A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY PUBLISHED BY THE JESVITES UNDER THE NAME OF WILLIAM MALONE.  
The First Part.  
Wherein the General Answer to the Challenge is cleared from all the JESUITS Cavils.  MATTH. XXIII. 9 10. Call no man your FATHER upon the earth, for one is your FATHER which is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even CHRIST. II. TIMOTH. III. 8. 9 As jannes' and jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the Truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the Faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shallbe manifest unto all. 
DUBLIN, Printed by the Society of Stationers, Printers to the Kings most excellent Majesty. 1632.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY LO: VISCOUNT FALKLAND, ONE OF THE LORDS OF HIS MAJESTY'S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL.  
Right Honourable my singular good Lord,  
IT was Tertullian's observation of Heretics, Nostra suffodiunt ut sua aedificent 
a Tertull de prescript a● vers. haeret. cap. 42. : Your Lordship is well informed by experience, that the Romish Clergy who disdain the stile of Heretics, are like underminers, like Builders: For what kind of Undermining is left unpractised to make way, ut sua aedificent, that they may build up their Babel, and advance their ROMAN See? The Scripture the Rule of Faith they undermine by their Vnde scis? allowing it neither authority nor Command, but because their Chief Pastor declares it, expounds it. The Church they undermine by assuming her Name, defiling her Doctrine. Counsels, by denying their lawfulness, unless called and approved by Rome: Bishops & Priests, by making them Delegates to his supposed Holiness, rejecting their Commission received from CHRIST. Neither cease they here, but Princes and States they undermine also, sometime by raising open War, sometime by Bosome-conspiracies, Powder-plots, & other secret attempts. Nor do these underminers look always like Faux in the Vault, but they will appear sometimes as it were Angels of Light: Princes shall have Thousands of their Pens 
b jesuite Fisher in his Epistle to the King. , but I think rather Pen-knives: They willbe strongly tied and united to his Majesty's Crown, & the more familiarity they have with him by whom Kings do reign, the more awful will they be found unto his Holy anointed 
c The jesuite in his Epistle Dedicatory. , and all this, as the Devil to our Saviour, ut sua aedificent, that Princes may fall down and worship their Beast. We may go further; None escape them. They undermine & Populum & Primates Populi, by subverting their Estates, Proselyting their Children: and yet the keeping back of these underminers from his Majesty's presence is censured by Mr Malone (our jesuite) to be the fruit of waspish emulation 
d In his Epistle Dedicatory. , as if these things might be done, and yet they remain faithful to their Prince, his State and Dignity. But their Allegiance may well be discerned by their Obedience: For, besides their immediate address to Rome, their acknowledging a PROTECTOR 
e In a letter of LORD. CAR. LUDVISIUS S. R. E. VICECANCELLARIUS, superscribed thus, Rev. P P●i .. Praefect● p. P. Car● Excalceaterum in Reg● Hibernia. Dated. Rome 10. Kal. I●●ii, 1631. which is in my hands, and concerneth the quarrels of the Regulars and Seculars in the points censured by the Doctors of S●●bon, ●5. ●an. 1631.  rei veritas innotes●at scriptum est ad quosdam illius Regni Praelatos â qu. bus expectatur informatio. Interim v●sum est sacrae Congreg. ni ut nos ex munere PROTECTORIS quo fungimur admoneamus, & rogemus V. 〈◊〉 ne ex dolore aut vindicta illatae, ut praetenditur, calumniae quid quam agat erga tumultus authores, ne maj●res ●xcitentur turbae, sed offensiones & injurias suas ●uorumque re●ittat s●cr● Congreg. 〈◊〉 quae plenè satisfaciet, & justâ censurâ corripiet, ac poenâ afficiet ●●●●mniae dum constire it Architectos.  there, and abusing his Majesty's Subjects by pressing their Consciences to yield subjection (against his sacred Commands) to none but from thence, There is daily resisting of his ROYAL Commands, in matters that are not absolutely Spiritual: For there being Publication of His Majesty's ROYAL pleasure for the changing of the Popish Calendar, which ever since the times of Rebellion was observed in the Province of Ulster, Did they obey? This it may be they will glory in; But for what other then Politic respects? How was the Titular Primate advised by his Council learned Was he not pressed to disobey? Was it not reputed inconvenient to alter the same? Did he not censure the receiving of the King's command against this their disobedient practice to be no otherwise then to obey men more than GOD! That if obedience should be yielded herein, their Adversaries (so he styles his sacred Majesty & Council) willbe encouraged to publish more severe edicts against them, & sic paulatim serpet Cancer 
f In a letter written partly in Irish, partly in Latin, to the Titular Primate, superscribed, To his much esteemed assured loving friend Mr William Bitagh these in haste wheresoever. These are the points for which it were inconvenient to alter the time here praes●rtim hoc anno. 〈◊〉, quod videamur obsdire hominibu● magis quam Deo, recipiendo TEMPORALIUM Potestatum mandata contra r●ceptam Ecclesiasticam lgem, idque 〈◊〉 ●dium religionis nostrae; und● ADVERSARII animentur ad alia magis nociva praecepta can●ra nos ●denda, dum ●iderent nos minoribus praeceptis ●●●emperare, & sic paulatim serpet Cancer etc. . Do they apprehend his Majesty & Council for Adversaries? Who can then esteem them for Friends? Shall a rebellious intrusion be esteemed the Oracle of GOD and check the Regal Power, as proceeding from Men, and yet Subjection not violated, but their Obedience must remain firm?  
Much more in this kind may be presented to your Lordship, if it were not superfluous, but by this it may appear, how that (notwithstanding their pretences) Princes are relished or distasted by them in ordine ad spiritualia, as they countenance, or exalt their Popish Faction. For to omit other things, the jesuit his contemptuous reproaching of the learned defence of his Majesty's supreme power, made in the Castle-Chamber in the time of your Lordship's Government here, doth declare how inviously they hear of his Majesty's eminent and glorious Prerogatives. But the more they declare themselves enemies to our Faith & her Defender, the more I doubt not, but all sacredly affected will arm themselves to resist them, in these their contrivings & secret imaginations.  
I do not come with this Dedication to move your Lordship hereunto, for it hath been your Work; & who is or hath been more Faithful amongst all the Servants of my Lord the KING 
* 1. Sam. 2●. ? And for your pious affection to the true Religion I could speak more than I suppose your modesty would be willing to hear; so that I doubt not, but in this way you will prosper and flourish, (Vnus Deus & plures Amici) being confident that there will never be wanting Blessings & Honour to him that either walks with GOD or for him. Neither is it a light Argument of your love to Piety and Religion, that in the time of your Lordship's Government (imitating herein BOTH your most glorious MASTERS) you were a Father to the Clergy and Ministers of GOD; your last Act amongst us showing with how sacred an esteem you reverenced their Persons; when by your practice you taught the most Honourable of the Kingdom to acknowledge them for men appointed by GOD to bless in his Name.  
I will now draw to an end, excusing my presumption in offering this to your Lordship; but I could do no less, in regard I have no other means to acknowledge your liberal favours and bounty to me, and to give your Lordship an Account, that although they can never be deserved, yet they are not altogether misplaced or cast away. The LORD multiply his Blessings upon your Lordship, and inflame your affections more and more to his Glory, that he may crown you with his mercies here, and eternity hereafter; which he shall ever pray for that is  
Your Lordship's most humble servant and Chaplain GEO: SING.   

To the Reader.  
I Am to give thee notice (Christian Reader) that M. Malone the jesuite writing a DEMAND, and sending it to the most reverend Father in God, the Lord Primate of all Ireland his Grace, when he was Chancellor of the Cathedral Church of S. Patrick's Dublin, received an ANSWER from him to the same, full of gravity and learning, when he was Bishop of Meath, having the first copy that came forth of the Press sent unto him. Since which time he hath printed, A REPLY TO Mr USHERS ANSWER, so fully expressing an impatient & disquieted mind, that scarce a page may be found, wherein he useth not a licentious liberty and reviling tongue against the most learned Answerer. This book travailed long before it could be espied by us, but having got it at last, we found it to be as before is declared. Whereupon some Divines did labour to dissuade the most reverend the Lord Primate from rejoining thereunto, in regard of the indignity of the railer, and violence of the work, as also because it would hinder him in other studies more necessary for the Church, and did offer their endeavours to examine the same; Which being accepted by his Grace, the work is now so fare prepared, that it waits at the Press. Only this Piece prepares the way, which I have sent out of due course and order without the rest, occasioned by the adverse part, who have reported it to be in answering before many sheets thereof were printed, whereby I had reason to suspect, that to get the copy they used some deceit.  
But before I leave thee (Christian Reader) I must first acquaint thee, that in the examination of the General Controversy in the Jesuits Reply, I have passed by sundry mistakes, solecisms, and false Quotations, casting them aside, as the Israelite did the body of Amasa 
* 2. Sam. 2. 20.  lest they should hinder me in a more necessary pursuit. Neither have I been moved with every provocation of the envious jesuite, knowing that the sin which provoked him to this bitterness, is (as Cyprian observes) sine fine peccatum, everlastingly extended, and without an end, set on fire by Hell, 
Cyprian. de Zelo & Livore. Zelus terminum non habet permanent jugiter malum & sine fine peccatum, quantóque ille cui invidetur successu meliore profecerit, tanto invidus in majus incendium, livoris ignibus, in●r descit▪  though the fuel that nourisheth it come from Heaven, whereby the most learned Answerer is justified, in regard that the more GOD hath beautified him with excellencies and admirable perfections, the more he is persecuted by this fiery inflammation. Besides, his own have censured him for his rage herein, admiring  — Quae causa indigna SERENOS Foedavit vultus? 
and therefore he being condemned by them, I did take liberty many times to spare my reproof. What errors have passed in the Press, I have taken the best course I could for their correction. I pray GOD bless and protect his Church against all the proud holds that are erected against the Sceptre of JESUS CHRIST.   

A BRIEF VIEW OF THE JESVITES PREPARATIVES TO HIS REPLY.  
IT is sufficient to procure jealousy, when an Adversary raves; But it is a convincing Argument of desperate fear, when one flies upon a party, to countenance his Cause. That this hath been our Jesuits practice, I think will easily appear.  
In his first page, if Painters and Poets were to be believed, he 
a In the preface to the Reader.  Emblematically s●ts forth our private spirit, jarring Synagogues, and would persuade the world, that there is amongst them, 
b Pag, 1.  the Unity of the spirit, in the bond of Peace. But all this in a shadow only. I hope the Reader will not think we esteem our persons as our cause, or that we conceit, we are as free from Passion, as our Faith from falsehood: This humour were too pharisaical, and fit for a jesuite. Some humours will extend a gnat to a 
c As Lutherans &c.  mountain, and determine every thing damnable, which they conceive an error. On the other side, others have consciences so largely capacious, that nothing offends them, and therefore can as well receive a precept, or command from Satan, as GOD; from Antichrist, as CHRIST; and obey with more obsequiousness the 
d I. Gordon Huntl. in epist. ad Paulum 5. ante epit: contr: Tu Petra firma & immobilis in qua religio conquieseit, Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib 4. c. 5. Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bo na, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.  Tyrant, than the 
e Chrys. hom. 37. in Gen. Christus praecepit dicens; scrutemini scripturas; yet I. Gordon Huntl. count: epit: with other Papists except, that we know not the Scriptures, neither their sense, but by the Pope and his Church, that they are obscure, in the original ambiguous, the points ill placed, the text corrupted.  Prince of peace, the only true Lord of the Conscience.  
Let us now argue with the jesuite, if our discourse do not interrupt his Music, and inquire; If it be granted, that there have been some bitter passages among our own, whether Discord of 
f As Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 39 Paul and Peter Gal. 2 11. the Churches of Asia, & the Latin in Pepe Victor's time. Euseb. eccl. hist lib. 5. Chrysost. & Epiphanius, Augustine & Jerome etc.  Brethren, so it be not deadly, is not better than Concord of 
g As Saul & his Devil, as Bala● & Balaam that agree to curse the Church, Num. 22. as Pilate & the Priests, to crucify the Lord of Life.  Slaves? Or if there be Unity among Roman Proselytes, as he but pretends, and cannot prove, whether they can discern it from the Chain of their Captivity, by which they are bound? Are there not many that 
h Scot 4. d. 11. q 3.  captivate their judgements? that cannot persuade their Understandings? And who knows not, that their 
i Aene: Sylu. in epist. ad Mogunt. capitulo ●. cit: per Fl. Illyricum. Etiam verum dicere contra Papam, est contra juramentum Episcoporum. Maldon in Math. 16. 6. Haereticos non magis audiendos esse etiamsi vera, & sacris literis consentanea, dicant aut doceant, quam Diabolum.  Oaths with other obligations, and not the Truth tie them like sampson's foxes by the tail, to the Unity of their blind Subjection?  
Is it not 
k Concil: Tridentin:  Heresy deserving a curse, to question Papal decrees? and in Roman determinations to doubt, where they cannot believe, Is not this to be an 
l Gloss. Extravag: johan: 22: tit. 14 cap. ●. Cum inter: Credere dominum deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae Decretalis, & istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretu●.  Heretic? But I will forbear any further pursuit of these things, until a fit opportunity, and consider how he expresseth this our Dissension, and their Concord in his vainglorious Hieroglyphic.  
The Roman Divines he makes Harpers, and turns our Heavenly Musicians, to play on all kinds of Instruments, and this he thinks a ●est worth his whole discourse.  
But Instruments of a kind do not presuppose an harmonious consent; Neither do Organs of different forms necessarily exclude a concord, as this Harper would have it. 
* Psalm 150.  God was praised in the sound of the Trumpet, upon the Viol, and Harp, with Timbrel and Flute, Virginals and Organs, and yet no horrid dissonancy, or unreconcilable discord to be heard; So that although he make Knox Master of our Choir, I cannot think him fit to be a Chorister in their own, for his skill in Music.  
He further proceeds, and gives Knox the Horn, when all. Scotland knows, that he brought the 
† To be brought to the Horn is as much as to be outlawed. m Sleid: come: lib: 22: Hist: Conc: Triden:  Pope and his Clergy to it.  
He puts our Private Spirit, as he terms it, in a Bagpipe, and forgets the Spirit that travayled in a ᵐ Cloak-bag, betwixt Trent, and Rome.  
I will not trouble you with such other thoughts, as his piping hath occasioned, but will turn the leaf, and see whether his Pen, be better than his Pencil, and first we find,  
A Reply to Mr james Usher his Answer.  
Your Father Parsons thought it an error in a Prince, to call your great Cardinal, Mr Bellarmine: Shall it be justified in a jesuite, to deal so unmannerly with a Primate, and one of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council? A practice usual to our hot oppugners, yet so little approved by their wisest brethren, upon their second thoughts, that Mr Fitzherbert, Rector of the English College of his own Society in Rome, retracted his unmannerly usage in the same kind towards the Lord Bishop of Winchester. Neither let this jesuite think, that his pretence of Religion is Apology sufficient to plead for his incivility herein, when as 
n Replique a laresponse du se●enissime roy de la grand Bretagne Card. du Per●on pag. 1010. etc.  wise as himself, or any of his order, gave that most reverend Bishop, the honour of his Dignity and Sea.  
He telleth us further, that his Reply discovereth how answerless Mr Usher returneth. Balaam, nor his Creature never spoke truer, for though the jesuite hath presented to the world a Bulk pretending uniform consent of antiquity, for the Romish Religion, and the vanity of the Answerer, it will appear only that he hath expressed good will, though little strength, whereby Master Usher 
† Responsa eius sine responsionibus.  returneth, and remaineth answerless still.  
here is folly enough for a Page, and a Painting; but resteth he here? no; he urgeth 1. Cor. 4. 15: and maketh it speak in this manner, If ye have ten thousand Ushers in Christ, yet not many fathers.  
here is a Courtesy perforce, for though this Loyalist neglects the most reverend Primate his honour in State, his dignity in Schools, and makes him but a Master, though his exquisite knowledge, & eminency in Church, and styles him but an Usher, yet his Sanctity bursts forth, and will not be hid, for he is acknowledged in Christ. But let him glory in his conceit, as he pleaseth, I am sure, though his faction have many 
* Friars and Jesuits vulgarly styled fathers.  fathers in Antichrist, yet they have neither many, nor any such Ushers in Christ.  
After his Painting and Title, we find an Epistle Dedicatory to His Majesty, which any man reading and believing, may think a jesuite a true Subject, for he comes not with 
o Antiq. Britan: in vita Thom: Becket.  salvo ordine, as their Canterbury Saint, but will undergo the trial of his cause before His Majesty, and submit the right thereof to the censure of his excellent wisdom: So that Ireland may rejoice she hath found a jesuite, that giveth Prince's judgement in spiritual matters, when the whole world besides, cannot produce I think an other, that will allow them an 
p Some give the Pope a direct power to despose kings, Others an indirect power. Bellar: de Rom: Pont: lib: 5: cap. 6. Quan●um ad personas non potest Papa ut Papa ordinari● temporales Principes deponere etc. tamen potest mutare regna et uni auferre, atque alteri confer, tanquam summus Princeps spiritualis si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem. et cap 7 Quod si christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem &c: id fuit quia deerantvires temporales Christianis.  undependant temporal jurisdiction.  
He acknowledgeth his Majesty's virtues, which we commend in a jesuite, though it be but a Subject's duty, and could wish his Pen were as strong as his Subject. But forgetting pistol, poison, and Gunpowder, he imputeth their scaring from his Majesties' presence to washpish emulation of Adversaries, which truly proceeded from wel-grounded jealousy, and loyal fear.  
Did you never hear of Benedict Palmio, and Hannibal Codrett, two famous Jesuits, that not only taught Parry that it was lawful to kill the Queen of England, but also that it was an act meritorious? Williams, York, O Cullen, Savage, & divers others that were executed for the like attempts, Did not they charge Holt, and other Jesuits, to be their instructors in that practical devotion? where did Squire learn the lesson to empoison the Queen, but from your brother Wadpole? 
q O● E●in his brief reply to certain odious and slanderous libels etc. 411.   
These things, are not inventions springing from washpish emulation of adversaries, but they are the confessions of such as were made Martyrs by Popish Doctrine. I will close all with that ugly Powder-plot, which was impossible to have been invented, without the Devil, or a jesuite, and inquire, whether these be not sufficient to bar Jesuits from ever pretending faith, or fidelity to Princes: and whether they do not justly occasion jealousy in true affected minds, and require them to keep back such Vipers from their Master's presence?  
Besides this, do Protestants fear jesuitical treacheries alone? do not your own the same? what made the court of Parliament of Paris, upon john Chastells' attempt to murder King HENRY the fourth, to banish the Jesuits out of Paris within three days, and out of France within fifteen, after notice given, but Garet the jesuits' traitorous lessons? Was it the jesuits' Unity and familiarity with God, or in truth, their confederacy with Hell, that made your Catholics of France upon a Pillar 
r O: E: ibid. 117. , set up in detestation of Chastells' attempt, to style your holy Brethren, mali Magistri; their Colleges, Scholae impiae; and their Religion, Nova & malefica superstitio?  
Was it an Argument of your awful engagements to Gods holy anointed, that you brought your Catholic children to such a bloody height in France, that it was vulgarly received, That Popes may toss the French King his Throne like a Tennis-ball, and that Killing of Kings is an act meritorious, not in an inferior degree, but to purchase the Crown of Martyrdom: In so much that the Deputies for the third Estate, desired the means whereby the People might be unwitched of this pernicious opinion? These are the words, not of light report, but of our sacred deceased King 
s King JAMES his remonstrance against an Oration of the most illustrious Cardinal Perron, in the preface. , who was a Star of the greatest magnitude in the Church of GOD. Can subjects want fear of these prodigies, unless they want faith to their Prince, fidelity to their Country?  
He chargeth us further with upbraiding them with the undeserved Epithets of treacherous and disloyal Papists. Again, that we have altered our tune, and by public attestations made it known unto the world, that their Religion doth not any way diminish, or weaken the force of their obliged duty to his Majesty's sacred Crown, no not though the Pope himself should attempt to withdraw them from the same.  
Who knoweth not Papists have their kinds? there are Papists in faction, Papists in devotion, some deceived by your Cheats, others embracing your wiles. That some we term treacherous and disloyal, their deserts merit it. That others we acknowledge loyal and faithful, our experiences approve it. What do we acquit all, because we justify some? Or have we altered our judgements, because we distinguish your persons?  
Your Martyr Watson 
t In his Quodlibet.  hath published Jesuits fidelity, and some of yourselves have acted it. And for your Clergy, the King 
u In the preface to his Remonstrance.  deceased conceiveth that they deny themselves the rank of loyal Subjects among the French, why should we think the Climate altars them?  
The most reverend Primate giveth his dear Countrymen, the Irish Gentry of the Pale, that which they deserve, the honour of their former fidelity, and expresseth his hope of their future faithfulness. The worthy justice acknowledgeth in temporal matters their present Conformity, and both of them I think could wish, they were as tender of their own souls, as of the King's safety. Must this justify your Religion, in regard they will not generally embrace it? And because their loyalty will not close with your doctrine, Is there no Crown-shaving in your profession? That they have not revolted from their obedience, we impute to their pious inclination, & native fidelity, & not to Papal lines, or Popish doctrines, which in these particulars they have scorned and abhorred. He proceeds.  
And I not only for myself, but in the name of all my fellowlabourers, your Majesty's most humble and faithful subjects dar● undertake, that not one of these his words shall ever fall to the ground: but by GOD'S divine assistance you shall find it daily more and more aessured, that the free exercise of our Religion, is our strongest tie and union to your Crown.  
We fear not their loyalty, what needs a surety? if we did, such knights of the Post were poor caution for a regal Crown; who teach doctrines of deposing Princes? are they not your Brotherhood, your fellowlabourers 
x Marian de Rege li. 1. ca 6. Certè à republica, unde ortum habet regia potestas, rebus exigentibus regem in Ius vocari posse, et si sanitatem respuat, principat● spoliari. ? who wills and commands Subjects to be armed against Princes, but your Holy Father 
y Vide▪ Buil. Pii 5. adver. Elizab. Regin. ? You will not kill a King those Perron styles Apostate cutthroats 
z King▪ james his Remonstr. pag. 2. ; but un-king him first, or make him a Tyrant 
a Suarez in▪ defence fid. ●●th▪ adverse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 errc: lib 6. cap. 4. Rex haereticus statim per haeresin ipso facto privatur aliquo modo dominio et proprietate sui regni, etc. At verò post sententiam latam, omninò privatur regno, ita ut non possit iusto titulo illud possidere, ergo ex tunc poter● tanquam omninò tyrannus tractari, et consequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici. , & this you shame not to commend 
b Marian lo ●o so. cit: Ab omni memoria in magna laude fuisse, quocunque tyrannos opprimere aggressi sunt. . Parricide is a sin, this you grant, but while you persuade the▪ world you can pardon 
c Chreichton: jesuita, ad Brusseum apud Hospinian: Hist: Ies: lib: 4: cap: 4: Caede patratâ, si ad se confessurus veniret, tum se ipsum absoluturum esse.  it when it is acted, what can Princes conceive of this, but as of an Invitation to their butchery?  
His late Majesty demanded of Fisher, what subjects should do in case of Papal deposition of their Prince? but dare a jesuite resolve this in a Prince's ear? no: his General inhibites him to deal in politic matters, and therefore he professeth he will pray for Peace, that he will exhort others to suffer patiently, and that he will dye himself rather then to be accessary to his Majesty's death, But for resolution of the question, ne vox quidem, he utters not a syllable. Now these vain compliments our jesuite forsakes, and openly professeth for him self, and in the name of his fellowlabourers; That the Pope himself shall not remove them one whit from their allegiance and duty, which they own unto their King and Country.  
This were worth commendation, if a jesuite could not equivocate 
† Doli non doli sunt, nisi astu colas, Plaut. in Capt. Prov. 1. 17. , but I fear he thinks the debt of allegiance and duty very small, that he dare▪ where his Brethren at the best are tongue-tied, so easily engage himself unto it.  
And it is not to be omitted, that with one breath he affirms their strongest tie and Union to the Crown, to be the free exercise of their Religion.  
So that if the King should but attempt to purge the Country of their Idolatry, and suspend their presumption therein, they could quickly evacuate their obedience, and as their mocke-Bishop of Chalcedon 
d Doctor Bishops epistle to the King.  saith, God knoweth what the forcible weapon of necessity will drive them to at last.  
And now having presumed himself and his brotherhood for good subjects, the next thing he intendeth to declare, is that they be true Christians also.  
For my part, as one of their own spoke of the Queen's supremacy, if she be not Head of the Church, would she were; So I of Jesuits for their Religion, if they be not Catholics, would they were; but I confess, I am as jealous of their sincerity, as he was of the Supremacy; I distaste to swear it.  
The means by which he would confirm it, is the general and uniform consent of the fathers, which he affirmeth to be the assured touch stone to try all controversies, and would persuade in some sort that we jump with them, forced thereunto by our multitude of variances, and licentious wresting of the Scripture.  
What dare not impudency affirm? we never rejected Fathers, nor any other testimony of antiquity, neither denied them their due reverence and respect; nay, we have given them more than Papists 
e Lud. Vives sch. in Aug. de civet. dei lib: 20 cap: 26: Itaque illa demum eis videntur edicta et consilia quae in rem suam faciunt, reliqua non pluris aestimanda quam conventum mulier cularum in textrina vel thermis. Index expurg. Belgit: pag: ●: edir: Antw● 1571. Cùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores, et extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepè negemus, et commodum iis sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus, aut in conflictionibus cum adversariis▪  have done, not forced thereunto, as his brazen complexion would persuade, but out of a due regard to their divine knowledge and learning.  
Yet as we think, that none can know God, but by himself, neither how he will be worshipped, but by his own revelation: So for confirming matters of faith, & those things that pertain to his divine worship, no tongue can tell, nor authority confirm, but virtually it must receive it strength from sac●ed Page. This the most learned Primate hath declared, and it is often repeated by the jesuite, & in fitting place shallbe justified against him.  
He hath not yet come to his Dixi, But craves his Majesty's Princely clemency with patience to hear the evidences of each side, and hopeth withal to be made happy by his upright doom.  
What doth this jesuite dream of? doth he think our royal Princes, like some of their Popes to play fast and lose with religious decrees? what; are his Arguments stronger than Gunpowder, that he hopeth to blow his Majesty from his Religion? or would he beg the Defender from his faith? or persuade the world, that his Highness knoweth not her innocency, that he protects and defends?  
He closeth up, and promiseth fervent vows for his Majesty's complete felicity.  
And herein I am charitable to believe, that he could hearty desire that his Majesty and all other Princes of his faithfulness were as great Saints in heaven, as kings on earth. And so he remains his Majesty's most loyal subject; which I will believe ad Graecas Calendas, when Jesuits leave to turn Martyrs 
f Aug: epist: ●●: Vivunt utlatrones, moriuntur v● Circumcelli once, he norantur ut Martyrs. Cyp: de simplicitate Praelat: Non erit illa fi dei corona fed poena persidiae, nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus, sed desperationis interitus, occidi talis potest, coronari non potest. , and Mr Malone embraceth his Majesty's allegiance by his oath.  
The next thing that is presented, is a Preface to the Christian Reader.  
What will hereafter become of 
a Anth: Possevin:  Atheismus-Protestantium, & 
b Guliel: Reignald:  Calvino-Turcismus, for let this jesuite speak in earnest, or in jest, Permissu Superiorum; we are Christians in Print.  
To excuse his long delay in sending us this jewel, he useth many pretences, and at last, as to his bulwark, he flieth to recrimination; as if it were apology sufficient for his unfashionable and long expected Reply, as he in effect termeth it, that the Answer he hath replied unto, lay groaning six whole years and more, under the Author's pen, and little less than four in the Press.  
Here we shall find news from Crete: Some ten years since at the entreaty of a Protestant Knight, Mr Malone saith, he penned a certain demand. Little less than ten years the answer was in compiling & imprinting if we believe the jesuite: What shall become of the three or four years, since it saw the light? surely, here is Crimen falsi, either Mr Malone, or the jesuite hath read 
* Graecia menda●.  Herododotus. Besides, it plainly appeareth by the 
† In the beginning of the Lord Primates Epistle to the Reader.  Epistle to the Reader, that there were not ten whole years from the Jesuits Challenge, being sent 1618., to the time of the Jesuits answer, printed 1627., which must needs convince the jesuite of notorious falsehood in this particular.  
Now, as the jesuite hath many times kept back from the most reverend Primate his deserved titles, so in relating the occasion of his proposition or demand, he affordeth him one that was never his own, and of a Chancellor, maketh him a Dean, & of a new foundation, Deane of Finglas. What might cause this his tender respect? shall we imitate him & inquire whether it was his charity? Surely we can not be taken with such a thought: that pen which hath endangered his credit, hath certainly crazed his Charity, it so violently raves. It may be we inquire amiss, whilst we seek at home, did not the jesuits fellowlabourers of an other clime being ignorant of S. Patrick his foundation give this courtesy by escape? think not such a thought; Master Malone is a learned Divine 
It hath been spread abroad by some of the Jesuits familiars, that the most learned Primate was a good antiquary: but for a divine Master Malone. etc▪ , a transcendent Varro, and yet Dignitas Decani is a book was never in his Library.  
But howsoever he escape here, we have just ground from hence to suspect him in his farre-fetched reports, his miracles especially, when truth forsaketh him within two miles of his own home.  
He ceaseth not here, but repeats his Articles, and cryeth out, Master Usher hath mistearmed his work, by calling it a jesuits' Challenge, when he propounded but a simple demand.  
I confess here, the most reverend Primate did mistake in taking him for a Champion, when he proves but a Cripple. Yet pardon his escape, hereafter he will take him as he is, fit to ask questions, then fight combats, to beg the points controverted, then to purchase the glory and honour of a Triumph.  
He declares the preparation to the war.  
Mr Usher upon his receipt proclaims this, a Jesuits Challenge, prepares himself to the fight, buck●ls on his harness.  
What to do? to war with a Pigmy; you are deceived; A sling and a few stones * will best answer currish 
1. Sam. 17. 40.  Rhetoric, alicentious Railer.  
He desires to inform his Reader, that for as much as the main controversy concerneth the father's judgements for the first 500 years, in his proofs he hath kept compass, howsoever he hath descended to disproove his Adversary.  
Here let him know, that we will follow him, in the path, that he should tread; in his extravagant collections, and descent from the rule prescribed we desert him; and herein, we take no other liberty, than what he assumeth to himself; as is apparent in his second information.  
He hath enlarged himself in that article of the Real presence: and why I pray you? In regard of the eagerness wherewith the adverse part doth impugn the same.  
Who seethe not that the blind beggar strikes, but he knoweth not whom? for if he understand by the adverse part, that part of the Catholic Church, which liveth under his Majesty's government, as his words import, he is blindly mistaken, for who knows not, that many in the Church of England confess Christ's presence in the sacrament, though they assign not the manner how? but to entertain the Catholic means (as he terms it) 
† pag. 44.  to acknowledge, Christ's presence in the Eucharist, in a sacrament all manner; I think he can neither find pen, nor tongue, that contradicteth the same.  
Yet what he saith, he will prove by miraculous demonstration, and surely I think he is better able to justify their doctrine about the Sacrament, by their legends, than the Scriptures, and by new invented wonders 
c Alexand: de Hales in 4. sent. q. 〈◊〉 In sacramento apparet caro, interdum humanâ procuratione, interdum operatione diabolicâ. , than the venerable testimony of the ancient Church. And it is not to be neglected what an open way to Atheism is prepared by their published legends, and approved miracles, whilst they dare aver, that none can believe the scriptures, wherein are contained Christ's miracles, but by their Church's proposal; and that the same hand though not in the same manner, doth deliver their legends for the comfort of her pretended catholic children; although the consequence be not necessary, may it not fall out, that one finding fraud, and falsehood in these wonders, 
d Lyranus in Daniel 14. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à Sacerdotibus, vel eis adhaerentibus propter lucium temporale. Ga' Biel in Can: Miss: lect: 49 Miracula dicit fieri hominibus, ad imagines confluentibus, nonnunquam operatione Daemonum, ad fallendum inoidinat●s cultores, Deo permittente, exigente talium infidelitate.  may entertain a jealousy of the truth of those miracles that confirm our faith? 
e De tribus mundi impostoribus.  Italy I think knows the effect of this snare, not infecting inferiors alone, but your infallible Chair 
f Io. 23. Concil: Const. Sess. 2. . And do not your imaginary fables herein, next to your images, and idols, confirm the jews in their hardness of heart, to think Atheisticallie of our faith, and Messiah?  
For working feeling in the well disposed Protestant Reader by those your pretended supernatural events, I think, unless it be such, as Augustine found in himself in reading Dido and Aen●as, an imaginary discourse, a fantastic compassion, you may despair of. For we are not now to receive new doctrines, or new miraculous confirmations 
g Stella in Luc. 11. 19 . We have Moses and the Prophets, let us hear them 
* Luke 16. 29. ; if any man preach any other Gospel, then that we have received, let him be accursed 
† Gal. ●. 9 Wadding: Legat: Phi● ter●ii etc. sect: 3. . And we need not to be ignorant (Mr Malone) how the Dominicans answered the Patrons of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin, when they brought to confirm their cause miraculous proofs, that they were of the same stamp that jannes' and jambres wrought in Egypt, but let this expect its proper place.  
I will not yet forsake the Preface. The jesuite confesseth that he hath roughly and freely dealt with the Answerer and this he desires might not be imputed to any disregard that he hath, to his person, or learning, which he honours and highly esteems.  
The Jesuits Commonwealth is not Athens, all ingenuous men are not cloistered in their Colleges; The jesuite confesseth that we have one; But to deal with one whose person he professeth to honour, and learning highly to esteem in more disgraceful and virulent strains, than Michael did with the Devil, 
* jude. 9  how can the jesuite apologise for this?  
But here I hope, his Majesty, and all others of eminent place, will consider, to what a height, this spawn of Ignatius hath ascended in this kingdom, that they did not only build the Babylonian turrets, scorn and outface our true Religion, practised by his sacred Majesty, established by the laws of Church and State, but also revile the most eminent for Piety, Learning and Prelacy, in our Ecclesiastical Government.  
Yet let him triumph in his snarling language, all good men do see such eminencies of learning and sincerity in the most reverend Primate, that a Jesuits tongue though more besmeared cannot defile his honour or his name. Neither doth this celestial luminary, grieve any more than the Moon, at his Dogge-Rhetoricke:  
That which vexeth Lots 
* ●. Pet: 2. 7.  righteous soul is to see his Country made Sodom and Egypt by blindness and Idolatry. An heard of swine he knows may make a greater noise, than an army of men; and who wipeth her mouth▪ or useth her tongue more than the harlot? If such things as these will justify Papal intrusions, Mr Malone will not fail, who hath given us loud cries, and a large volume, but praetereà nihil.  
Some things else we find in this preface, as their pretence of Unity, and our Division, which because he pipeth it so often in the body of his Reply, we will there take some opportunity for the consideration of the same.  

The jesuite a vain demandant.  
THe jesuite after his Preparatives addresseth himself to the Reply, and first layeth down his demand.  
What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion, which the Protestants commend in those of the first 400. or 500 years confessing it to have been the true religion of Christ and his Apostles 
a Reply. pag. ●. . And here, we may see the Jesuits additions.  
In his first demand, he expressed only the true religion, here he addeth of Christ and his Apostles; which I do not except against, as if I did conceive a religion, might be true, that is not from Christ and his Apostles, but to stop that which the jesuite might insinuate, that we confessing them of the prime ages, to have had the true religion, should confess all things practised by them, to be from Christ or Apostolical, or that they embraced no error in practice, or in remote deductions, which were not fundamental.  
To which question (he saith) the Answerer returning a three fold answer, cometh at last very quaintly to prove that which full well he knew before: to wit, that he cannot tell. 
b Reply ibid.   
Here the jesuite thinketh he hath stabbed the Answerer and got the cause, but by the way his folly is apparent; For who knows not, that a party may gain his cause, aswell by excepting against a foolish question, as answering ●t. Respondere dicitur creditor, cum solvit 
c Cic lib. 16. ad Atticum. epist. 2. , much more when he excepteth against the speciality, and proves it pretended only, and of no faith.  
You and your brethren perceiving your own weaknesses are from Arms and valour, driven to foxe-holes, turnings and windings, and fearing God's truth will deny you shelter, you hope to stop the prosecution of his Prophets by blocks that you cast in their way, as interrogating, where Unity? where Succession? where visibility? where your Commission to reform? and here, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion & c.? as if there were no certain assurance of Religion, without knowledge of these things.  
Ahab's false Prophets when they were astonished by the true Prophet Micaiah, interrogate, 
* 1. Kings 22. 24  which way went the spirit of the Lord, from m●e, to speak unto thee? The Prophet answers, neither East, West, North, or South, but manifesteth the truth of his Prophecy by other demonstrations; Behold, saith he, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. What, was the true Prophet ignorant of the place of the false Prophet his seduction? if the jesuite affirmeth this, what makes it for Roman purity, that a Prophet now is ignorant of the time of the Roman Apostasy? Did he conceal it only, and yet satisfied the demand an other way? then the jesuite expresseth himself for a seduced Prophet, when he concludes the most reverend Primate cannot resolve his demand, because he hath pleaded by an exceptive answer.  
In th● strictness of legal process, where the least omission nullifies a cause; one may except against the judge, the jurisdiction, much more against interrogatories exhibited; and although some exceptions are vain and frivolous, yet some are peremptory, which turn back the intention of the prosecutor, neither can they be avoided of the adversary 
d Cal●er: Iur: Quae intentionem persequentis semper perimunt, nec possunt evitari ab adversario. . And such will these three prove, though he could wish them, as he styles them, tedious and impertinent.  
He would further persuade, as if the reverend Primate had wholly travailed against his conscience and there upon chargeth him to seem ignorant of the original of that, which otherwise he knoweth etc. and all this lest he should give any advantage to their side, and so makes his whole work to wheel upon the two fickle poles of want of knowledge, and want of sincerity, the first voluntarily affected, the second through extremity unnaturally embraced. 
c Reply pag. 1.   
Papal omnipotence cannot make a stinking breath, smell sweet. What fumes are these, that this jesuite raiseth against so sincere and sacred a breast? But let him burst with his iambics, I dare say of him, as the Philosopher of himself, He will so live, that none will believe his report. Neither do I doubt, but it will appear in the examination, that this jesuite his whole endeavour hath been, rather to justify his faction, then to declare the truth; that what he chargeth the most reverend Primate with, as affected and unnaturally embraced, will be found naturally in him, even as inherently, as his pretended justice, without any affectation at all.   

An examination of his first Section.  
THe most learned Primate in answering the question doth except against it, as a vain demand, and for confirmation thereof bringeth three reasons.  
1. The Roman dunghill was not raised in an age, & therefore vain to demand, In what Popes days? etc.  
2. That the Roman Apostasy is a mystery of iniquity, that stole into the Church disguised, cloaked with the name of Piety, so that those, which were watchful against open heresies, might sleep when these entered, or have an hand unawares to bring them in.  
3. Errors have oftentimes but a base birth, which although it was observed by some, that lived in the age, wherein they were produced, yet intract of time, their beginnings might be forgotten.  
The jesuite in his Reply to takeaway these Answers, asketh another question.  
Sect. 1. Whether the abovesaid demand, be a vain demand, or no? And then undertakes to show,  
Sect. 2. How vainly our Answerer prooveth my demand to be vain.  
Let us examine the 1.  
Whether the abovesaid demand be vain or not  
The Jesuits Colleges were not builded when Solomon wrote his Ecclesiastes, there can no vanity dwell with them. And because he knoweth, that a jesuite is not to be trusted upon his bare allegation, he will prove it by a threefold cord, which he is confident will not easily be broken. The first of which is this.  
We charge the Church of Rome with heresies, and therefore we ought to point out their beginning. He confirms this by Jerome and Tertullian, that the way to confute and convince heresies, is the reducing of every one to its beginning. That heresies want not beginnings, he produceth Vincentius Lyrin: that there was never heresy, but sprung up under a certain name, in a certain place, & at a certain time; and further illustrates this out of Ir●●a●●, that before Valentinus, there were no Valentinians, nor before the Heretic Martion no Marcionists 
f Reply pag. 1. .  
That this proof wanteth life, is easily apparent; For first a question, may be vain substantially: Secondly, relatively, and in order to the effect, as Solomon styles all inferior things vain, yea, vanity itself, no way able to produce perfect happiness.  
The jesuite by this Question, In what Popes days, & c? intendeth to free the Church of Rome from all charges of Heresy and Apostasy, and in this manner: it was pure and undefiled for 500 years, and if we know not when it lost its purity, she must needs remain pure, undefiled, and perfect in her Chastity still; Now our learned Ecclesiastes cryeth out, Vanity of Vanities, making it clears, that although this question could not be answered, yet she might turn Apostatical and Heretical, and therefore concludes it, a vain demand, which produceth not the expected effect. Neither hath our jesuite spoken any thing to free his Interrogatory of this just charge. What he speaks from Jerome and Tertullian, we deny not, that the way to confute heresies is to bring them to their beginnings, (but this is not the only way;) and with Vincen: Lyrin: that heresies had ever their sprout under a certain name, in a certain place, and at a certain time; yet he doth not say that they are ever known to aftertimes: Nay, we confess further, that before Valentinus there were no Valentinians, and before the heretic Martion, no Marcionists: But we are able to produce heresies, whose heads they cannot find ou● 
g Alphon: de Castr. adv. Haer: lib: 4. Acephali, fie nominati quoniam simul insurgentes, nullus repertus est, qui illorum esset princeps, atq, magister. , and yet we doubt not but they had an head; and some that they style heretics, and yet by the confession of their own cannot be proved so by this rule 
h Bernard: in Cantic: serm. 65. & 66. (Apostolici.) Quaere ab illis suae sectae auctorem; neminem dabunt. Quae haeresis non ex hominibus habuit proprium haeresiarcham? Manichaei Manem habuete principem & praeceptorem, Sabelliani Sabellium, Ariani Arium, Eunomiani Eunomium, Nestoriani Nestorium Ita omnes caeterae hu●●smodi pestes singulae singulos magistros homines habuisse noscuntur, à quibus originem simul duxere & nomen. Quo nomine istos titulove censebis? Nullo, quoniam non est ab homine illorum haeresis, neque per hominem illam acceperunt, (absit tamen ut per revelationem jesu Christi) sed absque dubio (uti Spiritus sanctus praedixit) pe●immissionem & fraudem daemoniorum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, prohibentium nuoere. Reiner. count: haeret. cap. 4. Interomnes sectas, quae adhuc sunt, vel fuerunt, non est perniciossor Ecclesiae, quam Leonistarum etc. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri; aliqui à tempore Apostolorum. Many bare false witness, but their witness agreed not together. Mark. 14. 5●. ; other heresies that are all head, and yet the head of these heresies had a time for revelation 
* 2. Thess. 2. 3. 6. 8. . We confess this Rule is not vain, in respect of those heresies that brought amazement in the Church at their first entrance, and were full grown in their first appearance, as that of Arius and the like, as the most reverend Primate acknowledgeth; yet it is vain, to find out those guilded treacheries, that stole in by deceit.  
Is there no difference betwixt open arms, and secret fraud? betwixt robbing at noonday, in the sight of the sun, & secret burglaries, when the world is a sleep▪ Some like Cacus steal heresies into the Church, as he ox●● into his Cave, backward, persuading the world, that heresy is driven from that place, where it enters in; others cut in sunder the Gordian knots of Unity of Faith Alexander-like, with downright blows and professed opposition. May not a careful watchman sleep with security, and not fear the one, when the other will waken him, by his violence and noise?  
And to answer all, this method (as before was confessed) is good against violent intrusions, which burst forth into loud cries at their birth, but for those conveyances, which first appear like an egg, before the Serpent be hatched, it is a vain, simple, and frivolous ground.  
His second Argument to prove this demand is not vain, is because, the Answerer his forefathers, masters, and brethren, have bestowed such labour and toil in searching & tossing up antiquity to shape, if they could, a wiser answer i. 
Reply pag. 2.   
This answers itself, with a non sequitur: Pro: 26. 5. Answer a fool in his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, not in his wise interrogations, that like Caiphas 
* joh. 18. 14.  his Prophecies, may come into his mouth by flashes, but in his folly. What if some of ours have thus far descended▪ to your wisdom to answer this question. I hope you would have conceived it to be rather ex abundanti to stop the fool's mouth, then to satisfy his demand.  
Some questions are best answered by heels, as joseph answered his Mistress 
† Gen: 39 12. , as poor oppressed christians your Pandarismes, by flying out of Babylon; Some by sibe●ca, as our Saviour, the high priests 
* Mat. 26-63.  Some ironicaly as Micaiah Ahab 
† 1. King. 2●. 13 : All this, doth not justify the Interrogation & free it from vanity, because in some sort or other it is answered. It was usual with those that could not manifest the truth by solid proofs, to be ever ask questions. So those wretches that saw Christ's works, when they were amazed at them, yet could cry, by what authority dost thou these things? and who gave thee this authority 
* Mat. 21. 23. ? Our Saviour answered these questions, by ask an other 
† ibid. 25. , what, must this justify the chief Priests and Elders? doth this banish vanity from their lips?  
I, but this Demand hath troubled their brains, yea even to madness sometime 
k Reply ibises. .  
What then? therefore no vain demand? What is this but a Bedlams argument? Is this question of such efficiency and working, that it turns the brain? I should have expected it in their doctrines, which like Henbane and Hemlock pr●●●ce worse operations, but this question (alas) what hath it done?  
It may be gathered out of their several answers to the same, in which they not only contradict one another, but even fight most strangely, each man with himself. 
l Reply ibid.   
This is no argument to prove them mad, that answer the question, if there be any; neither to free the question that is proposed from Vanity. Humanum est errare, it is man's weakness that makes him err, not his madness: Madness is never right, how can it then err? That which is ever a wand'ring, can never go out of the way.  
Give me liberty to ask, whether contradiction either of ones self, or of his own profession, be a symptom of madness? If it be not, what doth he gather from his pretences herein? If it be, I dare undertake to produce, mad Popes, mad Cardinals, mad Bishops, and Priests, and fine Cloisters as full as Bedlam of such commodities.  
And here I know not, wherefore I should follow the jesuite any further, seeing that this which he produceth is nothing to the purpose, being fare from concluding the question, which he pretendeth to justify. But he that hath undertaken to wait upon a mad man, must not refuse to follow the wanderer over bogs and mountains, the high way being seldom his ordinary road. And I pray you let us see our contradictions and selfe-fight, from whence he concludes our madness.  
Surely this man was amazed, and dreamt of war, where there is most true peace. For Whitaker declareth plainly, that the Holy Ghost hath foretell in Scriptures such an Apostasy and defection, and (saith he) we see it with our eyes, but to inquire of the time when it invaded the Church, non est laborandum, est h●c curios● & 〈…〉 quaestio. 
m De eccle: contr: 1. quaest. 3.   
And in like manner john Cameron 
n Cap: 21.  hath published a Book in French, translated into English, whereby he hath proved it to be an  proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church, under pretence that the authors, time, and place of it, cannot be specified.  
And also Doctor Fulke 
o In his answer to a counterfite Catholic, ar. 11. ●. 24  hereto agreeth, that when the Scripture telleth us, that the Mystery of iniquity preparing for the general defection and revelation of Antichrist, wrought even in Saint Paul's time 2. Thess. 2. it is folly to ask whether suddenly, and in one year, all Religion was corrupted; and if Mr Malone will have more, he shall not want numbers of our own, to witness our consent herein.  
May not this shameless jesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker, and the rest to have answered this question, when they conclude it vain, and of no necessity, and never dreamt of answering the same. For all the Quotations of the jesuite out of our Authors do not express one word of answer to his question. Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world, Napier of the beginning of the Pope's Papistical and Antichristian reign, Brokard of the Pope's falling from Christ; Leigh showeth his opinion how long the Popes have been Devils; Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. moneth● in the 11. of the Revelation, Whitaker conjectures at the last true and godly Bishop of the Roman Church, and so in like manner, the rest of the learned men, mentioned by him; but there is not one of them, whose words he expressly layeth down, that answers the question. What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion, which you commend in them of the first 400 years? or In what Popes days was the true religion overthrown in Rome? To this question from his own words, we may prove a consent, that this observation of times & seasons, doth often fail, and that they are not so easy to be discerned, as foole● are borne in hand they are. For herein with the learned Answerer doth powel, and the learned Whitaker agree, yea so consonant are they in their resolutions, that the learned Answererin this jesuits' observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth, and Mr powel (he confesseth) agreeth with them.  
The difference is not in answering this question, In what Popes days was the true religion over thrown? but, In what Popes days did the revelation of the Antichristian tyranny begin? The jesuite may know there is a distance, betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyranny, whereby it became visible, and the power of it: the blading was but a preparation for evil: the power and authority it got afterwards, was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in; whereby it appeareth, that there is great difference in these questions, and that worthy Whitaker was no weathercock, as this Buzzard termeth him.  
Yet notwithstanding, we do not deny, that as Hectic agues, (whose beginnings are obscure) declare themselves to Physicians by divers symptoms of the body's decay & waste, whereby one Physician at one time by one sign, another by an other, in a different hour, may judge of the disease, though from divers symptoms, yet all aright: So have our Divines done; some perceiving the symptoms of Apostasy in the Church at one time, some at another, have declared the appearing of this defection foretell, some from one Pope's tyranny, some from another.  
Some saw this Apostasy by symptoms of notorious pride, as in Boniface the third: Others by outdaring impieties, when Dagon, images, and idols, were put up in the Church of God: Others by open vileness and proph●nesse visible to Parasites 
p Plat. in johan, 13. Onuph. annot. in Plat: johan. ●.  themselves, when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates.  
But what is this to the Jesuits demand? the question that he is to exempt from vanity, concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrow of the true, or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500 years. The Apostasy or defection, began indeed in the Apostles time, and the seeds of Antichristianisme were laid for the six following ages 
q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ. Eccl. success. & statu. pag. 16. 17▪ 18. , and yet no Papist to be found▪ no such visible alteration, that thereby religion should be overthrown.  
About the sixth Centurie, some of these tares began to blade, and yet all the good grain not utterly choked, whereby the Jesuits question appeareth more vain. For consider this Apostasy in its beginning, or inchoation, & then it not apparently altered, much less overthrew the Catholic faith, consider it in the increase, & although it assaulted Religion, yet neither wholly, or in any fundamental part did it alter the same: consider it, when it came to more perfect ripeness, (if there be any perfection in Apostasy) as in the latter Centuries, do not think that we conclude the Church of God overthrown, because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein. So that Mr Covell saith nothing of the alteration, or overthrow of catholic faith, when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostasy,  
His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule, that whatsoever the universal Church useth, if no time can be found when that use began, it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves 
r Reply pag 4. .  
We need not to question this ground, although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discern points of faith by, for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained, but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiastical practice. For can we think the Fathers in S. Augustine his days, were so ignorant of the catholic rule of faith, that they must lean upon such a conjecture as this, for points fundamental & of necessary belief? Show me one Council, that decreed any point of faith, by the bare strength of this rule, if you can: I can show you a point of practice, that had all that this rule could give it, as children's necessary eating the Eucharist 
s Maldon. in 6. johan. Aug. de peccator. merit & remiss. lib. 1. c. 24. , and yet is rejected both by the doctrine & practice of your Traditiondefenders. Yet may we justly reproove, this Jesuits assertion, that dare affirm, those points universally held and practised by the Church, at the time (as he calls it) of Luther's revolt, than which nothing is more gross; for if he mean the very waiters of the Roman Mistress (Sylvester Prierias his representative Church) the Pope and his Cardinals, they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned, but▪ did differ amongst themselves; And for the Catholic Church, let him prove it, if he be able, for bare words will not sway it. Yet if this will serve their turn, we shallbe able to prove, that in the Catholic Church, these points were never generally received, take the Church, for the universal body of the faithful, and not for a handful of donatistical Romanists. Nay this may be manifested by Romanists themselves, who although they yielded outward conformity to the practice, and held communion with the Roman Church, have yet notwithstanding loathed the burden, and complained of the tyranny 
t In Rhemensi Concilio coram Innocentio II. & anno 1131. Bernard. Etsi reddenda est ratio de his quae quisque gessit in corpore suo; heu quid fiet de his quae quisque gessit in corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia▪ Ecclesia▪ De● vobis●●mmissa est, & dicimini 〈◊〉 sitis raptores. Et paticos habemus, heu pastors, multos autem excommunicatores Et utinam sufficeret vobis lana & lac, sititis enim sanguinem. Ioh: Sarithur: in Poly cratic▪ lib. 6. cap 24. Romana ecclesia, quae matter omnium ecclesiarum est, se non tam matrem exhibet aliis, quàm norercam, etc. Sed & ipse Romanus Pontifex, omnibus gravis & ferè intolerabilis est etc. Petr. Aliac. de Reformat. Eccles. ad hanc statum venit (Romana) Ecclesia, ut non esset digna regi nisi p●●reprobos.  thereof, as they have expressed in their best and most selected thoughts.  
Secondly, where he saith, that we have all 〈◊〉 Records common amongst our selves, the lives, the names, the nations, times, acts, and deeds, both good and bad, of all Popes, so carefully registered, that the least Ceremonies have been observed, by whom, and when they were first ordained. 
u Reply pag. 4.   
We have some, (God be praised) preserved by his gracious providence, contrary to the desire of their politic Consistory; yet we make no question, that many were lost which would have pleaded for us, and confounded them, and not a few concealed by them, who were never so unwise (unless by escape) to publish their own frauds for their enemy's advantage. Further it is improbable, that the true Registers of Papal filth, which could not preserve their persons from fire or tyranny, should exempt their books and registries from the flame.  
So that there might be crosslegged Popes, and contradicting counsels, in the midst of the Roman Monarchy and yet not delivered to posterity; For they themselves will persuade, that things that are registered in Counsels were not done; and why might not we conceive with more truth and probability, that many things were done in Counsels, which were never registered.  
Thirdly he urgeth, that notwithstanding all our curious prying into all sorts of books, scrolls, papers etc. yet never to this day could any one instance be brought of any Pope, that defined any point of religion, contrary to what his predecessors had before declared; nor of any lawful general Council, that ever condemned any article of faith formerly established by others, or yet established any that had been before lawfully condemned 
Reply ibid. .  
Who doth not see that this is a silly shift of the jesuite, to confound the understanding of his Reader? For to excuse Liberius their Pope, that subscribed to Arianisme, he puts in [defined.] 2ly to excuse all the rest, he adds [contrary to what his predecessors had before declared] as if any Pope, in the time of lawful general Conncels did either decree, or declare, any matters of faith in this Jesuits sense. And therefore casting from him, and his, the ragged mantle, by which they would conceal their attempts and presumptions, we first charge them and justly for decreeing new additional articles of faith, which were at first made practical in the Roman Church only, and there but by degrees; Secondly, they obtained the opinion of customs, yet no further but of the Church of Rome, and afterwards, were crowned as of faith, by your non-erring decrees; and by this means many came to be of faith in the Roman Church, as it is declared in your whole dozen by the most learned Answerer, which is sufficient I think to show, that you have corrupted the rule of faith?  
Who knoweth not, that never any additional point of Popery got strength in a day, in a session of Council, in a Pope's tyranny, neither in a whole age. For these supercilious Masters, minding themselves, and their temporal monarchy, not that which concerned the glory of God, the successor began where his predecessor ended, never attempting to decree any point for doctrine, till by secret and mystical deceit, those false grounds, by the generality 
Wadding: sect: 2▪ Nec consultum tunc putavit ultimâ sententiâ rem definire, aut pro pia opinione definitionis ferre iudicium, quando adhuc 〈◊〉, & egregios habuit affirmative fa●tores▪ noluit immodicè, vel amplius Adversarios exulcerare etc.  of the factious parasites 
y See the same practice of their Popes at this day in the point of immaculate conception of the blessed virgin , had been presented to, and received by some of the sincerer clergy.  
Further, we charge you not for determining against those catholic fundamental truths, which were originally and universally received; for this had been too gross for the bringers in of the mystery of iniquity; such a work would have been espied, the person, time, and place, by whom, where, and when this had been acted would not have been hid. But this is not the thing that you are charged with, neither, will we say in terminis that you are guilty of it▪ yet although you have not been so openly impudent, your practices have not been altogether exempted from filth, though effected by more secret frauds.  
We know it is impossible that any counsels could decree contrary to these new articles of faith, unless they would determine negationem rei, before the thing itself were known or understood, For do you not charge us, that our heresies consist in the denial of many principal points of faith, calling them negative refutes 
z A. C. his true Relations of sundry Conferences. pag. 62.  & c? how then can that be denied by an antecedent Pope, or Council, the affirmative whereof never had birth, but afterwards received life, by customs and decrees of men?  
Show me a Canon in terminis against Aaron's calf, before it was made and worshipped, or against the doctrine of Balaam before it was published, and we will show you Popes, and Counsels decreeing against traditions of faith, carnal presence, Images etc. before they were ever heard of in the catholic church.  
So that this, is but a mere device, to save their credits for although the Roman Apostasy be seen a●well in the corruption of the doctrine of faith, as manners; yet this corruption is by addition, which may be without any such cross opposition, as the jesuite doth suppose. For faith being like gold, it may be defiled by addition, or corrupt mixtures, but all the tyranny of the world, or gates of hell, by cross opposition cannot destroy it.  
Yet letting those points which are specified by himself pass, it will not be so hard a thing to prove, that counsels, which you have accounted lawful, and general, with your Pope also, have defined contrary to general practice and custom of the Church, though not in fundamentals, yet in points of great consequence, as your Council of Constance 
* sess. 13.  against Communion in both kinds, and your Trent Synod for private mass against the practice of primitive times 
a De consecr: distinct: ●: cap: peracta. Peracta consecratione communicent omnes, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus, sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia. , not of one particular Roman; but of the universal body of the Catholic Church, so that there might be as good Music made of an empty vessel, as the impregnable harmony you boast of▪ and though there were no cross definition against the foundation of faith, yet that Pope is not hid, and Council, which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture 
b Scot: 4. ●: 11. q: 3. , which Scotus could see no reason, or authority for, but what was in the sic volo, sic jube●, of the Roman Church.  
But further this Argument may be retorted in their teeth; if these points were not ab initio, but got footing in the Church of Rome, by Papal violence, and decrees of Counsels, which were his own, than they have not the birth of Apostolical traditions, neither can they be accounted chief Articles 
c Suarez Ies: d●trip: ●i●t: disput 5. § 4. num: 4. Cum non sit universalis in tempore, non potest per se fidem facere catholicam, quae debet esse 〈◊〉 poor universalis. ; but some of the points mentioned, are by your own thought to be put juris positivi, which I think you will not stretch up to the Apostles times, as confession &c: & all the rest have been declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church; by the most learned Answerer, against which the jesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little, & to all the rest materially nothing, as willbe declared in the examination of them.  
Now the jesuite thinking he hath performed some brave exploit, concludes, (he hopes) with triumph.  
If we press them to name those Popes, who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelity, or brought in but one only article of religion, contrary to that of foregoing ages: because they cannot satisfy our demand herein, it must be shuffled up under the term of a vain demand 
d Reply pag: 4. .  
First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis, as that there is not one God, three Persons etc. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God, many articles of their own. Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly, (for they profess it) but the purity of it, not contenting themselves with the ancient rule, without mixtures of their own. Such corruption; such alteration of the faith they cannot deny, & therefore have laboured to excuse it, that it is not new faith, but a declaration of the old; the birth of some of which ●aith was 1500. years after CHRIST and his Apostles, had delivered the whole council of God.  
So that the jesuite ●●th marched valiantly, and with Bala●m hath expressed his desire to curse Israel, but all his hope is declared, upon which he found'st his confidence, that because we cannot satisfy his demand, he is therefore secure, that his demand is not vain, when as the vanity there of maketh it unanswerable. S ● Augustine thought it a vain demand to ask, what God did before the creation of the world, and therefore turns it off with a menacing answer: The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Jesuits Quare, and casteth it off by just exception, and both most rightly; Yet the jesuite inviteth us to see   

