cum absque Christo non dicitur, cum absque Patre non profertur, cum sine spiritu non eam insinuat ille qui praedicat, alioquin & diabolus qui loquitur de scriptures, & omnes haereses secundum Ezechiel inde sibi consuunt ceruicalia quae ponant sub cubito universae aetatis etc. Grande periculum est in ecclesia loqui, ne fortè interpretatione perversa de evangelio Christi hominis fiat evangelium aut quod peius est Diaboli. Martion Basilides and other plagues of Haeretiques have not the Gospel of God, because they have not the Holy Ghost: without whom it becometh the gospel of man which is taught. Nor let us think that the gospel is (or consisteth) in the words of scripture but in the sense, not in the superficies (or bark) but in the pith; not in the leaves of speech (or word) but in the root of reason. It is said in the Prophet of God. His speeches are good with him: then the Scripture is profitable to the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ, when it is not brought without the Father, when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the Holy Ghost, otherwise both the Devil who speaketh out of Scripture and all heresies according to Ezechiel make themselves pillows out of it to put under the elbows of all ages. It is a great danger to speak in the Church lest perchance by perverse interpretation of the gospel of Christ there be made the gospel of man or which is worse the Gospel of the Devil. Thus fare Saint Hieromes words, which me thinks without more ado may easily answer your whole argument for in them this holy Father saith as much or more as all those Epithets which you bring out of our several authors put together and withal showeth in what sense they are to be taken. So as if you will say any more of this matter you must undertake the quarrel against Saint Hierome. You may do well also to note the very first words: Martion, Basilides & caeterae haereticorum pests: among whom you have your part.  
6. Now for the 4. last epithets which you bring out of Lessius, though they seem not such strange terms, as some of the rest, yet they are far worse and more derogatory from the holy Scripture if they be there as you say. I have therefore more particularly examined him, whither he say so or no: 
Lesle. Consul. Quae sit fides etc. rat. 11.  and whereas the words being all put down by you here as it were several epithets, a man would have thought they had been all so together in the author himself, I say first that there be neither any such words lying together, nor any such a part, nor any one word of those, that I can find in that whole place or reason which I may call a chapter, for it is in manner of a chapter, much less any of them uttered of the holy Scripture, though the whole Chapter or discourse in that place be only of the Scripture, and to prove that it alone and of itself can not be a rule of faith. Which he proveth by many reasons, one is because by it we can not judge of the Scripture itself, and so the very rule shall remain uncertain, which ought to be most certain. And in this place he hath the word incerta, which though it signify the same with some of the words here alleged, yet is it not the same word. But yet here Lessius is fare from saying that the Scripture is uncertain in itself, that is, that the doctrine thereof is doubtful: but only that our rule willbe uncertain to us or rather we uncertain of the rule, because we cannot know the Scripture by itself. For example that this book is true scripture, not suppositions, or feigned; or that this is the true meaning and sense thereof. And this kind of uncertainty is no derogation to the Scripture. Lessius his second reason is that, that cannot be a certain rule which may be accommodated or fitted to contrary doctrines, as he saith, Scripture is by several Haeretiques for establishment of quite different opinions. His 3. reason is this: that cannot be a judge, that cannot clearly determine on which side sentence is given, but leaveth it so, that the parties may still contend one affirming the sentence to be for him, another for him. And so he saith is the scripture laying aside the exposition of the Church, and Fathers. Whereto he there bringeth also an example of two men, who going to law would admit no other judge but the Law book; one bringing one Law clearly for him, as he thinketh; the other another Law as clearly for him in his judgement, of which suit there could never be an end so. Fourthly he showeth by experience, that this rule of Scripture is not sufficient for ending of Controversies: because the Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists are altogether by the ears, yet every one alleging Scripture for himself. Lastly he saith that the Scripture itself in no place sendeth private men to seach the Scriptures in doubtful matters, but to the Church and Pastors praesiding therein.  
7. This is the whole substance of Lessius his discourse in that place, wherein I would gladly hear what word there is derogating from the dignity of holy Scripture or any way condemning it of imperfection, doubtfulness, ambiguity, and perplexity? some of these things might be truly said and in a good sense, as the doubtfulness or ambiguity in the same sense that I spoke of the uncertainty, not in itself but to us-ward. But for the imperfection, because that is a great matter with you, I absolutely deny it: for neither doth any Catholic say either that, or any thing else from whence it may be gathered. For it is not all one to say, that it alone is no sufficient rule, and to say it is imperfect: for though you imagine that the all sufficiency, or containing of all things expressly, is a necessary point of perfection, you are deceived; for than would it follow, that the gospel of S. Matthew S. Mark and other particular books should be imperfect, and specially that of S. john, wherein he saith expressly that all things are not written; neither if all the Scripture did contain all things in that manner as you would have it, and so were perfect in your sense, yet would it not even then be a sufficient rule of faith of itself alone: for it would still be a book or uriting, the very nature whereof doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of faith or judge of controversies; for a judged must be able to speak, to hear, answer etc. whereas the nature of a book or writing is as it were to leave itself to be read, and expounded by men; for in case two men should expound it differently, the nature thereof doth not require that it should say whether of the two expoundeth it right. The perfection therefore of it doth rather consist in the truth, fullness of wisdom, profoundness, majesty, gravity, efficacy, authority, and certainty, then in containing all things expressly as you require & so long as it hath those perfections containing withal the principal matters pertaining to faith, and teaching us a certain and infallible way, whereby we may come to the knowledge of the rest which is the Church, it cannot be said to be unperfect or to want any perfection dew thereunto. And this may be answer sufficient to the rest of this Section which is nothing but a little more of such wise stuff: for you tell us we decline Scriptures as unperfect, the fathers as counterfect, the Protestants as haeretiques, our own authors as erroneous. Of which there is not one true word but this that we decline Protestants as haeretiques: for so we do indeed; but for the rest it is most false. For what Catholic did ever decline the authority of our School Divines or ancient fathers much less call the one erroneous or the other counterfeit. Some one may have strayed a little from the common opinion of the rest in some one particular point or perhaps have been corrupted by haeretiques, and so we may decline that particular author in that particular point, but call him erroneous or counterfeit we do not: nay we give you leave to name that Father or Catholic Doctor, to whose judgement we will not stand for trial of the controversies between you and us: and if he be for you in one, I will undertake he shallbe against you in 5. or 10. others for that one. With what face then can you say we decline them? but because I imagine you reflect most in this saying upon this worthy work of your own▪ I leave it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether I have so declined one author either modern or ancient; or whether I have not showed every one which you have brought to be quite against you. Now for the Scripture because you say we decline it as unperfect I challenge you to name the man that saith it is unperfect & for that reason declineth it. You fathered indeed that term upon Lessius but I shown it to be most false, for that he hath not the word at all in that chapter much less doth he say it of Scripture, and less again doth he decline the trial thereof in regard of the imperfection but only in regard that it being a written word no haeretique can be convinced by it, as I shown also even now out of Tertullian, who saith it is but lost labour to dispute with an haeretique out of scripture. But because I see your drift in the often repetition of the word imperfect is only to beget in men's minds an hard conceit of us, 
De pr●●. cap. ●  as if we made small account of scripture, I would know of you who they be that have preserved the Scripture with such care for so many ages? who they be that have translated, commentend, and expounded them? who they be that have made so many decrees in particular and general Counsels for the preservation, authority, reverence, and due use of them? who they be that have filled libraries with learned works not only expounding the particular passages, but frequently and largely declaring their necessity, dignity, utility, and other perfections? 
Veu. B. 2. ●p. Sr. ●p.  Let any man by these effects judge who reverenceth them most Catholics or Protestants? Let him compare the labours of the one with the labours of the other and then he shall soon find the truth of this matter.  
8. But because you still talk of our declining of Scripture, besides that it is false, as I said before, for we are content to admit any kind of trial with you, to take that also out of your mouth. I answer you farther, that in this we condescend more unto your infirmity being willing to try all ways to gain you, than we need, or you can of right challenge. For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian's most true, Whereby he as it were stoppeth this gap against you. Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendos eos ad ullam de scripturis disputationem sihae sunt vires eorum, arm eas habere possint dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum, ne is admittatur ad eas cui nullo modo competit. We stop up this entrance chief that they (that is haeretiques) are not to be admitted to the disputation of Scriptures if in these their force consist, we must see whether they may have them to whom the possession belongeth, lest he be admitted thereunto to whom it in no wise belongeth: as also that other place wherein conformably to the question which here he maketh this being an important point) he defineth. 
de praesc. cap. 15. & 37.  Non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis provocationem, quos sine Scripturis probamus ad Scripturas non pertinere. That haeretiques are not to be admitted to the challenge of Scriptures, whom without Scriptures we prove not to pertain to Scriptures: that is not to have any thing to do with them. For, saith he, if they be haeretiques they cannot be Christians, and not being Christians they can have no right to Christian writings. Wherefore Sir Humphrey while you stand bragging of Scriptures and challenging us, we may say unto you as the same Tertullian saith consequently in the same place. Qui estis? quando & unde venistis? quid in meo agitis non mei? quo denique Marcion iure siluam meam caedis, etc. Who are you? when and whence have you come? what do you in my ground, you that are not mine? by what right o Martion dost thou fell my wood? by what leave o Valentine dost thou turn my fountains? by what authority o Apelles dost thou remove my bounds? It is my possession what do you others here sowing and feeding at your pleasure? It is my possession. I possess it of old, I possess it first: I have the Originals from the owners whose the thing was. I am the heir of the Apostles, as they have bequeathed unto me by will, as they have committed to my custody, as they have adjured me, so I hold. For you truly they have ever disinherited you and cast you of as strangers and enemies. This is Tertullian's discourse and words: wherein it is but changing, the names Martion, Valentine and Apelles into Luther, Caluin, Beza or if you will into Sir Hum. Lined and it will fit as well as if it were made for you, or spoken in answer of what you say here, that if you bring Scripture we decline it for hereby you may see how much you are mistaken. We do not decline it: but we decline you from it, telling you it is none of yours, you have nothing to do with it: the Scriptures were committed to the Church by the Apostles, to be kept; they are the Church's evidences therefore no man out of the Church as you are hath to do with them as Tertullian telleth you here, 
ep. dedic. n. 6.  and as I told you in my dedicatory epistle, out of another place of his; that we must first seek out where that faith is, to which the Scriptures belong, where the men to whom Christian discipline was delivered. You must first show yourselves to be these men, to have this faith before we can admit you to the Scriptures. You must first show yourselves owners of the land, before you can claim the writings and evidences which belong unto it, and which make good the title. Therefore Sir Humphrey I cannot less admire your impudence in this which you say of Scriptures then in any thing else which in all this Lindy treatise you have said: though indeed as you go drawing towards an end you show you self still more like yourself in this kind as shall appear by the following Sections.   


Chap. 15.  Of the 15. Sect. the title being this. Our chiefest adversary Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth the truth of our doctrine in the principal points of controversy betwixt us. CHAPTER XV.  