SECT. II. 
* Reply pag. 5.  How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demand to be vain.  
IN this discourse the jesuite is blinded, and wanting reason to justify his Demand; he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some relief unto his desperate cause.  
The Answerer (saith our jesuite) by a smooth, and wily sleight shrinketh from the Question 
a Reply ibid.  etc.  
But how proveth he this? why, in this manner.  
Whereas I demanded (saith he) What Bishop of Rome did first alter, or corrupt the right faith? He answereth, that it is a vain demand, to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome, by whom, or under whom, this Babylonish Confusion was brought in. And again, That it is a fond imagination to suppose, that all such changes must be made by some Bishop, or any one certain Author.  
And laying down this, he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that, which ●e demanded 
b Reply ibid. .  
Which I think the learned Answerer will not refuse, for although the jesuite would have this question, which now in his judgement, is unreasonable, to have been forged by the most reverend Primate, yet it evidently appears that it is an unproportioned birth, a deformed Embryo of his own conceit; and that the jesuite herein is driven, not to smooth and ●ylie sleights for his defence, but to perverse boldness and open outfacing, For, first in repeating his own question and demand, What Bishop of Rome did first alter? he not only adds, or corrupt the right faith, but shamelessly omits that, which woundeth him to the quick, In what Pope his days was the true Religion overthrown in Rome 
d See the Jesuits demand. ? Now I would have this jesuite to declare the difference between the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion, and the altering the true Religion. He proceedeth.  
For (saith he) had he pointed us out ●ny one Pope that had changed but one only article of religion, or true faith, or brought in any one error, than had he satisfied my demand. 
e Reply pag. ●.   
That which the jesuite here supposeth, containeth two particulars, first, that we cannot assign any one Pope, which hath changed one only article of Religion or true faith. Secondly, that we cannot assign a Pope, that hath brought any one error into the Church. The first hath received answer in the precedent section: The second, the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars, showing, how this Jesuits holy points of Doctrine and faith, are such, as the Apostles never knew, the fathers scarce espied, good men always resisted, and which came to receive authority amongst Papalines, but were always rejected by the Catholic Church; And notwithstanding the jesuite braves it, there are many other articles pretended by them, to be of true Religion, which are at the best, but superstitious and gross errors, brought in by their holy Father, or his children in after-ages, to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times.  
But that which the jesuite doth conclude hereupon, is most childish, that the pointing out any one Pope, which had brought into the Church any one error, would satisfy his demand 
f Reply pag. 5. .  
Indeed your Religion consisteth of one point absolutely and simply [Papal supremacy] and we doubt not, but if that were overthrown, all the Fabric of your late Roman erection, would quickly fall to the ground; yet the Catholic faith is not such, it consisteth not of one only article, neither is it everthrowne by the intrusion of every error; for (this being granted) if we can show you the time; when Indulgences 
g Ro●●ens: Art: 18. In principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indulgentiarum usus. , or any other error crept into the Church of Rome, you must then conclude catholic religion throughout the world was overthrown; a conclusion forced from shame; And let all men judge, whether this be not a desperate advantage given, to free himself from the present danger.  
Neither can the jesuite from his confidence of Roman purity, glory as he here hath done, in regard he seemeth to have changed his opinion, before he printed half his book, curbing his lavishnes, and making the Church of Rome free, not from all errors, (as here he doth,) but from spots of misbelief only 
h Sect: 9 , which I fear, he will be forced to fly unto hereafter, when he shall examine his own jollity in this particular.  
For who brought in that doctrine, that the Pope is Lor● over all? or did extend Indulgences to your Purgatory flames, but Boniface the 8: if we believe your own Agrippa 
i De vanitat: scient: cap: 61. Hic est ille magnus Bonifacius, quia tria magna & grandia fecit; primum, falso oraculo deluso Clement, persua sit sibi cedere Apostolatum: secundum, condidit sextum Decretalium, & Papam asseruit omnium Dominum: tertium instituit jubilaeum, indulgentiarum nundinas, illasque primus in Purgatorium extendit. ?  
Besides this, in Leo 
k Ser. 4: de quadragesima. Cùm ad t●gendum infidelita. tem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant interdum ut tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant.  the great his time, it was a note of a Maniche, to communicate in one kind; yet now we fee it is practifed by them, which would persuade the world that they are Catholics; and although they may quarrel, that the cause is different, yet they may see the act of omission only condemned by Leo the Pope: Also in the Primitive times, the Sacrament was received by the faithful in both kinds, in the Greek Church, till Cassander's 
l Consult: Art: 22. initio. Satis compertum est, universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem vero seu Romanam, mille amplius à Christo annis in solenni praesertim & ordina●ia huius Sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse.  time, in the Western or Roman Church for above a 1000 years; and yet in the Council of Constance, Henricus de Piro & johannes de Scribanis 
m Concil: Constantien. Sess. 13. apud Binium.  styled it Mos perversus, and the whole Council decreed against it.  
Concupiscence the Apostle calleth sin, but yet it is now no doctrine of the Roman Church, for the contrary is decreed in the Trend Council 
n Concil: Trident. Sess 5. Hanc concupiseentiam quam aliquando Apostolus pe●●atum appeilat, fancta synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam▪ nunquam intellexisse peccatum appella●i, quod verè & propriè in renatis peccatum sit; sed qu●● ex peccato est, & ad peccatum inclinat; Si quis autem contrarium senserit, anathema sit. ; And many more may be found out, if I did desire to muster up your iniquities in this kind. But it shall suffice for the present to refer the jesuite, and the Reader, to the Catalogue of the right reverend, the Lord Bishop of Derry 
o Lib. 3. de Antich: cap 6. Catalogus veterum haeresum, quas Ecclesia Romana renov●●it. etc. , which when Mr Malone or his whole Tribe hath fully answered, I may conceive he had something besides his wilfulness, to breed his confidence in this opinion,  
In his examination of the second exception against the Demand, he hopeth to enervate it by his observations thereupon, the first whereof is, that therein the Answerer supposeth our catholic Doctrine to be that Apostasy which the Apostle speaketh of (1. Tim. 4. 1. 2.) 
p Reply pag. 5.   
And here our jesuite wisely collecteth, for the learned Primate doth neither acknowledge your Roman Church, either in Diocese, or ad extra, for Catholic, neither your additions & mixtures, for Catholic Doctrine, any more than Saul 
* 1. Sam. 10. 11  for a Prophet, because he got amongst the Prophets, as your deceits have crept into the Creed: But yet that by your corrupt mixtures and declinings, is truly accomplished that Prophecy (1, Tim; 4.) he makes little doubt. And what abuse is done herein to your glorious Synagogue? why should not false doctrines and novelties fall before the ancient and radical truth, as Dagon † and false gods before the Ark? Nay, what doth the learned 
* 1. Sam. 5. 3. 4.  Primate suppose, that was not deprecatively expressed in your Trent-Councell by a Bishop 
q Cornelius' Bishop of ●iton▪ ●0▪  of your own? for if to fall from Religion to Superstition, from Faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, be not an Apostasy, let the jesuite declare what it is?  
But the jesuite would fain know, in what sense we take Apostasy, whether as it designeth an utter Revolt from the faith of Christ, which the jesuite is confident they cannot be charged withal; Because elsewhere the learned Primate confesseth, that men dying (as he saith) in our Religion, do dye under the mercy of God 
r Reply pag. 5. .  
What doth the jesuite mean by this? Doth he think the most learned Answerer [by their Religion] did point out Ignatius his platform, or the Religion of their Holies Francis and Dominick? Were any of their other Religions conjectured at, which are employed to frame Christ a Religion by policy, that their Master might obtain a Monarchy by fraud? Surely whatsoever the jesuite may conjecture, these will find but little shelter for their security in that sermon.  
But if this Interpretation square not, who doth he then mean by men dying in our Religion? if those that lived in the Roman Communion, than his collection is vain also, For who can doubt, that some may be saved there, without cashiering of the Apostasy t●e●ce; Many followed Absalon 
* 2 Sam. 15. 11. , that were true of heart, and yet the jesuite will not deny a Rebellion against David, and falling away of the People from him. The high places were not taken away, and yet Asa's 
† ●. Chron 25. 17.  heart, and many others (no doubt) were upright all their days. judas 
* Acts 1. 18.  may betray Christ, and hang; Demas 
† 2 sim. 4. 10:  and others fall from heaven to earth, and yet the Apostles and Diseiples adhere to their Master. When the whole world in a manner, communicated with the Arians, were none safe but Athanasius 
s Athanas in epist ad solita●●am vitam agentes: Christi standiosi, ut magnus ille P●pheta Elias abscondebantur, & in speluncas & cavernas terrae sese abstrudebant, aut in solitudine oberrantes commorabantur. Hieronym●●on, Luciferian. Ingemuerit totus Orbis, & Arianum se ●●se miratus sit. Gregorius Valent: Analys: l: 6. cap. 4 § Probatio: 4 Novimus etc. cum Arianorum perfidia in orbe penè to to dominabatur.  & c? not those which were ignorant of their heresies, who if they had known them, would have abhorred their corruptions 
t Aug. epist. 162. ad. Donat: Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam & perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, 〈◊〉 quam non a●daci● praesumptionis 〈◊〉 pepererunt, sed à seductis, a●q●e in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cautâ solici●udine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Haeretico● reputandi. ? Were all the Papists in Queen Elizabeth's time damned, which joined in Communion with the Churches of England and Ireland? The learned Primate is not so uncharitable, as to judge perdition to every one in the Roman Communion, and yet he doubteth not, but that the Apostasy was there.  
Who knows not that the Roman Pale includeth a Church, as well as a Faction? and though at the best it be but a Pest-house, as the most reverend Primate fitly styles it, yet he doth not think it impossible, but that some poor Souls, which had more love to Christ, than knowledge of the Doctrine of Popish faith, might through the mercy of God 
u Cypr. Epist. 63 13. Si quis de anteeessoribus nostris vel ignorantèr, vel simplicitèr non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & magi●●erio 〈◊〉 docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi, nobis verò ●●●●●terit ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi simus.  escape such infection and contagion, which is deadly and mortal; whereas the poison of Apostasy will never leave the grand Masters, till it hath brought them to confusion and ruin. And this is all he speaketh for the Iesuite's Religion.  
But hoping we will not charge them with an utter Revolt, he inquires, whether we by Apostasy understand Heresies, which do not so openly oppose the foundation of Christian faith, but come cloaked with Hypocrisy, and under the name of Piety? for if we acknowledge this, then howsoever some Heresies, do oppose the foundation of Christian faith more openly than others, yet all of them do still come cloaked with the name of Piety, and have been always observed by the diligent watchmen of God's house in their very beginnings. 
Reply pag. 6.   
How doth this take away the learned Primate's just exception? For while he distinguisheth of Heresies that oppose the foundation, some more, and some less openly, and all cloaked with Piety: and urgeth, that all these open heresies were observed in their beginnings, what doth he prove, but that which was confessed before? For we acknowledge, that Heresy, whether more or less, openly opposite to the foundation, hath been more or less observed 〈◊〉 by the Pastors of the Church: but yours are of an other nature, they were not Heresies at the first, but seeds only, or at least appeared not to be so; but came in as Piety, when Heresy was closed and sealed up in a Mystery, and not seen at all.  
Besides this, there is nothing urged by the jesuite of any weight to take away this Answer. He saith, that all Heresies came cloaked with the name of Piety, and for this he bring, three examples to prove his general conclusion. The first of Origen, for the salvation of Devils. The second he imputeth to Tertullian, which was begun by Montanus 
y Alphons: de Castro adver. Haer lib 11. De nuptiis. Hujus haeresis authores sunt Cataphryges, quo rum princeps fuit Montanus, Eundem errorem postea docuit Tertullianusqui ers● prius contra Cataphryges pro hae re pugna. verat, posteatamen ad Ca●aphryges iediit, eorum defendens errorem. Bzovius ann. 172. Porro quod dogmata Montani attinet; sunt haec de●inia quae docebat, Secundas nuptias, velut for●●cationem damnabat, etc. , against second Marriage. The third, Montanus his rigorous, fasts 
z Pag. 6. .  
Which kind of arguing, as it is not concludent, (for how followeth it, that because three heresies have a show of Piety, therefore all?) So the same makes nothing against the Answerer, it being granted. For who doubteth, that Heretics have always pretended Piety, and that their births have been so presented to the world, that they have borne some show of truth, and further that judgements not divinely enlightened, have received them many times with religious applause? and yet they have been resisted and opposed by those which had more clear eyes, and could see aright. But doth it therefore follow that the bundle of Heresies included in the grand Apostasy wrought by the man of Sin at different times in a mystery, which must expect a time for Revelation 
* 2. Thess, 2●. 6. 7. , should be detected in the first hour of their birth by circumstances of person, time and place.  
Many heresies have carried a show of Piety; but some have been so mystically delivered, that they have received her name. Some with their show cannot hide their substance, their express contradiction of Scripture, as those of Origen and Montanus, which displeased every weak eye, and therefore in these circumstances required, might easily be detected; But these mystical 
a Anselm● in ●. Thess: 2. Mysterium, quia viderur occultum: quia tales operarii. ostendunt se velut ministros, aut famulos Christi, cùm revera sint ministri Antichristi: Nam iniquitas ●orum est mystica, id est pictatis nomine palli●ta.  ones are of another nature, so cloaked, that their impiety was hid, so presented to the world, that they are accounted Piety; if you demand their mother, as the Saracens Sarah, they dare cry, the Church; if their Father, as the Pharisees to Abraham 
* joh. 8. 39 , they dare look to heaven; if you question their Antiquity, they (like the Gibeonites 
† Iosh: 9 3. ●●. ) pretend the Apostles and plead the Apocrypha: if Universality, they are travaylers, and as they say throughout the world, yet this is but Orbis Romanus, the Roman Church. Do you think these Vagrants and Wanderers which can bush and brake for their own safety, are so easily detected, as those downright youths, which in their first appearance tell what they are by their face and comple●●●●▪  
Is there no difference between a face muffled with pretences barely, and painted with equivocal colours? It is not pretending Piety in heresy, neither muffling in part, that can give it liberty to keep station in the Church of God without control, but when Piety is pretended▪ and Heresy getteth in by protection thereof, closed up and unespied, this is Iniquity in a Mystery 
* 2. Thess. ●. 7. . Whereby we see, that the jesuite hath not touched the most learned Primate his answer; who for open heresies, (which like Edom cry out against the Church of God at their birth, down with it, down with it even to the ground 
† Psal. 137. 7. ,) confesseth, that the impiety thereof is so notorious, that at the very first appearance it is manifestly discerned 
c The most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer. pag. 2. .  
And whereas he dare challenge his Adversaries to give true instance so much as but of any one known and confessed Heresy, which was not at it first divulging, contradicted by some one or other Pastor of God's Church, how cunningly soever it came muffled in the mantle of Piety 
d Page 6. , making it as a thing impossible to be performed: Hereby every man, may perceive that the jesuite is willing to close his own eyes, upon condition he may pull out other men's. For otherwise da●● he be so bold, as that he should deny this Apostasy to have come into the Church without resistance; when the spirit of God doth declare, that the bringers in of it, must have a time for detection, not being opposed in the beginning, but revealed and consumed 
* Thess. 2. 6. 2.  afterwards?  
But leaving this; what the jesuite desires here, was performed to him by the Testimony of Bernard and Reiner●us in the Answer to the first Section, concerning the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, whom they have accounted & condem●●●● for Heretics. Yet because this point may be morefully answered, I will out of their own authors gratify him further in this particular.  
And first from Pr●teolus 
c Prateolus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Aquarij are known and confessed Her 〈◊〉 and yet qui● hujus 〈…〉 fuit. & ex quo tempore caeperit nemo est qui indicat. Here the jesuite must send for Saint Bridget, for he will need a Revelation in regard that as Prateolus acknowledgeth their first beginning is unknown; So Alphonsus de Castro 
f Alphon: de Castro adv: hear: lib: 6. DeEucha●istia. Adversus hunc errorem tres Evangelistae pugnant, Mathaeus scilicet Marcus, & Lucas.  cannot find any throughout all the Ecclesiastical History, which opposed their Heresy at its first divulging, and therefore runneth up to the institution of the Sacrament, and makes Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the opposers. A strange thing that this heresy concerning the Sacrament, should have birth before the Sacrament was instituted, or the institution thereof published by the Evangelists. The Praedestinati are reputed by your own for Heretics, yet Alphonsus de Castro 
g Idem lib. 12. de Praedestinatio: Quis autem suerit hujus haeresis princeps, Sigibertus subticuit, nec egoapud aliquem alium reperi. , notwithstanding his search, cannot find their Author, and Prateolus 
h Prateolus Elench. Haeret. Quis eorum Dux & institutor fuerit, nescitur.  telleth us, their Captain is not known. So also the Abstinentes were taken for no better than Heretics, and yet you are so far from discovering the time of their birth, that their spreading is not remembered, as your Prateolus 
i Ibid: Abstinentes quo tempore viguere, non meminit Philastrius.  observeth. Multitudes of this kind might be produced, but these shall for the present suffice in answer to the Jesuits challenge.  
He secondly observes, that the most reverend Primate his distinction of such like Heresies, and that Apostasy, serve his turn nothing at all, forasmuch as it hath no ground, nor foundation which doth not prove more strongly against his part, then against us. This distinction will presage as ill to Rome as a Comet▪ if you fail to prove what you so confident he affirm. But to make it good: First he demands what can he infe●ta out of these sayings of the Apostle, which we may not, with fare more probability apply to himself, and to his Revolting Religion, &c: rather than those ancient Fathers, and holy Doctors of the Primitive Church, whom he himself, though else where he confesseth them to ●●ve been godly 〈◊〉 yet in this place would have us to think, that they were of those who spoke ly●● in Hypocrisy, and had a hand in bringing in of damnable Apostasy▪ Secondly he saith; That our Answerer and his mates did in their foreleaders Luther; and Galvin, revolt, and departed from the Roman Church, yea from all the world, is voluntarily acknowledged by Calvin himself. For which cause we think that we may with reason, hold them guilty of Apostasy indeed. 
k Reply pag. 6.   
In all which observation we find him to charge us, first to further that mystical iniquity rather than those ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church: Secondly, that we did revolt, and departed from the Roman Church, and are guilty of this Apostasy. But if all this were as true faith as the jesuite professeth▪ how maketh it to the overthrow of the exception? A deep charge, but nothing to the purpose; For the question in controversy is not who brought in the Apostasy, but whether there be such an Apostasy, that concludeth within it, many Heresies like terra filij, begotten we know not by whom, borne we know not where, nor when. The learned Answerer saith there are such; and the jesuite saith nothing material to the contrary; and therefore the demand, to find out all heresies, only by person, time, and place, must remain vain and ill-grounded still.  
But whereas the jesuite by wrestling and struggling, thinketh his demand is made good; if he can cast this Apostasy from themselves and Rome, it maketh nothing for him, but altereth the question, as if his demand (excepting these mystical iniquities) had desired by circumstance of person, time, and place; to have pointed out all other heresies only. And who doth not see this defence erected by the most learned Answerer for the Catholic faith impregnable, and so far without his shot, that he would fasten falsehoods which are ridiculous upon his learned pen, that he might with some show and advantage fight against the same? For who chargeth the Fathers that they speak lies in hypocrisy? let him point out the place if he can, in which the most reverend Primate would have them think that they were of those, or such kind of men. He telleth us indeed, that when the seeds of mystical iniquity were a sowing, they (the Fathers) that kept watch and ward against the one (open heresies that oppose the foundation) might sleep, yea peradventure might at unawares themselves, have some hand in bringing in this Trojan horse commended under the name of Religion 
l Page ●.  etc. But is here any thing that attempts to persuade you, that the fathers speak lies in Hypocrisy? or doth cross that testimony, which elsewhere he hath given them for godly men? what is affirmed here, but that the father's looking always to the advancement of Religion fought courageously against all that openly crossed the same, yet might (which is not absolutely affirmed but) peradventure sleep, whilst poisonous seeds that carried a semblance of Devotion, were sown, or have some hand unawares (no way intending hurt, but good to the Church of God,) to bring them in? And that there is nothing spoken to the derogation of the Father's piety or godliness, I think any man; but Mr Malone, will easily conceive. For what offence hath this learned observation committed? Is any ignorant, that wicked wretches may bring good to the Church, who never intended it, as jehu 
* ● King. 10▪ 18. 31. , judas and all preachers for gain, etc. and that good men might trouble the Church, and broach errors in it, and think thereby they have done God service as 
m Euseb. eccli hist: lib: 3.  Iraeneus, 
n ibid. lib: 7.  Cyprian etc. and yet some of them have been by yourselves acknowledged for Saints and Martyrs?  
But while the true men's cause is pleading, the Thief must not escape; We acknowledge it an easy matter to excuse the Fathers of this Apostasy: but how will Mr Malone free his own? For although he may dare and outface much, yet it is manifest, that their cloistered cattles and those of the like hue, are pointed out by the Apostle to be principal Engineres for bringing it in. And this is so plainly descried, that every simple layman by this place 
* 1. Tim. 4. 2. 3. , can paint them out; for how are those Hypocrites which speak lies in Hypocrisy by whom this Apostasy shallbe brought in, discovered, but by these two open and declaring notes of forbidding marriage and abstainning from meats? Things which agree so fairly, with the cloistered and Romish Clergy, that if we should plead any interest therein, we should be cried down for sleepers, whilst this Tower was in building. And although we are charged with Apostasy by the jesuite, yet being examined by the Apostles notes, we shall escape very well. For M. Malone knoweth, that Delectus ciborum is no article of our Creed, nor point of our practice. And from the second mark, he hath better reason to excuse us, for I cannot doubt, but he that knows our wives have kirtles 
o Reply pag. 206. , hath surely observed that our Priests have wives.  
But (let the Apostle use what notes he pleaseth) the jesuite will prove that we are guilty of Apostasy, how? because we have revolted and departed from the Roman Church, for which he urgeth Calvins' 
p Absurdum est postquam discessionem à toto mundo facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab a, liis dissilire Cal: ep: 141.  confession; but if here be not lies in Hypocrisy, where are they to be found?  
For that which he cities from Calvin acknowledgeth only that they were forced to make a departure from the whole world, when as the jesuite would have him that died long before the most reverend Primate was borne voluntarily to acknowledge that the learned Answerer etc. did departed from the Roman Church 
q Reply pag. 6. : But pardon this escape, Is there no difference, to be forced to departed, and voluntarily to make a schism 
y Aug. de Bap. con: Donat: lib: 5. Cap: 1. Apertissimum enim sacrilegium omines schismatis, si nulla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seperati●●●. ; to be driven from you by your corrupt doctrines, that you will not reform; and with pertinacy and wilfulness to embrace heresies? We have washed alone because you will not be clean; and because your Naaman 
s Dried: de Ec●l dog: lib: ●. cap: 4. Neque tenentur oves subesse Pastori ulli qui iam sactus est, aut ex pastore lupus, aut saluti gregis contrarius.  will not wash in jordan, must we adhere to your Leprosy still? He is the Schismatic that causeth 
t Cassan: consult Art: 7. de Ecclesia vera Neque unquam credo, controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitate extitisset nisi Pontifices Romani ● hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi ● fuissent eamque extra fines a ● Christo & Ecclesia praescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ extulissent.  the schism, and we are confident, that it was no more revolting 
u Cypr. epist 63. Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes ●st Christus prior fecent; neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed DEI veritatem.  for us to leave your corruptions, then for the Exorcists to fire their books 
* Act 19 19 , and to reject their impieties.  
And although I will not deny but we were in this manner forced to forsake your corruptions, yet our jesuit proves it but untowardly by Calvins' confession; for if the world and the Church of Rome be the same with the jesuite, why might not we conclude, from his Baptism and entering the Cloister, but by vowing to forsake the world in the one, and departing from it in the other, he hath revolted and apostated from the Roman Church, his Catholic Brethren? But is not the jesuite pitifully distressed that would from a Schism falsely pretended to be confessed by Calvin, prove us guilty of the grand Apostasy mentioned by the Apostle?  
Now the jesuite thinking that we would have swallowed his folly, and answered him some other way, laboureth to prevent us, by crossing that which his Conscience told him, would make for our just defence; for saith he, Neither can it suffice them to say that they departed from the Church of Rome, because she herself had gone out of the true Church, unless they declare unto us, what true church that was, out of which the said Roman Church departed 
x Reply pag. 7. ; As if this were hard to be done; What is the Catholic Church? do you know it? not that pretended one contracted in a small compass by Roman ligatures, but that truly Catholic dispersed over the ●ace of the earth 
† Cassand. consult art. 7. Veteres potissimum Catholicam dictam volunt, quod per universum orbem diffusa sit. : This is that you have fall'n from, and like Donatists 
y Alphons: de Castro advers. Haer: lib: 5. de Eccles: Ab Ecclesia se divisit, dicens in sola parte Donati esse veram Ecclesiam, in alijs autem partibus, quae Ceciliano favebant, non esse Ecclesiá, quia etsi ibi aliqui essent boni, & communione tamen malorum maculabantur, & ita Ecclesia peribat.  have condemned her in her particular members, as if no salvation were to be had, but with you 
z Extrav: de maior: & obed: cap: unam sanctam. Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Bellar: de eccl: mil: lib; 3. cap. 5. Neminem posse, etiamsi velit, subesse Christo, & communicare cum Ecclesia coelesti, qui nen subest Pontifici, & none communicate cum Ecclesia militante, viz: Romana. ; So that we can justly say, that we have been forced to departed from your particular Communion, (you declaring yourselves schismatics, and enemies to the Catholic Church) and that we do adhere to the universal body itself, in which Salvation will be found, notwithstanding all your desperate Decrees cast out against the members thereof.  
But our jesuite saith, that we are so far from discovering any such thing, that a prime Doctor 
† Doctor Feild in his Treatise of the Church. lib. 3. cap. 13. cited Reply pag. 7.  of ours confesseth, that the Roman Church held still Communion with those other Churches, that never fell into error.  
We find not this in the place alleged; but allowing it to be so, why might not a perverse company hold Communion & outward Conformity with the true Church? You make judas an Heretic; we think he was scarce so good, and yet how long in this Hypocrisy did he keep Communion with the Apostles? Arius was worse if it were possible, for as the first would have dissolved his humanity, this attempted with gross conceits against his Divinity, and yet his Communion was Catholic, and in outward appearance, he 
a Socrat. eccl. hist. lib. 1.  and his consorts 
b Carron. in sum: Concil: pag. 39 Vnde●●● consilio inter se habito, acquiescunt ad subscribendum, manu solâ, non ment.  subscribed to the Nicene Creed. If this be all that you can say for your faith, that you have held outward Communion with the faithful, it doth little avail; For a thief may be with true men, and Heretics with them that profess the faith; and the Devil himself among the sons of God; nay, present himself before the Lord 
* job 2. 1 .  
But an other 
† Master Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification. sect. 14. pag. 89.  of the same rank, telleth us, that the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort, in profession of the faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them etc. And hath also in some manner preserved etc. the word, and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us (All this will not make Rome Catholic, or free her from Apostasy & backsliding) which surely, is a very special blessing of God, and an evident work of the holy Ghost, from which confession our jesuite infers, that the Church of Rome, her enemies being judges is clearly freed from all suspicion of Apostasy, and is confessed to have held faithful Communion with the true Church of God. 
c Reply pag. 7:   
But all this foolishly, and without ground, even by the judgement of as cunning an Arguer as himself, Parsons the jesuite, for he doth not think Mr Bunny so kind, 
d Parson's Resolution in the second part of his Preface to the Reader. It is such a Pacification, as the high Priests of the jews would have made with the Apostles after they had whipped and beaten them, upon condition they should neither teach, nor preach any more the Doctrine of Christ.  as the jesuite would have him, neither doth he pick out of those words any such conclusion, as here is pointed out unto us, which I have no cause to think he would have omitted, if the words would have afforded any such thing.  
Yet we must consider that Mr Bunny was a Pacificator, and would speak as much, as possibly he could, if not more than was fit, for persuading union betwixt Rome and other Churches.  
Moreover all the good he speaketh of the Romish church is, that after a sort they continued in the profession of the faith which might have been spoken of the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, & the most heretics; that did not utterly cast of the name & profession of Christianity; for which of them after a sort, did not profess CHRIST to be the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.  
Further, in some manner it preserved the word, and sacraments, but in such a manner, that may stand with Apostasy▪ The word they acknowledge, but with Additions traditional & written, & the C●●on so corrupted must not speak; but with a tongue of the Pope's making. The Sacraments they reject not, but deny the People in the Eucharist the cup, & the other they have corrupted with many mixtures whereby it appeareth plainly, that they have fallen from the ancient purity embraced by the Roman church, and that after a sort and in some manner only, they have had Communion with other Churches, the word and sacraments being preserved▪ not from their desire so much, as from the blessing of God. For if they might have done all at pleasure, the word of God had been changed for Evangelium aternum 
e Vide hist: explica: reverendis simi dom: Primar: de success: & stat: Eccl: cap: ●. , and what do you think would have become of the Sacraments? So that the Answerer his work, neither totters, nor wants a supporter as yet.  
His third observation is, that the most learned Primate, will not have those opinions wherein we differ from him to be Heresies, but only a kind of still creeping in Apostasy hooded with the name of Religion and semblance of Devotion, and therefore pretendeth himself to be excused from discovering unto us the author, & time of their beginnings 
f Reply pag. 7. . Again, he chargeth the learned Answerer page 12. to denounce their opinions Heresies far spread, and of long continuance, which he imputeth to forgetfulness, till he remembreth himself, that they are not exempted from being Heresies by the Answerer, but from being such, as do openly oppose the foundation of our faith 
g Ibid. . So that these sayings may stand well together, notwithstanding any thing, he hath as yet uttered. But he telleth us, if the differing points be heresies, that never any did more openly oppose the foundation of faith then they. And to prove this, he produceth the point of adoration of the host in the Sacrament, of which he maketh no question, but every man will easily understand, that if Hell were raked up, a more notorious Heresy could not be found etc. and therefore it seemeth impossible in this Jesuits judgement, that any Bishop of Rome could be able to persuade such an impiety etc. without being manifestly discerned. 
h ibid.   
That this gross and idolatrous Practice of Adoration of the Host is founded upon a gross and heretical foundation is not denied by the most learned Answerer; Neither do I think any man will otherwise conceit thereof, and yet by this concession, the jesuite getteth no ground for his inference therein, For suppose, this doth fight against God's divine truth, and in as violent a manner as the gates of Hell, or power of darkness, it followeth not that every man will easily espy 
i Rhem: annota: upon the 2. Thess: cap: 2. ver: 6. The mystery of iniquity is commonly referred to Heretics, who work to the same, & do that that Antichrist shall do, but yet not openly, but in covert, and under the cloak of Christ's name, the scriptures, the word of the Lord, show of holiness, etc.  it. Serpents are not seen in the eggs, though in their growth they are full of horror; and the most dangerous opposal many times proceedeth from an Ambush, and not from the Army. Who knoweth not, that the foulest Devil may appear the fairest Angel; the losest Abbess may be enclosed in your chastest vestment; the most licentious Nun be esteemed a Saint; and the most traitorous jesuite face it like a Subject?  
Besides, we know, that Heresies, which in their nature might be damnable, and destroyers of the foundation, to their receivers, many times appear not, neither are they esteemed so vile: And Heresies that are accounted deadly at one time, and to some receivers, have been but stains in others, when the intention of the receiver was considered; As Cyprian his rebaptisation. So that Error concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father, and not from the Son, is fundamental in its own nature although to the Greek Church that hold not thereby the inequality of the persons, it is no fundamental Heresy 
k Lomb: lib: 1: distinct: 11. Sciendum est tamen quòd Graeci confitentur spiritum sanctum esse filij, sicut & patris, quia & Apostolus dicit, Spiritum fili●; Et veritas in Evangelio, spiritum votitatis. Sed cum non sit aliud spiritum sanctum esse patris vel filij, quam esse à. patre et filio; etiam in hoc in eandem nobiscum, fidei sententiam conveni●e videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant. Bellar: De Christo. lib. 2, cap. 27, Respondeo igitur cum Bessatione et Gennadlo, Damascenum non negasse, spiritum sanctum procedere ex filio, quod ad rem attiner, cum dixerit, Spiritum e●se imagine●● 〈◊〉 et per fillu● esse: sed existimasse, tutius dici per filium, quam ex filio, quantum. ad 〈◊〉 loqucindi, propter haeresim Macedonii, et Eunomij, etc. Tolet. in johan: cap. 25. annot: 25. Graecus intelligens spiritum sanctum procedere per filium, quod non aliud significat quam quod nos dicimus.  at all; So many might adore CHRIST in receiving the Sacrament, that never thought of his bodily presence by Transubstantiation, nor dreamt of your Wafer-god, nor your Priest able to create the Almighty. Moreover the Real presence may stand, and yet you may be Idolators in adoring the Host; And in Substance the Host may be but only bread, and yet Christ be present in the Sacrament, and in the same manner as the jesuite hath confessed 
Reply pag 44.  the same. But this point is considered elsewhere, and therefore may be here omitted.  
Secondly, the question is not about the ear-ring or blading of these tares, for every man can tell this, even he that asked the question, unde Zizania 
* Mat. 13. 26. 27. , he knew the tares and saw the blade, but not their seeding time; this is a question for the Lord only to answer, who seethe the secret working of enemies against his kingdom, and not for the servants to lay down.  
The Plot of powder-Conspiracie in the first conception, if it was not observed of the Watchmen of our Israel; yet in the blading it was espied, and the Plotters choked before Harvest. Many Heresies have been plotted by the Devil, by Antichrist, but spread abroad by their emissaries, frogs, locusts, with their croaking Rhetoric. And suppose our learned Answerer knew not all the plots in hell, and Rome, yet he hath laid down the spreading of these damnable Heresies, when the Church was first troubled with them, and when they received strength and humane confirmation.  
So this jesuite closeth up all, and finding he hath said little to the purpose, he adds, that if all alleged by the learned Answerer were suffered to pass, it is but might be or peradventure 
Reply pag. ●. , which he taketh to be of little force; But it followeth by this his confession, that his demand is not absolutely exempted from Vanity, but lieth within the compass at least of a might be and peradventure, to be foolish and ridiculous: Whereby we may infer, that this unwise man, his own mouth being his judge, doth not know, nor this fool understand the infallibitie of those things, which he would have us to be wise in at last.  
The third Answer pleaseth not the jesuite (vice.)  
The original of errors is oftentimes so obscure, & their breed so base, that no wiseman will marvel, if in tract of time the beginning of many of them should be forgotten 
n The most reverend the Le: Primate. pag. 2. . And what of all that 
n Reply pag. ●. ? saith our jesuit. Sufficient I think to declare the vanity of the Jesuits demand; for if Heresies be obscure in birth, and oftentimes not taken notice of; or if taken notice of, yet by the espyers not judged worthy of a Register to continue their memory, but barely of a contempt, than it must of necessity follow, that that demand is vain, which presupposeth the Church to take notice of the father of every ba●●●rd doctrine, and to keep Registry thereof, as she doth of those sacred truths which were legitimately declared to the Church.  
I but although they be oftentimes so obscure as this man saith, must it follow, that they are always so? 
p ibid.   
No, it must not. But it is no strange thing, that when your wisdom cannot answer, your wits should be amazed; and although the wise Answerer hath endured many of your bolts, with this answer he hath choked you with the feathers: for he standeth not in need of any such universals; if some Heresies are of this temper it is sufficient; & if you cannot manifest, that every heresy declareth itself in its birth, and is registered to Succession, then that cannot be excused from vanity, which requireth for detection of every Heresy in your Church, their beginning, with the circumstance of person, time, and place.  
Arians, Manichees etc. are diligently recorded (saith the jesuite) why should not those wherewith he chargeth us have been more notorious? 
q Reply pag. ●.   
He doth not rest here, but as if all his skill were in demanding, he asketh, Above two hundred Heresies have been gainsay●● by the skilful watchmen etc. what Doctor did ever gainsay any of those supposed heresies by word or writing? 
r ibid.   
This Crambe is but of small value; all this hath been answered before; the effect is this: Every Heresy in its birth appears not, but some express their venomous disposition afterwards. Who knoweth not, that those base births which are generated expu●redine, are never taken notice of, till they reveal themselves by their filth and motion? And have you not been fai●e to derive the Pedigree of some Heresies from the Devil? 
s See Bern cited before in the 1. Section.   
Besides, i● i● a good Consequent, Some Heresies have been detected in their beginnings with the circumstances of person, time, & place; therefore those which have not in like manner been ma●e known, are notheresies? Are not false doctrines, many times like false Christians, like Hypocrites, who are often accounted the best of those which profess righteousness, whenas afterwards judas is detected & their fraud is apparent? were all the jewish corruptions before our Saviour's time unvailed? was the curtain of painted appearance drawn aside among the Pharisees? were not many good men deceived by them, as Nic●● 〈◊〉 
● john, 3. 1.  that entered their order? who espied their painted Hypocrisies till Christ laid them open in their colours, making them appear to every purblind eye what they truly were? Our jesuite to prove his demand hath produced two 
t Reply pag. 8.  places, first Isaiah, 62. 2. And what saith the Prophet there? The jesuite I think suspects the strength of his quotation, or otherwise he would have laid down the words nakedly and not with his gloss. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day, or night. These are the words, but not one syllable, that they should cry out still upon every arising error, or Heresy. Nay, what is here to confirm that which he would prove▪ God giveth his Church faithful watchmen, that will neither day, or night, be idle and keep cloister, but will labour to build up jerusalem, till GOD make it a praise of the earth. But, (alas) what is this to the root of Heresies? to the circumstance of their espial?  
The birth of every Prodigy is not observed in the shepherd's Calendar, but of Comets, & those which are of like nature; neither is every Heresy detected by the Iesuite's rule, but such, as in their first appearing show themselves to be against faith and good life, as Augustine 
u epist: 119. cap. 19  saith in the words alleged.  
Who knoweth not, that little clouds may end in storms, which without an Elias 
* 1. King 18. 44  cannot be suspected? Yet must God fail in his promise, for his servants not espying the taresower? The Apostle that could cry, 
* 2. Cor 2. 16. , quis idoneus ad h●c? did not think the perfection of Pastors such, that completely they might perform every circumstance, which their Office doth require. If God give faithful watchmen that will not be tongue-tied in God's service, nor cease to sound, when the enemy approacheth, this is sufficient to repute the watchmen faithful, & to free their souls: For God requires not the trumpet to be used, before the enemy be espied; & when your cunnings appeared treachery, they have not wanted opposers in all ages; so that herein God hath no ways failed his word.  
For the other place, Ephe: 4. 11. it maketh no better to his purpose; for who denyeth, but Christ gave some Apostles, some Prophets, & some Evangelists, & some Pastors and Teachers? but to what purpose? to espy the person, time▪ & place of heretical beginnings? no, but for the perfecting of the Saints, for the works of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ 
* Eph 4. ●●. , which might be effected by the faithful resisting of heresies by scriptures, although their beginning, time, and place should be unknown.  
For St Augustine's words, they are true, & make nothing against the Answerer, for if every Pastor ought not to pass ever in silence their manners and doctrine, which be against faith, and good life but should labour to disgrace and condemn the same: much more this will be required of the Church in general, but they must appear first to be so. Paul did not bitterly inveigh against Elimas, till he appeared the child of the devil 
* A●●●●3. ●, 10 , & resisted the straight ways of the Lord: Neither are men's opinions resisted till they appear heretical, for otherwise every Pastor should be johannes ad oppositum, fight with his own shadow. It is for Christ, that knoweth the secret of hearts to say that judas is a devil 
* john 6. ●0, . And to as much purpose is Dr Fulks confession, That the true Church hath resisted all false opinions with open reprehension. This no man denies; but first they did appear to befalse opinions. Besides, cannot heresies be resisted with out naming their beginning, time & place? Yes nodoubt, as openly as Luther & Fulke have resisted your errors, whose beginnings you say, they know not; or you the Leoniste, whose genealogy your great Inquisitor Reinerius 
x See this alleged in the ●. Section.  could not find out. So that the jesuite may perceive, it is no gross assertion to avouch such horrible errors, as their opinions are, to have assaulted the Church with most secret & mystical fraud, although the beginnings of many of them may be obscured & hid, But that ever we said, they conquered the whole Church, that they obtained universal estimation of true faith, without being either contradicted, or as much as once observed by any Watchman whatsoever, this is no better than jesuitical juggling, there remaining no truth in the same.  
And now, as the learned Answerer hath proved this question or demand to be vain, so here he goeth further to demonstrate the same by particular illustration, showing that the same things which they desire of us, cannot in the like case be performed by them. And first saith the most reverend Primate: We read that the Sadduces taught, there were no Angels: is any man able to declare unto us, under what high Priest they first broached this error?  
To this he maketh a twofold Answer, one of them is, that if the certain time of the beginning of this error of the Saducees were not known at all, little could that avail, when as the like circumstance of time, is urged only to find out the truth of an ●●ter in controversy etc. which because you affirm we, who deny the same, do urge you to point us out the time when, &c but, that the Sadduces taught that error, there is no doubt, nor controversy, it being plainly testified by the scripture. 
y Reply pag. ●.  Which is but a vain & simple strain of the jesuite For how can it be, but the reason must be alike in all, even in those, which be not declared expressly in scriptures, as those that are? And it is as plain that you teach those particulars by yourself proposed, as the Sadduces did, that there was no Angel; So that if yours cannot be adjudged Heresies by GOD'S word, unless they be revealed by the circumstance of person, time, and place; Why should this opinion of the Sadduces by strength of scriptures, and other grounds be judge ●nd concluded to be so? For otherwise, if any Nathaniel (in whom there was no guile 
* john, 1. 47. ,) should have preached against the Sadduces, before Christ revealed the same, that they had been Heretics, for denying Angels and the Resurrection and convinced them for such by the scriptures; do you think this trick of Popish deceit would have exempted them from censure, or preserved them for Saints? Surely if this Iesuite ●nquired after truth, he would not thus spend himself with vain delays and exceptions: If a Sadduce should now appear and teach the same doctrine, as Pope john 
z Concil: Constan: Sess: 11. Item quod dictus joannes Papa vigesmus tertius ●apeè & saepiùs cora● diver●●● praelatis & alijs 〈◊〉 & probis viri● pertina●iter, diabolo suadente, dixit, asserv●●● dogmati●avit & ad●●●uxit, vitam aeternam non esse, nequ● aliam post hanc: quin imo dixit, & pertinaciter 〈◊〉, anima●● 〈…〉 & extingu● 〈…〉: dixitque 〈…〉 die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra articulum de resurrectione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de premissis fuit &, est dictus joannes Papa apud clerum & populuae gravites di●●a●atu●, Sicque ut praedici●●r, fuit dictum, tentum, creditum, & reputatum: dici●urque tenetur, creditur, & reputatur palàm, public● & notoriê.  the XXIIIth did, how would he stop his mouth? Do you think, that he would be forced from necessity to urge the Scriptures? Why, the 〈◊〉 urgeth them here; And I doubt not, but he could be content with them in other matters also, if they would afford them the like ●●elter.  
But those that are strangled, must needs make mouths, though they can speak nothing to the purpose; and our jesuite would seem to defend that, which he knoweth is impossible by his grounds to be made good, So that you may hereby perceive, that we can expect from him, nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his own advantage, for if he be not able to answer what is proposed, than what is brought in against him is nothing to the purpose, labouring to frame a pretence for upholding of that which he with no truth is able to justify.  
For his other answer (viz:) Any man that hath read the thirteenth book of josephus etc. may easily declare, how the Saducees br●ached both that, and the rest of their errors under the high Priest Ion●●has as Machabaeus, who began his reign about 163, years before the birth of Christ, and reigned twenty. 
a Reply pag. 9   
Whatsoever the jesuite pretends, there is not one word in josephus, whereby he can prove the beginning of the Sadduces their opinion of denying Angels, or indeed when they began to be a sect; For in the place 
b Lib. 1●. anti●●●●.  alleged by him, josephus telleth us, that there were three Sects amongst the jews, one of the Pharisees, an other of the Sadduces, & the third of the Essenes', who were accounted Sects, not in their inchoation, but perfection, about 143. years before Christ, in the time of this High Priest. And the same Author in an other place 
c 〈…〉  expressing things done some 11. years after Christ, showeth that the jews were divided into sects, a 〈◊〉 retrò 〈◊〉, which could not be if they began in the time assigned by the jesuite. Besides, the jesuite is so far from telling when the Sadduces or their Errors began, that he knoweth not when the High Priest 〈◊〉, under whom (he would have us believe) they 〈◊〉 that error, neither how long (to use his own words) he reigned. For if he had; he would not then have begun his reign 163. years before Christ, neither have extended his government to twenty years, against the truth of Chronology in the manner that he hath done.  
For 〈◊〉 his testimony, I do not need much to value it, in regard his own fellow-Iesuite S●●●●ius 
d In Tri●haeres: lib. 2. cap. 25.  hath rejected and refuted his testimony in this particular. So that this instance is not vainly brought; nor so far wide, as the jesuite would have it, but pressed to purpose, proving strongly that to be an heresy, the original whereof he is no way able to demonstrate unto us, which enervates & cuts asunder the very heartstrings of his Argument.  
The Grecians, C●●cassians, Georgians, Syrians, Egyptians, Habissines, Muscovites, & Russians, (saith the most learned Primate) diss●●t at this day from the Church of Rome in many 〈◊〉: will you take upon you to show in what Bishops days, these several differences did first arise?  
To this the jesuite replieth, I will S ● and, by God's help, perform it also, out of the learned works of our modern Catholic ●●iters. 
c Reply pag. ●.   
But before this be performed, the jesuite must remember what their own 
f A. C: his true Relations of sundry Conferences, pag. 11. 12.  require of us in this Quere, that he may with the same strictness satisfy us, in that which we desire of him, First they desire us to show the point changed in the Roman Church, from the ancient faith. Secondly, they ●rge us to prove this change not by any reason of antiquity, or the word of God, but by the other circumstances of the Author, 〈◊〉, & place; and who persisting in the former unchanged faith, opposed, and continued opposition against is, as against a Novelty and Heresy.  
Besides this, the Author, time, & place, of such novelties & heresies, must so be pointed out, that no Papist may be ●ble to show those points, to have been hold by more ancient approved authors in the same sense, in which they are held by the Roman Church, for if they are, than they conclude, that is able to convince, that there was no such change ●ade.  
Now, if this jesuite can perform what he hath promised in all the controversies, betwixt the Roman & the Greek Church, with that strictness, which is required of us in the like kind, them may he have some colour, for what he requireth at our hands: but if he hath failed herein, the Reader will easily perceive, that they are as little able to convince the Greek Church (which yet notwithstanding they have rejected) of Heresy by this rule, as they think we are unable to detect them. And seeing the jesuit hath taken uponhim the former task; I will bestow the pains, to give him a Catalogue of particulars, wherein those Churches descent from the Roman, to see out of what good authors he is able to lay me down, the person, time & place, by whom, when & where, they were brought into those Churches, with their opposers etc.  
1. For the Greciani, they deny Purgatory fire, and hold, that the souls of holy men departed, enjoy not the beatifical vision before the day of judgement. 
g Concil. Floren▪ prope initium. respons. Graec. ad Cardinal: Guisan. q. 1. Thom. à jesus. de conv. gen. lib. 6 cap. 1. eit: by Brere wood in his inquiries.   
2, The Habissenes have with them the practice of Circumcision, not only of males, but females also 
h Zaga Zabo derel: & mor. Aethiop. cit. per cundem .  
3. They have a rule, that no man must spit, the same day, that he hath received the Eucharist▪ 
i Zago Zabo ibid. cit. per cundem.   
4. They teach, that the souls of Infants dying before Baptism, because they are sprung from faithful parents, and from the virtue of the Eucharist, received by the mother after conception to sanctify the child in the womb, sh●lbe 〈◊〉 
k Zag. Zab. ibid. Thom à jesus lib. 7. pa. 1. cap 8. cit. per cundem. .  
5. They baptise themselves every year upon the Epiphany, as the Muscovites, in memorial of Christ's Baptism, whom they thought to be baptised as that day. 
l Zag. Zab. ibid. eit: per cundem.   
6. The Egyptians have a custom to confer holy Orders to Infants. 
m Thom● a jesus▪ lib. 7. pa. 1. cap. 5. cit. per cundem.   
7. They deny all efficacy to Baptism, unless celebrated in the Church by the Priest, notwithstanding any necessity whatsoever; neither do they baptise till the fortieth day, though the child dye without Baptism. 
n Tho. à jesus ibid. cit. per cundem.   
I could name the jesuit many mo●●, but if he can show the person, time & place, by whom, when & where, these points received birth, with their opposers, by demonstrable authority; & not by naked grounds, we will spare him the rest, & confess he may with good reason ask the question he doth, and require our answer to it. But till then let him not expect that from an other, which the whole Roman Inquisition cannot discover unto us in the like kind. Yet for the present, the jesuite hath performed his promise, as he supposeth in some particulars pointed out by himself.  
First concerning the defection of the Greek Church, which indeed comprehendeth all the rest by you named 
o Reply pag. 9  etc.  
Here we have the jesuite myred in his first entrance. For what hath he tu do with generals, Saphista versatur in generalibu●, he followeth not his answerer, but forsakes him here: Particulars are demanded, & like a false Steward the jesuite delivereth all in gross, fearing his prejudice if he submit to a strict & particular account. All that he laboureth to prove here, are two things. First, the beginning of the Greek Churches defection from the Roman, which was not desired at his hands. Secondly, the beginning of several errors, which shallbe observed in their place.  
For the first; the defection of Paulus Samosatanus, Macedonius Nestoriu● &c. was not from the Roman, but the Greek, a principal member of the Catholic Church.  
Secondly, the Greek Church did not fall with them, but condemned them; neither do they adhere to them, or their doctrine at this day. That there are in the East, which are named from some of those condemned Heretics, & yet follow not their doctrine 
p Onuphr. in jul: 3. Uerum hie Nestoriani nomen potius Nestorij haeretici quam errores retinuisse mihi videntur etc. , there is no question. But that the doctrine of those Heretics is taught by the Greek Church, is utterly untrue, neither dare the jesuite say it is, although by his obscure generalities he would insinuat, that in what those differed from the Roman church, these close with them. And for the other several defections (as he calleth than) though it were but ajust flight from their tyranny, he cannot tell how many they were, but styles them twelve or there abouts. But to what purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉▪ unless he show us the 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉, they were made? And this will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●● show unto us, what error every 〈…〉 in with ●●; for otherwise his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then employed to none ●ffect.  
Whereas he maketh them oppressed by the Turk, in regard of their 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉, it 〈◊〉 Jesuits fancy. I pray GOD 〈◊〉 the●● other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separation, they cast off▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though no● all their slavery. ●ut if it be 〈◊〉 ●● 〈◊〉 at the cause of their oppression; which is not 〈◊〉 ●aith, where 〈◊〉 notwithstanding their persequ●●ion they still 〈◊〉; but their persons, many more probable grounds may be given of Gods putting them to this 〈◊〉▪ then this assigned by▪ jesuite; unless you have relation to politic and worldly prudencyes of that Church, and not to crimes, that bring down God's judgements upon them. For we know some things 〈◊〉 not altogether to be approved of, but idolatrous, as Image-worship, are practised amongst them▪ They deny (indeed) that which is practised by you, in regard of the manner, even Statues of stone or Marble, and yet embrace with an idolatrous love paper and p●inted representations. This their sin is not the least causer of God's judgement upon them as we may conjecture from the IX. of the Revelation if Gods visiting them may be imputed to their sin, and not to his secret will, who tryeth his own by affliction, as the Church of the jews in Egypt, and the Primitive in her sincere●● perfections.  
Thirdly ●s concerning the several 〈◊〉▪ (few in comparison) wherein the Greek Church a● this day dissenteth from the Roman, their beginning and contradiction i● noterious. 
q Reply pag. ●●   
Here the jesuite by way of preface makes the Greek Church at this day to vary from the 〈◊〉 in regard of us (for so I conceive he desires to be understood) ●ut in a few points, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they differ at thisday from them in most points; that we 〈◊〉 them for: So that I doubt not, but they received scardall from your corruption, which because yo●● pride would not ●ure they left you 〈◊〉 ●● your 〈◊〉▪ and adhered to th● 〈◊〉 doctrine, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every whe● received, at all time's 〈◊〉, in the Catholic Church. And although they 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, yet some of your own 
r See before▪  think their error therein, to be only in the 〈◊〉 of expressing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not in the substance of doctrine itself. And 〈◊〉, whereas he saith, that their beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i● 〈◊〉; I will believe him, when he hath answered those points, which I have lay 〈◊〉 before, for what he hath done by his own election and choice will declare unto us; what great performance we may expect ●● his hands, when an other may have the liberty to point out his task.  
And first he beginneth with their denial of subjectional the Roman Sea etc.  
This is the first 〈◊〉; and agreat one, and (as he tells us) was beg●● by john of Constantinople, and he there ●pon severally contradected by Gregory the great, and by Pelagius in his epistle etc. 
s Reply pag. ●●   
Here are two 〈◊〉 fashood● by this jesuite in this particular supposed and 〈◊〉.  
First, that 〈◊〉 ages before 〈◊〉 of Constantinople his 〈◊〉, the Bishop of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their sense was universally acknowledged. Secondly, that this controversy betwi●● 〈◊〉 Gregory was about the denial of Papal 〈◊〉. ●oth which shallbe 〈◊〉 to be notoriously untrue. For the first 〈◊〉 the jesuite orderly proceeded, he should have proved the Roman Bishop the Monarch of the Church, by universal confent, before he should have questioned the Greek Church, for the denial thereof; and that his Monarchy 〈◊〉 consist not in matter of outward glory and precedency, but of spiritual regency and power: for else how could they deny, what was never established or consented unto by the Catholic Church, or any famous or glorious member of the same. And further in manifesting the falsehood of his supposition, you may conceive, it is impossible to 〈◊〉 the ancient testimonies i● 〈◊〉, that the fathers denied this spiritual and divine regency of the Roman Bishops, because they never assumed or exercised it: yet all those steps whereby they laboured to ascend unto this spiritual height, were ever resisted in all times and ages.  
For in the first place their attempt of divine derivation of this power is cast off by their own. Cusa●us 
t Cusanus de Concord: cath: lib 2. cap. 13.  is so far from giving the Bishop of Rome this spiritual eminency by divine Canon that he denieth it to have been granted unto him by any Canon of the Church, and proveth it to have been only brought in by common use & custom. And surely what privileges the Bishops of Rome enjoyed above their brethren (which were far from that ecumenical spiritual regency 
u Turrecrem: d. 2●. Constantino. Consistebat. hic honor in hoc videlicet quod ad locum in fedendo primo post Rom: ●oat. & in responsionibus haberet secundam vocem, & in subscriptionibus. , or papal omnipotency) the Council of Chalcedon 
x Chalced: council. act. 16. Et●●im 〈◊〉 ●●nioris Romae propter imperium civitatis illius patres consequenter privilegia teddiderum  attributed to the gift of their fathers; which fathers we may conjecture Pius 
y Aeneas Sylu. epist. 301.  the second thought to be the fathers assembled in the Nicene Council, as Marsilius 
z Defence. pa. 2. cap. 1●,  Patavinus hath plainly declared.  
Now all practices of insurrection to gain this universal regency, either before or after they received this limited honour of sitting and subscribing first were ever resisted by the Catholic Bishops, as by this one instance willbe sufficiently cleared.  
The Bishops of Rome did many timesstrive, that the finale judicium next to the determination of a ●●●●cell (for a Papa 
a Council Constan. sess 4. ●. Consil. Basil. sess 2. Idem assent Cardinal Cameracensis, joannes Gerson, jacobus Almainus, Nicolaus Cusanus, ●anori●itan Cardinal: 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, & alii teste Bellarmin d council. 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 14.  supra was never dreamt of in primitive times) should depend upon them in matters (not of faith, which they never pretended authority to declare) but of fact; & this Cyprian 
b Lib. 1. epist. 3. Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis & aequum sit pariter & justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum, & singuli● pastoribus ●●●tio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque & guber●e● rationem sui actus Domino redditurus; oporter utique cos quibus prae su●●s n●● circumcurfare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaere●●●● suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possū● nisi si paucis desperatis. & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa consti●utorum, qui iam de illis judicaverunt, et eorum c●●scientiam multi● delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravitate damnârunt. I am caus● co●●●● cognita est, iam de eyes dicta sententia est, nec censur● congruit sacerdo●um mobilis atque in constantis animi levitate reprehendi, cum Dominus doceat et dicat: sit sermo vester, est, est, non, non.  resisteth, as savouring of usurpation, showing upon what poor grounds, this practice dependeth, even upon the judgement of a few desperate & graceless people, who were of opinion, that Bishops were unequal in their authority: whereupon the Bishops laboured to restrain these busybodies, by lawful remedy in Counsels afterwards as may be collected from the sixth Council of Carthage 
c Epistol. council: Aphricani ad Caelest: urbis Romae Episcopum. , & the 8th general Council held at Constantinople 
d can. 26. .  
Secondly, the jesuite doth falsely point out the Patriarch to deny Papal height, or their spiritual monarchy; for the Popes at that time pretended nothing of that nature, and therefore he could not deny, that which was never affirmed.  
It is true, that john could not be content to enjoy the privileges of his predecessors given him by the Counsels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, but that he would be more, the only Bishop, and universal Patriarch: yet that he denied the honour of the Bishop of Rome, no more than the other Patriarches, Gregory 
e Epistol: 36.  will clear, in regard he lamenteth their loss as much as his own.  
Neither is there any thing urged by this jesuite, that proveth the point of denial of this Top-gallant of Papal usurpation, and therefore we may well reject it as to no purpose; For why should Gregory by this, think the patriarchal Sees in their Privileges violated, if that Papal pride had only been contradicted by john of Constantinople? Secondly, he assumeth, that their den●al of prayer for the dead, was begun by Acrius & contradicted by Augustine & Epiphan. 1. This is boldness and impudence in the jesuite to charge the Greek Church to follow that Heretic, whom they have & do in their practice utterly abdicate & condemn.  
2. He speaketh not any thing to the purpose, for Acrius did never cross prayer for the dead▪ in the sense that the Greek Church doth at this time, for they deny prayers for souls in Purgatory 
f Cocci●● 〈◊〉 2. lib. 7 art. 5. (( pag. 846.) Gr●ci ac Mus●●vitae, etsi fune●re sacrum 〈…〉, tamen Purgatorium Purg●●o●ium. 〈◊〉. art. 1● co● Luthe● G●●●is ad ●unc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse. , which the ancient Churchy never dreamt of, nor Aerius ever opposed: but that Heretic denied the Commemoration and prayer for the Saints departed, used by the ancient Church, which had no relation to Purgatory flames, or souls pretended to be punished there, as willbe seen in handling of the point; and for this, and not the other, was he condemned of heretical rashness. So that the jesuite is mistaken, framing an answer to that which was not required at his hands, and therefore we desire him to recollect his thoughts, & tell us, what person among the Greeks did first deny prayer for souls out of Purgatory, or else he saith nothing to the demand.  
In the third place he tells us, their defence of marriage of Priests was contradicted against Theodorus by Chrysostome, 
g Ro●●en●. ibid. Legat, qui velit, Graecorum veterum commentarios, & nullum, quantum opin●●, aut quam ●arissi mum de Purgatory se●●o●em inveniet: sed neque La●i●i sim●l omnes ac sensim hujus ●●i veritatem conceperunt.  and against certain other by Epiphanius h●r. 59  
And here the jesuite without doubt is gravelled, for that which before he saith is notorious, he cannot here lay down; he saith it was contradicted against Theodorus, etc. but he doth not tell us that Theodorus was the first who brought that into the Church; neither speaketh he one syllable of the person, time and place, in what manner this supposed Heresy of Priests marriage was brought in.  
But if we can prove this an Heresy as ancient as the Apostles time, as the Church of the jews; that the institution thereof is divine. Surely, they were asleep, that were watchmen in the Church, or else the contradiction hereof had not been left to their opposal mentioned by the jesuite.  
And to verify this; the two last assertions need not proof, it being plain to every man that God instituted marriage without restraint in Paradise 
* Gen 2. ●2. , and Priests, and Levites 
† His enim cum ●aeteris omnibus jus connubii jam inde ab initio fuit, undè scriptum est 19, judicum, Vir Levites habitans in monte Ephra in, accepit uxorem de Bethleem juda, & joiada Pontifex ex tribu Levi in v●●rem habuit ●esabeth sororem Ahoziae regis judae. 22. 2. Pa. ralip.  in aftertimes used that lawful remedy, as well as ●ai●●s.  
And for the Apostles practise, that they had wives, Clemens Alexandr: 
h Clem: Alex: Strom: lib ●●. Philippus autem 〈◊〉 quoque suas 〈◊〉 tradidit. E● Paulus quidem certè non veretur in quadam epistola suam appella●e conjugem, quam non circum●●rebat, quòd non magno ci esset ●pus ●inisterii.  & in a manner all antiquity doth averte. Neither doth Bellarmine 
i Lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 20.  deny it; for if he did, how could he charge the Apostles, postquam vocati à Christo fuerunt, to do that, which he can never prove to have been done, viz: officio conjugali renunciásse, seeing the Apostle testifieth the contrary: 1. Cor. 9 5. and the Canons of the Apostles 
k Carran: sum: Co●c: ca●. 5. Episcopus aut presbyter v●●rem propriam nequaqu ●● sub ob●●n●● religionis ab●iciat, Si vero rejecerit, excommu●icetur: sed si perseveraverit, dejieiatur.  and Concil: Gangrenes: 
l Caran: sum: cone: can: 4. Quicunque discernit à presbytero qui uxorem habuit, quòd non oporteat co ministrante de oblatione percipere, anathema sit.  express their distaste of such practices; the first inhibiting Priests sub obten●● religionis to put away their wives; the other, the people for the like cause to contemn their ministration.  
But if he maketh Chrysostome and Epiphanius to reproove this error or heresy in Theodorus and certain others, as the first opposers of necessity of Priests their single lives; Alphonsus de Castro 
m Advers: hae● lib. 13. De Sacerdo: haer: 4.  may learn, that Luther is not Hujus haeresis primus author. And Innocent the third might have received instruction, (if he had had but as wise Council as this jesuite) that before the time of Theodorus Monachus, the oriental Church did receive the vow of continency, at least virtually, (which this holy father 
n Titul: de Cler: con: cap: cum olim, cit: ibid. per Alphon de Castro.  could not find out) and that it was first opposed by him.  
And how shall we give credit to their compilers of Counsels, in their other narrations, when Gratian in this particular is cashiered by this jesuite, as an Ignoramus, or a petty observer? for he telleth us, that 
o Distinc. ●●. cap. syracusanae cit: ibid. per Alphon: de Castro.  Orientalis Ecclesia non susc●pit votum castitatis.  
Surely the jesuite saith in effect, that Innocent the Father, and Gratian and Alphonsus de castro the sons, were children in these affirmations, and did not wisely observe precedent times; for if they had, they should have found Priests to have been restrained either by law or vow, until Chrysostome and Epiphanius their time, when Theodorus Monachus and some others did only oppose this doctrine.  
But Chrysostome was not so affected to oppose the marriage of Priests or Bishops; as may appear in his second Homile upon the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus tom: 4. 
p Obstruere prorsusintendit ●●reticorum ora, qui nuptias damount, often dens eam rem culpa career, immò ita esse pretiosam ut cum ipsa etiam possit quispia●● ad sanctum episcopatus solium subvehi.  whatsoever he thought of Monks.  
And for Epiphanius, as he contradicted the marriage of Priests; so did many Priests in his time practise the same, as is confessed by himself. 
q Epiph haer. 5●.   
He tells us, also their denial of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the father and the son, was begun, and gainesayed about Anno 764. as witnesseth our Adversary Keckermanus in System. Theolog. pag. 68 
r Reply pag 10 ●Pag. 9   
The jesuite promised s, out of the learned works of their modern Catholic writers, to show us in what Bishops days these differences did first arise: but yet here, he is willing to embrace the testimony of their Adversary Keckerman, and for necessity we presume, because he can have little evidence elsewhere. Whereby we may see how convincing a rule that is, which is taken from person, time, and place, to detect Heresy, and error: when as our jesuite cannot by these circumstances point out from the evidence of good stories, the prime Greekish error, for which they pretend 
A. C. his true Relations, pag. 49.  principally to cast off the Greek Church, and to make it heretical.  
But if Keckerman be observed, he saith not much to the purpose, for which the jesuite hath produced him; for whereas a set time, a set place, a notorious person, aught to have been produced, Keckerman for time, brings the whole compass of 764 years 
pag. 6●. annis post Christ●● natum 764. , the age of along-lived Pope; and for the person, the jesuite nameth him not: and for the place where this error received birth, if the jesuite will have us to conceive the Greek Church, the place is as much extended, as the time, as containing a larger circuit (unless he hop over to their new plantations of America) than the Roman Catholic Church,  
And here let the jesuite either confess, that he understood not his Adversary; or plead guilty of wilful a busing his author. For Keckerman never said, that the Greek Church denied the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father; neither doth he appoint the year, when their denial of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Son was begun and gainsayed. And therefore we must conceive he read this Author with a squint eye, and a corrupt mind, when he maketh him to point at the time for the beginning of this error, to be about anno 764. it being plain, that this opinion had ground in the Church, long before, even in the judgement of this Author 
x Ibid.  cited by himself.  
In the next repeated error of the Greeks, he mixeth Papists and Protestants, and yet both put together; they are not able to show the distinct time, without a circum circa, and turn about, for so he expresseth it.  
The denial of unleavened bread in celebration of the Sacrament, was begun about anno Domini 1053. as appeareth by Leo the 9 in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople. 
y Reply pag. 10   
The jesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresy. For Leo the 9 saith no such thing, viz: that Michael was the first, that broached this error, neither doth he cite the first author of it▪ For it cannot follow, because Michael did oppose the Azymes used in the Latin Church, about the year 1053. therefore about that age it did begin. For that Patriarch charged the Church of Rome with other practices, quod Sabbat a quadrage●●m● obseruamce 〈◊〉, quod suffocata comederunt gentiliter, & quoth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm in Paschate, nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decantarent 
Brovius in anno 1653. . All which I think you will not say, were first distasted by Michael at that time.  
The jesuitè runneth from his path, and vainly without any relation to the thing in controversy, telleth us, that the Greek Church doth vehemently profess to detest the Protestants Religion 
a Reply pag: 10 . etc. Wherein we have no reason to believe him, in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himself, to convince the same▪ which I make no question but he would have done, if they had fairly offered it unto his hands.  
Secondly, there would not be that friendly intercourse betwixt some of the Patriarches of the Greek Church, and our Bishops, as there is; neither would they have sent their Priests, to our Universities for instruction, omitting yours which are nearer to them; neither would the Grecians that are amongst us, frequent our Chapels & Churches, when they avoid yours: if they conceived them equally polluted, or held us in equal detestation 
b Council▪ Lateran: 4. sub Inno. 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coeperunt abominari Latino's, quod inter alia quae in derogationem 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 committeeman si quando sacerdotes Latini super corum celebrâssent altarianon prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis, quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent. Bapti●atos etiam à Latinis, & ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu remerario praesumebant, & adhuc (sicut accepimus) quidam agere hoc non verentum.  with ●●●●selves.  
Neither do they differ from us in the fundamental points of Doctrine, we giving them (as we ought) a charitable interpretation; although in some of the points in the Jesuits Catalogue, taken from the Divines of Wittemberge, they may be censured somewhat to savour of superstition and error.  
And that it may appear, whether the Greek Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants, I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill, Patriarch of Constantinople, translated into English, and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof, I have seen, under which is written;  
This Copy hath been translated out of the original, made 
* done  by the hands of the most reverend Patriarch Cyrill, which I know well. The writing itself being in my hands, and having examined it my own self, I do testify that it doth agree with it word for word.  
Corneille Hague, Ambassador of the united Provinces of the Low-countrieses, at the gate of the Grand Seignour.  
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST.  
YE believe one God Almighty and infinite, three in Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the World, consubstantial with the Father: the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same ofsence with the Father and the Son. we call these three Persons in one essence, the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and to be worshipped of every creature.  
We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other Author but the Holy Ghost, which we ought undoubtedly to believe: for it is written, We have a mere sure word of Prophecy, to the which ●ee do well to take ●eede, as to a light shining in a dark place. Besides, we believe the authority thereof to be above the authority of the Church. It is a fare different thing for the Holy Ghost to speak and the tongue of man, for the tongue of man may through ignorance err, deceive, and be deceived: but the Word of GOD neither deceiveth, nor is deceived, nor can err, but is always infallible and sure.  
We believe that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect unto glory before the beginning of the World, without any respect unto their works, and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made he hath rejected whom he would: of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, his will is the cause; but if you look upon God's orderly proceeding, his justice is the cause, for God is merciful and Just.  
We believe that one GOD in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible: Invisible things we call the Angels, visible things the Heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, he hath created all things good, and cannot do any evil: and if there be any evil, it proceeds from the Devil and man: for it ought to be a certain rule to us, that GOD is not the Author of evil, neither can sinne by any just reason be imputed to him.  
We believe that all things are governed by GOD'S Providence, which we ought rather to adore then search into, sith it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves; in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility, then to speak many things which do not edify.  
We believe that the first man created by God, fell in Paradise, because neglecting the Commandment of God, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the Serpent: from thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is borne according to the flesh, who doth not bear this burden, and feel the fruits of it in his life.  
We believe that JESUS CHRIST our Lord hath made himself of no account, that is, hath assumed man's nature into his own Subsistence▪ that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, that he was made Man in the Womb of Mary always a Virgin, was borne and suffered death, was buried and glorified by his resurrection, that he brought salvation and glory to all beleivers, whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.  
We believe that our Lord JESUS CHRIST sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and there maketh intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful Priest and Mediator: and from thence he hath a care of his people, and governeth his Church, adorning and enriching her with many blessings.  
We believe that without Faith, no man can be saved▪ but that we call Faith, which in CHRIST JESUS justifieth, which the life and death of our Lord JESUS CHRIST procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.  
We believe that the Church (which is called Catholic) containeth all true beleivers in Christ, which being departed, are in their Country in heaven, or living on earth, are yet travailing in the way: the Head of which Church, (because a mortal man by no means can be) jesus Christ is the Head alone, and he holdeth the st●rne of the Government of the Church in his own 〈◊〉: but because on earth there be particular Visible Churches, and in order every one of them hath one chief, which chief is not properly to be called a Head of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal Member thereof.  
We believe that the Members of the Catholic Church be the Saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of whom, Hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible Churches, Tares may be found amongst the Wheat.  
We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Ghost, for he is the true Comforter, whom Christ sendeth from the Father, to teach the truth, and to expel darkness from the understanding of the Faithful. For it is very certain, that the Church of God may err▪ taking falsehood for truth, from which error, the light and doctrine of the holy Spirit alone freeth us, not of mortal man, although by Mediation of the labours of the Church's Ministers this may be done.  
We believe that a man is justified by Faith, and not by works; but when we say, by Faith, we understand the correlative or object of Faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which Faith apprehends and applieth unto us for our Salvation. This may very well be, and yet without any prejudice to good works. for Truth itself teacheth us, that works must not be neglected, that they be necessary means, and testimonies of our Faith, for confirmation of our calling; but for works to be sufficient for our salvation, and to make a man so to appear before the Tribunal of Christ, that of condignity or merit they confer salvation, humane frailty witnesseth to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, doth only justify and save the faithful.  
We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the will is excited, and indeed worketh, but not without the assistance of grace; to effect that therefore which is good, grace goeth before the will, which will in the regenerate is wounded, as he by the thiefs that came from Jerusalem, so that of himself, without the help of grace, he hath no power to do any thing.  
We believe that there be Evangelicall Sacraments in the Church, which the Lord hath instituted in the Gospel, and they be two: we have no larger number of Sacraments, because the ordainer thereof delivered no more. Furthermore we believe, that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they be seals of the promises of GOD, and we doubt not, but do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance, and an external action do concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord, and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith doth prejudice the integrity of the Sacraments.  
We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the LORD, which unless a man hath received, he hath not communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious Resurrection, the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism, doth proceed, therefore in the same form wherein our LORD hath commanded in the Gospel, we are certain, that to those who be Baptised both Original and Actual sins are pardoned: so that whosoever have been washed, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are regenerate, cleansed and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptised, therefore we must abstain from this inconvenience.  
We believe that the other Sacrament was ordained of the LORD, which we call the Eucharist. For in the Night wherein he was betrayed, taking bread and blessing it, he said to his Apostles, Take ye, eate, this is my body: and when he had taken the Cup, he gave thankes and said, Drink ye all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many: do this in remembrance of me. And Paul addeth, for as often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this Cup, ye do show the LORDS death: this is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in administration whereof we confess and profess a true and Real presence of CHRIST our LORD, but yet such a one as Faith offereth to us, not such as devised transubstantiation teacheth. For we believe, the faithful do eat the body of CHRIST in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the Soul, sith the body of CHRIST is not that which is Visible in the Sacrament, but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth, and offereth to us: from whence it is true that if we believe, we do eat and partake; if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe consequently, that to drink the Cup in the Sacrament, is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body: for as the Author of it commanded concerning his body, so he did concerning his blood: which commandment ought neither to be dismembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man's arbitrement: yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us: when therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of CHRIST worthily, and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be coheires in the Kingdom to come.  
We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness, or in damnation, according as every one hath done: for as soon as they remove out of the body they pass either to Christ; or into hell: for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent: in this life there is a time of Grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter: but they who being not justified, do die are appointed for everlasting punishments. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted, but in the truth it is determined, that every one ought to repent in this life, & to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And let this be the end.  
This compendious and brief Confession of us we conjecture will be a contradiction to them, who are pleased to slander, maliciously accuse us, and unjustly persecute us: But we trust in our Lord jesus Christ, and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lot of the righteous.  
Dated in Constantinople, in the Month of March, 1629. CYRILL, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Our jesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate. Some things are maintained by you, which have not been delivered for Catholic Doctrine in the primitive times, but brought in afterwards, yourselves know not when.  
The jesuite pumping for an answer hereunto, talketh of ambiguity, doubtful phrases, fight in a cloud. As if a man could deal more plainly with the Roman faction, then to tell them, that there are many points held now of faith by them, which the first times never received for Catholic doctrine, and that they themselves know not when, many of them were first broached in the Roman Church.  
But the jesuite fearing lest he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth, would here raife a mist or fog, that he might the better steal out of danger, for he indeavoureth to persuade: That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader believe, that we maintain doctrine contrary to that of primitive times, because, forsooth, we maintain now somethings which were not expressly declared, nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith. 
c Reply pag. 11   
He were a simple reader indeed, that would believe this jesuite either in his faith or doctrine, if it have no better support, than the declaration of some of their late Counsels to confirm it; But he were more than simple, that can pick the jesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words. Simple men, interpret the Bells, as they imagine, and imagination hath directed the jesuite here and not the truth. For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to do with the species of opposition? where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrary to that of primitive times? where doth he insinuate so much? He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in under the name of Piety, was not so forgetful to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith. You teach new faith; this is the charge. You deny not the old professedly in any point; this were too gross, and fit for the fools, your brethren, open Heretics; and not for the wisest son, that can promote his father's kingdom by a more secret and mystical fraud. So that let his words be softer than oil, or sharper than darts, I am sure herein the jesuite fails, when he thinketh them to be shot at the innocent.  
The jesuite would speak more to purpose, to free himself and his faction, and to this end, he delivereth to us two propositions.  
1. We maintain some things as Articles of faith, which were not in primitive times expressly determined, declared & delivered for such. And  
2. We maintain some things as articles of our faith, which are contrary to that, which hath been declared for Catholic doctrine in primitive times. & would have us know, that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings. 
d Ibid.   
But as the jesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves: so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all. For I doubt not, but that the most reverend Primate will yield so fare unto you, that in show (at least) you hold the Apostles Creed, and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour, as they Moses law: & yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times upon the ancient faith, as pharisaical traditions upon Moses law 
* Mat. 25. ●, 9 .  
That which Roffensis saith, may be acknowledged in a right sense, that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in belief and practice, the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Heretics, that arose in aftertimes. But what is this to new doctrine, never universally received, nor anciently known? or what argument is here persuading you to declare that for ancient faith, which was never delivered from the Apostles etc. or received by the Primitive Church?  
But the jesuite, that he might gain credit to his first proposition tells us. Before the Nicen Council, some books of Canonical Scripture were doubted of, yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient, without any blame at all, which after the said Council could not lawfully be called in quèstion. 
e Reply pag. 11  And all to very little purpose, For first the Nicene Council did not declare doubtful books for Canonical Scripture, nor point out the Canon, which the Catholic Church did universally receive; neither doth it make at all against their universal receipt of those books, that some private men, or Church, doubted of, or rejected them; For the jesuite will have his doctrine generally received, if affirmed by ten or eleven Father's †, Valentia, if by the choicest. Why shall 
f Reply pag. 94  not God's book have equal privilege with a Papal Indulgence, when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most, this never taken notice of, nor acknowledged at all? Besides suppose, that some private men, or some few Churches did not receive some book of the Canon: yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole, more than a mountain, or a wave the Globes rotundity. Secondly, although they were not blame worthy (as the jesuite would have it) which should not receive some books of the New Testament, (which is false) yet they were not without blemish: for if it were an honour to the jews especially to the tribes of judah & Benjamin, that to them wholly & entirely were commended the Oracles of God 
* Rom. 3, 2. ; it must needs be a dishonour to the ten tribes, to have rejected all but the five books of Moses. Thirdly, although those books were doubted of, yet they were doubtingly received, for you cannot find them by any Church canonically rejected. Fourthly, it had been as foul an error to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Council, as afterwards, For if the jesuit will take it to be such a tie, that all are bound to stand unto the declaration of a Council, why did not the Council of Laodicea 
f Carran. in sum: Concile can. 59  perform their obligation but in the repetition of the Canon, leave the book of judith to be placed amongst the Apocrypha, not acknowledging it the more authentic, for that imaginary decree mentioned by the jesuit? Besides, there is no question, but the denial of those books of the new testament were blameworthy, else Epiphanius 
g Har. 51. 75.  would not have charged the Alogi with Heresy, for denying the Revelation of St john.  
The most learned Answerer goeth further to express the blindness of this Rule to find out Heresy by.  
Gregorius de Valentia, one of your principal Champions, doth confess that the use of receiving the Sacrament in one kind, began not by the Decree of any Bishop, but the very use of the Churches, and the consent of the faithful. To which the jesuite maketh Reply.  
And is not that use of the Churches and Consent of the faithful, a sufficient warrant, I pray you, to clear it from the odious term of Sacrilege, wherewith you unadvisedly do style it. 
h Reply pag. 12   
And here, if that which the jesuite doth insinuate, were granted for truth, it were no sufficient warrant against CHRIST'S institution; but that justly it might be styled Sacrilege, even as the Answerer hath done.  
What brought in the high places in Israel? do you suppose, they were erected by any decree of Council? or otherwise? if not so! then by the Consent and practise of the Israelites? and yet I doubt not, but you will style that sin Sacrilege, or as bad: unless you think it piety to keep back from the temple, what GOD had appointed for his service there. Compare the omission of a typical sacrifice, with the removing of one of the Sacramental expressions of Christ his death and passion instituted by himself: and then judge which deserveth the base Epithet.  
But if you further question with Valentia, when first did that Custom get footing in some Churches? he returneth you for Answer, (saith the most reverend Primate,) Minimè constat, it is more than he can tell.  
1. And yet (saith our jesuite) he largely and learnedly there proveth, even by the express word of God, that it was used in the Apostles times etc. 
i Reply pag. 12   
Did he attempt it? his learning was exercised without his conscience: Did he prove it? the jesuite saith so: but I will think him worthy to be General of his Order, if he can do either the Pope or the Devil so much service, as to persuade the world to believe the same.  
2. Upon which use the ensuing Customer, which got footing in some particular Churches, were grounded. 
k Reply pag. 12   
This is as true as their new Creed: for who will say, that Valentia knew the ground, upon which this Custom was received in some particular Churches, that hath his Minimè constat, his know not wh●●, for the Person, that brought it in?  
3. The Council of Const●●ce from this chain (viz. Customs so grounded) and other good reasons made it a la● etc. 
l ibid.▪   
True it is, that your 〈◊〉 Orbis, or Catholic world never received it before; and he that readeth their law, must see, that wilfulness and not reason persuaded it. For first they have a non obst●●●e for Christ's institution. Secondly, they reject the Primitive practice 
m Concil: Constan. sess: 13. apud Been: Licet Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis administraverit sub utrâque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante: etc. licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utrâque specie etc. . Thirdly, they are forced to invent or confirm the poor deceitful Cozenage of Concomitancy. And all to make good this faith never heard of before.  
Further, what needed that to be made a law at Constance which Gods express word hath declared to be the use and practise of the Apostles times? how could that come into the Church by degrees, which was brought in first by them that converted the whole Catholic Church? How ordained in the first Council of Ephesus, about a thousand years before the said Synod of Basil etc. if but made ● law from Customs so grounded only at Constance?  
And now let Mr Malone consider how far he slideth ●rom that he ought to aim at, the wisdom of his inter●gation: and let him also apprehend, how he is forced by necessity to seek protection from the Apostles, omitting ●mpora intermedia; which they scorn in us. And I could ●kewise wish him not to be unmindful how this Council doth 〈◊〉 Antiquity, which he so much desires to magnify and defend. But if none of these considerations may work any mutation in him▪ let him use his Vrbanus Regius 
† Cited by the jesuite ibid. , who for my part I know not, neither will believe, if he were ever so prime a Doctor, that should fasten so false a calumny on the Ephesi●● Council.  
But grant the jesuit all that he desires, which is to make his Doctrine of receiving in one kind, as ancient as the Council of Constance: for opposition of their Decree we are able to produce the Bohemians not long after.  
Gregorius de Valentia, (saith the most reverend Primate 
n In the answer to the Jesuits challenge pag. 3. 4. ) confesseth that it is more th●n he can tell, when the Custom of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some Churches. The like doth Fisher and Cai●tan give us to understand of Indulgences, that no certainty ●●● be had, what their original was, or by whom they were first brought in. Fisher also further addeth concerning Purgatory: that in the ancient Fathers, there is either inone at all, or very rare mention of it▪ that by the Grecians it is not believed even to this day, that the Latins also, not all at once▪ but by little and little received it: and that, Purgatory being so lately known, it is not to be marvailed, that in the first times of the Church there was no use of Indulgences; seeing these had their beginning, after that men for a while had been affrighted with the torments of Purgatory. Out of which confession of the adverse part you may observe: 1▪ What little reason these men have, to require us to set down the precise time▪ wherein all their profane novelties were first brought in; seeing that this is more than they themselves are able to do. 2. That some of them may come in podetentim (as Fisher acknowledgeth Purgatory did) by little and little, and by very slow steps, which are not so easy to be discerned, as fools be borne in hand they are. 3. That it is a fond imagination, to suppose that all such changes must be made by some B●●●●or any one certain author: whereas it is confessed, th● some may come in by the  consent of many, & grow after into a general custom, the beginning whereof is past man's memory.  
Here the jesuite observes first want of Truth, when he saith that we required him to set down the precise time, wherein all our prof●●● novelties were brought in: &c 
o Reply pag. 1● .  
This jesuite wanteth honesty, otherwise he would not observe with falsehood and jealousy that for which there is no ground in the most reverend Primates words. For first he speaketh not of the jesuit alone, but of all his Tribe: and do you think, it is so hard a thing to find some of you ask; What year the Religion of the Papists came in & prevailed? Whether all nations suddenly and in one year were moved to the doctrine of the Papists? Whether in a moment, the mass was said in stead of other Apostolic communion? 
p See Doctor Fulks answer of a true Christian to a Counterfeit catholic▪  Is it not your own Demand, In what Popes days was true Religion overthrown in Rome? and when you come to explain yourself in your Reply, is it not the certain time, which you demand of us page 1. and the precise time page 14.  
Secondly, (saith the jesuite) I observe false logic, to wit. Because Fisher, Caietan, or Valentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell 
q Reply pag. 13 .  
This is none of the most learned Primates inference, but the Jesuits, Yet I dare say, that it is better logic, than the jesuite hath usually replied withal; For may not one argue from a probable ground, but it must destroy the whole Systeme of Logic, & drive Aristotle's Topics out of his Organon? Fisher, Caietan, Valentia, not Punies, (though Mr. Malone seem to slight them,) but great Rabbins of Popish Divinity, nay (I think I may say,) the greatest without deserving censure, cannot tell, therefore none can tell; is a probable argument, and not false Logic, as, this sixth Predicable would have it: For if the best learned cannot find out the time when these Customs etc. were first brought in, it is a vehement, if not a violent presumption, that poor Punies cannot find that out. If a Sheriff, that hath posse Commitatus return non est inventus upon a person; a Catchpole will scarce find out the fugitive. And I think it is good logic, for I am sure it is good reason, that if Fisher, Caietan, & Valentia cannot tell, this jesuite (as he hath done) may well hold his peace. Yet here is more logic, than the jesuite 〈◊〉 see, or at least, then he hath observed; for Valentia saith minimè constat, it doth not appear, when that Custom of receiving the sacrament in one kind did first get footing in some Church; Fisher & C●ietan say that no certainty can be had, by whom Indulgences were first brought in, or what was their original 
r See them veged by the most reverend, the Lord Primate, in his answer to the Iesuit's challenge pag. 3▪ , & therefore it will follow necessarily, that all the wise men in the Roman Church are not able to set down the precise, or certain time, wherein these Novelties did first arise; unless the jesuite will despise the judgements of their learned Cardinal, their highly esteemed Bishop, and his own Valentia.  
Again, Because Valentia cannot tell, when the Custom of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some particular Churches, therefore we know not, when it was first used in the Church at all, whereas it is shown to have been first brought in by Christ & his Apostles 
s Reply pag. 13 .  
Here is impudence would make an Ethiop blush; for what can be more fowl, than to fasten those things upon this most reverend Lord, which, he never intended, neither can be collected from his words? But the jesuite frames arguments, that he may with more facility answer than; the most reverend Primates are not so easily digested: That which he collecteth from Valentia, is, that the use of receiving the sacrament in one kind, began first in some Churches & grew to be a general custom in the latin Church not much before the Council of Constance, in which at last (to wit 200 years ago) this custom was made a law. Secondly, that it doth not appear when first that Custom did get footing &c: And out of this confession etc. he observeth. What little reason these men have to require us to set down the precise time wherein all their profane novelties were first brought in, seeing this is more than they themselves are able to do 
* See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answer to the Jesuits challenge▪ pag▪ ● .  
Which observation or inference the jesuit durst not touch, as being too well guarded by the premises, if Valentia may be believed, for him to avoid: For suppose, one should say & speak as true as Valentia, that the plague, or a leprosy (as heresy is) did begin first in some Provinces & was afterwards scattered throughout the Roman Empire: and should further add, that it doth not appear when first that infection did get footing in some Provinces. Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the Contagion or Leprosy first infected the Empire? So that if this jesuite had framed his argument truly according to this most reverend Lords collection it would have made him gape for an answer. Valentia (that speaketh truth for we must not think that a jesuit can lie) telleth us that the receiving of the Sacrament in one kind did first begin in some churches at a time that doth not appear, & afterwards got by custom into the Latin being made a law by a decree at Constance, therefore it is more than yourselves can do to tell when this custom got footing in the Church at all: And further if Valentia did contradict himself saying at one time that this custom was brought in by Christ and his Apostles, & at another, that it began first in particular churches, & so spread at a time that doth not appear, let the jesuite bedaube him with an excuse, or condemn the waverer.  
And again: Because Fisher & Caietan grant that no certainty can be had by whom Indulgences were first brought in, therefore they must be profane novelties, when as both Fisher & Caietan ground them upon the word of God, condemning him of another untruth, when he affirmeth that they give us to understand how no certainty can be had what their original was 
u Reply pag. 13 .  
Here the jesuite is driven to the like invention, for the learned Answerer maketh no such inference: His intention there, being only by Popish witnesses to prove that you know not the original of some points of your faith, & to discover thereby, your vanity in requiring of us the precise time of their births. Profane novelties he styleth not these alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth than profane and new in his most learned answer following. And although the most reverend Primate intended in this place no such thing, yet if a Popish Martyr and Cardinal bear not false witness, they willbe little better then profane and novelties also by their testimonies: For if Indulgences be such a point of faith, that no certainty can be had what their original was, or by whom they were first brought in, whether by Balaam or an Apostle, though the jesuite & his fellows could pro●e it by Apocrypha to be as ancient as the tower of Babe●●, it willbe profane and new in the opinion of any Christian judgement and understanding still.  
And here it is not to be omitted, how the jesuite flies to (that which they contemn in us,) the sacred scriptures, deserting the succession of this article of glorious Roman faith, suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him, to prove it of universal belief: must we be urged then in reason to tell you, at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church; whenas the Greek Fathers seldom mentioned Purgatory, & never received it 
x Ro●●ens. ar. 18. Graecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse. , when some of the Latin apprehended it not 
y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim hu●us rei veritatem conceperunt. ; when sometime it was unknown 
z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum. , and but lately known to the Church 
a Ibid: Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit universae. ; when it got strength pedetentim, by little & little, & not from scriptures or father's interpreting them only, but partly ex revelationibus 
b Ibid. , by some whisperer in a trunk, or a worse Gipsy?  
But if these notable points in the opinion of Valentia, Cai●tan, & Fisher, had their original from Christ & his Apostles, the word of God; why should the jesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report, but their own level?  
The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith, could you but find them delivered there; But we are sure of your disability herein, unless you fly unto the aid of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter.  
And the jesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth, in regard he but only repeats Fisher & Caietans' opinions; and the jesuite himself thus fare jumpeth with them, that there is some uncertainty, when first their use began, Besides, I would gladly know, whether the word of God (without succession) be able to point us out the certain original of the Doctrine of faith? if it be, what will become of his demand? if it be not, where findeth he the untruth, that he doth falsely charge the Answerer withal▪  
Finally, Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim, by little & little, therefore it ought not to be admitted, nor esteemed. For by the same Logic he may prove, that S. james his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonical Scripture, because (as S. Hierome 
c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem. Hieron. de vitis illust. verbo jecobus.  doth witness) by little and little, in process of time, it obtained authority & credit 
d Reply pag. 13 :  
This is another brat of the Jesuits begetting, let him foster it: the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shows that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snail to the height of Papal faith, and therefore is not easy to be discerned. But the jesuite had a great mind to make use of Ierome's words, and without a forged preparation he was not able to bring them in. Yet as he urgeth them, there is great difference between these two instances; For the Epistle of S. james was first received by the Catholic Church 
e Eusebius apud Sixt. S●nens: Bibl. Sanct: lib. 7. haer. 9 No● tamen scimusistam (epistol●m jacobi) cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi▪ , though doubted of by some particular members thereof 
f Sixtu● Senens: ibid. Nec ita perperàm sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt, ut ex his— dedueamus, Epistolam hanc, vel temporum successu, vel Ecclesiae di●●imulatione divinam factam, & Ia●obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset. (hoc enim impossibile prorsus est) sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt, quod Epistolam hanc, de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur, an divino spiritu, & a● ab Apostolo jacobo scripta esset, Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente ●●mperit esse veram, et canonicam, etipsi●s jacobi germanam. ; But Purgatory was not received (so far as they can manifest) but by degrees, in particular Churches only & never (at the best) esteemed as of faith, but among Romanists.  
Secondly, Purgatory partim ex revelationibus, came to be believed of some particular Churches, when the Epistle of S. james from the worth & divine light that was in itself meruit authoritatem got authority, not in the Catholic, but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it. So that here is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim: S. james his Epistle was known and received by the Catholic Church, and did by degrees remove the jealousy of those particular Churches, that suspected it. Purgatory being unknown at sometime to the Catholic Church (which must either be in the Apostles days, or never, unless this point were more unhappy, than any other point of Doctrine,) got to be known afterwards in the Roman Church, not from Scriptures, which knew it not, but by revelations, and tales of a Ghost.  
When our Answerer then etc. doth demand of us, whence though foresaid points of Purgatory, Indulgences, & Communion in one kind, have their Originals, we can show, even out of the very authors alleged by himself, that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord, howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty, when first began their public and frequent use. 
g Reply pag. 13   
What doth the jesuite get by this? he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demand idle: For first, what little reason hath he to ask, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion, which we commend in them of the first 400. years, and In what Pope his days was the true Religion overthrown in Rome: when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time, the practice of their faith, from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof; confining this unto the age of Christ, acknowledging the other to have been brought into the Roman Church, they know not when 
† 〈◊〉 constat. ?  
Secondly, what ground hath the jesuite & the rest of his profession, to require the circumstances of person, time, and place to find out heresies by; but because the true ancient faith hath been ever continued in the Church by perpetual succession, being believed & practised therein without interruption? And yet here our Adversaries confess, that a doctrine may be taught by Christ, & yet never practised in the immediate following times; but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolic times, and from thence slide into the Roman (never into the Catholic) at such a time which they are not able to design unto us without some uncertainty 
h Reply pag. 13 .  
Thirdly, he flieth to the institution of Christ, as a sufficient rule to declare the original of their faith which we like in them accepting the trial thereby; & what he pretendeth for himself, we will on our part undertake to prove, viz ●. that all the points of our Religion, by the confession of the very authors alleged by the jesuite, have their originals from the institution of our Lord. But if the jesuite deny us the like liberty, which he taketh unto himself, he befools his own argument: if he grant the same unto us, than he demonstrateth his own demand to be vain, which requireth person, time & place as a necessary ground, whereby to detect Heresy and error by.  
Finally, it will most plainly appear how vainly our Answerer proveth my demand to be vain, if we gather his reason to a head, thus: we ourselves cannot tell when some of those points which we maintain against them began, or by whom they were first brought in: Ergo, we have little reason to demand the same of him, seeing as he saith, it is more than we ourselves are able to tell. The Antecedent hath been already disproved 
i Reply pag. 13 .  
How the Antecedent hath been disproved, the Reader may judge by what hath been already said: but I am sure it hath driven this jesuite, & the Defenders of Purgatory etc. to the Scriptures, which the jesuite, ●●r any Sailor in the Roman Gulf, would never anchor 〈◊〉, unless forced by a storm, & in case of necessity. And further I wonder that the jesuite should confess, that i● all their profession, we cannot sh●we them any point, or article whose Original they cannot derive most plainly from Christ and his Apostles. etc. whenas they charge the Scripture with obscurity 
k Bellarm De verbo Dei, lib. 3 cap. 1. Si res consideres, necessarió fatendum est, Scripturas esse obscurissimas, Siquidem tradunt summa mysteria, de divina Trinitate, de incarnations verbi &c Et 〈◊〉 post. Si veromodum dicendi consideremus inveni●mus innumerabiles rationes 〈◊〉  & darkness. And thirdly, you may perceive this Antecedent hath been so well proved, that (omissâ successione intermediâ) the jesuite is willing to break down their bulwark of succession, and to originalize every point in his profession from Christ and his Apostles, thinking that to be a sufficient means to declare the truth of Doctrine, when their Champion's Fisher and Sweet denied the said liberty for the same end, to their acute and learned opponent Doctor Featly 
l Answer to the Fisher catched in his own n●t. Sect. 2. .  
And although we should not stand with him upon his said Antecedent, truly he deduceth not a right conclusion out of the same. For, say, that we ourselves could not tell the precise time of their beginnings, yet have we good cause to demand the same of him 
m Reply pag. 14.  &c,.  
This is but a fancy, and hath no ground in reason, as if your Catholic Roman Church ought not to have as much care to prevent heresies, as we to detect them; or that you who make succession your note of truths, should not be bound to show their perpetuity by a preci●e continuance from the Apostles downwards, as well as we to declare their falsehood, and to show their upstartednes in following times.  
Our Answerer surmising (as it seemeth) that the vanity of these foresaid proofs, would quickly be descried by his judicious Reader, endeavoureth with other vain instances, and examples, to cast a mist before his eyes 
n Reply pag. 14 , etc.  
Silly Dreamer! how did his self-conceit flatter him, when he compiled his Reply? Doth he think a judicious Reader can espy that in transitu, on a sudden, and by view barely, which a jesuite and his fellowlabourers cannot manifest with all their pains? Yet let the judicious Reader judge of things past, he promiseth much in time to come.  
But we (by God's grace) setting forth the light of verity, will easily disperse the foggy vapours of his vanity, that so we may reduce the Reader to the path of truth 
o Reply ibid.▪ .  
God's grace assisteth truth, not heresy; the breath of his mouth must consume Antichrist, not fortify his kingdom: & the light of verity is so far from being set forth by this jesuite, that it is his masterpiece to rail against it, to eclipse it, if such a mooncalf could perform the work. Yet let us see what these foggy vapours are, which the glorious light of the Jesuits verity will disperse.  
He saith then concerning our Private Mass, that he will tell us in what Popes days it first began, if we tell him in what Pope's days the People first began to fall from their devotion 
r Reply ibid. .  
But he hath left the most learned Primate's answer, (not because a fog, but) because the light thereof offends his sight. For first the most learned Answerer setteth forth the vanity of his Demand, in ask, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion, which you commend in them of the first 400, years? In what Pope his days was the true Religion overthrown in Rome? by several arguments, 1. from their own disability: 2. from their coming in pedetentim, their lingering birth, which cannot be in one Pope's days, 3. from the  confent of many, which cannot be wrought by one. And here he bringeth two more instances, the first taken from want of Devotion in the people; the second from time itself.  
And therefore to require a Pope for the altering of that, which was done by another, or to restrain us so to time, as to urge us for to show that to have been brought into the Roman Church in one Pope's days, which (perhaps) was not effected in the lives of 100 of them; this must needs be a vain and ridiculous Demand. But let us see, whether the jesuite be not lost in this mist.  
We urge him with hi● promise (saith he) as he is a man of his word, and we give him to understand, that in Pope Peter the Apostles time, the people fell from their devotion, of whom therefore the same Apostle saith, That it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, then after having known it, to turn from the holy commandment given them 
* 1. Pe●●●●. 21.  etc. Behold now when people fill from their devotion, and consequently when our private Mass began, even by our Answerers own rule, unless he put (chance) between 
q Reply pag. 14 .  
Did people in general want devotion in S. Peter's time? was the best age of the Church, the worst by your censure? Is it the decay of love in some one, or few hypocrites minds, that can answer the most learned Primates demand? You must show us a time, when the people did as universally lack Devotion, as they do among you the Sacrament, or else you have accepted the Answerers promise to your disadvantage.  
Secondly, it is acknowledged by your own that a long time after S. Peter's death, Priest and People communicated together; 
r Vasq. disp. 216. cap. 3. Negare non possumusetiam in Ecclesia Latina fuisse usum utriusque specici, & usque ad tempora Sancti Thomae durasse.  and therefore your assignment of lack of Devotion, should have followed the Devotion of the people, and not have run up to the Apostolical times, before they perfectly knew the faith. So that the most learned Answerer hath no need of your parenthesis, but when this general decay of Devotion is declared by you, he will then be able to tell you, when your private mass began.  
But howsoever the jesuite halts in this, yet he saith, We can tell him without chance or doubt (if he know it not already) when, and by whom the private mass was first impugned, and reproved; which it seemeth God most wonderfully ordained should be made known to posterity by the very confession of him, who was the Protoplast of Protestancy. etc. Thus then saith Luther. I will begin to tell tales of myself 
s Reply pag. 14. & 15.  etc.  
Do you think this Hypocrite thinketh, as he speaks, that the Devil should have his part to oppose that practice, which one of their best Champions fetcheth from no other ground then lack of Devotion of the people's part. 
t Hard. answer to the first article of jewels challenge, fol. 26.  A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand: 
* Mat. 12. 25.  if the Devil resist his servants, or his servants the Devil, then farewell Popery.  
But what reason have we to believe any thing, that Jesuits, or other Papalines 
t Nic. 1. epist. 8. §. Igitur. Quod suspecti & inimici, judices esse non debeant, ipsa ratio dictat. An judicium potest apud ipsos agitari? ut ijsdem sintinimici, Testes, & judices?  conceive of Luther, whenas his beating down of their Antichristian Pride hath filled their mouths with abusive reports, and their books with reproachful calumnies; 
u Bzovij annal Eccles: in anno 1517. Reply pag. 330 331. Cochl. vit. Lutheri. Calvino-Turcism: Defence of the Censure. Sect. 5.  For some of them report his father to be a Devil Incubus, & his mother to be a woman that spent her time fricandis in publicis balneis hominibus; that before his birth like Hecuba (the mother of Paris) his mother dreamt she conceived a firebrand.  
They further seek to disgrace him, making him to change his name, in regard that in certain languages it promised evil, comprehending in it the number of Antichrist, and therefore (as they say) he took upon him the name of Luther, which signifieth pure in the Germane tongue. Neither do they only taint his birth, but they stain his life also, by seeking to impeach his writings, which are justified by their own 
x Erasm. Epist. l. 12. Alb. archi●p. & princ Mogunt Card. Illud video, ut quisque vir est optimus, ita illius scriptis minime offendi ●● paulo post. Compertum est ab his damnata ut haeretica in libris Lutheri, quae in Bernardi, Augustinique libris; ut orthodoxa, imo ut pia leguntur. ; his behaviour and carriage, when his life was approved by consent of all, and the integrity of his mann●rs by his enemies 
y Idem Epist. l. 11. epist. 1. Thomae Card. Hominis vita magno omnium confensu probatur, iam id non leue praeindicium est, tantam esse morum integritatem, ut nec hostes reperiant quod calumnientur. Eras●mus in epistole ad Freder. Elect Saxon teste Hospinian▪ in histor. sacr. par. altera, pag. 5. De Martino Luth●ro, Nil nisi lenitatem in eo desideravit. . Neither could his death which was Christian and pious escape their calumny; some falsely relating, that going drunk to bed, he was found the next morning dead, his body black, his tongue hanging out as if he had been strangled; some imputing it to his wife, some to the Devil. Neither have they spared his Corpse, but report that those which carried him to his funeral, were fain to throw him in a ditch: Inventions against all truth 
z Sleid. come. lib. 16. , and strains of malice, their being no ground or reason for these informations against him; and to declare that they were beyond all malice malicious, before he was dead, they invented from the father of lies a notorious falsehood which is sufficient to manifest, what Spirit raised the vulgar accusations against him; The whole story is related by Lonicer 
a Theatr. pag. 246. . as followeth.  
A horrible miracle, and such as was never heard of before, that God who for ever is to be praised, in the fowl death of Martin Luther, damned in body and soul, showed for the glory of Christ, and the amendment and comfort of the godly. When Martin Luther fell into his disease, he desired the body of our Lord jesus to be communicated to him; which having received, he died soon after. And when he saw his end approach, he desired that his body might be laid on the altar, and worshipped with divine honours. But God willing at the length to make an end of horrible errors, by a huge miracle warned the people to desist from the impiety that Luther had brought in. For his body being laid in the grave, on the sudden such a tumult and terror arose, as if the foundation of the earth had been shaken: Whereupon they that were present at the funeral grew amazed with fear, and lifting up their eyes saw the holy host hanging in the air. Wherefore with great devotion they took it, and laid it in a holy place▪ which being done, this hellish noise was heard no more. The next night after was heard a noise & cracking about Luther's tomb, much louder than before, which waked all that were in the city out of their sleep, crembling & almost dead for fear. Wherefore in the morning opening the sepulchre where Luther's detestable body was laid, they found neither body, nor bones, nor , but a stink of brimstone coming out of the grave, had well-nigh killed all the standers by. By the which miracle, many being terrified, reform their lives to the honour of the Christian faith and the glory of jesus Christ. This fable travailing out of Italy, from whence many lies proceed, into Germany met with Luther, from whom it received this entertainment.  
I Martin Luther, by this my hand writing confess and testify, that upon the 21. of March I received this fiction, concerning my death, as it was full of malice and madness: and I read it with a glad mind, and a cheerful countenance, but yet detested this blasphemy, whereby a stinking lie is fathered upon the divine Majesty of God. As concerning the rest, I cannot but laugh at the Devil's malice, wherewith he and his rout, the Pope and his complices pursue me. And God convert them from this devilish malice. But if this my prayer be for the sin that is unto death, that it cannot be heard, than God grant they may fill up the measure of their sinew, and with such lying libels as this, let them delight themselves one with another, to the full.  
Now our Jesuits charge here, is advantage picked from a temptation of Luther, which they would willingly interpret his instruction, when as Luther was disputed against, and not the Mass. For he tells us, the jesuite here being his interpreter, I was willing to defend my Innocency, and therefore I listened unto him to see what he could say etc. Secondly, the Devil's charges are to draw him to despair. Thou hast had no knowledge of Christ, nor true faith at all etc. How couldst thou consecrate, when thou wast not a person apt, etc. Thou hast consecrated otherwise, than Christ either willed, or ordained, etc. This drove him into anguish & perplexity, which is the fruit of temptation, the effect of the Devil accusing a conscience, not instructing an understanding. Thirdly, in regard the jesuite urgeth Luther's words, he should have enquired what Luther meant by them, which he might easily have found out, if he had looked a little further; For he acknowledgeth this a temptation, saying, If I were a Papist ignorant of temptations, whom the Devil neglects, as those which follow their lusts 
b Luther. de missa privata & unctione sacerdotum. Si Papista essem omnium tentationum rudis, quem securum & stertentem Satan negligeret, ut ipsos negligit indulgentes fuis cupiditatibus etc.  etc. Besides he saith, this was no other, than Christ himself suffered, although he was without sin 
c Ibid & Christus ipse quamvis sine peccato, propter nos in quantis lachrymis, in quibus augustijs agonizavit, in his agonibus contra Satanam. . Again, speaking of the fearful violence of Satan, he saith, that no heart of man could endure, except God be with him *, which he could not expect, if he had given himself over, to have been instructed by the Devil. 
ᵈ Ibid. Nec n. humanum cor horrendum hunc & ineffabilem impetum, nisi Deus illi adsit, perferre potest.  Further he makes judas 
e Ibid. Vti cogitatio illa, quae judae cor percussit, vera, Tradidi sanguinem justum.  & Caius 
f Ibid. Sed ibi mentitur Satan, quando ultrà neget, ut desperem de gratia: Sicut Cain dicebat: majus est pec catum meum.  temptations, as examples; to illustrate this. At last he expresseth what he resolved; (which was far from a Devil's Pupil,) to turn to Christ with Peter, and to have an eye to his wonderful mercy and merit 
g Ibid Sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro, & respi cio ejus immensum beneficium & meritum. .  
So that the Reader may perceive what prodigious tales are raised by these Jesuits to abuse the memory of Luther, who did with one stroke (God assisting him) cut in pieces those ligatures, wherewith Hell and Antichrist were united together. And thus you see the false accusation of Luther answered, and according to truth; but if I would have been guided by Popish example, I might have said, as they have done, that one Devil might plead for God against their whole kingdom 
i Histor de tribus Energumenis edit. Parisanno 1623. pag 04. Et Daemon ex ore sororis Francis●ae coepit clamare: Nos hic tuemur partem Dei contra Luciferum, & omnem infernum. ; that the Devil impugned Private Mass, compelled thereunto by God, and not from his own inclination 
k Ibid Et Daemon exore sororis Catharinae dicebat: Veré à Deo cogimur ad hoc. et postea Deus est qui in hunc modum cogit nos loqui. Et pag. 109. Affirmabat Belz. quod Deus haec ei revelasset, & quia eadem non publicasset ex propria sua voluntate, sed vi adactus. Ibid pag 327. Tres Daemons confirmârunt singuli jura mento, nihil est quod proveniat ex Diabolo, & quod omnia sunt à Deo vivo. , that the Devil might speak that which proceeded not from himself, but from the living God; that the Devil might minister to Christ more zealously, then most illuminate Popish Preachers 
l Ibid pag. 797. De ministerio Daemonis Verini. Possum dicere quod plures audiveram in Ecclesia Praedicatores, viros sanctos, & valde illuminatos: & hujus comparatione voces emortuas dixisses. ; that God might speak by Devils, as by Balaam, or his ass 
m Ibid. pag. ●35. Neque decrevit quidpiam verbo Dei ex hoc quod per Asinam prolatum est, aut per Balaam membrum Diaboli. : But these are shifts of him, that confesseth the doctrine, which he would confirm, to be from the Devil, which we scornfully, and with derision cast from us. Yet if the jesuite will lend an ear, it is not much to prove many particulars of Popish Doctrine to be that, which he laboureth to prove the denial of private Mass to be. For the point betwixt the Dominicans and the Franciscans, concerning the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Marie, is on both sides confirmed by revelations 
n Wadding: Legat De Concept. Virg. Mariae, sect. 3. orat. 10. §. 4. Haec sunt quae ex D. Catharinae S●nen. opponunt maculatae conceptionis assertores, revelationibus B. Brigittae. : now God is not ad oppositum, he never resists himself, and therefore, as they confess, one or the other must needs make use of the Devil for confirmation of their Doctrine 
o Ibid Docte & Christiane judicant non posse dari in Ecclesia Dei revelationes contrarias, & de eadem re inter se pugnantes, dum unam necesse sit esse mendacem, & à spiritu illusore, non à Deo, (qui mendacij author non potest esse) prodijsse. .  
Besides, what points of your new Creed have not been beholding to new miracles for their new entertainment in the Church of God; you have told us sufficient of Transubstantiation 
p See the Jesuits Preface to the Reader and his Reply pag. 283. , and Alexander of Hales 
q Alex. de Hales. sum. Theol p. 4. q. 10. m. 2. ar. 4. §. 3. Quia ergo extensio ipsius Sacramenti debet fieri per indicia vera, & non simulata vel ficta: videtur dicendum quod caro vel sanguis in hujusmodi apparitione, quando à Domino est: est ipsius Domini. (A Domino esse dico: quia huiasmodi apparitiones quandoque accidunt humanâ procuratione & sort Diabolicâ.)— Ad illud quod objicitur: quod caro, quae apparet, quandoque computrescit etc. dicendum, quòd hoc nunquam accidit, quando ab ipso Domino est hujusmodi apparitio: sed solummodo quando fit HUMANA procuratione, vel fortè DIABOLICA operatione.  shall either be your Accuser or Expositor, whether you please.  
Further in the point of Purgatory, Bellarmine inquires, Whether the souls therein, are sure of eternal salvation, and tells that Dionysius Carthusianus denyeth it in regard of certain visions 
r Bellarm lib. 2. De Purgato cap. 4. Quidam Catholici existimant varias esse in Purgatorio poenas, & unam esse omnium maximam incertitudinem salutis, qua dicunt quasdam solùm animas multari, quae licet revera certò salvandae sint, tamen ipsas hoc ignorare▪ ita videtur ●entire Dionysius Carthusianus ob quasdam visiones, quas ipse refert libro de 4. novissimis, ar. 47. ; and yet this crosseth the opinion of their Divines 
s Ibid. At communis Theologorum sententia est omnes animas quae in Purgatorio sunt habere certitudinem suae salutis. , so that either the Devil doth teach some of their Divines, or else the troop of their Divines resist the visions from God.  
But what need we to run about to find, who hath taught Papists so much of their new faith, when they have Devils allowed Preachers, and justified to be the mouth and instrumental oracles 
t Histor. de tribus Energumenis supra citat. pag. 935. Oraculum potest a●cipi instrumentaliter, ut eraculum idem sit quod o● Spiritus sancti, & in hoc sensu sicut in creaturis insensibilibus &c▪ ita nihil absurdi sequitur ex hoc quod Deus facit Daemonem os suum.  of the spirit of God. Yea so lively and zealous is Verine the Devil reported to be 
n Ibid. pag. 797 Constat Daemonem Verinum multas actiones fecisse in quibus Christo ministravit, sanctos laudavit, & beatam Virginem, & multa disseruit de vitijs & vir●utibus, de vitâ aeternâ, inferno, & concilijs Evangelicis quae benè vivero docent. In quibus duo admir●tione dig na concurrebant. Primò, quod sermo ipsius erat arde●s & vivens, & crediderim, quod si Angelus de coelo, aut Apostolorum quispiam descendisset, non potuisset aliter loqui. loquebatur enim ut potestatem habens, & erant verba illius ut faculae ardentes, & corda illorum ●epida inflammabant. Vnde qui audiebant eum, ubertini flebant, & obliviscebantur vitae prae●eritae, alij ●undeb●●● pectora, alij extra se rapti, altâ vo●● cl●mabant, ●iserere Domine, Domine ●iserere, alij vitam in melius mutaverunt, alij saeculo re●●●tiârunt. Possum dicere, quod plures audiveram in Ecclesiâ Praedicatores, viros sanctos & valdè illuminatos: & hujus comparatione, voces emortuas dixisses. , that neither Angel, nor Apostle could speak otherwise, praising the saints, the blessed Virgin, disputing of virtues, vices, life eternal, hell, and Evangelicall Counsels: So that some of his hearers wept, some did beat their breasts, some cried Miserere, some changed their lives, some entered the Cloister; Yea so excellent is he in preaching, that the Popish Preachers, which were holy and illuminate, were (but like the white of an egg) without relish if compared with him.  
But will you see what Doctrines these infernal oracles be approovers of? They teach the great Doctrine of Popish Idolatry, by their word, and practise the adoration of the Ho●st 
x Ibid pag. 3 Compulsi fuerunt duo ex daemonibus dare gloriam & honorem Domino jesu christo, & adoraverunt cum sub sacra Hostia verbo & gestu corporis.   
Secondly, they defend the Doctrine of the Papal extent and use of the will 
y Ibid. pag. 101 et 102. V●us daemonum dixit, non est qui possit h●mini adimere liberum arbitrium. & paula post. Et dixit unus daemonum, non vult ipsa uti suâ libertate, et si vellet uti suâ libertate, non incideret in m●la qu● committest. .  
Thirdly, their practice instructeth to swear by the venerable Sacrament 
z Ibid. pag. 104. Daemon— jurabat s●lenniter per venerabile Sacramentum, quòd sic res se haberet. & postea. jurav●t juramentum so ●nne per venerabile ●acramentum. .  
Fourthly, they confute the Protestants generally in the point of Antichrist,  
1. That his name is not as old Irenaeus intimated, and we teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but Tu es Deus coeli atque terrae 
a Ibid. pag. 71. Be zebub et Leviathan dixeruat principi moderno, et Lodo●co quod nominarent cum hoc nomine, Tu es Dius coeli atque terr●. .  
2. The two beasts, Apoc. 13. and 17. are not the same. but the first Lucifer, the second Antichrist 
b Ibid. pag. 94: De duabus bestijs Apocalyps●oslocuta est in hunc modum: Audivi● Diab●lo quod duarum bestiarum quae venire habent sub finem mundi, alter est Lucif●●, altar Antichristu●. .  
In the generation of Antichrist, see how Bellarmine and the Devil agree; Antichrist is borne of the Devil. 
c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non esset tamen error, si quis diceret, Antichristum nasciturum ex Diabolo & mu●ere &c. Histor. de tribus Energum. pag. ●●. Nunc natus est, & non ex coi●● viri, sed per operationem diaboli. , His mother a jew 
d Bellarm. ibid. Sententia est Antichristum nasciturum de tribu Dan. Histor. de tribus energ. pag. 59 Mater ejus Iudaea est. ; The jews will receive him as a Messiah 
e Bellarm ibid. Quòd Antichristus sit futurus judaeus, & circumcisus, certum est, & deducitur primùm ex dictis Nam Iud●i nunquam reciperent hominem non judaeum, aut incircumcisum pro suo Messià. Histor de tribus energ. pag. 61. Vocatur etiam Christus, Rex, Messiah ; He shall not reign at Rome, but at Jerusalem 
f Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. ●. cap. 13. Vera sententia est, Antichristi sedem fore Jerusalem, non Romam Histor. de ●●bus Energ. pag. 59 Non habitabit Romae, matter ●jus nutrit eum ; He shall not receive Baptism in the Church, but be circumcised 
g Historia de tribus Energum. pag. 59 Non in Ecclesia nomen impositum est ei●, neque in Ecclesia baptismum accepit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 12. Antichristus sit futurus judaeus & circumcifus. , He shallbe Monarch of the whole world 
h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. ●● dicunt.— Antichristum omni●m Princi●●● 〈◊〉 Histor. de tribus energum. pag. ●9. Dominabitur per universum 〈◊〉 ad omnes perveniet principatus ejus. . Now let the Reader behold, who is most beholding to the Devil for their Doctrine, Rome, or the Catholic Church; Antichrist, or the Protoplast of Protestancy?  
And to show us how confirmed they are to follow lies, the jesuite doth margin his citation against Luther with a note, The Devil allegeth Scripture, as if it were no better than a Devilish practice to be instructed from God & his Word. I will say nothing in answer to these blasphemies, only Increpet vos Deus 
* jude 9 , the Lord rebuke every proud tongue, that dare attempt so high despite against God and his truth. The jesuite proceeds, L●c here the Devil's disputation against the Private Mass, which I thought good to lay down thus at large 
i Reply pag. 17● .  
Here the jesuite beginneth to triumph, but upon what reason, the precedent discourse will declare; yet his intent is pious, that my poor deluded Countryman may understand whither his new Masters do lead him. 
k Ibid. . The Owl might leave preaching, unless it be to night birds; for the jesuite may assure himself, that this most reverend Lord will never be so deceived 
† Ruffin. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est, scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere. , as to be taken with his delusions, which are grounded upon so  a persuasion as Dabunt signa monstrous miracles, and tale-Divinity. His masters are CHRIST and his Apostles, neither doth he refuse the sacred Chorus of the ancient Church; these have not been seducers, they neither delude, nor draw into errors; they will consume your man of sin; and because you fear the consumption, you disgrace their effects and operations, making the reading of the sacred scriptures 
l Reply pag. 17 , the cause of most horrible impieties, reviling with your tongue-prodigies GOD'S heavenly lamps, lest they should declare your filth by their celestial light.  
The holy Sacrifice of the Mass hath triumphed in the Church of God even from the beginning, and shall continue mangre all Opposers, unto the end 
m Reply pag. 17 . etc.  
If the jesuite mean by the sacrifice of the Mass, the administration of the body and blood of Christ, whereby the sacrifice of Christ's death is commemorated unto us, he hath no Adversary: For we know it was instituted by Christ and hath been continued perpetually by the Catholic Church, even to these very times. But if he mean, by the sacrifice of the Mass, that outward visible sacrifice made by the Priest alone, 
n Concil: Trid. Sess: 22. cap. 6. Sacrosancta Synodus Missas illas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicate, non modo non damna● ut illicitas, sed etiam probat atque commendat. : wherein CHRIST is pretended really to be sacrificed; this was never in the ancient Church, much less triumphed therein: and although the jesuite would have it ancient, yet it was not borne in the father's time 
o Erasmus de concord. Eccles. versus sinem. Sunt qui in Missa comm●nionem requirant: sic, fateor, a Christo suit institutum, & ita olim consuevit observari Cas●ander Consult. art. 24. §. De iteratione, pag. 223.  ex tota Canonis compositione manifestè apparet, totam ill●●●ysticam, in qua Canon adhibebatur, actionem vel publicam, vel certe inter plures semper celebratam suisse. Quod si ●odie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 queat, facile verus ●ius intellectus restitui possit. , but brought into the Church, by the decay of Devotion on the people's part 
p Erasmus de amab. concord. Ecclesiae. Verum id quo minus fiat, haud stat per sacerdotes sed per laices, in quibus h●u nimium refrixit charitas. , which defection it hath still nourished.  
The word sacrifice (indeed) was in use amongst the father's▪ though Calvin thought it was abused; neither did they, or the Church of Rome, thereby hold it a real sacrificing of Christ, but a commemoration of his death 
q Lombard. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 12. par. 2. Quaeritur. Si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: & si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantum immolatus sit: Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium & oblationem: quia memoria est & repraesentatio ve●i sacrificii, & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in cr●ce est, ibique immelatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento: quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. , and therefore Calvin himself saith, that your impiety in that particular being considered with the abuse of the ancients, there would appear between them and you an unmeasurable distance 
r Calvin lib. devera Eccles. reform. extat in Tractat. Theolog: Calvini etc. pag. 389. Vtrumque illis concedo veteres non m●do sacri●ici●●oce abuso● esse, sed. etiam caeremoniâ. Verum, sireputemus quantum a veterum corruptelâ distet quae nunc abipsis fucatur ●●pietas, immensum est ferè intervallum. , and therefore the jesuite abuseth their adversaries, in making them to impute that to the fathers, which they knew these never held. Whereby the jesuit might see how vain he is in making us to be enemies of this mystery, when we only oppose their popish innovations and defiling of so sacred an institution. And whereas the jesuite would make Luther the first oppugner of private Mass, it is a good argument, that many were a sleep when it first came into the Church, seeing many of themselves forced by the testimony of the ancient Fathers, confess, that it was not according to the ancient use of the Church of God.  
Ignatius maketh all to communicate, and all in both kinds 
s Ignatius ad Philadelphenses Vnuspanis omnibus confractus & unus calix, qui omnibus distributus est. , in receiving of this blessed Sacrament. Chrysostome 
t Chrysostomus in: Cor: Homil. ●8 Est autem ubi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito, ut quando fruendum est ho●●endis mysterijs: similiter enim omnesut illa percipiamus digni habemur: Non ficut in veteri lege, partem quidem sacerdos comedebat, partem autem populus, & non licebat populo participer● esse corum quorum particept erat sacerdos: sed nunc non sic, verum omnibus unum corpus propon●●● & poculum ●um;  maketh Priest and People all alike. This is acknowledged to be the practice of the primitive times by Innocent the third 
Innocent. 3. lib. 6. Myster. Missae cap. 5. In primitiva quidem Ecclesia singulis diebus, qui celebrationi Missarum intererant, communicare solebant: sed excrescente multitudi●e &c , and by Durand 
Dur. ra●. l. 4. c. 53. In p●●mitiva Ecclesiâ omnes, qui celebrationi ●●issarum inter●rant, singulis diebus communicar● (●lebant, co quòd Apostoli omnes de ●alice biber●●. Domi●● dicence, Bibite ex●●oc ●mnes. , And to preserve pious minds from embracing this fond persuasion of the Jesuits, that Luther first impugned Private Mass, I desire that they would consider with what impatience Chrysostome would have prosecuted the same, when he expresseth bitterness even against the people's neglect of communicating. Indeed he could not actually dispute against that which was not, yet we may conceive by his words, how he would have approved of Private Mass, if it had received being in those times: For he with vehemency declareth, that it is in vain for the Priest to attend the Altar, where the people do not communicate 
y Chrysost. homil. 61. ad populum Antiochen O consuetudinem, ● 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 frustra quotidi anum. Incassum a●sistimus altari, nullus qui communicetur. . And Cassander will tell you, that this Depravation of the Sacrament in the Popish Church, was distasted in two several Counsels, & the Priest forbidden to celebr●●● alone 
z Cassander consult. a●. 24. §. de solitarijs missis pag. 21, Ex Canone quodam c●●cilij Nanetensis Sacerdos solus Missam celebrare vetatur, absurdum enim est, ut dicat, Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, Gratias agamus Deo Domino nostro, cùm nullus sit qui respondeat,- aut Oremus, cùm nullus si● qui secum oret. Itaq. concludit ridiculos●●●perstitionem illam maximè à monasterijs monachorum exterminandam esse.▪ Et huic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreto simile reperitur in conc▪ Papiensi, cap. ●32. ut ●●llus presbyter sol●● 〈◊〉 celebrare praesumat. . But if Luther had first opposed this practice, did he not well? was it not better to reduce things to that good order, from which they were fallen, then to curse them who will not have things to continued unorderly still? See the whole face of the ancient Church; see the confession of your own Doctors, C●●hl●us 
a Cochlaeus de●acr●ficio Mi●sae. Quòd, inquit 〈◊〉 tam frequentes non 〈◊〉 Missae, inde accidisse arbit●or, quòd olim omnes tum Sacerdotes▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter●rant sacrificio Missae peractâ oblatione, cum●acrificāte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex C●●. Apost. & ex lib●is atque epist antiquissimor● Ecclesiae Doctorun perspicuè co●●oscitur. Tum adjungit: Nunc verò postquam Communionis ordo à nobis observa●● 〈◊〉, idque propter negligentiam atque so●●●diā tam plebis quam sacetdotum, Spiritus Sanctus missas privatas celebr●●do, 〈◊〉 remed●●●●ic defector invenit. Teste Hospin. l 4. hist. sacr. pag. 330. 331.  & Cassander 
b Cassa●●. con● a●●4. §. De iteratione, pag. 223. Dubium non est, quin unà cum ipso Sacerdote all qui ad●●●rint, qui haec 〈◊〉 laudis offerebant, & Sacramentum 〈◊〉. Id enim 〈◊〉 verba manifestè significant, ut cùm dicitur, Quotquot ex ha●●ltaris participatione sacr●sanct● corpus et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tui sumps●ri●●●●●t●m, Prosi●●●obis Domine, Sacramenta quae sump●imus: Certè ex totâ Canonis compositione manifest● apparet, totam illam mysticam, in quâ Canon ad●●bebatur, actionem vel publican, velce●● inter plures semp●● celebratam suisse, Quòd si ●odiè quoque impetrari qu●at, facil● verus ejus intellectus restitui 〈◊〉. , & tell me whether this be the doctrine of Devils, that was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Fathers of the first ages; or those practices which were brought into the Church by prescripts of men (though imputed to the holy Ghost) propter negligentiam & socordiam 〈◊〉 plebis qu●m sacerdotal 
c Vid● lit. ●● , by the negligence & slothfulness aswell of the people, as of the Priests?  
The jesuite now cometh to the second instance, and would persuade, that the Answerer doth fare more idly range from the matter in this instance concerning the time, when the People fill first from their vulgar languages 
d Reply pag. ●8 .  
The end of the most learned Answerer his whole discourse, is to point out the vanity of the Jesuits demand, and to this purpose, he manifestly declareth, that all their profane Novelties were not effected by any one Bishop of Rome, or in one Pope's days; But that some alterations within the Roman territories, are to be attributed to the very change of time itself, not being prevented by the Roman Pastors whom the jesuite pretendeth to have been so diligent and watchful. An experiment whereof we may see in the use of the Latin service in the Churches of Italy, France and Spain, which was used in those Countries from the beginning (the Latin tongue being at that time commonly understood of all) and afterwards by little and little degenerated into those v●lgar languages which now are used. This piercing Argument of the most learned Answerer against the Jesuits Demand, is thought to be avoided by him with an idle chat.  
First he telleth us, that this abuse belongeth not to any point of Religion 
e Reply pag. 18 , which we confess; but it is a great help and pillar to irreligion 
f Aquinas coming 1. Cor. 14. fol. 100 Duplex est fructus orationis.— Alius est spiritualis consolatio, & devotio concepta ex oratione. Et quantum ad fructum devotionis sp●rituali●, privatur qui non attendi● ad ●a quae ●rat, ●●● non intelligit. , that the service of the Church should be continued in a language, which keepeth men from hearing God, and knowing his will. And yet what belongeth to Religion, if this doth not, that the People should both pray to God intelligently 
g Lyra in cap. 14. 1. Cor. Hic▪ consequenter idem o●●endit in oratio●● publicâ. quia ●i populus inte●ligat ●r●tionem, ●●● benedictionem sacer dotis, melius reducitur in D●●m, & 〈◊〉 der Amen. , & receive instruction from him in a language which they familiarly understand? Secondly he saith, that this change was unadvisedly brought in by him for an example 
Reply pag. 18 . I pray you tell us, of what this was produced an example? Thirdly, he persuadeth, that it was untruelie affirmed that the Latin tongue in the beginning of the Church, was commonly understood of all in Italy, France, and Spain, for the two last had their proper vulgar language, fare differing from the Latin 
Ibid. . But is not English common in Ireland at this day? and commonly understood? and yet the Irish have a proper language of their own. Why may not the same be affirmed of France and Spain in the Primitive times? were not they under the Roman government? were there not several Colonies in each of them? do you think they left their language when they departed their Country? Do not the Latin remains show their usual Speech? Any may see who is not blind, that although the Goths, Vandals, and Moors, by their intermixtures have somewhat corrupted the same 
Bellarm▪ libro 2. cap. 15. De verbo Dei. Ante M. C. annos (Hispania) seperata ●●it à Romano imperio & subj●●●● pa●tim Gothis, partim M●uris, qui novam linguam 〈◊〉 dubio invexerunt. , yet they brought their Religion and language at first from Rome. And therefore what the jesuite taketh from the concession of the most learned Answerer, maketh nothing for his advantage vizt. that when be granteth that the Latin service was used in those Countries from the beginning etc. full well and friendly doth he justify our use of the Latin service 
l Reply pag 18  etc. For this is fare from freely justifying the present Latin service, because it was in primitive times unless he can make it as generally to be understood in France and Spain at this day, as it was sometime in Spain before the Latin ceased to be the vulgar language in that Country 
m Bellarm. de v●●bo Dei. lib 2. cap. 15. A multis jam seculis des●●t in Hispaniâlingua latina esse v●●garis. .  
But our jesuite confident in his variety resolveth, not to trouble the most learned Answerer with any more demands until such time, as he shall have thought upon some better Answerer to my challenge, for as we have seen (saith he) hitherto he hath well played the answerless Answerer indeed, concluding at last out of Arnobius, thus, If I be not able to declare unto you by what Bishop of Rome, and in what Popes days, the simplicity of the ancient faith was first Corrupted, it will not presently follow, that what was done must needs be undone 
n Reply pag. 18▪ and 19 .  
Can there be a better Answer than what hath been given him? For the Demand is not only proved vain by the most learned Answerer, but he hath moreover answered the fool in his folly, and satisfied the vain demandant, not confessing his disability therein, (as the jesuite would persuade) but pointing out the original of those bastard births, which he doth struggle to legittimize. Yet the jesuite being hard pressed with Arnobius, who directly affirmeth that the truth of a matter of fact, doth not depend upon any man's knowledge, or detection, replieth.  
Indeed I grant, that, if we had agreed that it was done, we ought not to pose you about the time when it was done, but we denying that it is done, and having already proved that unless it be shown when it was done, it must needs follow that it was never done, without doubt when you confess that you are not able to show when it was done, you declare plainly, that it is not ●● yet done 
Reply pag. 19 . But is here any syllable that answereth Arnobius? is not the answer answerless indeed? For first Arnobius is produced to prove that a thing may be done, though it cannot be shown how it was done; and the jesuite for answer thereof, telleth us, that he hath proved the contrary; but we are not tied to believe him, until he pointeth out the time when, and the place where it was done, this being necessary by his own rule. Besides the jesuite doth not consider, how he shakes the foundation of their Roman faith; (Peter seat, and Peter's successor) by this his assertion. For the first, Have the Protestants agreed that Peter placed his seat at Rome? The jesuit knoweth, they altogether oppose the same: yet if we argue from the uncertainty of time, when Peter did that grea● work, that it was never done, Bellarmine answers us, that though their Divines disagree when it was done, yet it doth not at all weaken the matter of fact, but that it was done 
p De Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. ●. Respondeo, discordiam de tempore, si qua esset, quo Petrus Romam venit non infirmare sententiam nostram, quòd Petrus Romam venerit. Nam saepissimè accidit, ut constet de re, & non constet de modo, vel alia circumstantia. . Further it is the great foundation of your Roman faith, that S. Peter left the Bishops of Rome his successors, which we believe was not done: shall this article together with the Roman church fall to the ground, unless you can certainly lay us down his immediate successor to whom he delivered this Commission? Bellarmin is a greater friend to the Papacy, than so: Etiamsi plane ignoraremus quis Petro proximè successerit, non tamen proptereà in dubium revocari debere an aliqui● successerit 
q Bellarm. de R●m. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 5. . Although we be ignorant (saith he) of the person that immediately succeeded Peter, yet doth it not breed any scruple, that he had no successor at all. Now compare these harpers together, and you shall perceive, that either our jesuite wanteth skill, or else his instrument is out of tune, for otherwise he would not jangle thus against their Master-Musitian, that unless we can show him the time when a thing is done, it must needs follow that it was never done.  
Whereby also it appeareth how fare that parable of the good and bad seed (saith the jesuite) by you alleged, is from furthering of your cause 
r Reply pag. 19 . Here is a discourse laced with wise observations. First because the demaunders acknowledged the bad seed 
s Ibid. . But how knew they that seed to be bad, which they never saw? was it not by the blade, as evil trees by their fruit? or was it by comparing it with the blade of the good seed, as we examine heresies, by Apostolic doctrine? Secondly, (saith the jesuite) the Master ●old them the party by whom it was s●wen 
t 〈◊〉 . Yet the Servants told the Master that they were tares, before the Master told them who was the seedsman: and why in like manner may not we discover heresies before the heretics that brought them in? Thirdly, by the text (saith he) we 〈◊〉 when it was sown, to wit, when men were asleep 
u 〈◊〉 .  
But will such a time satisfy the jesuite, if it be laid down by us? will this answer the Jesuits demands, What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400. years? In what Pope his days was the true Religion overthrown in Rome 
x See the Jesuits preface to the Reader. ? if it do not, he abuseth the parable: if it do, let him receive his answer in the second page of the Answer to his Challenge, where this most reverend Lord, telleth him, that they who kept continual watch and ward against heresies which openly oppose the foundations of our faith, might sleep while the seeds of the Roman Apostasy were a sowing. And now let the Reader consider, how slightly and shiftingly the jesuite hath cast off this parable of the seed.  
Well then our Answerer telleth us (saith the jesuite) that in the tenth age, men not only slumbered, but snorted also, by the testimonies of our own Authors Genebrard, Baronius, and Bellarmine, and what then? must this (saith he) enforce me to yield that the Devil brought in no tares all that while, but let slip the opportunity of so dark a night, and slept himself for company? No Sr the case is clear, he did not sleep, but bestirred himself most busily in soweing then his tares abundantly. Then brought he in all those vices, which at that time reigned both in Princes and Prelates, and made that age so unhappy, yet God's divine providence (saith Bellarmine in the very place alleged by you) did so work that no new heresies did then arise 
y Reply pag. 19 .  
Here we have many things seemingly confessed by this jesuite. First, that the visibility of the Roman Church hath passed through an obscure age. Secondly, that the light of the Roman Church could not free that age from darkness. Thirdly, that the Spirit which assisted Popes & Princes in those times, was the Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience 
* Eph. ●. ●. . Fourthly, that Heresies might have come into the Church of Rome, for any care the Pope had to keep them out, if GOD'S divine providence had not prevented them. Fiftly, that the Devil abundantly sowed his tares of vices in Princes & Prelates, yet God's divine providence did so work, that no new Heresies did then arise. Is not here a brave defence to make the Answerer his argument to languish and sleep for ever? Surely the jesuite was betwixt sleeping and waking, that he said he knew not what.  
But did the Devil think no ground fit for his tares, but Princes and Prelates? Surely we are able to demonstrate, that this bad blind sleepy age, did give seedtime for innumerable corruptions in others also: yea, so flourishing were the blossoms, and prodigious the fruit; which sprung from that seed husbanded by the Devil; that it infected the whole Roman Church in such a manner, that Gerebertus in his Apology for the Council of Rheims, put his petition up to Christ in Heaven, as having no hope for good in the Roman Church upon earth, it being so far infected, that losing the nature of a mother, she cursed the good, blessed the evil, communicated with those, whom she ought not to salute, bound them with excommunication, whom Christ had freed, being accepted of him and zealous of his law 
z Gereber. Apolog. pro Rhemens'. Concil. post acta. Concil. Rhem. Sed una salus hominis; o Christ, ●●●e●. Ipsa Roma omnium Ecclesiarum hactenus habita matter, bonis maledicere, malis benedicere far tur, & quibus nec Ave dicendum est, com●●●icare: tuamque legem zelantes damnare, abutens ligandi & solvendi potestate à te acceptâ. .  
And so corrupt was that age, that all virtue was consumed both in head and members 
a Io. Stella in vitâ Benedicti ●. Papae 122. Acciderat illi aetati quòd omnis virtus tam in capite quam in membris, ex hominum ignaviâ consumpta suerit. ; nay, so fare was Religion out of date, that Priests and Bishops durst not speak of justice or righteousness, in regard they neither loved nor practised it 
b A●lfric. serm▪ ad Sacerdotes MS. in Biblioth. Colleg. Benedict. Cantabrig. His diebus tanta negligentia est in Sacerdotibus & Episcopis, qui deberent esse ●o●umnae Ecclesiae, ut 〈◊〉 non audent de justitia loqui; qui justitiam nec faciunt, nec diligunt. . But the jesuite thinketh all is well, if Princes and Prelates were defiled together; Yet Wernerus their own Carthusian may assure us, that our jesuite putteth Princes (causelessly) into a lewd company, when as he coupleth them with Popes; for he telleth us, it was most apparent that Holiness had left the Pope, and fled to the Emperors 
c Werner. Fascic. temp●tat. 6. circ. an. 944. Sanctitatem Papam dimisisse, & ad Imperatore● accessisse hoc tempore;— clar● apparet. , which is clear on the one side also by the testimony of their own Baronius, who saith, that most sordid whoo●es governed at Rome, their lustful mates ascending the Chair 
d Baron. tom. 10. Annal. an. 912. §. 8. Quae tunc facies sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae? quàm foedissisima, cùm Romae dominarentur potentiffimae aequè  ac fordidissimae meretrices quarum arbitrio mutaren●●r sedes, daren●ur Epis●opi, & quod auditu horrendum & infandum est, intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum ama●●p●eud● pontifices. .  
Here first this jesuite hath abused Princes, as their usual practice is, in joining them with such filthy and foul-lived wretches, as their Popes are confessed and acknowledged to be; when Princes have reprehended and loathed them, labouring to bring them to reformation, as Otto and the Roman Synod did john the 12. or 13. (for you agree not whether he is) calling him to purge himself of most fearful offences, as Homicide, Perjury, Sacrilege, Incest, drinking the Devil's health, Dicing, invocating jupiter, Venus and other Devils 
e ●uitprand. Ti●inens. Hister. l. 6. c. 9 ●▪ 10. Summo Pontifici et universali Papae. Domino johanni. Otto divinae respectu clementiae, Imperator Augustus cum Archiepiscopis Liguriae, Tusciae, Saxoniae, Franciae in Domino salutem. Romam ob servitium Dei venientes dum filios vestros Romanos scilicet Episcopos, Cardinals, Presbyteros, Diaconos, et universam plebem de vestra absentia percontaremur, et quid caussae esset, quòd nos Ecclesiae vestrae, vestrique defensores, videre noluissetis; talia de vobis tamque ob●●oena protulerunt, ut si de hi●● o●ibus dicerentur. vobis verecundiam ingererent. Quae ne magnitudinem vestram omnia lateant, quaedam vobis sub brevitate d●scribimus, quum si cuncta nominatim exprimere cuperemus, dies nobis non sufficeret unus. Noveritis itaque non à paucis, sed ab omnibus tam vestri quam alterius ordinis, vos homicidij, perjurij, sacrilegij, et expropria cognatione, atque ex duabus sororibus incesti crimine esse accusato● Dicunt et aliud aud●●● ipso horrendum, Diaboli vos in amore● vi●um bibisse etc. . Neither let the jesuite think, that the Devil made them so evil men, and yet left them good Bishops to preserve the purity of Catholic doctrine, this surely would be a Paradox in all places but at Rome; where they acknowledge, doctrines were not as the ancient Prophecies delivered to the Church by holy men, as the Spirit gave them utterance, but brought in by such, that were not able to rule their own houses well, and therefore fare unfit to be governor's of the Church of God.  
And as the jesuite was deceived in the Devil's arable land, so with Bellarmine is he mistaken in the seed also. For i● i● probable; that he who did sow seeds of Heresy in the slumbering age before this snorting nap, would be idle when he was altogether without resistance? If Image-worship got footing when their eyes were open, may we not expect, that other heresies came in, when they were fast asleep? In what primitive times durst an Image by rolling eyes, and sweeting knavery require adoration from the people? Durst any godly Bishop's decree for this idolatry in the first six ages? No: this Heresy was resisted by three hundred thirty eight Bishops at Constantinople, Anno 754. And though afterwards it got strength at Nice, was defended by Rome, and at last got to be Roman faith; yet was the same disliked, denied, opposed, resisted by all the good men that lived in that & aftertimes, as Charles the great, the Council of Frankford▪ Lewes his son, the Synod of Paris; Alcuinus, the Church of England and the Waldenses etc.  
Neither did the English distaste it, as an ordinary folly and superstition only, but as contrary to true faith, & such an opinion, which the Church of God did execrate and abhor. All which is fully justified out of ancient monuments by the most learned Answerer 
f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Jesuits challenge, pag. 461. 462. 463. And his book De successione & statu. cap ●. , the jesuite being tongue-tied, replying nothing thereunto.  
But were there no seeds of Heresy in that age? Bellarmine is willing to have it so, and the jesuite is confident in the same opinion; but the truth is, Heresy was embraced of them which should have resisted it; otherwise there would not have been so many fruitless complaints, as holy men poured forth in the immediate following times. Yet how shall we make a true search for Heresies in this age, when Bellarmine himself confesseth that it was unhappy, as affording neither writers of any worth, nor Counsels 
g Bellarm. in Chronol▪ V●de hic, Seculum infelix: in quo nulli Scriptores illustres, nulla Consilia. ? It seems, we must be beholding to their experiences which did observe something when they did awake. Genebrard (then) telleth us, that for almost 150 years, Pontifices circiter 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerint Apotactici Apostaticive potiùs quam Apostolici, About fifty Popes altogether fell away from the virtue of their Ancestors, being disordered and Apostatical rather than Apostolical 
h Genebrard. Chron▪ in Annum Christi. 901.  Others relate, that the Devil got power to elect him, whom Papists now would have to be as an infallible oracle to direct to Heaven 
i Platina in vitâ Silvestri secundi. Gerebertus ambitione et diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate impulsus largitione primò quidem archiepiscopatum Rhemensem, inde Ravennatem adeptus, Pontificatum postremò, maiore conatu adiuvante Diabolo, consecutus est; hac tamen lege, ut post mortem totius illius esset, cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat▪ Aenaeas Sylu. in comment▪ de gestis Basil Concil. lib. 1. Nec ●●● fugit Marcellinum iussu Caesareo idolis thurificàsse: alium vero, quod majus & horribilius est, diabolicâ fraude Romanum pontificatum ascendisse. : Others amazed, mourned for the Church, as if in Rome Satan had been at liberty in perniciem totius Ecclesiae, to the destruction of the whole Church 
k Baron Annal. to●▪ 12. an. 1170. . And many not long after wondering at the face of the Church, concluded that Antichrist had placed his seat in the Church of God 
l Vide reverendum & doctissimum Episcop. Derens. de Antichristo; l; ● cap. 9▪ . Can all this be effected, and not one error creep into your Church, to bespot the Roman Purity? I might tell you that the opinion of the gross and carnal eating of Christ in the Sacrament, had so little admittance in the Church before this careless and snorting time, that in the precedent age it was scorned of the most learned in the Christian Church, Rabanus Bertramus, johannos Scotus etc. I might name you Purgatory, if the most learned Primate had not declared it to be a new devise never heard of in the Church of God for the space of a thousand years after the birth of our Saviour Christ 
* In the answer to the Jesuits challenge pag. 178. . And it were no great matter to show you the Hildebrandine Heresy, which must have had his seeding in this age, or not fare from it. By all which the jesuite may perceive, how sleepy a defence he hath made for a snorting age, and how vainly he deduceth arguments to make good his Popish Religion, from our nescience of person time and place, it being cleared that his demand in respect of these circumstances is merely vain, and that his Digressions do nothing benefit his cause.   

SECT. III.  
IN this piece of Vanity, the jesuite proceeds to discover, How vaynelie our Answerer betaketh himself to the Scriptures 
a Reply pag. 19 , and the jesuite hath showed more vanity in his entrance into this third Section, than I am persuaded he will be able to declare against the Answerer throughout his whole Reply; for he confesseth, that the most learned Answerer hath thus farrerun on answerless 
b Reply ibid. ; a wonderful thing, that he, who hath so domineered, should acknowledge here for a part, as before for the whole, that Responsa ejus which were replied unto sine responsionibus, were answerless, notwithstanding the Reply. Secondly, he telleth us, that the most reverend Primate in betaking himself to the Scriptures, and showing his copiousness of Abilities, hath abandoned all that he hath formerly said 
c Reply ibid. : But if this were forcible and not Vanity, surely we should have vain Answerers amongst their Schoolmen, their Commentators especially, and the more learnedly and fully they express their thoughts, the more vain should they be demonstrated to be, by this line and measure. Thirdly, he insinuateth, that this most reverend Lord is hereby brought to confess, that he cannot by the Jesuits way give them satisfaction 
d Reply ibid.▪ , when as he hath most learnedly and punctually answered each particular of his demand: which showeth in him not Vanity only, but jesuitical impudence, and outfacing falsehood.  
There are other means left, (saith the most learned Answerer) whereby we may discern the tures brought in by the instruments of Satan, from the good seed which was sown by the Apostles of Christ, besides this observation of times and seasons, which will often fail us. But the jesuite would know, what other means are these that yet remain? and the most reverend Primate, hath manifested out of Tertullian 
e Tertull prescript. advers. Haeret cap. 32. , that their very Doctrine itself being compared with the Apostolic, by the diversity and contrariety thereof will pronounce that it had for author, neither any Apostle, nor any man Apostolical 
f Reply pag. 20. .  
I hope, this mean is no new invention, but tertullian's advice; no upstart direction, but the practice of his times; whereby the jesuite may see, that the repugning of the vain pretences of Heretics, may be as well or better performed by comparing their heresies with that doctrine, which is Apostolical, then by the circumstances of person, time and place; which convicteth him of notorious vanity, in making his vain demand, the necessary square to measure heresies by.  
And whereas this jesuite saith, he is content to wink a little for this time, at the Answerers' converghance 
g Reply pag. 20 . The jesuite for one promise keepeth faith, he is not always of Carthage, his speech doth not here bewray him, for he winks indeed, and is so wilfully blind, that he will not take notice of Christ's practice in convincing pharisaical novelties urged by the most learned Primate 
h In his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge.  from Mat. 19 8. from the beginning it was not so: neither Apostolical Council to prescribe against the infection of Seducers crept in at unawares, earnestly to contend for the faith which was first delivered to the Saints 
* jude v. 3. 4. : neither the instrument, Gods Book 
† Luke 1. 4.  written for this purpose, and continued for this end, that it might be a memorial of God's truth for the time to come for ever and ever 
* Esai 3●▪ ●. . Do you think, that if all or any of this, had made for him, or given advantage to his cause, the jesuite would have closed his eyes? I cannot believe that it was courtesy which made him for bear, but the brightness of the testimony, which this 〈◊〉 his tender eyes durst not behold: whereby you may take notice of the jesuits practice, in leaving convincing grounds untouched, that he might the better, and with the less reproof, stile that a vain betaking to the Scriptures, which truly is done in imitation of Christ, and by Apostolical direction. And furthermore who amongst his own will not be ashamed of his wry mouth and cloven tongue, that dare stile that a conveyance which this most reverend Father urgeth from antiquity, citing tertullian's words? Is this the honourer of the ancient Church, that accounteth the judgement of the fathers as the assured touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us 
i In his Epistle to the King. ? Here we see what esteem they may expect at his hands, if they cross his way; for though he forbear to question Tertullian whom he cannot answer, yet you may perceive his direction followed by the most learned Answerer is persecuted by this Mountebank with a base invective.  
But although the jesuite dare not absolutely submit his cause unto this trial, yet for the present he will accept his motion, upon condition, that, if the Answerer come short of proving this way that a change hath been made, that saying of Tertullian shall point at him and his doctrine, and all the rest which he casteth at us, shall fall upon his own head 
k Reply pag 20 . I understand not this condition, nor I think he himself; but if the jesuite convict us by Tertullian his rule, we are content that he shall triumph and be acknowledged a Victor.  
The first instance then produced by the most reverend Primate is this: In the Apostles days, when a man had examined himself, he was admitted unto the Lord's table, there to eat of that bread and drink of that cup: as appeareth plainly, 1. Cor. 11. 28. In the Church of Rome at this day, the people are indeed permitted to eat of the bread (if bread they may call it) but not allowed to drink of the cup. Must all of us now s●●t our eyes, and si●● 
* As it was in the beginning, so now. , Sic●● erat in principio & nunc▪ unless we be able to tell by whom, and when this first institution was altered 
l See the most reverend the Lord Primate his answer to the Jesuits challenge. ? And the jesuite would persuade, that this is a weak argument, by his cross pleading of four things practised by us.  
1. In the Apostles days the faithful received the sacrament after meat in the evening 
* 1. Cor. 11. ●1. , in the Protestants Church at this day it is commonly received fasting and in the morning, therefore it is not with them, sicut erat in principi● & nunc.  
2. In the Apostles days the sick were anointed 
* Mark 6. 3. ja. 5. 14.  with oil, and a commandment given so to do, the Protestants practise no such thing, therefore etc.  
3. In the Apostles days the faithful were commanded to obstaine from eating of blood 
* Act. 15.  and strangled meats. Among the Protestants there is no such abstinence observed. Therefore etc.  
4. Christ when he ministered the sacrament, said 
* Mat. 26: 6. , Take, eat, this is my Body, the Protestants now adays say not so, but take, ●ate this in remembrance, etc. And from this he concludes, that it is not with the Protestants, sicut erat in principio 
m Reply pag. 20  etc.  
here any man may see, that this jesuite dare not stand, to his accepted motion, to be tried by Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, the sacred Scriptures, and therefore he laboureth to weaken the strength thereof; but let him mantle himself in his pretences never so much, this is sufficient to declare that a change hath been made, which is all that the most learned Answerer desireth to conclude. So that if we can declare that Papists, not Protestants in their changes made, have fallen from the purity of Doctrine and practice of primitive times, the jesuite will rest like a Franciscan Novice, demure and tongue-tied for ever.  
For the three first instances, we confess that a change hath been made, and that herein we have followed the practice of those that brought them in. But for the fourth, he deals like a shuffler, and would seem to insinuate, that we have dealt with those words, 
* This is my Body.  Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉, as they have done with some of the Commandments, either cast them out, or put something in the place thereof, as their own 〈◊〉 and Ribad●n●yra 
n The second they have left out; and ●ut in stead of the fourth Commandment, Remember to sanctify the holy Days.  have done: Whe●●● our Church teacheth Children before Confirmation, that the Body and Blood of Christ (which is the inward part or thing signified of the sacrament) are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord's Supper 
o See the Cat●chisme in our Common Prayer Book. , and in the celebration of the Communion, the whole institution is repeated in these words expressly, Take, ●ate, this is my Body which is given for you 
p See there, the Order for the Administration of the Communion. . So that this is but an imaginary change pretended, having no truth in it at all.  
For the Changes confessed, they are not but in things indifferent and ceremonies, which no Papist dare deny but the Church of God had and hath power to alter; CHRIST, as in the Sacrament prescribing the substance, leaving the Ceremony to the ordering of the Church 
r Augustin epistol. 118. Salvator non praecepit, quo deinceps ordine sumeretu●, ut Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat Ecclesiam, servaret hunc lo●●m. Nam si hoc ille monuisset, ut post cibos alios semper acciperetur, credo quòd cum morem nemo variâsset , as is apparent in those words: This do (not thus) in 〈◊〉 of ●ee. Luke 22. 19  
This Answer the jesuite knew would put a period to his vain flourish, and therefore by repeating it, he thinks to avoid the same; as if the rule by Scriptures were of no force, if this answer were permitted: for saith he,  
What force leaveth he to his own argument made against us in a matter of the like indifferency 
s Reply pag. 20. .  
If the jesuite could prove it so, it were something to the purpose, but lame Ignatius here leaves his arms, and falls to crutches; For what are the Arguments he contendeth with?  
1. That there was never any commandment given that the Cup should be given to the Laiety.  
2. That the use of celebration of the Cup was not s● general in the Apostles time etc. And for this he cities a jesuite: and tells us that Cardinal Per●n in his Reply to the King of Great Britain, hath unde●yabli● proved, that upon just cause the Church might change the Communion of both kinds into one, that Cardinal Bellarmine hath most largely disputed he●reof, and clearly prooveth, That Christ in the Sacrament is wholly contained in one kind, and that under one kind, there is found the full substance and virtue of the Sacrament 
t Reply pag. 20. 21.  etc.  
Lo, here is the brave confirmation of his indifferent Chalice, 
* If Christ's Blood, how slightly is it valued when they fight to avoid it.  which, if allowable, I wonder he should take so much pains in his Reply, but have referred all the Controversies to his Predecessors pains, because, nihil dictum est, quod non ●●it dictum pri●●. But as he proves, so shall his answer be suitable. His referments shall be answered with referments. For their Peron, I refer him for answer to M●●lin. And for Bellarmine, I could name him an host.  
But this sacrilege of theirs, I will truly lay down, and briefly in a few words; that the Reader may see the ground of our Churches practise; and the base and simple shifts that they are forced unto for their defending of the surreption of the Cup. And although our jesuite declareth himself to have been borne in a full Moon, or the Dog-days by his folly and reviling, calling our Clergy, the Cupping Ministry 
u Reply pag ●● , yet (GOD be thanked) we desire not the cup for our own selves (in that their appetite is seen) but for the people also, that all things may be ordered in the Church. according to Christ's institution. And herein all may see, that he might as justly revile CHRIST and his Apostles, as he doth those whom he styles the C●pping Ministry. And I think a Papist and a Priest might best of all men let that scorn have passed, seeing the Cup (not of the New Testament) might ●it them for their arms, with a Po●u● non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Motto. For a man may be in the act of meriting with them, that is none of the soberest 
x Lesle. de lusty & ●u●e. l. 4. cap. 2. dubitat. ●: nu: 10 p. 718. 719. Si tantus ●it excessus, ut peccet mortiserè, amittit meritum ●●junij, sicut & aliorum bonorum▪ operum. Si a●tem non peccet mortiferè, non amittit absolutè, sed solum ex parte. Quia quâ parte voluntariè abstinet à cib●● vetitis et à secundâ refectione propter Ecclesiae pr●●ceptum, meretur; quod meritum non eliditur, etiamsi in usu cibi vel potus non se●●●● d●●i●am mode●●tionem: quâ ●amen parte excedit, non ●e●e●●. ; nay, a man may be drunk, and yet fast truly 
y bellarm: lib. 2. de bonis operibus. in partic. cap. 1. jejunium Ecclesiasticūm est▪ ab●●in●ntia cibi secundum Ecclesiae regulam assumpta. & pa●le post. jejunium igitur Ecclesiasticum dicitur abstinentia cibi, quo●iam hoc ●●junium, neque POTUS, neque medicamentorum, sed solius cibi abstinential peruse requisite. , if Bellar●ine his definition of a Fast be adequate to the thing that is defined.  
But (letting all this pass) I will show plainly, that the Cup cannot be taken from the Sacrament, but the per●e●tion and integriti●, if not the substance thereof, is utterly overthrown. And to deal with a jesuite from jesuitical grounds▪ we may observe, that if it cross the substance either of Christ's institution, or of his Sacrament, ●r his precept, or of the practice of the primitive Church 
a Reply to jesuite Fisher by Dr Fran White pag. 466. 467▪ , it can no less then vitiate the whole action.  
That it crosseth these, what tongue can deny, which impudency hath not appropriated to its self? For did CHRIST exhibit a double thing to the Apostles faiths and memories? and did he not likewise for the effecting thereof consecrate two material elements, bread, and wine? was it not the practice of the primitive Church 
b Lyran●● in 1. cor▪ 11, Fit hic (1. Cor. 11.) mentio de duplici specie: nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic da ●atur ●idelibu●, Cassander consult. are 22. pag. 168. Satis con●●at occidentalem se● Romana● mille à Christo ●nnis in ●olenni et ordinaria h●●jus Sacramenti dispensatione ●tramque pa●●● et ●i●● spec●em omnibus Ecclesi● Christi members e●hibui●●e: i● quod ex in nu●●●i● ve●●rum scriptorum ta● Gr●co●um, quam Latinorum testimonies manifes●●● est, atq. ut ita facerent inducto● fuisse 〈◊〉 institute exemploque Christi. , and of the Latin, for a thousand or more years, to administer it in the same manner; not only to the Clergy, but to the people also by the institution & example of Christ 
●ellar●. De Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. Ecclesia autem. vetus ministraba●●●b duplici specie, quando Christiani ●rant p●●●●i, 〈◊〉 Crescente a●t●m multi●●●●ne magis ●● magis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●t sic pa●lati● def●●●●s●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ? was the contrary ever received by the Church deliberately & upon concluding grounds? or did it stealedas the rest of the tares, into the Romish Church by Custom? If the jesuite can show us better grounds to acquit it from intrusion, let him declare it? this was the chief reason the Council of Constance 
e Concil. Constantien. Se●●. 13. Licet Christus post ●●●nam insti●●erit. & suis discipulis administraverit s●b 〈◊〉 que specie panis & vini hoc venerabile ●●cramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, sacrorum Ca●o●●●●●thori●a● la●dabilis & approbata cō●etudo ecclesiae servavit, & servat &c. Et sicut haec cons●●●●do ad evit●●dum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta, quod licet in primitiva ecclesia huju●●odi sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie, pos●●à à confi●●ent●bus sub utraque, et à laicis tantu●●odo sub specie panis s●cipi●●ur▪ etc. Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & di●●issimè observata sit habenda est pro lege. , had for its defence, and what strength it hath against Christ's institution, and the Primitive practice, any may conceive.  
What hath moved the Roman Church to this surreption of the Cup from the people, no man can without doubting imagine; for if those wife motives repeated by Gerson should be the cause, we may see how weak arguments will move the Apostolical power against CHRIST'S institutions. For first he tel●ethus, of the danger in the effusion. 2. The inconvenience of the portation of it from place to place. 3. The vessel might be as filth●● as judas his trunk. 4. There may be want of a Barber amongst the Laics. But the kill Argument is this, that if the Cup be given to the people, there willbe no difference betwixt the people and their Priests 
f Gerson. d. come sub utraque specie. Primum periculum in effusione. Secund●m, in depo●tatione de loco ad locum. Tertium, in vasorum sordidatione, etc. Qua●●●●, in longis ba●bis laicorum. Item, quod tanta esset dig●itas laicorum circa sum●●●●●●m corporis Christi, sicut e● Sacerdo●um. vide plura ibid. . Would not this move a Saint (think you) to scorn Christ and his institution, and embrace that, which is but a Custom, and had no better a stile before the Council of Constance?  
But that we may further manifest this truth; One thing may be said to be of the substance of another two manner of ways, either integrally, or essentially. And first, who doth not see, that the sacrament is deprived of an integral member by taking away the Cup?  
For the second, it is no difficult thing to be manifested: for any judgement will determine the Sacrament to be maimed, when it is received according to men's pleasures, leaving that prescript form which is laid down by Christ himself in such a part, that doth confer grace 
g Vasques t. 3. in 3. disp. 215. c. 2. Vnaquaeque species hujus Sacramenti, quatenus Sacramenti para est, suam habet significationem diversam,— hinc sequitur unamquamque speciem in hoc sacramento su 'em effectum per se operari. . Besides, they must acknowledge themselves either violators of Christ's Testament 
h Mat. 26. Hoc est sanguis meus Novi Testa menti: Luc. 2●. Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sangu●em meu●●. Durand rat. l. 4 c 42. Christus post coenam corpus & sand guir 'em suum dedit Apostolis: ut● hoc sacramentum velut ultimum testatoris mandatum arctius memoriae commendaretur. , or that he revoked what he first instituted by some subsequent act. Nor can I see how the Sacrament may be without the sign, to wit, the bread and wine, any more than without the thing signified, which is the Body and Blood of CHRIST, when both are required to the conficiency of a Sacrament, as a body and soul to the constitution of a man 
i Bonaven. l. 4. D. 11. p 2. ar. 1 q▪ 2,  perfectè esset vel signaretur redemptio, & ex hoc perfecta refectio, debuit signari corpus in pane & anima, cujus sedes est i● sanguine, & in vino. .  
Neither doth this institution alone cross the Roman practice, but the Precept of Christ also Mat. 26. Drink ye all of this, which pointeth not only to the Apostles, but to the people also, notwithstanding their pretences to defend their fraud, as is apparent by Paschasius 
k Paschas. cap. 15. de corp. Christi. Accipite & ●bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri quam & reliqui credentes. Damas●. orth. fid. l. 4. cap. 14. , who interpreteth this precept not of the Ministers only, but of all beleivers. And yet Becan one of our Jesuits own society, will not have this a precept to the Apostles themselves (so fearful they are to hear our Saviour's commands) but telleth us that CHRIST his words, Drink ye all of this, are of the same strength with those of Luke 22. 7. Take this and divide it among yourselves. And (as if our Saviour had suspected the Apostles to have been as Cupping a Ministry, as this jesuite now chargeth us true Catholics to be) he maketh CHRIST to deliver all the wine to one, with this caution, that he should not drink it all, but taste a little of it, and afterwards deliver it orderly ●o his fellow Apostles 
l Becan. Manual contr. lib. 1. c 9 p 340. Calvinistae objiciunt illud, Bibite ex hoe omnes Resp. Hoc solis Apostolis dictum est, qui erant praesentes: cùm enim▪ Christus divi●isset panem Eucharisticum in varias parts, & singulis Apostolis singulas porrexisset; calix autem co modo dividi non posset; uni ex Apostol●s integrum porrexit, cum hâc cautione, ut non putaret totum sibi ebibendum esse, sed aliquid inde gustandum, ac deinde reliquis ordine porrigendum. Itaque verba illa, Bibite ex hoc omnes, perinde valent, atque illa Lucae 21. 7. Accip●●e & dividite inter vos, id est, unus non exhauriat totum calicem, se● singuli aliquid bibant , that they might partake of the Chalice with him; whereas the direction was a precept unto all there present to communicate in the Cup, and not a caution only for him that first received, ●● forbear drinking of all, as that jesuite would persuade.  
And although the Precept Luke 22. 19 This do in remembrance of me immediately followeth the consecration of the Element of Bread; yet it is plain, and pressingly evident, that it hath relation to the whole institution, in which the Cup is contained, as may be convinced from an other Evangelist, Mat. 26. 27. Besides this, the Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 23. maketh the whole institution (not excluding either Element) to be delivered from CHRIST to him, that the practice thereof might be observed in the Church. And though it be a fin for a Papist to confess it, Ruard: Tapper. are 15. 
m Ruard: Tapper: ar●● 5. Concludunt enim utilius esse, habito scilicet respcetu ad efficaciam & virtutem sacramenti sub utrâque specie Ibid. Plus gratiae spiritualis sub utrâque conseratur, quam sub alterâ tantum specie. Ibid▪ Et cum Sacramenta conferant gratiam quam significant, quando completior et perfectior est significatio; plen●orem oportetesse effectum.  cannot deny, but to communicate in both kinds is of greater efficacy, then in one, it being acknowledged, that the Sacraments confer that grace which they signify, so that when the signification is more full and perfect, as he confesseth it to be, being received in both kinds, the effect must answer thereunto. And Alexand. Halensis peremptorily affirmeth the receiving under both kinds to be of more merit, for increase of Devotion and faith 
n Alex Al. p 4. q. 11. Sumptio quae est sub duab●● speciebus, est majoris meriti, tum ratione augmentationis devotionis, tum ratione fide● di●atationis actualis, tum ratione sumptionis completioris. & rursus ibid. Sumptio sub utrâque specie quem modum sumendi tradid●●, Dominus est majoris efficaciae, & complementi. . So that while our Cup by which our jesuite hath denominated us to be a cupping Ministry, proveth to be a Grace-Cuppe, we may with more patience deride the reproach of his scorningfolly.  
And not to dwell on the examination of this sacrilege any longer, it is plain both by the testimony of Bonaventure 
o Bonaven. lib. 4. dist. 11. part. ●. ar. 1. quaest 2. Quantum ad signationem vel significantiam:— sunt de integritate, quia neutra per se exprimitur res hujus Sacramenti, sed in utraque simul: et hoc patet sic: Hic significatur Christus cibus perfectè reficiens manducantes Sacramentaliter, & spiritualiter: perfect a autem refectio non est in pane tantum, nec in vino tantum, sed in utioque: idco non in uno tantum perfectè signatur, ut reficiens sed in utroque.  and Aquinas 
p Aquinas part. 3. quaest. ●0 art. 12. Ex parte quidem ipsius Sacramenti convenit, quod utrumq. sumatur, scilicet & corpus & sanguis: quia in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti. , that we cannot express CHRIST'S death truly, which is the thing signified in the Sacrament, without the use of both the Elements, because therein the perfection and integrity of the Sacrament doth consist. Whereto let be added and well noted what Tapperus affirms. That having respect to the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof, it were more convenient the Communion should be under both kinds, than one alone. For this is more agreeable to the institution and integrity thereof, and to bodily refection, yea and to the example of Christ, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, who dispensed the holy Eucharist under both kinds even in the Roman Church itself 
q Ruard. Tapper, ar. 1●. Habito respectu ad Sacramentum, ejusque perfectionem, magis conveniret sub utraque specie sieti communionem, quam sub altera tantum. Hoc enim magis consonum est ejus institutioni & integritati & refectioni corporali, imo & exemplo Christi & patrum primitivae Ecclesiae, qui— sub ●●raque specie sacram Eucharistiam dispensabant in Ecclesia etiam Romana. .  
But if any Goodfellow Protestant (saith our jesuite) should be the loather to embrace our Religion for being so scant of the Cup: we give him to understand, that with us he shallbe partaker of as good a Cup every way etc. for we present unto every one a Cup of the best wine, to wit, the Ablution, and the Protestants confess theirs to be no more than mere wine: and therefore he thinks our charge of Sacrilege which we cast upon them for withholding the Cup from the People to be unjust; and that it is surely to be laid upon us, who (if we might believe him) have most sacrilegiously defrauded God's Church of the Communion of the true blood of CHRIST, giving no sacramental blessing to the Cup at all 
† Reply pag. 21. 22. .  
Jesuits had never such an Advocate; where truth affords him not matter to plead, he wanteth not impudency to reply 
r Aug. d● Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 27. Facile est cuiquam, videri respondisse, qui tacere noluerit. Aut quid est loquacius vanitate? Quae non ideo potest quod veritas, quia si volu●rit etiam, plus potest clamare quam verit●●. . But will it endure examining? let us see, A good fellow 
s Reply pag. ●●  must be converted, and with a cup of ablution 
* A cup of Ablution is water in most of our Irish parts. . Here is a reason for a tankard-carrier. Your argument would have been more persuasive to good-fellows (Mr Malone) if you would allure by an other Medium; that what wanteth in your feasting, shallbe sure to be made up in your fasting, having in your strictest works of mortification, not only wine 
t Azor. Instit. part. 2. l. 7. cap. 10. q. 7. pag. 562. Consentiens est opinio, potionem vini, sive manè an●● prandium five post prandium vesperè jejunium non solvere.  and strong drink which you may take freely 
u Lesle de Instit. et jure, l. 4. c. 2. Ex his infertur primò, Potus sumptionem crebriorem non vetari; quare▪ etiam●● qui● co ●ine utatur, etiam immoderatè, non violabit praeceptum Ecclesiae de jejunio, etsi contra temperantiam peccet. , and when you please, without violating your strictest devotion 
x Io. Medina Cod▪ de ●ejuno. q. 2. In Ecclesiastica Qu●dragesima unica refectio tantum est concessa, et in potatione nulla est opposita limitatio. ; but all other choice electuaries and pleasant confections 
y Lesle. de Instit. et jure, l. 4. c. 2. ●u. 10. Infertur secundò non prohiberi 〈◊〉 Electuariorum et cond●●torum, etc.  in like manner also. These had been Arguments would not only have turned a Goodfellow Protestant, but Sodom and Gomorrha to be Papists in Profession, and of your Order also.  
And whereas he chargeth us, that we give mere wine in the Sacrament 
z Reply pag. 21 . We answer, that this may be true when a jew or a jesuite doth receive it, or one equally affected with them, as Saint Augustine in like manner spoke of judas, that he received Panem Domini, not Panem Dominum: But to a faithful receiver, we know, as we offer them the blood of Christ, so they really receive it, and therefore we justly charge you with sacrilege for detaining the Cup; Neither do we alone charge you herewith but your own law 
a De consecratione dist. 2. Comperimus autem quòd quidam sumptâ tantummodo corporis sacri portione à calice sacri cru oris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterij sine grandi SACRILEGIO non potest provenire: , layeth the same condemnation upon you.  
But (saith he) our Answerer and his Symmists, have most sacrilegiously defrauded God's Church thereof 
b Reply pag. 22 .  
God's Church? what means the jesuite by this Phrase? conceiveth he hereby the Roman? surely no: All theirs have the true blood of Christ, at least by Concomitancy. Are the Protestants that Church, wherein this fraud is committed? doubt you of this? How then can God's Church be so manacled, that all must to Hell, not one permitted to climb to Heaven, to ascend to salvation?  
And now he hath confessed us to be God's Church, let him prove our Sacrilege if he be able, as also that we vary from the practice in St. Paul's days, in giving the true blood of CHRIST to our Communicants; or that we celebrate the Sacrament without consecrating it, and we will confess guilty. But if this be but a Jesuits charge, a strain of impudence, kind men may prefer him before Esope, but none will think him fit to register the truth. The jesuite telleth us, that the most reverend Primate his second Argument is framed thus. By S. Paul's Order, who would have all things done to edification, Christians should pray with understanding, and not in an unknown language, as may be seen in the fourteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. The Case is now so altered, that the bringing in of a tongue not understood (which hindered the edifying of Babel itself and scattered the builders thereof) is accounted a good means to further the edifying of your Babel, and to hold her followers together; is not this then a good ground to resolve a man's judgement, that things are not now kept in that order, wherein they were set at first by the Apostle 
c See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge, pag. ●. . And hereunto the jesuite replies.  
I have always esteemed our Answerer so both for learning and sincerity, that I prefer none of his rank before him, yet do I not see how in this objection he can escape a blemish, in one of them at the least 
d Reply pag. 21 .  
We have had good experience, that the Jesuits jealousies are not crimes; nor his words, slander; and therefore if he proves nothing, he says nothing. But he is ready in his arms.  
For where he saith, that by S. Paul's Order, Christians should pray with understanding, and not in an unknown language, alleging for the same the 14 chap. of his 1. epistle to the Corinthian, it is most certain that neither in that fourteenth chapter, nor yet in all S Paul's Epistles, there is any such order (as he meaneth) to be found, which if he knew not, his ignorance is to be wondered as: if he knew it, his integrity must be stained, for wronging the Apostle and deluding his Reader 
Reply pag. 22. .  
It were vain to bestow time to defend this most learned Primate, from this unjustly charging jesuite, especially in either of these dreams of want of learning or sincerity; when his own tongue and pen have manifested such deep knowledge, his life so sacred sincerity, that a legion of Jesuits extracted cannot express the like. And who is there, that hath stood at the feet of this learned Gamaliel, that hath not heard him to declare more learning, than this jesuite can boast of, and seen in him more truth and candidenes of divine conversation, then Jesuits and Friars by their demure and painted outside can challenge to themselves? Nay, whose conscience (that knows him) doth not testify of him, that what is or may be required in a good man, learned Doctor, and faithful Bishop may be found in him 
f Epistol. Bap. Mant. ad joan. Picum Mirandulam. In uno codemque homine viderer videre Hicronymum & Augustinum revixisse. . Neither doth this jesuite deserve so learned an Adversary, who slighteth those things, which befool his endeavours to answer; and falleth into violent strains against the Proposer. But let us see what gro●●d our traveller now treads upon. No, he will demand first.  
When he saith that by S. Paul's order Christians should pray with understanding, what kind of prayer doth he mean? 
g Reply pag. 22. .  
To this we answer him; All prayers which as well require the understanding as the will, knowledge as Devotion.  
But the jesuite saith, if private prayer, such as Christians by themselves do exercise, clear it is that the Apostle in that fourteenth Chap. speaketh of none such, and say he did, it is well known that amongst us the use of praying in a vulgar tongue is left as free to each one, as amongst the Protestants themselves 
Reply pag. 22 .  
The most learned Primate interpreteth not those words of prayer, as public, or private, but in regard of the act of praying with what circumstances soever it be used: and that by St. Paul's order no prayers ought to be made, of what kind soever, which the party's invocating understand not, be they public, or private, for the whole Church, or for particular necessity. But for that freedom of praying in a vulgar tongue, which you say, is left to each one amongst you; we know it false by experience, unless your directions for saying of Aves, and Pater-nosters, be arbitrary and left to the discretion of your Catholic children, which I think no Popish father will admit. For your Rhemists conclude, that praying either publicly or privately in Latin, is thought by the wisest and godliest to be most expedient 
i Upon the 18▪ verse of the 14▪ chap. of the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. . and though they confess, that their church hath commanded in some Counsels, that such as cannot learn distinctly in Latin (specially the Pater noster and the Creed) should be taught them in the vulgar tongue. Yet the wisdom of the Church hath better liked and allowed of Latin Primars, Beads and Prayers 
k Upon the 1●. verse▪ . from whence the jesuite may collect, that the Rhemists stick closer to the Latin, than himself, insomuch, that they would have the people to use not only Latin Primars and Prayers, but Latin Beads also, All which (without doubt) are alike available.  
Again the jesuite saith, if he mean the Public Prayer and service of the Church: certain also it is, that the Corinthians had theirs in the Greek, and not in any unknown language, and therefore the Apostle speaking of prayer in an unknown tongue, cannot be said to mean the public Service of the Church 
l Reply pag. 22 .  
And wherefore in Greek? was it not, because that language was more generally understood? and did not the Apostles for the same cause make use of that tongue in revealing the mysteries of God? But at length our jesuit confesseth all which he so violently fighteth against, by distinguishing betwixt prayer which is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers, upon which Prayer, the Apostles Doctrine in that Chapter runneth altogether: and their public Church service, which cannot any way be said to be such 
m Reply pag. 23 : For hereby we get this, that our prayers both public and private are agreeable to the Apostles grounds, which are general; and that their prayers both public and private do oppose the same. And yet they think all willbe made up, by a more gross uncovering their shame and nakedness, and therefore he telleth us, that their public Church service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God, and not to instruct and edify the hearers 
n Reply. ibid. .  
What▪ God's service, and no way for instruction? what? Dark Church? Dark souls? all in obscurity? God's worship also? Hath the Church been without Urim and Thummim since her captivity in Babylon? The jesuite will have it so; But we know that as GOD'S worship is an act which GOD accepteth for his honour; so thereby man doth increase in saving graces, not of those only which are appropriated to the will, zeal and devotion, but to the understanding also being made conformable to GOD'S Image in wisdom and knowledge 
o Thomas 22●. quaest. 92. ar. 2. Ordinatur primò divinus cultus ad reverentiam Deo exhibendam. Secundò ordinatur▪ ad hoc, quod homo instruatur à De●, quem coli●▪ Tertiò ordinatur dirinus cultus ad quandam directionem. humanorum actu●m secundùm instatuta Dei qui colitur. : and surely if every action, especially that which is christian and divine, aught to be done to edification, we may see where our jesuite is, that in the supreme act of divine adoration, denyeth any thing but darkness to remain.  
Moreover (saith the jesuite) when S. Paul in that Chapter speaketh ●● a strange tongue, certain it is that he meaneth an unknown language, miraculously imparted to the speaker, by the gift of tongues; but the Latin— is none such &c. 
p Reply pag. 23. .  
This is false by the judgement of their own Dionisyus Carthusianus upon the x. verse of this Chapter. But suppose it were not, yet in effect it is the same crossing the general rules of the Apostle, as those tongues which were given by miracle. The jesuite doth further from the Rhemists make the Contents of this Chapter to be this that men though they had strange tongues by miracle, yet should not prefer the same before prophesy, the speaker of languages being inhibited to utter his inspiration unless there were an interpreter.  
It were not much if this were in part granted the jesuite, but is there nothing else driven at by the holy Apostle? surely if their practice durst endure trial, the Apostle speaketh to other ends also. Bellarmine maketh the Apostles words to signify prayer, singing and giving of thankes, and confesseth that Chrys●st●me and Theophilact, Ambrose and Haymo understand this place of prayer 
q Bellarde verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 16. Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quibus vocibus Apostolus utitur, non significant concionari, fed pre cari, & canere, & gratias agere. Quncirca▪ Chryso 〈◊〉 & Theophilactur, nec non Ambros●●● & Haymo Haymo hunc locum de precibus intestig●●t. Ve●●●isp. ●●●●. ●. Que vis ●es mundi▪ ex natura ●ei, & se●●●so periculo ●●●● cum Deb, sicut ●●ago ipsiu● adorari potest. . The jesuite also observeth that the Apostles doctrine in this Chapter runneth altogether upon such a prayer, as is directed to the edifying and instruction of the hearers: and yet hath the face to deny, that the Apostle either meaneth public, or private in this Chapter. Howsoever surely the drift of the Apostle here, must be something else, then that cited from the Rhemists; For if the understanding of the party, that either prayeth, or assenteth to the prayer, be not exercised▪ why may not God be worshipped with any words as you confess he may be adored 〈◊〉 Image, or representation, be it, of beast, or man●? and then why may not the Church make use of one of Ariosto's Poems in a strange tongue, or such sleight fantasies, seeing the minds might perform their ●eale, where the words signify nothing to the purpose at all?  
But whatsoever Prayer is meant here in this chapter either public or private, it is plain that it ought not to be used, but in such a manner that it might be understood: for saith the Apostle ver. 15. I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with understanding: Neither hath this relation to him that prayeth, but to all those that communicated with him in his prayer. So ver. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he which occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen▪ at thy giving of thankes, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest. And although this jesuite thinketh he doth wisely, when he telleth us, that those tongues which the Apostle inhibites, were not such as the Latin, but such as the Apostle spoke by miracle, having the gift of tongues: this maketh more against him, for if God would not have those tongues which did principally give honour unto his name, to be used in prophesying or praying without an interpreter, where the people could not understand them; much less other tongues which were only obtained by industry and pains. And the Apostle giveth the reason by expressing the inconvenience, that thereby they shallbe Barbarians to each other ver. 11. and be like a Trumpeter that strikes amazement, but stirreth up no Devotion, unless a blind and a distracted one, when the Trumpet giveth but an uncertain sound 
* ●. 8. . Whereby, it is apparent, that all popish prayer, whether private, or public, is made in opposition of these grounds laid down by the Apostle, under these poor pretences, that the efficacy of the prayer consisteth in the very virtue of the work 
●hum. upon the 13. verse of this chapter.  etc. that the public Church Service is directed principally to the worship of Almighty God, and not to instruct and edify the hearers▪ 
Reply pag. 23. ; that it per●●neth much more to unity 
Rhem. upon the 11. verse of this chapter. , that men should in their devotion pray like Parrates, and the Priests read the Exhortation with an intent not to be understood. And as this opposeth the Apostle his direction how to pray; so doth it contradict the general practice of the primitive Church founded upon this rule. For Origen saith, that the Greeks truly do call upon GOD in Greek, the Romans in Latin; and every one also doth pray unto him in their native and vulgar tongue 
x Origen. Con: Celsum. lib: 8. At Grae●i quidem graece hunc nominant & latinè Romani: & singuli item natiuâ & vernaculâ linguâ Deum precantur. , And also the Council of Lateran under Innocent the third, (by reason that in many parts, people of diverse languages were mingled within the same city and diocese, having divers 〈◊〉 and manners under one faith,) did straight command, that the Prelates of such cities or dioceses, should provide fit men, which according to the diversityes of 〈◊〉 and languages should celebrate divine service, & minister the ecclesiastical sacraments unto them, instructing them aswell by word as by example 
y Council Lateranen: 4 tum Oecum. sub In nocen: 3o. cap. 9 Quoniam in plerisque partibus intra eandem civitatem atque di●●ce. sin permixti funt populi diversarum linguarum, habentes sub una fide varios ritus & mores, districtè praecipimus, ut pontifices huiusmodi civitatum, sive di●●cesium, provi deant viros idoneos, qui secundum diversitates rituum & linguarum divina officia illis celebrent, & ecclesiastica sacramenta illis ministrent, instruendo cos verbo pariter & exemplo. : which Decree must needs cross their subsequent practice. Further, although Aquinas doth justify the service of the Roman Church which the vulgar understand not, yet he affirmeth this to have been madness in the Primitive times 
z Aquin. in 1. Cor. 14. Dicendum est ad hoc, quod ideo erat insania in primi●●●● Ecclesi●, quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico. . And if understanding be not requisite in your Church service, wherefore insert you in your missal the prayer of St. Ambrose, Make me by thy grace always to believe and understand that of so great a mystery 
a Missa●. Roman. Orat: sancti. Ambro: ante missam. fac me per gratiam tuam semper illud de tanto mysterio credere & intelligere &c.  &c, if (I say) for his own edification in spirit and affection, there be no difference, whether the Speaker understand any thing he speaketh, or not, as the Rhemists 
b In ver. ●. cap. praed: , would interpret the Apostles words▪ Besides if the People should learn nothing, nor understand any thing that is there done, wherefore doth the Priest turning himself unto them say, Let us pray, the Lord be with you? why doth the People answer you, and with thy spirit 
c Missal: Roman. Celebrans versa facie ad p●pulum▪ cum dicturus est, Orate fratres, Dominus vobiscum. Res. Et cum spiritu tuo. ? Or why did the Council of Basill decree against those that say Mass in secret prayers with such a low voice, that it cannot be heard of the standers by 
d Basil. Concil. Sess. 21. Abusum aliquarum Ecclesiarum in quibus-Missa etiam privata sine ministro aut per secretas orationes ita submissâ vo●e dicitur, quod à circumstantibus audiri non potest, abolentes, statuimus, ut qui in his transgressor inventus fuerit, à suo superiore debitè castigetur. , if some in that Council had not thought it convenient, that the People should understand the prayers that were read? So that let our jesuite contend as he pleaseth, Chrysostome concludeth, that the Common people cannot say Amen to a prayer which they do not understand 
e Chrysost. in Epist. ad Corin. 1. cap. 14, homil 35. Si peregrinâ linguâ gratias agas, quam nec intelligas ipse, nec caeteris item interpreteris, subjicere Amen, plebeius non potest, & illud, in secula seculorum, quifinis precum est, ●udiens Amen non dicet. , which duty both the Apostle 
* 1 Cor. 14. 6  & the ancient practice 
f justinus sub finem secun●ae Ap●logiae pro Christianis, disertis verbis dicit totum populum in Ecclesia re●p●ndere consuevisse, Ame●; cùm Sacerdos rerminabat orationem, vel gratiarum actionem. ●dem etiam p●stea l●ngo tempore ser●a●um esse ●am in Oriente, quám in Occidente. ●aret ex li●urgiâ Chrysostomis, quae habetur in fine operum ejus, ubi apertissimè distingunatur quae Sacerdos, quae Diaconus, & quae populus in divin●s officijs canebant. Item ex Cyp●ano serm d●oratione Dominicâ, ubi d cit plebem respondere: Habemus ad Dominum, & ex Hierony ni praefa●. lib. 2. in Episto. ad Galat qui scribit in Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste ●omtru audiri populum reboantem, Amen. Bellarm. de verbo Dei. lib.-. cap. 16.  supposeth as necessary for the people to perform. And therefore our jesuite may leave to triumph, unless it be in his scars, & to boast any further, unless he be confident of his impudence; & let the trophy rest where it should be, upon the Victor's head, who hath showed the ground to resolve a man's judgement, & hath further manifested, that Papists being unable to justify their practice thereby, must confess, if ever they expect acquittal from their perverse and incrept innovations, that things are not now kept in that order, in which they were left at first by the Apostle.  
Moreover, whereas the learned Primate showeth the practice of Popish contrivers, in that, the case is now so altered, that the bringing in of a tongue not understood, which hindered the edifying of Babel itself, and scattered the builders thereof, is accounted a good means to further the edifying of their Babel, and to hold her followers together: Our jesuite would have us to espy,  
How many absurdities are couched in these words, unworthy truly of such a pen 
g Reply pag. 3. . Indeed it ill befits ●o slender a brainpan to charge that pen with absurdities. but how persuadeth h● his fictions?  
First (saith he) those words [the case is now so altered] as charging us to vary from S. Paul's order are most vain, seeing that we find no such order at all 
h Reply ibid. .  
The Order 
* 1. Cor. 14. 37. 40.  of S. Paul is evident to any that will not counterfeit blindness: for (saith he) let all things be done to edification 
† v. 26. , that is, to the commodity of many, even of the whole Church, as S. Chrysostome observeth, this (saith that ancient Father) is as it were a Canon to the Apostle in all things 
i Chrysost. in epist. ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil. 35. Idem ubique viri institutum vides, multorum, ac totius ecclesiae scilicet commoditatem: hic illi est in rebus omnibus veluti canon. . And accordingly the Apostle ordereth that no tongue shall have privilege to be used among the faithful that doth hinder knowledge 
* 1. Cor. 14. 28. , by which the people are edified & instructed 
† v. 22. , the gift of tongues being a sign to them that believe not*: And professeth, that in the Church he had rather speak five words with his understanding, that so he might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 
* v. 5. . Now the practice of these primitive times is not imitated by you, but opposed by your practice, howsoever accidentally and not by Papal decree it first got footing in your Church.  
Secondly those others, [that the bringing in of a tongue not understood] contain two gross mistakes: for neither is the Latin a tongue not understood 
k Reply pag. 23. . 
† v. 19   
That the latin is a tongue not understood. We will bring two witnesses from Rome, Roman Priests, Roman People, which willbe sufficient to vindicate the most learned Answerer from this mistake, which the jesuite layeth against him. For wherefore did you accent the Mass-book, but because your Priests could not rightly read it? and will you persuade, that they could understand, what they could not read? 2ly. For your People, if you will not confess that they are generally ignorant of the Latin, observe, how they mumble their Matins and this will suffice. But the jesuite well knowing, that the Latin is a tongue not understood, doth restrain his speech, that it was not such a one ●● St. Paul speaketh of; that is, imparted by miracle; But this is nothing to the purpose, whether the Roman language were miraculously imparted, or no, For St. Paul maketh that language to be unknown which needethan interpreter, and I doubt not, but you will confess, that your Latin hath need hereof, especially when the ignorant people are your auditors. And further let us consider the jesuite mistaken, in making a language to be known or unknown in regard of itself; whenas it is so reputed only, in regard of the hearers, which do not understand the same. balaam's Ass spoke by miracle, and yet his language was not unknown: and many spend their lives in your Latin Mass, and yet beget but ignorant hearers.  
Moreover, if the jesuite had not mistaken himself, he might have found the Latin to have been a tongue unknown, and a tongue imparted by miracle also, as we may see in the Acts of the Apostles 
* Act. 8. 10. 11. , where the dwellers in Phrygia, and Pamphilia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, jews and Proselytes etc. did hear the Apostles speaking in their tongues the wonderful works of God. whereunto S. Chrysostome agreeth, affirming more than once, the Latin tongue to have been imparted by miracle to the Apostles 
l Chrysost. in Epist. ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil. 35. Idem Persarum ROMANORVM Indorum, & multorum praetereà linguis, Spiritu susurrante, loquebatur, atque id munus, munus tum vocabatur linguarum. E● paulo post. Erant enim jam olim, qui precandi donum, & linguae conjunctum haberent multi, & precabantur quidem, & linguâ sonabant, vel Persarum vel ROMANA utentes. . Neither (saith the jesuite) was it brought in by us, but by our Answerer himself confessed to have been from the beginning 
m Reply pag. 23. .  
For this your second mistake; the learned Primate saith, that the Latin service. was used from the beginning in those countries; and who doubteth of it? but was it not also understood? if the Priests had then Latin tongues, had not the people Latin ears 
n Azor. Ies. Instit. Mor. par 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Nos tan en libe●ter fatemur, tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos, quia sacra eloquia fue●unt Graeco vel Latino sermone conscripta, quem sermonem vulgus quoque callebat: nunc vero plebs fere rudis est, & imperita Latini sermonis; at Laici qui Graecè vel Latinè noverunt, Scriptural jure optimo lectitant. ?  
But this (as the jesuite pretendeth from the Answerers' confession) hath remained in the Church without alteration (no such syllable in the Answerer) when the people in their vulgar speech departed from it 
o Reply pag. 23. .  
Imagine at the mistake; the people departed from the vulgar speech: who brought it after them, or in amongst them that had departed from it, but Popish Engineers? For doth not the departing of the people make an alteration? can this be denied? for although the Latin remain the same, yet is it not fit in these times for the same use & purpose, whereunto it was before appointed. Is it not all one, whether faith ran from the people, or the people from the faith? Doth not both of these make infidels? if the Candlestick be taken from the people, or the people forsake the light; will there not be an operation of the same effect? We confess, Latin service hath remained in some Churches, like Saul in his Kingdom, but the people have been strucken with blindness, as he was possessed with the Devil, ever since the spirit of truth and knowledge departed from them.  
And herein who cannot see that our great Logician in pleading for obscure Church-service, deprives himself of reason? for who will say, because the Latin Church had their Latin Liturgy, when that language was understood generally, therefore they ought to have it so now: or that there is no alteration among the people, but that they are the same in knowledge & devotion now, when they understand nothing, as they were in the primitive times, when they were well instructed: or that because some churches within the Roman Empire had the continuance of a Latin Liturgy, which at first they understood; that therefore Popish Contrivers cannot as criminous be charged with bringing in and continuing of a strange tongue amongst other Churches, that were afterwards converted? So that the Answerers' charge is just, that, that service which was lawfully practised, when it was vulgarly understood, hath by your carelessness and negligence of the people's instruction remained amongst you: But for many other Churches, as Ireland, the Indies 
* The jesuite argues, that Latin was not commonly understood in France and Spain, because they had their proper languages.  etc. who brought in those preparations to darkness amongst them, but your Bab●ll 〈◊〉, not indring light, lest your works of darkness might be detected or overthrown? And doth not your mistake lie in your way, it being true that by your negligence it hath continued in some Churches, where it ought to have been changed; and by your impudencyes, it hath been intruded upon others, where it ought not to have been admitted?  
Thirdly (saith the jesuite) the words following, (which hindered the edifying of Babel itself and scattered her builders) are of the like nature, for it was not one only tongue, that hindered the edifying of Babel, as it is well known, but many: Finally, ●e absurdly concludeth with manifest contradiction; for if Babel, was called Confusion, and her builders scattered by a multiplicity of different tongues: whilst we in one tongue, and faith hold united together, can any wiseman say that we build confused Babel 
p Reply pag. 24. ?  
But if one only tongue confounded, and not many hindered the edifying of Babel, as it is well known; or, if Babel was called Confusion, because that one only tongue was confounded; will not the jesuite be ashamed to charge that pen with absurdities, which he can no way resist; but by such ignorant boldness, which here and in other places most freely and liberally he useth against it? And that this is true, St. Chrysostome affirmeth 
q Chrysost. in epist: ad Cor. 1. cap. 14. homil. 35. Cum n●●ris extr●●retur, una lingua in multas secabatur. , & josephus doth fully declares where he telleth us, that the place of the tower was called Babel, or Confusion, not for the multitude of tongues which were then given, but propter confusam linguam quae priùs omnibus ex aequo clara fuerat, because that tongue was confounded which before was indifferently understood of all the people 
r josephus' l. 1. Antiq. cap. 5. Locu. vero turris nunc Babylon vocatur propter confusam &c: name Hebre● confusionem nominant Babel. ; which your vulgar Bi●le expresseth, Venite igitur, descendamus & confundamus ibi linguam corum ut non audiat unusquisque voc●●● 〈◊〉 sui 
* Gen. 11. . G●● to, let ●● go down, and there confound 〈◊〉 language, that they may not 
* Gen. 1●. 7.  understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spelich; and therefore (in the 9 verse) is the name of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 the Lord did there 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 all the earth▪ which Torni●llus telleth us was done by 〈…〉 bringing upon them a sudden and 〈◊〉 forgetfulness of their first speech 
〈◊〉. Annal. sacr. in an. a● Orb cond●●● 1931. n. 10. 〈◊〉 dicimus, quòd Deus inductâ mirabiliter in cunctis illis hominibus subitâ quâdam & omnimodâ prioris idiomatis obli●ione, illicò divinâ suâ dispensatione & omnipotently, in corundem 〈◊〉 novo● dire●●●sque indidit habitus, juxta vanarum lingua●●● genera 〈◊〉 distributa, ita ut statim 〈◊〉 il●● 〈◊〉 promptum expeditumque ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illius sermonis, qui 〈…〉 Quare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confusionis 〈◊〉, quo non semel Scrip●●ra 〈…〉 est, ac si denotare 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in s● ipsis 〈…〉. , for who is so wilful to affirm this confution to consist in the gift of new tongues, but in making the former unintelligible, as your Latin is now to the people, 〈◊〉 formerly they vulgarly understood? And yet upon this confused foundation he seeketh not only to justify their own blindness, but he would make us scattered wights and Babelists also. May not Protestant's (saith he) be rather termed Babelists, whose diversity of languages and daily ja●●es amongst themselves, give good testimony that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, built against the true Church, the Saints and Sacraments, the tap thereof aiming at heaven itself, will 〈◊〉 be dissipated, and left ●●●●lated. 
t Reply pag. 24. ▪  
May not Mr Malone be rather termed a Babelist, that so confusedly falleth upon us, without any ground whence to force this conclusion? For, first our divers languages make no more confusion amongst us, than the extraordinary gift of tongues did in the Apostles days; in regard we retain your Latin unconfused, and have many other languages which are 〈◊〉 acquainted with the faith of CHRIST. Secondly, our jars are not equal to yours, although they many times are passionately expressed; neither are they of any other nature, than those which have been among the members of the Church of CHRIST; neither destroying faith nor the foundation thereof. Thirdly, the jesuite is vain in his flaunting terms, 〈◊〉 tower of protestancy,— the top whereof aiming against heaven itself, (when all the world is but gleabe-land sufficient for their tower of S. Angelo) built against the true Church, the Saints and Sacraments 
u Reply pag. 24 . As if there were a true Church, where CHRIST is not Monarch; or that their Universal Master could make Saints, as he hath done Sacraments.  
But if we consider all aright, the ambitious tower of protestancy will not be a molehill, i● compared to your mountains; for the whole world cannot contain Popish ambition, although the greatest honour upon earth must stoop before it 
x Extra de Major, & Obed. cap. Vnam Sanctam. Porr● subesse Romano Pontifici omni huma●● creaturae declaramus, dicimus, di●●●imimus, et 〈◊〉 omni●●●sse de necessitate 〈◊〉 ; No terms will suffice the Papacy, but those which we express God withal, as we may see variously out of 〈◊〉 
y De Patriarch. & Primate. orig. l●b. 1. Exercit●. 1. V● quema●modum Di●●cesani i● Episcop●, Episcopi in Metropolita, Metropolit● in Patriarcha unum 〈◊〉; it● Tri●●taa Patriarcharum in Vnitate Pontificis coalesceret, sicq, sedis Principis Apostolonum esset in Trinitate VNITAS, & in Vnitate TRINITAS. . But this is little to that which followeth; for you have made your Monarch after the manner of serpents, to cast off his slough, yea his nature itself 
z Alvae. 〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉 Eccles lib. ●. cap. 37. Papa igitur participatutra●●que naturam cum Christo. ; he must not be barely man, either you must take him for God and man, or compounded of ●●th 
a Clemens. 〈◊〉 in gloss. Papa 〈◊〉 mundi:— Qui maxima 〈◊〉 nec Deus ●●, nec homo: quasi Neuter es inter Vtrumque; . Where will you find his Preisthood, when his Majesty is styled divine 
b Ludou. Luisius ab Alca●ar. in Apoc. in carmine ad 〈◊〉 Apost. D● 〈◊〉 5.— Quem numinis instar vera colit pietas—. , which cannot stand with a ministerial duty? Did he affect divinity as the Emperor thought 
c Aventin. lib. 7. ? The Pope will tell you, that Peter, (and you may conceive for whose sake) is assumed into the society of the individual Unity 
d Nicol. 3. de Election. cap. Fundamenta in 〈◊〉 Hunc enim in 〈◊〉 individu● unitatis 〈◊〉 etc. , and the Glisse will give his succe●●or the tittle of our Lord God the Pope 
e Extravag. joan. 1●. de verb rum sign. cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in gloss. Credere au●●m 〈◊〉 DEUM 〈◊〉 Papam etc. , and as if this were too little, a Cardinal of their own hath told us, that Popes have been persuaded, that they might do unlawful t●●●gs, and so, plus quam Deus, more than God himself 
f Francisc. Zabarel. deschism. Innoc. 7. & Benedicti p. ●0. . Now let the jesuite consider, what reason he had to style true Religion, an ambition●towre, when as (if he cast an eye upon themselves) the tower of Papacy hath a foundation as low as Hell, and an height more lofty than the tower of Babel itself.  
For the jesuits' invectives of spirit of giddiness, several sects, varying opinions, 
g Reply pag. ●4  etc. His testimonies are not his friends. First he urgeth Lavatherus, but as it seemeth from Genebrard and Staphylus 
h See the Margin. ibid. , men of excellent credit and repute, (no doubt) sufficient by their bare testimony to divide all protestancy; but the Jesuits text is moderate if his margin truth it, for the one divides protestancy but into above 100 sects and varying opinions, when the other maketh the sects 180. and both differ from Genebrard the author that he citeth, who saith there are more than 200: but we see the jesuite, lest he should be taken lisping, placeth sects and varying opinions together: Now in this sense, who is there that is acquainted any thing in Popish writings, but can point out many thousand varying opinions amongst the Papists themselves (which they condemn not, as we do those follies mentioned by Genebrard) and not go out of the compass of the Papal Creed? And to give them a taste in their Hierarchy, there hath been eleven points of Popish Irish divinity 
i Censura propositionum ad sacrae Theologiae facultatem allatae per Patricium Cahil. Rectorem S. Michaelis Dublinensis etc.  condemned by above 60. Doctors of Sorbon lately 
k Actum apud Sorbonam in congregationibus publicis sacrae facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis, habitis diebus secunda & septima ●a●arij 1632. Et confirmatum in Co●itiis extraordinariis deci●●● quinti ejusdem mensis, & anni, praesentibus sexaginta Doctoribus & ampl●●●. , with such terms as these, lame 
l Censura▪ In ista ●. propositione●numeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae— est manca. , false 
m ●. Falsa. , contrary to common right 
n 4. juri communi contraria. , ambiguous 
o 2. Ambigua. ; injurious 
p 7. Inju●iosa. , inept, ridiculous, against the sense and use of the Church 
q 6, Inepta, ridicula, contra communem Ecclesi● sensum & ●sum: , contrary to divine, natural and positive law 
r 10. juri divino, naturali & positivo contraria. , seditious 
s 1●. Sediosa. , scandalous 
t 9 Scandal●sa. , schismatical 
u ●. Sc●is●atica. , Heretical etc. 
x ●. Haeretic●.  But suppose there were as many sects as the jesuite pretends, to disturb the peace of the Protestant Churches; what concludeth he in reproach of us, when he acknowledgeth that before S. Augustine's time there were many more heresies that oppugned the Primitive Roman Faith 
y Reply pag. 8. , than he nameth sects to discredit ours? For Perk●; as the jesuite hath mistaken his name, so his Author, if he speak as he is alleged, (for I have him not) hath forsaken the truth▪ there being no ground in the Church of England to produce so vain a charge: But for that noble 
* Sir Edwine Sands.  Knight, the true inheritor of his Father's virtues, he doth show in the place cited 
z In his Relation of Religion. , that whatsoever unity is amongst us, proceedeth from the mere force and virtue of verity, which he accounteth the best and blessedest, and which only doth unite the soul with God. And that the Unity of the Church of Rome is but for order in the world, etc. antecedent before us, for which worldly peace they are beholding to their Father and adviser: yet he further acknowledgeth our differences are not essential, or in any part capital. Whereby the Reader may see with what truth he hath cited this Author. For the most learned Bilson, he doth only bewail the minds of many men, that are not so prone to peace, as they ought. A complaint that the best age of the Church might have taken up. And therefore if the jesuite will prove our jars; let him forsake such poor advantages that for the most part are raised from Passion, and manifest that in fundamental points we vary one from another, or all from the Catholic Church; for otherwise it is more than probable that Babel will remain where the most learned Answerer left it, even in the midst of the Roman blindness.   