1. IN this Section your drift is to prove the truth of your doctrine out of Bellar. who you say is enforced to confess the antiquity and Safety of your doctrine, and plainly to acknowledge the Uncertainty and novelty of his own. For which end you produce 8. several places, six whereof I have answered before, and there also showed that some are nothing in the world to the purpose, others most grossly falsified. The 1. place, to wit, that no man can be certain of his faith, because he cannot be certain he receiveth a true Sacrament, because that dependeth upon the Minister's intention, is answered and proved most foolish chap. 10. n. 7.8. etc. the second place which is of transubstantiation as if Bellarmine confessed it probable that it could not be proved out of scripture, is answered in Cap. 9 §. 2. n. 22. concerning which I only note that in this place you have a new corruption. For whereas Bellar. saith only that it may be doubted whether there be any place of Scripture so plain as without the declaration of the Church, to enforce transubstantiation, because some learned men as Scotus did doubt thereof, though Bell. saith to him the Scripture seemeth so plain as to enforce it, here you make him say it may be doubted whether the Scripture will bear it, which is clean another thing, for to enforce a sense, & bear a sense, are two Several things, neither did Scotus or any Divine else ever make question, but that the scripture would bear that sense; but whither that were so clear and obvious a sense as of itself, to enforce the belief of transubstantiation. The 3. 
Bell. lib. 2. de Miss. cap. 9 & 10.  place which is of Mass without communicants I passed over before as impertinent to the purpose; and so I might do here, but for the Reader's fuller satisfaction I answer. Bellarmine saith that Mass is ordained both to offer sacrifice to God, and to nourish the people with spiritual food: in which respect as it is not unlawful to offer it to God, though there be none to communicate, but very lawful, good, and holy; so is it more perfect and as I may say in a certain sort more lawful, where be some to communicate. For than it hath both the ends for which it was ordained. Now what doth this make for you Sir Knight, or against us? as also that which followeth here, to wit, that there is not any express mention among the ancients, where none did communicate but the Priest alone, but only conjectures: For no more is there any express mention to the contrary, that no Priest might, nor ever did say Mass without communicants, which unless you can show in Bellarmine, you say nothing against us: neither if you could show it, should you therefore say any thing for your own sacrificelesse communion; which hath no affinity with our Mass: the essence whereof consisteth in being a Sacrifice and communion in being a participation of the same Sacrifice. Your Protestant communion, being but a bit of unblessed bread and no participation of Sacrifice, for you absolutely deny all manner of visible Sacrifice in the Church. Now for Bellarmine's conjectures, it is true he giveth them no other name but of conjectures, but they are such as may with great probability persuade any indifferent man to conclude, that many times and I may say much more frequently the Priest said Mass without communicants, then with them. And the lest of them is such, that if you had but half such an one for any point you hold, you would vaunt it and triumph as if you had an unanswearable demonstration. But be it so or be it not of some of the people's communicating whensoever the Priest said Mass: what maketh it to our purpose, which is whether it be lawful to say Mass without communicants or not? they did not will you say, in the primitive Church: I ask what then? may not we now? the people did communicate every day then, must every body communicate now therefore every day? all gave their goods away and lived in common, must every body do so now? I believe Sir Knight you will not like that so well. If the people's devotion grow so cold as not to participate sacramentally of the sacrifice, must the Priests grow so cold also as not even to offer Sacrifice, for his own and the people's sins. This is no good council Sir Humphrey, almighty God reprehendeth it by his Prophet, 
Isay. 24.2.  that the Priest were grown like the people. Sicut populus sic Sacerdos. We could be glad Sir if you could help to mend the people, but not mar the Priest, which you would do; enkindle their devotion, not destroy their faith, nor take away the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which affordeth many benefits even to not communicants, though not so much as to them that do communicate sacramentally. But what do I in this discourse here? it is enough to show that Bellarmine doth not patronise you, nor weaken us. The two places following touching prayer in a known tongue and Communion under both kinds in the primitive Church are also answered before, & are only of the same kind of argument with this: the 6. place which is as if Bell. taught your two Sacraments is answered in two places upon several occasions; 
Chap. 9 §. 4 fine. and ch. 10. fine.  and in both is showed your notorious corruption both of words & sense.  
2. Now for your two last testimonies, which you brought not before, I shall here examine. One you tell us is touching faith and good works; of which say you it is Bellarmine's confession, 
Bell lib. 3. de ●ustif. cap. 6.  that the Protestants do not deny but that faith & repentance are requisite, that is a lively faith and earnest repentance: and that without them no man can be justified. To this I answer first that you propound the matter very imperfectly and ignorantly, in saying thus touching faith and good works it is Bellarmine's confession, etc. not telling us the particular controversy, for which you bring this saying of Bellarmine's, there being more controversies than one between you and us, as whither any thing be needful to justification beside faith? or what faith it is that justifieth? and how and whither good works be necessary or no? and how they concur? for there be all these things and more in question between you and us. And a man would have thought by your general title of faith and Works it had been in proof of some of these, that you had brought Bellarm. But it is for no such matter, Bellarmine in the place cited handling a clean different question, to wit, whether a man can be certain of his own grace and justice, that is whether he be in the grace and favour of almighty God, or not: and for proof that a man cannot be certain thereof, he bringeth diverse places of Scripture, which imply a condition on our part; in our justification as if we turn to God, if we seek him in our whole hart, if we do penance, if we believe, if we do his will etc. God will turn to us, forgive our sins and the like. Which condition saith Bellarmine, we cannot be certain whether we fulfil or not, and consequently we cannot be certain of our grace and justice. And he saith these places are so manifest, that our adversaries cannot deny something to be requisite on our parts. For though, saith he, they deny the remission of Sins to depend upon the condition of works: or our penance, faith or other act to be the cause or merit of justification, yet they grant them to be requisite, and that without them a man cannot be justified. This is Bellarmine's discourse wherein he doth neither confess any good of your haeretiques nor any way allow or approve your saying, as you would make one think, but bringeth your own confessions against you and even by so much as you confess, though that be fare from enough, overthroweth another error of yours, to wit, your vain confidence and certainty of your justification. Now then Sir Humphrey is not this honest dealing in you, to take a word spoken by Bellarmine for one purpose, and to transfer it to another fare different? and again in favour of yourself to allege those words out of Bellarmine as his confession which he allegeth only for yours, and to take it so as if his allegation were an approbation or allowance of them whereas he bringeth them but in the nature of an objection against yourselves, and there withal plainly declareth the difference between your error and our faith that you will not have faith or works to be any cause, or merit of justification, nor justification to depend upon works as upon a condition, whereas we teach all the contrary. Which though Bellarmine do not stand to prove there, because that was not a place for it, yet he plainly showeth that to be his belief.  
3. The second place of Bellarmine you say is touching justification by faith only; wherein you tell us he concludeth with the reformed churches: saying that either a man hath true merits or he hath not. If he have not, he is dangerously deceived; if he have true merits he looseth nothing by not respecting them, but putting his trust in God only. But in this again as before, and every where else, you still Lined it egregiously. For here you make as if Bellarmine did allow of your justification by faith only, whereas he confuteth the same largely and learnedly for 13. 
Lib. 1. de iustif. cap. 1.  whole chapters together beginning his disputation thus. Hominem non sola fide iustificari 5. argumentis principalibus demonstrare conabimur. We will endeavour by 5. principal arguments to demonstrate that a man is not justified by faith only. How then doth he conclude with your reformed churches? He concludeth against them: & you tell us he concludeth with them. And this place which you bring out of him is above 50. leaves, from that where he beginneth to treat of justification by faith, and is an argument for a fare different matter; to wit, that it is most safe for a man, though he may put some trust in his own good works, yet in regard of the uncertainty he hath of his own justice, and danger of vain glory; not to put any trust in them, but all in God. This later part, whereof there is no controversy between us and Protestants, Bellarmine proveth by the reason here brought. Because if he have not true merits, he deceiveth himself: but if he have, and yet trust not in them, he looseth nothing by not trusting in them. And what is all this good Sir Humphrey to your justification by faith only? and consequently all that you have said out of Bellarmine in this section, to the antiquity, and safety of your doctrine, or the contrary of ours? not one word to any such purpose on either side; and therefore all is, but vain bragging wherewith you conclude hereupon, that our best learned confess that many principal points of their own religion, yea many articles of faith are neither ancient, safe, nor Catholic. Wherein you speak ignorantly in distinguishing principal points of religion, from articles of faith, for though every proposition which is de fide be not an article of faith, yet every principal point is, and therefore some give that for the reason why we call a point an article, to wit, because it is a principal point: but this is but to show that you cannot speak two words sound without faltering: And yet you must be showing men the WAY forsooth.  
4. Having then said all you can out of Bellarmine, you tell us it is not the name of Catholic which we assume, that makes good the Catholic doctrine, neither the opinion of learning or multitude of our side, that must outface the truth. For say your our Saviour doth specially note the members of his body, by the name of a little flock; as if the paucity of true believers, were the special character of the true Church. And for our learned you bring a saying of S. Paul to the Corinthians. 
1. Cor. 1.26.  Not many wise according to the flesh; not many mighty, 
Mat. 11 25.  not many noble. And another out of S. Matthew. I thank thee Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes: and then you will us to reflect upon our own church, and we shall find the marks of a false church foretold, that it should be after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders, and after a little of this raving talk, you conclude with S. Augustine that miracles are not now to be expected: thus you troll it out Sir Humphrey. Where first to begin with, I might ask what all this is to that which the title of your Section promiseth, to wit, of the truth of your doctrine out of Bellarmine? But that it seems proving but dry matter you take yourself the freedom, without regard to the consequence of your discourse, to talk of the Church, of Miracles, strong delusions, and other such stuff good for nothing but to fill paper. But this very discourse for the matter itself showeth your wit: for you could have said nothing more to the advantage of our cause nor more to the disadvantage of your own. For you show ours to be the true Church your own a false one. Which to be so I shall show not in mine own words, but in S. Augustine's who giving account what it was that kept him in the bosom of the Church reckoneth these very things, which you make so little account of as Miracles, multitude of people, and the very name of Catholic: and I may say also learning. 