SECT. four  
THe most learned Primate, as he hath sufficiently showed the means whereby tares that have crept into the Church might be detected, viz ●. by having recourse unto the first and best times, doth further show, that the like may be done by comparing the state of things present, with the middle times of the Church.  
To which the jesuite replying showeth himself offended, not so much to be foiled by his Adversary, as to have it known: This word thus doth doth more perplex the jesuite, than the blows which make him smart, and therefore his passion expresseth itself.  
Why (saith he) unless you perform it better than thus, I see not but yourself may be crowned an Innovator of idle arguments 
a Reply pag. 25 :  
No, neither of idle demands; for that is so proper to the popish schools, that no man can deprive them of this catholic title; and least want of succession should make them lose their privilege, the jesuite hath sufficiently continued it in this his vain Reply.  
The first of these Arguments which the jesuite would have accounted idle, is comprehended in these words. I find by the constant and approved practice of the ancient Church, that all sorts of people, men, Women and children, had free liberty to read the holy scriptures, I find now the contrary among the Papists: and shall I say for all this that they have not remooved the bounds which were set by the Fathers, because perhaps I cannot name the Pope, that ventured to make the first enclosure these commons of God's people? 
b See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. pag 9  And hereunto the jesuite giveth a downright answer, that he finds no truth in this his saying: first because he layeth not down, where amongst the ancient, any such practice is testified to have been; 2ly. neither doth he show where amongst us he finds the contrary 
c Reply pag. 25   
The most learned Answerer thought it not necessary to produce witnesses to manifest so open truths, whereof the jesuite could not be ignorant. besides, he is vain and wilful to conclude a thing untrue, because the proof is not particularly urged: for who will seek to prove those things, which are most manifest, which the jesuite without declaring his ignorance cannot deny?  
But because he chargeth this most reverend Lord with untruth, I will take away that scruple from whence he seemeth to deduce this conclusion, and briefly manifest, first, that it was the constant and approved practice of the ancient Church, that all sorts of people— had free liberty to read the holy scriptures. secondly, that we find the contrary amongst the Papists; that then we may see whether his impudence will deny that which his deceit in this place is willing to cover.  
For the first; it is a proposition so clear, that I am persuaded the jesuite would not have denied it, if he could with safety to himself & his cause acknowledge the same. Yet although he doth not confess it, I need not much to trouble myself in the manifesting thereof, there being such clouds of witnesses. And to go further than the Primitive times after Christ; It is apparent, that God's word was not given to be kept under a bushel, but as the sun in the Orb of the Church to lighten and irradiate the hearts of his Children; as may be gathered from the scriptures, penning in their vulgar tongue when they spa●e Hebrew. To this purpose it was, that Moses commanded the Israelites to 
* Deut. 6. ●.  write the law upon the posts of their houses, and on their gates. And that it was a custom amongst the Church of the jews to try doubtful things by the scriptures, may be collected by the words of our Saviour 
* 10. 5. 39  Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. And why should the jews have sent their Hebrew text to be interpreted, if they had conceived, that the vulgar use had not been permitted? Also it appeareth 2. Tim. 3. 15. that it was the familiar practice of good people to breed up children in the knowledge of the sacred scriptures, And that it was the practice of the primitive times is plain by the 
* Act. 17. 11.  Bereans, who searched the scriptures daily, to try the truth of the Apostles Doctrine, and were therefore accounted more noble than those in Thessalonica. Neither was it practise only, but the Apostle in those times persuadeth thereunto, by showing the blessing which followed the same Apoc. 1. 3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy etc.  
And for the Ages following, who can be ignorant (that knows any thing) of that, which the jesuite desireth proof of? For Polycarpus to the Phillippians saith, I trust that you are well exercised in sacred scriptures 
d Poly●arp. ad Philipp●n. Confido benè exercitatos esse in sacris literis, & nihil vos latet. . And in Origen his time, the reading of these divine mysteries, daily prayers, the word of instruction, were the nutriments whereby the Spirit 
e Origen: in Levit. hom: 9 Nutrimenta igitur spiritus sunt divina lectio, orationes assiduae, sermo doctrinae. His alitur cibis, his convalescit, his victor efficitur.  of God increased his graces in the hearts of his children; and in after ages this practice continued in the Church, and the negligence of Christians in not teaching their children the scriptures was complained of by the ancient Fathers 
f Espencaeus Episcopus in 2. Tim. 3. in haec verba (Et quia ab infantia literas nosti) pag 116. Nequè enim haec mea, aut nova, sed est patrum orthodoxorum querimonia. .  
Eusebius Caesariensis also in commending of Pamphilus amongst other things saith, that he did not only lend the scriptures to be read, but also gave them to men and women, which he saw were addicted to reading 
g Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legendum tantum sed & habendum tribuebat promptissimè, nec solum siris, said & foe● nis quas vidisset lectioni deditas in vi●a Pamphili, 〈◊〉 per Hieron in Apolog. contra Ruffin. ad Pamachium & Marcell. . Chrysostome finding the opinion to begin in the Church, that the reading of the Divine scriptures belonged only to the Monks, because others had wives, and children, and care of families, bitterly resistes and reprehends this evil in the people, affirming the reading of the scriptures to be much more necessary for the lay people then the Monks, in regard they having more open conversation, and daily receiving spiritual wounds, do stand in more need of spiritual Physic 
h Chrysost. homil. 2. in ●. caput Matth. Sed est ne horum criminum tandem aliqua defensio? Non sum, inquit, ego monachus, uxorem habeo, & filios, & curam domus. Hoc enim est, quod omnia quasi unà qu●dam pesse corrumpit, quoniam lectionem divinarum scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos pertinere, cum multo magis robis quam illis sit necessaria. Qui enim versantur in medio, & vulnera quotidiè accipiunt, magis indigent medicamine. . And S. Hierome commendeth the reading & meditation of the holy scriptures to many holy persons of both sexes, in divers Epistles to them, as is confessed by the Rhemists themselves 
i In the Preface to the Reader before the new testament. . Yea Chrysostome accounteth it a greater absurdity for his auditors to receive his doctrine without examining it by the scriptures, then for a man to receive money upon an others word, and not to reckon it himselve 
k Chrysostom. Homil. 13. in epistol. ad Corinth. cap. 6. Quo●●●do autem non absurdum propter pecunias alijs non credere, sed ipsas numerare & supputare, pro rebus autem amplioribus aliorum sententiam sequi simpliciter, praes●r●im cum habeamus omnium exactissimam t●utinam & gnomonem, ac regulam, divinarum, inquam, legum asserti nem. Ideo obsecro & oro omnes vos, ut relinqua●is quidnam huic v●l●lli vid●atur, deque his à scripturis haec omnia inquirite. . Gregory likewise saith of the scripture, as if it had been given to that purpose, It is a river shallow and deep wherein the Lamb may wade and the Elephant swim 
l Gregor. mag. Epist. ad Leand. in expositione ●ob Est fluvius planus & altus in quo agnus ambulet, & Elephas n●tet . But chiefly Chrysostome urgeth the practice of this holy duty. Because the Spirit of God hath so disposed and tempered the sacred scriptures, that Publicans, Fishers, Carpenters, Pastors and Apostles, idiots, unlearned, might be saved by these books, lest any of the vulgar might fly to the excuse of difficulty; that those things which are delivered might be easy to be seen of all, that both the work●man, and the servant, and the widdowe-woman, and the most unlearned of all men might carry away some gain or profit by hearing of the word read 
m Chrysostom. conc. 3. de Lazaro. Propterea siquidem spiritus gratia dispensavit illa tempetavitque, quo publicani, piscatores, tabernaculorum opifices pastors, & Apostoli, idiotae, illiterati, per hos libros ●a●vi fierent, nequis●diotarum ad hanc difficultatis confugere possit excusationem, ut omnibus facilia conspectu 〈◊〉 quae dicuntur ut & opi●ex, & famulus, & vidua mulier, et omnium hominum ind●ct●ssimus ex aud ta lectione aliquid lucri utilitatisque reportaret. . And lastly to discover the Jesuits vanity in charging the most learned Answerers just assertion with untruth; Azorius the jesuite in the name of all, doth willingly confess, that the lay-people were conversant in the reading of the Scriptures in the primitive times 
n Azorius jesuit. tom. 1. Moral. l. 8. cap. 26. Nos libenter fatemur tunc temporis laicos in Scripturarum lectione fuisse versatos. .  
For the second; It is manifest that the Papists teach and practise the contrary; This the jesuite doth believe, as will be manifested by many passages in his Reply; yet he will give us leave to prove it, least confessing so great an alteration, he might seem to acknowledge the Roman Church to have fallen from the practice of the ancients, to wit, in making ignorant people wise to salvation by the reading of the Scriptures. Now the first which I will produce to confirm this, are your Priests at Rheims, who deny the holy scriptuees to be ordained by God, to be read indifferently of all, & say that in the peace of the Church, vulgar translations were neither muchrequisit, nor perchance wholly tolerable: that the Roman Church alloweth not the publishing or reading of any Catholic translation absolutely and without exception, but that such as read them must have express licence thereunto of their lawful ordinaries 
o In the Preface to the Reader before their testament. . And Azorius tells us, that Clement the 8. hath prohibited the reading of any part of the sacred Scriptures, or any comperdious history thereof in any vulgar language whatsoever 
p Azor. inst. moral l 8. c 26. Et in Indice novissimè edito jussu S. D. N. Clementis 8. in observatione circa quartam regulam prohibentur sacrae Scripturae partes tam novi quam veteris testamenti, quâvis vulgari linguâ editae: ac insuper summaria, & compendia etiam historica ●orundem Bi bliorum, seu librorum sacrae scripturae, quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta: quod quidem inviolatè praecipitur servandum. . Yea so fare they are from giving the people this liberty, that Sanders maketh it Heresy to determine the necessary conversion of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues 
q Saunder. vis. Monarch. haer. 191 Haeresin esse si quis dicit scripturas necessa●●ò debe●e in vulgares linguas converti. ; and Peresius accounteth it the Devil's invention to permit the reading of the Bible to all sorts of people 
r Peresius de troth: par. 2 asser. 3. Credo ●quidem institutum hoc sub pictatis quâdam umbrâ à Diabolo esse inventum. . And howsoever the jesuite will not here speak his mind, yet his thoughts burst from him afterwards in this section, for he acknowledgeth it no better to afford the people free liberty to read the scriptures, then to cast Pearls before swine 
s Reply pag. 27. , which he hath received from Hosius 
t De expresso Dei verbo. Sed sic visum est haeresiarchae nostri temporis, qui primus dare sanctum canibus, & ante porcos ausus est projicere margaritas. . And it is no marvel, that they so much desire to enclose these commons of God's people; in regard they find not any to be made Papists by the Catholic Doctrine contained in them. For experience itself hath taught them what fruit the reading of these divine mysteries in a vulgar tongue hath brought forth 
u Hosius de sa. vern. leg. Experientiâ magistrâ didicimus quid fructus ea res attulerit— Tantum abest, ut accesserit ad pietatem aliquid plus, ut etiam diminutum esse videatur. . The People (saith Bellarmine) take no profit out of the Scriptures, but hurt 
x Bellarm. De verbo Dei. lib. 2 cap. 15. Populus non solum non caperet fructum ex scriptures, sed ●tiam caperet detrimentum.— Experimento idem comprobatur. . And the jesuite telleth us a whole legend of tales, to confirm this Doctrine 
y Reply pag. 27. . So that it is most apparent by what hath been already said, that the ancient Church not only permitted all Christians, without exception, or dispensation, to hear and read the sacred Scriptures, but also earnestly exhorted them to the practice of those holy duties; and that the present Roman exhorteth none, permitteth very few, to be acquainted with those heavenly Oracles. And shall we● then deny, that Papists have remooved the bounds set by the ancient Fathers, and fed the people with husks of superstition, whom they ought to have nourished with the sincere milk of the word of life, unless we can point them out the Pope that first attempted to bereave God's people of so great a blessing?  
But the jesuite hath an other frame for his defence. That scripture, which those of the ancient Church had free liberty (as he saith) to read, was only such as was approved to be true, and lawful by the same Church; the reading whereof amongst us at this day, is as free as ever it was amongst our forefathers 
z Reply pag. 25. .  
How tenderly doth the jesuite tread here? if this Ice break, sure, he will be swallowed up. He dare not grant, that the ancient Church gave free liberty to read the scriptures, and therefore pointeth it out as the most learned Answerers assertion (as he saith) neither dare he confess the truth concerning themselves, that they deny them to the people, (as hath been fully proved) yet declaimeth of the desperate effects, that are produced by the reading of them, & nevertheless would persuade us to believe. 1. that they vary not from their forefathers; 2ly. that their adversaries have removed those bounds, which were set by the Fathers in this point, leading, yea, and driving Christ his flock out of the wholesome pastures, wherein formerly they were fed unto Salvation, into the marish, weedy and poisoned grounds of their new fangled vulgar Bibles 
a Reply ibid. .  
For the first of which, I willingly assent thereunto, if by forefathers he understand those wise, grave, learned fathers, which in watching the Church, lost Religion, learning, languages, and suffered Barbarism and superstition to invade the same: But if he mean those ancient lights, the vigilant Bishops and Priests of the first and best times; as we take them to be none of your fathers, so is it made good that you altogether in this practice vary from them, it being most evident, that the prime fathers (for the edifying of Christ's Church) exhorted the people to the reading of the scriptures; when your forefathers (Mr Malone) for the advancement of their Templum Domini (in which is adored your Lord God the Pope,) were forced blasphemously to inhibit the same 
b See this proved before in this Section. .  
For the second, he will never prove it, although he attempt to perform the same by a two fold argument. 1. Because our vulgar Bibles are not approved for holy Scriptures by the Church of God 
c Reply pag. 26 , Whereunto I answer; first that any m●y perceive, the jesuite cannot deny those books, which we offer to the Church to be divine and revealed from God, although ●e dream●th that they have lost their nature by their translation. Second●y, he doth calumniate us; for the originals Canon, o●t of which we translate, is allowed by the catholic Church, (which they cannot say for theirs) and the translation by a renowned member thereof; which is sufficient for the approbation of the same. Yet it may be he would have ours to be allowed (as their vulgar Latin hath lately been) by canon in the Roman Church, as if the Spirit of God remained at Eckron, & no word of God were to be found in Israel 
* 1. Kings. 1. 2▪ 3 : But we know if it were in their power to approve or disprove it, Gregory & Sixtus 
d Consilium Episcopi Bononiae congregat. de s●abiliend. Rom. eccl. Consilium nostrum esset, ut tua Sanetitas Cardinalibus illis at que Episcopis, quos in suis residere eclesij● contigerit, praeciperet ut— Decretales, Sextum, Clementinas, Extravagantes, & regulas Cancellariae, in 〈◊〉 quisque civitate legi ac doceri publicè curet. utinam legendis hujusmodi libris, homines ubique diligentisù incubuissent. Neque enim res nostrae in hujusmodi deploratissimum statum ad ductae essent.  should be the Canon which should govern the Church, the Scriptures should not only be cast out, but Gratian 
e Ibid. Ac non item Decre●i quod minimè mirum videri debet. Est enim perniciosus liber, & author tatem tuam valde vehementer imminuit: licet alicui extollere videatur. Nam inter alia, negat multis in lo●●s, posse Papam vel tantillum ad eam Doctrinam adjungere, quam nobis Christus ipse tradidit, & Apostoli docuêre.  also, as too opposite to their intents. The titles which they have given to God's divine Oracles will declare how great affection they bear to the approulng of them. Besides, if no translation be the word of God before the Roman synagogue hath approved it, I would know whether Sixtus or Clemens his edition be the word of God? As for their vulgar edition; by this rule it was no Scripture before the Trent assembly, and the Rhemish Translation no Scripture to this hour.  
His second Argument is, that as it is not confirmed by Rome, so it is disproved by Protestant Doctors themselves 
f Reply pag. 26. .  
But herein two things are fit to be observed. First, that the Churches under the government of our sacred Prince did never propose any translation absolutely, as without all kind of error (they being the works of industrious and painful, and yet but men) but as a fair help and means to convey those heavenly lamps into the most simple man's conceit and understanding, and in such a manner that they should always stoop to the original tongues wherein God delivereth them to the people. 2 die, we must make difference betwixt extremes of passion which did many times befall good men when they apprehended some small error with too much fierceness of conceit; and their more selected judgements; the one bursting from them; the other being a true birth. Now if this be truly apprehended, what can the Churches of England and Ireland suffer, who in proposing the Scriptures to the people have used all diligence, viewing and amending those errors which time hath detected, not defending them; as the Romanists have & do their corruptest Latin 
g Praesatio Sixti Quinti praefixa Biblijs sui●. Tanta per se est Vulgatae editionis auctoritas, tamque excellens praestan●ia, ut majorem desiderare, penitus inane videatur. . It is far from the practice of ours to commit wilful errors in translations, and if any such are once found out, (be they never so light) we are willing to amend and follow the truth. If our late Sovereign of ever blessed memory did find some errors in our translation, & amended them; if the learned Dr Reynolds saw the same, & persuaded reformation; what, must this conclude, that there was no truth in our Church? no Scriptures there?  
For his other citations, some are passions, others are of like nature with the first. But esteem them as you please, your jealousies do more bring your vulgar Latin into suspicion, than these testimonies can disgrace ours. For you seek to justify it, because it cometh nearer the Hebrew than the Septuagint 
h jacob. Gordon. Huntl. Epit. controvers. contr. 1. Deverbo Dei cap. 1●. Interpretatio▪ septuaginta ●nterpretum longè magis recedit ab Haebrco textu, qui jam extat quam nostra vulgata. ; a muddy argument for him that chargeth the Hebrew text with corruption 
i Ibid. cap. 6. Hebraicus textus— vitiatus sit & depravatus. . Secondly, they say, that the best sense in the obscure places of the Scripture is not always to be sought after: for then, there would be no end of translations 
k Ibidem cap. 15. Si interpres in manifestis & apertis locis Scripturae omnia rectè interpretetur, & in obscuris aliquem sensum literae congruum exprimat, etiamsi fortassis non assequatur optimum sensum, sed posset alius melio● affer●, non ob id censendus est errâsse, aut officium boni Interpretis non impl●sse— 〈◊〉 si semper optimus sensus quaerendus esset, nullus unquam erit finis interpretationum: sed oportebit nos singulis ferè annis novam cudere interpretationem, aut certè priorem ●mendare. , whereby they declare that all translations are subject to error, & that the best interpretation is not always to be reputed the authentic in the Church of Rom●. And are they not driven in their defence of the vulgar, to confess errors 
l Ibid Hinc diluuntur omnia argumenta desumpta ex pa●vis erratis vulgatae edition is, quae velex libra●iorum incuria, aut aliunde irrepserunt. , though they would have them to be small? and that, that Church doth not err which holdeth such a version of the Scriptures which may be corrected in some particulars, when there is nothing to be found that crosseth faith and good manners 
m Ibid. Consequitur, Ecclesiam illam non errare,, quae re●inet versionem Scripture, quae in quibusdam corrigi possit, dummodo nihil sit in ea, quod fidei aut bonis moribu● adversetur. ? Do they not go further, telling us, that translations of Scripture are not to be reprehended for their diversity in the manner of expression; so they be not contrary 
n Ibid. Non sunt reprehendendae translationes sacrae Scripturae ob id duntaxa●, quod sint inter se diversae, dummodo non sint contrariae.  to the truth?  
If you for the justifying of the vulgar translation cast from you as corrupt, the Greek, and Hebrew, (from which you differ in ten thousand words 
o Vide Bellum Papal. in append. ad Lectorem Supersunt. corrigenda ● docc● millia verborum in utroq▪ testamento, quae differre quantum ad sensum à Graecis & Hebraeis fontibus, Chaldaicoque Paraphraste observatum est & annotatum jampridem à Lovaniensibus in notis marginalibus. ) and all the Latin Copies that were found amongst yourselves before that put forth by Sixtus 5. by which they should be amended 
p Praefatio Sixti Quinti, praefixa Biblijs suis. Auctoritate & tenore praemissis mandamus, ut Vulgatae editionis Biblia, posthac non nisi uniformia imprimantur, nec aliquid à textu diversum in margin scribatur. Quae verò antehac quibuscunque in locis impressa sunt, iu●ta hunc nostrum textum ad verbum & ad literam corrigantur. : where will you find in the Roman Church the word of God for many ages together, (unless you be beholding to the corrupt Hebrew & Greek) seeing your own Pope presupposeth that your Latin Copies in some places can neither be reconciled nor understood 
q Ibid. Nostri Codicesipsi perse aut conciliari, aut intelligi non possunt. . And notwithstanding your vigilant Pastors were 22. years before they performed what was necessary by your Trent-Councell 
r Ibid. Per hosce jam 22. annos, quia dicto T●identini consilio decre●o ad nostri usque Pontificatus exordium interfluxerant, licet hujusmodi opus aliquando coeptum fuerit, tamen ob alias fortasse occupationes intermissum. , (so careful they were to bring the Word of God into your Church) yet so poorly did Sixtus then perform his task, that Clement did afterwards put forth the same according to the Greek and Hebrew fountains 
s Praefatio ad Lecto: ante Bibliam Sixti ●● recognit. atque edit▪ per Clement. In hac Bibliorum recognitione in codicibus manuscriptis, Hebraeis, Graecisque fontibus, & ipsis veterum Patrum commentarijs con●erendis non mediocre studium adhibi●●m fuerir, in hâc tamen pervulgatâ lectione— nonn●lla consul●ò ●●tata. ; with many 1000 variances, cross and contradictings of Pope Sixtus his former edition. I shall not need to lay down any particulars, seeing the whole catalogue of their discrepancies is made up by the labour and industry of Doctor Thomas james in his Bellum Papale. So that the jesuite may see what little reason they have to question our translations.  
But what is all the Jesuits digression to the purpose? the most learned Primates observation whereunto he should have replied, is, that all sorts of people had free liberty to read the holy Scriptures, in the ancient Church, & that the contrary is now practised amongst Papists: if the jesuite confess this, we will press him no further; for this sufficeth to prove, that although we cannot name the Pope that first spoiled God's people of this heavenly treasure, yet it is most certain, that they are defrauded of their right; which undenyablie demonstrates the Jesuits demand to be frivolous and vain, that concludeth the Church of Rome doth remain pure and undefiled still, unless we can point out a Pope, that brought in every corruption wherewith she is tainted.  
Neither will it serve the Jesuits turn to exclaim against our translations; for although we should confess that some of ours have as many faults as we know to be in the vulgar Latin, or they charge the Originals withal; & that some express it with more impatiency, than Clemens did the omissions of Sixtus 
t Praefatio ad Lectorem ult. citat. Non pauca in sacra Biblia praeli vitio irrepsisse, quae iteratâ diligentiâ indigere viderentur. , yet this is not sufficient to to make our translations no Scriptures, to excommunicate them out of the Church, or to deprive the people of the true use thereof. For, is any ignorant, that vulgar translations in primitive times, were in many particulars faulty, and more gross than any translation, which is allowed to be read in the Church of Ireland 
u Ibid. S Hieronymus tempore suo accidisse testatus est, tot scilicet fuisse exemplaria, quotcodices; cùm unusquisque pro arbitrio suo adde●et vel detraheret▪ . Did not Lucian and Hesychius at several times correct the Septuagint 
x Hieron. in libr. Paralip. praefat. Alexandria & Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesy●●ium laudat autorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat; mediae inter has Provinciae Palaestinos codice● legunt, quo● ab Origine elaboratos Eus●bius & Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque Orbis hâc inter se triphariâ varietate compugnat. ? Were all the translations out of Greek into Latin, without faults, as they were without number 
y Augustin. de Doctr. chr lib. 2. cap. 11. Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt linguam, numerari possunt, Latini autem interprete nullo modo▪ ? The vulgar Latin now in force by decree in the Church of Rome, abounded with errors; or else your Popes were full of impiety, that kept all the learned train of the Roman Church 22. years in work to correct is, before it could be fitted for an impression, & then let it pass not without downright errors, as by Clement's altering, adding, detracting, contradicting of it in thousands of places in his after-edition, is most apparent, and hath been formerly declared. 
z Vid. lit. ●. & ●.   
Further, whereas▪ the jesuite urgeth St Hierome, that the Gospel of Christ, by perverse interpretation, is made the Gospel of man: or which is worse, the Gospel of the Devil 
a Reply pag. 26. . Our jesuite hath forgot himself: for what hath interpretation to do with our translation? we confess Arius and Pelagius used the Scripture in this manner, & that your great Roman Interpreter hath so behaved himself, that he needeth not to give place to any precedent Heretics 
b See the right reverend and most learned the Lord Bishop of Kilmore his Epistle to M ● Wadsworth. chap. 3. pag. 62. 63. & add pag. 69, . But for which of our good works would he stone us?  
Now you may see how great cause our jesuite hath to compliment it. Hath not then our holy mother the Catholic Church good reason to bar her children from reading of such dangerous books, as lead their Readers head long into perdition, and doth she not h●reby regard that Christian reverence and respect which is due unto the Majesty of God's sacred Word, more by keeping it from defiled hands, than our Adversaries do, by casting that pricclesse pearl before such (wine &c 
c Reply pag. 27. .  
Here our jesuite is out of his cowl (like a Fencer) in his flourish; For they are not corrupt translations which his faction detesteth▪ (for none are more corrupt ●●e hath ●● authentic) but vulgar, and even now our vul●mple ʰ, 〈…〉 were but poisoned grounds, new fangled ᵈ, deserv●●d train? 〈…〉 
Reply pag. 26  name of holy Scripture, yet here they shall haveger▪ 〈◊〉 of priceless pearls, which (as the jesuite saith) ●n his ●● before s●yn●. Surely if our translation be no Scrip●●es, where is the breach of reverence, of Christian respect? where is the Majesty of the sacred word profaned, if ours be the true word of God? Let the jesuite return to his vomit which he hath disgorged against God and his Oracles: I would know whether it is more honour to God's Book to be reserved in close Libraries; or in the hearts or hands of his Saints. Whom he meaneth by Swine, every one may perceive; even those that Christ prized at the high rate of his precious blood; the laiety, and all others to whom this liberty by the Adversaries is denied: But our jesuite must learn, that the word of God is of that efficacy, that it can make clean wallowing swine, and those which are now dogs, and without, it will force to cast up their vomit; and in time it will purge and consume Antichrist, and that foul fabric of iniquity, your A●gean Roman stable.  
And further our jesuite deals like the jews with the Inhabitants of the tower of Syloam, 
* Luke 13. 4.  proving quidlibet de quolibet, particular doctrines by desperate events. First he telleth us, that since the most learned Answerer printed his book, there fell out an example among ourselves, which might sufficiently condemn this their pernicious licensing of every giddy brain to read their Bibles. But I pray you what example is this? why, of one Gray, who not long ag●●, ●●ving inhumanely murdered his own son, excused his bloody fact by the example of Abram, whom God commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac. 
c Reply pag. 27  Who will excuse the bloody fact of that distracted wretch? But yet who can collect any such thing from the Jesuits fond premises, as he laboureth to conclude? Nabal was his name, and folly was with him; ever● 〈◊〉 knoweth that it was conceived discontent which 〈…〉 his soul in that speculative desperateness, & that 〈…〉 Devil's suggestion & not the scriptures▪ which 〈…〉 to that evil. And I pray the jesuite to tell me the 〈…〉 why amongst them images (the Laye-mens' books) 〈…〉 not wrought the same effect; seeing by them ●he historie● of the Bible are likewise represented? Further will the jesuite argue, the Devil hath abused scriptures by suggestion, therefore the scriptures should be taken from the tempted for their ordinary use? If this were good Logic, the jesuite might debar Christ of his scriptum est 
* Mat. 4. 4. 7. , because the Devil cited text. Neither can the jesuite show such gross abuses in the interpretation of scriptures by those which have been indifferently learned, as have been committed by the learned themselves; some of them proving to be the greatest Architects of Villainy. It may be the Anthropomorphites did embrace their opinion simplicitate rusticâ; yet we cannot deny▪ but Origen (besides divers Heretics) did abuse it more▪ 〈◊〉 enquiring after Allegories, never dreaming of the letter. Now if the simple, because they mistake the literal sense, & the learned, because too much given to allegories be inhibited the use of scriptures: How can St john's words be true, These things are written, that ye might believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, & that believing, ye might have life through his Name 
* joh 20. 31. ?  
But he proceeds in his storying, In like sort doth Franciscus Costerus in the preface before his Dominical sermons, produce examples of gross enormities proceeding from this liberty 
f Reply pag. 27. .  
The Author is of such worth, that we might easily cast off his testimony; but give him leave to relate his observations.  
First, a certain Painter in Prussia, who having read how Lot lay with his daughters, learned▪ thereby to defile his own daughters also 
g Reply ibid. .  
Suppose we have one ignorant Prussian, that imagineth every example in Scripture equivalent to a Rule; must God's word upon this ground be denied the Laiety? surely, there is no bon sequitur here: What if a jesuite hath conceived King Butchery lawful by Ehud's example 
h Io. Mariana, de Reg. instit. lib. 1. cap. 7. Itaque apertâ vi & armis posse occidi tyrannum, sive impetu in regiam facto, sive commissâ pugnâ, in confesso est. Sed & dolo atque insidijs excep tum: quod fecit Aiod. etc. , must the Scripture therefore be denied your learned train? the reason, truly, is the same, the consequent stronger.  
Secondly, john a tailor of Leyden, found out in his Bible that he should be a King, and that he might lawfully have two wives at once, and that all temporal goods ought to be common amongst men 
i Reply ibid. .  
Who knoweth not, that the Church hath had, even as amongst the learned, Heretics and those which have raised Schism; so also amongst the Laiety, Phantastickes even in her best ages and times? Must the Church seal up her treasure from the people, because they have fond and strange imaginations? Every eye may perceive that those very books which you deliver for the people's instruction, are as subject to vain imaginations as the Scriptures, & therefore why permit you them to the people, if you condemn us, when as God's word is less subject to abuse then the frames of sinful men? And for your setting up images in Churches for laymen's books, besides their occasioning idolatry, what error and blindness bring they among the People, as that Moses hath horns, etc. and yet which of these are separated from them? Must Lay-people with us for ever lose the comfort of God's truth for the error of one seduced fancy; & must images by you be pressed upon the people, which occasion in the Church such fearful events of Idolatry, superstition and error?  
But I pray you tell me, what hath the Tailor of Leyden done more than your Roman Bishops? where have his mistakes been more gross? He by his Bible found he should be a king: They by their wresting their Bibles, that they are above Emperors 
k 〈◊〉 de Maior. & obed. c. Vnam sanctam. In hâc ejusque potestate duos esse gladios: spiritualem videlicet & ●emporalem evangclicis dictis instru●mur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis, Ecce gladij duo hîc, in Ecclesia scilicet cum Apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus nimis esse, sed ●atis. Certè qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat: malè verbum attendit Domini proferentis. Converte gladium ●●um in vaginam. E● paulo post. Nam veritate testante spiritualis potesta● terrenam potestatem instituere habet & judicare: si bona non fuerit: si de ecclesiâ & ecclesiasticâ potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae▪ ●cce constitui ●e hodie super gentes & regna: etc. quae sequnntur. Ergo si deviat ●er●●● potestas judicabitur â potestate spirituali. vide plura. . He, that he might have two wives: They for Catholic ends, can dispense with a brother to marry his brother's wife 
l Antiq. Britan. p. 307. Sed quia jure divino ●●●tris sui relictam viduam haud liceret ducere, it ur ad Papam julium— Is— Theologis Cardinalibus etiam dissentientibus, instant Ferdinando ad contrahendum inter Henricum ● Regem, & D. Catharinam matrimonium juris divini dispensationem produxit. . etc. and permit many Stews 
m Agrip. de van. scien. cap. 64. Sixtus Pontifex maximus Romae nobile admodum lupanar extruxit.  also. He would have all things common. They, will have nothing so appropriated to others, that some way at least in ordine ad spiritualia may not belong to them 
n Bernardus Mornalensis in 3 libro de contemptu mundi. Heu, sua propria deputat omnia REX BABYLONIS. . Now let any indifferent judgement determine, whether there be not as good reason to deprive the Romish Clergy of the use of Scriptures in the original for the Papal abuse of it; as the Lay-people for the default of a poor crazed, though an Academical Tailor.  
He tells us further of one David George: that by the same reading was bold to affirm, that he was the son of God; of an other in Germany, that reading the manner of Baptism prescribed Mat. 28. thought himself obliged in conscience to baptise such young dogs, as his Canet had lately whelped: and under the pretext of a commandment given in those words, Crescite & multiplicamini etc. the Anabaptists exercise their abominations in darkness 
o Reply pag. 27 .  
I need not to examine the truth for the bare matter of fact of this learned Jesuits variae historiae; for it being granted that all is true, what can be concluded against the liberty of using the Scriptures? But in regard this foul mouth imputeth all these mischiefs to the reading of God's book, he hath only declared himself an enemy to that light, which in time will obscure and consume him and his faction. God styles his Word to be a lantern to our feet, and a light unto our paths 
* Psalm 119. v. 105. , And who they be that Tertullian calleth Lucifugae 
p Tertul. de resurrect. carnis cap. 47. , let the jesuite inquire. For opinions and practices of like nature with the jesuits' examples, Jesuits & such kind of enemies to God, may impute them to the reading of the Scriptures, but the Holy Ghost pleading for himself (whose words they are) giveth another reason Rom. 1. 21. Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God, into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and f●are-footed beasts, & creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. Whereby we may see, from whence such fearful practices and opinions proceed, not from God's truth; but from the contempt of it, when men had rather adhere to their vain imaginations, than that heavenly light. Which is further declared Rom. 1. 28. Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. And what ground this jesuite hath to charge the scriptures with these fearful effects, he saith not. But let him tell us, whether doth God's book afford one syllable to justify any of these practices laid down by him? nay, doth it not deter them from such wickedness? That corrupt men in the maliciousness of imagination may pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction; as we deny it not; so it maketh nothing at all against the vulgar use thereof. And herein our jesuite is worse than Adam, Eve, the Serpent, or he that possessed them in their corruptest nature; none making God the cause of their fearful wickedness, as the jesuite in these particulars doth his Word. And I think the pollution of Popish Priests might with as much truth be objected unto them, as to Anabaptists; nay, I dare say, (though I hate to give them a word for defence) that there is as much sufferance for notorious pollution within the Papal command, as under any government and confusion in the world, as will be cleared by their stews, incestuous dispensations, filthy Sodomies, and mincing those sins which a chaste mind is distempered to think on 
q Sanches lib. 4 de debito con jugali, disp 46, , and modesty forbiddeth me to name.  
But our jesuite will conclude the matter, and tells us, if our Answerer cannot prove (as sure he cannot) that ever any such liberty was granted to the people, to read such like Scripture, as is allowed amongst them at this day, let him tell us himself, how fare he is from agreeing with the practice of either first or middle ages of the Church, wherein no such Bibling, nor Babbling amongst the common people was ever beard, or dreamt of 
r Reply pag. 27 .  
If this jesuite by such like scriptures would have the same translations proved to have been in practice in the first or subsequent ages; or if he would have us to prove that there were others, which were as corrupt, as he presupposeth ours to be, in common practice; then he requireth us to prove what we affirm not. Yet this we may justly say, that there was never translation in the Latin Church before Hierome's time, but was more corrupt, than any he can find allowed in the Church of Ireland since the Reformation, which may be demonstrated by their own measure or rule; for if our translations be nearer the Hebrew, out of which they were translated, than those  Versions out of the Septuagint, it cannot be denied, that they are more agreeable to the truth. And that they come nearer the Hebrew we need not to go fare▪ for manifestation thereof, in regard they are more agreeable to the Vulgar Latin, which in the judgement of Papists is nearer to the Hebrew than the Septuagint, and by consequent than any translation from thence whatsoever. But it hath (this notwithstanding) been formerly showed in this Section, that the Fathers not only permitted the same scripture for the people to read, as we do now, but exhorted them also to that duty. And this did continue in the Church of God, until (God and his truth being neglected and contemned,) humane inventions and superstitious customs, (which did better consent to Papal tyranny than the Scriptures could any way do) invaded the Church. And notwithstanding our Jesuits pretences, we know, it is not because the Scriptures are so dangerous in their use, that they are not permitted by the Romish Faction, but because by their light every weak judgement may discern Papal Hypocrisy 
f Verger. secretary: Pont. act 1. pag. ●1. Et scio quidem te non ignorare prudentissimos homines qui diu in hâc causâ versati sunt, ita sentire, ut si ea judicanda sit ex verbo Dei in veteri & novo testamento scripto juxta eum sensum quem ex Epistolis atque actis Apostolorum agnoscimus ipsos Apostolos t●nuisse & docuisse fore ut vincamur à Lutheranis. , and thereupon▪ be inclined to cast off that Usurper which reigneth in their conscience 
t Consilium quorund. Episcop. Bonon. congregat: de stabiliend: Rom Eccles. Denique (quod inter omnia consilla, quae nos dare hoc tempore beatitudini tuae possumus, omnium gravissimum ad extremum reser●avi●us) oculi hic aperiendi sunt, omnibus nervis admittendum erit, ut quam minimum E●angeli● poterit (praesertim vulgari linguâ) in ●●s legatur civitatibus, quae sub tuâ ditione & potestate sunt. Sufficiatque tantillum illud, quod in Missa legi solet: nec co amplius cuiquam mortali●m legere permittatur. Quamdiu enim pauculo illo homines contenti fuerunt, tamdiu res tuae ex sententiâ successere, eaedemque in contrarium labi coeperunt, exquo ulterius legi-rulgò usur patum ●st Hic ille (in summa) est libes, qui praeter caeteros has●e nobis tempestates ac turbines concitavit, quibus propè abrepti sumus. Et sane, si quis illum ●iligenter expendat, deinde quae in nostris fieri ecclesijs consueve●unt, singula ordine contempletur, videbit plurimum inter se dissidere, & hanc doctrinam nostram ab illâ prorsus diversam esse, ac saepè contrariam etiam. .  
So that whether you have made a change, or ourselves, let the Reader determine; and whether Bibling in a language that may be understood doth not better agree with the ancient practice; then Babbling in an unknown tongue, where the people and the stones are equally edified. I also desire the Reader further to conceive, how the jesuit hath behaved himself in this controversy, that when he should have freed his Church from the change mentioned, and so have avoided the most learned Primates argument, he doth nothing labour to prove their agreement with the Fathers, as he should have done, but only goeth about to persuade, that the Fathers never permitted such translations, or as he termeth it, such like Scriptures to be read of the people as are allowed amongst us at this day. All which is nothing to the purpose: in regard the change consisteth in their different practice from the ancients; and not in our agreement with them; For if all sorts of people did read the Scriptures in the primitive times, being invited thereunto by the Christian practice of the faithful, and the exhortations of the Bishops then living; and that the Churches under Popish government have been for many hundred of years without vulgar Bible's approved and appointed to be read of the people, whereby they might be exercised in the like ancient Christian duty; doth it not then follow, that (let our custom be what it will) they denying free liberty unto the people to read them without dispensation, disagree herein from the practice of the ancient Church, although we do not point out the Pope that did first seal up this treasure from the people; and consequently that the Jesuits demand is vain?  
Yet the jesuite continueth his pursuit and his Vanity also. By an other instance (saith he) no less vain than the former he endeavoureth to tell us again, how we differ from the middle ages of the Church 
u Reply pag. 27   
If no more vain, than the former, the learned Answerer needeth not to fear: well; where is this enclosure of Vanity? I hear S. Hierome say: The Church doth read indeed the books of judith and Toby, and the M●chabees; but doth not receive them for canonical scripture 
x Hieronym. Praesat. in libros Solomon. Epist 113.  I see that at this day the Church of Rome receiveth them for such. May not I then conclude, (saith the most learned Primate 
y In his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. pag 9 ) that betwixt S. Hierome's time and ours, there hath been a change; and that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same judgement with the Church of God then: howsoever I cannot precisely lay down the time wherein she first thought herself to be wiser herein than her forefathers?  
What Vanity can the jesuite espy here? why, saith he, Our Answerer playeth Bopeep, with his Reader, affecting ignorance to wrong the truth; for well he knoweth, that the same S. Hierome, not long after, did testify unto the world, that the first Nicen Council declared the book of judith for Canonical, which he had not heard of when he wrote the former words alleged by our Answerer. 
z Reply pag. 2●   
Here the jesuite had need to be active, for his weapons are but reeds. The place he urgeth is Hierome in the prologne to the book of judith. And surely there will be small grounds to make judith reputed canonical in Hierome's time. Paula and Eustochium desired Hierom to translate this book of judith into Latin, (where, by the way, you may see, if you make it canonical Scripture, we may conclude, a woman might have and read the same in the vulgar tongue) to whom St Hierome answereth; that among the Hebrews,  book of judith was taken amongst the holy writings, but yet of no authority to resolve a controversy, being written in the Chaldey, & reckoned among the Histories; yet because it is read, that the Nicene Council did take this book in the number of the sacred Scriptures, he did yield to translate the same 
a Hiero in Prologue. ad librum judith. Apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter Hagiographa legitur, cujus autoritas ad roboranda illa quae ad contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur. Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum Scripturarum legitur compu tâsse: acquicri postulationi vestrae imo exactioni. . But where was it read? non ex canone de sacris libris confecto, not out of the Canon made up of the holy books 
b Baronius in appendice decimi tomis. notatione ad annum 32, Haud affirmandum omnino existimarem Canonem de libris sacris statutum esse à Nicaeno Concilio, à quo neminem ausum fuisse recedere, jure debet existimari. Sed non ex Canone de sacris libris consecto, id asseruisse S. Hieronymum, verum potius ex acts cjus, in quibus obiter citatus idem liber inventus ●uit , this Baronius affirmeth: where then? in some obscure pamphlet, for any thing the jesuit knoweth: and so fare was St Hierome from testifying to the world, what the jesuite so confidently affirmeth, that it cannot be manifested, St Hierome gave any credit to what he saith was only read. Yea, their own Lindanus from St Hieromes uncertain manner of Speech, [Legitur computâsse,] seemeth to conclude, that St Hierome believed it not, though he might read it 
c Lindan Panopl Evangel. l. 3. c. 3. Vehementer ut dubitem, facit quod apud Hieronymum Praefat in judith reperitut. & paul● cost Sed legitur computasse, ait Hiero. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindicate videtur. , and saith, if the Nicene Council did anciently reckon the book of judith in the Canon, why did not the Council of Laodicea reckon it? why did not Nazianzene make mention of it? What meant the same St Hierome to say, the Church at that time did read the books of judith, Tobic, and the Maccabees, but did not receive them amongst the Canonical Scriptures 
d Idem ibid. Si Ni●aena Synodus olim hunc Iudith librum cum alijs in Canonem redegerat, cur annis 80. post ●um non accenset Laodicaena? cur Nazianzenus ejus non meminit? & paulo post. Quid sibi vult quod idem Hieron in librorum Salomoni● praefatione scribit, Ecclesiam libros Iudith Thobiae, ac Machabeorum legere quidem, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipere? . And Erasmus in his Censure upon this Prologue saith, that St Hierome doth not affirm the book of judith to have been approved in the Nicene Synod 
† Censura Prologi ad librum judith. Non affirmat approbatum hunc in Synodo Nicaena, sed ait legitur computâsse. . So that it is most apparent, who it is that playeth Bopeep, with his Reader, that affecteth ignorance to wrong the truth. Further, what did St Hierome afterwards, that might cause the jesuite to conceive it in his subsequent esteem Canonical? He translated it: but did he not the like to others which he denyeth to be in the Canon? and where then is his retractation, which he ought to have performed for abusing the Canonical book of julith, if he had committed violence against God's sacred truth? Neither ought it to amaze the Reader, that this book should be said to be taken in the number of sacred writings; for who knows not that Books were esteemed Hagiographa, holy and divine from their matter, and in opposition to profane writings, and yet were fare from the authority of the Canon? And if it be a true rule, that one falsehood makes the whole testimony suspected, what shall we say to the corruption of this prologue to the book of judith, wherein Hagiographa is put for Apocrypha, as may be proved by Lyranus 
c Lyrs. Prologue. in Bibl. Neque all quemm veat; quod in judith & Thobiae prologis dicitur, quod apud Hebraeos inter H●giographa leguntur, qui manifestus error est, & apocryphas non hagiographa est legendum qui error in omnibus quos viderim codicibus invenitur & inol●uit (ut pu●o) ex pi●tate & devotione exscribentium, qui devotissimas historias horrebant annumerare inter apocryphas.  and johannes Driedo 
f Dried: l. 1. c. 4. Alterum difficultatis nodum, qui est super libris judith & Tobiae, conatur dissolvere magister in historijs, cuius sententiam se●uitur & alius quidam expositor in prooemio Bibliae, dicens in prologis illis duobus Hieronymi super judith & Tobiam. mendosum esse codicem, & in ●oloco, ubi legimus hagiographa, legend●m esse apocryphas. .  
Here is a  truth for Iudith's virginity; no witness but an hearsay; and we know not from whom: So that our jesuite ought to seek an other answer: for this is lame, halting and of little strength.  
But suppose the Nicene Council in S. Hieromes opinion did receive judith into the Canon, yet he will not say the same of Toby and the Maccabees: how can our Adversaries then deny the change? Why, Gods own are not so much bound to our compassionate jesuite, as these suspicious births; but how will he array them? with a canonical coat. The ancient Church (saith he) received them for canonical 
g Reply pag. 28 . S. Hierome his ignorance were then much to be wondered at: but this testimony will not be rejected, if the jesuite can make good, what so generally he affirms. By the ancient Church, he must exclude neither age, nor judgement, unless some stragglers: wherefore then doth he leave out the first 300. and almost 400. years, affording us not one testimony, but a pretence or two out of Cyprian to no purpose: and in his proofs, why doth he afford us only particular testimonies, private men, when the Church's declaration is to be expected at his hands? But let us examine his testimonies. First, he produceth the third council of Carthage Can. 47. We say, this is but a private testimony, and at best but a declaration, of a particular Church; and a Council that they allow not themselves 
h Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. cap. 21. At objicit Calvinus— Concilium Carthaginense tertium. can. 26. ubi vetatur, ne quis princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos dicatur: sed solùm primae sedis Episcopus Respondeo, Concilium statuisse solum de Episcopis Africa, inter quos multi erant Primates a quales ne ullus corum summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps aliorum diceretur. Nec enim Concilium hoc provinciale, Romanum Ponuficem, aut aliarum provinciarum Episcopos obligare poterat. . Secondly Innocent ad Exuperium. But if this be his Epistle what doth he declare therein but his private judgement? what find we there but an answer that he gave not ex cathedrâ, but as he expresseth himself pro captu intelligentiae meae, at the entreaty of a Brother? Gelasius his decree, hath not one word of Canonical in it; only they are styled of the old testament, which is a phrase used many times by ourselves, because they are comprehended in one volume together, and yet we esteem them not within the Canon. S. Augustine doth not take canonical, for those scriptures which were inspired by the Spirit of God, and delivered by the Catholic Church for such; as 〈◊〉 appear by his words, before the 〈◊〉 of those books 
i Aug. de 〈◊〉 Christi l. 2. c. ●● In canonicis 〈◊〉 scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolicas 〈◊〉. . For first he persuades those to be chiefly respected, quae Apostolicas sides habere, & epistolas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that were received of those Churches, in which the Apostles themselves did ●●●, and 〈◊〉 they directed their Epistles.  
Secondly, amongst th●se which he 〈◊〉 Canonical books, he could have this 〈◊〉 
Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to be observed, ut ●as, quae ab omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quas 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉; that those which are received of all Churches, should be 〈◊〉 before those which 〈◊〉 Churches did not receive. Certainly, by this we may see what St Augustine 〈◊〉 by his Canon, not those which were generally received only; but those also which were 〈◊〉 of a few Churches, and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of less 〈◊〉 
Ibid. , which were the same that we account 〈◊〉. So that Canonical in Augustine's sense is 〈◊〉 those which abound with lies and 〈◊〉 
Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occupen● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 den●●s 〈◊〉 dicent 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ , ●● is 〈◊〉 by his words, & not to those which is godly books were premitted to be read by the people, though (because not divinely inspired) they were not to confirm any point of Doctrine, whereby the same Father interpreteth the meaning of that Council of Carthage urged by the jesuit, in case he had subscribed thereunto, as our adversaries persuade. And that this agreeth with S. Augustine mind, it shineth forth in many places: For although S. Augustin saith, that the Church had them [the Maccabees] for canonical, yet he tells you, how; not because they were divinely revealed, but for the 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which must needs interpret that the church 〈◊〉 them for canonical, that is, of that canon which was fit to be read only for the moving of the people's affection, by declaring the passions of the 〈◊〉: for he maketh them not of that 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 inspired, 
● Aug. de 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 opposeth them to it ●, non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●● quibus 〈◊〉 & Machob●●rum 
● Aug. con. Epist G●ud●●. l. ●● 31. ●●●●pe quidem scripturam quae appellatut, Mac 〈◊〉 non habent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉, & psalms quibus Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testibus tuis— Sed recepta est 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non 〈◊〉, si sobriè legatur vel audiatur.  libri, 〈◊〉 non judas, sed 〈◊〉 canonicis 〈◊〉 propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●rabiles. This is found (saith that Father) not in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of the Macchabeas; which not the I●wes, but the Church hath for Canonical, for the vehement and wonderful sufferings of 〈◊〉 Martyrs.  
And so in an other place ●●●aith, that the Scriptures of the 〈◊〉 were not received of the jews as the Law, the Prophets and Psalms, to which God gave testimony ●● to his own witnesses: Yet he denyeth not but the Church received them not unprofitably; But wherein lay their profit; S. Augustine declareth, s● 〈◊〉, in the sober reading and hearing of them read▪  
For Isiodorus & Cass●dorus, their testimonies make no● the received Doctrine of the ancient Church.  
Neither can those terms of holy and divine wherewith 
● Bellarm. de Verbo Dei lib. l. 〈◊〉 4▪ Po 〈◊〉 de ijs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉. epist. 3. ad ●●per. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 15. ●●● 〈◊〉 Romana. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist. cap. 〈…〉.  S. 〈◊〉, Basil, & Augustine style th●se writings (●●ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome) make these books Canonical, it being plain that they were so termed in respect of other corrupt writings, which were read in the Church at that time, which practice was excepted against by the Third Council of Carthage; 〈◊〉 (as it is urged by the jesuite) wherein it was decreed, that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures, and I think you will not conceive, this inhibition had any relation to any of those books we call Apocryphal, they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us, the title of divine ●● given by most 〈◊〉 and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Prayer of 〈◊〉, the 3 and 4. of 〈◊〉, the 3. and 4. of 〈◊〉? and the book of Pastor ●. etc.  
And the calling of 〈◊〉 Prophetical Scripture by S. Ambrose, is to like effect, it being given to the fourth book of E●●ras, which the jesuite will not have Canonical Scripture, though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Father 
q Sixtus sene● Bibl. sancta. lib. 1. de Esd●● lib. 3. & 4. Divus Ambrose etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelatione. , as the book of Toby, which he is willing to justify.  
But leaving Toby with his dog, the jesuite hath some further proof for the Macehabees: They are alleged (saith he) as other Canonical books of Scriptures are, without any difference. And who are the allegers? Cyprian, 〈◊〉 ●en, and Ambrose 
r Reply pag. ●● . Two things are here to be examined. First, whether every book cited by a Father, be Canonical? Secondly, how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers? First, it is evident, that there is no ground, that the citing of a book by a Father should turn his nature, when an Apostles pen hath not that virtue in itself: unless he will conclude all those Poets cited in the Scriptures, and the book of E●●ch by jude to be reckoned within the Canon. Besides, if this Argument have any life in it against us, why 〈◊〉 it not have the same strength against Papists, to prove the book called Pastor to be Canonical, which (as Bellarmine observeth) 〈◊〉 by the Fathers, Irenaeus, (who giveth it the name of Scriptures) Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen. For the 
Bellarm de scriptor. eccles● Hermen five Hermes librum. scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem, 〈◊〉 inscripsit Pastorem. Is lib●● quamvis à sancto 〈◊〉 re●●o lib. 4 caprino, & Orige●● et divinorum  title Divine, given by Cyprian, and his testimony out of Augustine, there needeth no further illustration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered in substance before.  
Our jesuite from these grounds; the principal whereof i● S. Hieromes ignorance, begins his 〈◊〉▪  
What wonder then if the Church at Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them also for Canonical 〈…〉  
The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses, & those▪ without exception, that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles. The Iesui●e, that pretended the ancient Church, hath not given us ●●● complete proof from the same: and those which he ●●th produced, are but particular men, with one Provincial Council, which they themselves generally approve ●o●, and some of his private testimonies say little to the purpose, So all that our jesuite can expect is this, that in some private judgements these books might be judged. Canonical, but never so delivered by the ancient Church, which defence the book Past●r hath from 〈◊〉 confession; and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your own Sixtu● Senensis 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . And therefore there is reason sufficient, that our jesuite should 〈◊〉 do●●● his 〈◊〉, whichupon so vain a confidence he● hath erected, and acknowledge their change; although they have do●● it upon so good a ground as the embracing of some private judgements three or four h●●dreth y●●es after Christ, leaving the stream of the ancient Church, & ●he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same. Thus the charge app●●●●th to be 〈◊〉 & not 〈◊〉 as the jesuit hoped to have proved it, that the Church of Rome hath le●● the g●●●rall practice of the ●●●cient Church, and hath imbrac●● 〈◊〉 private 〈◊〉, not for love of their persons, but 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 themselves they find some shelter 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s●●ing he cannot declare them scriptures by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; neither by the testimony of the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is sure, if we cannot manifest▪ that 〈◊〉 books (held now 〈◊〉 by the Church of 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 a contrary sentence by the ●●cient church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his skill, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●● 〈◊〉 (saith the 〈◊〉) ●● 〈◊〉 th●● ev●● the Church of God did 〈…〉 〈…〉 before the Church declared them for Canonical by 〈◊〉 authority 
* Reply pag 2● .  
The jesuit must tell us what he me●●●th by the Churches declaring them by public authority. For if he understand a, general Council, it is idle, for they never came to be so 
that Canus loc: Theol. l. ●. c. ●●. Cyprianus (〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in expositione symboli ●osdem sex libros patrum anctoritate, a quibus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod id●● 〈◊〉 ci●▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●ordium: Cu●●que dilige●ter de omnibus exploraverat, omni investigatione comperit, hos lib●●● esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum ●●● Sed & i▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉. ●● 〈◊〉. Ca●. ●●  audacious in the primitive times, as to claim the privilege to ●●eepe into the Canon, Besides he is as fo●d in the consequent, that they have made no change herein from the practice of the 〈◊〉 Church, unless we can show that the ancient Church of God did give judgement, or senten●● contrary to their Trent declaration in a general council▪ For if this were good reason, the council of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the 3. & 4. book of Esdras, Pastor, their decretal epistles, Gregory, Si●tus, (yea what not?) & plead in the same manner that they had made no change, they never being in your judgement, (I think) condemned by the public authority of any general council in the ancient catholic Church, that did give judgement, or sentence con●●ry thereunto. But if the Church might be said to give ●●● judgement, against the books of judith, Toby, and the 〈◊〉 by keeping them out of the cano● as no doubt ●● may, practise being the best declare● of men's judgements) it shallbe manifested sufficiently, that they have long 〈◊〉 received their doom. For first they were always dif●●●●med in regard of the canon & rule of faith, 〈◊〉 that the jesuit hath not produced one private 〈◊〉 that is plain and convincing for almost ●●● year's 〈◊〉 Christ, Secondly▪ In the 〈◊〉 Catalogue 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 ●all of the ancient Fathers and the Council of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these books are omitted; ●●●● part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture.  
Thirdly, the reputed 47. Canon of the third Council of Carthage (which is their chiefest testimony) by the indgement of their own, was never determin●●●● that Synod 
●arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. ●1. Refertur ●ic cano● council. 3. Carthaginensi, cui Augustinus inter●●it; sed ex 〈◊〉 constat, posterioris Concilij esse, quod paulo post sub Boni ●●cio convoca●●m. .  
Fourthly, in after ages they were by many rejected ᵃ, never getting authority till the Trent decree.  
Besides, these books will by their own light declare, of what authority they are. The 〈◊〉 (I hope) will grant that God is as true in his word, as the Pope infallible in his decrees; & if upon this ground, these books deserve credit, let the Reader conclude. first, for judeth, whether it were ●squam or ull●bi, we cannot tell, neither I think the jesuite himself. Again, she honoureth that fact of Si●●on 
* Ca●●s loco ●●pra citat. Constat au●em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctis●imo● in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉, qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti▪ Nich. Ly●an. super 〈◊〉. ●. 1. & super Tobi●● Abule●●●s super Math. c. 1. D. A●●on. 3. p. ●. 1●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo●● tum maxim in fine 〈◊〉. super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 etiam sex ●●cros esse 〈◊〉. Gela●●●● P●pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha. Di●●● autem Gregorius l. moral. ●● rejjo●● 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de T●●●poribus & Rich: l. 2. Exceptio●●●. c. 9 & Ocham. ●● Di●● 〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug:— docet a● Ecclesia esse quid em receptos, se●●●● certa side, 〈◊〉 9 2,  and Levy, which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appears by Moses 
† Gen. 49. 5. .  
And we may see, that judeth fitting herself for lies and deceit 
* 〈◊〉 9 10, , desireth God to give a blessing thereunto 
† Ver. 13. , which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same; so doth it disgrace this book, which speaketh ●● directly opposite to the Apostolical rule 
* Eph. 4. 25. .  
And as judeth doth detect herself; so doth Tobit also, by his vain story of the Rival Devil 
† Tob▪ 6. 14. , & the driving away of a devil or an evil spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart, and the liver of a fish 
* T●● 6. 7▪ , contrary to Christ's doctrine, that there are some devils which will not be cast out, but by fasting and prayer 
† Mat. 17. 21. : And wherefore should the Apostle Eph: 6. 13. have left this out of his armoury, if it had been of such for●● & efficacy, as is here expressed? Further we have an Angel lying chap. 5. verse ●● and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2.  
The Macchabees contain many things, which decla●● the author of them not to write with confidence of God● Spirit assisting him▪ as first, that he was an Epito●●ist of ●●son 
* 2. Maccàb: 2. 23. . Secondly he excuseth himself 
† 2 Maccab. ●5 39 , as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure. Thirdly, it appeareth, that his end is to delight his Reader 
* 2. Maccab. 2, 25. 15. 40. , and to get honour to himself 
† 2. Maccab. 2 ●6. ●7. . Lastly, he justifieth Razis in killing himself 
* 2. Mac●ab. 14 41. 42. 43. ; a commendation fit for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the patiented Martyr's of Christ, as S. Augustine 
Aug. c●n. G●ud. l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit me●us veller h●militer, ●●● enim 〈◊〉. Illi●autem verbis historia gentium ●●●dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius ●●culi, non martyr●● Christi.  observeth.  
To these many more may be added, but this which hath been spoken will suffice to show, that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those books upon the church, which were never (as canonical) received from the jews, unto whom were committed the oracles of God 
* Rom. 3. 2. , never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles; never approved by any father of the church for almost 400 years, never thought of when the Canon was repeated; & such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves. Whence we may gather, that the Church of Rome now, hath varied in her judgement from the church of God then, although we be not able to lay down the precise time, when she thought herself wiser than her forefathers herein.  
Neither will his turning to the Epistles of james, jude, the second of Peter 
c Reply pag. 2●  &c, any thing avail his cause; in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles, & these books of judeth, Tobit and the Macchabees; for although some private men did doubt of the former, yet the church in general did receive and approve the fame 
* See before pag. ●5. ; whereas on the contrary, the jesuite after all his search cannot find ●●● testimony either of Father, or Council, that accoun●●● the latter Canonical for well-nigh 400 years after Christ. And therefore most indiscreetly did the jesuit urge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have been held of these Epistles, with those books, which they absolutely call Apocrypha. Secondly he abuseth his Reader, when he would persuade, that they were only particular Fathers that doubted of these books; when the jesuite cannot find that they were received, either of the jews, or the Apostles, or Primitive Fathers for certain ages after Christ. Thirdly, to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellows driven to defend this adding to the Canon? as first, that doubtful writings which have been accounted Apocryphal for certain hundred of years, which our jesuite calleth sometime, may by the public authority of the Church be declared Canonical: and secondly, that particular Fathers, (which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. years, the jesuite citing none within that compass but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtu● as hath been formerly declared) might doubt of the authority of those books without prejudice, till the Church had declared them for Canonical by public authority. But if the Canon was not complete in the first times, I would know when it was made perfect? and whether in those time's tradition was enabled to declare the same? or whether the Fathers were negligent to testify this truth: and also whether Canonical and Apocryphal, is a distinction lately invented? All this the jesuite must resolve, or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainly known and settled; which will declare their vanity and change in these last times, to add unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith, upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonical Scripture: A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction; who as they looked for unlimited power, so to defend their practices, they desire an unrestrayned rule, making Scriptures what they list. & interpreting it according to the times how they please 
d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu. ad Bo●emo●. Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis. sicut ante ista tempora, quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speci●i Sacramentum, necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo & opere a●●●uebant: Po●●●● ne tunc Ecclesia ●rrare? Certè non: Quod si non: quomodo id ●●diè verum non est, quod tunc omnium opinione affir●abatur, cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ce●●● hoc te non movent; quod diversis temporibus alius & alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur, scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉, et va●●● intellectas, ita ●●uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 ●●po●●rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur. .   

SECT. V How vainly our Answerer betaketh himself to the Scriptures again.  
IN all this Section we find nothing, but what the most learned Answerer before styled a sleight 
a In his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. pag 11. : for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the ancient Church, whose testimonies he is assured, afflict these worst and last times? but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedency; which is due to the word of God, and that he might not erect a new faith, which was never built upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest 
b Ibid. .  
Now let us see to what purpose the jesuite hath here spent his pains. He (it should seem) was willing to find out a way, whereby the true Religion might be known; and first he taketh it for granted, that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500 years. Secondly, that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chief Articles of Religion, pointed out by himself in his demand: and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion, by the testimony of that Church 
c See the ●●●●ites Reply pag. 29. .  
The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular, but to the Jesuits whole frame, which he maketh a rule to find out true Religion by; arguing it first, as a needless labour; secondly, as a tedious rule, in regard matters in controversy might be brought to a shorter trial; thirdly, as derogating from the Word of God, that Rock upon which alone we build our faith; from which no sleight that they can devise (saith he) shall ever draw us 
d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Prima●● his Answer pag. 11   
Upon this the jesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those ancient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was 
e Reply pag. 29.  in the points controverted: as if the most learned Answerer had denied that which in the very place alleged by the jesuite, he undertaketh to make good, viz ʳ, that the Father's writings fortify the Catholic cause against the Pope & his party: And this we say (saith the most learned Answerer) not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofs out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope, than we can do for the Catholic cause, (when we come to join in the particulars, they shall find it far otherwise 
f In his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. ● Gregor. de Valen. Analys. Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse, ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia, satis cognosc●tur. Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi, qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari, nec interrogari possunt quid sen●i●nt. .) Whereby it is clear, that the jesuite hath altogether fought with his own shadow, or the jesuite Valentiag, having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers.  
For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule, I doubt not, but he would have acknowledged the Father's able to relate their own belief, and would further have accepted them as sole Umpire; but accounting this but a jesuitical shift, to avoid the true touchstone or ground of faith, the holy Scripture, he tells him, that allege what authority you list, without Scripture, and it cannot suffice: which the jesuite did observe, although he is unwilling to take notice of it, in regard he supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith 
h Reply pag. 29 . This dispute showeth, that the jesuite hath not been so well employed as the Emperor, for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem, he hath not caught a Fly, and therefore the good man is sleepy that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himself; for although he should grant the first▪ that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500 years, it will not needs follow, that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures, should be points of true Religion: For then every point of Morality, Philosophy, Rhetoric, 〈◊〉, should be points of true Religion: and this is crossed in the Greek Church, which is a true one, but yet notwithstanding may not be justified in every particular that they generally handle. Neither dare the jesuite admit the consequent: for then the points of the blessed Virgin's conception in original some 
k Canus ●o●. Theol. l. 7. c. 1; n. 1. n. 3. , receiving of the Sacrament by children 
l rejoinder pag. 25. , and the opinion of the Millenaries 
m Sixtus Senens. Bibl. sancta. l. 5. c. 233. : of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures 
n rejoinder p. 139. 14● 145. , communion in both kinds 
o rejoinder pag. 116. , that the books of To●y, judith, and the Macchabees are Apocryphal 
p rejoinder pag. 166. , must be points of true Religion. Nay, further, the jesuite urgeth, that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth, that those which die in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God 
q Reply pag. 5▪ ; which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them, if he had not been persuaded that they believed aright in the foundation of faith: and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have been more corrupt, or full of error than your own. So that a particular Church, as the Roman, may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith, and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine; Is not this plain by many of S. Paul his Epistles? by the Church of Perga●●s 
* Revel. ●. ●4. ? And therefore the jesuite may consider how weak a rule he would persuade us to follow; as if this argument were concludent, because we hold a particular Church a true Church, therefore that Church must be the measure and square of our faith.  
Further, you shall see he is taken in the train, whereby he thought to entrap, for in answering S. Augustine alleged by the most learned Answerer, he telleth us, that the pretence of Scripture only in such a matter of fact as this, is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 ●●●i●king from the question in hand 
r Reply pag. ●●. . Indeed, if the question in ●●●d were, whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points, or not; then who would deny, but it were a shrinking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures▪ But if the controversy here be concerning the rule, whether the jesuit hath rightly framed an invention to find out true religion by; then the producing of the true rule, the sacred scriptures, that a defective one framed by the jesuit may be de●ected, is neither from the matter, or question in hand. And if the points proposed by the jesuite be points of Doctrine, as I doubt not but he would have them, yea doctrines of Faith, and fundamental also, why should not he try them by the Scriptures, in regard he confesseth, that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists, and Pelagians, to the try all of Scripture, for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine only 
s 〈…〉 29 ?  
But (saith our jesuite) if it be demanded, to what p●●pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Father's saying, if nothing but only Scripture may suffice? he answereth, that he doth it to the end we should not thinks, he is any whi●● afraid of all whatsoever we can produce against him out of the Fathers: and no wonder he should be so confident heer●●●, when as he layeth this ground for himself— No Father but God, do we know upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences in things that are to be believed 
Reply pag. ●0  etc.  
If the Reader please to consider he shall find the most reverend Primate in answering the Jesuits demand to detect 2 things; first, the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted, to find out points of true Religion by. Secondly, his foolish confidence in that rule, that layeth them open to heresy and shame. Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answerer doth fill up whole volumes with the Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword, which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit, the anncient Fathers, 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those railing Heresies, that revile the 〈◊〉 of the ●●●●ving God. For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it willbe 〈◊〉 to show that you are but 〈…〉 traditions, real 〈◊〉, prayer 〈◊〉 
● 〈◊〉 ●●●roso●. 〈◊〉 he●. 4. Ne mihi ca ●●bi proferen●● SIMPLICITER sidem adhibe●● nisi de divi●●● Scriptures eorum quae ●●cam  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yo●● Roman ●●nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers. And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the general 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith, which they have generally received out of the word of God; but the jesuite may consider, that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture.  
The jesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers, and cleaving to God, (although we most firmly adhere to them, where they join in a general consent with the sa●red Scripture, which is as much as the Father's ● profess to do) telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession etc. And to manifest this he bringeth in (as he 〈◊〉 him) Dr Hooker saying▪ Of all things necessary, the v●ry 〈◊〉 i●, ●● know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy, which 〈…〉 the Scripture i● 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest, could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it: neither would we ●ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our assurance this may; 〈◊〉 that unless 〈…〉 something which 〈…〉, we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 Scripture i● a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉.  
This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historical; and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉, their 〈◊〉 of the Church▪ or being a 〈◊〉 Umpire and sufficient 〈◊〉 to square our ●aith and actions by? For who knows not that the Heavens cover all things, and yet cover not themselves? and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners, and yet not to point out themselves? S. Augustine's words are in every Papists mouth, viz. that he would not bele●ve the scriptures, unless the authority of the catholic Church had moved him thereunto; and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 ●aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
  
But this necessary point of ●aith is a 〈◊〉 o● 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly, the jesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉; for the Church's testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in hooker's judgements For (saith ●o) the more we b●stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 ●●th answer 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with ●● before 〈◊〉 ●●w much more 〈◊〉▪ when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministered further 〈◊〉▪ And therefore hooker's▪ words make ●●thing against the 〈…〉; for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of God's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to believe the scriptures to be the word of 
● Lib. ●. 〈◊〉. ●  God, 〈…〉 And thus, God's 〈…〉 give witness to his word, doth not take 〈…〉 s●●●●ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more than it doth the sufficiency of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also: Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage▪ ●● being plain, that although there be something else to prepare the way 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid. form. disp● 3. sect. 12. n. ●●● Admitti potest ex hum●na authoritate ge●●rari quandam fidem humanam praevia●● ad fidem 〈◊〉 non ●●●quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam ●●●ditionem & applicatively objec●●● , yet the mind is altogether 〈◊〉 by the ●●ght o● the scriptures themselves, the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ou●, and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Church's 〈◊〉. So that the scriptures remain the only 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith, for any thing the jesuite hath pick●● out of this learned Divine.  