Aug. count. ep. fundam. cap. 4.  For answering that epistle of the Manichees called Epistola fundamenti. He beginneth his discourse thus. In Catholica ecclesia ut omittam sincerissimam sapientiam etc. In the Catholic Church to say nothing of the most sincere wisdom. (Wherein by mentioning this Wisdom in such manner every man seethe that to him it was a motive, though he did not so much urge it against the Haeretiques which denied it.) And a little after again he goeth on thus: to say nothing of this Wisdom which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there be many things else which may most justly hold me in the bosom thereof. There holdeth me the consent of people and nations, there holdeth me, authority begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, strengthened by antiquity; There holdeth me the succession of Priests from the very seat of Peter, to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his flock to the present Bishoprique. Lastly the very name of Catholic holdeth me. And after again. These therefore so many and so great most dear chains of the Christian name do rightly hold a man believing in the Catholic church, though for the slowness of our understanding or merit of our life, truth do not show itself so very clearly. But with you (that is, Manichees, and I may say, Protestants or any other sect whatsoever) where there is nothing of all these to invite and hold me, there soundeth only a promise of truth. Thus fare Saint Augustine's very words, by which any man will perceive that he made so much account of the learning, of the multitude of people and nations, of miracles, of antiquity, of Succession, of the name of Catholic in our Church (which you account nothing) as by them to hold himself in the bosom of that Church insinuating withal that the want of them in haereticall congregations is sufficient to deter any man from them how much soever they prate of Truth, Safety, Certainty, and I know not what.  
5. In granting us therefore these things and acknowledging the want of them in your selves in the judgement of Saint Augustine you confess ours to be the true Church and your own a false and haereticall conventicle. As likewise you do in that you make the smallness of number to be a note of the true Church Saint Augustine showing it to be none. For whereas the Donatists did brag thereof, he confuteth them thus. 
De unit. eccl. cap. 7.  Quid est haeretici quod de paucitate gloriamini, si propterea Dominus noster JESUS CHRISTUS traditus est ad mortem, ut haereditate multos possideret. What is it o ye Haeretiques that you brag of the smallness of your number, if Christ were therefore delivered up to death that he might by inhaeritance possess many. And there he goeth on proving the same farther out of diverse places of Scripture and namely by 9 or 10. most plain places out of Esay the Prophet, and then concludeth again ubi est inquam quod de paucitate gloriamini? Where I say is it that you brag of your fewnes? are not these the many of whom it was said a little before that he should possess many by heritage: but of this the Scriptures are so full and so clear as I may well deny him the name of a Christian that denieth it: Wherefore for that place of a little flock which you bring in show only to the contrary, 
Aug. ep. 50. ad Bonif. & ep. 48. ad Vinc.  S. Aug. explicateth it not of the Church in general but of the good who are small in number in comparison of the wicked, or of Christ's flock or church at that time in the beginning. 
lib. 4. cap. 54 in Luc 12.  And S. Bede expoundeth it two ways: one of the small number of the elect in comparison of the reprobate; the other of the Church in general, in regard of the humility wherein Christ will have it to excel & increase to the end of the world how much soever it be dilated in number quia videlicet ecclesiam suam quantalibet numerositate iam dilatatam tamen usque ad finem mundi humilitate vult crescere. For that place of S. Paul it patronizeth not your ignorance one jot. For it is only mean of those whom our Saviour at first made choice of to preach his faith, and make known his name unto the world: who indeed were not many in number being but 12. nor great in wisdom according to the flesh, not having been brought up in learning but to meant trades, as fishing & the like, nor mighty, nor noble, being but poor and obscure for wealth and parentage: and this for a special reason as S. Ambrose declareth in these words. Aduerte caeleste consilium, non sapientes aliquos, non divites, 
Lib. 5. comment. in Luc.  non nobiles, sed piscatores & publicanos quos dirigeret elegit, ne traduxisse prudentia, ne redemisse divitijs, ne potentiae nobilitatisue authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur; ut veritatis ratio non disputationis gratia praevaleret. Mark the heavenly Wisdom he did not choose some wise, or rich, or noble, but Fishers and publicans to send, lest he might seem to have brought any to his grace by wile, redeemed them by riches, or drawn them by authority of power or nobility; that reason of truth and not the grace of disputation might prevail.  
6. And so Christ made choice of a few simple men to convert the world that thereby it might appear that the conversion thereof was not a work of any worldly or humane but of divine power and virtue. But if they should not convert the world, that is great multitudes and several nations, kingdoms, and countries, wise, powerful, and learned men, but only some such small handful as you would have your little flock to be, some weak, unlearned and poor people as you will have your Church to consist of, it had been no wonder at all. For we see many Sect-maisters draw great multitudes after them, fare greater every way then your Church of England. This place therefore which you bring for defence of the smallness of your number and want of learning in your Church, showeth it not to be the true Church, which for number is to be numberless and for extent to be spread over the world. 
Psal. 18.  In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum (saith holy David) their sound went all over the earth. Whereas you acknowledge the contrary a mark of your Church: the true Church is to consist of many wise, mighty, and noble personages gathered and drawn to the true Catholic faith by those few unlearned, weak, and ignoble people: For so S. Paul after in the same place seemeth to insinuate saying. Quae stulia sunt mundi etc. The foolish things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the wise, and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong, and the base things of the world and the contemptible hath God chosen, and those things which are not that he might destroy those things which are. So as you see these few weak and ignorant men were to subdue the learning, might, and wisdom of the world to Christ, and draw it to his Church; and this is that which David saith that he shall send forth the rod of his power to rule in the midst of his enemies; 
Psal. 109.  that is, of worldly wisdom and power otherwise it had been no wonder: besides that though these men were at first weak and unlearned in worldly learning, yet by the holy Ghost they were replenished with all knowledge of heavenly wisdom, and endued with power from heaven. Of which their learning S. Hierome hath a large and excellent discourse, 
Hier. ad Paulin.  which not to be too long, I refer you unto. Now by this is also answered your other place of S. Matthew, of hiding things from the wise, and revealing them to little ones. For it is understood of little ones by humility for only such are apt to receive heavenly wisdom: and such can no haeretique be, that proudly preferreth his own judgement before the judgement of the whole Catholic church, as if God had forsaken his Church and enlightened him alone, which is as much to say as that the funne doth not shine to the whole world else but shines in only at his window, but here is enough of this matter.  
7. Now for Miracles, which you say we make a character of the Church, it is true we do indeed, but whereas you call them the working of Satan. I answer, it is a saying that can come from none, but a child of Satan, to attribute the works of God to Satan: but our comfort is that our Saviour foretold us of it, and armed us against it by his own words & example: Si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt, 
Mat. 10.25  quanto magis domesticos eius. If they called the Father of the family Beelzebub, how much more his family? and if the Pharisees attributed our saviour's miracles to Beelzebub, is it to be thought that Haeretiques who fare surpass the impiety of the Pharisees will not do the same of the miraculous works, which his Servants do in his name, that is for his honour and by his power? this you do Sir Humphrey or rather would fain do, making our Miracles to seem the working of Satan: and you would also prove it to be a mark of a false Church, and foretold by Christ and his Apostles. For proof whereof you bring something out of S. Paul's 2. ep. to the Thessaly. of a strong delusion and deceivableness of unrighteousness which God should send, 
3. Reg. 22. v. 22.  because we did not receive the Love of truth: but remember Sir Humphrey there is one in scripture that started up and said ere spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum. I willbe a lying Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets. This your discourse showeth him not to have been far of when you writ this: for mark Sir Humphrey how many lies here be in a few lines. You say out Saviour and his Apostles discovered the marks of a false church? & where I pray you good Sir doth our Saviour speak of such a false church, or where doth he set down the marks thereof? and this among the rest? For my part I find it not. And as for the Apostles though they speak many times of Haeretiques, yet do I not find them to do them so much honour as to call them a Church. Unless it be in that sense that holy David saith the Church of the malignant or S. john the synagogue of Satan: 
Psal. 24. Apoc. 2.9.  but yet even there I do not find the working of Miracles to be a token of such a Church. From whence then do you prove it? Out of that place of S. Paul which you bring? well supposing the proof to be good that is but one Apostle, not Apostles in the plural number. But beside Sir Humphrey here I convent you before your own conscience, whether it be true that S. Paul speak there of any Church, or company of men? or whether he do not speak of one only man, to wit, Antichrist? you cannot deny but he speaketh of him alone, and that most plainly. How then do you make men believe he speaketh of a Church? was it not that lying Spirit that put this into your head? and who are those that the same Apostle saith that God shall send them strong delusions, and that they should believe lies because they received not the love the truth? these you say are Catholics: but you may say any though never so absurd and false by the privilege of your spirit, how else could you say a thing so evidently false, it being most clear by the Apostles phrase, and discourse, the persons also to whom he writeth considered, that he meaneth that of the same kind of people of whom and to whom our Saviour spoke in a manner the same words. Ego venio in nomine Patris mei, & non accipitis me: 
Io. 5.43.  si alius venerit in nomine suo illum accipietis. I come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me: if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him. These are the jews who rejecting Christ shall receive Antichrist: neither can it belong any way to Catholics who though you may say they have forsaken the faith of Christ, yet you cannot deny but they once received him: whereas both our Saviour and S. Paul speak of them that would not receive him. It is the Spirit you wots of that suggested this unto you: as that also which followeth next, where you say that the Spirit of God foresaw that our doctrine would consist in forging not only of Fathers, of Counsels, of Schoolmen, but of daily miracles. For where doth the Spirit foretell our forging of Father's Schoolmen Counsels etc. You charged us before though falsely of eluding or rejecting & counter fayting the Fathers, but not a word of forging Schoolmen or Counsels till now. Whereof if you could have alleged any example or shadow, I presume we should have had it before now. I take this therefore to be but an hit fit of your Spirit which transporteth you beyond yourself; and surely unless you had some such help, it were not possible for you so to over- Lined it as you do here. As for that which you bring here out of Lyra of feigned miracles wrought either by Priests, or by their companions for lucre sake, it showeth you would say something if you knew what: 
1. Cor. 14.  be it so that some naughty Priests, or their companions work Feigned Miracles for lucre sake, what then? be there no true Miracles therefore? a proper argument, like this: there is tinn and copper in the world ergo no silver or gold, some bad men ergo none good: a trim argument Sir Humphrey.  
8. But to conclude this section you come with a saying of Saint Augustine which will make all sure: which is this, that as miracles were necessary before the world believed to induce it to believe, so he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now, is to be wondered at most of all himself in refusing to believe what all the world believes besides himself. Out of which you would have your Reader gather, that in that Father's judgement, Miracles have ceased: and that whatsoever Catholics speak now of Miracles it but feigned: is not this your meaning Sir Humphrey? sure it is, for what else it should be I cannot imagine. Now to this I answer, that it is far from Saint Augustine's meaning as shall appear. For he in this place reasoneth with the Pagan, who did not believe the Miracles wrought by the first preachers of our faith: because he saw not the like in his time: to which Saint Augustine answers that they were not so needful then as in the beginning, but yet proveth that there were such wrought then: For how else saith he came the world to believe? and now the world believing there needeth no miracle to make a man believe, the conversion of the world being argument enough; and that therefore he were to be wondered at, that would stand upon Miracles for his belief: and this is for us. For so say we, a man that should stand upon miracles to become a Catholic, the whole world of this age and for so many foregoing ages, believing and professing that faith, were to be wondered at himself: and we say again that he is as much to be wondered at, that shall believe a new haereticall religion not known before to the world, and contrary to the common belief thereof such as Luther's or Caluin's is without Miracles. For all true religion must have some testimony of Miracles from God in the beginning, till men believe: but men believing, they are not so necessary. So as thus much as you have set down of Saint Augustine his discourse, is not against us, but rather against yourself. But now seeing you will needs speak against Miracles and that out of Saint Augustine. Let us see what else there is in this place against or for Miracles. And to begin with the very title of that chapter, out of the very beginning whereof you take your place, it is this. 
Aug. de civet. lib. 22. cap. 8.  De miraculis quae ut mundus in Christum crederet facta sunt, & fieri mundo credente non desinunt. Of the miracles which were wrought that the world might believe in Christ, and do not cease to be wrought now, that the world doth believe. Look you Sir Humphrey is not here comfort for you to begin withal? Miracles wrought not only in the beginning, but afterwards in S. Aug. his time? well, in the chapter itself, whereas he said that he that would not believe without Miracles would be a wonder himself, he expoundeth his meaning not to be so, as if Miracles were ceased as our Haeretiques and you for one Sir Humphrey say. Name, saith he, etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine etc. For even now Miracles are wrought in his name, either by the Sacraments or by prayers or memories of Martyrs. And then he spendeth that whole and long Chapter in recounting of such Miracles, as happened then in his time, and even in his own sight or hard by: and so also in another place, whereas he had made himself an objection, why such Miracles as our Saviour wrought were not then wrought, and answered because they would not move unless they were strange, 
Retract. lib. 1. cap. 14.  nor would be strange if they were ordinary: he expoundeth himself thus. Haec dixi quia non tanta nec omnia modo, non quia nulla fiunt etiam modo. This I said because not so great nor all now, not because none are wrought even now. By which it is most clear that you have not S. Aug. with you against Miracles but as plain as may be against you. So as I do not see what you can say for yourself but by laying the blame upon the Spirit I spoke of before who ought you a shame and therefore put you upon writing such matter as cannot be otherwise maintained then by such means as you are here fain to use.   

Of the 16. Sect. entitled. Our Adversary's objection drawn from the testimonies of pretended Martyrs of their religion answered. CHAPTER XVI.  
1. THE blessed Martyr F. Edmund Campian in his tenth reason bringing all sorts of witnesses for proof of the Catholic faith beginneth with Martyrs, those particularly who being Pastors of the Roman Church suffered Martyrdom successively one after the other to the number of 33. these saith Campian were ours, and nameth some of them as Telesphorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius, with the particular points which they held conformably with us against Protestants: 
Chap. 16.  as the fast of Lent, the Sacrifice of the Mass, power of the Pope and the like this our Knight taketh hold of confessing Martyrdom to carry some show of honour in our Church but denying them to be ours because they neither suffered for our faith, nor professed it while they lived: which he proveth by ask whether ever any Martyr died upon confidence of his own merits, and whether any Romanist dare dye in justification of his own righteousness? and whether any of those 33. died and were canonised for adoration given to Images? and many more such wise demands: to whom I answer that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controversy with Haeretiques; but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemies of Christ: but that not only such as dye for Christ himself by the hand of the Pagans are Martyrs, but such as dye for his Church at the hands of Haeretiques; or for any one particular point even the lest of them that are defined by the Council of Trent; for which every Catholic is bound rather to dye then deny any of them. Now that these Martyrs are ours notwithstanding they died not for any of these points, it is plain because they professed the same Catholic faith which we do, which we also prove by the faith of their Successor Vrbanus 8. who as he holdeth their seat, so also their faith, 
〈◊〉. 1. Concil.  for Peter's chair and faith go together, as the very haeretique Pelagius confesseth to Lozimus Pope; saying to him qui Petri fidem & sedem tenes: not to stand here upon the most effectual and infallible prayer of our Saviour himself oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua. Which proof must stand firm till Sir Humphrey can tell us, what Pope began to vary from his Praedecessors.  
2. Now for the particular points it is plain even by those which F. Campian citeth, that they were ours: but much more by their own decretal epistles which are all so full of those things, that the Haeretiques have no other shift but to deny the authority of the same Epistles therefore they are idle demands which the Knight maketh whether any have died upon confidence of his own merits or whether any Catholic dare dye for justification of his righteousness? For these are no matters of faith, but of presumption: but for the doctrine of justification and doctrine of merits, as they are delivered in the Council of Trent, every Catholic is bound to give his life, as occasion is offered. For adoration of images whereas he asketh whether any of these 33. were canonised for it: it is an idle question: for men are canonised not for matters of belief only, but for practice of Faith, Hope, Charity, and all virtues together which belong to an holy and Christian life in general and to their own particular State and vocation: and though there be no special mention of any of those 33. their adoration of images yet defined, which before was not, and which then men were not so certain of, nor so bound to believe as after, so consequently men might be less bound to suffer death for it then, then afterwards; and yet be of the same faith with those that came after. So long as they acknowledged the same Church and lived in the unity thereof, acknowledged the same power and authority to determine matters of faith, as it is certain those ancient Martyrs did, as appeareth both by their own writings yet extant, and their deeds recorded by other men in good authentical history. These holy Martyrs therefore are truly ours which if this Knight will disprove; he must show which of them did teach otherwise, that is, against that which we now believe. Which till he can do we shall still be in possession of our Martyrs and of their faith, our faith testifying that we are their Children, and their blood giving testimony to the truth of our faith.   

Of the 17. Sect. entitled thus. 
Chap. 17.  Our adversary's common objection drawn from the charitable opinion of Protestants touching the salvation of professed Romanists living and dying in their Church: answered. CHAPTER XVII.  
1. THis section is nothing but a little of the Knights own natural language; and therefore will soon be answered. He beginneth with a saying of Costerus, that a man dying a Lutheran cannot be saved: Whereupon he falleth in to a great rage against the Roman Church, and telleth us there is a Woman, a Church, a City, which reigneth over the Kings of the earth, and hath multitudes of nations at her Command, but he thanks God his Church is not such an one: Neither do Protestans as he saith account Universality of nations, and people to be a mark of their Church, and from thence he falleth to reckon up diverse particular points of his Church's doctrine, as disclaiming of merits, Communion in both Kinds, reading of Scriptures, and bringing a place of Scriptures for each of these, he asketh very rhetorically after every one whether they be accursed for holding them: and on the other side asketh whether we can be blessed that forbidden marriage, & meats, that have prayer in an unknown tongue, adore images, adore Saints, adore the elements of bread and wine, we that add traditions to the Scriptures, and detract from God's commandments and Christ's institution in the Sacrament. Which discourse of his being so foolish as it is, a man may think it folly for me to stand answering particularly; therefore I answer briefly and in general, first that though it take up half his section yet it is wholly from his purpose which he pretends by the title of his chapter, which is to answer our objection. Secondly I answer, that for those things which he objecteth unto us, they are all answered before, and proved some false for the things wherewith he chargeth us; all absurd if we consider the proofs of Scripture, which he bringeth: for example he telleth us we forbidden marriage and meats, both which are most grossly false. For how many Catholics be there in England men and women married? and what meat is there that Catholics are forbidden to eat in due time and season? is it all one to forbid marriage to some men, to wit, such as have voluntarily promised the contrary, and some meats at some times; all one I say as to forbid marriage and meats, neither marriage nor meats being forbidden in these cases as ill in themselves, in which sense only Saint Paul termeth it the doctrine of Devils, but for higher ends. But to make him yet a little more capable of this answer I will urge him with one ordinary instance, which is this. I presume his Father had some apprentice bond not to marry during his apprenticeship I would then know of him whither his father in that case did forbid marriage and teach the doctrine of Devils?  
2. Against prayer in an unknown tongue he saith, it is written: with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and so they shall not hear me: and in the margin saith, it was a curse at the building of Babel for them that understand not what was spoken. But by this alleging of Scripture a man may see what a good thing it is to have it in the vulgar tongue for every man to read and abuse it at his pleasure, when such a right learned man as this Knight doth so strangely apply it. He would make men believe Esay the Prophet spoke against Latin in this place but the man is quite wide of his mark: but it is enough for him that there is mention of a strange tongue there: for as for the sense he careth not, or rather his reading reacheth not to the meaning of the place, which is but this: that whereas the people laughed at the Prophets that came to them with commands from God repeating their words scoffingly manda, remanda, 
Isa. 28.11.  expecta, reexpecta etc. God sendeth them word by the Prophet that because they would not hear those words nor follow the good counsel which he gave, he would speak another word unto them, that they should fall & be catched, crushed and carried into captivity and there hear a language which they did not understand: this is the plain and literal sense of the Prophet. S. Paul indeed useth it in another sense to persuade the Corinthians, that prophecy is to be preferred before tongues: because as he saith the gift of tongues is a sign for infidels: that is, to speak to infidels, for their conversion; but prophecy, that is exhortation or interpretation, is for the faithful or those that believe already. Wherein I would know according to either explication what any man can find against prayer in the Latin tongue: and for the tower of Babel the Knight surely speaketh by contraries. For whereas at Babel men fell from unity of language to speak every man a several language. So, as no one man understood one another & by that means they were all dispersed into several nations, the Catholic Church doth quite contrary drawing several nations to unity of language making all to speak one and the s●me tongue. Whereas haeretiques in several places; by use of other languages, understand not one the other and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders as well in the very diversity of tongues as in the diversity of doctrines.  
3. For traditions, adoration of images, Saints, etc. all is answered before. So likewise his Communion in both kind and merit of good works. But for that which he saith, that he acknowledgeth universality of nations and people not to be a mark of his Church, I cannot but wonder at it. For what is this but even in plain terms to confess his Church not to be the Church of Christ. 
Isa. 2.  Isay the Prophet describing the Church under the type of a mountain saith that all nations shall flow unto it. 
Psal. 71.  
Psal. 2.  The Prophet David describing the Kingdom of Christ saith that he shall bear sway from sea to sea: 
Dan. 2.3. ●  that God will give him nations for his inhaeritance and the bounds of the Earth for his possession. 
Apoc. 7. 9●  Daniel describeth the Kingdom of Christ like a mountain growing from a little stone and filling the whole earth. S. john seethe a multitude which no man could reckon of all nations and tribes and people and tongues: this being also the thing wherein the Church of Christ is specially distinguished from the Synagogue of the jews, that that pertained but to one nation, this to all the nations of the earth; and all the Fathers proclaim nothing more, particularly S. Augustine in a whole book of this argument against the Donatists. And a Knight to come and tell us he doth not account this as a mark of his Church? What is this but in plain terms to acknowledge that his Church is not the Church of Christ? Beside I would know what he hath meant all this while by Universality, which he hath laboured to prove to belong to his Doctrine? the principal thing understood by Universality when we take it for a note of the Church is the Universality of place to wit, 
Mar. 16.15.  diverse kingdoms and countries, as it is used by our Saviour himself, euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni creaturae: and now in denying this mark to belong to his Church, doth he not deny it to belong to his doctrine? for how can that doctrine be universal that is taught by a few, and in a corner of the world? and in acknowledging his Church not to be universal, doth he not acknowledge it not to be Catholic? for is not Catholic and universal all one, as all men know? in this word then, he hath granted enough to overthrew all that ever he hath said or can say of his Church.  