● D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendix to the book of the 〈◊〉 par. 2. §. ●.   
〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●● any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉: That all m●● 〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉, that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, follow her directions, and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth ●●, that ●● my fourth 〈◊〉 following, I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a● I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her; so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement, in th●● I say general Counceil may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church herself from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all. This is a ●ad beginning, being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him, I lay down 〈…〉: first, that the Church including in i● all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance. Thirdly, that the Church including 〈◊〉 the ●eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not only from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉; 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church, in 〈…〉 so ●● to the things 〈◊〉 in Scripture, or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ●ath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome, but the Universal Church: neither that Universal Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a general Council, which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred, but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptism of john continueth to 〈◊〉 times▪ Sixtly, that in the judgement of Waldensis, the Fathers successively are more certain judges in matters of faith then a General Council of Bishops, though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church, as the Treatiser saith.  
But (saith the jesuite) if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority 
d Reply pag. 32 . I perceive a little thing will beget con●idence 〈◊〉 jesuite, that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose, but what then? why, majora his, agreat one of our own shall school him a little better. Poo●e ●edant, in what manner? By telling him out of Lyri●ensis, that the ancient consent of godly Fathers is with great car● (not only) to be searched (but also) to be followed of us, chiefly in the rule of Faith 
Reply ibid. . As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures; when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers, authority & power to express the rule of Faith by their bare consent? For Durand saith, that although the Church hath power of G●● on 〈◊〉, yet that doth not exceed th● limitation of the Scripture 
f Durand. ●● Dist. 44. q. 3. ●. 9 Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen ●on excedit limitationem Scripturae. . Universal extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth, but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures: Neither are we at all to give credit (saith the Author of the imperfect work upon Matthew amongst the works of Chrysostome) unto the Churches themselves, unless they teach or do those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures 
g 〈◊〉. Commentar. in Mat. homil. 49. intes oper● S. Chrys. incerto auctore Nec ipsis (ecclesijs) omnino ●redendum est, ni●●●a dicant vel faciant, quae convenientia sunt Scriptures; .  
No testimonies have any strength, that walk without God & his word. The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures, & therefore we ought to adhere to them; & so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors & Counsels, as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith & doctrine; and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together; We rest (saith he) upon the scriptures of God, upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Counsels 
Reply pag. 31 ; inferring thereby, that those which fix their faith, have not only divine testimonies, but also the judgement and belief of the best men to declare the same, as good subsidiary helps to their convincing grounds: which doth not conclude, that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary▪ but that it is a fair & convenient rule to bridle men's fancies, lest the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their own conceits, to patronage their errors. And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Counsels, this learned Bishop assenteth unto: but I am assured, that the jesuite will not be able to prove, that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought, as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the only concluding and sufficient rule; for he is of a quite contrary opinion, as is apparent in many places of his writings 
A●g ●. Donat. post collat. c. 1●. Qu●si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis few ●int aliquand● comparata? .  
Neither will our jesuite have us in our app●●le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone, but also by our agreement with ancient Heretics: and who are those Heretics? The Valentinians, Ennomians, Marcionists, Arians, and others, wh● as it is well known (saith this jesuite) were w●nt to reject all other authorities, and to ●●nce with Scripture only 
Reply pag. ●● .  
If this jesuite be not a fencer, judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated? for his most powerful performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scar. And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture only; it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof, otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle, a sword for a soldier, yea sharper than a twoedged sword. We acknowledge many subsidiary helps, but indeed none sufficient to control the conscience, but Scriptures only: And herein we follow these ancient Heretics: 1. August●●● cited by the most learned Answerer, and unanswered by the jesuite, Let humane writings be removed, let God's voice sound 
Aug. de Pastor. c. 14. A●ferantur chartae humanae, son●●t vo●●s divinae. ede mihi unam Scripturae ●ocem, pro▪ parte Donati. ; and further in his book of the Unity of the Church he saith, Let them declare their Church if they be able, not in the speech and rumours of the Africans, not in Counsels of their Bishops, not in the passages of their disputes, not in their ●ignes & deceitful wonders, because even against these things the word of God hath persuaded us to be ●a●y, but in the Law, Prophets, Psalms, the Pastor's voice, the Evangelists preaching, and labours, that is in all the canonical authority of holy Scriptures 
m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88 Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt, non i● sermonibus & rumoribus Afrorum, non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum, non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum, non in signis & prodigijs ●alla●ibus, qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini pr●parati & cauti●●ddi●i sumus. sed i● praescripto legis, in prophetarum praedictis, in psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius pastoris vocibus, in Evangeli●●a●um praedication●bus & laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus Canonicis sanct●●um libr●●●m authoritatibus. . How fairly this Heretic Augustine opposeth this Catholic jesuite! And further the same Father in a point of controversy openly professeth; We ought not to departed from the authority of the divine Scriptures, to which ALONE in this matter faith is to be given 
n Aug de Gen. ad li●. l. 12. c. 33. Ab authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum, quibus 〈◊〉 lis de hac r● fides habenda est, recedere non debemus. .  
And before this Heretic Irenaus a more ancient one, in the same book which the jesuite directeth us to s●e, agreeth with us. We have by none others know (saith he) to obtain salvation, but by those that brought the Gospel to us; for what first they preached, that by the will of God they delivered to us in the Scripture, that in aftertimes it might be the FOUNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH 
o Irenaeus l. 3. ●●. Non per 〈◊〉 dispositionem nostrae sal●tis cognovimus, quam pereos per quos Evangelium per●●nit ad ●o● quod quidem ●un● praeconiave●●nt postea 〈◊〉 per Dei 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. .  
By this which hath been spoken we find our Appeal to Scriptures alone, as the absolute rule of Faith not to be the only practice of Heretics, as the jesuite would have it, but of the most Catholic Fathers themselves: & indeed so uncontrolled a rule it was in points of faith to be judged by God in the Scriptures, that never any Heretic did deny the same, till Papists tyrannising over the truth, brought in new faith which could not be justified by the old rule. And as all acknowledged this rule most absolutes so Heretics as well as Catholics used to justify their opinion by other means also. It is probable that E●nomius was more beholding to his Logic then Scriptures; for he is painted out by Alphonsus de Castro▪ as a most cunning Sophister 
p Alphons. Castro; adv. Haer. l. 5. De Deo. haer. 10. Eunomius artis dialecticae callidissimus. . Besides, the Montanists, when they were overcome by force of argument, fled for shift & refuge unto Martyrs, reporting themselves to have many 
q Eusebius Eccles, hist. l. 5. c. 14. Quando igitur in cunctis iftis redarguti, argumentis destituunt●r, admartyres confugere nituntur, multos se martyres habere, arque illud certum prophetici spiritus, qui apud ipsos sit, documentum esse dicentes. . Nay, what practices have the Papists for the most part, that Heretics had not? sometime they pleaded the Church 
r Opus imperf. in Mat. hom. 49. Nunc autem singulatim professores haeresium diversarum dicunt. Ecce hic est Christus, id est Ecclesia. Et illic, id est Ecclesia. Quia jam non audiendo dogmatum verba, sed videndo eorum Ecclesias Christiani scandalizantur infirmi. , sometime Fathers 
s See Dioscorus cited by the most reverend, the Lord Primate, pag. 24. Alanus Copus Dial. 6. c. 22. Veteres haeretici cum Patres ipsis apertissimè adversarentu● cos tamen à se stare magnâ contentione clamab●nt. Baron. Annal. an. 431. num. 170. Sed mirum dictu, quam calumniose ad suam ipserum haeresim astruendam citare ijdem Nestoriani consueverint sanctos Patres, quantâque mentiri jactantiâ, universos fermè Orbis Episcopos secum sentire. , sometime Tradition 
t Euseb. Eccl. ●ist. l. 5. c. 25. Dicunt (Samosateni,) Majores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos ●a sensisse ac do●nisse, quae ipsi nunc dicunt, servatamque eam praedicationis veritatem usque ad tempora Victoris, qui 13. â Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit. Irenaeus advers: haer. l 3. c. 2. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem. , sometime Counsels 
u Epi●tola quorundam 〈◊〉 ad Episcopum Rueful. apud Binnium inter Acta Conc. Ephesin. O Ecumen. Tom. 3. c. 13. No● autem in sanctorum Patrum, qui apud Nicaeam convenerant, caeterorumque qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt Eustachij Antiocheni; Basilij Caesariensis, Gregorij, joannis Athanasy, Theophili Damasi Romani, Ambrosijs Mediclanensis, reliquorumque qui cum memora●is consentiunt, doctrinâ perseveramus etc. , sometime Miracles 
x August. in johan. tract. 13. Pontius-fecit miraculum, & Dona●us ora●it. & respondit ei Deus decoelo. , sometime Visions 
y August. ibid. & de uni●at, eccles. c. 18. , neither were they so naked, but they had your great argument of succession 
z Aug. Epist. 165. ad Generosum. Synod. Lateran. apud Bin. Secreta●sive Consult. 4. Haec pi●tatis dogmata tradiderunt nobis, qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt, & ministri verbi facti sunt, eorumque discipuli & successores, & sequenter à Deo inspira●i Ecclesiae Doctores, id est sanctae & universales quinque Synodi bea●orum & à D●● inspiratorum Patrum, qui in 〈◊〉 & in hanc regiam civitatem, nec non in Ephesium primùm, & in Chalcedonan, & iterum in Constantinopolim in 5. congregati sunt concilio●  also: & yet we must be Heretics, because we appeal to the Scriptures as ● most absolute rule of faith. Vaenitas vaenitutum! I would have the jesuit consider that although some of these blind wretches he nameth could not see God in the flesh, yet none of them were so blind that they could not perceive light in the Sun, the holy Ghost in the word, in the sacred Scriptures: & they whose impudence durst deny any thing, could not deny God's rule to be the Scriptures. For the heretic Maximus, (as he calleth him) if he speak no worse then in defence of the sacred Scriptures, we may give him the privilege allowed to the Devil; that sometime he may speak truth, as the other acknowledged Christ to be the son of God. And to agree with an heretic in truth, is not to be heretical, but (as the jesuite interpreteth his meaning) not any whit to regard those sayings which are not Scripture; and herein if the jesuite did us right he would acquit us; for we give the ancient Church so much honour, that we make her the greatest witness of God's truth, though we deny her to be the truth itself, or rule of faith.  
And whereas S. Hierome is brought answering the Lucifrians, that they should not flatter themselves too much because they seemed to have Scripture for what they affirm: for even the Devil hath alleged Scriptures, which consist not in reading, but in understanding 
* Reply pag. 3● ; what is this to us? nay; with what corruption and falsehood doth the jesuite drag this place of Hierome against the authors▪ intent and meaning? for the jesuite urgeth it against the authority of the Scriptures and their determinative power: when that Father presseth the same against a show of Scriptures, as the devil used them in his allegations against our Saviour; or Popes in their 〈◊〉, corruptly and 〈◊〉, and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text. Yet that Scriptures are the only sufficient rule; was so generally a received truth, that never any Heretic denied the same, for although many of them denied some Scriptures, yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine, to be delivered to the Church, to reveal God's will and to determine all doctrines in the Church, and controversies of Faith by.  
And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would persuade, that we to cloak our errors with a show of Piety, will not be subject to the sentence of any judge whatsoever, but the sacred Scriptures 
Reply pag. 32 .  
The jesuite is here in a mist, and sees nothing; for we refuse not the judgement of any, whether Fathers, Counsels, or consent of the Catholic Church, to judge us by the doctrine of Faith, the sacred Scriptures: but to be tried without the Scriptures, were to be tried in the dark; Tertullian calling Heretics, Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures 
Tertullian. de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum. : & in his prescription against Heretics, he telleth us, that they have a faith without Scriptures, that they may believe against Scriptures 
c Idem prescript. con. Haeret. cap. 23. Credunt fine scriptures, ut credant adversus scripturas. . And what the jesuite would make the note of an Heretic, the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ire●●us his time; Heretics were then known by the path wherein our jesuite treads in▪ railing & accusing the Scriptures, when they are convinced by them, as if they were not upright, nor of authority; and because they are ambig●●●● and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them, that are ignorant of Tradition 
d Ir●●eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non re●●e habeant, neque sunt ex authoritate, & quia variae sunt dictas, & quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . You see Heretics and their practices, they hate the Scriptures, because they bear witness of them, that both their works and doctrine are unsound and evil.  
Now, (as if he would make it appear to every weak eye, that we submitting to Scriptures, as the only rock whereon we build our faith; do thereby annoyed all trial) he prosecutes this with a simile. For we see (saith he) in the temporal Courts, besides the Law, there must 〈◊〉 be a judge, who must declare the true meaning of the Law, and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversy according to the same 
e Reply pag. ●●. . So likewise the same form must be observed in the spiritual regency of the Conscience, if credit may be given to this jesuite, concerning the written Law of God.  
If all this were true, what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures? judges do not Ius dare, but dicere, and if they do attempt more, they usurp, which your controlling judge doth, for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures, and will prove what he pleaseth by them: nay, our jesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures, that were never known but by tradition 
f Reply Sect. x: .  
If a temporal judge trench against the law of Man, as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God, his sentence may be disannulled, revoked, and the judge himself is not free from reproof. And we know that the makers of a law may interpret it, or give power to others to perform the same. But God's law is not made by man, neither hath man received power to be such an infallible judge 
g August. Confess. l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judica●, neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet, quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum, certumque habemus etiam, quod clausium est aspecti●●● nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse. Sice●●● homo; licet jam spiritualis & renov●●●● in 〈◊〉 Dei, secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum, FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non JUDEX, De his enim judicare nunc dicitur, in quibus et corrigendi potesta●●m habet. Clemens Alexandrinus storm. l. 7 Non enim absolutè e●●●ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus, quibus licet etiam c●●tiare contrarium— Sed oporte●etiam probare quod dictum est, non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus, sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur, quae est magis side dig●● quam quaevis Demonstrationes. Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij, ut, qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant, hoc est, Spiritui sancto.— Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis, Dominicâ scripturâ & voce est fide dignus, quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium. Ipsa autem judice utimur ad res in● niendas. Wadding Legate Philippi 3. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae re●●agantibus aut circ●ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus; nec enim parvum. Doctorum aggerem, sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula, etrectore veritatis habet ●●●cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest, Mater Ecclesia. . That which God hath left his Church, is, the blessed Spirit in his word ●, which Christ hath promised shall direct his own in all (at least fundamental) truth. And what if some desperate men follow deceitful guides, must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible? Or must the Scriptures be uncertain in their direction, because we have men that will not see, that will interpret by their own passion; & not yield to the truth, or absolute demonstration?  
Besides, how vain is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Roman judge for our Determiner, who ●●y make us a new rule of faith, as large as the Decretals, pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it, and yet never be an Heretic? For if he might be an Heretic, it must be for denying some truth before defined, but he cannot be ●● 〈◊〉, for defining any new matters (saith your Cardinal Bellarmine) for then he doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church 
k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus, solum erit, ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam, non autem potest esse haereticus, dum ipse aliquid novi definite: tunc enim non sen●it contra aliquid de●●nitum ab Ecclesia. . And suppose he could not err in expounding the Scriptures; may not they which receive his exposition, misinterpret the same, and the people upon report be carried out of the Roman faith?  
Our jesuite proceeds; It will be worth the marking also to observe, how this manner of trial by only Scripture, hath ever been pretended by such, as not only interpret the same to their own lust, but also reject what parcels or books they please; and for this he cities the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament. the Manichees; the New; 〈◊〉, and Cerinthus, the Acts of the Apostles; the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul: Luther, that of S. james etc. Yet would these men (saith he) be tried by none but by the Scriptures, when as they had▪ discarded all such Scriptures, as were found any way to make against their Errors. In like sort deal our Adversaries at this day 
l Reply pag. 32▪ .  
But if we do neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts; neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints: if we adhere to that perfect rule which of itself is sufficient, and more than sufficient ad omnia, for all things 
m Vincen. Lyrin. Cùm sit perfect ●● Scripturarum cano●. fibique ad omnia sati● superque suffielat. : Surely the jesuite is a Calumniator, and we are no Heretics, not so much as in similitude only. We know Heretics both add to the Scriptures, and detract also: This we see at Rome; let the jesuite espy it amongst us, if he can, in Ireland. Further, i●●●● ignorant, that Heretics, in discarding all that makes against them, have rather forsaken Scriptures, than pleaded trial by them? for what is this but the Preparer of an Index Expurgatorius? so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions. And where can you find a greater agreement in this kind, then betwixt yourselves and Heretics? for you admit no Scriptures but with your own glosses, which is as much in effect as to deny all. And if the r●●e concerning God, be as true concerning Scriptures, Non est minus Deum fingere quam negare, It is no loss error to feign a God; then to deny the Deity; what will your additions to the Scriptures merit? You embrace not only Apocryphal books, but whatsoever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produced; and these, because God will not justify them, you will have to be Apostolical Traditions.  
His accusation, that we admit what Scripture we like of. and cast out what displeaseth 
n Reply pag. 3●  us, is the report of a jesuite; Italian news; a thing which he will never manifest, as you may perceive by his proof. Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture (saith the jesuite) and why? it approveth Free will too much 
o Reply ibid. .  
The jesuite argues but with his own impudency, and no reason of ours. Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to confirm points of Doctrine, and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker. That it is so reputed by the Church of God, is, because it was never written by any of the Prophets, 2. Peter 1. 19 never received by the Church of the ●ewes, to whom were commended the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. Further, it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God: and besides these generals, there are many other particulars for which we reject this book; as from his own mouth, who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himself that honour, which the jesuite would confer upon him; for he acknowledgeth his own weakness and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew 
* In the Prologue. , which I think is not comely for that mind to do, which was assisted by the Spirit of God: for when Moses said, I am not eloquent, God questions, who made the tongue 
* Exod. 4. 10. 11 ? Besides this, chap. 46. ver: 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scriptures, which is there spoken of samuel's prophesying after his death, and other things. But I would know, if your additions and traditions were not, where would you find that new Fabric of the Roman Creed, published by your infallible guide?  
But saith our jesuite, Cyprian, Ambrose, August. Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers, account Ecclesiasticus to be holy Scripture 
p Reply pag. 33 .  
If this were proof sufficient, a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon; for we may as well confirm the book Pastor and divers others from Bellarmine's 
q Bellarm. de script. Eccles● pag. 34. See this testimony cited before pag. 163.  testimony, as the book of Ecclesiasticus etc. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon, in regard he acknowledgeth, that it hath the same Epithets from many Fathers as he professeth this to have. So that if this be the Jesuits best Apology for Ecclesiasticus, it is much beholding to his free will, but nothing to his industry.  
This manner of proceeding (saith the jesuite) Tertullian doth discover in those Heretics of his time, and withal will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our days, who tread so right the steps of their forefathers▪ The conflict (saith he) with the Scriptures, is good for nothing, but to turn either the stomach or the brain. This heresy receiveth not certain Scriptures; and that which it receiveth it draweth to her own purpose, by additions and subtractions: and if it receive the whole Scriptures, it depraveth them by divers expositions. Where as the adulterous sense doth no less destroy the truth, then doth the corrupted letter. What wilt thou gain that ●●● cunning in Scriptures, when that which thou defendest is denied, and that which thou deniest is defended? thou shalt indeed lose nothing but thy voice with contending, nor shalt thou gain any thing but choler hearing blasphemies. The Heretics will say that ●● 〈◊〉 the Scripture, and bring lying interpretations, and that they defend the truth. Therefore must not appeal be made to Scriptures, nor must the conflict be in them, by which the victory is either uncertain, or little certain, or none at all 
r Reply pag 3● .  
What Tertullian and other ancient Father's thought of this rule hath been formerly declared: and this quotation doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures; but proveth Heretics to be shifters and forsakers of the same; Whereby the jesuite may espy the heretic. All that beareth any show for the jesuite is in the tail of his allegation; Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est, therefore must not appeal be made to Scriptures, but the jesuite dare not put in the whole, nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria, which is as much as, if I were to deal with a Papist in points of religion & should urge the scripture to him; it were in vain; why? because although they receive the Scriptures, they accept them not as the rule of faith; besides they add, detract, and what they receive they must only interpret. They not only corrupt the stile by a vulgar authentic, but the sense by a Papal violence: and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist, but choleric blasphemy and licentious railing? Doth not the jesuite make this good in his own particular calling Bibling Babbling 
s Reply pag. ●● .  
We know in this sense every mean may be despised, not only Stephen 
* Acts 7. ●4.  and Paul 
† Acts 28. 24. Socrates' hist Eccles: l. 1. c 6. Sabinus, qui haerefis Macedonian●● princeps est, dedi●● operâ his refragatur: immo vero, cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos & 〈◊〉 vocat. 〈◊〉 de vita Constantini. l. 2. c. 71. Magis, magisque lis accrevit & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provincias mali illius imperus invaser●t. , but Christ himself. What Counsels ever choked Heretics, but they croaked afterwards ●? It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupefy a Devil 
* Math. 4. 4. 7. , amaze a Pharisee 
† 〈◊〉 17. ●. ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles. l. 1. c. ●. Cum amplius ●recenti Episcopi ●unam candemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 & exquisitis legis devin●● testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur) 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●, 〈◊〉 ●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 victus▪ ab ●● pe●itu● de●eiverit. , convict an Arian ●, consume Antichrist 
* 2. Thess. 2. 8.  in the effect or judgement of others: What they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the purpose; the Rule is the Rule, though a perverse Heretic cannot be made to acknowledge it.  
Thus (saith the jesuite) we may easily espy the reason, why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Council, or Father's, admitting only Scriptures for the judge of his cause 
x Reply pag. 33 .  
Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espy, it is the same reason that moved the ancient Fathers to urge the general tradition of the ancient Church against certain Heretics of their time, which persuaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the jesuite, in regard Papists, as ancient Heretics shift off the Scriptures many times by additions, subtractions, depravations, adulterous senses, corrupted styles &c: But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church, Counsels, or Fathers etc. is one of the Jesuits truths; He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith, as the absolute rule, seclusis sacris litaris, (so do your own 
y Marsilius def. Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ipsorum auctoritate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias, scripturae sive canoni consonas, recipiam: quas vero dissonas, reverenter abjiciam. Non tamen aliter quam auctoritate Scripturae cui semper innitar. Aquinas, 1. part. sum. q. 1. ar. 8. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè & ex necessitate argumentando: Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae, quasi arguendo ex proprijs, sed probabi litter; Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae qui canonicos libro● scripserunt: non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta,  that have any conscience) but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth. And so fare are they from patronising the Popish cause, that you dare not accept them, nisi ex cogitato commento, but with mental reservation of a false comment, or a worse interpretation 
z Index Expurg. Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores, & ex●enuemus, excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus, & commodum ●●● sensum assingamus, dum 〈◊〉 in disputationibus, aut in confliction but cum adversarijs. Reply pag. 33. . What follows, to wit, that by the confession of his own forefathers, masters, & fellow Protestants they (the fathers) were no better than mere Papists ᵃ, is both falsehood and froth: for which of our account the fathers Papists? if the jesuite knows them, let him produce them: but we believe his weakness willbe seen, before his detection. And surely he dreameth, to think we esteem the Fathers Papists and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their writings always resisted. And how can this hang together; We acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500 years the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papal impostures; and yet (as the jesuit spareth not to accuse us) charge the fathers of the primitive Church etc. as Papists, to favour of that leaven, which they ever cast out and expelled? But this the jesuit hath referred to another place, till which time we will leave it. Yet whereas the jesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words, no other Father (but God) do we know, upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences, in things that are to be believed, & that rock upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets: from which no sleight that they can devise, shall ever draw us, and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers, as little respecting their authority 
b Reply pag. 33  We take this but for a wizards surmise and a vain repetition: we having shown before, that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect, and if he should do more, he would deny to God his due reverence. You that give too much to Saints and Angels, dare not justify, but distinguish your worship; How much better is it then to deal plainly, and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs, and to God and his word what belongeth to them? Yea, whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers, to make them stoop to God or man? We do the first; you do the last: where you dare, you purge them; they shall not speak one word against Babylon, but by inventing some device you will deny them 
c Vide lit. ●. , and if such dealing will not serve, than down with their buildings, giving them no honour at all 
d Index expurg. Hispan●ard. Qui●ogae. edit. Madilti ann: 1584. (in fine literae ●) Deleatur tota Epistola Vdalrici. Episcopi Augustini, de ●●libatu cleri. Item totus liber Bertrami presbyteri de corpore & sanguine Domini, penitusauferatur. .  
Lastly, the jesuite saith, we will now discover for conclusion of the whole, how fare herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the ancient Church of God, with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity. And this we will declare by the express words of an ancient learned Father, Vine●●tius Lyrinensis 
e Reply pag. 34  etc.  
How willingly the jesuite would have the ancient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appear by this his struggling with one only Lyrinensis, whose words largely translated speak not any thing in effect to prove his intention: for who is ignorant that heresies are novelties, and that Heretics would justify their new follies by the ancient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures? neither by them alone, but the ancient Fathers also? Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the ancient Church, because with them he useth the rule that was ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulness than Heretics have done? Surely, the jesuite hath paid it here; for he that every where dreameth of false logic in others, doth not here speak true sense himself.  
Lyrinensis maketh 1. one general sufficient rule for all things, the sacred Scriptures 
f Lyrinens. Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet: Primo scilicet, divinae legis autorita●e.—. Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat. . 2ly. another▪ useful in some cases only 
g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione.— Sed neque semper, neque omnes haere●●s hoc modo impugnandae sunt. , yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures, which is, the tradition of the Universal Church 
h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus, ut Propheticae & Apostolicae interpretationis linea, secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensus normam diriga●ur, In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, hoc est etenim verè, proprièque catholicum. . The first was used by the ancient Church from the worth that is in itself 
i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat. , the other from the perverseness of Heretics that many times abuse the sacred rule 
k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno cod●mque sensus universi accipiunt, sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur— Aliter namque illam Novatianus, aliter Sabeilius. . Bring us now one Scripture expounded (according to Lyrinensi● his rule 
l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. ) by the universal consent of the primitive Church, to prove traditions, confession, Purgatory, prayer to Saints, image-worship,  etc. in your sense, and we will receive it: if you cannot, confess the truth, that you deal like heretics; and acknowledge that we follow the practice of the ancient times.  
And here I would have the jesuite consider how many of their own do cry, the Scripture 
m Sanders. Rock of the Church, chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plain Scriptures in all points for the Catholic faith, and none at all against the same. Bristo. Mot. 48: Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse, there is no text that maketh for you against us, but all for us.  (though it be, more judeorum, as they templum Domini) and further with greater pretended reverence kiss antiquity, not that they love either, but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errors and detect their deformities.  
Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheep to hear his voice, this good man would have it to be the sign and token of an Heretic; but if Heretics make use of Scriptures, this confirms the rule to be what God made it, though it cannot justify their practice that abuse the same. And for brutish and wild interpretations of Heretics which this Father makes woolvish, let the jesuite cast an eye to their own, and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done 
† See before pag. 149 ●it. b. ? And although they brag of Unity and interpretations of good consent, yet (for any thing we see) it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text, that he (as his scholars) may fail to accord in interpretation thereof. Further I could wish it were examined, whether we or they fail in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universal tradition of the Church and analogy of faith, and then it would easily appear (if this be a note of Heresy) who the Heretics are. For the Fathers believed but half the faith according to that you interpret; and to make those points, traditions of the universal Church which needed decrees to authorise them 1500 years after Christ, must needs conclude egregious vanity. But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moon and seven Stars, which cannot so easily detect the works of darkness, than the Scriptures, the fountain of light, that will declare the least error in your doctrine or practice 
n Clem. Alex: Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi overi excludunt Paedagogum: ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Eccles●â, suspectas ●as habentes propter rep●eh ensionem & admonitionem. Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia & figmenta, ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas. ? So that we disclaim not the Fathers, but in your Fantasies; for we allow them at all times what they ought to have; and when by an universal consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church we grant them a more centrouling authority. Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man, (though you blush not to equal them) and to make God's ipse diceit a convincing rule, which we cannot grant to man, or the best of men, the Fathers and Bishops of the ancient Church, where they come alone without the Scriptures.  
Our jesuite hath done much in this Chapter, to wit; proved that we prefer God before men; and I have showed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them.   

SECT. VI  
AND least Vanity should be absent for a little, here the jesuite proceeds to take a view. How vainly our Answerer excuseth his disclaim from the Fathers 
a Reply pag. 36 ? But how vainly he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appear.  
Here (saith the jesuite) our Answerer meeteth us with the same ancient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the method of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers, yet is careful herein to give us this caveat, that neither always, nor all kind of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner, but such only as are now and lately sprung, namely when they do first arise, while by straitness of the time itself they be hindered from falsifying the rules of the ancient Faith, and before the time that their poison spreading farther, they attempt to corrupt the writings of the ancient. But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to be dealt withal this way, for as much as by long continuance of time, a long occasion hath lion open unto them to steal away the truth. Out of which saying our Answerer infers that our Heresies being farre-spred, and of long continuance, have had time enough, and place to coin, and clip, and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquity, wherein (saith he) they have not been wanting, and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers 
b Reply pag. 36 .  
Here is little Vanity to be seen as yet; how the jesuite will make it appear remaineth to be done; and this he will accomplish by espying a manifest contradiction in his words against himself: for above he more than once (saith the jesuite) 〈◊〉 our opinions profane novelties, and heretical novelties. If Novelties, how are they now become Heresies fare spread, and of so long continuance, that we are bold to make duration the mark of our Church 
c Reply ibid. ?  
The jesuite imagineth here Contradiction, and why? because ●● opinion of long continuance cannot be styled a Novelty: So that if we can manifest, that a Novelty may be of long continuance our jesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes. And what will he make novum in Religion, but that, which is not antiquissimum? Our Saviour when he would declare pharisaical traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church, but saith, ab initia non fuit sic 
* Mat. 19●8 , that they were not from the beginning delivered by God, or practised by the Church. So that if the duration and antiquity of your opinions be but humane, that is, not Apostolical, neither from Apostolical grounds▪ It ●●inke and justly, that they may be esteemed new and novelties 
d Terrullian● de prescript panlo ante medium. Si haec i●● sint, constat pro●● de omnem doctrinam, qu● cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus sidei conspiret, veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum, quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli, Aposto●● à Christo, Christus à D●● suscepit, reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapia● contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. , for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis, or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of days whatsoever pretences of duration and continuance may be supposed.  
〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Council of Lateran 
acorus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil. 3. c. 23. ditis, ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem. ● Rhem. An▪ not. upon the 1. of. Tim. 6. ●●. ; and yet we are condemned for calling this a Novelty; whereas it crept in many hundred years after those words which they themselves account▪ Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substanti●, and Christ to be ex non existentibus, and also other Heretics that had their Christiparam and such like ●, new coined terms agreeable to their sects. Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties: because they are of long continuance: seeing the words of ancient heretics being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth, even many hundred years before them, might better claim that privilege and are nevertheless styled Novelties by yourselves. And as the Rhemists acknowledge of words, so we say concerning points of doctrine, that, we are to esteem their newness or oldness by the agreeableness or disagreeablenes they have to the true sense of Scriptures, the form of catholic faith and doctrine 
●hem▪ ibid.  etc. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world. So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes, or lie couchant in the same, but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the fantastic illusions of Satan, the producer of falsehoods and heresies; which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine; for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he termeth profane novelties, Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine, 
〈◊〉 ibid.  which is not the same, but besides as the Rhemists ●, or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church. And therefore our jesuite and his contradiction, contradict his imagined▪ Vanity and not prove or confirm the same.  
For his other Collectaneas; that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to be impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of ancient Doctors. Secondly that the consent of ancient Father is called the rule of the ancient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alleged 
k Reply pag. 36 .  
1. We have showed before 
l See before Sect. 5. prope finem.  that we descent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood: For all kind of heresies are profane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age; Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned (though profane Novelties) after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement. Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Father's rules absolutely, but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly heretics that would wrest the same; so that when the Fathers cannot do the work for which they were used, that is, stop the Heretics mouths, because that having corrupted antiquity, they will also pretend it, than he thinketh such heresies (though profane Novelties) are not to be dealt withal this way. And for his second observation (although the jesuit collecteth untruly,) yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Father's meaning? For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we find, that it hath been the custom of Catholics to try their faith two manner of ways; FIRST by the authority of the Divine Canon; next by the tradition of the Catholic Church 
m Vine●●. Lirinens▪ adv. Profanas Novationes. Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione. ; not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in itself: but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errors 
n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis: cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat▪ quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae, iungatur autoritas? Quia videlicet Scripturam sacra●● pro ibsa sui altitudine, non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt▪ quod ●●— Confideratio temporis— 〈◊〉. . Now in these words, who doth not see, that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith, as he doth the Scriptures, but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures? Neither can we otherwise confecture, but that Lirinensis giveth, this directive Rule for his own time 
Ibid. Add  and not to all succeeding ages▪ for by many particulars it is apparent, that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age he lived in, and precedent had afforded him. Besides we have many Mathematical instruments which are rules in their kind, as the Globe, Quadrant, &c: and there are many books written to assist us in their use: now I hope you will not say, the rule to use the instrument, is the absolute rule itself to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematics! And why likewise may not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures, be Rules (as Vincentius Lirinensis only styleth them) in their kind, & yet give place unto the word of God, as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith?  
Moreover Rules & Measures are either original, which we call the Standard, or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby: and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard, the only absolute rule, sufficient of itself (as he termeth it) to try points of Catholic Faith; and yet grant the general consent of all Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church in a general Council to be a Rule proportioned, fitted and squared thereby? Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controlling Rule, without doubt and exception, when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other, so that it may need to be corrected thereby?  
Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Lirivensis? This ancient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of itself to try the Catholic Faith: His learned Pen confesseth, God's Word to be that rock alone upon which we build our Faith. Lirinensis to avoid jarring interpretations, would likewise from the Custom of Catholics have the Traditions of the Catholic Church, to wit, the general consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures: And for any thing I can find, the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it. So that until the jesuite can show further than he hath done, Vanity I think will turn Friar and remain with him.  
And although this jesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule; yet a further experience persuadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes; which although they will not do with open face, yet by covered shifts they labour to avoid what they pretend to be his direction. For they make the Father's doctors not judges; to be followed, for their reason, not for their authority 
p Bellarm. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris, aliud more judicis: ad explanationem more Doctoris, requiritur cruditio, ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLUM quatenus ratio suadet. , (which destroys their judgship;) to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot help 
q Vasquez. Ies● l. 2. de Adora disp. 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus (Concilij Elibertini) quasi oppressi, tanquam optimum ●ffugium elegerunt, authoritatem Concilij negare, quod Provinciale fuerit,— nec a Pontifice confirmatum: &c.— Et sane, si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit, hoc nobis effugium sufficeret. . So Maldonate upon the xuj. of Matthew 
r Maldonat. in 16▪ Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt. Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse, quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos ●●gisse m●mini authores putant. , Bellarmine upon the vi. of Mark and the v. of james 
s Bellarm. de Extreme: Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae prose●●tur ab omnibus, una ex cap. 6. Marci, altera ex cap. 5. jacobi. De prio● non omnes conveniunt, an cum Apostoli ungebant. oleo infirmes, & curabant; illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis, de quâ nunc disputamus: an solum fuerit figura quaedam, & adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam, ut Tho, walden's. loco citate, & Alphons. de castro. l. de Haer verbo. Extrema Vnctio, ca ratione ducuntur, quod Beda, Theophila●●us & OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci & jacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem, cujus fit mentio in utroque loco. Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi— & lansenij— & Dominici a Soto— & aliorum. Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine gra●●●or, quod videam Lutherum, Calvinum, & Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinion: existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. & lu●●●i 5. , reject the authorities of Fathers, and any may tell me, wherefore.  
Besides the suspicion of this rule is detected; that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sense of the Fathers (as it is easy to be done even where the mind is convinced) how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth 
t Gregor. 〈◊〉: Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua, fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset (eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constare●) ●● tunc constat authoritas Pontifici. ?  
But hereby we may see who fear the judgement of Antiquity, you, or ourselves; We receive them without appeal, if true and not forged, if clear and not ambiguous, in points that they were bound to believe, and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon pain of damnation: You not at all, unless, when you please, they will stoop unto and undergo a Papal explanation.  
Yet thirdly (the jesuite tells us) Lirinensis, as we see doth not so withdraw the trial of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers, that he will have it brought to Scripture only, as our Answerer pretendeth: but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently be convinced by holy writ, than the authority of general Counsels (wherein by the consent of catholic Priests, and Prelates of the Church they have been condemned) should suffice us to avoid and detect them 
Reply pag. 37 .  
Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the only absolute rule fit for all times and occasions 
x Vincen. Lirin: adv. profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon, ●●●ique ad omnia satis super●●● sufficiat , but this directive help of Fathers he applieth to sometimes only 
y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc more▪ ●● impugnan●● 〈◊〉. . But will the jesuite persuade us, that, when Lirinensis doth withdraw the trial of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers, it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures? Surely, the jesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory, then in this place, for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us, whether we  about the true sense of holy writ, or about any Article of Christian belief whatsoever▪ but here they may be suspended as he acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion, and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule, but the authority of general Counsels etc. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them. The Fathers at one time shall help and be the assured touchstone; A general Council (not ancient I hope but of the Pope's calling) when the Fathers fail; But for the Scriptures, their confidence hath not been so great therein, as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith.  
And this jesuite that even now would persuade others to believe that we adhere to the Scriptures only, because we would not be subject to the sentence of any▪ judge, doth here detect himself, what judge he will allow; The Scriptures must be locked up, Bibling is Babbling, and general Counsels must do the work, well! why then do they not confirm Constance and Basill? If they dare not submit to them, why do they vainly pretend their authority? But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope; So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering, his aim is only to have that Exlex (who ought at this time principally to be corrected for his heresies) to be both the rule and the judge.  
But we are as free (saith the jesuite) from the imputation of Heresy, as our Adversaries are fare from finding out any such general Council, in which we have been condemned 
z Reply pag. 17 .  
Have you no better Apologies than this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Heretics? The Pelagians had as good, and pleaded the same against S. Augustine, who answered them with scorn: Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat, ut apertu pernicies damnaretur? quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit 
a Aug. con. ●. Epist. Pelag 4, 4 c. 12. . What, is it needful to assemble a Synod that a manifest corruption should be condemned? as if no Heresy hath at any time been condemned without the calling of a Synod.  
And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries (saith this Loyalist) as their opinions have been certainly condemned by many the like general Counsels 
b Reply pag. 37 .  
I wonder where the jesuite will find them; nay, what have they besides the names of general Counsels that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops? Some of these you dare not confirm, why then should they have general faith and esteem amongst us? If you dare not subscribe to your Counsels, for what reason should they have power to condemn us? Some against Faith given▪ have martyred those which you acknowledge ours: Your Trent Synod hath anathematised the Catholic Church & Doctrine; And I am persuaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head, the Church Catholic should not be long from martyrdom also.  
Besides, whose opinions have General Counsels condemned? ours? Surely, than our pretended Heresies are ancienter than Luther: he is not the first that taught our doctrine. But where are your Counsels (Mr Malone) that condemn the holy Scriptures, the four first General Counsels, the three Creeds? These are ours, to them we subscribe. If these are Novelties, we are Novelists; if this be doctrine of Sectaries, the Heretic hath justly styled us: But if the jesuite cannot bring Counsels, that have condemned God in his Word, the Primitive Church in her Decrees, and the general Confessions of Faith, I hope he will upon better thoughts except Novelty from our Faith, & Schism from our Persons. Neither let the jesuite run about as in otherplaces he hath done, to coin us an other Faith, when as he himself revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures 
c Reply Sect. ●. ; when as our Laws justify our embracing the four first General Counsels, and our Liturgy doth enclose the Creeds. The jesuite continueth his vain discourse.  
And as (saith he) they never yet assembled any General Council of Catholic Priests and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations, neither by reason of their fatal discord amongst themselves will ever be● able to assemble the same, so we may for ever live secure 
d Reply pag. ●7 .  
Every jesuite is not a Prophet; We may have a Co●●●●ll, such a one where your Papa shall not be Precedent, ●or your Cloak-bag carry the Spirit that shall direct i●: when the Church of Rome itself shall be fr●●● from that Faction's which now doth tyrannize over it, and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authority which most truly is their own by divine institution, and Friars and Jesuits may tur●e Turks for any station, that they shall have in the Hierarchic of the Church of God 
e Censura ●●●positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theo●●giae Parisi●●. sem allat. etc. Pri●●a Propositio. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice, Cardinalibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis & Regularibus. C●●sura. In istâ prim● propositions 〈◊〉 ratio mem●●●rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, seu sacri Principat●● divinâ ordinatione instituti, est manca, & redunda●● atque inducens in errorem. .  
Finally (saith the jesuite) the reason of this his ●ergiv●rsa●ion from the Father's authority is vain and idle, when he saith that we have coined, clipped, and washed their monuments. And why, I pray you? For though (saith he) he endeavour to prove this by several instances, yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turn, and therefore tells the most learned Answerer, that he is bound to bring forth ●●und proo●● of this his accusation, under pain of incurring the brand of forgery and spiteful calumny himself 
f Reply pag. 38 .  
We may perceive the jesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars, and therefore ●●sts them off as wanting proof: Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances, that your own have espied the counterfeits, and branded them with their Censures. But the jesuite might have forsaken his self flattery, and have taken notice, that there is more proof against the particulars, than he had answered unto. For is it possible, that there should be little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice, as their Cardinal and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate, affirmeth, when we find the first Bishops of that Church, writing such controlling Epistles; Counsels before that of Nice, giving such unlimited power, and the Roman Emperor qualifying with such unmeasurable Principality their Roman Bishop?  
But because the jesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeits, I will take them as they are laid down in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate, beginning with your Crafty Merchant, Isidorus Mereator, that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretal Epistles etc.  
Our jesuite hath a mind to justify these bratt●, and to make Isidorus his merchandise to pass for good wares, yet Bellarmine confesseth, that they are infected with Error script into them 
g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse, non negaverim, nec indubitatas esse affirma●e audeam. ● Cusanus de Concord. cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocryphas, sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa & magna scripta Sancti● Clementi & Anacleto Pap● attributa. In quibus volentes Romanam sedem omni lande dignam, plus quam Ecclesiae sanctae expedit & decet exaltare, se pe●●tus, ●●t quasi, fundant. Si quis illas omnes Scripturas 〈◊〉 Sanctis attributas diligenter perlegeret, et eorum tempora ad illa scripta applicaret, ac deinde in opusculis omnium sanctorum Patrum, qui usque ad Augustinum, Hieronymum et Ambrosium fuere, ac etiam de gestis Conciliorum, ubi authentica scripta allegantur, usum et memoriam h●beret: hoc inveniret verum, quia nec in illis omnibus Scriptures, de illis praefatis Epistolis mentio habetur, et etiam ip●● Epistol● applicatae ad tempus eorum sanctorum scipsas produ●t. . Cusanus doth downerightly style some of them Counterfeits, and doubteth not that they all would betray themselves, if diligently read & applied to the timesh. Contius wrote a Preface, which is suppressed with his reasons, that he was confident would have declared these Epistles Counterfeit 
i Contius Annot. in dist. 16. c. Septuaginta, dicit, 〈◊〉 a● supra in 〈◊〉 rational addu●●i, quibus omnes Pontificum qui Syl●●strum 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 esse manifeste octendi. Vide colloq Rainoldi cum Harto▪ c, 8. divis. 3. . Besides, they shame themselves; For would these Fathers speak like Barbarians, when the Heathen Rhetoricians were ready to oppose them? Can they speak in one stile & form of words, when they had so many different pens and divers tongues? Were Popes so obscure, or their Epistles so contemptible, that they were not known in the first 500 years? Were they of so slight persuasion, that they could not move the Bishops of afric to give their Successors, what those blessed Martyrs possessed? Did they cite Hieromes Translation by Prophecy, which was not extant while any of them were ●iving? Did any Author in those times speak such terms as are mentioned in those Epistles? Find me Primatus and Apocrisiarius in Anacletus his time, Paga●●● in Caius his daye●. Find me a Priest with a shaved Crown in Anicetus his Government.  
Much more may be gathered from our learned obsenvers: but these things may sui●●se to declare of what breed these Epistles are.  
Secondly; If the Nicen● Fathers have not ampli●●ed the ●ounds of the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in so ●●rge a manner as she desired: the most learned Primate observeth, she hath had her well-willers that have supplied the Counsels negligence in that behalf, and made Canons for the purpose in the name of the good Fathers, that never dreamt of such abusines 
k In the Answer to the Jesuits challenge pag. 13. . But in regard the jesuite hath undertaken to justify them in the Eight Section, I will there (God willing) discover their corruption.  
Thirdly; If the power of judging all others will not content the Pope, unless he himself may be exempted from being judged by any other: another Council (saith the most reverend the Lord Primate) as ancient at least as that of Ni●●, shallbe suborned, wherein it shallbe concluded by the consent of 284. imaginary Bishops, that No man may judge the first seat▪ and for failing in an elder Council than that, consisting of three hundred Buckram Bishops of the sel●● same ●●king, the like note shallbe sung: quoniam prima sedes non judi●abitur à quoquam; The first seat must not be judged by any man 
l Ibid. .  
Now that these truly be as they are reported, no man ●●n doubt, that will seriously enter into consideration of them, unless he leave his wits and wisdom also. For the first, to wit, the Council of Sinnessa; it was never heard of till the time of Pope Nicholas the first, about the year 860. unless the jesuite hath better evidence than Bellarmine could find 
m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. ● 2. c. 26. In Concilio 〈…〉 dicunt Patres: 〈◊〉 se●●●● 〈◊〉 judicatur. Resett haec verba ex isto Concilio Nicola●●● in 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 , and yet the supposed Session of this pretended Council, was many hundred years before, even in the time of the Emperor Dioclesian. And the number of Bishops that are urged for the glory of this Council, de●ect the forging of it; for could it be that the Church in her cruelest persecution should cause 300. Bishop's to assemble together, when afterwards in her full prosperity at Nice, in the most urgent cause that ever the Church had, there were assembled but 318. Neither are we without other just exceptions againstit: Did this Council tell truth that Dioclesian being in the Persian war heard of the condemning of Marcellinus, when that war was ended 2. years before? No; Binnius condemneth this as no part of the Acts of the Council, unless he may help the liar by making him speak as he pleaseth 
n Binius Not. ad Concilium Sinuessanum. (Cum esset in bello Persa●●m) Haec nisi ●mendentur falsa sunt. Etenim cum (sententia Eusebi● & quorundam aliorum) hoc anno 20▪ imperij sui, imperio se abdicaverit, & quod magis est, ante biennium de Persis superatis & vi 〈◊〉, Romae una tum Maximia no collega suo triumphum egerit quomodo, quaeso, hoc anno, cum exercitu adversus Persas in procinctu & expeditione ●ss● p●tuit? Dicimus igitur, ●●c omnia quae sequuntur, non esse exactis Concilij; sed (ut apparet) ad ip●● a●●a appendicem superadditam: ●el s●●ectio ista resti●atur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erat ● be●●● Pers●rum▪ germana esse videbitur, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consenta●●ea. V●de Ba●on. ●n. Christi. ●●●▪ 〈◊〉. ●●●. . And lastly, it is apparent that as wise as our jesuite, hath accounted these ●●ckram Bishops (even Donatists) the Acts spurious and of ●● weight 
Ibid. 〈◊〉) Virorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●c acta 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse, validis sa●e argumentis pr●bare conati font, adcoque 〈◊〉 nihil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 c●l●●dè excogita●●m. .  
For your second Council held (as you pretend) at Ro●● under Sylvester, it had neither other Bishops, nor more authentic acts. For first it is infected with Constantine's 〈◊〉 
Act. 1. c 1 Cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod Constantinus 〈◊〉 a Sylvestro Episcopo urbis Romae, & 〈◊〉 suit a lepra. , a tale, and indeed beyond all folly ridiculous, 〈◊〉 known to the Church many ages after Constantine's death 
q Platina in vita Ma●ci. 1. Quoth ver● in lepram 〈◊〉, ●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 si●, confictâ prius de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nescio quâ 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●do, 〈◊〉 ●●ee in re secu●●●, qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●bi ●●● 〈◊〉 quintum aetatis 〈◊〉 attigisset, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex urbe Constanti●o●oli ad a ●●as ●alid as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa, ●●ll● de lep●à mentione habitâ. Praeterea 〈◊〉 ●ac de re à ●ullo scriptorum ●●t mentio, non dico ab his, qui ethni●i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 ●● a 〈◊〉 quider. . Secondly, this Council sub Sylvestr● must be the year before Sylvester was Pope (an idle conceit) for that is the third Consulship of Constantine Augustus 
〈◊〉 hist, Ecel. l. 4. in 〈◊〉. 313. & 314▪ . Besides we may see how often memory faileth an imaginer, by his ●aking Priseus Constantine's Colleagues. Moreover, view the Council, and tell me, is the form like the Counsels of that Age? Did the Bishops at Nice without giving their suffrages, or discussing the controversies, submit to your Roman Bishop, or Legates; sig●i●g whatsoever they should say 
〈◊〉 Not●● in Synodu●●●●om, 2. sub Sylvestro. li●. 1. Constantino Augusto 3. & Prisco con●s. Hîc legendum esse. Crispo & Constantino 3. 〈◊〉. ipsi Fasti consulares docen●. . No, this discovereth for whose sake this Council was invented.  
Fourthly, If the Pope do not think that the fullness of spiritual power is sufficient for his greatness, unless he may be Lord paramount in temporalibus: Our most reverend Lord concludeth, he hath his followers ready at hand to frame a fair donation, i● the name of Constantine the Emperor, whereby his holiness shallbe estated not only in the City of Rome, but also in the Signiory of the whole West 
Synodus R●man. 2. sub. sylvest. cap. 11. Responderunt cum omnes Episcopi & dixerunt, claman●es universis Presby●●tis; Glericisque. In te justitia, & pietas à te non discedat, quon●a● à nobis nihil judicubitur in 〈◊〉 dictorum 〈◊〉, quoniam ●apientia non est, nisi in patienti●●●er●● 〈◊〉: Dixit autem Sylvester Episcopus: Quon●●● si sapientia non est, nisi 〈◊〉 patientia quicquid sermone 〈◊〉, vestro chyrograph● confirmatur, ● In the An●●er to the 〈◊〉 Challenge. .  
Will this need proof too? The jesuite will acknowledge nothing. But can any man think that a poor perseented Bishop could be changed into a potent Prince, be adorned with a Diadem Crown, and all other Imperial ornaments; and yet neither Eusebitu, Socrates, Theodoret, E●●grius, Ruffinus, (that wrote passages of that time in their stories) should take notice of it? Would Zosimus an hater of Constanti●e and Religion also, have omitted to reproach him for his Leprosy and bloody Bath; if it had not been a foolish frame, an after invention? Further this Donation will have Constantive baptised in the strength of his age, by Sylvester, Pope of Rome: when many Fathers and Historiographers relate it to have been done in his old age, by Eusebiu● of Nicomedia 
Hieronymus in chronicis. Eusebius de vita Constantin. l. 4. Socrates hist. ec. l. ●. c. 39 Theodoretus hist. Eccles l. 1. c. 31. Zozomen l. 3 c. 34. Cassiodorus, qui historiam ab his tribus ecclesiasticam compilavit. Pomponius Laetus, alijque scriptores hujus ordinis Constantinum tradunt non Romae à Sylve●●●●, sed Nicomediae ab Eusebi●▪ sac●um baptisma recepisse. Canus loc theo. l. 11. c. 5. .  
Neither need we to conclude here, in regard we abound with proof against his Counterfeit. For how could the Emperor give the West by his Will unto his Son (as many Historiographers 
y Socrates hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 25. Ad maximum natu que● suo ipsius nomine nuncupaverat Constantinum, decimo anno regni su●, partibus imperij in Occidente sitis praefecit. Melchior Canus loc. theol. l. 11. c. 5. §. Quod deinde. E●sebius, Ru●●inus, Theod 〈◊〉. Socrates, 〈◊〉, Eutropius. Victor, caeterique p●obae fidei authores, qui omnia Constantini ge●●a scripsere diligentissimè, non modo nullam donationis ejus mentionem 〈◊〉▪ ●ed trad●nt etiam orbem Roman●●●●● inter tresillius filios distributum, ut Italia uni corum tota contigerit.  affirm) when before he had given the same to Sylvester & his Successors for ever? How could he give power over the Sea of Constantinople, when the City was not builded, or the name known 
z Baronius tom. 3. ad annum 324. Quomodo potuit in ●o Imperator meminisse Constantinopolitanae fedis, ●● n●● nomen quidem Constantinopolis tunc erat exortum? ? And if this will not satisfy the jesuite, but that he will have the West for the Pope; let him know there are many that plead against this title at Rome itself, as Laurentius Valla 
Laurentiu● Vall●m scimus integrum librum adversus receptam communi opinione sententiam declamasse, 〈◊〉 quae vulgo circumfertur ejus Donationis formula, came commentitiam esse satis indicant cum palec inscriptiones denotant. Melchior Canus loc. th●ol l. 11. c. 5. §. Quod inde. , Raphael Volaterran 
b Ralph, Volater-Anthrop. l. 23. De dono ejus aut 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 nullos extat authores, praeterquam in libro Decretorum: idque in antiquis 〈…〉 minimè contin●ri author est Antonius Praesul Florentinus in Chronicis.▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de elephantia, deque sanguine puerorum, & 〈◊〉 baptismate omninò rejiciendus. , Cusanus 
Cusanus de 〈◊〉. cath. l. ●. c. 2. Sed i●veritate▪ supra modum admiror, si ●es ita est; eo quod in authenticis libris, & in historijs approbatis non invenitur. Relegi omnia quae potui gesta Imperialia ac Romanorum Pontificum, historias sancti 〈◊〉, qui ad 〈◊〉 colligendum 〈◊〉 suit, Augustini▪ Ambrosijs ac aliorum opuscula 〈◊〉, revolvi gesta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qu●● po●● 〈◊〉 fucre: & nullam invenio concordantiam ad ea, 〈◊〉 de illa 〈…〉.— Ego etiam ad lungs have Scripturam in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inveni, qu● multò plut continet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreto 〈◊〉 loco 〈◊〉, & diligenter eam examinans, reperi ex ipsâ●●et Scripturâ, argumenta manifes●● 〈◊〉 is & 〈◊〉— Sunt ●●o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha. , and divers others, and condemn it as chaff; a fr●me without any author of antiquity, 〈◊〉 without concordan●●, false, ●●igned.  
But that which inflames the jesuite ●s, that the most learned Answerer should charge them with forging so many base tractutes, d●cretals and Counsels, as to name them only would require a volume, without producing any other proof than this. Mari●, the 〈◊〉 Doctors themselves if they were now alive would be deposed that they were 〈◊〉 pr●vy to their begetrings. To the which (saith the jesuite) might it not with as good reason be replied, that the 〈◊〉 ●●n●ient Doctors, if they were now alive; would laugh at this imaginary reason of his, as proceeding from a 〈◊〉 Bishop indeed 
Reply pag. 3● .  
I perceive the jesuite wo●ld fame be rid of this learned Bishop; (what title so ever he giveth him:) He had rather, that this most reverend Lord had been employed in detecting base tractats, decretals and Counsels, then in answering his Challenge. But let him rest satisfied for a time his Challenge hath not wanted an Answer; and those ●ase Tractats &c. invented for the glory of the Roman Sea by their well-willers (for they serve to no other purpose) will not be long without their revelation. Yet the jesuite is not reasonable to require proof against all their Forgeries here; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that must perform the work, is too large for a 〈◊〉. Let him be assured, that as it was promised by the most learned Answerer 
See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Epistle to the Reader, b●fore 〈◊〉 unswere to the Jesuits Challenge. , ●o he is not unmindful of his promise, but (God giving life and strength) will send it unto them. Wherein he will manifest (I make no doubt) that the Bishops of Rome have climbed to their great height, not without the furtherance of counterfeit and buckram Bishops indeed: and that it is a shame for Jesuits (who so much desire to be accounted holy and learned) to produce this Buckram and black guard, (as 〈◊〉 from h●ll.) to howl for the unspotted purity and 〈◊〉 of their Catholic cause.  
B●● whilst he 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉; and proveth so feebly, he maketh me remember (saith the jesuite) what S. Augustine saith of his like; They seem (saith he) to think that they have not to do with men, but as if they were 〈◊〉 beasts, who hear them, or read their writings they abuse the ignorance or dulness of them, or rather their blindness of mind. And so I need not to stand longer with our Answerer in this point, for as the same holy Father said to such another, why should I labour to make good my excuse, when he endeavoureth not any way to prove his accusation 
f Reply pag. 38 . More Serpentum lubricus undique 
g Iraeneus adv. hoer. l. 3. c. 2. ; The jesuite being deeply charged, thought it most expedient not to answer, and he that passed by one argument grounded upon the words of Aeneas Silvius, what would he have done (think you) had he been pressed with a multitude? What we conceive of them, it is not material to be expressed, whether beasts, or men: The Apostle fought with beasts as Ephesus after the manner of men. And for his excuses we are more acquainted with them than his answers, and therefore care not here to spare them, if he afford us nothing else. Yet putting on a brazen face; and carried away with the Spirit of Calumny (saith this jesuite) he saith further, thus, neither hath this corrupting humour stayed itself, in forging of whole Counsels and entire treatises of the ancient writers, but hath, like a Canker, fretted away divers of their sound parts, and so altered their complexions, that they appear not to be, the same men they were. As he forced me to storm a little at his vanity, when without proof he chargeth us with forging of whole Counsels and entire treatises; so now I cannot choose but smile to see what simple proofs he bringeth for this his charge of cankering, and fretting, the monuments of the ancient 
h Reply pag. 49 .  
Is it possible that a railing tongue and a smiling countenance at one time can accompany a jesuite? When he storms, the Answerer must be a 〈◊〉 Bishop; when he smiles he must put on a brazan face, and be carried away with the Spirit of Calumny. Surely Solomon could see fare from him, that telleth us, When a wiseman contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest 
* 〈◊〉 29. ●. . But let us see, what simple proofs those are which make this wise man merry.  
To instance (saith the most learned Primate) in the great question of Transubstantiation we were wont to read in the books attributed to S. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 4. cap. 4. Si ergo 〈◊〉 vis est in sermone Domini JESV, ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae ●rant, & in aliud commutentur? If therefore there be so great force in the speech of the Lord JESUS that the things which were not, began to be (namely at the first Creation) how much more is the same powerful to make that things may still be that which they were, & yet be changed into an other thing? It is not unknown (saith our most reverend Lord) how much those words, ut sint quae erant, have troubled their brains, who maintain that after the words of Consecration, the Elements of Bread and Wine be not that thing which they were, and what devices they have found to make the Bread & wine in the Sacrament to be like unto the Beast in the Revelation, that was and is not, and yet is. But that Gordian knot which they with their skill could not so readily untie, their Masters at Rome (Alexander-like) have now cut asunder, paring clean away in their Roman Edition, (which is also followed in that set out at Paris, Anno▪ 160 3.) those words that so much trouble them 
i See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Jesuits challenge. pag. 13. .  
In this instance of our Answerer (saith the jesuite) it is easy to espy, how wilful spleen and affected ignorance do tyrannize his mind and pen 
k Reply pag. 39 .  
The jesuite here plays the Orator 
l 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉: institut. l. 5. c. 13. Haec simulatio hucusquè procedit, ut quae dicendo refutar● non possumus, quasi 〈…〉. , flights what he cannot answer, reviles where he wants patience, & like a frantic, without sense; for if his spleen be wilful, his ignorance affected, how will he make them tyrants? how can they tyrannize his mind and pen? He is a King, no Tyrant, whom we willingly obey, and when we a●●ect sin, it reigneth, not tyrannizeth over us. But let us consider his pretences. First he telleth us that Ambrose giveth the Answerer a strand bob in those words, & in aliud commutentur etc. as hereafter shallbe more at large declared 
m Reply pag. 39 . To which place we will refer him for his Answer.  
Secondly he laboureth to free these two editions from clipping. First in regard those words being rightly understood, establish our doctrine of transubstantiation (saith the jesuite) to the utter confusion of all that gain say the same 
n Reply pag. 40 ; and that this might appear, he findeth fault with the translation of the most learned Answerer, when he Englisheth those words ut sint quae erant, thus, that things may still be that which they were 
o Reply pag. 39 . But I ask the jesuite, to what ●ix: hath relation? if to the elements of bread & wine (as of necessity it must) how can the translation be otherwise then it is expressed by the most learned Answerer? For whose mind is so tyrannised with ignorance as to believe that bread and wine can be what they were, when as their substance is departed? quae erant declare a substantial not an accidental manner of being; but the truth is, the jesuite knowing not how to relish the words would force an interpretation contrary to the sense they offer the Reader: for (whatsoever his hopes are from them) Hugo their Cardinal could not see how those words of Ambrose and Popish transubstantiation could agree together; He could conceive no otherwise but that Ambrose made the bread the body of Christ, and therefore directs the Reader with an hoc tamen impossible, that it is impossible, and from thence concludeth that the words are to be understood ad sanum intellectum 
p Glossa apud Gratian. de consecr. Dist. 2 Panis est. Ambrose de sacramentis ● Qu●●tomagis operatorius est fermo Christi, ut sint quae erant & in aliud commu●entur, & sic quod erat pa●is ante cons●crationem jam corpus Christi est etc. Hoc 〈◊〉 est impossiblle, ●● paniss sit corpus Christi; sed haec verba ad 〈◊〉 intellectum 〈…〉 ita solvit 〈◊〉. , as the jesuite would persuade us he is here willing to do; though in other men's judgements they would have a more wholesome understanding, if the words (ut sint quae erant) were utterly cast out of the text.  
Neither do the subsequent words of Ambrose help his translation or assure him that he hath hit the mark, to wit, Before consecration there was not the body of Christ, after consecration, I tell thee plainly, that it is now the body of Christ 
q Reply pag. 40 . For the change which Ambrose speaketh of is no other than of a child of Adam to be made a new creature 
r Ambros: de sacram. l. 4. c. 4 Tu ipse eras ve●us creatura, postquam consecratus es. nova creatura esse coepisti: accipe igitur quemadmodum ser●o Christi omnem creaturam mutare consueverit. , which the jesuite (I hope) will not say is done by Transubstantiation.  
His further defence resteth in this, that they have other editions which have those words 
s Reply pag. 40 . This indeed concludes that all your impressions of Ambrose are not guilty of this clipping, but this excuseth not all.  
Now (saith the jesuite) if he who either at Rome or at Paris, set forth that work, found not in the exemplar, or manuscript, which he took in hand to print, those words, ut siat quae erant; is that a sufficient argument to charge us with cankering etc. when as we otherwise do generally hold to this day the ancient reading 
t Reply ibid. .  
To which I answer, that if any such corrupted exemplar were, no man that was fit for such a work could be ignorant that the exemplar was depraved in regard Gratian 
u Gratian. de cons. dist. 2. c. Panis est. , and other your books of more ordinary use 
x Breviare Rom. lect. 58 infra octav. corp. Christi. , repeat this sentence of Ambrose with those words ut sint quae erant. Besides this, it was Berengarius his usual argument against the carnal eating of Christ 
y Modius No● dist. 2. c. Pani● est. , and therefore the true reading to such (no question) learned men as were employed about that work could not be unknown. So that if he, who either at Rome or at Paris set forth the same, found no such exemplar where those words are omitted; as it is more than probable; or finding any such corrupt one, should publish it contrary to Gratian and all other Copies for the sole behoof of the Popish cause; what can this be but a cankering and fretting away of a sound part of antiquity?  
To conclude the most reverend the Lord Primate, hath not in this particular exceeded in a circumstance, for all probability will persuade that these words ut sint quae erant have troubled your brains; for being urged by Berengarius▪ and accurately explained by Guitmundus and Algerus ᶻ, yet an accurate explanation could not serve the turn, but sometime an exemplar is pretended, where sint is left out 
a Ibid.  sint quae erant.) Haec B▪ Ambrosijs verba, quae Berengarius Catholicis objiciebat, accura●è explanantur à Guitmundo, l. 3. & ab Algero, l. 1. c. 7. Lanfranous autem non modo ea opti●è interpretatur, sed etiam ad dit in quibusdam codicibus sic legi▪ Si igitur tanta vis est in sermone Domini jesu, ut inciperent esse quae non erant, qua●●● magis operatorius est, ut quae erant in aliud commu●entor. ● So Lanfranc. vide lit. ● pruceden● , sometime, where the whole sentence is omitted 
b So the Roman Edition▪ , sometimes the words are inserted, but ad sanum intellectum, they are to be translated, not as they bear, but as in the Roman Church they ought to be understood 
c So Hugo Card. .  
The second instance is out of the imperfect work upon Matthew ●omil. 11. where the Author writeth▪ thus. Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transfer, sic periculo sum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur: ●uanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit, non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in cis quod vult? If therefore it be so dangerous a matter, to transfer unto private uses those holy vessels, in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is contained: how much more for the vessels of our body which God hath prepared for himself to dwell in, ought not we to give way unto the Devil, to do in them what he pleaseth. Those words (in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur: in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is contained) did threaten to cut the very throat of the Papists seal presence (saith the most learned Answerer) & therefore in good policy they thought it fit to cut their throat first, for doing any further hurt. Whereupon, in the Editions of this work, printed at Antwerp apud joannem Steelsium, anno 1537. at Paris, apud joannem Roigny, anno 1543: and at Paris again, apud Audonum Parvum, anno 1557. not one syllable of them is to be seen, though extant in the auncienter edition ●● one whereof is as old as the year 1487 
d See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Iesuite's challenge pag. 14▪ .  
The substance of the Jesuits answer to excuse this clipping, is twofold. First from Sixtus Senensis who doth testify, (as our jesuite saith) that some auncienter ●●ppies have not those words at all 
e Reply pag▪ 41 . But I would ask the jesuite what copies those are? whether manuscripts, or printed? if Manuscripts, where are they? why doth he not point them out? why doth he not direct us to them? if more ancient Popish printed Copies, this doth but point them out for more ancient clippers: But the truth is Sixtus Senensis saith no such thing in the book alleged 
f Sixtus Senens. l. 4. bibl. Sancta . And therefore (letting him pass) the jesuite hopes to make sure work by telling us, that this appeareth by the marginal note of that very copy which our Answerer citeth 
g Reply pag▪ 43 . But the truth is there is no such marginal in the edition set out at Antwerp anno 1537. by the first corrupter of the place johannes Mahusius, as being conscious he had never seen any such Copy; yet in the fourth Tome of Chrysostome set out at Paris anno 1546. (which the jesuite allegeth not) there is this marginal annotation, Haec in quibusdam▪ exemplaribus desunt: but what were those quadam exemplaria? Manuscripts? surely not, but the former printed one of Mahusius his editions set out at Antwerp anno 1537. and at Paris anno 1543. And is not this a prettio trick of legerdemain, first to corrupt the Author in print; and then in after editions to cite those so corrupt impressions under the equivocal title of quaedam exemplaria? Is not this a brave restoring of an Author to the ancient purity of its true and first reading? So that indeed any may see, that he which followeth such guides must have the throat of his understanding cut with the knife of will full blindness; but the most reverend Primate is too well experienced in these their practices to be entrapped by such cheats, or blinded with such wiles.  
But if it be read with those words (saith the jesuite.) our Answerer himself cannot free it from manifest error, mention being made of the Vessels only of salomon's Temple, which King Balthasar transferred to profane uses, and therefore was punished with loss of life and Kingdom▪ and seeing that in those vessels neither the Body of Christ, nor yet the mystery of his Body is contained, those words are not only superfluous, but also erroneous and false 
h Reply pag. 41 .  
Indeed this Argument of the Jesuits is most erroneous and false; for this learned Author shewiug us how to▪ keep our Vessels in Holiness, presseth it first from the Vessels used in the Temple, Si enim vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre peccatum est, & periculum, sicut doce● nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus est & de vita 
i Opus imperfect Matth▪ hom. 41▪ . For if it is a sin and dangerous to transfer unto private uses the sanctified vessels (to wit, those of the jews) as Balthasar doth teach us, who drinking in the holy vessels, lost both his Kingdom and his life. Then from the vessels used in the Church. Si ergo haee vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transfer, sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur: quantò magis vas● corporis nostri etc. If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transfer unto private uses these holy vessels (signanter & demonstratiuè that were used in the Church Christian, and in all probability were before his face) wherein the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his Body is contained: How much more for the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for himself to dwell in, ought we not to give way unto the Devil to do in them what he pleaseth?  
But (let the Vessels be what they will) in the judgement of his own Sixtus Senensis, this Author doth here allude unto the Sacrament 
k Sixtus Senens. Bibl. Sancta l. 6. Annot: 21. Author operis imperf. hom. 11. alludere videtur ad haere●im corum, qui ●egant verum corpus Christi esse in Sacramento altaris, dum ait▪ Vasa sanctificata etc. , which is all that we need to require. And therefore the jesuite hath little cause to sport, unless it be in his shame, it being evident, that he that thrust out those words did canker fret and corrupt this place, and not restore it to the ancient purity, as the jesuite vainly laboureth to persuade.  
After all these pains, the jesuite conceiving he hath not satisfied the Reader, closeth up all with an other answer (no doubt) without exception. The truth is (saith the jesuite) as Bellarmine rightly observeth that imperfect work upon Matthew, though it go commonly amongst the works of Chrysostome, yet is it none of his 
l Reply pag. 41 .  
Who saith it is? Was it urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate for Chrysostom's? Here he contendeth to little purpose, his fight is but folly.  
For (saith the jesuite) it aboundeth with errors etc. the which errors have been foisted in by divers Heretics 
m Reply ibid.▪  etc.  
But who were those Heretics? what were their errors? were they not Arians. Montanists, Manichees, Donatists, Pelagians 
n Sixtus Seneni. Bibl. sanctae ●▪ 4. In Matthae 'em extat incerti autoris imperfectum opus— varijs Montani, Ma●ichaei, Arij, Donati, ac Pelagij haeresibus implicitum. ? Had their Heresies any thing to do with the question of the Real Presence, or the controversies betwixt us?  
Wherefore (the jesuite concludeth) I do not see that any account ought to be made thereof at all 
o Reply pag. 41 .  
A poor fetch, because in some particulars it hath been 
p Sixtus Senen. ibid. Ego quod ad dam, nihil habeo nisi hoc, ipsum opus disertum & doctum esse, ac dignum quod assiduè legatur, si tamen prius diligentissime expurgatum fuerit ab ijs erroribus, quos in sexto libro in censuris super Matthaei expositoribus annotavimus.  abused by Heretics, therefore it must be rejected in the whole? Sixtus Senensis approveth not this, for he acknowledgeth the work witty and learned, and worthy of a daily Reader, if it were first diligently purged from those errors which he hath noted in his sixth book. And Bellarmine although he thought it was either composed or corrupted by some Heretic doth nevertheless confess, it is a learned book, and (contrary to the jesuite,) minime sper●enous, no way to ●e despised▪ 
q Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. Cujuscunque sit opus, aut ab Haeretico aliquo Compositum suit, aut ab Haeretico aliquo corruptum, quamvis alioqui liber sit doctus & minime spernendus. . Whereby we may see how great esteem the jesuite hath of ancient Writers, and with what clippings his well-willers would put forth these learned monuments, if they might have their desire. For although Bellarmine thinketh it credible that this Author was a Catholic, and his book not to be despised, though it were corrupted by ancient Heretics 
r Ibid. Pro●●de eredibile est auctorem suisse Catholicum, sed opus illius ab▪ Arianis depravatum. , yet Sixtus Senensis before he will give him this liberty, will have him purged not only of the ancient heresies, that were, as the jesuite speaketh, foisted into him, but of all those errors also which he hath noted in his Censures upon the Expositors of Matthew, as in his fift homily, where he favours the Lutherans in the point of original sin 
s Sixtus Seven▪ lib. annot. 16. : in the IX. where he overthrows the freedom of humane will 
t Ibid. annot. 10. , in the XIth, XVIIth and XIXth, where he denies the real presence in the Sacrament of the Altar 
u Ibid. annot. 11. . But the jesuite will have it altogether rejected, and no account to be made thereof at all; and yet it hath been used as a Champion to fight the Christian cause by their greatest Divines, in their glosses, chains, decrees of Popes, sums of Divinity, from the weight and worth of the work, as cannot be denied by their own 
x Sixtus Seven. Bibl. sanct. l. 4. ●unt ex opposito qui hoc ipsum opus con●endunt esse Chrysostomis, adducti non solùm auctori●●te Apostoli●ae Eclesiae, quae publicè inter divinas ●●udes legit homilias ex his commentarijs sub nomine Ioann●● Chrysostomis, sed etiam permoti pondere & gravitate sententiarum & propositionum ●ujus operis, quae ad confirmationem Christianorum dogmatum, sub titulo, testimonio, & auctoritate Chrysostomis, inducuntur in glossis authenticis, quas vocant ordina●ia●, in Ca●enis Evangelicarum explanationum, in Decretis summorum Pontificum, & 〈◊〉 Theologici● magni nominis Theologorum▪ . So that you may see the most learned Answerer hath brought this instance, not (as you vainly affirm) in derision of the blessed Sacrament; but to manifest your corrupting of the works of antiquity, for your own advantage, without the authority of any ancient manuscript Copy whatsoever. Neither is the authority of this work so contemptible (although the jesuite may take liberty to ●●eight antiquity) but that seeing it hath served the Pope's turn, it may well serve ours also to cut the very 〈◊〉 of the Papists real presence. And therefore y●● 〈◊〉 Commilitones (Mr Malone) that carry the mariacher the beast in your foreheads, may continue your bla●●●●●es, and abuse the Scriptures as you have done his ●a●●ed ordinance of the blessed Sacrament, deriding the follower's of his sacred institution: but howsoever you flatter yourselves, The right hand of the Lord will find out those that hate him, and shall make them as a fiery even in the time of his anger 
* Psalm ●●. . And howsoever your scarlet Mistress saith in her heart, I fit a Queen, and am no Widow, and shall see no sorrow, Yet her plagues shall come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shallbe utterly burnt with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her 
* Re●. 18. ●. 7. 8. .  
His third instance (saith the jesuite) out of the same book, concerning the sacrifice of the Body and Bleod of JESUS CHRIST, put in for the sacrifice of Bread and Wine, is too too childish: for we indifferently allow of both those manner of speeches, as signifying one, and the same thing, & therefore the changing of those words could advantage us no more than it doth help our Answerer to prove what he intended 
y Reply pag. 40 , etc.  
Mr Malone hath an ill name for every thing that displeaseth him: This instance is too too childish, but as wise as himself think not so; For Sixtus Senensis, by those words which they have changed, judgeth this Author to deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be in the Sacrament of the Altar 
z Si●tus Seven▪ Bibl. sancta l. 6. Annot. 21. Author operis imperf. homilia 1● alludere videtur ad haeresim eorum qui negant verum Christi corpus esse in Sacramento Altaris, dum ait, Vasa etc. Neque ab hac sententia abludit, cum hom. 17. non multo ante finem, Eucharistiam appellat panem benedictum. & hom. ●9. ferè in principio vocat sacrificium pani● & vi●● , and would therefore have this place to be purged 
a Idem libro 4o. . And will any deny the corrupter, that used this sleight of hand to be of the same opinion? The Text than is corrupted, this is not denied, and therefore (notwithstanding the jesuite falsely pretendeth the changing of those words do not advantage them) the most reverend Primate hath proved what he intended, to wit, that the Papists have hereby so altered the complexions of the ancient writers, that they appear not the same men they were. The jesuite runs on in his examination.  
Two instances more (saith he) in this matter doth our Answerer produce, still striving to surpass himself more and more in vanity; For besides that our question is concerning the writers of the first five ages, he cometh out with Fulbertus and Rabanus, whereof the later lived in the ninth age, the former in the eleventh; so fare is he ever from speaking to the purpose 
b Reply pag. 42 .  
I see the jesuite is weary of his work; he is not willing to have his own arraigned of Forgery, and therefore excepts against these instances as not being to the purpose, in regard the question is concerning the writers of the first 500 years 
c Reply pag. 42 .  
In answer whereunto, we say; It is equal perfidiousness to corrupt the authors of the middle age, as those of the first 500 Secondly, if they confess guilty in these, they deserve to be suspected in their impressions of the most ancient. Thirdly, Augustine is here corrupted, though it be in the writings of Fulbertus, and so both the ancient and middle aged Doctors suffer violence. Fourthly, let this be to the purpose or not, the jesuite cannot excuse their corrupt handling of authors, and for corrupt ends, when as Fulbertus, was published corruptly, ad refutandas haereses hujus temporis. But taking them in order, the jesuite telleth us, that, In the former, for want of sounder matter (when as the Answerers' subject here is Popish corruptions) he fiddles about a mistake of two words, which though he confesseth himself to have been amended in the end, yet must it needs (such is his distress) serve him for an instance to prove that we have corrupted the writings of the ancient 
d Reply pag. 42 .  
I am sure the jesuite doth not like the Music he termeth it so wisely, but I may excuse him herein; for the Papists were unwise that would otherwise commend it. But whose mistake was this? Dicet Haereticus in all probability could not be the Printers: here than was the error, he that set forth this book, did not foresee, the words were S. Augustine's and so easy to be detected. And whereas the publisher did afterwards put this among his Errata, he was much beholding to his Adviser, that assured him, if those words remained, his fraud would be discovered. Now any may see, who is in distress, he that forgeth for necessity and correcteth for shame, or the most learned Answerer that hath found out and scorned the Cosener.  
The jesuite comes to the second; and exclaims, that the Answerer makes, much a do about nothing 
e Reply ibid. ; as if it were a matter of nothing to corrupt the ancient writers?  
If the Reader will but observe the jesuite, he shall find him where he is most plunged and stifled to be most abundant in his railing language, scorning and contemptible behaviour towards the Answerer. For what reason hath he to term this learned observation, a dribbling objection worthy to be answered with laughter, builded only upon surmises, when he groans under it, and all his struggling is not able to deliver him thence? See what he saith. I say about a blank, when with frivolous surmises he seeks to make his Reader believe, that the Monks of Wengart should have thrust somewhat out of Rabanus his penitential; but such dribbling objections are worthy to be answered with laughter 
f Reply pag. 4● .  
What do we find here but a rabble of words, that carry no weight at all? for they are not frivolous surmises, that are used against the Monks of Weingart nor dribbling objections that are urged against you Mr Malone. First if there be a blank in Rabanus his penitential set forth by Petrus Stuartius as is not denied; if Stuartius received a blank Manuscript from the Monks of Weingart, as is likewise acknowledged: If Romanists may purge (or blank) manuscripts, as Possevine affirmeth 
g See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Jesuits challenge pag. 15. 16. 17. , If the words, blanked or purged out, make against the Popish carnal presence in the Sacrament, and for the cause of the Protestants, as the jesuite, that can now with the Answerers help make up the blank out of Paschasius, well knoweth, though he will not acknowledge so much: How can he with any modesty call it a frivolous surmise, that the Monks of Weingart did thrust those words out of Rabanus his Penitential: and that a dribbling objection, a petty instance, which convinceth the altering of the complexions of the aunci●ut, by fretting (unless such rasures are not frets) and washing away the soundest part of their writings.  
For it is well known how that blank, which he observeth in the Penitential published by Stevartius, is to be supplied out of Paschasius Radbertus whose Doctrine (as it seemeth) was there alleged 
b Reply pag. 42 .  
I doubt not, that it is well known how that blank should be filled up, now it is cleared to you by the most learned Answerer; yet I suppose you never learned it by your own pains out of Rabanus his penitential.  
The jesuite tells us, if Paschafius were the first bringer in of the Carnal presence as our Answerer doth blindly avouch, without doubt, his saying could prejudice nothing our cause, and consequently it is a foud imagination to think that the Monks of Weingert should have clipped his words for any advantage in thi● matter 
i Reply pag. 43 .  
Who doth think, Paschasius his assertion could prejudice your cause? It is the fretting of Rabanus, not Paschasius that the Answerer complaineth of: The words that declare Paschasius his Doctrine in his, or your own books, we give you leave to raze at pleasure, but to raze it in Rabanus where it is brought forth to receive a judgement, to undergo a censure, this maketh I hope for the advantage of your cause. For doth not your blank and rasure hinder the Reader to see Rabanus in his words following [cui errori quantum potuimus etc.] too condemn the Paschasian and Popish doctrine and there I hope you gained by it, unless it were no loss for the most famous Doctor of his time, the most glorious star of Germany 
k Bar●n, tom. 10 a● §. de Raban▪ Fulgentissimum Germaniae sidus.  directly to pronounce your Doctrine erroneous?  
But if our Answerer will allow others to build upon surmises but half as boldly as he presumeth to do himself, and upon grounds fare more likely also, than he hath any: it may very well be thought, that Rabanus Maurus that famous Archbishop of Mentzes, whose commentaries for the most part, are in the ordinary gloss upon the Scripture, of so great request in the Church of God; who also, as it is well known, was never yet ●oted by any writer, before Waldensis, to have maintained any point contrary to the Catholic faith of the than Roman Church 
l Reply pag. 4●  etc.  
I fear the Jesuits surmises willbe according to the imagination that he hath had of his learned Answerers demonstratives, frivolous and vain. But before we examine them, observe in these words, a false supposition that the Doctrine of the carnal presence was in Rabanus his time the general received doctrine of the Roman Church. Secondly, a most untrue assertion, for before the Waldenses, William of Malmesbury reproached Rabanus as disputing against the doctrine of the carnal presence 
m Guil. Malmes. in praef: Epit: Amalarij. de divinis officijs, ad fra● rem Robertum. M●. in B●bliothe. Colleg. Omnium Animarum Oxon. Admonitum te volo, ut unum exhis qui de talibus disputaverun: fugiendum scias, Rabanum nomine. qui in libro de officijs Ecclesiasticis dicit Sacramenta Altaris proficere ad saginam corporis: ac pro hoc corruptioni, vel morbo, vel aetati, vel secessui, vel postremo morti obno●ia quae de Domini corpore dicere, credere, scribere, quan●● sit p●riculi vides. , which in all probability the jesuite having the learned Answerers' book De christianarum Ecclesiarum successione & statu, in his hand could not be ignorant of, though here he wilfully dissemble the same. Now let us see what his c●ca insomnia his sleeping surmises will prove that are brought in with such untruths. First, because it is well known that Rabanus Maurus wrote one pevitentiall work before this, void & free from all such error, & therefore it is not likely that he should write another 
n Reply pag. 43 .  
Here is a wise surmise, a convincing reason, as if it wereso unusall, that men should write twice of the same general subject, especially occasion being offered by the propounding of a new question, as it here fell out. For this penitential was written in answer to certain particular questions propounded by Bishop Heribaldus, as the book itself showeth: whereunto you may add the express testimony of Sigebertus Genblacen●s de illustr. Eccles. scriptor. cap. 90. that saith Rabanus did write [de qu●stionibus Canonum ad Heribaldum Episcopum librum unum, & ad Reginbaldum Coëpiscopum de eadem re librum unum] one book concerning the questions of the Canons to Bishop Heribladus, and an other book concerning the same matter to Regi●●ld his Colleague.  
Secondly, many Authors (saith the jesuite) as well Catholics as others, do allege that book which Paschasius wrote de Corpore Domini, as if it had been composed by Rabanus, whereby they declare that he was held to be of the same mind with Paschasius in this point of the Eucharist 
o Reply pag. 43 .  
here is a surmise indeed, if this may move a jesuite, surely he will make Hierome a Pelagian, in regard many authors allege the confession of faith and Epistle ad De●etriadem framed by Pelagius, as if they had been composed by Hierome. This then is no ground to prove Rabanus to be of the same mind with Paschasius; and if without ground any held, as the jesuite persuadeth, he may know they held an error, induced thereunto by the no clean dealing of those that coined false titles to those books. Now as if surmises had been demonstratives, our jesuite telleth us. The Author then of this Penitential written to He●ibaldus, was either some other Rabanus 
p Reply ibid. . here we find the jesuite ignorant of that Author, upon whose writings he taketh upon him to be so acute a critic; for if he had read the Author himself, he would have thought of those words, which point out who he is, Ego dum in Episcopate Moguntiensis indignus constitutus sum 
q Cap. 〈◊〉, , etc. But how a jesuite of his undertaking could be ignorant of their own Gratian his citing of this book under the name of Rabanus the Archbishop 
r Gratian. 〈◊〉 50. cap de his vero. Rabanus Archiepiscopus , we can tell without surmise.  
Secondly he saith, that his supposed Rabanus fell with Heribaldus into the Error called by Paschasius, and Algerus Stercoranistarum, who held that Christ in the Sacrament being hypostatically united unto the bread, and assuming it into one person with himself, was therefore subject to digestion and avoidance 
* Reply pag. 43 .  
Callida mendacia! He feigneth in earnest, and there is but need; for Paschasius maketh no mention of the Stercoranistae. Secondly, Rabanus in his penitential holdeth the contrary 
s Cap. 33. Ista sententia contraria est sententijs Clementis Papae, & aliorum multorum sanctorum Patrum, qui dicunt corpus Domini non cum cae●●ris communibus cibis, per aquati●ulos in se●●ssum mitti. . Thirdly, it is an idle figment, that either this Rabanus 
t Rabanus l. 1. de Instit. Clericorum cap. 31.  or Heribaldus, or those you term Stercoranistae, did hold that Christ was hypostatically united to the bread. The jesuite hath only dreamt here, he giveth us not an Author. But all that he hath yet said, will not serve the turn, and therefore he would have us to believe him, if no such other Rabanus there was, at least that Penitecial, together with the libel written to Abbot Egilo, was made by some erring spirit or other, and to get the more credit fathered upon Rabanus Maurus 
t Reply pag. 43 .  
This we must believe upon the Jesuits teste, or reject it; for he bringeth us nothing to manifest the same: and further whereas he saith, that Rabanus was fare enough from maintaining any such Error 
x Reply ibid. . Indeed as the jesuite hath invented an error, and fathered the same upon the author of the Penitential, we easily confess. For Rabanus was ever fare enough from maintaining, that the Body of Christ was subject to digestion, and avoidance; but that the Sacrament thereof was digested and turned into our substance, as other meats are, he taught indeed, and was condemned for the same by Guli●lmus Malmesburiens●s 
y See Guil. Malmes. before cited at the letter ● , and Thomas Waldensis 
z Tho. Wald. tom. 1. Doctrinal. Prologue. ad Martinum Vitem tom. ●. 〈◊〉 Sacramentis cap, 19 & 〈◊〉. .  
Neither doth he with any truth prosecute his plea when that he tells us that Bertram and that supposed Rabanus, were as fare different in their opinions concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as Bertram and Paschasius himself: for the author of that Penitential erring with Heribaldus, held that Christ was so really present in the sacrament that there was no figure at all, whereas Bertram made it but a sole figure, without any real presence of Christ his body 
Reply pag. 44 .  
What doth the jesuite bring here but heaps of untruths, some of which cross and contradict himself; for the Author of the Penitential and the book written to Egile the Abbot of Fulda, under whom Rabanus had his education held the flat contrary to Paschasius, and maintained the very same thing that Bertr●● did, to wit, that the consecrated host was not the very body and blood of our Lord which was borne of the Virgin Marie, and in which our Lord suffered himself on the Cross, and rose again from the grave. This was taught the jesuite before by the most learned Answerer, neither is it long since, that he upon that evidence confessed 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 42 , that this being the doctrine of Paschasius was resisted as erroneous by Rabanus. Besides where will you find that Bertram made it, as you report a sole figure? That he made it a figure will not be denied, but that he said it a sole figure, you give us no ground to believe.  
And now taking leave with Rabanus, whom the jesuite in the point of the Sacrament would make a Romanist against his will, he cometh to Bertram and demandeth. Why may not Claudius Sanctesius, and others moe, be thought to guess aright when they think that Bertram was truly a Roman Catholic, free from that error contained in the book supposedly dedicated unto the Emperor Charles, seeing that in proof thereof, there be not wanting many presumptions stronger fare than those are, which are brought in by our Answerer to the contrary 
Reply pag. 44 .  
What your presumptions will prove, shallbe examined, but the Answerer hath this advantage, that his evidences have already convinced the Divines of Douai, to acknowledge this book mentioned to be bertram's indeed, though by shifting distinctions they labour (as you term it) to free him from error 
d Index●●purg. Belg. pag. 5. . And first of all he begins, that neither Paschasius Radbertus who defended our Catholic Doctrine at that time, nor yet any other Writer of those days, maketh any mention either of Bertram, or of any such erroneous opinion, as is attributed unto him in 〈◊〉 book 
e Reply pag. 44 .  
here is a good beginning▪ for to justify Sanctesius his guess, he directly contradicteth that which he layeth down for a certain ground▪ For first he saith, that about the time of Charles the Great, and Charles the Bald, this book came forth that was assigned to Bertram, and whereunto Paschasius did answer. He thinks it indeed to be credible, that the book came then abroad without any name, and that afterwards to gain the more credit, bertram's name was added 
f Sanctei. Repet. 2. cap. 14. Cùm Paschasius Corbeiensis, qui etiam illo seculo vixit, suum scriptum opponat corruptelis libri, qui Bertram● datur, ut ex collatione notum fiet, proculd●biò Bertrami vomini non pepercisset, ne quis tanti viri authoritate falleretur.— Itaque 〈◊〉 est, ortam tum disputationem de transubstantiatione ac, corperis Christi in Eucharistia veritate, & verbis institutionis cirea secundum Caroli magni, & Caroli Calvi, quemadmodum cer●itur ex Rabano Mauro, & Raschasio Corbiensi, & tum exijsse librum, quem nune Bertramo▪ assignant 〈◊〉 Paschasius respondent▪ : so that there is no question, but the book was at that time, and the doctrine therein opposed by Paschasius that wrote against the same. But whether any mention was made of Bertram, it matters not: for would you be so wise as to gather from thence, that therefore there was no such man at that time, when you confess his person, though you deny this book to be any of his?  
Secondly, the opinion against which Paschafius disputed, was that only of Heribaldus, which our Protestants themselves confess to be no other than a most gross error 
g Reply pag 44. .  
Here the jesuite speaks whetstones; For Paschasius doth not dispute against that opinion, either 〈◊〉 or principally, but toucheth it incidently: Neither can 〈◊〉 jesuite show that Heribaldus himself ever held any such opinion.  
Thirdly, the said Paschafius doth testify, that in his time no man was found, who did publicly maintain any such error, contrary to that Catholic Doctrine, which he with the whole Church professea and defended, which surely he would not have said if any such book had been written by Bertram; for that book must needs have been much talked of, and the Author very public, seeing that he wrote it as the Emperor's request, and also dedicated the same unto his Majesty 
Reply ibid.▪ .  
Here is a gross mistake; For if this book of Bertram was written at the request of the Emperor [Carolus Calvus] who obtained not the Empire until anno 875. Is it not dreaming to take it as a matter granted, that we suppose the book of Bertram to have been published when Paschafius wrote his, who died in the year 851? Secondly, here is a notorious untruth: For Paschafius doth testify no such thing, but the contrary; for in the beginning of his Epistle, De corpore & sanguine Domini, ad Frudegardum, he thus propoundeth the question. Queris de re ex qua MULTI dubitant. You desire resolution in a matter whereof MANY doubt. Besides, the jesuite, as conscious of his deceit, doth not here tell us where Paschafius testifieth any such thing.  
Fourthly, it is well known, that the Church of Rome, with all Christian Churches adhering ●●to her at that time, did profess the same doctrine concerning the Real presence, which Paschasius then Laid down, and which to this day she hath always believed. Is it likely then, that such a book being written even by the Emperor's appointment, not one man in all the world should be found to answer the same, and to gainsay that Author, and his opinion, so repugnant to that which was publicly and generally maintained ●. 
Reply pag 44.   
It is ill presumed; for at this time, this was no Doctrine of the Church of Rome, neither received or decreed for such, it being showed before, that the most learned men then living, resisted and opposed the same. And Bellarmine himself supposing (as the jesuite doth) erroneously, and without ground, that Bertram wrote before Paschafius, doth thereupon conceive Paschafius his book to have been purposely written against Bertram 
k Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch● l. 1 c. 1. Tertius suit Bertramus, tempore Caroli Crassis, circa annum Domini DCCCLXXXVI cujus liber adhuc ex●at. Is rursum in connoversiam vocare coepit, an esset verè in Eucharistia illud ipsum cerpus Domini, quod de Virgin natum erat. Confutavit hunc errorem doctissimè Paschasius Abbas Corb●ienfis, qui illo ipso tempore floruit. .  
Fiftly, when Berengarius some 200. years after Bertram, bred that uproar which is known, by bringing in the same opinion, with that which is fathered upon Bertram, when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence, and for it, how came it to pass that there was not as much as mention once made of this supposed book, whose authority surely might have done good service unto the part of Berengarius, and would doubtless have been produced by them, if then it had any being at all 
l Reply pag. 45 ?  
Here is an  demand, this surely will clear the point! But the jesuite must consider, that he ought to lay before us all those books, that they have extinguished concerning the cause of Berengarius, before he can expect our answer to his Demand; for otherwise how can he make it appear unto us, that there was not so much as mention once made of this supposed book? Further we may observe here, that this point of carnal presence was but disputable, & no matter of faith in Berengarius his time, when there was so much writing and disputing against Berengarius his sentence, and FOR it, although the jesuite would have had it 200. years before to have been well known, that the Church of Rome with all Christian Churches adhering unto her at that time, did profess the same doctrine concerning the real presence, which Paschasius then laid down.  
To this profound silence (saith the jesuite) let us add what Guilmundus writing against Berengarius doth testify. It is most notorious (saith he) that until Berengarius at this time began to rage, no such madness was ever heard of any where. Add moreover that S. Thomas of Aquin, and the rest of the Schoolmen do agree all in laying down Berengarius for the first Author of that heresy which denyeth the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, without as much as once dreaming of Bertram 
g Reply pag 45 .  
The jesuite here bringeth the gross absurdities of their own writers to approve him in those things which he hath laid down. For who can justify either Guitmundus Aquinas or the rest of the schoolmen in laying down Berengarius for the first that denied the carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, when that very Council which condemned Berengarius condemned also the book of johannes Scotus de Eucharistia 
h Concil. Vercellense. tom. 3 apud Binnium. In qua in audientia omnium, qui de diversis ●uius mundi partibus illuc convenerant johannis Scoti liber de Eucharistia lectus est ac damnatus: sententia ●ua exposita ac damnata. , which assisted him in the defence of his doctrine, it being plain that he ever extolled this book and condemned the other of Paschafius 
i Concil. Roman 2. ibid. Intellecto quod joannem Scoturs extollercs, Paschasium damnares, communi de Eucharistia ●●dei adversa sentires: promulgata est in te damnationis sententia. , which maintained your Roman doctrine? And this is so evident and apparent a truth, that without extreme impudency it cannot be denied, being acknowledged by Bellarmine himself 
k Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Primi, qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocarunt, fuerunt Iconomachis, post annum Domini DCC— High enim— dicebant unicam esse imaginem, Christi ab ipso Christo institutam, nimirum panem & vinum,, in Eucharistia, quae repraesentant Christi corpus, & sanguinem.— Secundus auctor hujus erroris fuit ●ohannis Scotus— qui tempore Caroli magni circa annum Domini DCCC. scripsit: Is enim primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubiè scribere ●oepit, cujus librum de Eucharistia damnatum fuisse in Concilio Vercellensi, testatur Lanfran●● etc. . So that they are but Dreamers that agreed in laying down Berengarius for the first Author of that Heresy.  
Neither dare the jesuite take upon him to answer that treatise which our Answerer found in the library of S. Robert Cotton but by casting it of and disregarding it; for that would quickly have cashiered this foolish conceit that Berengarius was the first that denied their carnal presence in the sacrament, in regard it is manifest thereby that Rabanus and Ratrannus (who is the same with Bertram) the one in his Epistle to Abbot Egilo, the other in a book that he made to King Charles argued largely (against Paschasius) saying that it is another kind of flesh▪ and therefore he is vain when he thinketh, that in reason he ought to be excused from regarding the said treatise, until such time as we have proved the antiquity thereof, seeing this is acknowledged already by Possevine his brother jesuite, and also that it is the same with that, which is to be seen in the Iesuit's College at Louvain: which the jesuite might have known by comparing them together if he had not conceived it an easier task, to cast off, then to answer this testimony.  
Further the jesuite would have proved that the said treatise at Louvain is blindly fathered upon Berengaerius, whereof I ●row (saith he) he will give us leave to doubt, seeing elsewhere he is bold to father it so himself: for will he confess that he did it blindly also 
l Reply pag. ●5 ?  
Whether it is blindly (by Possevine) fathered upon Berengarius, or no, neither helps, nor hurts the cause; yet the jesuite might have found it true, had he not been lazy, if he would have taken but a little pains to have sought the truth, as he did a long and dangerous journey to corrupt it, especially when he was in Flanders not fare from the Copy. Neither doth it any thing at all reproach this most learned Answerer that he following the jesuite Possevine fathered it so himself, for who knows not that Jesuits will deceive all that believe them? But the jesuite may observe that he is not blind, that hath a veil cast before his eyes: It is rather an argument that he hath eyes, that can see to cast it off. True then it is, that he pointed in that place as directed by Possevine, whom afterwards, (having gotten a transcript from the Iesuit's college at Lovan) he found to have been blindly mistaken & therefore rejected him: So that all that the jesuit hath obtained here is, that this most reverend Lord, did not see aright whilst he viewed the Manuscript with a jesuits' eyes; but putting off those false spectacles, he easily discerned the truth, whilst he used his own, and viewed the transscript.  
Now after all these notorious oversights & falsehoods, he draweth on to conclusion. Seeing then we find so little, or no knowledge at all to have been of this said book attributed to Bertram, until Oecolampadius (a prime Preacher of the sacramentary error in these later times) did publish the same at Basill, why may it not be well thought, that the said Oecolampadius was Author of the work himself, and that to cloak his fraud, and to win the credit of antiquity to his error, he framed a Dedicatory to the Emperor Charles, a● to him who had forspoken the same 
Reply pag. 45 ?  
Here the jesuit would say something, if he could mouth it; and first he would have us believe, that this is the work of Oecolampadius; but herein he suspects himself & justly; for this book was printed at Cullen, anno 1532. Now if the jesuite cannot show us an edition (as here he hath not,) before that printed at Basill, we may justly suspect, that Oecolampadius did not so much as ever see that book in regard he died anno 1531. Secondly, this book is acknowledged by your Sanctesius, to have been written many ages before Oecolampadius saw the light, and therefore (it being a matter beyond all exception true) your own think it fit to extenuate and excuse Bertram, as they have done the errors of other ancient Authors, although some (making no question that the book was bertram's) would have it altogether removed out of the way 
Ind. expurg. Hispan. Card. Quirogae. edit. Mad●●ti, ann. ●●●4. (in fine ●●terae ●) Dele●tur tota Epistola Vdal●ci Episcopi Augustani, de coelibatu Cleri. Item totus liber Bertrami Presbyteri, de corpore & sanguine Domini, penitùs aus●ratur. . Thirdly, the Puteani fratres in Paris have there a Copy of Ratrannus or Bertram De corpore Domini, which to have been no Manuscript of Oecolampadius, the jesuite I hope will gra●t us. So that he and his fellowlabourers (that be the greatest intelligencers abroad, and would be ashamed to be ignorant of any of the particulars) may blush if they have any modest colour left in them, to run (as here they have done) unto such desperate shifts.  
But (saith the jesuite) if any one had rather say, that Bertram indeed, at the Emperor's motion, wrote a book concerning the blessed Sacrament, why may he not also say, that Bertram maintained our Catholic doctrine; in this point, against Heribaldus and the rest of the Stercoranists 
o Reply pag. 45 .  
This may assure us, that the jesuite cannot tell well what he hath to say; the truth he pretends to inquire after, and yet he would fain cast out any evasion to cloud the same. Are not the Manuscript Copies witnesss sufficient to stop your mouths? If impudency will not be satisfied upon so convincing proofs; the jesuite may know that Bertram hath taught the same doctrine in other books also, viz ʳ De nativitate Christi, which is to be seen in the libraries of the Cathedral Church of Sarisbury, and Ben●et College at Cambridge. And therefore all his shifts are vanity, while he endeavoureth to persuade, that Bertram maintained their Catholic Doctrine in this point against Heribaldus and the St●rcoranists, when as he opposed (as hath been formerly manifested) the Doctrine which Paschasius taught, and the Roman Church doth now adhere unto. And it is a trifling inconsequent of the Jesuits, to insinuate, that because Bertram did not write against Paschasius (which is false) therefore he did not oppose the corrupt doctrine, that he (in effect) first published to the Church 
p Bellarm. de Script: Eccles● (in Paschas● Rat●erto) Hic auctor pri●●●●uit, qui ●en●, & co●ios● scrip●it de veri●●●● corp●●●, & 〈◊〉 Do●●●● etc. Reply pag 45. . But the strength of the Jesuits conjecture consisteth in this, that Bertram lived under the government of Paschasius in his Monasteri● of Corbey in Picardy q. Which indeed the jesuite may say, but will never be able to prove, how confidently soever he publisheth the same. For Paschasi●s died in the year 851. when as Charles, to whom Bertram wrote, was not made Emperor before the year 875. So that Bertram might well have been a Monk at Corbey, and yet not have lived under the Government of Paschasius. By all which it appeareth that the jesuite hath beslabered OEeolampadius with an untruth, who for any thing the jesuite hath produced, did neither publish the work, nor promised (as he faith) to publish it sincerely in its own colours. And now he thinks that he hath said sufficient to excuse the Censurers of Douai, or any other that should endeavour to cleanse away such errors, as have been by the enemies of truth foisted either into that, or into any other the like work r. 
Reply pag. 4●   
But the Censurers of Douai did not think these to be such Errors as have been foisted into that work by the enemies of the truth. Those errors which they endeavour to cleanse away, are such as are found in the true old Catholic Writers 
s I●d. Expurg. ●elg. pag. 5. Quùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs, etc. . Nay, how could it be that Heretics (as these Antichristianaries call us) should cry out that you burn and forbid such antiquity as maketh for you, if bertram's book at the publishing thereof had been be●●abered by O Ecolampadius, and they only had cleansed it of these things? The jesuite must then confess (unless he have better to plead for himself then he hath produced) that neither Fathers nor Antiquity shall control him or his, whilst by extenuation, excuse, inventing devices, denying or feigning they can avoid the same.  
But all his hope is (though this be granted) that he will stop our mouths by recrimination. I will take some pains (saith he) to try whether we may not find more easily such like corruption and washing of antiquity amongst his fellows, as he would fasten upon us 
t Reply pag 46 .  
Nescivit iniquus confusion●m 
* reph. 3. 5▪ . Whilst a wicked man can speak, he will not blush, otherwise the jesuit would not have instanced so vainly, as he here hath done. For first, ●●o of his instances are nothing to the purpose, in regard he cannot produce any Father that either Willet or the Apologists set forth, & therefore they could not fret, wash or corrupt the monuments of the Ancients, which they never published. Yet Mr Malone cannot be ignorant, that private men in defending their opinions, do many times interpret the Scriptures and Fathers, contrary to their Adversaries thoughts, against whom they use them, so that their Adversaries, with passion are many times provoked to take notice of some things, which they conceive to be not clearly carried and thereupon take occasion to challenge them of misalledging, corrupting, abusing, detracting &c. This we find is done amongst ourselves; as in the Controversies amongst your own, the like is not wanting 
t Wadding. Legate Phil▪ 3. sect. 2. orat. 9, tract. 10. § 6. Quâ velurâ hâc diligentia exhibitâ experiretur vestra Sanctitas, tam falsum esse quod dicunt Adversarij quam verum esse quod in citato Tractat● ego animadverti, ex apparenti & violenter congesta illâ congerie Patrum apud Bandellum, Bandelloque. similes reprobatos, ●liosve authores, paucissimos esse vel nullos, qui expresse ferant sententiam contra Virginem; caeterosque vel fermè omnes corruptos, & mutilatos esse in verbis, quae ex eisdem proferun●ur. Payva ci● ibid. Minimè verum est communi veteris Ecclesiae sententiae illam repugnare cum praesertim à multis videam Sanctorum Patrum testimonijs à quibusdam oppug●ari, quae parti● sunt depravata, partim nihil ad rem faciunt. . Only here is the difference, that we bewail these passionate escapes, & could wish that men were more tempered with Charity; You justify your own, and tell us that your Church granteth free liberty to all Catholic Doctors to expound as well the Scriptures, as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves do think to be most probable 
u Reply Sect. XI. .  
For the objection from Mr Rogers, true it is, that he was deceived in taking that book for Augustine's, when in all probability it was written by some Author of a Schoolemans age, for Rhyming Meditations were not in date in St Augustine's time, as we may gather from Sixtus Senonsis 
x Sixtus Senen▪ Bibl sanct. l 3. Scholastici cûm desideraren thomines sui saeculi rythmes deditos, ad studia sacrarum lirerarum allicere, acceptâ hinc occasione, excogitârunt & ipsi novam Metricae art●● rationem. . For could that practice (if it had been so ancient) have been contemned & exploded by all learned men in the late learned ages, as inept, superstitious & ridiculous 
y Ibid. Non me later, Schola●ocorum Poenticem ab omnibus 〈◊〉 contemni, & prorfus explodi, tanquam ineptam, & superstitio●●m, & 〈◊〉 dignam. ? I persuade myself, Antiquity would have had a greater reverence and better esteem.  
Now in regard this Author was diligent in the reading of Augustine, (of whom he hath made good use.) in all probability he gave it the name it bears, and yet he mixed many corruptions of his own therewith. Secondly suppose the book be Augustine's, yet consider that M. Rogers doth not put forth the same to deceive, for the jesuite acknowledgeth that he declares in his Epistle Dedicatory, what is omitted in the book; so that what he hath done, is no more in effect, but a censure, such as Sixtus Senensis hath used and others. Thirdly, the book that he published was for popular use, and therefore he thought it not requisite to suffer those things which he distasted should remain in the text, where conveniently he could not advertise the Reader, but placed them in the Epistle Dedicatory, where he hath showed what he conceived of them. Wherefore this, as it is the last, so it is the jesmites worst defence, whereby, to excuse themselves, he would make Israel to sin.   