4. But now to come to the matter which he purposeth in this section which is to answer our argument, that it is safer for a man to take the way of the Catholic Church, than the Protestant, because even Protestants agree with Catholics in this that they may be saved in their religion, and Catholics deny that Protestants can be saved: this argument the Knight denieth, being sorry for his part that a charitable opinion on the Protestants part, should give any Romanist occasion to live and dye in the bosom of that Church; therefore he interpreteth that saying to be meant only of such as by invincible ignorance, resign their eyesight to their Priests & Pastors: which men if they hold the articles of Christian belief, without opposition to any ground of religion, and live for outward things in the unity of the Church, such men he saith living Papists and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of Faith, may find mercy; because they did it ignorantly. But such Papists he saith, as live in States and Kingdoms, where they may come to knowledge of the truth, and will not; these men die in their sins; though yet again he a little temper the rigour of this doom, in saying he will not judge their persons though he pronounce their doctrine so damnable, as that if he had 10000 souls, he would not venture one of them in the Roman Faith and Church. For which he taketh God and his holy Angels to witness: and then concludeth very pathetically thus. Farr be it from the thoughts of good men to think the points in controversy betwixt them and us, to be of an inferior alloy, as that a man may resolve this way or that, without peril of his salvation. And then tells us the fresh bleeding wounds and sufferings of holy men and Martyrs in his Church, do sufficiently witness the great danger in our religion, and difference betwixt us: and that we may know that the best learned of his Church, were far from granting salvation to any Papist, living and dying in the profession of the now Roman Faith, he bringeth a saying of Whitaker who would have us take it upon his word, that in heaven there is not one jesuit, nor one Papist to be found: this is the Knight's whole discourse in the second part of his section.  
5. Whereby upon examination it will appear, he is as well red in his own authors, as in our Schoolmen and Fathers. And to begin with him, he is sorry the Protestants charitable opinion should give any man encouradgment to dye a Papist. But by his leave, this opinion doth not proceed from charity; but from evidence of truth as all testimony from an enemy doth. But whether it be charity or not, this Knight will none of this charity: and therefore he saith that this is meant only of some ignorant people, whose ignorance may excuse them; but yet even these men though they live Papists, they must dye Protestant's in the principal foundation of that Faith. This is good stuff Papists may be saved in their religion; but yet they must dye Protestant's? very right Sir Humphrey where have you learned this theology that a man may be saved in one religion, yet so as he must dye in another: this is a new conceit never heard of before that a man may be saved in a religion but so as not to dye of it: and here a man might ask at great many pretty questions as what foundation of Faith that is, that they must dye in, what articles of Apostolic and Christian belief, what grounds these are that may not be opposed? all these had been necessary things to be expressed in such a singular treatise as this of yours: which must forsooth bear the name of a SAFE WAY leading men to true Faith. And why also a man that holdeth the Apostles Creed and other things common to Catholics and Protestants, not forsaking the Catholic church and indeed not knowing any thing else (for here you speak of a Catholic in a Catholic country where it is to be supposed, the name of a Protestant or other heretic is unknown:) why I say such a man should be said to dye a Protestant, in the principal points of his faith I see not. For why? doth the Apostles Creed belong more to you then to us? had we it from you or you from us? nay if I would stand upon it, I could show you not to believe a right in any one article thereof. Whereof he that listeth to know more may look in Poss. bibl. select. lib. 8. cap. 32. Nor do I see what that meaneth that you say of men that live for outward things in the unity of the Church, where they dwell. For if it be so that they may make show of one thing outwardly, and mean an other inwardly, as I see not what you can mean else, than I say it is the most damnable & dangerous dissimulation of all other & the most sure way not to be saved in any religion. For neither the outward profession of a religion without the inward belief, nor inward belief with an outward contrary profession can save a man. What then is it you would say? a man may see you are in straits: fain you would not go absolutely against that, which many Protestants say, that a Catholic may be saved in his religion, yet that will not stand neither with your own judgement as it seemeth nor bitter speeches which you have spoken of the Catholic church as calling it Babylon, the Seat of Anti-christ and such like; nor drift of your book which is wholly to draw men away from the Catholic faith: and therefore you would fain find some ignorant people who should be Catholics and no Catholics, live Catholics and dye Protestants, in outward show Catholics, in inward belief Protestants. Which are two great and gross absurdities and withal do not serve the turn. For in neither of these two cases is that proposition verified, that a man dying a Papist may be saved, for he doth not dye a Papist. Neither can that ignorance which you speak of, alleging the place of saint Paul save men, no more than it could do him, who doubtless should never have found such mercy as to be saved, had he not first found the mercy, to be drawn out of that his ignorance, wherein he was. This I do not say, that it is absolutely impossible to find one so invincibly ignorant as may not be saved without a distinct and particular profession of the Catholic Faith and abrenunciation of the Protestant, but I say it is a metaphysical and morally impossible case. For how shall a man receive pardon of his sins, be enabled to walk the way of God's commandments while he liveth, or be armed against the combats of the Devil at his death, without receiving the Sacraments of the Church, which is a sufficient profession of faith, wholly distinguishing him from the Protestant or any other sect. Therefore the Knight's chief answer to the argument is a plain denial that a Papist can be saved, especially in England or in any Protestant State, where there is a course taken to bring him to the knowledge of the contrary; though yet he do not pronounce damnation on our persons, as he saith we do on his. But wherein do we pronounce damnation upon their persons more than he on ours: he and others of his opinion say our doctrine is damnable, and consequently that no man can be saved by it; we say the same of his doctrine, and that no man can be saved by it for this or that particular man we do not take upon us to give any absolute judgement, but that we leave to God.  
6. But now for that which he saith of us, that we cannot be saved, and that it is fare from the thoughts of good men, to think the points of controversy between Catholics and Protestant to be of an inferior alloy so as a man may hold either way without peril of salvation, I will appeal only to his own men, and to such as I presume he will not deny to be good men, at lest chief men of his own Church. For the points therefore in controversy as freewill, prayer for the dead, honouring of relics, real presence, transubstantiation, communion in one or both kinds, worshipping of images, the Pope's primacy, his being Vicar of Christ and head of the Church, auricular Confession, and the like they are all acknowledged some by one, some by another, not to be material points, so as a man may without peril believe either way and one main point, to wit, the real presence is said by some to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague. The several authors are Perkins, Cartwright, Whitgift, Fulke, Penry, Some, Spark, Reynolds, Bunny, Whitaker, john Frith in Fox in his acts and other English writers, beside Melancthon, Luther, and other Latin writers whose names may be seen in the Protestants apology where their very words are set down, 
Protest. apolog. tr. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14.  and places of their works exactly cited: which therefore for brevityes sake I omit here to do and shall only content myself with citing some for the other point which the Knight denieth, to wit, that we may be saved. First noting by the way, that here is a full jury of good men and true in the judgement of any Protestant, who give up their verdict against our good Knight Sir Humphrey (as honest a Middlessex juror as his father was, and as great a friend of juryes as he is) confessing the points in controversy to be of an inferior alloy (to keep his own word of art). And which is specially to be noted, whereas a main reason why our Knight is loath to yield the points in controversy to be matters of indifferency, is because the fresh bleeding wounds of the Martyrs of his Church witness the danger of our religion; among these authors there is one john Frith a famous Foxian martyr who acknowledgeth that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation whether he believe it or not; and the like the same man also saith of prayer for the dead, which Mr. john Fox relating and not disapproving he is to be presumed to approve and so both the Martyr Frith and Fox the martyr-maker, whose authority me thinks should be more worth than an hundred of his Martyrs, are against our Knight; and notwithstanding all their bleeding wounds and sufferings will give him leave to think his points of controversy to be of an inferior alloy: and many of them not only so but even absolutely condemn his very belief and doctrine, as a man may see fully proved in the examen of john Fox his Calendar to which I remit him contenting myself with one only Martyr whom I presume our Knight will acknowledge for a great one, to wit, 
V Protest. apolog. tr. 2. cap sect. 5.  john Husse: this man Luther saith did not departed one fingers breadth from the Papacy. john Fox saith he held Mass, transubstantiation, vows, freewill, praedestination, informed faith, justification, merit of good works, images of Saints. And indeed of the heresies now in controversy between us and Protestants he held only one, to wit, Communion in both kinds, in all the rest he held with us: this Martyr then must needs sooner allow us to be saved then Protestant's: but here is enough of this idle matter.  
7. Now therefore to the other point whether we living and dying in our present Roman faith may be saved or not. Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cannot, alleging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church have been far from granting salvation to any Papist. being withal so zealous and earnest in this belief as he wisheth it far from the thoughts of good men to think so, yet by his Worship's leave it is the judgement of many great men of his Church, nothing inferiors in that which he taketh for learning and goodness to Mr. Whitaker, or any man else of his opinion: for example Mr. D. Barrow saith, he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church, of Rome, to be the Church of God. If the Church of God, then certainly Sir Humphrey a man may be saved therein. Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the house of God, a limb of the Visible Church of Christ, & you in the beginning of your book bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging us to be of the family of JESUS CHRIST, in as much as we believe the articles of the Apostles Creed, which are the main parts of the Christian faith wherein we still persist as he confesseth believing then the main points and being of the family of JESUS CHRIST there can be question in his judgement but we may be saved. Mr. Bunny saith we are no several Church from them nor they from us: and that neither can one of us justly account the other to be none of the Church of God. We may then as well be saved as you, and we are as much of the Church as you. D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's covenant for in the judgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministry a true Christ etc. and saith he if you think that all the Popish sort which died in the Popish Church are damned you think absurdly and descent from the judgement of the learned Protestants. Lo you Sir Humphrey do not you think absurdly and descent from the learned Protestants in denying us salvation. Doct. Covel saith thus. We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that live and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saved.  
8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seen in the Protestants apology: 
tract. 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3.  but these may serve the turn I hope fully to disprove your assertion Sir Knight: for here be 7. authors alleged whom your Church of England hath ever held for good and learned men. From whose thoughts it was not so fare as you would have it to think we might be saved; but rather so deeply grounded that they aver it constantly; and say also that it is the judgement of all learned Protestants: and that it is absurd to think otherwise. Do you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you show yourself upon one Witakers authority to determine a matter so peremptorily against the judgement of so many great Doctors of your own side? and to say that it is the judgement of the best learned Protestants? and that it is fare from the thoughts of goodmen to think otherwise? what may a man think by this you do with our Catholic authors and fathers, whom you neither have so much to do with, nor understand so well, nor care so much for, as you do for these Sage men forsooth of your own the pillars of your Church, and writing in your own Mother tongue, whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more, then of Latin. But now for the main matter or argument which you intended to answer, how is it answered? You see so many learned Protestant's think we may be saved living and dying in our faith, without your limitation of invincible ignorance; and merely in regard we are a true Church, the family of Christ, the house of God, holding the foundation of faith and that the points of controversy are not of such necessary consequence: whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reform your judgement, yet to us it is sufficient to ground this argument, that since Protestant Doctors make no doubt but we may be saved in our faith, and no Doctor of ours saith so of your faith, it is out of doubt the Safer way to embrace ours: the force of which argument you go not about to avoid otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants: which being proved to be so manifestly, the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answer it. And so I come to your last Section.   