SECT: VII.  
HEre the jesuite considers. How vainly our Answerer accepteth of the Father's judgement again 
a Reply pag. 4● , and in the first place most unwisely playeth the Orator. Notwithstanding all that our Answerer hath said hitherto, playing (as it were) fast and lose, and by a doubtful tergiversation keeping off, and on, with the Fathers, at last ashamed of his inconstancy herein, he proclaimeth valoroustio his final resolution in these words. That you may see how confident we are in the goodness of our cause, we will not now stand upon our right, nor refuse to enter with you into this field, but give you leave for this time, both to be Challenger, and the appointer of your own weapons 
b Reply pag. 4● .  
If the jesuite had any modesty, he would not play the child so vainly as here he doth▪ for where doth the most reverend the Lord Primate play fast and lose? Out of which of his words will he find his doubtful tergiversation? where is his inconstancy that maketh him ashamed? These flashes at the best are but strains of Vanity.  
The most learned Answerer hath showed the jesuite out of Tertullian, the means to find out the truth; Their very doctrine itself, being compared with the Apostolic by the diversity and contrariety thereof, (saith that ancient Father) will pronounce, that it had for author, neither any Apostle, nor any man Apostolical 
c See the Answer to the Jesuits Challenge pag. 7. . The jesuite boasteth, if the Father's authority will not suffice, he will produce good and certain grounds out of the sacred Scriptures 
d See the Jesuits Challenge in fine▪ . The most learned Answerer tells him, if he would change his order, and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency: he should therein do more right to God the author of them, who well deserveth to have audience in the first place: and withal ease both himself and us of a needless labour, in seeking any further authority to compose our differences. And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists, so this most reverend Lord, provoketh Papists, Let humane writings be removed, let God's voice sound. Produce but one clear testimony of the sacred Scripture for the Pope's part, and it shall suffice: allege what authority you list, without Scripture and it cannot suffice 
e Answer to the Jesuits Challenge pag. 10. . And in the same page he further expresseth himself. And this we say, not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofs out of the writings of the Fathers, for the part of the Pope, than we can do for the Catholic cause (when we come to join in the particulars they shall find it fare otherwise:) but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter trial, partly to give the word of God his due, & to declare what that rock is upon which alone we build our faith, even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets 
* Ephes ●. ●0. , from which no sleight that they can devise, shall ever draw us. Here also in the place alleged he shows, that although, by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquity it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis, and not be so forward to commit the trial of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers, who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling. Yet that you may see, (saith the most reverend Primate 
f In his Answer to the jesuitea Challenge pag 20. ) how confident we are in the goodness of our cause: we will not now stand upon our right, nor refuse to enter with you into this field; but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger, and the appointer of your own weapons.  
Now let all men judge whether there can be a more plain expression, without fast and lose, without tergiversation, without inconstancy; when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the ancient Fathers to the true and absolute rule, the sacred Scriptures, and yet to satisfy the jesuite, is willing to try our faith, according to the rule proposed by the jesuit himself; not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the jesuits' vain pretences of Antiquity might be detected and made known, and that the world might see, that their Doctrine and Church is not to be justified by the testimonies of either God, or man, unless it be that Man of sin, who in this cause would be both party and judge, and in matters which he calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute.  
The jesuite proceeds.  
Although we have already shown how little right, you have to stand upon in this case, yet such thankes, as this your courtesy doth deserve, we willingly return 
g Reply pag. 48 .  
Palmarium Facinus. What have you shown but your shame? You have declared your distaste of Scriptures; and if the Fathers would perform the work you expect from them, why do you muster in their rank such hired Soldiers, Epistles, Canons, Books, swollen with forged titles, corrupted, depraved, that they might deceive, but that gladiatorio animo, although neither God, nor good men will plead for you, yet you will not leave to plead for yourselves?  
We have heard you say ere while, (saith the jesuite) that we have had opportunity enough of time, and place, to falsify the Father's writings, and to teach them the learning, and tongue of the Chaldeans: and that we have performed it so well, by clipping, washing, cankering etc. that thereby their complexions being altered, they appear not to be the same men they were 
h Reply pag. 48 .  
And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it? O but if this be true (saith the jesuite) how can the goodness of your cause be proved by them? if not true, what satisfaction can you make us, for your uncharitable slanders? If the Fathers be corrupted, how dare you enter into this Field? if not corrupted, why did you charge us wrongfully 
i Reply ibid. ?  
If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds, you had never been charged by him with those crimes. If your clipping, washing, cankering, had not been espied; or if he had been so credulous, as to have believed all your impostors, that you can style Fathers of Counsels, than might you justly have demanded, How could the goodness of his cause be proved by them? But whenas you dare not trust God in his own meaning, nor the true ancient Fathers, or lawful decrees of Counsels, without the assistance of your bastard authors, to help in time of necessity, this gives him ground sufficient to justify our cause, that hath no need of such treacheries, and to detect, yours, even they being judges, whom you appeal unto. For in the point to be handled afterwards, whether Peter's Primacy did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome, what testimony bringeth the jesuit, but Arabic canons of the Nicene Council proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountains of S. Thomas 1605 
k Reply pag. ●6 . and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Mark 
l Reply pag. ●7 . Here is one Counterfeit brought to justify another, and all for the counterfeit authority of the Roman Bishop.  
This your corrupting of antiquity would have hindered us, if the same had not been detected, but this most reverend Lord can discern betwixt the right hand and the left, and point you out those witnesses that you only dare commit yourselves unto. The Council of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnify his Chair and sea and to make the African Fathers believe that he had that, by positive law, which now they challenge by divine right; but did these Father's trust the corrupters? No, they sent for the true copy, and then left the pretenders. May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer? True it is, that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquity and outward mustiness may sometime deceive a joshua, yet we doubt not, but time and experience may reveal the fraud: jacob was deceived by Laban, but it was in the night; Day declared who deceived him. Whilst the world was no further learned than the Pope infallible, what excellent testimonies were there for the Papal triple? but when the Sun, the sacred Scripture did burst forth of those libraries wherein it was eclipsed, and the most lucide stars, the ancient Fathers, waited upon that original light; then many of these poor meteors and feigned appearances were quickly obscured and despised of some of your own: So that your Dilemma proves but a childish flourish. For although it is most true that you have done as much as you durst to pretend Fathers, make Fathers, detract from Fathers, add to Fathers, forging, clipping, washing, cankering them, yet these things being detected and cashiered, the Fathers are restored to their authority they formerly had, although they are not thought fit to be used as a rule against those Heretics, that have not spared in this manner to abuse their writings.  
Again (saith the jesuite) you have given us flatly once to understand, that the Scripture was the rock, upon which alone you build your faith, and from which no sleight that we could devise should ever draw you, and therefore you bade us to our face, allege what authority we list without Scripture, and it could not suffice. How is the wind now changed? how come you now to falsify this your former resolution 
m Reply pag. 49 ?  
Did ever any jesuite trifle in this manner and speak more inconsequent? The Scripture is the rock upon which alone he will build his faith, no authority can suffice without Scripture, therefore the wind is changed, he falsifies his former resolution? Doth not this rational deserve to censure others for false Logic that pleads with such a shape of reason himself?  
The jesuite promised in his Challenge to produce good and certain grounds out of the sacred Scriptures, if the Father's authority will not suffice: Did he cast off their rock of Fathers because he promised Scriptures? I think he will not acknowledge it, and why should he vainly here dream that the Scriptures are rejected by the most reverend the Lord Primate, when to stop the Jesuits boasting out of a well grounded confidence in the goodness of his cause, he will not in this place stand upon his right.  
Besides, let the jesuite show me the general consent of Fathers in a matter of faith without the Scriptures, if he be able. If he cannot, his thoughts are confused, when he dreamt of their authority without Scripture: if he say he will, let him produce them, for surely it is hard to be believed.  
Furthermore, when the Lawyers urge Constantine's denation for Papal possession, I ask the jesuite, upon what authority he would build his title, whether upon the donation itself, or the Lawyer's interpreting it? If the Donation be sufficient, why not the Scriptures? If the interpreters must be added, yet this is not to take away the power of the Charter; Nay, if they be added 〈◊〉 necessary testimony, the Charter were nothing without the Lawyers.  
What followeth in the jesuite hath received Answer in the fift Section, only here he will not be persuaded, that he chooseth his own weapons 
n Reply pag. 49 ; but let the Reader judge, for bibling in his judgement is but babbling, it is no other than fencing to fight with Scriptures, and to appeal to sole Scripture, is but to agree with ancient Heretics. So that Scriptures are none of his armoury, and if the Fathers be rejected also, what remaineth further, but ipse dixit, assisted with pretended miracles, lying wonders. But let them be whose weapons they will, He telleth us that he will use them, and the first encounter shallbe concerning the dignity and preeminency of the Church of Rome 
o Reply ibid. .  
Indeed this is that fruitful article of Faith, that hath got all the new articles of the new Roman Creed. This is the breast that nourisheth them, that gives them strength. The occasion wherefore he begins here, is, for as much as our Answerer taketh his first exception against him, for styling all the ancient Doctors and martyrs of the Church universal, with the name of the Saints and Fathers of the Primitive Church of Rome, though he allegeth herein no more against me (saith the jesuite) but this one bare Interrogaterie out of Albertus Pighius: Who did ever yet by the Roman Church, understand the universal Church 
p Reply pag. 49 ?  
What needs further proof? If neither the whole Roman Church, neither your whole Roman world in the judgement of Albertus Pighius, did ever take the Roman Church, for the Church Universal, is not this enough to lash the jesuite, for confounding Vrbem & Orbem, and mingling Heaven and earth together? But he will take of Pighius by a Distinction.  
If (saith he) the Roman Church be taken, as it comprehendeth only that Clergy, which maketh but one particular Bishopric & Diaces in the city of Rome, abstracting from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches, as the head unto the members, than I say with Pighius (who speaketh of it only in this sense) that no man ever, by the Church of Rome, did understand the Universal Church. But if it be taken, as it is, the Mother Church begun in S. Peter under Christ, and miraculously continued (those of each one of the rest of the Apostles failing) by due succession of lawful Bishops, having a relation to all other Christian Churches, as the head to the members; then do I say, that it may rightly be styled with the name of the Universal Church. And that all other Churches are to be accounted Catholic no further, than they be linked in a subordinate obeisance thereunto 
q Re●●● p●g. ●● .  
Here are many pretty things; By this means the Church of Rome the Mother, must be borne after the daughter; for many particular Churches had birth before Rome was a Church, or the Roman Inhabitants received the Faith of Christ. Secondly, that the Catholic Church must be in a subordinate obeisance to the Church of Rome, before there was any Church there. Besides, the Catholic Church was never enclosed in any other place but the world, never restrained to any other habitation: To chain it ●o any head out of Heaven, or to confine it to any particular place on Earth were to make it schismatical. This Church concludes all Saints: Noah's Ark was here a Temple; Christ delighted with this Church (as in the Canticles) before Rome was Rome, or a Pontifex governed therein; Some are in Heaven that never yielded obedience to this Church, or heard of Rome: And it is more than probable, some are in hell, that were termed Holiness itself whilst they remained in this Catholic here.  
But what the jesuite hath to make this Roman Church the Catholic and mother of all other Churches, in the next Section we shall examine.   