Chap. 18.  Of the 18. Section, the title being this. Proving according to the title of the book by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is safer, because in all positive points of our doctrine the Romanists themselves agree with us, but in their additions they stand single by themselves. CHAPTER XVIII.  
THE substance of this section is contained in the title, and in nothing but to turn the Catholics argument mentioned in the former section, the other way for the Protestant side: but yet so ill favouredly that it may be turned back again with much more disadvantage of the Protestant cause. For by it a man may prove any haeresy that ever was, nay judaisme and Turkism to be a Safer way than the Catholic faith, or even the Knight's Protestant faith. He beginneth then with putting the case we may be saved, and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree, then where one part standeth single in opinion; adding withal, that if he make not good the title of his book, to wit, that he is in the Safer way, he will reconcile himself to the Roman Church, & creep upon all four to his Holiness for a pardon. And then falleth to prove it in this manner, that because Both agree saith he in the belief of heaven and hell, and that we stand single in the belief of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum, we are not therefore in so Safe a way: so of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree, that men are to be saved by them, but we stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our own satisfaction: and so forward of the number of Sacraments, images prayer to Saints, & the like: Which is the whole discourse of this Section.  
2. Whereto I answer first that, that his ground of Safety, which he thinks he taketh from Catholics, is foolish, impertinent, and without sense, as see setteth it down. For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church, where both sides agree, then where one part stands single by themselves in opinion. For I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree? or what Church that is that doth not stand single in opinion by itself, if it be a Church of a different faith as we speak here of a Church, a Church must have unity, it being a company of men all professing the same faith and religion: therefore it is plain there is no sense in this principle of his, as it is his, or as he putteth it down: but as the Catholics put it, it hath very good sense, thus: that whereas there be several professions and churches, the question being which of these is the safer way, we Catholics say the Catholic church is the safer way and this we prove because not only we ourselves say it, adding withal that all our ancestors have been saved therein and that therefore we may doubtless be saved in it as they were; but also for that our very enemies who are of a different profession grant we may be saved therein. But as for the Protestants noe man saith they can be saved in that faith, but only themselves. Whereby it is plain that our is the safer way; for both sides agree in the possibility of salvation among us, and both sides do not so agree in possibility of salvation among them. But though his principle have no sense as he putteth it, yet because I see by his ensuing discourse what he would be at, I come to that also. His meaning then is this, that it is safer to hold those points of doctrine only which both sides hold then those wherein they differ; because in them both sides agree, and in these one side standeth single by itself: and the holding of those former points, our Knight counteth all one, as to persist in a Church where both sides agree. But he is much deceived for the holding of those points alone, doth not make a man of any Church at al. For a man to be of any Church, he must hold all the points that are taught of Faith in that Church, & be united with those of the same profession in Sacrifice also & Sacraments, which are things essential to a Church. Wherefore the holding of those points wherein both sides agree precisely, neither make a man Catholic, nor Protestant. But to be a Catholic a man must believe all thing else, whatsoever the Catholic church teacheth as necessary to salvation: and to be a Protestant besides the belief of those things wherein we agree, he must stand to the denial of those which are in controversy between us.  
3. In which case I would ask him whether he do not stand single as well as we, by affirming of what we deny, or denying what we affirm, or rather whether he and his church be not so much more single than we, as they have not one on their sides for every million which we have, & have had on ours. In this singleness of opinions then the question remaineth the same still as before; whither of these single sides is to be embraced: for of the rest there is not any doubt. So as in this Sir Humphrey hath also altered the question; for whereas the question was of the matters in controversy which side was truer he hath altered it thus; whether the things in controversy or out of controversy be safer. Which is but a slippery cunning trick of his, and which will not serve his turn to make good the title of his book. For we by holding the points which are out of doubt are as safe as he: for we hold them as much as he, and for the rest we are upon even terms with him, thus fare that he is as well single in those things wherein he dissenteth from us, as we in those wherein we descent from him; though in this we be Safer that his men confess we may be saved holding those things wherein we differ from them; and no man of ours holdeth that they can be saved holding obstinately whatsoever they differ from us in. So as even by this is answered all this main argument whereof the Knight was so confident as thereupon to ventute his reconciliation with the Church of Rome, and creeping upon all four to his Holiness for a pardon; to creep upon all four indeed, is a very fit gate for men so devoid of reason as to make such discourses and use such malicious insinuations, as if men used to creep upon all four to the Pope. But good Sir Humphrey since you talk so much of creeping, and like it so well you may remember that it is the proper punishment of pride as you may see in Nabuchedonozor whose Pride which he took in his great city Babylon seemeth fare short of that which you take, 
Dan. 4.  not only in this great work of your Safe Way counterposing and preferring it before the known way of the Catholic Church, but even in this contemptuous and sacrilegious gest of God's holy anointed and contempt of his Church. And for Pardon as light as you make of it, it were penance little enough for you indeed to creep on all four to Rome: holy men have done very near as great penance for far less faults: and for your reconcilement to the Church though we be glad of the salvation of any poor soul whosoever he be, yet we would not have you mistake you self so fare as to think that we make any such special account of your particular person above other men.  
4. Now that this rule of yours as you propound it may lead and Secure a man in any haeresy or even in judaisme and Turkism as well as in your Protestant faith I prove thus. Arius may say he agrees with us Catholics in all things save only in the Divinity of the second person of Trinity whom he acknowledgeth with us to be an holy man and that we stand single by ourselves in the assertion of his Divinity. Macedonius may say the same of the Holy Ghost. Nestorius' of the plurality of persons in Christ. Eutyches of the Singularity of Natures; Sergius, Pyrrus and the Monothelytes of the unity of Will in Christ; Ebion, Cerinthus, Martion and almost all Haeretiques in their several heresies as anabaptists, Brownists, and who soever else may say as you do of the points controverted that we stand single by ourselves in them and so that it is the safer way to believe only that wherein they and we agree. Nay as I said he jews may make the same argument thus that they agree with us that there is One God creator of heaven and earth, that there be 22. books of canonical Scriptures the Law and Prophets just as you do, for the rest we stand single: and the Turk may say he agreeth with us that Christ is an holy man and a Prophet for the rest we stand single: and that therefore he is in the Safer way. What can you say Sir Humphrey for defence of your argument? for though jews and Turks do not agree with us in the profession of the Christian Faith yet I see not why that should be necessary by this your argument: and thereby a man may see what a good guide you are and how Safe a way you go: and whether the saying of Solomon be not truly verified of your Safe way. 
Prou. 14.12  Est via quae videtur homini recta & novissima eius deducunt ad mortem. There is a Way which seemeth to a man strait and the end of it leadeth to Death: and consequently to Hell. For what other is the end of Haeresy, judaisme, and Turkism whereto your rule doth lead all such as willbe ruled thereby.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
Having therefore thus demonstrated the period of your Safety to be death and hell which is the lot and portion of all wicked Sectaries as Arrians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Wickliffians, Hussits, Anabaptists as also jews and Turks: all which in the last section I have proved by your own rule to be in as safe a way as you are. I may now for a conclusion demand what all this that you have hitherto said is to the Iesuit's challenge which you here pretend to answer: he having required at your hands that you should show as I said in the beginning a visible Church and Succession in all ages from the Apostles time to this of ours, a Succession I say or catalogue of Doctors and Pastors teaching your 39 articles and of people professing the same faith which now you profess: this being the thing which was required at your hands; I would gladly know where it is that you have performed it in this your book in what section or in what number? In the first 7. sections you talk of the causeless bitterness of the Roman Church against yours, of the causes of contention, of reformation, of corruptions in faith & manners, of many Catholics that have come to dye Protestants, of the derivation of our Doctrine from ancient Haeretiques and yours from Christ and his Apostles? all which supposing you say true, I would know what it is to the purpose? For where be the men here named in whom the profession of your doctrine hath continued, and by whom it hath been derived from the times of the Apostles to those of Luther and Caluin? Likewise in the 8. 9 10. and 11. sections you stand proving the Antiquity, Universality, Certainty & Safety of your Faith in general and in particular as you say with as little order or method truth or substance as it is little to the purpose though you should have proved those things never so well and substantially. For let your Doctrine be never so ancient, universal, certain, and safe: if you name not the men that professed it for so many ages as are from the Apostles to Luther you are but where you were at first? For a man may still ask Where your Church was before Luther? that is where the men were that professed your Faith. For it is not the Faith but the men that we look after in this place. From the 12. section to the end you tell us of our rejecting and eluding the ancient Father's, of correcting and purging other authors, of our excepting against Scripture, of Bellarmine's testification in favour of your Doctrine in some principal points, of our Martyrs, of the salvation or damnation of professed Romanists, & lastly of the Safety of your Faith and belief. All which as I have before shown to be most false, so do I here say it is nothing to the purpose. For where here is any man named that you can say was yours, that is, did believe and profess the same faith with you? nay where is there one such man named in your whole book before Luther's time or even almost since Unless it be a Chamier a Rivett, or a Chemnitius that you can say did any way agree with you? it is evident there is not; and therefore you yourself are forced in the very last page of your book to confess as much of a great many of your authors. For you say that having brought your Reader into a safe way you commend him briefly to CHRIST and his Apostles for his Leaders: the ancient Fathers for his Associates and Assistants, and the Blessed Spirit for his guide and Conduct. but for the other passengers as Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolmen which you say accompany you but part of your Way because they are Strangers you will have him be wary of them. Whereby it is plain you profess not to agree in belief with any one except Christ, his Apostles and ancient Fathers. So as from their times to Luther which was 900. or 1000 years. (The antiquity of Fathers ending by the ordinary account of your Protestants about S. Gregory the great his time or before.) You have not a man all that time that you can say was yours, or of the same belief and Church with you. How then can you think you have showed us a Safe way when you cannot name us a man now for the space of near a 1000 years who as may be gathered our of your own discourse hath walked therein? It hath been unknown than all this time: and therefore for a man to leave the Known way of the Catholic Church, wherein it is evident that all sorts of men have continually in all ages walked & to go into your byways never trodden by the foot of any one learned or holy man. What were it but to turn out of a common beaten high way leading directly from one City or country to another: and to go into some vast or wild desert where there is no path or sign of any man that hath ever gone that way, no house or other thing to give light & direction: in which case nothing else is to be expected but that after a great deal of toil and labour a man shall wholly lose himself without ever being able to arrive at his journey's end. Which as it cannot be counted other than a kind of madness in a Traveller here in this world, so can it not also be counted otherwise in a man that professeth to travel to heaven-ward: and therefore it is mentioned in Scripture together with other great crimes for which almighty God professeth to forsake his people & bring their land into desolation and eternal ignominy. Quia oblitus est mei populus meus frustra libantes & impingentes in vijs suis in semitis saculi ut ambularent per eas in itinere non trito. 
jer. 18.15.  Because my people hath forgotten me in vain sacrificing and stumbling in their ways in the paths of this world that they might walk in them in a way not beaten. Wherefore it is in vain for you Sir Humphrey to talk of Safety, Certainty, and I know not what else, till you can show us such a path as the Catholic Church, so trodden and beaten by the continual and never interrupted Succession of travellers therein. So plain and strait that no fool can miss it as Esay the Prophet foretold that the way of Salvation should be upon the coming of our B. Saviour: which because it is most evident that neither you nor any man else can do out of the Catholic church, I could heartily wish that you Sir Humphrey would consider the matter a little more seriously with yourself and laying aside all vain and worldly respects, should betake yourself to the only true Safe and beaten Way of the Catholic Church: but because you I fear are so fare gone & have as I may say lost yourself in your heretical fancies as that you are more like to laugh at me for my pains for presuming to tell such a Doctor as you are the right way, then follow my Council I will here leave to say more unto you: and conclude only in a word to the judicious Reader who I hope upon consideration of what hath been hitherto said willbe better advised then to follow you farther and will rather leave you to your own Way saying to you much in the same manner as did that famous Emperor Constantine to a certain Novatian haeretique called Acesius, upon the knowledge of whose heresy he said thus to him. Acesi, 
Socrat lib. 1. cap. 21.  erigito tibi Scalam & solus in caelum ascendito, o Acesius, raise thyself a ladder and ascend alone into heaven. For so may a man in like sort well say to Sir Humphrey Lined o Sir Humphrey find yourself a way, and go to heaven alone by it. For I will not go that way with you which to speak with the learned and holy man Vincentius Lerinensis, 
Vincen. Lerin in commonit. cap. 33.  If it be to be followed then must the faith of our holy Fathers be violated either wholly or in great part; it must of necessity be said that all the faithful of all nations, all the holy, all the chaste, all the continent, all Virgins, all clerks, Levites, and Priests, so many thousand of Confessors, so many armies of Martyrs, so many cities and peoples so great for renown and multitude, so many Islands, Provinces, Kings, Nations, Kingdoms, Countries. Lastly almost all the whole world incorporated to Christ the head of the Catholic faith have for so many ages been ignorant, erred, blasphemed not knowing what they believed. Which being so fair and clear a testimony of so holy a man I hope it willbe fare from the hart of any indifferent and well minded man ever to condemn all our Forefathers for so many foregoing ages of ignorance error and blasphemy: o what ignorance error and blasphemy were it so to do, and yet into such do they fall whosoever approve this new found way of the poor errant Knight Sir Humphrey Lined. And with this I end commending the success of my Labours to him for whose love I undertook them, which is Almighty God, and submitting myself and all I have here said to the judgement of the most holy Catholic Roman Church which neither hath, ever had, nor ever shall have any spot of haeresy, nor even the least wrinkle of error.   

AN APPENDIX TO the Reader.  
GENTLE READER.  
AS this treatise was under the print, I came to understand of some few things, whereof I could not omit here to give thee notice. One is of another answer newly come forth to this book of Sir Humphrey Lind's which at first made me demur whither I should go forward with this of mine or not, as well for saving of charge, as also because it might now seem needless. Notwithstanding by the advice of friends I resolved to go through with it: for as they told me, it being brought so near an end, the charge would be little more, and as for the needlednesse they said it was neither needless nor new, to have several answers to the same book: for that the same thing might be answered several ways, and the judgements and affections of men being very divers, one answer might be more for one man's gust, and another for another's. Besides that this knight having so triumphed with his several editions, it could not seem altogether needless for him, to have several answers: that men might see there have not wanted many that could have answered him if they had thought him worthy of answer. For these reasons therefore I have been induced notwithstanding that other answer to let this of mine see light.  
Another thing is concerning a fourth edition of Sir Humphrey's SAFE WAY, which I never heard of, till now that this answer of mine was more than half printed; at the hearing whereof, I was in mind again to let all alone. For having used only the third edition, and a fourth coming out, revised at it saith by the author, I presumed there would be some remarkable change or addition, the examination and answer whereof, would require longer time than I was now willing to spare, & a fit place than the end of a book. But finding means to get this 4. edition & examining it, I found by the number of the pages of the whole book, (there being but one only more in the new than the old & the very lines of every page in a manner agreeing) that there could be nothing of moment more in the later than in the former. Wherefore I resolved here to add the answer of whatsoever was added or changed, lest he might except that his last corrected edition was not answered, or perhaps that he was falsely charged, if there were something left out of the fourth which was in the third edition.  
The whole difference then of the two editions is in these places following: first whereas in the third edition in his 9 sect. he had made 8. paragraphes, treating 8. particular points of doctrine in this 4. edition he hath made nine, dividing the second, which was of the Sacrament of the Lord's supper (these are the words of his title) and the doctrine of transubstantiation into two §§. making this the title of the second §. The Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord's supper; and this the title of the third Transubstantiation, though he have not one word either more, or otherwise, in these two new §§. than he had before in that one wherein he playeth much like a man, that would change a shilling into two six-pences only to seem to have more money, because he had more pieces. And as for his Baptism why he should put it in the title at all I see not: for all that he saith of it in either place is only this that he thinketh no man so blind or stupid as to deny it to be the same substantially with that of the Primitive church, which is a goodly catch to make so fair a title for.  
The second place is pag. 174. in the 5. §. of the third, and 6. §. of the fourth edition which is of communion in both kinds: where having said that a man would gladly know what the reasons were, why the Roman church did forbid communion in both kinds, and withal cited Gerson's treatise in the margin, which as he there acknowledgeth shows the causes, I there reprehended him for it, as may be seen here chap. 9 §. 5. n. 7. Now as it seems reflecting upon his own absurdness therein, in his 4. edition he doth not say that Gerson shows the causes as he said before but declares them himself out of Gerson, saying they were these, to wit, The length of lay men's beards; the loathsomeness to drink after others; the costliness and difficulty of getting wine; the frosts in winter; the flies in summer; the burden of bearing; the danger of spilling, and the people's unworthiness to equal the Priests in receiving in both kinds. Thus fare are Gerson's words as he citeth them in a different letter, continuing the discourse himself in this manner. And thus for long beards and unsweet breaths, for a little pains and no great charges, for frosts in winter and flies in summer, I say for these and the like Catholic considerations pretended in the Council of Constance, the church of Rome abolished Christ's institution, and laid Anathema upon all that at this day maintain the contrary. So Sir Humphrey proving himself as impertinent in setting down Gerson's discourse lamely and ridiculously, as he did before in not setting it down at all: for better declaration whereof I shall here put down Gerson's words as they lie, 
Gers. tract. de come. laico. sub utraque spe.  which are these. Vnde dicunt plurimi Theologi etc. Wherefore very many divines say, that the custom of not communicating the laity under both kinds, especially since the multiplication of the faithful hath been lawfully and reasonably introduced, & this for the avoidind of manifold danger of irreverence, and scandal in the receiving of this most blessed Sacrament. The first danger is in spilling; the second in carriage from place to place; the third in the fowling of the vessels which ought to be hallowed, & not handled or touched ordinarily by lay-people, and much less ought the consecrated wine to be sold in shops as it is said to be with such men (that is the Bohemians whoe stood for the use of the chalice;) the fourth is in the long beards of lay-men, the fifth in the keeping thereof for the sick, because in the vessel it may become vinegar, and so the blood of Christ would cease to be there, being neither to be received nor to be consecrated a new without Mass, and so it might come to pass that pure vinegar may come to be given in steed of the blood of Christ: besides that in summer flies would breed, how close soever the vessel should be shut: some times also it would putrify, or become as it were noisome to drink, and this reason is very efficacious; as also for an other reason, when many had drunk before. And we may ask in what vessel so great a quantity of wine should be consecrated at Easter, for ten or twenty thousand persons? the sixth harm is in the costliness of wine, at lest in many places where there is scarce wine found to celebrate withal, & in other places where it is not to be had but at a dear rate: beside there would be danger of congeling or turning to ●ee. Again there would be danger of credulity; and this many ways. First that the dignity of the laity is as great in the receiving of this Sacrament as that of Priests. Secondly that so to do was ever, and is a matter of necessity, & so all that have done, and do think, practice or teach otherwise have perished and do perish; and generally all, as well clarks, Doctors and Prelates who have not opposed themselves against such a custom by word and writing, and that they have perverted the scripture: Thirdly that the virtue and force of this Sacrament is not more principally in the consecration then in the receiving. Fourthly that the church of Rome doth not think rightly of the Sacraments, nor is herein to be imitated. Fiftly that general Counsels and particularly this of Constance have erred in faith and good manners. Sixtly it would many ways be occasion of sedition and shismes in our part of Christendom, as experience showeth in Bohemia. Hitherto are the words of Gerson: by the only reading and comparing whereof, it will easily appear how badly Sir Humphrey hath dealt as well in culling out some few reasons of least force, as also in delivering them not in the author's phrase as they lie, but in a certain ridiculous fashion of his own: for first he mentioneth not the two main heads which contain all the rest and are chief to be regarded in the administration of Sacraments to wit, irreverence and scandal: then among the dangers of irreverence he leaveth that, which may most easily happen, and cannot indeed be well avoided, to wit, that with long keeping as when it is kept for the sick, the species of wine would turn into vinegar; that it would otherwise corrupt, & become noisome, which Gerson seemeth to count his chief reason for he saith of it that it is a very efficacious one Sir Humphrey also leaveth out that other reason, that either the vessels wherein it is kept must be let to grow very fowl, or be touched and handled by lay people: both which are contrary to the reverence dew to this holy Sacrament: he leaveth out that point of scandal in selling of the consecrated wine, to save the credit of his brethren of Bohemia, who used so to do. He leaveth out the manifold dangers of scandal by mis-beleif, to wit, that hereby men might come to believe that it were a matter of necessity; that hereby they might come to condemn all that have taught, or practised the contrary or not opposed it, that hereby they might come to condemn the practice of the Roman church, and condemn general Counsels of error in faith; all which the Knight was pleased to pass over, putting down only those other, which he thought he might make better sport withal: for which purpose he also altereth Gerson's words: for whereas he speaketh of a little pains, & no great charges Gerson saith nothing of pains & for charges he saith the quite contrary; to wit, that the charge is very great in some places, and in others that there is not wine to be had sufficient for the people, but only very little for the Priest to say Mass, withal and for altering Christ's institution Gerson saith the express contrary, to wit, that it is an error to say that there is any such institution; and that there is no more necessary by divine institution, but that we do not contemn it as, saith he, Doctors teach of Confirmation and Extreme Unction which are said to be Sacraments not of necessity. Which truth being supposed, I see not but Gerson's reasons may be good and sufficient to prove his intent, which was to show the manifold irreverence and scandal which might come by the use of both kinds: for example is it not an undecent thing to see the long hair of a man's upper lip hang in the chalice, and to come out with a great quantity of the sacred blood hanging and dropping from it? likewise be there not many men and women in london, after whom Sir Humphrey himself might perhaps be unwilling to drink, not only for niceness, but for fear also of something else, which besides loathsomeness may bring danger of health? and why then for a great many such reasons concurring may not the church decree the ordinary use of one kind only, in such case as Christ leaveth it in her power? for this authority therefore of Gersons I see not that the Knight hath any whit mended but rather made his matters worse. 