SECT: VIII.  
THis jesuite after he hath obtained from the most learned Primate (ex gratiâ) liberty in his own challenge to choose his own weapon, would first use it to prove, that The Ancient Fathers of the first Ages acknowledged the Roman Church to be the head of all other Churches 
a Reply pag 40 .  
I had thought the Pope had been the Head. and that all other Churches had held the Catholic Faith of him in capite, but I perceive, the Roman Church is now presumed from the Ancients to have had this title.  
Yet I think it will scarce be found, what the jesuite doth understand by the Roman Church, For if, by the Roman Church be comprehended, all other Churches that are only to be accounted Catholic for the subordinate obeisance to Peter and other succeeding Bishops 
b See the jesuits Reply pag. 49, , than it is mere vanity to make an Head the Head of itself, to make the Church all Head and no body; If their particular City or Diocese and Church therein, than he cannot by the Roman Church understand the Roman Catholic, as he confesseth in the last Section; for (saith he) if the Roman Church be taken, as it comprehendeth only that Clergy, which maketh but one particular Bishopric and Diocese in tho City of Rome▪ abstracting (or as he would say abstracted) from that relation which it hath unto all other Christian Churches, as the head unto the members, than I say th●● no man ever by the Church of Rome did understand the Universal Church 
c Reply 〈◊〉 .  
Secondly, if it be not the Roman Catholic, than all the testimonies produced, make nothing for the Roman Catholic Church, but for the Roman Church that is not Catholic. But though he doth not fully express himself herein, yet he doth that which may give us a guess of his meaning, seeing the stream of his proofs is to set forth the eminency of their Roman Pastor, And to make this good, he cities some Fathers to prove the Pope to be the head of the faithful 
d See S. Augustine cited by the jesuite pag. ●1. , head of Pastoral Honour 
e See Prosper ibid. pag. 52. , so that notwithstanding he pleads for the Church Roman, yet that which he laboureth to advance, is the See and Pope Roman, that is that they fight for, this they desire, Rome they would have the head of all Churches, and the Pope the Head of her: and their slighting of Counsels many times declare in their opinion the Pope to be the only Beasts head that must be adored; for the Council maketh not the Pope infallible, but the Pope the Council 
f Wadding. Legat. Phil. 3. etc. Sect. 2 Non tribuit Concilium infallibilitatem Pontifici, sed à Pontifice habe● Concilium, ut fit ratum ac firmum. . For Peter, and those that follow him in the faith of Peter, not for a Council did Christ pray 
g Ibid. Pro P●tro, & in fide Petri succedentibus NON PRO CONCILIO oravit et ex●ravit. .  
Well then; let us see how we shall answer what he brings for the Roman Churches exaltation. And first of all it seemeth a needless thing for this jesuite to bring proofs to manifest the same. It being so undoubted a truth (if we may believe this jesuite) that the very first Broachers of protestancy, when they speak without Passion, do not deny the same 
h Reply pag. 30 .  
The Broachers of protestancy were CHRIST his Apostles, who gave us wine and oil out of the Vessels of his Truth, when such butchers as you have laboured to erect a fantastic frame of your own.  
His first instance is, Martin Bucer, whom he produceth, confissing ingenuously, that with the Fathers of the ancient Church, the Roman Church obtained the Primacy before the rest, for as much as she hath S. Peter's chair, and her Bishops almost ever still have been held for Peter's successors 
i Reply pag▪ ●● .  
And what I pray you getteth your Church or Pope by this ingenuè confitemur? Little I suppose, to make Rom● caput infallibilitatis, or the Pope the Pilot to guide thither. For he saith, that the Roman Church hath obtained the Primacy prae caeteris, before other Churches, not supper, not over all the rest, and that the Bishops of Rome have been held for Peter's successors, but not absolutely as an infallible truth; but semper ferè, almost ever, not without doubts and jealousies, as he seemeth to express: But if absolutely other Bishops, nay, all other Bishops have been likewise so esteemed, as is plain by Chrysostom's exhortation to Basill Bishop of Caesarea, who from the ground of Pasce oves, exhorteth him to that duty of Peter's, because it belongeth to his Successors as well as to himself 
k Chr●sost. de Sacerdotio. l. 2. ●●tre amas me ●●quit, atque illo id con●i●ence, adjungit: Si amas me, Pas●e oars meas. Interrogat discipulum Praeceptor, ●um ab eo non quo id ipse do●eatur, ●erùm in NOS DOCEA● quan●ae sibi curae ●● gregis hujus praefectura. ●● ●aulo cost. Ve●●m hoc ille tum agebat, ut, & Petrum & caeter●s no● edoceret, quantà bene●●●en●i● ac▪ charitate erga suam ipse Ecclesiam afficeretur, ut hac ratione & NOS quoque ejusdem Ecclesi● studium curamque toto animo susciperemus— 〈◊〉 item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum? certe ut pecudes e●● acquitere●▪ qua●●●● Petro ●um Petri successoribus gubernandas in manum 〈◊〉 , whereunto agreeth Peter Lombard lib. 4. Dist. 18.  
We envy not the Bishop of the imperial City this Honour, that in Procession he shall go last, and in a Council sit first. If this will serve his turn, let him put off his Crown and assume his Mitre, and with an ingenuè confitemur, we will all acknowledge him the greatest Bishop, first in place of all Peter's Successors: But (for his Monarchy) to make the whole Catholic Church, the Senate of Bishops and Priests a bare shadow, this is too much to be allowed him.  
Further whilst he embraceth Peter's faith, we will not deny him to have a part as the rest of the Catholic body in Christ's prayer: Yet to think that Christ so prayed for Peter and his Successors Bishops of Rome, that Hell might prevail against all other his Successors the Bishops of the Catholic Church, this without extreme flattery we cannot grant unto him. So that Bucer hath not said much for this Head of Churches.  
Yet he goeth not alone, Luther himself (saith the jesuite) doth confess that the Bishop of Rome hath superiority over all other Bishops 
l Reply pag. ●● .  
This is no great matter, for it was (as the jesuite confesseth) when he made use of his bests wits 
m Ib▪ ● , that is, when he did and said, or at least submitted all to the determination of this Apollyon; but afterwards in his raving pang of madness, he spared not, like madde-men and fools to speak the truth, and to call a spade a spade, the Pope Antichrist, and the Roman state the Whore of Babylon. So that any may see this maketh little to the Producers purpose; for if this were a good Testimony, why doth he not produce our Acts of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and all those Testes, which in the time of blindness from men not well informed, he might have alleged?  
But (Luther tells us) that Gods will which way soever it is made known unto us, aught to be reverently embraced: and therefore it is not lawful to gainsay rashly the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy. And this reason is of such force, that although there were no other, it alone aught to be sufficient to ●urbe the temereity of all opposers 
n Reply pag▪ ● . The Argument is thus.  
Whatsoever is permitted by God, is reverently to be embraced: But the Papal altitude is permitted by God. Therefore with all reverence to be embraced. May not this argument serve for Pope joan, the stews, the holy Lady Ma●ylda judas & julian, yea for all villainy without exception or interruption? For we must not think that any thing can come to pass without God's voluntary permission. God made the world, shall we say that (like Gallio) he c●reth for none of these things 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? God hath permitted many evils, many tyrannies, among the Baby●nians, Persians, Grecians, Romans; yet this doth not justify them in their impieties, or make us reverently to embrace them therein.  
We know God placed Peter in the sheepefould to ●eed● his Lambs, as he sent the the rest to the same work; but show us that he took him from the Ewes great with young, to make him the King of Israel, the Monarch of the Church, and this is something to the purpose.  
Yet this Argument is not the Charter, by which Peter got his Primacy, but those Popes that came in the last days. For when Luther was in his best wits, he could not find the Pope's Primacy in Pasce ●ves, or Oravi pro te Petre, or in any other place of Scripture, or from any other reason, but from experience. So that we perceive the Bishop of Rome hath as much right to his pretended greatness, as Nimrod to Babylon, and all former Tyrants to their Usurpations.  
Now the jesuite addresseth himself to Antiquity, and wherefore? Because our Answerer will needs be a scholar of their maddest humours in this point we present him here, (saith he) with the Doctrine of Antiquity utterly condemning the same 
o Reply pag. ●0 .  
The most learned Answerer is no Scholar of Luther, or of Bucer, neither are their humours directories of his Faith, or opinions. One is his Doctor, and that is Christ, and as fare as Luther and Bucer follow him, so fare they may have his company, but no further. It is your holy Brotherhood that are tied to mad humours, nay to such as a mad man would not embrace. Who can presume that a jesuite hath his wits, that casting aside God's Law, in the place thereof embraceth the rule of Ignatius, as if it were their Decalogue, or Square for direction? And for any thing we can see, the Prescripts of their General are little less esteemed by them in their practice, than what God himself appoints them 
p Hassenmuller. Hist. Ies, c. 6 de vo●. Obedieniiae. Impudentissimos istos homines non pudet, haec sigmenta capi●is sui, & ha● Loiolae nuga●, ipsi Dei Deca ●●go praepone●●. quod jacobus Crusius, Novitiorum Landspergensium Rector facit. Noster, inquiens Decalogus e●●, R●gula vo●orum ab Ignatio L●●●●● tradit●. . This goeth fare, but yet all this is nothing to the requisites that they prescribe to themselves, vice, that if the Church (you know who they mean) should determine white to be black. it must not be opposed 
q Regulae jesus it ad finem Histor. interdict▪ tenet, regula 132. si quod o●ulis nostris apparet album, nigrum illa esse definierit, debemus itidem quod nigr●● sit pronunciare. .  
Now seeing he hath urged Bucer & Luther disputing ●● concessis, he will make it clear by Antiquity itself. So that he will not accept that the Roman Church is the Head of all other Churches by a bare Concession or grant of her enemies, but will further make it apparent by her own evidences and ancient Prerogatives. And his first testimony is the Inscription of an Epistle of Ignatius, the disciple of S. john the Evangelist to the Romans, where amongst other prerogatives, he confesseth that it beareth sway ever all other Churches 
r Reply pag▪ 10 .  
The person cannot want authority and esteem, being an holy Bishop and Martyr. Yet I am sure the jesuite hath besmeared the face of this Epistle with falsehood & fraud; for where will he find this sway-bearing to be Ecumenical and over all other Churches? Bellarmine dare not be so bold, but contractedly speaks in the Region of the Romans 
s Bellarm▪ de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 15. Primus igitur sit Beatus Ignatius qui Epistolam ad Roma●●● inscribi●. Ignatius Ecclesi● sanctifi●a●ae, quae presided in regione Romanorum▪ , and yet more largely, than the truth of the Epistle will bear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in loco Regionis Romanorum; and what Patriarch had not the like to bear sway in divine matters over all the Churches of the Province or Provinces, that were subordinate unto him? Nay further, the Archishops of York and Dublin are styled Primates, the one of England; the other of Ireland, and yet this doth not make them Universal Swayers of the Church in those Kingdoms, much less to obtain headship for their Churches above all others therein. So that I am persuaded, if ever God had given the Roman Church such a capital privilege, the Catholic Church would have had plainer words to have declared CHRIST'S favour and particular bounty unto it. But you may remember who it was that took our Saviour to the pinnacle of the Temple, that offered him all the Kingdoms of the world, that he might near sway over them, and you cannot forget mitte te d●●rsum. If in these things, you will not reject Sa●● with your Master, take heed you fall not from the pinnacle of the Temple with him that you embrace as your Lord.  
It is more glorious for a Bishop to be a fatherly guide and governor, than a sway-bearing Precedent. and it would more commend the Roman Bishop to attend those suburbane Churches and Provinces committed to his care by the Nicene Council, as Ruffinus ● expounds it, and not to distend his holiness with the  thoughts of universal Regiment.  
The second Witness of Antiquity he maketh Cypri●●, and two places he citeth out of him. The first out of his third Epistle in his first book, where this Father calleth the Roman Church, Cathedram Petri, & ●●clesium principalem; the Chair of Peter, and the che●●● Church 
Ruffinus hist●ccles. l. 1. c. 6. ●t ut apud Alexandriam, & in urbe Roma, vetusia con●u●●●do fervor, ut vel ille 〈◊〉, vel hic ●●●aroicariatum ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat. .  
And might not the Church of Antioch have the first title or stile? And yet this would not be sufficient to give that Church such an universal headship and pre-eminence. 
Reply pag. 50  For the other phrase of Ecclesiam principalem, it makes it not the Head, for that Church obtained this title by reason of the City, wherein the principal members of the Church remained, and because it was an Apostolical Church, not for that all the other Apostolical Churches were subordinate unto it in power.  
The second he urgeth is out of the Eight Epistle of his fourth book, where he would have Cyprian to style the Roman Church, the root and the mother of the Cathelicke Church 
x Reply pag 50 .  
If this be true, surely Cyprian had a conceit that the branch might grow before the root; for who will say, that Rome first received the Faith▪ or the name of Christians, or that there was no Catholic Church before Peter preached there. But Cyprian meant no such thing as this jesuite would persuade him to affirm: He finds a Schism in Rome betwixt Novatianus and Cornelius Nevatianus being made Bishop the other living, & suspends his judgement in this matter until he had enquired the truth from the Roman Priests and Deacons 
y Cyprian. Epistol. 45. Omnia interim integra suspenderentur, done end nos iidem collegae nostri rebus illic aut ad pacem▪ aut pro veritate compertis redirent▪ , only he adviseth them, that like good Navigators they should not separate themselves from the unity of the Catholic Church 
z Ibid. Nos enim singulis navigantibus, ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent, rationem red sentes scimus nos hortatos cos esse, ut Ecclesiae Catholi●● radicem & matricem pag▪ 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 , which he understandeth by this phrase, taking the root and mother of the Catholic Church to be the ●●nitie of Faith, and not as our Iesu●● would collect, that thereby is meant the Roman Congregation; for wherefore then should he suspend his judgement till he heard the matter, if his thoughts had concluded, as this jesuite would have it, that Cornelius and his Adherents, were the root and mother of the Catholic Church? And that this is the meaning of S. Cyprian, we may easily perceive, in regard he taketh these words ad Catholic● Ecclesiae unitatem, to the unity of the Catholic Church; and ad radicis & matris sinum, to the bosom of their root and mother, in his 42 Epistle to express the same thing. Besides, we may further observe, that the root and mother of the Catholic Church is not Cornelius and his Diocese, in regard the jesuite will not have the Pope and his Diocese, to be the Catholic Church 
a Reply pag. 49. , which S. Cyprian Epist. 43. makes to be the Mother, ad matrem suam, id est Ecclesiam catholicam.  
His third witness from Antiquity, is Tertullian, who even when he was fallen otherwise ●nto heresi, yet did he (though he was an Heretic) acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Episcopus Episcoperum, the Bishop of Bishops 
b Reply pag. 51. .  
As if this were sufficient to make the Roman Church the head of all other Churches, or the Pope the Father of all Bishops: Well, if it be not, Rome hath lost one of her best Arguments for her triumphant Station over the Church of GOD. And who knoweth not, that this title was given to all those that had Bishops under them, as all patriarchs and Metropolitans had? And what is more common then to give other Bishops the stile of Summus vel princeps Episcoporum, Chief, or Prince of Bishops; as Rabanus speaks of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria 
c Rabanus l. 1. de instit. Cleric. c. 5. Sicut Archiepiscopus Antiochenus Episcopus, atque Alexandrinus Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeco ●ocabulo dicitur, quod sit summus vel Princeps Episcoporum tenet enim vicem Apostolicam & praesidet Episcopis caeteris. ? Yea so common was this appellation, that in the third Carthaginian Council this title was inhibited to all the Metropolitans 
d Concilium Carthag. 3. can 26.  prim● sedis Episcopus, non appeiletur princeps Sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus. .  
But least the jesuite should say that the stile of Prince of Bishops is not so concludent for an universal government as to be called Bishop of Bishops, we shall find Sidonius calling Lupus, Pater Patrum, & Episcopus Episcoporum, Father of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops 
Sidonius l. 6. Epist. 1. Benedictus Spiritus sanctus & Pater Dei omnipotentis, quod tu Pater Patrum & Episcopus Episcoporum. ; and Athanasius was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Preist of Priests 
f 〈◊〉. in orat ●●. de laudibus He ronis. , which is the same in effect; whereby we may see, upon how slender a foundation the Castle of S. Angelo is raised.  
Yet if Tertullian be but observed by an eye that will not be blind it will appear that he speaketh only in scorn and ironically when he calls your Roman Bishop, chief priest and Bishop of bishops. Only this Roman Fisher will forsake nothing that cometh to his hook, though it be but the scorn of an Heretic.  
He ceaseth not but brings in old Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. saying, that with this Roman Church, by reason of her more powerful Principality, or Supremacy, it is necessary, that all other Churches do agree 
g Reply pag. 51. .  
All this maketh little to give the Church of Rome the headship pretended; For the question here is particular concerning the Canon of the Scriptures, and the Church of Rome is commended for her truth as she then stood 
h Irenaeus l. ●. c. 3. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique consecrat● est quae ab Apostolis traditio. , not for her infallibility in ages after that she should remain the same. For were see Augustine forsakes the Roman Church in which some doubted of the Epistles to the Hebrews, and adhered unto the Greeks, who received it into the Canoni: Irenaeus also in another matter, forall the powerful principality that he gave unto the Roman Church, reproved sharply her Monarch, and forsook not (in all probability) their Communion whom he had excommunicated 
k Eusebius hist. Eccles▪ l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem & verba illor●● qui Victorem acriter reprehenderunt; equibus & Irenae us. .  
Besides, if all other Churches did agree with the Roman 
i Augustin. l. ●. de Peceat▪ merit, & remissse, 27. Ad Haebrae●● quoque▪ Epistola quan▪ quam nonnullis incerta fit,— tamen magis me movet authoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium, quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent.  propter potentiorem principalitatem, by reason her more powerful principality, it were good our jesuite would have interpreted what he had meant thereby, for these are words that better fit an imperial government than the rule of the Church. And that people should come thither for this respect, I think the Church of Rome hath little cause to triumph therein any more than other patriarchal Seas, because all men come up from all parts to the Metropolitical Sea, that have any business 
l Antiochenum Council▪ ●: sub ●ulio can. 9 Ad Metropolin omnes undique qui negotia videntur habere concurrant. . And who can perceive any other thing in Irenaeus? for he doth not as the jesuite interprets him, make all Churches to agree with the Roman for her more powerful principality, but showeth that all faithful men from all parts of the world coming to Rome (in regard it was the imperial Seat) might learn what Scriptures were delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul in regard at that time in this Father's judgement they were there conserved by the Church. And so Chrysostome in like manner doth attribute to the City of Antioch the titles of the great City, the Metropolis of the whole world, to which multitudes of Bishops and Doctors came for instructions, and being taught by the people departed 
m Chry●ostom. de Verbis E 〈◊〉. Vidi Dominum hom 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis Metropolis Quot Episcopi quot doctores huc venerunt, & a populo docti discedunt. .  
In the next course appeareth Athanasius who (if we may believe this jesuite) together with all the Bishops of Egypt did acknowledge themselves subject unto the same [viz the Roman Church,] though fare distant. The ground that moves the jesuite to be so well persuaded is their Epistle written to Pope Mark, with this Inscription. To the holy Lord Venerable Mark sitting in the Apostolical height, Pope of the Roman Apostolic Sea, and of the Church Universal, Athanasius, and all the Bishops of Egypt send greeting. Besides he tells us, that in this Epistle this holy Father with his fellow Bishops ingenuously acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be the mother and head of all other Churches, and therefore they profess themselves to belong thereunto, and that both they and all theirs will always live obedient unto the same 
n Reply pag. 51 .  
Here is a heap of Fathers, like Abdisu and his company in the Trent councelli, a feigned Athanasius, a troop of Gipsies. These know better how to cant (M. Malone) then to speak Athanasius, or like Bishops of the Catholic Church. Such bastard births as these may advance your now scarlet Mistress to be the Lais orflourishing Flora of the world, but never prove that ancient holy Church of Rome to have taken upon her as her right to be the Head and mother of the Catholic Church, as you desire to manifest thereby.  
Bellarmine tells us that both these Epistles of Athanasius to Pope Mark, and Mark to Athanasius are supposititious 
o Bellar. Script. Eccles. De Athanasio. De Epistolis Athanasij ad Marcum Papam, & Marci Papae ad Athanasium constat ex ratione temporis, eas epistolas esse supposititias. , and Baronius gives them the like honour 
p Baronius an. Christi 336. sect 58. 5●. At Merca●●is merces nonnihil suspectae redduntur. . But M. Malone may be excused, for why may not he aswell cite a bastard father for the Catholic Roman mother, as their Pope did a fictitious Canon for the Catholic Roman Father 
q Concil. Carthag. 6 ? Yet I wonder all these pains should be taken when the headship of the Church might by a general Council be taken from the Roman and given to any other, as Cameracensis 
r Camerace nsis in Vesp. a●. 3 pag. 380.  affirms.  
His next evidence is the general Council of Chalcedon, where Paschasinus and other Fathers assembled there, do manifestly declare the Pope to be, caput universalis Ecclesiae, Heal of the Church universal 
s Reply pag. 5● .  
The jesuite should have forsaken this for fear of loss; For surely it is no otherwise then they gave it to the Church of Constantinople, which at that time when this Council was held, had the same cause for her headship, to wit, the Empire and Senate as old Rome had. Whereupon th●se Bishops thought it very reasonable that she should enjoy the same Privileges, as old Rome had, and in ecclesiastical matters, sicut illa majestatem habere, be an head of the Universal Church 
t Council Chalced. Act 16. Eadem intentione permeti centum quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopiae. qua sedi novae Roma privilegia tribuerunt, rationabiliter judicantes imperio & Senatu urbem o●na●ā aequis senioris Romae privilegijs frui & in ecclesiasticis sicut illa majestatem habere. .  
And what doth the Council give to Rome, (if she had this title) more than hath been given to other Bishops and Churches? Did not Basill term Athanasius, caput universorum, the head of all 
u Basil. epist. 52 ? Nazianzen also saith of him, that he gave laws to the whole world 
x Nazianzen. Orat in lauden Athanasijs. Leges orbi terrarum praescribit. . And Chrysostome calleth▪ Antioch the Metropolis of the whole world 
y Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae, Vidi Dominum etc. hom. 4. Magna civitas ac totius orbis metropolis. , and in another place the head of all the world 
z Chrysost. hom 3. ad Populum. Caput totius orbis . justinian likewise calleth Constantinople caput omnium civitatum, the Head of all cities 
a Institut. l. ●. de satisdat. § vlt. . Whereby it appears that the title of head was given to many persons and places for their excellency in some kind or other and not for their supremacy.  
Besides this, to any that will view the Council, it will evidently appear, that the Roman Bishop was considered, as than he appeared in the Council by his Legates, and not as he was in his private chair; and was reputed Head of the Church, not in regard of his Sea or succession, but because he did presede by his Legate that Church representative which was there gathered together, as Cyrill was Head of the Ephesine 
b Concil. Ephesi●. apud Binn. in Epistola ad Imperator. tom. in act. Concil. 〈◊〉. cap. 8. Quia inquam triginta illi contra sacram Synodum, ●anctissimorumque Episcoporum hic coactorum CAPUT, Cyrillum sanctissimum Alexandriae Archiepiscopum— blasphemam depositionis noram, ut 〈◊〉, in se continentem, protulerunt. , and Hosius of the Nicene Council 
c Bellarm. l. 1● de Concil. c. 19 Athanasius in Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes,— dicit, Hosium Principem fuisse in eo● Concilio, & ipsum esse, qui composuit Symbolum, quod dicitur Nicaenum. , so that the jesuite prooveth nothing here, but only amazeth his Reader, with this pretence of a Council, having not one word in this Council that will give him the privilege of a Semper-President because he is head, but accounting him Head, because by the general Council he was accepted Precedent and did discharge that office by his Legate there present.  
The jesuite hath ommitted nothing; Steven Archbishop of Carthage in that Epistle to Damasus which he wrote in the name of three African Counsels hath this title. To our most blessed Lord sitting in the Apostolical eminency, Pope Damasus the chief Bishop of all Prelates 
d Reply pag. 51 .  
Which of these words (M. Malone) proves Rome to be above Jerusalem? the Hills of Babylon to be higher than the mountains of the Lord? Not the title of Chief Bishop; for this gives the Bishop no power, but place; no authority, but precedency. Is it the other, that he sits in the Apostolical eminency? Who doubts that the Apostleship is attributed to other Bishops aswell as Rome, that dare not adventure to imagine the effect of this appellation to be a spiritual Monarchy? As Sidonius to Lupus, praeter officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatui tuo, sine fine debetur 
e 〈◊〉 l. 4. Epist. 4. . So likewise in the renunciation of the Metropolitical Sea of Heraclea, thus speaks Theodoret Chrit●pulus, Deprecor & thronum & principatum & sacerdotium adhortorque eum qui vocatur & quem Paracletus ad Apostolatum suum separabit. And if we will give credit to Pacianus Episcopi Apostoli nominantur, Bishops are called Apostles 
f 〈◊〉 Epist. 1. , so that it was no unusual thing to give good Bishops, titles that were indeed proper and peculiar to the Apostles of Christ, as Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and the like. And therefore this can be no rest for him to depend upon.  
For the two places to prove Rome the head of all Churches cited out of Victor Vticensis & Ennodius 
g Reply pag. 51 , we have answered thereunto, that this title is but an appellation that betokens honour and precedency, not power and superiority. Surely the Church of Rome, got not this height by such arguments, neither do I think that it could be maintained, if it wanted other strength and defence. So that any may see his capital argument getteth no more, than what we yield unto him in. What his other endeavours will effect, we may easily conjecture.  
He bringeth in S. Ambrose next 
h Reply ibid. , but with as little help for the Roman headship, as the former from whom he expected assistance: But here is no truth in this quotation, all, neither true Author, true word, true consequence. For first how many can we find that reject those commentaries upon Paul's Epistles, as being none of Ambroses', some charging them as upon the Epistle to the Romans with Pelagianisme, from which I think the jesuite will defend this Father? Secondly, let the Author be who he will; these words seem to be inserted, Cujus hodie rector est Damasu● for if it be he (as by some of the learned of your side is supposed) that wrote the book of questions of the old and new testament 
i Bellarm: de Script. Eccles: De Ambrosio M. credibile igitur est auctorem horum commentariorum esse Hilarium Diaconum Romanum, qui Luciferi schisma propagavit. ; he lived 
* Quae●●. 43.  300 years after Christ, and so could not speak these words of Damasus, who was Bishop 367. Or if he were Remigias Lugdnnensis, as Maldonat thinks 
k Maldonat. in joh. c. 12. v. 32. , who lived about the year 870. I think you will say he spared the truth, if he had said, Hodie rector est Damasus. And who doth not see the poor consequence that followeth hereupon? Damasus is Rector of God's house, therefore the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches: By this I dare say, a man may prove any Church the Head of another: for to what Bishop is not this style given? Paul calleth himself and Timothy and others that were called to the regiment of the Church, ministers of Christ, stewards of the mysteries of God 
* 1 Cor. 4. v. 1 , and himself a minister of the Church 
* Coloss. 1● 25. . But let God's word prevail, as the jesuite is affected, what hath herein been said of Damasus that hath not been said, and by Rome itself of Andrew the Apostle? who I fear, will not be admitted to enjoy the conclusion, though the Roman Breviarie give him the premises. Majestatem tuam Domine, suppliciter exoramus ut sicut Ecclesiae tuae, beatus Andraeas Apostolus existit Praedicator & Rector. O Lord, we humbly beseech thy Majesty, that as blessed Andrew the Apostle, is Preacher and Rector of thy Church 
l Cassander. Prec: Eccles: De sancto Andre●. . I fear he would smell like Spalleto, that from hence should conclude that the Church which Andrew governed as a Bishop, was the mother church of all others, or that he were the universal Bishop, from whom every man should receive his faith. Nay Bellarmine will not exclude others from this title 
m Bellarm. de Rom. Pont l. c. 11. Omnes enim Apostoli) fuerunt capita, Rectores, & pastors Ecclesiae universae. , and yet none shall have what the jesuite infers thereupon but his own Roman mistress.  
After Ambrose comes S. Hierome, whom he bringeth in saying, I following none as fi●st, but Christ, am united in one Communion to thy blessedness: that is to say, to Pet●rs Chair. Upon this rock I know the Church is buil●. Whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this house, he is profane. He that gathereth not with thee, doth scatter: that is to say, He that belongeth not to Christ, standeth upon the side of Antichrist 
n Reply pag. 5●. .  
What our jesuite would have here is plain, that consent with the Roman Church makes a Catholic, and therefore it must be the Mother Church. Is there no difference betwixt Rome now and then? Who could then argue her of falsehood or false belief? It were a poor rea●on to argue from her being pure to her corrupt defyling. But wherein lieth the strength of this Testimony? Surely in side-taking & communion, as if it were certain that to commucate with Rome and her Bishop is sufficient to declare a man catholic, and that non-union to that head were as much as not to be of the body of Christ. Now what force hath this testimony for confirmation hereof? For we see Popish confession will not acknowledge Sergius a catholic, though he communicated with Honorius 
o Council ● VI Oecum 〈◊〉 Act. 12. & 1●. . Neither do the present Romanists embrace those Arrian● as Catholic for Liberian his familiarity, nor condemn Athanasius, though condemned by their Pope 
p Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 9 Nam ut colligitur ex Athanasij verbis, & ex Epistolis ipsius Liberij, duo mala Liberius commisit: Vnum quod subscripsit in damnationem Athanasijs. Altem●●, quod cum Haereticis communicavit. Binnius Not. it. Epist. Liberij▪ ad Episcopo● Orien. extat tomo 1. Concil. Quisquis innocentem Athanasium à Catho●icorum communio●e arcet: impio● verò Ariano● ad communionis vinculum admitti audeat 〈◊〉 non Catholicum: sed Arianum esse oportet. . Will you account all for Heretics, that have not obeyed your Roman Bishop? What say you to Irenaeus 
q Eusebius hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 23. Extant autem & verba illorum q●i Victorem acriter reprehenderunt. Equibus & Irenaeus. . To Cyprian 
r Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l, 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici, do●●●ienti haereticos non rebaprixand●●, ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompei●●, & tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed neque mortaliter peccavit— et tamen Ec●●esia Cypria●um ut sanctam colit, qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error. . To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeals 
s Epist. Bonifacii ●. ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae. Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus, cum c●llegis sui● instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum no●●●orum Bonifacii atque Coelesti●i, contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit. Sed vide●s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recognovit se, pacem & communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum collegis sui● damnavit Apostolica auctoritate omnes Scripturas quae adversus Romanae Ecclesiae privilegia factae quoquo ingenio fuerunt. ? Must all Africa not afford one Bishop that is catholic, or Layman that is a right Christian and true Catholic? How are they acknowledged Martyrs? How Saints?  
Besides, I wonder that this truth never appeared in Canon of Council, nor was ever registered by the Fathers in the ages mentioned with general consent. For that phrase, upon this rock I know the Church is built, meaning S. Peter's chair, I dare say with reverence to S. Hierome, that it was either upon Christ, or Peter's confession of Christ to be the Son of God (as the Fathers in multitudes do interpret it) or upon Peter himself, whom your own would have th● rock, and not upon Peter's ●haire, which was not of such an unmooveable stability, ●s that rock ought to be upon which the Church is builded. Further I think Mr Malone will not de●y that the foundation of the Church was laid before Peter had any chair either at Antioch, or at Rome; and if he say, S. Hierome meant not his chair but in relation to Peter; then who can deny, but all the Apostles are rocks, as Peter was? Petrae omnes Apostoli, All the Apostles are rocks, upon which the Church is built, saith Origen 
t Origen. in Mat. hom. 1. .  
The jesuite proceeds, and brings two places from St Augustine, if we will believe him to be the Author of the questions of the old and new testament. For to make this other than a counterfeit, he shall never be able, but what saith he that may procure such an universal pre-eminence to this only Father? Why he is called caput fidelium▪ Head of the faithful 
u Reply pag. 51. . So may every Priest in his Parish, unless his flock be Infidels. And for the other title, Pastor gregis Dominici; Pastor of our Lords flock 
Reply ibid. . What Bishop is not Pastor of the flock of Christ, but Papal Bishops, who (poor Delegates) have not their institution from CHRIST, but as poor hirelings from the Papacy?  
In the second place the jesuite tells us, thot S. Augusti●● giveth this testimony of the Church of Rome, that the Principality, or supremacy of the See Apostolic hath always borne sway therein 
y Reply pag. 52 .  
This Father will not serve the Jesuits turn without a gloss, Principality, & Supremacy must be the same, so the jesuite would have it; for if this be not true, Augustine forsakes his engager. But the jesuite may know that principality is not Papal Dominion, there was a primatu● or principality of the Church of Constantinople 
z Theodoret. l. 2 c 27. , and a primatus or primacy of the Church of Jerusalem 
〈◊〉. l. 7. ●. 6. , into which seats ascended none of these Monarch's. He cometh to the principality of a See or Bishopric, that entereth by orderly election, as Augustine acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome, to have done. And a man may get a principality in the Church by sedition and ambition, as Leo expresseth himself to the Bishops of Africa 
Leo Epist. 87. ad Episc. Africanos. Principatus autem, quem seditio ex●orfit, au● ambitus occupavit, etiam si ●oribus atque actibus non ●ssend●t, ip 〈◊〉 tamen ini●●●●ui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . What he can pick out of the word Apostolical, hath been answered before.  
Next to the Master he produceth the Scholar Prosper in two places, but to no more purpose or advantage then the former. For who will deny the Church of Rome in Prospers time in regard of her outward eminency, to be made the head of pastoral honour unto the world 
c Reply pag. 52 , and that she was more conspicuous by being a tower to Religion in defending the faith against heretics, then by exercising any power, not temporal 
* No such word in the original quotation out of Prosper.  (as the jesuite addeth) but Ecclesiastical, that was given him by Counsels. Whereby we may see the difference betwixt Rome now, and then, their eminency, their honour, than was extended, arce religionis, by defending the true faith: Your holy Fathers now seek advancement solio potestatis, by obtaining a Monarchy, and bringing all powers but hell, (that must triumph over you 
* Revel. 19 ●● ) into subjection under their feet.  
But the jesuite confident of Prosper, telleth us; Therefore the holy Bishop 〈◊〉 doth testify how in his days: The whole world agreed with Pope Siricius, in one and the same fellowship of communion 
d Reply pag. ●● . Here is a Logical therefore, Prosper telleth us, that Rome the See of Peter, is made the head of pastoral honour unto the world etc. therefore Opta●●● (that lived many Decades of years before him) doth testify how in his days the whole world agreed with Pope Siri●●us in one and the same fellowship of communion. We will leave the inference, the evidence is nothing. For was there not reason that they should do as they did, to wit, agree in truth with the eminentest opposing Bishop, for otherwise they should have been Donatists. Make your Popes as Siricius was, and we will agree with them in communion, not because Popes, but because they ●defend the true Doctrine against donatistical and heretical rashness.  
Do you think Hierome thought himself bound to Liberius his Communion, when he styled him an Arian 
e Hiero●. Catalogue. Scrip. Eccles. Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptio●●● Haerese●● compuiit. . Ambrose would not endure to give a stupid consent to the Church of Rome itself, unless he saw reason for it, lib. 3. de sacram. cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Roma●●● Ecclesia●, sed tamen & nos omnes sensum habe●●●, Id quod alibi rectius servatur nos custodimus. here you may see how the Ancients did adhere to the Roman Bishop, not in every thing from opinion of his authority, infallibility, mother-hood, or mistresseship; for they thought in other places something might be more rightly observ●d: but so fare as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession, otherwise, N●● 〈◊〉 sensum habemus, they could espy error there, as well as in any other less eminent Church.  
But he tells us, This agreement in Communion with the Roman Church was in those primitive times held for an infallible mark of true faith, a● appedreth most plainly by that which S. Ambrose relateth of his brother Satyrus 
f Reply pag. 52 . It appeareth plainly that the jesuite shoots at rovers, not at the mark, otherwise he would not produce a matter of fact, knit to time and occasion, to prove a thing absolutely, and without dependence. Satyrus would not communicate in the dread mysteries of the Eucharist, but by the hand of a Catholic Bishop, opposite to the Luciferians, who were schismatics at that time, and to that purpose calling a certain Bishop so him, 〈◊〉 supposing that no true friendship could be without true faith, he therefrre first of all enquired of him wheth●● he did accord with the Catholic Bishops that i● with the Roman Church 
g Reply ibid. . Now the jesuite would hereupon conclude, that agreement in communion with the Roman Church. was in those times held for an infallible mark of true faith 
h Reply ibid. . In Satyrus his time, the Romam Church was a good mark, because by true doctrine it gave good aim, but was it the same when Liberius, Honorius were Roman Bishops: Satyrus made not Bishops Catholic, because Roman, but in regard they were opposite to schismatics. Neither did Ambrose interpret Catholic Bishops by the Roma●● Church, but because they were truly Catholic at that 〈◊〉 which were of the Roman clergy. About those times than they did choose Bishops by their agreement with the present Orthodoxal Bishops, as Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothieof Alexandria etc. not because those Sees made their Bishop's infallible and exempt from error, but because these men at that time by general testimony, suis Ecclesijs religiose praessent; did religiously govern their Churches 
i 〈◊〉▪ hist. l. 7. c. 9 Hos enim & imperator quo. que visos, & cotam allo●●●tus approbavit de quibus et integra constabat fama, quod suis Eccles●● religiosè praeessent, . The same reason made Satyrus call some Bishop's Catholic; and from the same ground Ambrose expoundeth Satyrus his Catholic Bishops by the Roman Church.  
The jesuite cometh now to his last proof from restaring of Bishops put out of their Bishoprics to conclude his Papal Monarchy, and bringeth us only one example, and that but an attempt only, viz ● of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paulus Archbishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucianus Bishop of Hadrianople, who being all patriarchs and Prelates of the East Church, and expelled from their places, even by Counsels of other Bishops, came unto Rome, complained unto Pope julius of their wrongs, and were by him righted and restored. As witness Sozomenus, &c 
k Reply pag▪ ●● .  
The Bishop of Rome was a man of great authority, in regard of the Imperial City, whereof he was Bishop, and much he might do by persuasion, advice, and by the assistance of the Imperial power, yet all this will not conclude him the Monarch of the Catholic Church. And what did julius more than the Archbishop of Canterbu●y ought to do upon the like occasion? He discussed the crimes of every one 
l Reply pag. ●● .  
And good reason; for a good man ought to know the cause he would patronise, much more a good Bishop. He did receive them into his Communion, finding that they all did agree to the Nicene Council 
m Reply ibid. . Can he have done otherwise without blame. As one that had care of all, by reason of the dignity of his See, he did restore to every of them their own Churches, writing also to the Bishops of the East, etc. 
* Reply ibid.  And what made him so confident of his power? his Monarchy? Surely no; but because he was the Emperors' Chaplain, and therefore might expect to be graciously assisted by his Lord. And that this is not a conjecture, you may conceive, in regard the Bishops of the East made 
● Reply pag. 53  light of his restitution, returning him an answer full of scorns and threats 
o Sozomen. Hist. Eccles: l, 3. 2, 7. Athanasi ●s autem & Paulus ad suas sedes revertuntur; literasque julit Episcopis Orientis mittunt, Quibus illi graviter commoti, conveniunt Antiochiae in unum, & epistolam verbis elegantibus ornatam, & disertè, ut ●heto rum mos sert, compositam ad Iulium scribunt, eamque plenam ironiae, & minarum non expertem gravissimarum. . Neither was he ever able to bring to pass what he determined, whilst he used his own power (for they disdained that the greatness of his Bishopprick● should make them his inferiors 
p Ibid-Indignati sunt, se posteriores ideo far, quòd magnitudine Ecclesiae superarentur. Sozomen hist. eccles. l. 3. c. 9 At cum literis apud ●piscopos Orientis de rebus propter quas scripsisset, nihil proficeret causam A●hanasij & Pauli ad Constantem retulit. ) and therefore he solicited his Lord, by whose authority they were restored 
q Sozomen: hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 1●. Con●tans autem rebu● gestis in concilio Sardicensi cognitis scripsit ad fratrem Constantium literas, uti Athanasio & Paulo ecclesias suas redderet. Vbi v●●o intellexit fratrem diem de die ducere, scrip●i● denuo, ut vel viros istos reciperet, vel se ad bellum gerendum pararet. Constantius igi●ur cùm de linere cum Episcopis Orientis commun●casset, stultum putavit ob●eam causam bellum  & intestmum suscipere. Quo quidem concilio inductus, Athanasiu● ex Ita●● acce●sit & cap. 20. Imperator autem dimittit Athanasium in Aegyptum, 〈◊〉 ●●●●● literas cùm ad Episcopos et Presbytetos cujusque civitatis, tùm ad populum Ecclesiae Alexandrinae: quibus et vitam ejus piè actam, et probita●em morum commendavi●: 〈◊〉 cohortatus est, uti ei, utpote suo antistiti, p●rent●, precibuses ora●ionibus 〈◊〉 reilgio●● 〈◊〉. .  
And now the jesuite having finished his testimonies, concludes for the Papal Crown. How fare now, may we think doth our Answerer swarve from the ancient Fathere Pastors, and Saints of the Primitive Church, whilst he by a separation from that Church, which they acknowledged to be their head, and themselves to be members thereof, faileth to be a member of the true body of Christ, or one of his true flock forasmuch as he withdraweth himself from the true confessed Pastor? And what wonder then that he should dissipate and destroy all true faith and doctrine &c 
r Reply pag. 53. .  
It is clear that the most learned Answerer hath with the Church that he by God's providence governeth, not swarved from the ancient Fathers, Pastors and Saints of the primitive Church, much less made a separation from the ancient Church. How the Church of Rome was accounted an Head; How the Pope's pastoral office was extended: How little reason the Church of God had to depend upon the Pope's Monarchy before he had a Crown: How vainly our Replyer terms o●●r dissipation of their pride and vanity, the destroying of all true faith and doctrine. Le● others conceive, res acta non transacta est.  
But as if he had said too little for the grand Impostor, taking breath, he gets into the CASTLE-CHAMBER (where in-truth a jesuite should be, rather than in his Cloister) and primâfacie makes the STATE simple, the most reverend Primate a Deluder, and his Countrymen poor and afflicted 
s Reply pag. ●● . here is no mean man, Totus Proteus, totus Aristarchus, many times flattering great ones, always censuring good ones. Shall I defend their Wisdom that then were JUDGES in that honourable Court? It were to dishonour them. It may suffice, that not only those PATRES CONSCRIPTI, wise Senators, but their wisest MASTER, (which could not at any time beedeluded by all the Sophistical practices of Rome) approved & applauded the speech. But who knows not, Delusus quia non delusus? Every one is deluded by others in the Jesuits conjecture, that is not deceived by themselves. Yet how will he make this most learned Lord a Deluder? He hath said all and nothing, something he hath spoken without the compass of the Virga, that his Countrymen are poor and afflicted: For how can they be but poor, when they live in an Egyptian dearth? And afflicted they will still remain, whilst such herds of frogs & losusts, Egyptian blessings prey upon them. But let us see how wisely the jesuite hath behaved himself.  
In clearing the second main branch of the oath, the Answerer (saith he) grounded himself altogether upon these too fickle foundations. First, that S. Peter was not head of ●h● Church universal more than any other Apostle. Secondly that the Bishop of Rome did not inherit by succession this same headship or universal Bishopric which S. Peter had 
t Reply pag 53. .  
The jesuite distasted the first as well as the second, but the opposal of that he supposeth not fit doctrine for the present time, the second only must endure a censure as grounded upon those two sickle foundations. And be they as they shall appear in trial, the jesuit yet might have conceived, if his ears had not failed him, that the most reverend Primate did not so much question, whether Peter was head of the Church universal, as whether he had power in this kingdom, his speech having relation to Peter's power not over the Church absolutely, but over us. And what he saith, is for the honour of S. Peter, not to disrobe him; For, if S. Peter himself (saith the most reverend Primate) were now alive, I should freely confess, that he ought to have spiritual authority and superiority within this kingdom. But so would I say also, if S. Andrew, S. Bartholomew, S. Thomas, or any other of the Apostles were now alive. For I know that their Commission was very large; to go into all the world, and to Preach the Gospel unto every creature; so that in what part of the world soever they lived, they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kind of an universal Bishopric 
u See the most reverend the Lord Primate his speech in the Castle-Chamber. .  
But the jesuite telleth us that these two assertions before mentioned are manifestly contrary (even by the confession of learned Protestants) to the doctrine of the primitive Church 
x Reply pag. ●●. . And to make this good, john Brereley is in the margin. But I wonder the jesuit will utter so gross & so deceivable falsehood. For we know that in the sense the jesuite would have Peter to be head, neither Calvin, Whitgift, nor Musculus ever dreamt of it: and to show his precedency in order, calling, gifts, abilities, age, or otherwise, this maketh nothing either to the Jesuits purpose, for Peter's monarchy, or the succeeding monarches. So that the jesuite (as Brereley) hath brought but ill advocates to plead for a Papal Monarchy from the headship of S. Peter.  
But let the matter be examined; for every government presupposeth not a Monarchy. He might as in the schools be the first in the head class to dispose and order in some kinds the rest, but this is far from being in Popish sense, the head of the Church. A poor wiseman might deliver a City 
* Ecclesi 9 15. , and an inferior Priest remove a schism; and this they may do by their wisdom and government, not Monarchy and power. Besides if we grant the jesuite, that Peter excelled the other Apostles, as one Angel excelleth another in glory, he cannot conclude Peter the Apostles Monarch, nor the Pope the Church's head, unless he will have another Monarch in heaven besides God, and an head over some of the Apostles whilst they lived upon earth that was not Peter.  
The most grave Counsellor brought therefore no new doctrine into the Castle-Chamber. If then you will have Peter head of the Apostles, we yield it, but we say withal that he was such an head that was neither adorned with Coronet or triple Crown to declare a Papal supremacy over his brethren. But to state the question, as it ought to be, let us inquire whether the jesuite hath from the Fathers proved as he ought (if he speak to the purpose) viz. that S. Peter was so head of the Apostles and Church Universal, that all were bound to acknowledge him as their Monarch.  
You have seen all that he hath urged from Calvin, Whitgift, and Musculus prove no such matter, and I doubt not but the Fathers will fail the jesuite also.  
First he urgeth S. Basill, who saith, That blessed Peter who was preferred before the rest of the disciples, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed 
y Reply pag. ●4 . And what makes this for a Monarchy? That Peter was blessed? so were the Apostles: that he was preferred before the rest of the Apostles in many particulars is not denied, but every preferment is not Monarchical: neither do the keys work any more in Peter, than the rest of the Apostles to whom they were equally given. So that Basil speaks not full for this headship.  
His second instance is out of Hierome: Therefore one Peter, is chosen amongst twelve, that a Head being ordained, all occasion of schism might be taken away 
z Reply ibid.▪ . But what have we here that might not be found amongst equals? For Bishops of the same dignity may have among them a Precedent. Besides his Ambrose speaking of this Primacy maketh Peter to be that of the Circumcision, that Paul was among the Gentiles 
a Ambros. in ● 〈◊〉. Ab his itaque probatum dicit donum, quod accepita Deo, ut dignus esset habere Primatum in praedicatione gentium, sicut et habebat Petrus in praedicatione circumcisionis. , that is a Primate of Order, of Eminency of Gifts, not of an excellency of Power. Neither did Peter take away schism by absolute definition; as your Pope assumeth authority to do, but by orderly disposition, with Apostolical consent.  
His third instance is, Nazianzen 
b Reply ibid. . But doth he give Peter, what will satisfy the jesuite, a monarchy? The Church cannot endure two universal Bishops, two Monarches. Had Peter it by Nazianzens' testimony? Surely, how could james & john inherit that blessing, & yet Nazianzen puts them together Petrus, joannes & jacobus, qui prae alijs & erant & numerabantur: Peter and john and james, who both, were, and are reckoned before others 
c Nazianzen. de moderate. in disput. servanda. . Here Nazianzen his prae alijs is not Papal, not Pontifical, neither then could Peter's advancement be a Monarchy.  
In like manner all that the jesuite urgeth is nothing to the point that he ought to prove. That Peter was Captain or chief of the Disciples, as Epiphanius styles him, the most excellent Prince of the Apostles, in Cyrils' judgement d; these 
Reply pag 54  are but titles of excellency which were given him for his personal gifts and endowments, Paul in this manner compares himself to the very chief Apostles 
* 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. , and Eusebius Emissenus, or whosoever was the Author of the Homily De Natal. utriusque speaking of Peter and Paul, termeth them Princes of Christians from their order and gifts, and further saith, si ille primus, iste precipuus, if the one was the first, the other was the chief, It was familiar to give terms of excellency of power to those that exceeded in gifts. Nicodemus is styled Prince of the jews 
e Cyrillus l 2. In johannem cap. 41. Nicodemus judaeorum Princeps. , and who knows not that Aristotle is ever mentioned as Prince of Philosophers? So likewise his supposititious Ambrose speaks not of any other Primacy, but of personal eminency. For he maketh Paul from his own words to be no less than the first Apostles in dignity and other excellent performances, though he were after them in time, which that Author presumes cannot weaken the Apostles testimony of himself, in regard john preached before Christ, and baptised CHRIST, Andrew followed CHRIST before Peter, who notwithstanding received the Primacy 
f Ambros. in 12 cap. post ad Corinthios Hocerant quod & Apostolus Paulus Hoc ergo dicit, quia minor non est, neque in praedicatione, neque in signis faciendis Apostolis praecessoribus suis, non dignitate, sed tempore. Nam si de tempore praescriben. dum putatur, ante coepit Ieannes praedicare quam Christus: & non Christus joannem, sed Ioannes Christum baptizavit. Num ergo sie judicat Deus? Denique prior secutus est Andreas Salvatorem: quam Petrus. & tamen Primatum ●on accepit Andreas sed Petrus. . here the drift is, that if Paul were as excellently qualified, as the Apostles, his afterbirth could not prejudge his equality, and if Peter were more eminent in gifts then his brother Andrew, Andrew his precedency in time could not deprive Peter of his eminency of gifts.  
The jesuite concludes not, but bringeth Eusebius telling us, Peter the Apostle by Nation a Galilean was the first Bishop of the Christians 
g Reply pag. 54. . This the jesuite perceived would conclude nothing, and therefore added his ridiculous gloss, james was Bishop of Jerusalem, others of other places; but Peter was Bishop of all the Christians 
h Reply ibid. . Poor folly! who deprived them of their Apostleships, that their Bishoprickes were so contracted, that they ceased to be Bishops and Superintendents of the Christian Church? Paul professeth, that the care of all Churches were upon him 
* 2. Cor. 11. 28. ; Pope Innocent called Chrysostome, the great Doctor of the whole world 
i Canisius F●com. Patrum mitio Catechismi, Innocentius primus pontifex in Epistola ad Arcadium Impera torem— Ejecistie throno suo, re non judicatâ, magnum totius Orbis Doctorem. ; and other Fathers have had these titles given them ordinarily, whereby their esteem in the Universal Church hath been declared, as Origen, the next Master (after the Apostles) of the Church 
k Six●us Senens. l. 4 tit. Origenes. Didymus in primis appellat cum secundum post Apostolos Ecclesiarum magistrum. , so that he is preferred before your Popes,) Athanasius an agregious pillar of the Church whose Tenets were esteemed for the law of right faith 
l Nazianzea. Orat. in laudem ejus. Athanasius egregium Ecclesiae columen— cujus dogmata pro orthodoxae fidei lege habebantur. . Basil the mouth of the Church 
m Greg. Nissen. in vita S. Ephr. Sylli Cesaream Cappadociae divino Spiritu ductus, ipse Os Ecclesiae auream illam doctrinae lusciniam Basilium vidit. , and Hilary the Pillar of the Church of Christ 
n Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. De S. Hilario, S. Hilarius Doctor maximus, & Ecclesiae Catholicae columna meritò habitus sit. . But to remove this title see whether Paul be inferior in Chrysostome judgement, Ille alter Michael Christianorum Dux, Altar Aaron totius mundi populis inunctus sacerdos: He another Michael the Archangel, or Captain of Christians: An other Aaron an anointed Priest to the people of the whole world 
o Chrys. hom. 8 de laudibus Pauli. . And Cyprian when he was sought for to be martyred, was termed the Bishop of Christians 
p Cyprian. Ep. 69. Siquis tenet vel possidet de bonis Caecilij Cypriani Episcopi Christianorum. , which is the same with Pontifex Christianorum, so that this title gives not Peter this Universal Monarchy any more than others. But the jesuite may know those words cited by him, are not truly the words of Eusebius; for Scaliger delivering him truly to the world, finds not there the Jesuits quotation, there being neither in it natione Galilaeus, nor Christianorum Pontifex, whereby we see the Monarchy will stoop to any corruptions.  
Neither are the Jesuits next following quotations any better. For the two places cited from S. Augustine: the first cited out of his 124, serm. de tempore, where S. Peter is termed the Head, the very Crown of the Church: the second urged from the same Father, or whosoever else was the Author of the questions upon the old & new Testament. For even as in Christ were found all the causes of mastership: so after our Saviour all are contained in Peter: for Christ ordained him their head, that he might be the Pastor of our Lord's flock 
q Reply pag. 54 : they are none of his; the first being suspected by many; the second rejected by all, yea so despised by Bellarmine, that he makes the Author no Catholic 
r Bellarm l. de gra. primi hominis c. 3. Ex his intelligi potest auctorem quaestionum novi ac veteris testamenti non solum non esse S. Augustinum— sed neque esse hominem Catholicum. , but an Heretic 
s Idem de effectu Sacra●u. l. 2. c. 10: Respondeo primo, librum citatum non esse Augustini, sed alicujus haeretici. , qui multa docet & contra fidem, & contra Augustinum, that taught many things both against faith, & against S. Augustine. I do not urge this, as if his testimonies from hence were of any strength they being answered in substance before, but because you may see that they will avoid no witnesses (though in other causes they reject them) that will advantage their cause.  
For the titles given to S. Peter by Chrysostome, as Chief, Captain, Head of the Apostles 
t Reply pag. 54. , they all have received answer before. For we acknowledge Peter Head which is the same with chief of the Apostles, otherwise how could Paul compare himself to the very chief, if there had been no chief? And if the Apostle had been by divine institution Paul's Sovereign, how could Paul compare himself, with him, he himself being divinely assisted?  
But the jesuite making a pause is willing for brevity's sake to let pass many other holy Fathers and Doctors of the ancient Church, who are most copious in the confirmation of Peter's primacy over the rest of the Apostles 
u Reply pag. 54. .  
And you have seen for what kind of Primacy it is, that the Fathers speak, not a Primacy of power to which all the members of the Church must stoop, but of Order, excellency, gifts, graces; for the Fathers will expel from their minds, that will sincerely read them all conceit, that Peter had a sovereign Monarchy over the Apostles. See Peter's Primacy the same with that of james and john, for so saith Clemens, Peter and james and john, after the assumption of our Saviour, although they were preferred before others of our Lord himself, yet did not challenge this glory to themselves 
x 〈◊〉. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 1. Clemens hoc asserit: Petrus enim; inqui●, & jacobus, & joannes post 〈◊〉 Servatoris, quamvis ab ipso quoque Domino alijs essent praelati, gloriam tamen hanc sibiipsis non vendica●●●●, ●●● . Neither is Paul by Chrysostome made less than Peter himself, and from S. Paul his own testimony, Gal. 2. 8. And now (saith that ancient Father) doth Paul show himself to be equal to the rest (of the Apostles) in honour, neither doth he compare himself to those others, but unto the very Chief, declaring that every one of them had obtained alike dignity 
y Chrysost in Epist. ad Gal. c. 2. jamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis, sed ipsi summo comparat declarans, quod horum unusquisque● parem sortitus sit dignitatem. . Ambrose knows not whether should be preferred 
z Ambros. serm 66. B. Petrus & Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos & peculiari quâdam prerogativa praecellunt, utrum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est. , but Cyprian and Hierome make them all equal Christ after his resurrection (saith Cyprian) gave equal power to all the Apostles 
a Cyprian. de Vnitate Ecclesiae. Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat. . And the rest of the Apostles were even the same that Peter was being endued with the like fellowship both of honour and power 
b Ibid Hoc erant utique & caeteri▪ Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. : Hierome also speaketh as much. The Church is founded equally upon all the Apostles, all received the kingdom of Heaven, & ex equo super eos Ecclesia fortitudo solidatur 
c Hierom. l. 1 cont. I●rin. At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia: licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat: & cuncti claves regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & ex ●●●● etc. . So that the jesuite had done well if he had taken up before; if he had not troubled his Reader with proving that kind of Primacy which is not denied him, and had forborn the attempting a proof of that, which the Fathers will never grant. But howsoever he resolves that Optatus Bishop of Milevetum, must not be let pass, in regard he will seem to catechise our Answerer himself very handsomely in these words. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest full well, that the Episcopal Chair hath been first given unto Peter in the city of Rome, wherein Peter the head of the Apostles hath sitten: whence also he was called Cephas. In the which one Chair Unity might be kept of all men: lest the rest of the Apostles should maintain every one their singular Chairs to themselves: so that now he should be a schismatic and an offender, who would seem to raise up another against this only Chair 
d Reply pag. 54. .  
This place of Optatus, if the Papists do rightly interpret it, must enclose a notorious falsehood; for can it be affirmed with truth by Optatus that in his time the Apostolical Chair was only placed in the City of Rome, when other Apostles had their several seats and Chairs in other Cities also, as james at Jerusalem, aswell as Peter at Rome, all which were visible and conspicuous to the Church before Optatus his time, as we may see out of Tertullian, Percur●e Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipse ●●huc cathedra Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur 
c Tertul. praescrip. con. heresies. .  
And therefore Optutus his Chair cannot be interpreted for the only chair of the Catholic Church placed by Peter at Rome, from which whosoever did separate himself (upon what cause soever) should be a Schismatic.  
But Optatus being rightly understood declareth thus much and no more; That Peter having his seat placed at Rome (and yet Eusebius maketh him not the first Bishop ther● 
f Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. ●● & 19 ) the Apostles did forbear to place their seats in that City, and therefore judgeth the Donatists schismatical, that placed another Bishop of their Schism in Rome contra singularem cathedram, which this father showeth was ever one in Rome, in ea sedit primus Petrus, succedit Linus, Lino Clemens. So that the Donatist Permenian with his fellows were esteemed Schismatics by Optatus, not because they separated themselves from the Unity of the Roman Church as now they understand it; but in regard by placing a Bishop of their faction in Rome, they contemned the established policy of the Church that required in one City but one Episcopal Chair. Whereby we see, that Optatus is so fare from catechising the Answerer, that he doth check the jesuite and his faction, that in like manner as the Donatists have done, do now intrude upon our Episcopal Chairs in Ireland, titular Bishops of their faction of Schism, not forbearing the chair of S. Patrick itself.  
But drawing to conclusion of this point, the jesuite could wish that both the Answerer and all his Adherents would listen well unto S. Leo, who saith, that Peter only in all the world is chosen as chief in the calling of all Nations 
g Reply pag ●5  etc.  
And we tell him that Pope Leo did speak more for Peter to advance himself, than it is probable he would otherwise have done, if his Chair had not met with some opposition in those times; for Leo maketh Christ (Mark the tenth) to reprehend the desire of that power which in the Jesuits quotation he seemeth to give to S. Peter 
h Leo Epist. 55. ad Pulcher. Augustam de ambitu Anatolij. Et ille vere crit magnus qui fucrit totius ambitionis alic●●● dicente Domino: (Quicunque voluerit inter vos major sicri, sit vester minister. Et quicunque voluerit inter vos primus esse, erit vester servus. Sicut filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare. , although Maldonate the jesuite would not have the words of the Evangelist so to be understood 
i Maldonat. come. in Marc. 9 35. Non hic agi de prjma in gubernanda Ecclesia dignitate, etsi co etiam sensuhunc locum alicubi apud Leonem magnum legi memini. .  
We have seen then (saith the jesuite) how undoubtedly the ancient Fathers maintained S. Peter's primacy as well ever all the Church of Christ, as over the rest of the Apostles also 
k Reply pag. 55 : But any may perceive with how false eyes; his own witnesses but little favouring his cause, as we shall further show hereafter. So that any may conceive, how poorly he hath laid the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, vizt. Peter his Monarchichall power over the Apostles.  
Neither (saith he) will it be hard to show the like uniform consent of antiquity in attestation of that other point, denied also by our Answerer, in the Star-chamber, concerning the same headship and Primacy which the Bishops of Rome do inherit by lawful succession 
l Reply pag. 55 . And to manifest this he begins his entrance with a repetition of what hath been said and answered before, and then fixeth first of all upon the strong pillar of Popish height, the Arabic Canons of the Nicene Council, from whom he doubteth not to bring us most plain testimony in this point 
m Reply pag. 56 , and who beleiveth him not? for if these Canons speak not plainly for the purpose whereunto they were framed, what device can help them?  
But the jesuite knowing his coin counterfeit tells us, that the Answerer doth soon rid himself of this, and the like decrees of that holy Synod, by averring them to be forged by certain well-willers of the Roman Church in the name of the good Fathers that never dreamt, saith he, of such a business 
n Reply ibid. .  
And is not this a truth that the jesuite cannot resist though he plays the Baby, in telling us, that if you desire to hear him prove this his saying, you must have 〈◊〉 ●● other proof you are like to get none of him, besides his own rash affirmation 
o Reply ibid. .  
For the matter is so clear from all antiquity, that there were but twenty Canons in the Nicent Council (all which we have) that it were but the misspending of time to prove that which all acknowledge 
q See them repeated in the sixth Council of Carthage▪ apud 〈◊〉 'em. . Besides, could the famous lights of the world at that time be ignorant of these Canons, as S. Augustine 
r Concil. Carthag 6. c. 7. Augustinus Ecclesiae. Hi●ponis Regiensis, Legatus Provinciae Numidiae. , with 〈◊〉 and more 〈◊〉 Bishops 
s Epistola Aphricani Concil. ad Bonifacium Papam 1. Aurelius— & caeteri, qui praesentes affuimus, numero ducenti decem & septem ex omni Concilio Aphricae. ? Were they so little esteemed, that they were clofetted at Rome, or so unknown in the East, that the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria could make no return of them 
t Epistola Concil. Aphric. ad Coelestinum. Quia illud quod pridem per cundem co▪ episcopum nostrum Faustinum, tanquam ex parte Nicaeni Concilij, exinde transmi●●●●is in Concilijs verioribus quae accipiuntur Ni aena, à sancto Cyrillo coepiscopo nostro ●● 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae, & à venerabili Artico Constantino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ac author 〈◊〉 missis tale aliquid non po●uimus repe●●e , though the one sent them entirely as they were decreed by the Fathers at Nice 
u Epistola Attici Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Concilium Africanum Sicut sta●●ta suntin Nicaea civitam à Pavibus cano●●● (in integro ut jussisus) direx. , and the other ●●nsm faithful exemplars from the authentic Copy 
x escripta ad Conc. Aphrican. Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi. Necesse habus 〈◊〉 exemplaria ex authentica Synodo, in N●●●● Bythiniae habito, vestrae charitati dirigere quae & in Ecclesiastica historia requirentes 〈◊〉. . But if there were nothing else to disgrace them; the jesuite his endeavours to justify them from farre-fetched and counterfeit grounds were alone sufficient to render them suspected of themselves. For do you think that a ●●e from the 〈◊〉 of S. Thomas, sent from some sleight Mercenary of the Pope to his mancipated servants the Jesuits in a matter that concerns the Pope's greatness so nearly, is to be received as an infallible Argument? Neither if this Papal altitude could stand upon true grounds, would it need ●uch counterfeit supporters as these two Epistles cited by the jesuit, in regard they declare themselves counterfeit and are acknowledged for no better by their own. For if this Epistle were written to Pope Mark after the Arians burned their books at Alexandria, surely it must be many years after Pope Mark was dead; their burning being in the reign of Constantius 
y Athanasius Epistol. ad orthodoxos in persecut. , when ●● Pope Mark died in the time of Constantine's government 
z Hieron. in Chron. . Further how could this Epistle lie hid, when the controversy was betwixt the African Church and the Roman Bishops? Besides, could Mark send to Athanasius in Egypt, when it is apparent by Baronius, that he was ●● Exul in France 
a Baron. ●om. 3 ad an●um 336 ●, 39, Exul ho: 〈◊〉 agebat ●● Galli●●. ? Can the Roman Copy and that of Alexandria so fare differ, (as we see they did) if the Pope had sent a true Exemplar ex Romano scrinie? And not to press the Reader any further; What trifling follies do they impute to the Nice●● Fathers, as to publish these Canons half Latin● half Greek, (persuading that forty were made by the Greek Fathers, forty by the Latin,) and to insert ten Cannons amongst the rest, in relation to the seventy languages which they conceived to be in the whole world, or the seventy disciples, and all this by the assistance of the Spirit of God 
b Epistola Athanasijs & Aegiptiorum Episcoporum ad Marcum Papam Sa●e praesentibus nobis octoginta capitula in memorata tracta●● sunt Synodo scilicet quadraginta à Latinis similiter Latinis edita ●●gua. Sed visum est, 318. patribus, Sancto spiritu, repletis in prae●●●●o Concilio congregatis, & maximè jam dicto Alexandro & Apostolicae sedis Apo●●●sarijs, ut decem capitula a dunarentur alijs, atque congruis locis inscrerentur, & ad for●●● septuaginta discipulorum, vel potius totius orbis terrae linguarum, sepungi●●● discipulorum & tam excellentis concilij fierent capitula. ? And if these be not sufficient to mark out an Impostor, let us hear what their own speak and you shall find Bellarmine accounting them both, (viz. Athanasius his epistle and Marks ●●● script) supposititious 
c Bellarm. de scriptor Eccles. ut. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Epistolis Athanasi) ad Marcum Papam, & Marci Pap● ad Athanasium, 〈◊〉 extratione temporis, ●●● epistolas esse supposititi●s. , Baronius takes them as Commentitious and forged by certain well-willers of the Roman Church 
d Baron. tom. 3. ad an. 336 〈◊〉 ●●. 59 & ●●. 〈◊〉 ille 〈◊〉 Architectur bene esse consultum assertion 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Nic●●o Canone extra numerum vicentarium allegatum. Ho●●●●●●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui ignoravit ex apertissim● veritate solutionem 〈◊〉. .  
For the second Epistle to Felix 
c Reply pag. ● , if we observe what the jesuite urgeth out of him, unless we be wilfully perverse we cannot think Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt to be so fare from sense as this Epistle makes him, that they dare not presume to yield to the Errors of their enemies (the Arrians) without acquainting the Pope therewithal, as if with his dispensation they might adhere to any corruption whatsoever. Besides the Rescript to this Epistle was dated Agario & juliano Cass: 
f Vide rescriptum hujusmodi apud Bi●●ium tom. 1. conciliorum.  when as never any that did number the Roman Consuls did make mention of Agarius. And also the Rescript declares what we may conceive both of it and the Epistle of Athanasius, to wit, that they are of no better stamp than the Decretal Epistles, the latter part of the Rescript being taken out of the latter part of the Epistle of Felix the first to the Bishops of Frannce. And to close up this, Binnius will tell this jesuite that the Epistle itself is of suspected birth, both from the time when it was written, and other circumstances 
g Bin. tom. 1. Concil. in 〈◊〉 in Epist. Athanasijs &c. ad Felicem & Felicis ad Atha▪ Haec Epistola sub nomine Athanasij ad Felicem ex synodo Alexand●●na scripta ab Episcopis ●●gypti, Theb●●dis, & Lybiae, de fide suspecta est, tum quod hoc tempore, qu● Athanasius ●●ga clapsus in cremo latitabat, 〈◊〉 ●●● Liberio 〈◊〉 Episcopi orthodoxi, decr●● Imperatoris & 〈◊〉 〈…〉 quod hunc epistola ad 〈◊〉 scripta, ipsum 〈◊〉 de sua ipsi. ●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reddat. , and Baronius doth also disparage this Epistle, and derides the Merchant that maketh use of such baggage Commodities 
h Baron. Annal. tom. ●. ad. Annum 217. ●●●: 66. Quae fertur Athanasij nomine ad Felicem Romanum 〈◊〉 ex Synido Alexandrina scripta— ha●d aeque probatur etc. At ipse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : From whence we may see, how this jesuite is void of all shame, who as if he had hit the Eagle on the eye, doth not only produce these counterfeits, but swollen with impudency, in his wont manner of railing, bitterly reviles the Answerer for justly telling him, that the good Fathers assembled in that Synod never dreamt of such a business, nor established any such Decrees or Canons at all,  
Behold here (saith he) how precisely this holy Father doth allege the Canons and decrees▪ of the Nicene Council for the authority of the Roman Church, and for her absolute Supremacy over all other Christian Churches through●● the world. And what will not our Adversaries venture to say and do against the Catholic Truth, when as they stick not with brazen faces to avouch, that the good Fathers assembled in that Synod, never dreamt o● such a business, etc. But I leave it to the judgement of the unpartial Reader, to determine whether the abovesaid Testimony of S. Athanasini, given but twenty years, or thereabouts, after the said Nicene Council, doth not sufficiently bruise and hur'st their face of brass, and force them to swallow down again their enormous untruths, and calumniations 
i Reply pag. 59 .  
here we may see a discourse fit for a jesuite, all confidence, ●●t builded upon no truth. Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth the jesuits' proof from the Epistle of Athanasius to Pope Mark, and the Rescript to Athanasius to be unsound 
k Bellarm. de Rom Pont●●▪ l. 2. c▪ 25. Quod illi ●an●nes non sunt omnes, probant non●●●lti ex Episto●● Athanasijs ad Marcum Papam, in qua●e tit exemplum Nicaeni concilij ex Romani Pontificis scrinio 〈◊〉 ●●empla quae erant Alexandriae fuisse cre●●● ab Aria●●●, Sed hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●● verè NON ●● SOLIDV ●● , and what sound evidence he hath brought from his INDIAN Tale, and the other Epistle to Felix, hath been declared. So that the jesuite may consider, that Fures clamorem, thiefs may sly from his voice, but true men tremble not at the noise. He may strain himself against brazen faces, enormous untruths, calumniations, but whom doth he wound but himself, that among all the ancient Fathers, cannot bring one Argument for these Arabic Canons, but these false births, lying, counterfeit, and yet doth swagger, triumph, rage and swell against him, that justly puts desiance to his folly?  
But leaving these counterfeits, the jesuite would ●●●swade us, that he will proceed in laying down the judg●●●● of the anncient Fathers, concerning the derivation of S. Peter● supreme jurisdiction unto all his lawful Successors in the Roman See 
Reply pag. ● .  
The jesuite doth well to distinguish those that follow, from those that in this point he hath already alleged; but with whom doth he begin? With him (I suppose) that will fail him, when it cometh to trial, and that is S. Augustine 
m Aug●in Psal. mum contra partem Donati. , who expresseth what the jesuite is to prove most plainly. Reckon (saith he) the Priests even from Peter's seat, and observe, who to whom hath ever succeeded in that rank of Fathers: that same is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome 
n Reply pag. ●● .  
Lo here (saith the jesuite) S. Augustine maketh the very succession of Bishops in the Roman See, that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church, forasmuch as it is grounded in Peter, and thereby is partaker of the promise of Christ, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it 
o Reply pag. 59 .  
S. Augustine speaketh nothing here to the Jesuits purpose; for he neither maketh Peter the Monarch of the Church, nor the Pope his sole Successor in that Monarchy, Neither doth S. Augustine (as the jesuit affirmeth) make the very succession of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rock upon which Christ built his Church. For who will dream that Father, to esteem that present seat or succession to be the rock for any other reason, then because they held the rock confessed by Peter? And in this sense, not only Peter's successors at Rome, but all other successors of Peter & the rest of the Apostles might bestiled rocks 
p Origen. in Math hom. 1. Petra est 〈◊〉 omnis qui imitator, est Christi: ex quo bibebant qui bibebant de spiritali consequenti petra. Et super omni hujusmodi petra: aedificatur ecclesia Dei. In singulis enim quibuscunque perfectis qui habent in se congregationem verborum & o●erum: & sensuum omnium qui hujusmodi beatitudinem operantur: 〈◊〉 Eccelesia Dei: cui portae non praevalent inserorum. Si autem ●per unum illum Petrum arbitraris Vniversam Ecclesiam aedificari à Deo: quid dicis de jacobo: & johanne filijs tonitrui: vel de singulis Apostolis? Vere ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est: ●u es Petrus etc. tamen omnibus Apostolis: & omnibus quibuscunque perfectis fidelibus dictum vi●● retor. . For why may not those churches that cleave fast to the rock of faith be called rocks to stay and adhere unto 
q Iranaeus l. 4. c. 43. Ijs qui in Ecclesijs sure presbyteris oporter obaudire qui successionem habent ab Apostolis quicunque cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt. Idem c. 44. Adherere his qui & Apostolo●um doctrinam oustodiunt, & cum presbyterij ordine sermonem sanum & conversatio nem sine offensa praestant. , as well as the Roman & her Bishops, in regard Augustine saith in that very Psalm, that if any man come full of the Catholic faith, we are wont to give ear unto him, as unto these men 
r August. in Psalm. contra partem Donati. Talis si quis ad te veniat plenus Catholica side. Quales illo● sanctos viros om●es solemus audire. .  
But what makes the former words to the Jesuits conclusion? Doth S. Augustine here declare Roman Priests, Successors to Peter in a Monarchical estate, or such unmoveable grounded rocks, that all the Churches in time to come must be grounded upon them? Surely, the sesuite will never find this to be S. Augustine's meaning; but from what the Roman Priests had been, and from what for the present they were (alluding to our Saviors words) he doth style them a rock that the gates of Hell did not at that time prevail against, making them a good directory to truth, whilst they adheared to the Apostles doctrine▪ For by the course of that Psalm we cannot conceive S. Augustine to have thought otherwise, in regard he doth not give the Bishop of Rome power to end and determine that controversy, but maketh Donatus his request to have his cause heard at Rome to be unjust, telling us what the Emperor had ordained, that divers Bishops & Priests should hear the matter, & not the Roman Bishop alone 
s August. ibid. Name Donatus cùm volebat Africam totam obti●ere. Tunc judices transmarinos petijt ab Imperatore. Sed haectam unjust petitio non erat de charitate. Ho ipsa veritas clama● quam uclo modo refe●e. Nam consensit Impe●●●or, ●●●●t, quae soderen● Romae, Sacerdotes, qui tunc possent Caeciliano, cu● ill● audite. , which he would not have done (I suppose) if the Bishop of Rome had had that Monarchy by Apostolical succession, which now they pretend by that title to enjoy. But there is not a word of Augustine that proveth the Roman Bishops, Successors of Peter in any office, power or Bishopric, or so much as maketh him Bishop of Rome. That he had his seat there, where the Roman Priests had their Succession, he insinuateth, but in this place he telleth us no more, nor so much as Eusebius, who beginneth the Roman Bishop with Linus 
t Eusebius hist Eccles. l. 3. c. ●. Linus verò primum post Petri & Pauli Martyrium Romanae Ecclesiae Episco patum sor●i●ut est. , for the words of Eusebius [after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul] can no more make Peter Bishop of Rome, than Paul, and I think they will not admit two Bishops at once in one City. Much more might be urged, to show that the jesuite hath produced S. Augustine, to testify that which he never thought of: But I will come to Chrysostome, whom the jesuite produceth, expecting much from him, because he nameth Peter's Successors. Why (saith he) did Christ shed his blood, but to regain those sheep, the care of whom he committed both to Peter and to Peter's Successors 
u Reply pag. 59 .  
I ask the jesuite, whether he thought the Apostles had no commission from Christ to have a care of his sheep: whether, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature 
* Mark 16. 15 , did command no care of CHRIST'S flock, or whether there be no successors of Peter, but the Bishops of Rome? Cardinal Cusanus cannot deny, that all Bishops are the successors of Peter 
x Nich. de Cusa. Card. l. 2. De concord. cath, c. 13. Non possumus negare, omnes Episeopos esse ejusdem successores, Scilicet Petri. . And S. Chrysostome in the very place cited by the jesuite, expresseth himself to be free from the conceit, that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peter's only Successors. For why should he persuade Basil to be mind full of his duty, he being a Bishop from this reason, because CHRIST said to Peter, Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep, and because the care of his sheep are committed to Peter, and his successors 
y See Chrysostom's testimony produced before in the beginning of the Section. , if he had not been one of them? This title I have showed before, doth belong to other Bishops, as well as Roman, neither is it denied by Bellarmine himself 
z Bellarm, de Rom. Pont. l. ● c. 23. Respondeo in Apostlatu contin●● Episcopatum, & Episcopes succedere Apostolis. , and therefore I may forbear here further to press it,  
The next is Leo, but I shall not need to speak to that which is urged from h●m here, in regard I shall have more occasion in the next Section. He loved to be great, and to make Peter greater than he should be, for his own sake, as I have in some things before declared, & shall hereafter more fully show. Yet all that he desired (I suppose) was not so great licentiousness as the Bishop of Rome desireth, and would have all to attribute unto himself.  
Now cometh the Bishop of Ravenna, Peter Chrysologus in his Epistle to Eutyches, You are not much beholding to that See, that you should bring a Bishop from thence to give testimony for you; but what saith he? We desire thee honourable brother, that thou wilt listen dutifully unto those things which are written by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city; because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See, & is precedent in the same, giveth the truth of faith to such as seek the same 
a Reply pag. 59 .  
But what is all this? He persuades Eutyches to adhere to the truth of Doctrine, preached by the Roman Bishops▪ & from what reason? Because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See, & is precedent in the same, giveth the truth of faith to such as seek the same. Who meaneth he here, by S. Peter? Not the Apostle in person; surely if he did, they did ill to usurp that chair that he did presede in himself, & hereby they are debarred of succession. If he meant his doctrine▪ this might have been said of Antioch, & other Episcopal Sees; But if they will have Peter so to remain in the Roman city, that he may give the true faith by inspiration, to such as seek the same, this is too gross to be believed▪ though Leo hath some words that cast upon us this interpretation 
b Leo epistol. ●9. ad episc. Vi●●● . So that you see Chrysologus here speaks little for a Monarchy by succession.  
The jesuite is at a pause, yet before he leaves, he brings forth Siricius Pope 
c Reply pag. 59 ; but do you conceive the reason▪ That he may make his discourse suitable, and as he begun with a forged Council, so he might conclude with a counterfeit Pope.  
Now, as if he had been able to have pleaded the cause of those ignorant Delinquents, & to silence the whole Star-chamber, he tells us: By these authorities, & many more th● 〈◊〉 which might be alleged, it appeareth how casilyone mig●● have taken up our Answerer in his Star-chamber flourish, concerning▪ this matter of S. Peter's, and his successors universal jurisdiction 
d Reply pag▪ ●● . But let me advise the jesuite, unless he leaves counterfeits & forgeries, to keep himself out of that Chamber which 〈◊〉 pleaders & pretenders of that kind; For although his folly and conceit may so advance the opinion he hath of his Rhetoric, that he presumes he can persuade any thing. Yet experience will acquaint him, that he cannot so easily in that place deceive. But let us view this Orator, how he would have argued, if at that time he durst have confessed S. Peter in that presence. First he would have told those grave Councillors. That howsoever all the Apostles were equally chosen, and extraordinarily sent by Christ to preach teach, and convert all nations, and had herein equal jurisdiction every one over all Christia● people, throughout the world, yet as S. Leo doth truly observe, though all were elected alike▪ yet to one was granted the preeminency over the rest 
e Reply pag 60 .  
All which had been a slender defence, unless he had proved better than he hath done, that Peter's preeminency was Monarchical of power: not of honour and gifts, etc. as we ourselves acknowledge.  
Secondly, he would have said, that they had then the like Apostolical power extraordinarily given unto them over all nations, but not in the same degree with Peter, their power being over all, yet not over one another, as Peter was, who was their Head 
f Reply pag▪ ●● . which is a dream and fancy, as hath been showed in answer to his former productions. Yet if the Apostles were equally chosen, as the jesuite saith, and had equal jurisdiction to teach all nations throughout the world, if if they had plenitudinem potestatis, fullness of power: as Bellarmine confesseth 
g 〈◊〉 de Rom▪ 〈◊〉 c. 11▪ , if they were endued, as before hath been related, pari consortio honoris & potestatis, with the like fellowship of honour and power, as S. Cyprian, and to the same effect other Fathers have affirmed, how can this disparity arise? Doth he think by a framed deceit, that neither hath foundation from Scriptures, or Fathers, to control our belief? The Apostle [1. Cor. 11. v. 5.] telleth us that there were Summi Apostles, chief Apostles, not one that was summus the chief, and showeth Gal. 2. v. 9 that Peter with others gave the right hand of fellowship and Communion, not of command to him, and Barnabus. Besides the Apostles show more power over Peter, than the jesuite can show that he exercised over them. They sent him to Samaria, Acts 8. v. 14. They question his actions, and call him to an account, Acts 11. Paul reproves him, (Gal. 2.) where he failed; Paul chydes and Peter suffers (saith S. Chrysostome) that whilst the Master being ●hidden doth hold his peace, the Scholars might very easily change their opinion 
h Chrysost. in Epist. ad Galat▪ c. 2. Vnde & Paulus objurgat, & Petrus fustinet, ut dum magister objurgatus obticescit, facillimè discipuli mutatent sententiam. . An act that the gloss is persuaded would not have been done, unless he had thought himself Peter's equal 
i Gloss. Ordinar▪ Resti. Quod non auderet nisi s● non imparem sentiret. , or as Cajetan conceiveth, something greater 
k Caietan. in locum. .  
Thirdly he would have told them; that they (the Apostles) were but as extraordinary Ambassadors unto all Nations, Peter was the ordinary Pastor, not only over all Nations, but also over the very Apostles themselves 
l Reply pag. 60 .  
But that grave Councillor would have espied the jesuite to have disadvantaged himself▪ for in one place he acknowledgeth, that all the Apostles had the like Apostolical power extraordinarily given unto them,— being, Heads and Pastors of the universal Church, their difference being in Degree 
m Reply ibid. , and here he makes S. Peter not only in degree to excel the rest of the Apostles in the Apostolical office, but gives him another different power superior to the Apostleship, which he calleth ordinary not only over all nations, but also over the very Apostles themselves. But I ask the jesuite, why it should be a good argument for Peter's primacy, that he was first named among the Apostles, Mat. 10. v. 2. if the naming of the Apostles in the first rank of the ministers of the Church, Ephes. 4. v. 11. may not obtain from the jesuite the same privilege? It seemeth hard, that the jesuite should so plead for the Papacy, that thereby he should labour to diminish the Apostolical power, especially when the Rhemists will have the name of Apostle to signify, dignity, regiment, paternity, principality and primacy in the Church of GOD, according to that of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. And GOD hath ordained some in the Church: as first Apostles, &c. And that they thought the Apostleship to be no bare extraordinary power legantine, but as supreme, so ordinary, it will appear by their describing of it to be a calling of office, government, authority and most high dignity given by our Master— with power to bind and lose, to punish and pardon, to teach and rule his Church, which is called by a name expressing ordinary power in the Psalm and in the Acts, viz. a Bishopric 
n Rhem 〈◊〉 upon Luk, ●. ●● : And although the jesuite now seethe that Peter can be no Monarch by his Apostleship, such extraordinary power being given to others, yet it hath been that which they ever pretended to exalt him, whom they would have to be Peter's Successor, and the Monarch of the Church; and therefore they have had their mouths and rescripts full of Apostle and Apostleship, calling his office Apostleship, saying that he heareth causes with his Apostleship▪ (why should he not determine with it?) All his instruments of government are Apostolical, as Letters, Decrees, Mandates, Bulls, Pardons, Dispensations, nay what hath he that is not Apostolic? Whether messenger or Legate? Whether Palace, Chamber, Chancery, Seal 
o Sacra● ce●am Rom. eccles. l▪ 1. Reg. Canc. Apostol. Extra do jurejur. c. Ego. , etc. Besides how many of the Jesuits counterfeits urged for the Primacy are thought to speak effectually, when they attribute to the Pope, to sit in the Apostolical height, to have his See Apostolic, his office an Apostleship, his privileges, his eminencies Apostolical.  
Fourthly, he would have told them, that the ancient Fathers declare in plain terms, how Christ grounding his Church upon Peter Mat. 16. committing his flock to Peter joh. 21. wishing Peter to confirm his Brethren, and praying for Peter's faith that it should not fail, Luc. 22. constituted Peter head of his Church upon earth, and consequently thereby made him Prince, Chief, Captain, Head, Leader and Prelate over the rest of the Apostles 
p Reply pag. 60 .  
But whosoever will weigh his quotations shall perceive that the Fathers have been only pretended by him, they disdaining any such Monarchy as from those texts, the jesuite laboureth to collect. And first for the 16. of Mat. Although the Fathers do sometimes give Peter the name of the rock or foundation upon which the Church is builded or grounded; yet their meaning is not that the Church is builded upon Peter absolutely and personally, but relativelie and from his faith, or Christ that he confessed. And therefore Hillary that calleth Peter the foundation of the Church 
q Hilar. in Mat. 16 Faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum. , telleth us that; not only to say but also to believe that CHRIST is the Son of GOD, this faith is the foundation of the Church 
r Hillar. l. 6. De Trinitat. Christum Dei silium non solum nuncupare sed etiam credere— Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum. , and in another place he saith, This is the alone happy rock of faith confessed with the mouth of Peter, Thou art the Son of the everliving GOD 
s Idem l. 2. De Trinitat. una ●●aec est faelix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Tu es filius Dei vivi. . S. Basill also saith, that CHRIST is truly a Rock unmoveable, but Peter is so from the Rock● Christ 
t Basil serm. de P●niten. Christus verè Petra est inconcussa. Petrus vero propter Petram. . And S. Ambrose concludeth 
u Ambros. ser. ● Recte igitur qui Petra Christus, Simon nuncupa●●s est Petrus, ●● qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat, cum Domino haberet, & nominis Dominici unitatem, ut siqut à Christo Christianus dicitur, ita & à Petra Christo, Petrus Apostolus vocaretur.  that rightly therefore, because CHRIST is the rock, was Simon called Peter, that so he that had a society of faith with his Lord might also have the unity of his name: that as a Christian taketh his denomination from CHRIST, so Peter the Apostle might ●●ke his name from the rock CHRIST. So also saith, Gregory Nissen, The LORD is the rock of faith; even the foundation as the LORD himself saith to the Prince of the Apostles, Then art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church 
x Gregor. Nissenus, cap. postremo testimoniorum con. judaeos Dominus est Pe●●● fidei, ●●●quam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad principe● 〈◊〉; Tu es Petrus & super ●anc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 〈◊〉. . And S. Augustine teacheth us▪ that, The Church is founded upon a rock; from whence even PETER took his name: For the rock took not its denomination from PETER, but PETER from the rock, even as CHRIST taketh not his name from Christians, but a Christian from CHRIST 
y August tru●● 124. in johan. Ecclesia fundata est super petram, ●● de & Petrus nomen accepit, Non enim à Petro petra; si●● Petrus à petra si●● non Christus à Christianis sed Christianus à Christ● vocatur. . Theodoret shall conclude for this particular, who telleth us, that Blessed PETER or rather the LORD himself laid the foundation, for when PETER said thou art CHRIST the Son of the living GOD, the LORD said, upon this rock I will build my Church: Be not you therefore denominated from man, for CHRIST is the foundation 
z Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 3. Fundamen●●● jecit beatus Petrus vel p●tius ipse Dominus, Cum enim dixisset Petrus Tu es Christu● filius Der vi●● dixir Domi●● super hanc 〈◊〉 ●rar● aedificabo Ecclesiammean, Ne vo●●● go denomina●● ab hominibus, Christus 〈◊〉 ●●● 〈◊〉. . So that the jesuite may see how Peter was the rock and foundation by confessing and preaching CHRIST the true rock: The latter of which duties [to wit, preaching CHRIST] is so bitter ●nto their Popes, that I think they had rather forsake their Rock-ship, then be tied thereunto.  
And as the Church was no otherwise grounded upon Peter than you have heard from the Fathers, so neither was the flock of CHRIST (Io. 21.) committed to Peter in the Roman sense. For feeding is not domineering, & that which before did point out a shepherd, must not now constitute a Prince, or Monarch. But not to descant upon this place in every particular, the jesuite may take notice, that there want not Fathers, that think the other Apostles had as much interest in feeding as Peter himself, and that he received no new power by his pasce oves, this is clear from the reasons that the Fathers give wherefore CHRIST spoke only to Peter. As first, not to give him a new power and Commission, but to stir him up to contesse his LORD thrice as before he denied him. So Augustine tract: in johan: 123. Cyrillus in johan. lib. 12. cap. 64. Secondly that he might renew the Apostle ship, for so saith Cyrill. But CHRIST said, fiede my Lambs renewing unto him the dignity of his APOSTLESHIP, lest it might seem to be l●st for his denial which happened by humane informity 
a Cyrill●● in Io. l. 12. c 64. Dixit autem pasce ag●●● 〈◊〉, Apostol●●●s ei renov●●●● dignitatem, ne propter ●egatio●em, quae human● 〈◊〉 accidit. l●befacta●i videre●●● .  
What new power is here given? What ordinary jurisdiction, that ordinarily did not belong to the rest? Here is the old Apostleship renewed to Peter, which by denial of his Master, he might fear he had lost. This is all we find by the Ancient in pasce oves, And if the jesuite will permit it with patience, besides the places formerly cited, their own Counterfeit, that hath a name of antiquity telleth us, that the rest of the Apostles received honour & power in equal fellowship with Peter 
b Ana●letus ad ●pis●. Italiae Epist 2. dist. 21. c. In ●o●o te●●●m ●●eeti verò Apostoli ●●m codem p●ri consortio, hono●em, & potestatem ac●●●erunt. . And Ambrose will not favour Rome so much, though he ruled at Milan, but that he will acknowledge, that Peter did not only receive the charge of them, but himself and all Bishop● received it with Peter 
c Ambros. de dignit. sacerd. ●. ●. Pasce ove●●eat. Quas oves, & quem ●●●gem no●●●lum tunc 〈◊〉 susce●it Petr●s, fed et cum illo. ●●s no● susce●imus omnes. . And as they received the commission with Peter, so likewise did they perform the work; for so say your Roman Clergy. CHRIST said th●● unto Simon, Lovest thou me, he answered, I love thee: he saith unto him, f●ede my lambs: We know this word was performed by the very act of Peter's obedience: and the rest of the disciples did so likewise 
d Epist. Cleri Rom. ad. Clerum Carth. apud Cyprian epist. 3. Sed et Simoni fie dicit: Diligi● me, ●●spondit, diligo: ●● ei, Pasce oves, ho● verbum factum ex actu ipso quo cessit cognoscimus. e● e●teri discipuli similiter 〈◊〉. . Yea this is acknowledged by Cyprian for a common duty, and no particular prerogative of Peter. All the Apostles are Pasters, but the flock is showed to be one, which is fed of all the Apostles with an unanimous consent 
e Cyprian. de Vnitate Eccles. E● 〈◊〉 ●unt 〈◊〉, sed grex 〈◊〉 ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus 〈◊〉 consensio●● pascatur. . And therefore Gregory from this place doth argue, that they fail of love to CHRIST, that perform not this duty of feeding the flock. Whosoever (saith he) being endued with gifts, refuseth to ●eede the Lords flock, is convinced not to love the chief Pastor 
f Gregor l. 1 de cura past c 5. Si diligis me, pa●ce oves me●●. Si ergo dilectionis est testimonium, cura pastonis: Quisque vir●●tibus poll●● gregem Dei pascere 〈◊〉 it, pastorem 〈◊〉 convincitur non a●●r●. .  
Neither doth the other place, Luc. 22. in the ●●dgment of the Ancient, make S. Peter otherwise then the rest of the Apostles. For (saith Ignatius) CHRIST prayed that the faith of the APOSTLES should not fail 
g Ignatius ad Smyrnen. Epistola. ●. Dominus jesus Ch●●stus rogavi● ne defic●ret fid●● a postolorum. : and Clemene telleth us, that CHRIST even now saith as in times ●ast when we were gathered together▪ I have asked that TOUR faith should not fail 
h Clemens constitut. l. 6. c. ●. Hic dicet & nunc, sicut & antea nobis in unum congregatis de nobis aiebat, Rogavi ne deficia●●●des vestra. . And Augustine readeth these words in that manner, that it concludeth all the Apostles, I have prayed for you, that YOUR faith fail not 
i Augustin. de verbis Domi●i in Luc. ser. 36. Igo rogavi p●trem pro vob●● ne deficiat ● des vestra. . Whereby the jesuite may see, that these texts in the judgement of the Ancient Fathers, make not Peter to be (as he would persuade) constituted Head of the Church upon Earth, and consequently neither Prince, Chief, Captain, Head, Leader and Prelate, over the rest of the Apostles, with such sovereign power, as is pretended.  
What the jesuite citeth out of Hierome and Leo have received answer before, Nothing remains in this Section, but his more particular answer to the most reverend the Lord Primate his inquires, and first (saith he) When our Answerer then made his first In●uirie. Whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour CHRIST as a special Commission, which being personal only, was to determine with the death of the first Apostle? Answer might soon have been returned, that the Apostleship indeed, ended with the Apostles, yet not that Apostolical power of headship and jurisdiction 
Reply pag. ●● .  
First here is poor forgetfulness; for but now Peter was Head of the Church, not as he was an extraordinary Ambassador, (for therein the Apostles had equal jurisdiction with him over all Christian people) but as the ordinary Pastor not only over all nations, but also over the very Apostles themselves; and now in this place, the Headship must be Apostolical power and not ordinary jurisdiction. Secondly, I desire the jesuite to expound this riddle; How the Apostleship ended with the Apostles, yet not the Apostolical Headship and jurisdiction, seeing the power Apostolical i● whomsoever it be found doth make an Apostle, they being so styled for their Commission and power received and not for any other reason that the jesuite can assign. Thirdly, I would gladly know, whether this Apostolical Headship doth consist in infallibility of doctrine, immediate calling, extent of jurisdiction, in binding or losing, in punishing or pardoning, teaching or ruling the Church of GOD 
See the the mists annotations upon Luke 6. 13▪ ; for if it be found in these, the Apostles enjoyed it; if out of these; let the jesuite seek, into what place this Saul is run to hide itself. But this Head of the Church that hath ever been acconuted an Apostle, hath now lost this title, for the jesuite tells us, that the Apostleship ended with the Apostles, yet not that Apostolical power of Headship and jurisdiction, which CHRIST for the better government of his Church gave to S. Peter, the which Apostolical power, although it doth not absolutely make the man upon whom it descendeth, an Apostle yet it maketh him Apostolical. And this is all which is meant, whensoever in the Lawyer's yearsbookes or elsewhere, the Pope is called by the name of Apostle 
m Reply pag. 60 .  
What he assumes to be given to Peter hath been before plainly showed to be a vapour and sum from a full stomach.  
That the Pope is no Apostle we easily grant; yet hereby we may learn that they have sometimes taken to themselves those titles that their evidence could not warrant; for by the jesuits confession the Pope hath been styled what he is not, to wit, an Apostle; Yet this will not satisfy them sometimes to be an Apostle barely in succession, but Peter the Apostle himself, for so Pope Stephen doth proclaim himself; PETER (saith he) called an Apostle of JESUS CHRIST, to you most excellent men; Pipin, Charles, and Charlemagne, three Kings, and to all Bishops, Abbots, Priests, Monks, Dukes, Earls and Generals, &c▪ PETER the Apostle, called by CHRIST, and ordained to be the enlightner of all the world, to whom he committed his 〈◊〉, saying▪ 〈◊〉 my 〈◊〉▪ I the Apostle PETER whose adopted sins you are, admonish you 〈◊〉 you presently come and define this 〈◊〉 from the hands of adversaries, because the 〈◊〉 Lamb andafflict and 〈◊〉 is &c▪ That I PETER the Apostle of GOD, ●● the 〈◊〉 day may yield you 〈◊〉 defence again, and prepare for you tubernacles in Heaven 
Baroni●●●● annum 755. ● 17. PETRUS v●●atus. Apostolus à IESV CHRISTO, etc. Vobis vitis excellentissimis Pipino, Carolo & Carolomanno, tribus Regibus, atque sanctifimis Episcopis, Abbatibus, presbytery vel cunctis religiosis monachis. vernm ●●iam Ducibus Comitibus, & cunctis generalibus etc. Ego PETRVS Apostolus dum à Christo Dei vivi filio vocate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clement●●● arbit●●●●, illuminator ab ejus poten●●●, ●●tius mundi ●um 〈◊〉 etc. Ideoque ego Apostolus Dei PETRUS, qui vos adoptivos habeo filios ad defendendum de manibus adversariorum hanc Romanam civitatem▪ 〈◊〉, pro co quod maximas afflictiones & oppressiones à pessima Longob●●dorum gente patiuntur etc.  ●●● PETRUS vocatus Dei Apostolus in h●c vitâ & in die futuri exanimis vobis alterna impendens patroti●●●, in regno Dei 〈…〉 tabernacula. 〈◊〉▪ par●n. ad remp▪ Venet. Pa●●● igitur, idemque Petrus, vicem Christi agens in ter●●s. .  
And it is not long since▪ Paul the 〈◊〉 was made PETER also by Cardinal Baronius ●. So that we see it is not well agreed at Rome, whether the POPE be PETER the Apostle, or an Apostle by Succession, or merely Apostolical. But as the shining lamps of the Church of GOD have detected him to be fare from Peter and an Apostle▪ So for all the Jesuits covers, he will not appear to be Apostolical either. here the jesuite hath given us a riddle● no resolution to the first enquiry.  
When he inquired secondly (saith the jesuite) what sound evidence we can produce, to show that one of the company was to hold the Apostlesius as it were in 〈◊〉 for him and his Success●ours for ever, and that the other cleaven should have the same for 〈◊〉 of life only? Answer might soon have been made out of what before hath been declared; that S. Peter had somewhat more than the rest of the Apostles, to ●it, his superiority and dignity— and this being given to him before the rest▪ for the benefit of the Church, must needs have continued after his death 
Reply pag. ●●. .  
We see the jesuite hath no more to say for S. Peter, than he hath already uttered▪ In the answer whereunto, the Reader may see his pretences examined.  
In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he inquired thirdly, (saith the jesuite) how the state of perpetuîtie came to fall upon S. Peter, rather than upon S. john? A child might have answered, that it pleased CHRIST to make choice of S. Peter, rather than of S. john▪ and who is he th●● will demand of GOD▪ why?  
It seems a Child can do more than a jesuite; for how will he make it good; that CHRIST made choice of Peter rather than of S. john to continue the state of perpetuity, in regard he telleth us the Apostleship determined with him? And we demand not of GOD; why? But we ask the jesuite why they will invent and establish a foundation for their Church, that hath no better ground to depend upon, than 〈◊〉 tale-telling.  
Finally (saith the jesuite) when in the fourth place he inquired, why did not the inheritence rather descend upon the Church of Antioch; whereof S. Peter was first Bishop then upon Rome? Answer might he made by 〈◊〉 pleasant demand, to the recreation of the whole Court, to wit, why should not our Answerers' Child be called 〈◊〉 her the Heir of a Parsin, then of a Bishop, seeing that his 〈◊〉 was the former, before he came to be elected for the 〈◊〉▪ Truly I am sure, that although the lad might happily repine at either of both the names, vet 〈…〉 of a Bishop's son, before that other of a P●rson: and with good reason too, forasmuch as his Father did willingly forsake the Parsinage, to get the title of a Bishop 
Reply pag. ●● .  
here the jesuite would turn Arsby, if he wanted 〈◊〉 wit: For who sees not the Couse laid aside and the guarded Habit girded on, that he might recreate the whole Court? So that Jesuits (we may know) want not their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times▪ 〈◊〉 I would 〈◊〉 the ●●●inde to explain himself▪ and to show in what purpose he hath brought forth this 〈◊〉; for as it thus stands, his Comedy will not be understood, ●●ither answer the inquiries for he will confess the Bishop of Antioch to differ from the Bishop of Rome more than 〈◊〉 Persons▪ form from himself, whose father is a Bishop, 〈◊〉 he must acknowledge them to have the same head, members, commands▪ prerogatives▪ And upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not say, that Pet●●● was the poor P●●s●● of Antioch, and left his 〈◊〉 to get his universal Bishopric of Rome; for if you do, it will destroy all your arguments from Tu es Petrus, & 〈◊〉 pro te Petre, & pas●e eves; for if the Bishopric 〈◊〉 Peter a Monarch, how ●● their Monarchy be founded in▪ S. Peter, or that Church get any thing by Peter his pla●ing his seat there? And from hence you see the force of his reason, that maketh the inheritance to def●●●d upon Rome rather than upon the Church of Antioch, because the Roman Church is the Here of Peter the Bishop. Antioch only of Peter the Parson. So that we may easily perceive that what he hath produced was not to answer the inquiry, but to sto●ne the Children of Bishops and Priests, ● Parson's as he calls them. But he may take notice that the Children of Priests were never of base ●●eeme▪ till the base and filthy carriage of the Romish Clergy acquired it; for among the Priests we find some married to the blood ROYAL as I●hoja●● 
* 2. Ch●. 22. 11.  〈◊〉 why should God take such strict care for the choice of their wives 
* Lev. 2●. ●●. 14  if he contemned their generation?  
Since our Saviour's time, was it infamy to Philip's 〈◊〉 that their father was an Evangelist▪ 
* Acts▪ 21. ●. ●. Na●ian● Mono● in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 20▪ ? Did the jesuite ever read that S. 〈◊〉 repined at the Bishop his Father? Was Gregory the great made the less that his great 〈…〉 a Pope? Or did it 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Ch●yre that the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the same? ●. No, the children of Priests and 〈◊〉 lawfully married, never dishonoured their 〈◊〉, neither were the children 〈◊〉 by their 〈◊〉 from a Priest. But when 〈…〉, and Mac a N●●bui●, and 〈…〉 their Popes and Clergy with their 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 
● 〈◊〉 not●● vitam Gre●●●ij Papae 1. Factus est Pontifex ●. Grego●ius, qui natus ATAVO FELICE PAPA ejus nominis tertio.  last, filled the world full of their unlawful 〈◊〉 This invented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and made many holy birth●● 〈◊〉, because their ●●thers did forbear to challenge them. Indeed the Children of Bishops and Priests among you may well ●epi●e to be styled either 〈◊〉 a Neas●uig, or mac a 〈◊〉, in regard their father's villainy adh●●eth to that name, and addeth affliction to their minds: but for the sons of Priests and Bishops amongst us, what repining humour can possess them, seeing they were borne in honourab● 
Dist. 56. cap. Osius. Osius Papa suit silius Stephani subdiaconi. Bonifacius Papa ●uit silius ●ucundi presbyteri. Faelix Papa filius Felicis presbyteri de titulo Fasciolae. Agapitus Papa, ●ilius ●ordi●ni presbyteri. Theodorus Papa, 〈◊〉 Theodo●● Episcopi, de 〈◊〉 Hierosotyma Sylverium Papa, filius Sylverij Episcopi Romae. Deusdedit Papa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subdia●●●, 〈…〉 natione 〈◊〉, 〈…〉  matrimony, their patents living in the rule appointed by the Apostle?  
But the jesuite as 〈◊〉 of his sports, cometh in good sober sadness to wonder, that in such an audience the Answerer blushed not to affirm, that Rome had little to allege for this perf●rment, but only that S. Peter was crucified in it. But what can the jesuite say it hath more▪ Why, he tells us, That 〈◊〉 can ●ll 〈◊〉, that the Apostle did relinquish Anti●●h, to 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her 
u Reply pag. ●●. .  
As if the Bishop and Monarch of the whole Church 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 a double mansion, several places of 〈◊〉▪ Did their Popes relinquish Rome by fitting in the chair ●● A●ignion? Or was it possible, that he that kept the Bishopric of the whole Church, could relinquish the Se● of Antioch by his so journing at Rome? The jesuit would persuade it, and that it was done by command. For (saith he) as 〈◊〉 Writers 
●. 〈◊〉 Papa & 〈…〉.  do relate, Peter was commanded so to do by CHRIST himself 
Reply pag. ●.   
Here is nothing to make the inheritance to descend upon the Church of Rome from divine testimony. And Bellarmine indeed conceived the matter only probable, peremptorily he concludeth not, that the Bishop of Rome by divine right is Peter's Successor 
y Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. ● c. 1●. Et quo ●●am ● Mar 〈◊〉 Papa i ●●. ad 〈◊〉 s●●●bit, 〈…〉, & S. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉, & Athanasius in Ap●logia 〈…〉 Marry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor ●●● improbabile Dominum 〈…〉, ut ●edem 〈…〉 ●●geret 〈◊〉, u● Roma●●s Episcopus 〈◊〉 ●● succed●ret, sed 〈◊〉 ●● hoc ●●t, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 non est 〈◊〉 institutione 〈◊〉, qu● in ●●●gelio legitur. , neither will he 〈◊〉 it of faith, that Peter's seat was there, only h●● 〈◊〉 that it is most probable, & p●● credendum, and he will ●●count you a Catholic if you believe it 
z Bellarm de Rom Pont. l 4. c 4. Accedit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ●m imperasse 〈◊〉, ut Romae ●edem ●ollocaret, non ●●men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibi coll●caret. Quo●iam ergo ●on constat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pe●●o, ut Romae 〈◊〉 col●ocaret, ideo non est de 〈◊〉 divine & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Romae ●●dem esse constitutam, sed ●amen, ut 〈◊〉, est 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Is this the Cardo upon which all the Catholic Roman ●aith tur●eth? Is there no more certainery in this groundwork? Must Peter's inheritance descend certainly upon him, who by divine right cannot prove himself to be his Heir? Must one Witness, and that a known Counterfeit, and ●● Marcellus 
a Haec est una illarum epistolarum, quas 〈…〉 esse 〈◊〉. , tell us a story, and obt●ine an Empire? This is too great a reward.  
Now whereas he tells us, that Peter was Bishop of Rome the space of ●●ve and twenty years, Antioch having had him but for 〈◊〉, and consequently that he laboured more fruitfully, and performed all more gloriously in her, then in Antioch: and finally, that in her, even by Christ's appointment also, he glorified God by the triumph of his blessed death and martyrdom 
b Reply pag. ●● . We tell him, that when he attempts to prove it, he shall not want his answer. That Peter was at Rome, preached there, was crucified, it is not much to grant him: but that he was there such a Bishop, as Linus, etc. he cannot prove; some making him such a Bishop as Paul was, others making him non● at all.  
But the jesuite chargeth the most learned Answerer with judging according to the flesh, when he made the Apostles death and martyrdom a slender cause why Peter should respect her so much. And further telleth us, that surely it is no slender cause for the Catholic Church, to sing therefore of her with solemn joy in this sort.  

Thrice happy Rome, that with the purple blood  
Of such great Princes standest adorned and bles●  
Not thine own worth, but their deserving good  
Crowns the● on earth the fairest and the best 
c Reply pag. 61 & 62. .   
This most grave and reverend Lord, I confess, hath nor (as some of you could have wished) put off the 〈◊〉, the 〈◊〉 man, in the jesuitical form 
d Hassen. Mullerus de Votis jesuitarum c. 6 Si Nobiles illo●●m societatem ingrediantur, & habitu veniant splendido ac precio●o, permittunt, ●t triduum e●m reservent: quo lapso cum ●●ponere, alteri dare, & Societatis habitum endure juben●●●. Et hoc est, secundùm illos, veterem exuere 〈◊〉, seip●●m motti●●cais, & alteri su●● 〈◊〉 ●●●. , neither as your Popes have interpreted 
〈◊〉. I. Epist. 3. ad 〈◊〉.  the Apostle 
Rom; 8. ●. ●. ● , but as God himself hath commanded, wherein the World is his Witness, and I think it but time spent to justify him. But let the jesuite prove this Argument to be convincing if he be able, his singing and other passages will not work the feat. The Saints in Rome, we know, as the Church otherwhere, were much confirmed by the patiented sufferings of the Martyrs, but this doth not excuse, much less lift up Rome, Did Abel's blood that ●●yed for vengeance, plead then for glory? Did innocent blood the● advance your Monarchy, that now you make yourselves drunk with the blood of the Saints?. Jerusalem lost he● Crown by the Prophet's blood, must the Apostles triple Rome? Yet if Rome get such an height in martyring the servant, what might Jerusalem plead that crucified the Lord? These you see are silly inventions, but the strongest pillars of the Roman faith.  
The jesuite hath done his do; yet he telleth us, Much more might be said, and now entreats the Gentle Reader to trophy him for his victory: But he hath not yet cured the wound that hath been given him, though he conceiteth all fair, smooth, and without scar. He hath laboured to make Fathers and Saints, the Pope's serving-men; the World his City; Heaven, the Church and Purgatory his Provinces: but as you see, all in vain. The downright blows he persuades himself to be given, we feel not, our shields are not pierced, neither are the least of our bull works overthrown.   