V sup. cap. 9 § 7. n. 14.   
The third place is pag. 204. in his §. of images, where citing an authority of the civil law, he saith that the good Emperors Valens and Theodosius made proclamation etc. in the answer of which place, beside other errors I taxed him for calling Valens a good Emperor; now in this 4. edition he leaveth out the word (good) whether by chance or upon better consideration I know not: howsoever I thought fit to note it as a thing wherein the edition differeth.  
The fourth and last place is pag. 319. in his 17. section where explicating what manner of Papist it is that many be saved, he saith out of Hooker it must not be a Pope with the neck of an Emperor under his feet, nor a Cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints, but a Pope, a Cardinal sorrowful, penitent, disrobed, stripped, not only of usurped power, but also reclaimed and recalled from his error, whose proselytes must abjure all their heresies wherewith they have any way perverted the truth etc. All this and somewhat more of the same kind is added; which I do not recite to answer: for I have done that fully before, besides that any man may see the absurdity of it: for he may as well say any jew, Turk, or heretic may be saved, to wit, by abjuring his errors, and being sorry for his sins, and so we say Sir Humphrey Lined himself may be saved in this manner. I do not therefore note this to answer but only as I said before to show the difference of the editions and how with the number of them the measure of the Knight's malice increaseth: and so much for that matter.  
Now the third thing whereof I am to take notice here, is another wise piece of work of Sir Humphrey's called VIA DEVIA, which I also never saw till this answer was underprint which now having seen, I find it to be in a manner the same with his VIA TUTA, and indeed so like as I see not why he should call the one VIA TUTA or DEVIA rather then the other: and therefore I presume there willbe no farther answer expected thereunto: besides that whosoever shall attentively peruse this answer to his VIA TUTA, will soon see that there will never need more answer to any thing, that he saith. And so I end once more with him.   
FINIS.  

Faults escaped in the Epistle dedicatory.  
pag. 7. lin. 24. of the Gentlemen. cor. of the Gentleman. pag. 14. lin. 7. her for. cor. her. say for. pag. 20. lin. 12. these cor. those pag. 22. lin. 14. those cor. these pag. 34 lin. 9 some mire cor. the same mire   

Faults escaped in the book itself.  
pag. 2. lin. 12. there cor. these pag. 5. lin. 5. against Sergius. cor. against Eutiches; the difference of his two wills against Sergius. pag. 6. lin. 1. whensoever cor. which whensoever pag. 6 lin. 15. words cor. word pag. 11. lin. 3. out of deal out pag. 11. lin. 11. Doctor cor. Doctors pag. 11. lin. 32. theach which cor. teach that which pag. 13 lin. 3. that cor. that that pag. 15. lin. 17. before cor. before; pag. 17. lin. 17. in cor. is pag. 17. lin. 19 points cor. point pag. 17. lin. 21. they were cor. it were pag. 2●● 〈◊〉 23. that that cor. that pag. 24. lin. 7. nothing cor. noting pag. 24. lin. 7. occur the cor. occur in the pag. 29 lin 12. implicit cor. implicit faith pag. 35 lin. 25. and cor. are pag. 37. lin. 12 knighs cor. knight pag. 39 lin. 30 sum cor. some pag. 42. lin. 18. went. For the cor. went for the p. 45. lin. 1. thing which cor. thing to do which pag. 45. lin. 15. wiolated cor. violated pag. 48. lin. 26. often cor. often pag. 49. lin. 13. thimketh cor. thinketh pag. 50. lin. 9 Coquus cor. Coquaeus pag. 54 lin. 16. would all cor. would have all pag. 55. lin 1. not cor. noe pag. 55. lin. 13. contradiction cor. contradictions pag. 58. lin. 17. about cor. a bout pag. 61. lin. 10. jou cor. you p. 61 lin. 21. it cor. them pag. 69. lin. 17. Prophest cor. Prophet pag. 69 lin. 22. showed cor. showeth pag. 84. lin. 8. great cor. great churches. pag. 84. lin. 9 Mark here etc. unto those words of the Apostles. cor. making it a marginal note. pag. 85. lin. 15. ardelis cor. ardelio pag. 87. lin. 1 considereth cor. considered pag. 87. lin. 31. the 666 cor. the year 666. pag. 91. lin. 11. he hath deal he pag. 91. lin. 19 Heliesaitae cor. Helcesaitae pag. 92. lin. 19 the flesh cor. other flesh pag. 96. lin. 8 to wit cor. videlicet pag. 102. lin. 11. Church, his Tenets cor. Church's tenets pag. 106. lin. 8. to adore; cor. to adore him; pag. 109 lin. 20. saith the cor. saith he pag. 112. lin. 19 your cor. yours pag. 114. lin. 11. & 13. ingenious cor. ingenuous pag. 114 lin. 27 to cor. to to pag. 115 lin. 13 & 14 excused cor excuses pag. 116 lin. 6 which cor. with pag 116 lin. 26. 22. books. For canonical, cor 22 books for canonical pag. 119 lin. 4 eight cor. eighth pag. 122 lin. 29 those be cor. there be pag. 134. lin. 21. you cor. then pag. 136 lin. 2. translated cor. translateth pag. 142 l. 30 not cor. note pag. 145 lin. 12 we not cor. we do not pag. 152. lin. 22 whereas cor. for whereas pag. 156 lin. 16 to wit cor. videlicet p. 158 lin 27. your cor. our p. 159 lin. 18 others cor. other p. 159 lin. 27. about cor. about p. 167. lin. 12 uribarne cor. as uribarne pag. 167 lin. 24 acient cor. ancient p. 172 lin. 3 in cor. on p. 176 lin. 17 speaketh cor. speaketh p. 185 lin. 26 see cor. so p. 188 lin. 3 bring cor. bringeth p. 188 lin. 24 priest cor. priests p. 189 lin. 12 sir cor. sir? p. 189. l. 12 is allowed deal is p. 189 l. 20 id cor. it p 193. lin 4 as of cor. as if p. 194 lin 9 imitation cor. invitation p. 197 lin. 30 nor cor. not p. 198 lin. 29. 3. or 4. thousand cor. 3 or 4 hundred or 3. or 4. thousand. p. 205 lin. 3 is cor. it is pag. 212 lin. 32. &. deal &. pag 215 lin. 10. hat cor. haste p. 216 lin 1. putted cor. putteth p. 218 lin. 28 whereas cor. for whereas p. 228 lin. 25. anthentatively cor. authoritatively p. 233 lin. 16 hat● cor. that p. 235 lin. 1 he doth not cor. he cannot, p. 238 lin. 2. Father's cor. Father p. 244 lin. 24 words cor. word p. 244. lin. 26 as in cor. as if in p. 251 lin. 13 all which cor. which (all) p. 255 lin. 12 this cor. all this p. 256 lin. 12 aliquod cor. aliqua p. 256 lin. 13 iactum cor. iactura p. 258 lin. 23 wherein cor. where proved in pag. 259 lin. 8 loud cor. low pag. 265 lin 32 firmatur cor. finiatur pag. 269 lin. 5. Bishops cor. Bishop pag. 276 lin. 24 appear cor appears pag. 277. lin. 21. a good cor. a good one p 282. lin. 4. circumstance cor. circumstances. pag. 283 lin. 26 as a thing deal as pag. 290 lin. 14 your cor. yours p. 303 lin. 10 not cor. noe pag. 305. lin. 3 plessies cor. plessy p. 308 lin. 5 own cor. own p. 309 lin. 19 thing cor. things pag 310 lin. ●1 dissolute cor. dissolute pag 313. lin. 15. which cor. with pag. 514. lin. 9 iudment cor. judgement pag. 315 lin 13. tis cor. this pag. 316 lin. 7. pillards cor. pillars p. 316 lin. 22. to the paragraph cor. to the end of this paragraph pag. 317. lin. 32 divine cor. divines pag. 318 lin. 4 may cor. it may pag. 319 lin. 4 you cor. yours pag. 319. lin. 11 is indulgences cor. is of indulgences pag. 321 lin. 15. alleged cor. you allege pag. 324. lin. 19 their cor. theirs pag. 326 lin. 1. Indulce cor. Indulgence pag. 325 lin. 2 Corithian cor Corinthian pag. 328 lin. 18 things cor. thing pag. 330 lin. 11 thousand cor. thousand pag. 331. lin. 17 where cor. were pag. 333 lin. 11 thaught cor. taught pag 334 lin 9 utrumque cor. utrunque pag. 335 lin 11 sermons cor. sermons with pag. 335 lin. 14. is cor. it pag. 344. lin. 4 the cor. is the pag. 351 lin. 26 it any deal it pag 357 lin 21 way for deal way pag. 357 lin. 32 consequenty cor. consequently pag. 364 lin. 17 your cor. yours pag. 365 lin. 4 Angelis it a cor. angelis ita p 374 lin. 8 & you cor. & yet you p. 380 lin 12 which you say you cor. which say you p. 384 lin. 28 How are cor. How then are p 385 lin. 15 work cor. works p. 390 lin. 6 form cor. former p. 409 lin. 7 man cor. men p. 412 lin. 26 craftily cor. craftily p. 416 lin. 12 man's cor. men's p. 422 lin. 10 speak cor. speaks p. 425 lin. 6 Tertullian cor. is Tertullian p. 425 lin. 30 & 31 altogether cor. all together p. 449 l. 3 this is cor. it is p 4●9 lin. 18 man cor. man's p 456 lin. 16 suppositions cor. supposititious p. 458 lin. 9 uriting cor. writing p. 467 lin. 8. priests cor. priest p. 467 lin 12 priest cor. priests p. 478 lin. 25 son cor. sun p. 466 lin. 33 Lozimus cor. Zozimus p. 487 lin. 1 Lozimus cor. Zozimus p. 487 lin. 15 & 16 confidence cor. confidence p. 495 lin 3. kind cor kinds p 498 lin. 30 at cor. a p. 504 lin. 19 inferiors cor. inferior p. 510 lin. 18 our cor ours p. 513 lin. 26 he cor. the p. 519 lin. 19 Council cor. Counsel p. 524 lin. 32 avoidind cor. avoiding.