SECT: IX.  
THis Section shows, that the jesuite having overshot himself in a term, would now make it good by an interpretation, and thereupon he inquires, Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be termed unspotted, or no 
a Reply pag. 6● .  
In discussing whereof he durst not free this Church of his so much adored, from all spots, but only those which are of misbelief 
b Reply pag. 6● ▪ and spots of misbelief, whose spots can they be? Not the true Churches; fo● that company which beleiveth not aright, cannot be esteemed the Church Universal, or Particular: so that every pure Church in this sense hath equal privilege, though he pretends it for the only triumph of the Roman; 〈◊〉 every man, for ●e that is an Heretic truly, & 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 appellation, 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 of CHRIST▪ neither of the Church.  
But the jesuits' preface is full of confidence. As the Answerer provoked me to the former disputation though I ween to his smart, so doth he give me the like occasion to buckle with him in this 
e Reply pag. 6● .  
Whom have we here? Hercules with his distasse? smart? your Fathers and fellows use not to make such worthies smart; you had rather destroy then wound men of his quality, But where or when was this smart given? I am sure wound or scar we see none; Surely the jesuite hath been Chaplain to the knight Errant, that fights sleeping, that conquers in his dreams; otherwise he could not stand so fortified with imagination, as he here appears. Nemo alieno sensu est miser, he feels nothing, he complains not, it is not sufficient to prove that he smarts, because you conceit that you have given him a wound, this hath declared your desire but not manifested the event you presume of.  
But the jesuite seemeth to promise as much in this Section, because in a twitting fashion the Answerer saith, that he not only confounded Urbem & Orbem, but also mingled heaven and earth together by giving the title of unspotted unto the Catholic Church of Rome ●. 
Reply pag 62   
Hath not this just charge a just ground? If unspotted be a property belonging to the triumphant Church; can it without confusion be attributed to any Church upon earth? How this word unspotted is taken in antiquity S. Augustine hath determined, and the jesuite saith nothing materially in opposition: why should it not then continue in its strength still? I would know whether the Church in general or in her members can be without spots, that is, not defiled in manners, though free from false belief. The Church that was free as much as humane imperfection would permit confesseth herself black though comely 
* Cant. 1. 5. ; And the jesuits' citation out of Pa●●anus acknowledgeth a freedom only from heresies 
Paci●●. epist. 3. Ecclesia est non habens ●aculam neque rugam, hoc est haereses non 〈◊〉. , which every true Church and true member hath. But how will the jesuite prove the Roman Church unspotted? First he must have two things granted him according to his present understanding, or ●lse a ●ople. First, by the Roman Church we must understand the Church universal, as hath been declared (saith he) in the former Section 
f Reply pag. ●● ; Secondly, Unspotted must have relation to spots of misbelief only. And then I say, (saith the jesuit) that the Roman Church hath ever been found, and will always remain, in that kind, unspotted even unto the end of the world 
g Reply ibid. .  
This is afterwit, but if the jesuit hath not proved the Roman Church to be the universal in the former Section; if the universal hath been without spots of misbelief; when the Roman in her prime-member hath been infected with Leprosy; this will declare, that the Roman Church (if their positions be true) was not without spots, or Catholic either. For the first; the jesuite would get by Petition, that by the Roman Church is understood the Church universal. But let him know it is too great an alms to grant an Adversary, 
joh. Sansour. in Polycratic. l. 6. c. 24. Romana Ecclesia, quae materomnium ecclesiarum est, se non tam matrem exhibet alijs, quam novercam, Sedentin eâ Scribas & Ph●risae, ponentes on●●a importabili● in humeris hominum quae digito non co●●ngunt. , and too great an imposture to be approved in them. For I am sure, no modest man will dream that the Church of CHRIST could be so forsaken by CHRIST, that it were not worthy to be governed, but by reprobates, as Aliace testifies of the Roman Church 
h Card de Aliaco lib. de Reform. Eccl. cap. de Reform. religionum. In proverbium abierit Ad hunc statum venisse Roman●● Ecclesium, ut non fit digna regi nisi per reprobo●. . The Catholic Church were a poor mother to instruct God's Saints, if she did not show herself so much a mother as a stepmother; if in it fit the Scribes and Pharisees, Heretics long since condemned by Christ and yet johannes Sarisburiensis affirms this of your Roman Church. Besides, those which have bewailed her corruptions have told us, that prophecy is now quite extinct in the Church and it is accomplished, that is written 3. Kings 22. I will go forth and be a lyeing Spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets 
k A●a●. Pelagde planctu Ecclesiae l. x. act. 5 Ad literam ho●●● in Ecclesia deficit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 quod scribitur 3. Regum. 22. 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : but this were harsh for any to affirm of the Catholic Church of God. Moreover it is cross to reason itself, to make the Roman the Catholic. Who will think that the whole is not greater than the part? that Catholic and Roman are ejusdem ambitus? that the Church's Subsistency must depend upon that which will fail, that must be utterly overthrown 
l Ribe●● jescom. in Apocal. 14. num. 44. & 48. Babylon significat Romam in fine mundi futuram. ? Besides were there no Saints, nor Martyrs before Rome was converted? Nay, were all the Roman Converts malefidians, before Peter confirmed them in the Faith? Poor Stephen, thou art little beholding to this jesuite, that Heaven must now be shut to thee, which Christ opened 
* Acts, 7. 36.  at thy Matyredome! But this Grand-imposture hath been lately laid open by the reverend and learned the Lord Bishop of Leichfield, and therefore I may here forbear it.  
For the Second; I will briefly declare the Jesuits Vanity herein: and first to take away all ambiguity S. Augustine that useth this term of unspotted not of the Primitive Roman, but of the ancient Catholic Church expoundeth what he meant by the same; Wheresoever in these books I have made mention of the Church not having spot or wrinkle; it is not so to be taken as if she were so now, but that she is prepared to be so, when she shall appear to be glorious. For now, by reason of certain ignorances and infirmities of her members, the whole Church hath cause to say every day: Forgive us our Trespasses 
m August. Retract. l. 2. c. ●8. Vbi cunque i● his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memorari, Ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, non sie accipiendum est quasi jam sit, sed quae pr●paratur ut sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa. Nunc enim propter quasdam ignoranties & in firmitates membrorum fuorum habet unde quotidie tota dicat. Dimitte nobis debita nostra. . Neither was it the question in those times, whether the Catholic Church could be spotted with Heresy, but with sin, which was affirmed by the Catholic Church against the Pelagians; and this the jesuite seemeth now to conceive and therefore telleth us, that by reason of ignorant and infirmities of her members in other matters, the Church hath daily occasion to pray for the forgiveness of sins 
n Reply pag. 43. . Now the jesuite giving the title ●●spotted unto the Primitive Church of Rome which he accounteth the Catholic, how could the most learned Answerer understand the Jesuits term, but according to the sense of the word, as it was vulgarly taken in the primitive times? Secondly it were not amiss to conceive that the jesuite in his Challenge calleth the Primitive Church of Rome 〈◊〉 
o In his Challenge. ; in his enquiry in this section, he layeth down the Roman Church without re●●raynt of Primitive; and lastly in his proof he thinketh he hath got the day if from antiquity he can prove that the Catholic Church cannot fail. So that you may easily ●spy, who is guilty of mingling one question with another. But let us examine this new question as the jesuite hath proposed it. Whether the Church of Rome may rightly be termed Unspotted, or no 
p Reply pag ●● ?  
That the ancient Roman Church was invincible, never fundamentally erring in the foundation of faith in all her members for the first 400. or 500 years after Christ, The jesuite telleth us, our Doctors and Masters grant 
q In his Challenge. : So that the Controversy is not, what the Primitive Church of Rome was in regard of Heresy: but what the Roman Church is liable unto in her succession, which the jesuite resolves (and as he would make us believe) from Augustine and other anncient Fathers, saying, that in the truth and soundness of her faith and doctrine, she is evermore invincible, and not liable to any spot or stain 
r Reply pag. 43 .  
But neither doth Augustine, Origen, Eusebius, Alexander B. of Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyrill B. of Jerusalem, or Philo Carpathius etc. whom he urgeth 
s Reply pag 64 & pag 650 , say any thing for the Roman, but for the Catholic Church, to which they bear testimony that it cannot fail.  
So that our jesuite falleth under Bellarmine's Censure, who affirmeth that they do but trifle away the time, who contend to prove, that the Church cannot absolutely fail, because it is granted by the Protestants themselves 
t Bellarm. de Ecclesia mil l. 3. c. 13. Notandum autem est, mulu● ex nostris tempus 〈◊〉 dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse d●ficere, 〈◊〉 Cal●●●● & e●teri 〈◊〉 ●i id concedunt : which the jesuite knowing though dissembling, (after he hath produced S. Chrysostome for the perpetuity of the Catholic Church) argueth f●r her. But what Church doth this holy Father mean think you? Surely none other than Peter's Church 
u Reply pag. ●● : etc.  
Peter's Churchy pro● nef●●! was the Church espoused to Peter? purchased by Peter? redeemed by Peter? At Antioth the Church was first called Christian 
* Acts 1. v. 26. , which name it hath retained, and shall it lose its title and 〈◊〉 now, and be denominated from Peter? The Spouse of Christ, the mystical body of Christ, the house of God, the Lords granary and 〈◊〉 
Staple●. Relect. cont. 1. q. ● art 1. not. 5  est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam, ita est domus magna Cheisti, ●st area & ager dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem etc. ; but Peter's Church is somewhat harsh; Chrysostome near giveth the Church no such title, only their poor forged Cyrill hath Ecclesia Apostolica Petri, an evidence answerable to the cause, yet not convincing; for the same title might be given to the Church of Antioch. But can the words of Chrysostome stretch to the Roman Church? ●et the jesuite show it if he be able, That Church whereof Chrysostome speaketh, is the Church of Christ, not of Peter: that Church whereof he is a Pastor 
y Chrys. in Mat hom●●●. Ecclesiae futurae pastorem constituit. , not a Monarch, the rock upon which it is builded, is not Peter, but Christ believed & confessed by Peter 
Ibid. Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id est, fidem atque confessionem. . Peter had no gift given him to preserve this Church from amidst ●●erce assaults and raging floods in this Father's opinion, though the jesuite would persuade it: but Peter was confirmed in his faith confessed, by this promise made, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Churchy. Neither had Peter power given him to make the Church invincible, but to declare it 
Ibid Petrus Ecclesiam per universum orbem amplificatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 validi●●●● monstravit. .  
And as the Father's ground this privilege of the unspotted 
● Non enim turbari te con ven●● cùm audicris, quia tratar & crucifixes.  integrity of the Roman Church upon the promise of Christ to Peter Matt, 16. so also they oftentimes deduce the same from the virtue of that prayer, which Christ made to his Father for Peter's faith, that it should never fail, Luc, 22. wherein doubtless he was heard for his reverence. Heb. 5. 7. 
Reply pag. ●●   
There is no ground why the Roman should enjoy this privilege, either from Christ's promise or his prayer; & as the jesuite hath failed in deducing any thing from the former; so doth he show his abilities in this latter at his first entrance. For first he brings in forged Epistles under the name of Lucius 
d Bellarm. (l. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. ●) dare not affirm this Epistle to be undoubted; & it is dared Gallo & Volus● ano Cos●: when as they were not Consul at that time, as appeareth by Baron, Annal. to ●. an. ●  and Felix 
e The Epistle is dated Claudio & Paterno Coss: when as there were none such in his time. Baron. ad a●. 273. , good Bishops, who would have 〈◊〉 the pride that they are urged here to 〈…〉 the rest he cities 〈◊〉 good Bishop, we will not deny; yet his goodness did not declare itself at all times when he spoke of S. Peter, or the Roman Church, but his infirmity. For as the Bishops of Rome both before and after him desired more than was fit; so it will be no difficulty to show that they contended to justify their desires by unfit means, and especially by swelling word●● in the honour of S. Peter and their own Se●, and practices suitable thereunto. Insomuch that they were esteemed smo●●● by some 
f Epistol Concil. Aphricam ad Papam Caelestinum Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque petentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concedere, ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi,— videamur inducere. ; ambition by others 
g Hieron Epist. 57 A Pastore praesidium ovis flagito, facessa● invidia Romani culminis recedat, ambitio. , their pride being hated their motions contemned: And Le● was no more to be excused then some of his Predecessors in these particulars seeing he rejected the Catholic Church, a Council of 〈◊〉. and ●●●: Bishops, because they would make another Patr●arcke equal with him 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concil. Chalcedonen●● Occumenicum sive Vniversale IU approbat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●centi Triginta Episcop●. Id vero. quod instigante Anatolio Constantinopolita●● Antistite ambiciose absentibus, & possea contradicentibus segatis, de primatur 〈◊〉 Constantinopolitanae contra decreta 〈…〉 dem▪ secundum 〈…〉 quam, S. Leo Rom. ●ex plane in probavit, cassa vit atque irritum reddidi●●●. ●eply pag. 66. Bellarm. de sacram. con●●● l. 2. c. x. Epistolae 〈…〉 apud nonnullos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve 〈◊〉 supposititi●●, 〈◊〉 Non sit certain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quorum nomina praeserunti : So that if you have no better argument than Leo his appetite to magnify Rome and to free it from spots, it is but a poor and tender 〈◊〉. For we deny not Christ's care of Peter, neither his prayer for Peter, but that all were fortified in Peter, any otherwise then by example, the jesuite must prove by better grounds than he 〈◊〉 produceth or else he is not half way at his journeys end.  
The next witness is the good counterfeit Eusebius, from whose plain dealing he begins his triumph. Can any 〈◊〉 speak more plainly for us, concerning the ever during 〈◊〉 of the Catholic Roman Churchy ●.  
There is no reason any should, for if your forgt● y ● 〈◊〉 you who will expect truth to plead your cause● But the jesuite tells us, that S. Cyprian affordeth 〈◊〉 like testimony, for that speaking of certain Heretics of 〈◊〉. They are bold (saith he) to 〈◊〉 even to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, from whence Priestly Unity draweth its original, neither do they consider how they are those Romans, whose faith is commended by the Apostle, and to whom perfidiousness cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
k Reply pag, ●● .  
But he fails; for first he speaketh not of the same thing; 〈◊〉 in Cyprian having relation to matter of fact in discipline, not doctrine. Secondly, if Cyprian should speak in the Jesuits sense here; surely he speaketh nonsense in his bitter charges against Stephen, Cornelius his Successor, who received these schismatics, whose 〈◊〉 in former Pope's times could not have access thither 
l Cyprian. epist ad 〈◊〉 . Thirdly, Cyprian speaks elegantly in this place, as a rhetorician; not positively, but perswasively; at the Roman Soldiers, and the Spanish Navye were styled invincible, not because they were truly as they were styled; but that by a superlative and excessive praise, their carriage & valour might be lifted up, and increased, and you call your Popes generally blessed, not because they are, but because they should be so.  
For his other Citation out of Cyprian. The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled, she is unspotted and chaste 
m Reply pag. 67 . We acknowledge (as that Father saith) that the spouse of Christ is uncorrupt and chaste: but this proves not the Roman Church free from Heresies; neither that the same which you call Peter's Church shall in her succession enjoy that privilege. And what the Ancient meant, when they termed the Church uncorrupt, I told you before, and the same Father shall tell you again, that it is so styled in relation to what it shallbe▪ not what actually it is 
August count. Pelag. de n●●. & gra. cap. 63. Hoc agitur ●tique nunc in haec seculo, ut ad ●stam quam omnes sancti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puritatem Ecclesia sancta pervenina, quae in 〈◊〉 seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum sibi permixto, neque aliqua in se l●go 〈◊〉 resistente legi mentis dicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitam in 〈◊〉 divin●. .  
The next testimony is the learned Priest S. Hierome; but what saith this their supposed Cardinal? surely he is not so full mouthed as the counterfeit Popes. In his Epistle to Damasus thus he writeth: Apud vos solos incorrupt● Patrum servatur haereditus. With you only is the inheritance of the Fathers kept without corruption 
Reply pag. 6● . Which we believe; for which of ours taints the Roman Church, as an heretical Assembly in Damasus his days? yet when he was dead▪ your own witness styles Rome, BABYLON the PURPLE HARLOT, the Bishop and Clergy, the Pharisaical Senate 
p Hieron. ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spiritu Sancto Praefat. Cùm i● BABYLONE versarer, & PURPURATAE MERETRICIS essem colonus; volui aliquid garrire de Spiritu sancto, & coeptum opusculum ejusd●urbis Pontifici dedicate. Et ecce Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus, & nullus scriba vel doctus, sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio Doctrinarum adversus me imperitiae factio conjuravit— Damasus, qui me ad hoc opuspilu● impulerat, jam dormit 〈◊〉 Christo. .  
But to what purpose doth the jesuite urge the latter sentence, Know that the Roman faith commended by the mouth of the Apostle, cannot be deceived, yea though an Angel should teach otherwise then hath already been preached, yet ca● it not be changed, being defended by the authority of the Apostle S. Paul 
q Reply pag. 67. .  
Here we see it is Paul that defends the Roman saith; not Peter; And how doth Paul perform this, but by his Epistle, his doctrine? Now if Paul's Doctrine can defend the faith, that it cannot be changed, what will the Prophets and Apostles do altogether? This is a testimony for the Scriptures, not for the Pope. Paul anathematizeth 
* ●al. 1. 8. 9  all whose doctrine sounds against that delivered by himself, though Peter or his Vicar should define it 
Vincent. Lirinen div. prof. Novations. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 joannes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis Apostolorum 〈…〉. , but you will ●●ve no heretics or heresy before the definition of your Pope, no, not Arianisme itself 
Reply pag. 100L. 103. 104. . Yet if Paul befriend you, you are very ungrateful, that in your solemn sermons in ●●ly, have censured S. Paul for a ●ote headed person, who was so transported with his pangs of zeal and eagerness beyond all compass in most of his disputes: That there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions, yea he was dangerous to read ●● 〈◊〉 of coresie in some places, and bett●● perhaps he had never written 
t S. Edwind S●●ds his relation of the state of Religion, in the Western parts of the wo●●● . Pacianus bringeth up the rear, who in his first Epistle to the Heretic Sympro●●●● (saith the jesuite) speaking of the Catholic Church hath these words. When as after the Apostles divers Heresies did arise, and with different names did end avour to tear in pieces, and divide Christ his dove, and his queen or spouse, was it not reason that the true Apostolical Church should be called by her surname (of Catholic) thereby to discern, and distinguish her incorrupted unity: lest that Unspotted Virgin by other men's errors, and mistaking might be divided 
u Reply pag. 6● ? etc.  
What have we here for the unspotted Roman Church? Here is nothing to exempt her from present stains, or after pollutions. That there was a Catholic Church and not bespotted with the impurities of the ancient Heretics, who doth deny? yet this doth not prove Augustine over-shot in his retractation, or the jesuite justified in ●●● term.  
Now as if he had performed what he made us expect, ●e swells. Might not a man now be bold to be tried by the judgement of our Answerers own conscience, whether he had any reason to except against me for terming the 〈◊〉 Catholic Roman Church unspotted 
x Reply pag. ●● .  
And indiscreet man may be bold in an arm of flesh, a ●eed of Egypt, a broken tooth; but vainly and to his loss. The most learned Answerers Conscience may for any thing you have said, commiserate your confidence, not justify it; unless you would have him to be convicted with forged words and bare names.  
When as I have (saith the jesuite) this general warrant from the holy Fathers, and Doctors of this Primitive times for the same 
y Reply pag. 67 ?  
The most learned Answerer by excepting at your unspotted Church did not charge the ●niversall (built upon the rock confessed by Peter) with desperate Heresy. Particular members and Churches which have outwardly professed Christ, have fallen into Heresy, & so may Rome 
z Frauciscus Picus Theo. 13 juxta Theoso. gorumquotu●dam & juris Interpretum aliquorum dogmata fieri possetut Romana Ecclesia quae particularis Ecclesia est contra universalem distincta, infide aberraret. : but that the Catholic Church should forsake the foundation of faith, this he well knew would cross Christ's promise, and make the gates of Hell prevail against his Church. It would then be no rock upon which the Church was builded, but the sand, subject to wind & weather. The jesuite in his Challenge, did not style the ancient Catholic Church, (which he here termeth Roman) but the primitive Church of Rome, unspotted: & in this sense it is there acknowledged by himself, that the ancient Roman is by us confessed to be unspotted: so that what he hath produced for their Catholic exemption from Heresy, is nothing to his purpose. But he proceeds in his Oratory.  
The which being maturely pondered of thee (Christian Reader) thou mayest easily perceive how fare unlike our Answeters' Church is unto that of the primitive & confessed best times notwithstanding that he seemeth to claim so great affinity therewith. But wherein is this dissimilitude & unli●enes? In regard the Roman Church being head of all other Churches in earth etc. & thereupon rightly called the Universal or Catholic Church &c, is blessed with the prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of an unspotted faith etc. But our Adversaries Church (saith the jesuit) forasmuch as by them it is confessed to want this infallible rule of faith, & to be liable to error cannot with reason challenge unto itself the name of an unspotted Church, & therefore is rightly concluded to have no affinity, or alliance with the true ancient catholic Church at all 
a Reply pag. 67 and 68 , In answer to this, we have told the jesuit & truly, that the Roman Church is so far from being the head over all other churches, that (for all the jesuits proofs) if it were utterly destroyed, the Catholic Church would not fail. 2ly, that in no sense the Roman Church can be truly called Catholic or Universal. And here (Godwilling) I will show that no Church in the world hath been more besmeared with spots & stains even of misbelief, than the Roman in her succession. And if an heretical Pope can bespot the primitive church of Rome with heresy (which indeed we believe not) though Papists must not deny the same, it will appear that the Primitive Church of Rome was not blessed with the Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith.  
And first if we believe their own Rhenanus, Pope Zephsrinus was defiled with spots of misbelief, Montanizing; which is warranted by tertullian's testimony, that was well acquainted with the Favourers of Montanus 
b Bellarm. de Rom Pont. l. 4. c. 8.. Zepherinus Victoris successor, videtur haeresim Montani approbasse. Scribit enim Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam, Romanum Pontificem agnoscentem prophetias Montani, & ex eâ agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiae & Phrygiae inferentem, à Praxea fuisse persuasum, literas pacis revocare, quas jam emiserat. Constat autem ex historij● to tempore Zepherinum fuisse Romae Pontificem. Quare Rhenanus in annotationibus ad Tert●llianum ponit hoc loco in margin, Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. Neque dici potest eo tempore nondum fuisse damnatam ab Ecclesia haeresim Montani: Nam, ut ibidem Tertullianus dicit, Pra●eas persuasit Pontifici revocare literas pacis; eâ praecip●rè ratione, quia praedecessores ejus haeresim illam antea damnavissent. , neither hath Bellarmine any better shift to excuse this Pope, then by telling us, (as if a Montanist knew not a Montanist) that faith is not to be given to Tertullian 
c Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8. Respondeo, non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte, quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat. .  
Some hundred years after we find an other bespotted Pope, Marcellinus acknowledged for an Idolater by C●sterus 
d Costerus Enchirid. c. 3. p. 137. Fatemur, siquidem 〈◊〉 posse, ut Petri successor Idola eolat, (quod beatum Marcellinum fecisse aiunt.) , Bellarmine 
e Bellarm. recognit. l. de 〈◊〉 Pont. p. 20. Concessimus S. Marcellinum Idol●● sacri●●casse , and reported by a Council of their friends making, Sin●essa 
f Concil. Sinuessanum. Ecce introierunt testes 14. qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse (in temple Ve●ta & 〈◊〉) thu●ificantem. Ibid. In sinu autem trecenrorum Episcoporum caputeinere convolutum, Marcellinus Episcopus urbis Romae: voce clarâ 〈◊〉 dicebat: Peccavi coram vobis, & non possum in ordine sacerdotum esse, quoniam 〈◊〉 me corrupit auro. Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem, & damnaverunt ●●● ex●●● civitatem. , by Pope Nicholas the first 
g Nicholaus ● ad Michael. Imperator. Epist. ●. Tempore Dioclesiam & Maximiani Augustorum, Marcellinus Episcopus urbi● Romae,— adeo 〈◊〉 est à Paganis, ut in temp●●● eorum ingressus, grana thuris super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cujus nei gratia collecto numerosorum Concilio Episcoporum, & inquisitione facta, hoc se idem Pontifex egisse confessus est. , Platina 
h Platina de vita Marcellini. At 〈◊〉 Pontifex ad sacrificia gentium duct●● cum 〈◊〉 instarent carnifice●, ut thura dijs exhiberet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deos alienos adoravit.  & others. But it may be they will say, a Pope may have spots of Paganism, yet not of Heresy: but I think any man will conceive, that if the Pope may practise against all the points of Christian Faith, and turn Pagan, he may well turn Heretic, and plead against one, and then farewell the blessed Prerogative of an invincible perpetuity of unspotted faith.  
Not many years after Liberius was Pope, and although some desire to mince it, yet is it plain that he was an Arian Heretic, & subscribed to that heresy, as Athanasius 
i Athanasius in Epistola ad solimariam vitam agentes. Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est. , and S. Hierome 
k Hieronymus cattle Script. Eccles ●ortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romae urbis Episcopum— ad subscriptionem Haereseos compulit. Idem in Chronico. Liberius taedio victus exilij, & in haeteticam pratitatem subscriben●.  testify. Yea so public was the report hereof, even in our late ages, that many eminent Papists, as Cus●●●● 
l Nich. de Cusa. Candi●●al. l. 2 de Concord. Cathol. c 5. Et licet Liberius Papa tunc suit, qui ut scribit Augustinus contra Crescentium, Arianae sectae se subscripsit, licet resisteret in principio, & propter hoc in exilium missus esset, & habetur elegans disputatio Constan. ●ij Imperatoris, & Liberij, rediit autem de exilio Victus, & consensit errori, ut scribit▪ S. Hieronymus in Chronicis. , Platina 
m Platina de vita Liberij I Constantius Liberium ab exilio terocat qui Imperatoris beneficio motus ●●m haereticis in rebus omnibus (ut quidam vo●●nt) senticas. , Sabellicus 
n Anton. Sabellicus Ennead. 7. l. 8. c. 36. Hiprecibus suis apud Constantinum, in Felicis i● vidiam Liberio reditum ad urbem confecere: quo ille beneficio 〈◊〉 ex consesso Arianus, ut quidam scribunt, est factus. , and others, made no doubt from the testimony of antiquity, to charge him with it. Surely, if an Arian Head be no spot to Roman infallibility what will besmear it? These may fuisse to show their Popes in the ●est times not to have been without spots.  
And now if in the best times of the Roman Church when it was most pure, this pretended head was bespotted with heresy; how can we expect that he should be blessed with such a prerogative to be infallible to others? And indeed Experience hath confirmed our judgements herein. For in the seaventh age Honorius was a Monothelite, condemned by the judgement of three Counsels 
o Concil. VI Occume●icum. Act. 13. Concil. VII Occumenicum. Act. 7. Council VIII. Occumenicum. Act. 7. , his own Epistles witnessing against him 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epistolae Honoris ad Sergium, una in VI Synodo act. 12. altera ibidem Act. 13. ●●●●raque autem Honorius approbat doctrinam Sergij principis Monothelitarum, & jubet non debere dici Christum duas habere voluntates aut operationes.  & Pope Leo the second execrating him 
q Leo II. ad 〈◊〉 Imperatorem. Epist 2 Anathema●izamus novi erroris Inventor●s, id est Theodo●●● &c necnon & HONORIUM, qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed prophanâ proditione immaculatam fidem 〈◊〉 conatus est. .  
In the XIIth age Alphonsus de Castro affirms Celestine the III. no way to be excused of teaching Heresy, to wit▪ that Heresy so dissolves matrimony, that a party may marry again 
r Alphons. de Castro adv. haer l. 1▪ c. 4. Coelestinum Papam etiam errâsse circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta. .  
In the XIIIIth Age, john the XXIIth taught, that the Saints departed saw not God before the Resurrection 
s Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c 14. joannes XXII▪ Papa à multis reprehenditur, ac praessertim à Galielmo Ocam in opere ●●▪ dierum, & ab Adriano in quaestione de confirmatione, circa ●nem, quid docucrit animas beato ●um non visu●as Deum ante resurrectionem▪ Erasmus praefat one ad ad librum 5. Ire●aei idipsum cum additamento affirmat. .  
In the XVth Centurie, john the XXIIIth, denied the Resurrection and life eternal, and was accused of pertinaci● therein 
t Concil. Const●nti● self▪ ●●. See this at large before pag. 53: .  
Bellarmine telleth us, at that time there were three pretenders for the Papacy, so that it could not easily be discerned quis eorum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex, which of them was the true and lawful Pope 
u Bellat●n de Rom Po●●. l 4. c▪ 14. Erant enim co tempor●tres, qui Pontifices haberi volebant. Gregorius XII Benedictus XIII et joannes XXIII. nec poterat facilè indicaa●i, quis eorum ver●s ac legitimus esset Pontife●▪ cùm non decssent singulis doctissimi patroni▪ . So that it seemed the Council of Constance did not adhere to the Pope, nor the Pope to the faith.  
Now let the Reader judge, what great reason we have to be wail ourselves, that we want this pretended infallible rule of faith, which cannot rule itself, and free the adherents thereto from error: & how fare these Puritans are from the Catholic humility, that defend their stains; when the ancient Fathers & best men in their journeying towards heaven, did bewail their imperfect estate, & hungered for that righteousness and perfection that was to come. And what cause have we to blush that the particular Church of Ireland is liable to error, when the best particular Churches in the world never assumed a better Condition?  
But is the jesuits inference concludent here? because our Church is liable to error, therefore it cannot with reason challenge to itself the title of unspotted. Here is not so much as silly Sophistry, the Churches of Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi, in the Apostles days were liable to error, therefore bespotted? posse et esse are two distinct things. A jesuite may be a true subject but it doth not follow, therefore in an instant he forsakes his order. And a Pope may be a Saint, but who will think it necessary, that he will without delay forsake his tyrannical condition?  
The Church of Ireland may err in faith, yet it doth not follow, that it is now bespotted with heresy, or hereafter will be. So that it may have alliance and affinity with all true ancient Churches, true members of the Catholic, for any thing the jesuite hath yet produced. Yet as if the jesuite had dreamt all this while, and did now awake, he bolts out with a fantastic flourish.  
Let them take then (saith the jesuite) if they will, their erring Church unto themselves, but let them not withal deny us leave, to stick unto that Church, which by the testimony of venerable Antiquity, we find approved to remain ever free from all error▪ to that rock against which the power of hell shall never prevail▪ to that foundation which Christ hath settled by his promise▪ and made for ever  by his obtained Prayer 
Reply pag. 6● .  
How non-erring a Church your Roman hath been in her head is already declared: How infallible a rule of faith your Chief Pastor hath proved in the primitive times, venerable Antiquity by several examples hath detected: What a rock Peter's pretended Successors have been, when the devil was let lose to split (so fare as possible) the ship of the Church, hath not been left you untold: And who can believe that CHRIST his prayer for Peter's faith was effectual for the POPES, when against faith they day he desire to usurp his kingdom?  
This we Catholics (saith the jesuite) are exhorted to do by S. Cyrill saying. Let us remain as members in our head the Apostolic Throne of the Roman Bishops from whence it is our part to seek, what we ought to believe. This also all Protestants are advised to do by a Doctor of their own, who (as we heard before) telleth them, that they ought diligently to search out the spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth; & having found her, then setting aside all other questions, they ought to embrace her communion, follow her direction, and rest in her judgement 
y Reply pag. 6● .  
What Doctor Feild advised Protestants to do, hath been formerly declared: And for what Catholics are exhorted to do, he urgeth S. Cyrill, but from whence? From Aquin●s 
z Cyril. Alle●. in Thesauro alleged by S. Thomas in opusc. count. Graeco●. Reply pag. 6●.  who forged it. For Cyrill hath no such words: His Thesaurus hath no such filth: He neither consented unto, nor approved this tyranny. He was one of them that sent the Copy of the Council of Nice to curb these pretences before they got head. I wonder why the jesuite added not the like forgery of the Council of Chalcedon to the same end from the same Author! Here we may see that the best grounds he hath to prove their holy Father to be infallible, and the Roman Mother without spots, are but authorities taken from deceit.  
But leaving Doctor Feild formerly urged and answered, he presents us with these sentences of the Ancient, in which (saith he) as in a pure mirror, they may, if they list▪ espy their enor●ions disagreement from the truth 
Reply pag▪ 63 . And the first Ancient Father that he produceth, is Ireneus.  
All they that are in the Church of God, aught to obey▪ saith he, unto those Priests who have their succession from the Apostles, who together with the succession of their Bishopric▪ have received the assured grace of truth according to the good will of the heavenly Father. And we ought to have for suspected such as withdraw themselves from the like principal succession, and join themselves together in any other place; I say, we ought to hold them as heretics of a perverse judgement, or as schismatics & selfe-liking presumptuous fellows. And elsewhere (saith the jesuite) he declareth how such like heretics are to be con●●●ed & confounded according to the practice of his times, to wit, in the second age after Christ. We confound saith he, all those who gather otherwise then they ought, how? by that Church which is the chiefest, the most ancient & best known unto all men, which was established & grounded in Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, pointing forth that Tradition and faith which this Roman Church holdeth from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops, even▪ unto our days, After this manner also (saith the jesuite) did Tertullian trounce & wrest those Heretics whom he had to deal withal. Let them show unto us if they can, the original of their Churches: let them rip up the order of their Bishops in ●ue●●ort, that by a succession derived from the beginning, they prove their chief Bishop to have some one of the Apostles, or Apostolical men for his author and Predecessor: for by this means the Apostolical Churches do make up their accounts. And because the Heretics than were destitute of all such proof, as Tertullian exacted of them for the maintenance of their cause▪ even as our Adversaries (saith the jesuite) are as this day, He therefore bringeth in the Catholic Church upbraiding them, & with them all Protestants in this manner, Who ● Gods name are ye●? When & from whence came yo● hither? What do you amongst mine, being none of mine? By what right, O Martion, dost thou cut my ●ood? what leave hast ●h●●, O Valentine, to turn my streams & fountains another way? By what authority dost thou remove my bounds, O Apelles, O Luther, O Calvin, O Zui●glius, The possession is mine▪ I have it of old, I enjoyed it before you &c 
Reply pag▪ 69 and 70. ▪  
All that the jesuite hath produced from Iren●us & Tertullian, will make little for justifying his pretences, if the point be truly considered: For there is a bare personal succession, which may accompany a false Church, as it did the jewish when the Pharisees sa●e in Moses Chair, and the Churches of the East, when Heretics invaded the chairs of Catholic Bishops. Secondly, there is a Success●●● not only personal▪ of Bishops & Priests, but where the Catholic & Apostolical doctrine is continued also. The people, we say, where this is plain, are bound to receive the Doctrine from Timothy (every succeeding Bishop) as Timothy 
●. Tim▪ 1. 14.  from the Apostle that established and first published the same.  
Now whatsoever the jesuite hath brought from these Fathers, is no way advantageous for the Church of Rome: For first, we can show and have done, as good personal succession, as the Roman Bishops can claim any. Secondly, to this our orderly Succession, we can and have proved by comparison and consanguinity of Apostolical doctrine, that we are true and Apostolical Churches. Thirdly, the Roman certainty, upon which their Profelyres must depend, is no firmer by these Father's testimonies, than Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, Philippi, Germany, Spain, France, Egypt, Lybia, Thessalonica 
c Irenaeus pag. 140, 142. Disci te ab Apostoli cis Ecclesijs, Habetis Romae Linum— & Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edoctum. Tertull. Praeser. p. c. 37. Proximè est tibi Acha●, habes Corinthum. Si non longè es ● Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum, si autem Italiae adjaces, haqes Romam, unde nobis quoque authoritas praest ò est Rhenanus Argum. in Tert. de prescript. & alibi. Impress Basil. 1521. Tertullianus Ecclesiam unam Apostolicam nulla loco affigit: Romanum Ec lesiam ornat magnificae laudis elogio. non tamen tantam illam facit, quantum hodiè fieri videmus: nam Apostolicis Ecclesijs numerat, non ●ola● facit Apostolicam. Videmus quod lac, à Paulo Corinthij hauf●rint. Si superesset Tertullianus, non ●●punè illud diceret.  &c: which I think you will not defend from failing. Fourthly, we shall find, that the Doctrine did always honour the See; the Sees were no further esteemed, then because they gave true testimony to the Doctrine 
Zozomen. l. 7 c. ●. Eo autem declarabat (Thodosius Imperator) se velle ut illorum duntaxa● Ecclesia diceretur cathol. ca, qui Prinitatem divinam aequali honore colerent▪ qui diveriam sentirent cos haerotico● appellari, intestabiles esse, ●●supplicio affici● . May we not then from better grounds cry O FRANCIS, O DOMINICK, O IGNATIUS, than the jesuite, O Luther, O Calvin, O Zuinglius, and charge them for creepers into the Church without any personal or doctrinal succession either?  
What the jesuite further urgeth against the Protestants from Augustine, to prove the Romanists the only unspotted Church, is mere vanity.  
As for myself (saith Augustine) there be many things which make me to remain within this Catholic Church. First the uniform consent of people and nations; which (saith the jesuite) is not seen amongst Protestants 
e Reply pag. 70 .  
I am sure the Papists are not Catholics from the body of their Church, but from the Union with their Head, when in fundamentals the Protestants agree with all people and nations, not thereticall and D●●●tisticall, over the face of the earth.  
Secondly, a certain authority begun by miracles, such as the Protestants themselves (saith the jesuite) will swear they have none, nourished by hope, increased by charity, and strengthened by antiquity 
f Reply ibid. .  
It is true, we have no new Doctrine, and therefore we need not new miracles; but I hope the jesuite will not be so impudent to deny that the ancient and Apostolical Doctrine had miracles for confirmation, and that we adhere and depend upon the same.  
Thirdly, the succession of Priests even from S. Peter the Apostle, unto this present Bishop of Rome, which (saith the jesuite) I wish the Protestant Reader to observe well 
g Reply ibid.▪ .  
I pray the jesuite to consult with M. Mason, and either to justify us, or condemn themselves.  
Lastly, the very name of Catholic, which is so proper to this Church amongst so many Heresies, that howsoever all Heretics affect the name of Catholic, yet if a stranger chance to inquire in what place do the Catholick● meet together, no Heretic will dare to show hi● own Church or house 
Reply pag. 70 .  
First I desire the jesuit to consider what Augustine saith, that Heretics affect the name, & never any 〈◊〉 more than Papists, who are all but Donatists; of which none are found in the ancient succession of the Roman Bishops. Secondly, that although the title Catholic did point at the true Church in the Primitive times yet it was no otherwise then the titles of men did point out Heretics 
i Hieron▪ cont▪ Lu●ferianos prope fine●●. . Now if at this time many are called by the names of men, which the jesuit takes for Catholics, as Dominicans, Franciscans &c why may not many be called Catholics that truly are Heretics, as Jesuits and all Papalines?  
Besides names make not Heretics; Nestorians in name are not ever Nestorians in Doctrine 
k Onuphrius de vita julij III. Long maxima pars Christianorum, qui per Assiriam, Persiam, ac reliqu●● orientales provincias habitant appellantur Nestoriani. Ibid. Vero hi Nestoriani, nomen potius Nestorij haeretici, quam errores, retinuisse nihi videntur▪ Nam nihil pl●nè, quod illam sectam referat in his hominibus, qui hic adsunt compe●io. ; neither Papists Catholics; for howsoever they usurp the name, yet are they spotted and infected not only with errors of life, but with heresies and Apostafies also, as hath been plainly declared. What Theophilus speaks concerning the Church, we resist not, neither can the jesuite embrace it as enclosing any Prerogative for them.  
So that, all his labouring here, hath been to cloth Rome with the Catholic Privilege of exemption from Heresy, but with ill success, seeing it hath been declared filthy in manners, heretical in Doctrine, and Apostatical from the ancient purity wherein she appeared in the primitive times. And therefore the Jesuits Conclusion is nothing but the approbation of his Fantasy, which out of self-love is bestowed upon his enlarged endeavours.   

SECT: X.  
THe Tenth Section inquires. How uninely our Answerer claimeth kindred with the Primitive Church 
Reply pag. 72 ? ● the jesuite begins like a Bedlam or Frantic.  
Here our Answerer like Saul in his distress, runs upon his own weapon, and with Achitophel is strangled in a knot of his own twisting 
Reply ibid. .  
Jesuits (I confess) do not fall upon their own swords, but make others to fall by them. Yet they cannot deny, that some of them have been choked with halters, which they never twisted themselves, and meritoriously: But how fare the most learned Primate is from Saul, any man may see, when his learned answer hath made the jesuite to travail Vagabound, to compile and build up this frame, which he hath sent us.  
And whereas he assimulates him to Achitophel; I think he ought not from his strangling himself, but because he hath both saddled and bridled M. Malone, and rid him out of breath also. But any may espy to whom these things would best belong; whether to the jesuite, or to the Answerer: Qui enim appetit quod adipisci non potest, cruciatur 
Augustia. ●●●or. Eccl. c. ●. . The jesuite expected glory by his demand, but seeing his expectation frustrate, his reviling expresseth his torture, and pointeth out the desperate Saul, the amazed Achitophel.  
Now what is the chief ground that the jesuite produceth to manifest the vanity of the An●●rers claime● Surely a wise one, and from confession of the answerer.  
Forasmuch as claiming kindred with 〈◊〉 ann●●us Church of Rome, he yet confesseth (saith the 〈…〉 Church is indeed unlike unto her, having wasted away such spots, as impaired both the bounty and health too of that ancient Church 
Reply pag. 7● .  
And what hinders this, but the Church of Ireland might claim kindred with the ancient Roman? Why, he tells us.  
If the ancient Roman Church was the true Church and spouse of Christ, for 500 years (as he will ●o● deny) what may we think of his (I pray you) which he himself doth grant to be unlike unto the same 
Reply pag 72 ?  
Doth dissimilitude take away kindred? Brethren may be unlike, as jacob and Esau; Why not Sisters? It is sufficient to conclude a Prince of the house of Austria from the lip, although they much  in their other proportions. Hypocrates his twins were not (I think) in all parts so alike, as the jesuite would have particular Churches, and yet they were not without that Sympathy of Nature, to cry together, laugh together, and die together. Omne fimile est dissimile, or else they would be numerically the same, and therefore although there be some dissimilitude betwixt the ancient Roman Church, and that wherein the learned Answerer communicates, yet it is not in those things, that will cut off kindred or acquaintance either. But here (we see) the jesuite wresting and tugging to perfect this Argument, hath most falsely charged the Answerer with confession of that, which he doth but for Argument sake admit, as is plain by his own words.  
And therefore (saith the most reverend Primate) though we should admit that the ancient Church of Rome was somewhat impaired both in beauty and in health too (wherein we have no reason to be sorry, that we are unlike unto her) there is no necessity that hereupon presently she must cease to be our Sister 
f See the most reverend the Lord Primate his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge p. 22 ▪ so that we may easily perceive whose necks is taken in the halter, by his struggling and striving to get out thence.  
And if the jesuite will endure examination, I think he will not so justify the Roman Church for the first five hundred years, but that it had something practised in it, which other Churches did dislike. Neither doth this so fare deface it, as the jesuite would persuade: For what will he say of all those Churches in the Apocalypse? None d●re deny their spots, because God hath registered them: And if the jesuite be interrogated, whether the Roman then, as now, differs from them, in their Spots, I think he will affirm it, and yet account them true Churches also.  
Doth not this jesuite then abuse his Reader by his vain flourish, when he grounds it for an Argument, that we are no true Church, because we do in some particulars differ from a true one, to wit, the ancient Roman Surely this Argument would better fit the mouths of Atheists! Who doth not see, that Rome now in many things differeth from Rome ancient itself? For if Rome ancient were without spots, and you in all things like unto it. Why did your Counsels pretend reformation? Why did all goo● men call for Counsels? Why did your Doctors complain of the corrupt estate of the Church? Nay, why did your assemblies amend those things that were never amiss? But the jesuite suspecting the strength of this pretence, laboureth further to discredit the most learned Primate his answer.  
He seeks indeed to recover his head out of the halter (saith the jesuite) by telling us, that those things wherein his Church is unlike unto that of ancient time, are not of any such moment, but that he may for all that claim her for his Sister, though (poor soul) a disfigured and diseased one 
g Reply pag. ●● .  
Do you see, how skilful this jesuite is, to take his Metaphors from the Halter and the Hangman? In this my Answer shall be the admiration of his Rhetoric. But what produceth he to put by this defence? Why, as if he were making an Oration to his Novices, he cries out.  
To whom would not such babish conceits as these move laughter 
h Reply pag. 7● ?  
Is it possible that a jesuite can leave his fixos oculos, his complicatas manus, to prove ridiculum quid, upon so small provocation? Surely, he would never have answered so discreet an answer with derision, as you perceive he here doth, if he had had any thing else to have furnished his Reply withal. But let us see the grounds of his laughter.  
That Christ (forsooth) after all his promises to the contrary, should suffer his beloved spouse, even in those first ages to be so impaired as these men dream: that for so many Centuries of year's, he should abandon her lying in disgrace, and languishing in disease, until such time as a luxurious Apostata, arising from his sacrilegious bed, should come with his impure hands to wash away ●e● spots, or until such time as a branded Sodomite took in hand to play the Paracelsian, thereby to cure her malady 
i Reply pag. 7● .  
Here were matter of weeping rather then of laughter, if this charge were just: For who makes the Roman Church in the first ages to be abandoned by CHRIST, to be lying in disgrace, to be languishing in disease? Not the Answerer, but this jesuite out of his honesty hath invented it, because against the Answerers' words he hath no ground for exception.  
But I would know, whether the promises are made to the Church (quâ) Roman and not otherwise; whether he hath any other Arguments, then what are answered to prove it, and how it came to p●sse that there were invented Epistles and other proofs urged to declare this, besides the Scripture, when the institution is pretended to come from thence?  
Secondly, I desire to know, where he can find us (the church's of England and Ireland) acknowledging Luthe● ●● Calvin their dictates, any further than they are agreeable to the truth delivered by CHRIST and his Apostles; or whether we have depended upon them, or either of them for reformation?  
Thirdly, I desire the jesuite to certify, whether Luther were not a luxurious Friar; and how he can prove the Apostasy, which he brandeth him with, let him further declare?  
Fourthly, whether Bolsecke be not the best testmionie, that the jesuite hath to prove Calvin to have been a ●anded Sodomite, as without shame he blusheth not to traduce him? These things when the jesuite hath declared, we will confess he hath raved zealously; but for the present, we can but conceive this to be the effect of his received wounds which forceth his impatiency, that he cannot contain himself.  
But that which the jesuite supposeth will countenance his passion, is that the Fathers (whom he deservedly commendeth) in their best times are concluded hereby to have less understanding to know, or less grace, and courage to perform what was necessary for the washing and c●ring of God's Church, then certain tumultuous Upstarts 
k Reply pag. 7●  etc.  
I desire that you would confess ingenuously, whether you or ourselves give more honour to the Fathers: We that acknowledge them to be Counsellors appointed to the Church, to be pastors and doctors raised up by God to feed his people, and when they are met together in a Council or Consent, their sentence to be the greatest determination on earth, whose credit immediately follows the sacred page: Or you, that account the best of them whilst they lived (except the Roman Bishops themselves) but a Roman Delegate, that all of them when they ruled their Church could not teach the Church any point of doctrine but by the Pope's call and appointment, whose works you so esteem that you have made them companions but of bastard brood's, base births, and have professed in your practice to make them speak as you desire them, by falsE interpretation 
l See before Sect. ●. etc. .  
Secondly, I desire that the Vanity of this pretence might be seen: Is it any thing to the dishonour of the understanding grace or courage of the Fathers, that somethings were since amended, which were scarce espied in their times? How doth every Council disgrace the knowledge grace and courage of former Fathers and Bishops, if the amending of things amiss might conclude the same 
m Augustin. ●, ●apt. con. Donat. c. 3. Ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posteriorib●● eme●dari, sine 〈◊〉 typho sacrilegae superbi● sine ●lla in●●●t●cervice arrogantiae, fine ulla co●●entione lividae invidi●— cum ●●●e catholic cum charitate 〈◊〉 ? Have not some of your brothers found out new thoughts concerning the blessed Virgin's conception, which will take away the harsh doctrine of the Fathers and Catholics of former times? Shall we think that these tumultuous upstarts have therefore more knowledge grace or courage, than those ancient Fathers, the whole Catholic Church?  
Little honour was given to the Roman See before the Council of Nice 
Aeneas Sylu. epist. 301. , must we conclude that your after Doctors had more knowledge, grace or courage, than the Apostles and Fathers before that Council, because they have washed and cured GOD'S Church of so notorious an error? I see the jesuite is of the Cardinalis 
Matthee Langi. Archbishop of Salzburg. Hist. con. Trigen l. 1.  mind, that did think the Church should be reform, but not by a Monk.  
But they are Popish thoughts to have the reformation or government of the Church to depend upon men. We have a Rule left by CHRIST, which as it is the rule to govern, so to reform, what by fraud or neglect hath crept into the Church amiss. We acknowledge, GOD hath many instruments in the Church, but that which worketh reformation is the word of God, and although the Instrument may have honour for the works sake, yet it is the word, not the instrument, that effects the reformation. Why the jesuite should term those learned men, tumultuous upstarts, I cannot guess; for I am sure they were as ancient as there Order; and for tumultuous practices, who dare compare with Jesuits for grand supplanters.  
Whereas the jesuite thinks to vilify them by his heap of invectives; they will appear true friends to the Catholic Church by grave and  discourses pleading her cause and contesting for her right. And I would know whether they have sinned in being impatient of the Church's sufferings any more than the Counsels of Basill and Connstance, who grieved to see a Saracens head, upon the Church's shoulders, and therefore declared the Church's rights and the Pope's usurpations, condemning him with his foolish pretences 
p Council▪ Constane▪ Sess▪ 4. & 10. Concil. Basil. sess▪ 12. & 33. Veritas de potestate concilij generalis universalem Ecclesiam repraesentantis supra Papam & que●libet alterum, declarata per constantiense & hoc Basileense generalia Concilia, est veritas fidei Catholicae▪— veritatibus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans est confendus Haereticus. ; Wherefore the jesuite might have left this passion, as being grounded upon distemper and fury, and have taken his rabblement to himself and his, to whom truly it belongs.  
But this jesuite will speak nothing without demonstration, and therefore will show ours to be a deforming, rather than a reforming humour 
q Reply pag▪ 73 ▪ and this he would prove because, First of all the prime stirrer of this stone Martin Luther, had the gift to see in his omne days such comfortable success herein as was answerable to his labours 
r Reply 〈◊〉 .  
What was that? The shaking off the Roman Triple▪ The emptying of the Friar's bellies? The restraining of the Clergies luxury? No▪ but from the time the pure Gospel was first restored and brought to light, the world hath every day become worse and worse 
s Reply pag▪ 73. .  
We acknowledge, that Luther and others complained of the disorders of men that communicated with them; but will the jesuite conclude that these were occasioned by bringing in the doctrine of CHRIST? Were the Preachers of the Gospel filled with a deforming, rather than a reforming humour, because they could not tolerate stews and profaneness where they preached, but did inveigh with bitterness against them? If there were a jesuite that had so much devotion, as to reproach the sins of the Roman Court, or Italy, with Luther's courage, and should upbrayde them with neglect of the Clergies example, the Pope's holiness, and the lamp of divine light that proceeds from him, and should cry out that Sodom and Gomorrha never abounded with sin and Sodomy, as Italy, (notwithstanding their helps of devotion) doth at this present, or since Peter placed his seat there; Should he therefore confess, that Peter planting his seat there, should be the cause of those filthy sins and Sodomies? or that the Clergies lives, Papal holiness and determinations did bring profaneness into those states and countries? Absit.  
The Apostle saith of the Corinthians (after they had received the Gospel) that there was such fornication amongst them, as was not once named amongst the Gentiles 
* 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 : Must it follow, that this is to be imputed to the Christian religion? No, this makes the offence the greater, it doth no way cause it, and this is the meaning of Luther, and most of the others cited.  
The word of God is compared to light in Scripture 
* II. Peter▪ 1. 19 , the light whereof might declare more to Luther a Preacher abroad, then when he remained dark and lazy in his Cloister at home. And we think that Luther might deceive himself in this particular, for not distinguishing betwixt an evil and the detection thereof. The Pharisees hypocrisies were not thought such before CHRIST'S time; His revealing of them brought them not in. Luther espied more mischief abroad, when he veiwed men's actions by the light of the word, than he could before by a Roman Glow-worm, and this might make him think the world worse, when his eyes had more light, and his medium was more clear.  
When Grace entereth into a man's heart, he trembles at every thought of uncleanness, that before the receipt thereof (in regard of blindness) could not see the odiousness of the filthiest crimes. And man, as he cannot esteem virtue but by this light of grace, so he cannot apprehend the foulness of sin. So that Luther might get fruit by his preaching, though he was bold to say of some that pretended to follow him, They are and remain swine: they believe like swine, and like swine they die 
Reply pag. 73 .  
But doth M. Malone urge this for the credit of the swineherd, or the Swine? For the harlot, or her lovers? Poor Luther, because the Swine that Rome had bred in filthiness, would not leave their swinish condition for his preaching against their swynishnesse, this is the thing he bewails. And what great hurt comes thereby to Luther's cause, or the cause of Religion, whose complaints may be paralleled by the Prophets 
* 〈◊〉 49▪ 4.  and Apostles themselves.  
And here to satisfy the Reader, I would have him to observe some things fit to be taken notice of, and it will overthrow all that building which the jesuite hopes to erect by his collected Invectives.  
First, that the learned Divines in general in reformed Churches (by the ancient Father's example●) do from their heart detest the pollutions and corruptions of the world, insomuch that they cannot treat of them but with detestation, denying all honour to them, (though their own by communion) that live not after the purity of the doctrine of their profession; which we cannot find among the Papists, they commending sin 
Baron. a●▪ 1100. n. 14. De 〈◊〉 ●●li● Imperatoris. Quis negare poterit summum fuisse hoc pietatis genus in hoc se exhibuisse crudelem? Immo ex ●● quod non firmioribus vinculis strinxerit, etc. nihil habes in quo damns fili●●, magis quam si vehementi febre phrenetico, delirenti, infanienti, furentique, pius fi●●●s in●iciat vincula patri, ●verè intuitu, pietatis, ut facere prae se tulit, ea omnia praestitit , collerating uncleanness 
x Espenc●●us in Epast ad Titum c. 1. p. 67. Prostat & in quaestu pro meretrice sedet, liber palam ac publicê hic impressus, & hodicque ut olim venalis, Taxa Camorae seu Canceilariae Apostolicae inscriptus, in quo plus scelerum diseas licet, quam in omnibus omnium vitiorum summistis et summarijs, et plurimis quidem licenti●, omnibus autem absolutio ●●pturientibus proposita. , protecting abominable wretches, as lately in the Venetian State 
y Historia Interdicti Vencti▪ lib▪ 1. p. 7, 8. ● Reply p. 74▪ ; and if any hath either declaimed against, or abhorred the base lives of their Clergy, (which is but seldom) they have been suspected as no good Catholics for the same.  
Again, we by his testimonies may see, that Reformed Churches by doctrine or connivency, do not tolerate those evils which they declaim against, (as the Papists do) whereby it can cast no impeachment upon their doctrine.  
Thirdly, the cause of these evils is declared by jacobus Andr●● to be, because the severe discipline of the Church hath been formerly disgraced by Conscience-tyrannie, and oppression in the Roman Churchy, so that there is no correction of sin, but the People fear a Papal tyranny.  
Fourthly, the jesuite hath taken advantage of some points in controversy betwixt those that they style Lutherans and Calvinists, making use of either's passions, to disgrace the good life and sincerity of both.  
Now for his charge of Atheism, I fear we have cause to suspect there are some amongst us, I mean in our Kingdoms: All do not believe the Gospel, and the Ministers of Satan have their work herein. But that which the jesuite would lay to our charge, may be seen in every corner of Italy. We have not nourished one Machiavelli that the jesuite can produce, nor one john that denied the immortality of the soul: He hath not espied one amongst us that hath called the Gospel, Fabulam de Christ●: Yet if there be any such, as from the lose conversation of some may be suspected, I am sure they play their part in secret, as the fool in the Psalmist, that said in his heart, There is no God 
* Psal. 24. 1. .  
These things duly considered and weighed, may show, that the Reformation doth more detest and abhor sin, then give any encouragement unto it. Besides we see, that the exclamation against sin, is no argument that sin is in the bud and flourish, but in her ruin and decay. So that all the jesuite can say from these testimonies, is this, that as those pious men assaulted the Kingdom of Antichrist, by the opposal of such corruptions of Doctrine, as did get footing in their schism of Rome, so did they labour afterwards to extirpate and root out those fruits of Idolatry and Superstition, wicked life, open profaneness, and all kind of filthy and notorious demeanour.  
But if we should grant all to be true which the jesuite urgeth, he argueth vainly in labouring to disgrace the profession of the Gospel, because some of their Communion, are of dissolute lives: For if this Argument were good, we should quickly make Rome the Synagogue of Satan, far from the Church of God.  
For how many have showed the chief Pilots in your Church to have been in many successions, the most notorious wicked wretches that ever the earth did bear; some of them forsaking S. Peter's ways 
a P●a●●●a in vit. johan▪ X▪ Pontifices ipsi à Petri ve●tigijs discess●runt. , others being monsters and unnatural 
b Idem in vita Benedicti 4. Vbi cum ipsis opibus lasci●ire coepit Ecclesia Dei, versis ejus cu●toribus à severitate ad las●iviam, peperit nobis tanta licentia peccandi▪ haec portenta; à quibus ambitione & largitione sanctis●ma Petri sedes occupata est potius quam possess●. Idem in vit. Christopher. 1. Pon●●fices tanquam monstra quaedam è medio Deus sustulit. Idem in vit. Sergij III. Vide quaeso quantum isti degeneraverint à majoribus s●●s. , yea prodigionsly wicked 
c Geneb. Chron l. 4 Nihil mirum si isti Pontifices prodigiosi essent. , Sylvester the second giving himself to the Devil 
d Platina in vita Sylvestri II. Diabolum secutus, curse totum tradiderat. , and doing him homage 
Martinus Polon. ann. 1007. Sylvester II.— diabolo homagium fecit, ut sibi omnia ad votum succederent. . john the XIIIth abounded in all wickedness 
f See before pag. 107. , no Catiline, Nero or Heliogabalus like unto him, so that if he was not a baptised Turk, yet he was worse in the judgement of your own, for he died of a wound given him by the Devil in the act of adultery, as your own report it 
g Luitprand. Tiein. l. 6. c. 11. Dum se cum c●jusdam viri ux●●● oble●●●ret, in temporibus adeò ● Diabolo est percussus, ut intra dierum oct● spatium ●odem sit vulnere mortuus. . What was Boniface the seaventh, but a Villain, a Churchrobber, a Thief, a murderer of two Popes, as good as Sylla and Catiline; I rail not, it is Baronius his Rhetoric 
h Baron. ann. 985. n. 1. Au●umerandum potius interfam●▪ sos latrones, et potentissimos grass●tores atque patriae perditores, Sulla's et Cat●linas, ●o●umque similes, quos omnes superavit sacrilegus iste turpissima ●ec● duorum Pontificum . Besides, Alexander the VI what virtues, what holiness did he shine with? I will speak no more of them, as having showed what they were before.  
But for your Cardinals, what holiness was enclosed in their purple habits? They were Pride itself, and acted it, yea the most excellent exemplars to paint it by; By their Wickedness, horrible schism was brought into the Church. And for the unmeasurable and bottomless gulf of their covetous desire, who can by words sufficiently express it, besides their Simoniacal intercessions to the Pope, their selling of their favours for money, their most shameful and damnable ●orruptions, the adulteries, wheredomes, and fornications wherewith they defiled the Court of Rome, and usury in the highest degree 
i N●ch. Cle●●●ng. in lib de corrupto Ecclesiae stam c. 10. Cardinalium qui Papae assident spiritus, verba tumen●ia, gestus tam sunt insolent●s, ut si a●tifex quisque vellet superbiae simulach●um effingere, nullâ congruentius tati●●●id facere ●osset, quam Cardinalis effigi●● oculis in●●●●i●m objecta●●o. Idem c. 12. Quis ●esci●●▪ ●ctionis schismatics horrend am p●●●●m per nequitiam Cardi●alium in Ecclesiae gr●mium injectam etc. Idem c. t●. Quis immensam & i●●●t●icabi●em voraginem ip●orum concupiscenti● ver bis ●quare valeat etc. Idem c. 12. Trans●o Simoniacal a●●d Papa● intercessione●; patrocinia ve●alia; corruptiones aut promotione●●●●pis●im●● & damna●is●●●s, quae omnes ferè istis auctoribus & suasoribus ●i●bant etc. Ne● enum●rare volo c●rum adulteria, flupra, ●o●●ic●●●ones, quibus Romanam Curi●●●●●am nu●● inc●●●ant, etc. Ne● refero usuras, etc. quâ ex causa n●●mulario● supreme 〈…〉 non incongru●n●er ●o● quidam vocant. ?  
And for their Clergy, how are they esteemed amongst themselves? Aventine terms them in his time great wolves, lustful per sons, adulterers, ravishers of Virgins and Nuns, theives and Usurpers, Drones, lecherous, perfidious, perjured, ignorant asses, wolves hypocrites 
k Ave●ini● l. 6. Annal. 〈◊〉. Cu● O●i●●●ap●o●, ●i●●●●, lu●●●, li●idino●os, adulteros, virginum, sacrat●rum foeminarum ●●upra 〈…〉, cocos●●●li●●●s, latro●●●, arge●tario●▪ num●x●●rio●, ●ucos, pecuniarum aucupes, ●u●●●●●ditos pe●●●do●, 〈◊〉, literarum omnium penitus rudes imponi●. Non audita loquo●▪ ●● quae ●is●e oculis video, narro.  etc. Albertus expresseth the rulers of the Church, by the messengers of Antichrist, supplanters of the flock of CHRIST 
l Albertus' in Evangel. johan. c. 10, . And how long they have continued this good opinion amongst all men, the complaints and grief of men that have had any modesty in several ages, will declare 
m Honouring A●gust Dial. de praedest & lib. Arbit Verte te ad Cives Babyloniae, & vide quales sint, etc. Alvares Pelagi●s de plan●●● Ecclesiae. Nic. 〈◊〉 de co●●●pto Ecclesi● 〈◊〉 Ne●●●● Ber●●●d●● & alij. .  
Neither doth this age minister unto us any hope that their Doctrine is now of better efficacy, though the Papacy be honoured with more glorious titles then ever it was before; in regard they do not (as Luther is by them pretended to have done) term only some dissolure persons swine, but all their Clergy and Laiety also; for so our Irish Regulars would have the Irish Bishops to be swineherds, & their flock swine, this being their argument to prove the Provincials of the Regulars to be greater Prelate's then the Bishops, because the Pastor is known by his flock, & Opilio dig●ior est s●b●●c●, A shepherd is better than a s●y●eheard 
n Consu●a ●●●i●ien. Pro●●●● Superiores Regularium digniores s●nt Episcopis, siquidem dig●●tas Pastoris petenda est ex condition● 〈◊〉 gregi●, quemadmodum ●●i●●o dignior ●●▪ ●●bul●o. ▪  
So that if the jesuite make looseness of conversation in some particulars, an Argument against the truth of Religion and doctrine in the reformation, and would thereby take away our kindred with the Primitive Church: What may we conclude from the universal leprosy that hath by their own confession overgrown both head and members throughout the Papacy? But i● this manner of arguing from corrupt manners to corrupt doctrines be of small force, as is acknowledged by themselves, in so much that no inward Virtue in Bellarmine's judgement, is required to make one a part of the true Church 
o Bellarm. de Eccles. mili●●●●● l. 3. c. 3.  aliquis aliqu● modo dici possit pars ve●● Ecclesiae, de qua Scriptur●● loqu●n●●r ●on ●●ta●●●s, requiri ullam internam virt●●e●. . Yet I am sure it is able to moderate this Vaunter from triumphing like the Pharisee, God I thank thee, I am not like other men 
Luke ●8. 9 .  
But here our Answerer domandeth of me (saith the jesuite) whether I be able to show one point, wherein they have broken that Harmony which Irenics commendeth in the Catholic Church of his time? I answer, that I can very easily show it, and make good withal what I said in my demand, and 〈◊〉 which he keepeth such a vain stir, to wit, that the protestants agreewith that ancient holy Church in very few points of Religion, or rather, to say better, that they agree not in any one point at all 
p Reply pag. 76 .  
How well able the jesuite is or hath been to make good wha● he said in his demand, willbe examined in the XIth Section. Here we expect what point of Doctrine he ●an find out, held by us, wherein it will appear that we vary from that Harmony which Irenaeus commendeth in the Catholic Church of his time. And for his orderly ●andling of this matter, he puts down Irenaeus his words as his Major Proposition. That Church which is spread throughout the whole World, presenteth her faith, as ●● were dwelling in one house, and likewise beleiveth as it were, having on soul and one heart, and uniformly preacheth, teacheth, and delivereth this faith amongst all nations, having as it were one mouth 
q Reply Ibid. .  
And now as if this repetition were our confusion, he telleth us, Our Adversaries neither have nor believe any such Church, therefore they keep no such Harmony.  
The Minor he is willing to prove by a twofold Medi●m: First, by what hath been heretofore produced by him concerning our disagreement, which I hope the Reader hath observed, will not serve his turn. Secondly, by a fare greater dissension which happeneth (saith the jesuite) betwixt them and those Protestants, with whom they pretend this Harmony in other Nations 
r Reply ibid. . So that it seems the jesuite will first attempt to prove, that we be not of that Church which keepeth Irenaeus his harmony, and that he will reserve unto the last place the point he should prove, to wit, that we deny the Catholic Church.  
His best argument to manifest the first, is the testimonies of some Lutherans, Brownists, and Puritans, who disclaim and discard our Answerer and his Church (as the jesuite tells us) from all this pretended harmony and agreement with him 
s Reply Ibid. . And we say (if they charge us so deeply as the jesuite affirms) that this is not sufficient to prove his undertake, seeing that Doctor Stapleton denies the Fathers (and especially S. Hiero●e) the privilege of testimony, when they writ contentiously and with passion 
Stapleton ●rinc. Doctrinal l. 67. Distinctio de his 〈◊〉 à p●●●ibus 〈◊〉, & ●●ae co●tentio ● scribuntur in verbis Hiero 〈◊〉 locum 〈◊〉. ▪ and therefore these rigid Lutherans, (though they befriend a jesuite) cannot in their disputes be allowed an infallible privilege.  
Besides these Lutherans which the jesuite urgeth, (if their words be, as he layeth them down, for I cannot come by their books) do speak without ground; for the controversies betwixt the Lutherans and the Calvinists (as they term us) are but like a coal (as Sr Edwin Sands well observeth) which a wise man with a little moisture of his mouth might soon have quenched, although their ministers with the wind of others have contrariwise inflamed the same 
Sr Edwin Sands his Relation. 〈…〉 . Neither doth it make against the peace of the Church in faith, that some have rashly and passionately urged our differences against the judgement of their more moderate and well advised brethren, who account no otherwise of the Calvinists, then of erring brethren 
Ibid. .  
And further, the jesuite cannot manifest, that the points wherewith the Lutherans are offended, be in their own nature of the essence of faith, which he must do before he can prove us to be no Church, the quarrels mentioned by the jesuite, arising not from disunion of faith in the foundation, but from some dislikes and jealousies, which some indiscreet persons amongst them entertain in points fare remote, and therefore their rash censure can condemn us no more than the Pope's Bulla c●na, unless we condemn ourselves by denying some part of the foundation of ●aith.  
For the Brownists; They condemn us, & with us the Catholic Church by their schism, and we also condemn them, as the ancient Fathers did all the factious schismatics in their ages: But doth this make us no true members of the Catholic Church? Is our candlestick removed, because an heard of schismatics bark against us? Did your Marrani, baptised jews and Moors 
y S ● Edw. 〈◊〉 his Relat. 〈◊〉 44. , make Spain non-catholick? Or did the Illuminati in Arragon, the brood of your hypocritical Priests, by their pretences of Angelical purity 
z Ibid. , banish that Church from the kingdom of grace? This is neither Sophistry nor Logic.  
For the words that he citeth from the Puritans: No man can deny but they are the fruit of distemper & disobedience, yet unable to drag with the jesuite the conclusion which he aimeth at, for their dissension is not in fundamentals nay it is so far from the foundation, that it is no way doctrinal This you● Turneabout Spalleto, when he was in England perceived & told it his brother Suares 
a Spal. con. Suar. c. ● 〈◊〉 30. 〈◊〉 qui vocantu●. circa articu●●s fidei non dissentiunt, sed circa 〈◊〉, & externam Ecclesia●●icam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , though afterwards he f●am●d them a lying Catalogue 
b 〈◊〉 ●●. p. ●5. ▪  
But it may be the jesuite will bettet perceive the weakness of his Argument. If we use the strength thereof against himself. If I should bring (before Sixtus the fourth his time) the Franciscans and Dominicans bandying Heresy at each others Cloister, damning and condemning each other of heresy, not by words alone, but in writ also ᶜ; will the jesuite conclude that the Roman Church is 
ᵒ Sixt. IU. Decret, de Concep. Virg, Matiae.  heretical, and keeps not Irenaus his harmony? Surely if the Pillars be rotten, the roof is not safe. Besides, if the Franciscans and Dominicans did see those fierce gladiat●res, the Jesuits and Seculars in England, fight their late combat; the Jesuits terming the Seculars, Calumniator●, factious, turbulent, seditious, scandalous, authors of schism, rebels, betrayers of the Catholic cause 
d Parson▪ Apolog. , and the Seculars returning to them terms of schismatics, Donatists, Anabaptists, Arians, with detection of their Counsels & Stratagems to be heathenis●●, tyrannical, Atheistical, Sa●nicall, to make them like Lucian and Machiavelli, and for impiety and Atheism to overcome Lucifer himself 
Watson. Quods. . Would they use the Jesuits Logic, and confess that the Catholic Church is not Roman, and that Irenaus his harmony cannot be found there?  
But let all the world view the Devil fight with the Lamb, anno 1255, or 56. when the Friars published their eternal Gospel, and the Pope partaked with them! If the jesuite can find amongst all the Heretics that have ever troubled the Church, such an essential and fundamental dissension, let him swell, swagger, and display Ignatius for ever: for here we find Friars more perfect contemplatives than Christ and his Apostles 
f Henry. Exphurd. Chron. c. 93. Eymeric. Director. Inquisitor. part 2. quaest 9 §. 4. 〈◊〉 errores 4. libri. 2. partis tractat 2. I▪ Quod Christus & Sancti Apostoli ejuse, non fuerunt perfecti in vita contemplantium. ● Quod activa vi●a usqu● ad tempus Abbatis joachim fr●ctuosa fuit: sed 〈◊〉 no● est: contemplative verò vita ab ipso joachim fructificarc coepit, etamodò in perfect ● successoribus●psius perfecti●● manebit. , of more dignity and authority than the Apostles 
g Ibid. inter errores ● libri ejusdem partis, in tractatu de Ioseph et 〈◊〉, cui somnium apparuit invenitur. Quod prae di●a ●ores qui erant in ultimo statu mundi, erunt dignitatis et auctoritatis majoris, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostoli. , the Gospel of CHRIST disgraced as less excellent, if compared to their eternal Gospel 
h Ibid. inter errores primae partis, Primus est, quod Evangelium aeternum (quod idem est quod doctrina Abbatis joachim) excellit doctrinam Christi. ; that it must vanish 
i Ibid 3. Quod novum Testamentum est evacuandum. , and another in succession follow it 
k Ibid. 6. Quod Evangelio Christi aliud Evangelium succedet. ; that it brings none to perfection 
l Ibid. inte● errores 2. libri, partis 2. I. Quod Evangelium Christi ●eminem perducit ad perfectum. , that the Preisthood of CHRIST (is not for ever after the order of Melchisedecke) but must have an other Priesthood to succeed it 
m Ibid. intet errores 1. partis 6. Quod sacerdotio Christi aliud sacerdo●ium succedet. . These desperate blasphemies, besides other impieties as opposite to the doctrine of CHRIST as the Turkish Alcoran, being resisted by the Doctors of Paris; What merited these Champions of CHRIST at his Vicar's hand? They were accounted malicious, the Friar's innocent 
n Extravag. Papae Alexandr. ex speculo minorum tractat. 1. fol. 10. b. edit. Rothomagi anno 1509. & Firmamento trium Ordi●um Francisci. part. 2. tractat. 2. fol. 62. a. edit. Paris. an. 1512. Cogitaverunt nuper malitiam (magistri Paris.) & contra innocentes & rectos (fcil. Fratres Praedicatores) iniquitatem maximam sunt locuti. : they rebels, the Friars, the beloved sons of the mother Church 
o Ibid. Surgentes adversus Fratres detraxerunt, & contra dilectos matris Ecclesiae filios scandalum posuere. ? their defence of CHRIST and his Gospel a pernicious and detestable libel 
p Ibid. Prodiere, inquam, & in prava commen●a ex nimio calore animi proruperunt, libellum quendam valde perniciosum & detestabilem temere componentes. , the Friar's excellent instruments working many spiritual proficien●es and fruit in the Church 
q Ibid. In ipso quaedam perversa & reproba— contra co● qui 〈◊〉 animarum zelantes ardenter & sacris studijs procurantes, multos in Ecclesia Dei operantur spirituales profectus & magnum faciant ibi fructum. , their books burnt 
r Ibid Di●●icte praecipientes, ut quicunque libellum ipsum habuerit cum— prorsus & in toto & in qualibe● sui parte comburere & abolere procuret. , the Friars preserved from the flame; the Friars made inquisitors of heresies 
s Bulla Alexandri iv inter litter. Pon●i●●c. pro officio Inquisit. à ●●. Peg●à edit. Rom. an. 1585. pag. 5051. Alexander Episcopus servus servorum Dei, Dilectis filijs universis fratribus, Praedicatorum & Minorum ordinum Inquisitoribus ●aereticae pravitatis etc. Praesentium vobis auctoritate mandamus, 〈◊〉 in modem negoti● de divino e● Apostolico favore confisi, omnj human● tractare deposito, constanter ac ●ntrepide procedentes, cirea extirpandam haereticam pravitatem— c●m omni vigilanti● omnique ●●●dio laboretis. Prateol. de haer. in Guile●. de S. A●●●e, Gault. sec. 13. ; these censured as forsaking the faith; I will not for all this say, that there were no members of CHRIST in the Church of Rome, yet I dare say, that all these Factionists, against the Person, Gospel, & Preisthood of CHRIST were members of the Devil.  
Neither is Dissension at this day such a fugitive from the Roman Church, as the jesuite would have us to believe. The Regulars of Ireland yesterday would excommunicate the Seculars out of the Hierarchy, and prefer their Prelates before their Bishops, for this reason, because their Bishops are Subulci, Swyneheards; their flocks swine 
Censura Paris. Propos. 2. Sacerdotes sunt meri saeculares. Ibid. Propos. ●. Superiores Regularium digniores sunt Episcopis, siquidem dignitas Pastoris peten da est ex conditione sui gregis, quemadmodum opilio dignior est subulco. . The Sorbonists that cry loudest in this Herd, make the Regulars (as hath been before related) in their positions to be schismatical, inept, heretical 
* See before pag. 136.  etc.  
Now we may see what reason the jesuite hath to use his interlineall glosses, or to demand, with what reason the Answerer pretends harmony in Religion 
u Reply pag. 79 , seeing it is apparent, that the quarrels of Protestants are but in ceremonies, or at worst, in points of no absolute consequence: & that their differences are in matters that concern the life of Religion, unless they think the Church may subsist without CHRIST, his Gospel, or his Preisthood. We may complain with joseph, that our brethren (or those which should be so) are too hard hearted, that will offer to cast us into the pit of Death and Heresy for such petty and small differences, that being scanned with charity, would not appear to be material: when as your Variances (Mr Malone) would burst into schism, nisi ignis & securis in officio contineret 
x Spal. contra Suar. c. x. nu. 30 Schisma proculdubiò facerent etiam nostrae Romanen●●umsectae, modo à me nominatae, nisi illos ignis & securis in officio contineret. , unless your Peacemonger tied you to Unity by the faggot and the hangman. So that his declamation out of Chrysostome doth torture himself, not punish us; for who barely seems to have CHRIST, but the Principal of Papists? And what Alcoran denies him more than their eternal Gospel? Who mixeth the Gospel with decrees of men? Have they forgot them who will have traditions to be received with the Scriptures, pari pietatis affectu 
y Conc. Triden. sess. 4. Omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti neenon Tradiones ipsas▪ pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiá suscipit ●c veneratur. ? Are they not at Trent and Rome? And therefore we condemn you not, because you are at odds with Heretics, but because you are at peace with Hell and contention against the Faith.  
But although the jesuite hath failed in his first attempt to make our dissensions such as either drive us from the Church, or the Church from us; yet he ceaseth not, but proceeds to manifest, that the most learned Answerer in his Sermon at Wansted, did seek to shake off the palpable badge and cause of discord from himself, by laying all upon the Pope, and his universal superiority, as may appear (saith the jesuite) by his words. Neither indeed is there any hope that we shall see a general peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian World, as long as this supercilious Master (the Pope) shall be suffered to keep this rule in God's house. But is not this (saith the jesuite) just as if malefactors should give out, that they can never live in quiet peace whilst justice beareth sway? Or yet, as if the damned spirits should complain, that they can never find rest▪ in Hell, while God in Heaven beareth rule 
z Reply pag ●0 .  
It is just as like, as the Pope is either like to God or justice; It is true (as I have showed before) that the Devil is something less ambitious than the Pope▪ For if the Scripture do point out that wicked one, he would be but similis altissimo, like unto the most High, yet the Pope doth so fare disdain to be like GOD, that he must be GOD himself; No sooner Pope, but he must be placed upon the Altur, and be worshipped, lib. 1. ceremon. sect. 1. pag. 16 
a Bis super altare collocatur cum mitra, ibi. que adoratur. . If in the Chair, who governs but a Celestial Prince 
b Carer. de potest. Rom. Pon. 2. c. 24. n. 19 Hâc itaque in re Itali maximè se divino m●nere extollant super omnes nationes quod habuerintprin▪ cipem coelestem Pontificem scil. Romanum. ? Talk of his power, it is Omnipotent 
c Theses Pauli 3. Dicat● Vicedeum Christian● reipublicae Monarcham invictissimum et pontificiae omnipotentiae conservatorem acerrimum. , His Act the act of GOD 
d Panor. in cap inter corpcralia de trans. Episc. . His Tribunal one with God 
e Hostiens de trans. Episc c. quanto. n. 11. : from whom there is no Appeal to GOD 
f Aug Triumph. quae●●. 6. 1. Nulla appellatio tenet facta Turrian Papà ad Deum▪ quia unum Consistorium est ipsius Pap● & ipsius Dej. , because this presupposeth a superior. The Unity and Trinity of his Deity, I have showed before out of Morinus 
g See before pag. 135. lit▪ ●. .  
Besides, he is as like to justice, as he is truly GOD, and no further. I will not say, that like Zi●●ri, he ● surped his Monarchy by killing of his Master, but by actions in our Saviour's testimony equally unjust, as by butchering his servants, slaughtering his Saints. justice gives; He takes from every man his due. His actions are the measure of justice, not measured by it. Princes and Priests, the most glorious witnesses of the world, (whose prerogatives he covets and usurps) can witness this. Shall we think, that all the Schisms in the Roman Church were contentions for justice? That Simony was her purchaser? Shall we deem that justice enthroned Cardinals above Bishops? Friars before Priests? Will justice judge GOD'S rule to be dangerous, and that man's is able to lead to perfection? Will justice inhibit marriage, and open the Stews? VRBANUS nihil equi cogitat, if we believe the Proverb, VRBAN was never yet just, how comes he now to be so upright?  
And further, as your Monarchy is fare from being either like to GOD or justice; so shall we appear to be fare unlike either to your Malefactors on earth, or the damned in Hell. We are Malefactors, Heretics, but by whose judgement, save the Heretics himself, the most absolute Malefactor on earth? Were not the Apostles so styled? What better appellation had Memnon or Cyrill from the Nestorians 
h Acta Concilial. Ephes. tom. ●. Acta Council Ephes. c. 1. p. 774. & sequ●●. ? But for the damned in Hell, I am so fare persuaded of Papal charity (from their fiery Chariots) that I doubt not but they would adventure an other Powder-plot to blow us up to Heaven, upon condition, that his Usurpations in darkness be not unlightned, and so troubled with us on earth.  
But the jesuite is impatient, and would scorn away this presage. As though (saith he) there hath not been a general peace for many ages before the stirring of Luther and his rebellious rout, notwithstanding that the Pope did always keep the same rule in GOD'S house 
i Reply pag. 80 ?  
The jesuite to exempt the Bishop of 〈◊〉 from being a disturber of the peace of the Church▪ would prove it from the experience of his peaceable government before Luther's time. But he might know that there hath been no peace at all, that we might call the peace of GOD, where he hath borne any control: For is it probable that Peace should proceed from him that was always, or the most part at war? How many Schisms were there in the Roman See 
k Stapleton. Doctr. Princip. l. 23. c. 15. Schismata Rom. Ponti●icum viginti numerantur. ? If they could not agree upon their Peacemaker, must they not be at war themselves? Had it not been the best course in those times to bring peace to the Church, for to have excluded them altogether from government?  
But if so great peace were in the Roman Church as you pretend, why did the Pope condemn your representative Church of Basil 
l Epistola Synodalis contra invectiva● factam nomine Eugenij Papae,— qui Epistolae illius exordio dicere ausus est. Patres in Concili● congregatos jam fere septem annis ab ipse Christi Vicario, & Turrian suprem● Apostolican Roman● sede Christianorum matre tre & capite segregates esse. , when your Roman Church had censured him for a Schismatic 
m Concil. Basil. Sess. 34. . If we by a spirit of giddiness be divided, because there are (as the jesuite saith) above a hundred several sects and varying opinions amongst us 
n Reply pag. 24. ; what shallbe concluded concerning them, that in the height of their tyranny and leonine peace, have had six hundred, and such as were begotten by posthabiting the Gospel's Epistles and Christian wisdom 
o Cornel. Mus. come▪ Rom. 6. pag. 279. Vigebat Spinosa & molesta nescio quae Theologia de instantibus, de Relationibus, de Quidditatibus etc. Tota penè aetas in hominum decretis, quae inter se pugnantia semper, nullo tempore reconcilianda, alunt perpetuum per secula litem centerebatur, etc. Is sublimis Theologus habebatur, qui majora portenta pro suis Traditiunculis fingere sciat etc. Minc SEXCENTAE Sectae, Thomistae, Scotistae, Occhamistae, Albertistae, Egidiani, Alexandr●i, etc. O sec●●●, posthabebantur Evangelia, Epistolae Christi●● sapientia delitescebat, etc. . Neither can the jesuite glory in their Roman peace, when in Ferus his judgement, In omnibus gentibus major est concordia quam inter Christianos, at the time the Pope kept the greatest rule in the Church, there was more concord in any nation then amongst the Christians 
p 〈◊〉. 3. De 〈◊〉 Domini . And from what fountain came these quarrels? He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will dec●are; Because their 〈◊〉 wer● not as our 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 of Peace, [Esay 9] but of War 
Alvar. de planct Eccles. l. ●. art. 5. Nec sunt ●odie Pr●lati principes pacis, sicut Christus Esay 9 sed Guerrae. . And what made the Pope and his Prelates so Martial? Was not the quarrel, doctrine, and in their divinity the foundation of faith, the Supremacy? What peace had the Roman Church when Princes resisting their Usurpations, their Kingdoms were filled with war, with blood? What Unity of faith could make the son break the bond of nature to his Father, the servant the bond of faith to his Lord? What peace was there when your Pope denied marriage to the Clergy, when they bearded your Tyrant, charging him with heresy, and frantic opinions 
r Lambertus Schafnaburgensis in histor. ann. 1074. Hildebrandinus Papa cum Epicopis Italiae conveniens, jam frequentibus synodis decreverat, ut secundùm instituta antiquorum canonum, presbyteri uxores non habeant etc. Adversus hoc decretum protinus vehementer interfremuit tota ●actio Clericorum hominem planè haer●ticum & vesani dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus sermonis Domini, quo ait; Non omnes capiunt hoc verbum qui potest capere capiat. Et Apostolus: Qui se non con●inet, nubat; melius est 〈◊〉 n●bere quam u●i: 〈◊〉 exactione homines vi●ere cogerat, titu Angelorum, & dum consuetum cur●●n naturae negaret fornicationi, & immundiciae fraena laxaret. ?  
You talk of Peace, and will have the Tyrant the Peacemaker, when like a cursed Ishmael his hand hath been against every man, & every man's against him 
* Gen. 16. 12. . What Prince was not an Heretic or Schismatic that resisted his will? What Priest or People were not condemned, persecuted, that would not stoop to this golden Calf? Peace you have had, but it hath been amongst your own, such as Gr●gory speaks of, that the ministers of Antichrist shall be knit together like the scales of 〈◊〉 
s Greg. Moral. l. 33. c 24. Quia membra Leviathan istius, id est, iniquos omnes quos Dei sermo, squamarum compactionibus comparat, ad defensionem suam par culpa co●cordat, benè dicitur; una alteri adhaerebunt, & tenentes se, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abun●ur. : and this Peace the Turks have, and how have they got it think you, but as your Popes have obtained theirs, by the strangling of their brethren? Can not the Arians say, that all peace was amongst Arians, when they execrated the Catholic world? And who can speak against Roman Peace, when by their Bulla coenae they excommunicate all the world but Heretics? This Peace may be found amongst the wicked; Nay, Hell itself cannot stand without it. The jesuite hath an other defence for their ; yet when he should protect their Pope, he tattles of a rule, & expresseth it with notorious falsehood. The which rul● (saith he) if it be (as he saith) the only hindrance of peace, when●e than have they such mortal discord amongst themselves where the rule of this supercilious Master hath not power 
u Reply pag. ●● .  
Our jars are his Crambe, which he always chowes, and cannot digest; yet it hath been answered him, and palpably declared, that they are only such as proceed from breath of men not well advised, and not from any essential difference in the foundation of faith, when theirs have been in all ages for the main point of Papal faith, the bounds of their Monarchy and Supremacy, which to defend, they have abused Paul's sword in raising war, & Peter's keys by excommunicating 
x Azure. ins●. mor. ●om 〈◊〉. c. 43.  for their private and corrupt ends.  
But the jesuite to get this Argument, doth feign the most learned Answerer to make this supercilious Master, the only hindrance of Peace; which I cannot find in the words cited by the jesuite; Neither do I think, our most divine Ecclesiastes did at that time free Earth or Hell from assisting his Holiness in this work of division.  
For the Iesu●tes inquiry, How chance they have no better peace at least one with an other, and his re●olution. Let us speak plain in God's name, and tell the truth and say, that it is a supercilious Master indeed, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience 
y Reply pag. 1● . What our variances are, I have showed, to wit, that they be otherwise, than the jesuite would enforce them.  
But for the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, I would not have the jesuite to suspect the spirit that informs his Faction, so for to direct us. This is the Angel of your Monarchy, neither could your ●actions Doctrines get head otherwise, in regard they were ever thought to have their ground from Hell. So Carolus Cal●●●, Quis hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Quis Tart●rus de suis abditis & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Constitut. Imperial. à Golda●●● edit. tom. 1. pag 24. 25. . Why should your Pope john the XII. drink the Devil's health? but that he was his gracious Lord, or his especial Familiar 
a Ottonis Magni & Synodi Romanae literae ad johan. Papam XII. apud Luitpran. Ticinens. Histor. l. 6. c. 10. Dicunt & aliud auditu ipso horridum Diaboli vos in a●orem vim●● b●bisse. ? What hath your B●●onius brought out of the Vatican Library, but a demonstration, that Satan was let lose to the destruction of the whole Church 
b Guiliel. Senens. Archi●p. in literis ad Alexandrum tertium Pontificem ex Vaticanâ Bibliothecâ edit. per Baron. Annal. tom. 12. an. 1170. §. 9 Ibi solvitur Sa●anas in 〈◊〉 ●●tius Ecclesiae. ? Besides this it is most apparent, that some of your Popes 
c Nic. Lyra●us in morali gloss a ad 19 c. 2. l. Macc. Per Alchi●um, qui Demetrio coronam auream, & palmar obtulit, ut per hoc summum sacerdotium obtineret, significatur ambitiosus in tantum quod facit DIABOLO sacri●icium; ut per ●oc promoveatur ad dignitatem: sicut referet Gui●●ermus in Chronicâ de quodam nomine Gebertus, qui per hoc ascendit ad Archiepiscopa●●m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Ravemensem, & post ad statur PAPALEM. Aeneas Silvius in come 〈◊〉 Basil. Concil. l. 1. Ne●. nos fugit Marcellinum jussu Caesareo idolis thurificasse aliud verò, quod majus & horribilius est, DIABOLICA fraude Romanum Pontificatum a●●●ndisse. joh. Trith●m in Chronic. Hirsangiens. ann. 1081. In Brixinensi Synodo Hild●brandum, quod per a●tem Magi●am, Necromanticam, & D●MONVM suffragio s●dem Apostolicam invaserit accusa●●●. Et ipsa Decreti 〈◊〉 conceptis 〈◊〉 ex●●●● Conrado 〈◊〉 Abbate 〈◊〉. Divinationum ac 〈◊〉 cultorem, manifestum 〈◊〉 cum, P●THONICO spiritu laborantem, & id●irco à verâ ●ide exorbitantem, judicamur canonicè deponendum & expellendum; & nisi ab ipsa Sede, his auditis, descenderit, in perpetuum condemnandum. , Roman Factions 
d Matth. Paris. Chronic. Greg. Papa, confessus est 〈◊〉 DIABO●O se iram & odium inter hum●n●m genus concitasse. Aventin. 〈◊〉. Boiorum. l. 6. pag. 4●0. Per trigin●a tres ann●s à Gregori● & Vrbano continenter sanguin●, o●ium belligeratum est. ▪ Roman miracles 
e See before pag. 13. & 95. , Roman Cardinals 
f Wiccliff. in speculo militantis Ecclesiae. c. 10. M●. in Bibliotheca Regia Westmonaster. Quae major infidelitas, quam approbare electiones Cardinalium qui ex nobis indubi● sunt DIABOLI incarnati. , had their birth from Hell? Was there not intelligence from Hell, if your own lie not? Did not your black Prince congratulate your Clergy for your daily 〈◊〉 of soul's unt● him 
Mat. Paris histor. ann. Dom. 107●. Satanas & omne contubernium infernoru● omni Ecclesi●stico coetui gratias ●misit▪ quod 〈◊〉 in nullo ●ui● voluptatibus d●essent, tantum numerum subditarum sibi animar●m, 〈◊〉 praedicationis incurie, paterentur ad INFERNA descendere, qua●tum secula nunquam ●●troacta viderunt▪ . Have not your own mourned, that the Devil's spirit hath posted it amongst your Clergy? But it may be, with Cosma● Pr●gensis 
h Cosm. Prag. Chronic. Bohe●. l. 2. in anno 1073. His diebus venerat Roma● Mat●ildis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae post ob●tu● Patris sui Boni●acij ●otius Lo●gobardiae simul & 〈◊〉 suscepit regni 〈◊〉, ●●bens potestatem eligendi & 〈◊〉 ●ive ●liminandi CXX. super▪ 〈◊〉. Hujus quasi prop●●ae Dominae ad ●●tum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordo parebat, & ipse Gregorius Papa per ●amdirina & humana negotia disponebat: quia ●rat sapienti●●●●● consi●●atrix, & in omnibus adversitatibus ●ive necessitatibus Romanae Ecclesiae maxima fautrix● , and O●●phrius 
i Onuphrius in vita Ioha●●i VIII. johannes XII.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adoleseens Papa factus, aliquo● 〈◊〉; ●● Luitprandus Ticinensis ●●●orum temporum scriptor. l. 6. c. 6. & 7. tradit, habuit, in his praecipuè ●rant joanna, 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 igitur Papa, & ejus item scorto joanna, ad cujus ●ortè arbitrium tanquam ●●pa 〈◊〉 Romae pendebant joannis ●oemin● Papae fabula manavit. , you may pretend, that some ●eude Queans, and not the Devil, governed your S. Peter! But if this be granted, it is not sufficient to conclude, but that the Devil may direct them. And although you make a show of antiquity, yet he that observed this Ruler of God's house, and the Clergy by whose ministry he ruled, telleth us, that they took great pains ne ●●li ad Tar●●ra veniant, that they might not go to hell without company 
k 〈◊〉. Dialog. de ●●●dest & libero arbit●. ad calcem 2. tomis Auctarij Bibliothecae Patrum, edit: Paris. an. 1610. Totis viribus laborant, ne soli etc. ; So attentive they were to the ancient Doctrine. Do you think the Devil playeth ●ex only in his own Kingdom? No, assure yourselves; no more than the Pope Pontifex only at Rome; for though he sways not universally, yet many States ●eele his secret practices, to work division amongst those that are united to the truth. Is not this the greatest part of your work to make sedition, to break peace? Divide & impera is not a lesson that the Jesuits are now to learn, seeing it hath been their daily practice▪ 
l Dist. Compe●. D● jesuit. 〈◊〉 ● 27. ● Watson Quods. 3. art 4. p. ●●. . And although the jesuite would now excuse it, I cannot see but the Christian Commonwealth at this time is pestered by their Vrbanus or Turbanus, as Cardinal Benno styled an other of the like Condition, & of the same name 
m Benno in vita Hildebrand. . So that the Jesuits pretences to free his Supercilious Master from being that which he was justly styled, are too vain and light, there being no hope, that we shall fee a general peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian world, as long as he is suffered to keep this rule in God's house 
n The jesuite might have taken notice of what was urged by the most reverend Primate immediately before those words whereas he carpeth, in the Sermon preached before his Majesty, pag. 13. 14. viz. That Nilus Arch bishop of Thessalonica, entering into the consideration of the original ground of that long continued schism, whereby the West standeth as yet divided from the East, and the Latin Churches from the 〈◊〉, wrote a whole book purposely of this Argument, wherein he showeth, that there is no other cause to be assigned of this distraction, but that the Pope will not permit the cognisance of the controversy unto a general Council▪ but will needs sit himself as the alone Teacher of the point in question, and have others hearken unto him as if they were his Scholars, and that this is contrary both to the ordinances, and the practice of the Apostles & the Fathers. thereunto we may add the testimony of their own Cassander consult. Art. 7. de Ecclesia vera. Neque unquam credo, controversia apud nos de externa Ecclesiae unitata extitisse● nisi Pontifices Romani hâc authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi fuissent, eamque extra fines à Christo & Ecelesia peaescriptos ambitionis et cupiditatis causâ ●utulissent. .  
But returning again to the Answer, he telleth us, that, Our Answerer allegeth for himself the example of S. Cyprian, who with the rest of the African Bishops, dissented from the Pope and Church of Rome, without being cut off from the Catholic Communion. To which the jesuite replies, that this is easily answered, forasmuch as the point wherein S. Cyprian did vary from the Pope, was not declared by the Church, until after S. Cyprians death, and therefore it might have been maintained without any breach of Catholic Unity 
* Reply pag. 80: .  
What he speaks concerning the Church's declaration, will have a more fit place hereafter. But to show how little the jesuite hath spoken for his cause, we may first consider, That Cyprians opinion was condemned by your Pope & his Council, & the contrary defined 
o Bellar. l. 2. de Council c. 5. Constat— Cornelium Papam cum nationali Concilio omnium Episcoporum Italiae, statuisse non debere haereticos rebapti●●ri, et eundem sententiam postea approbasse Stephanum Papam, et jussisse ut haeretici non rebaptizarentur▪ , yea S. Cyprian himself excommunicated, and so severely dealt withal by Pope Stephen, that he would not admit the African Legates to speak with him; but styling Cyprian a Counterfeit, said, that CHRIST did deny any Communion to be held with him 
p Cassander Consult. ar. 7. Cùm Stephanus Episcopus Romae utbis Cyprianum, quoth in ipso erat, repelleret, & Episcoposa● ipsum ex Africâ legatos, nec ad sermonem communis colloquij admitteret, & praecip eret universae fraternitati,— ut venientibus non solum pax & communio, sed & tectum & hospitium negaretur: insuper & Cyprianum Pseudo. Christum & dolo sum operarium diceret. Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum; cujus Firmiliani meminit Eusebius Histor. 6, l. c. 25. & l: 7. c. 13. Ad quem Stephanus scripsit, non esse communicandum ijs, qui ad Haereticos transcuntes rebaptizant. . All which did not make the declaration of the Church in Augustine's opinion; so that we may easily perceive, that Augustine did not think the Pope to be the Church, or his declaration to be the Church's definition. And indeed what toil did Vincentius Lyrinensis 
q Advers. profane. Novat.  take in vain, if the Pope could define alone; if there were no true knowledge of Scriptures, but where he gapes: if for him CHRIST only prayed?  
Besides, see what Church did define this; Not the Roman out of which Cyprian was excommunicated and never reconciled, but that for which Cyprian shed his blood 
r Augustin. l. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 32. Non accipio quod de baptizandis haereticis et schismatics B. Cyprianus sensit quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit pro qua B. Cyprianus sanguinem fudit. , to wit, the true Catholic, which with Cyprian is every Maundy Thursday by their Bulla Coenae excommunicated at Rome. And therefore the jesuite hath unwisely urged S. Augustine's words against the Donatists, Put yourselves into that Church which as it is manifest, S. Cyprian defended, and then may you allege S. Cyprians authority for your Doctrine 
s Reply pag. 81. . It being plain that the Roman schismatics accuse and accurse that Church, in which Cyprian died a blessed Martyr, accounting it no further Catholic than it is Roman.  
All that followeth is chaff. Finally (saith the jesuite) I would our Answerer did observe in this example, how notwithstanding so many Bishops as in Africa joined with S. Cyprian (who in number were more than are in all his Majesty's dominions) yet was there found a superior Church, that did control them all herein, prescribing both to them & others, what they ought to follow and believe: by whose authority S. Augustine, as we have heard, and all the rest of the African Bishops, did reject that opinion of S. Cyprian, & embraced the contrary 
t Reply pag. 81.   
First we may see, that the Bishop of Rome had not so peaceable a dominion, as the jesuite pretends, if so many Bishops did resist his controlling, as the jesuite acknowledgeth.  
Secondly, you may see his falsehood in his cautelous conveyance, labouring to persuade, that the Roman Church was the superior Church, having authority to control them all, & to prescribe to them and others what they ought to follow and believe: whenas Augustine never dreamt of it; when he and the African Bishops always resisted and disdained it 
u See before pag. 301. . That they did not adhere to Cyprians opinion, the reason was not, because it was condemned by the Roman Bishop or his Roman Church; but because out of the sacred Scripture by a lawful Council 
* Council Nicen  of the Catholic Church it was detected as erroneous and false.  
But whilst our Adversaries do not acknowledge any such superior Church, what wonder (saith the jesuite) that they live forlorn, consumed, and confounded with odious discord and debate amongst themselves, & deprived of all true faith, forasmuch as they refuse to listen unto her, by whom God hath decreed all faith should be delivered unto his people throughout the world 
x Reply pag. 81. .  
This is but fuming froth. We acknowledge a Catholic Church as superior to all particular Churches in the world; But we say, your Roman is so fare from being it, that it gains well, if it appear a true member thereof, when it comes to be examined. What is there no God, but at Dan and Bethel? Must your Calves measure true worship, or your Excommunicating the Levites, make the Catholic to be no Church? It is not your censuring of all others for Heretics, that can exempt you from being schismatics, any more than the Donatists which did the like.  
Being then aliens from this Church, wherein, & no where else, the right Christian faith is certain to be found, they must not wonder (saith the jesuite) that we should thus bewail them as perished and lost 
y Reply pag. ●● .  
For your bewailing us; as perished and lost, it is but a fetch of your Hypocrisy. I could wish your tears, if you shed any, were bestowed upon yourselves who need them. We 〈◊〉 know the temper of your tears too well. How bewailed you the French Massacre, the Butchery of Princes, but with tears of blood, with groans of applause 
z See the Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift, upon the death of the French King, Henry the third. .  
The places which you brought out of the Fathers against schismatics, do most properly point out yourselves, and therefore ill chosen to discredit us. Take then your own charge unto yourselves, who justly deserve it; for howsoever you glory, as if you only had the Church of CHRIST (which we do not) it will not therefore follow, that you belong unto his consecration, in regard you are separated from the body of CHRIST, keeping neither Communion nor Unity with the whole, & being sequestered by yourselves do censure all that will not forsake the liberty of CHRIST, and hold from you in villainy and Vassalage.  
Whereas the jesuite thinketh to despise the Answerers' Church by his frames of folly and falsehood, terming it ● Church lurking in a corner of the earth, obscure and in glorious, that can neither obtain friendship with any abroad, nor yet maintain agreement in itself at home 
a Reply pag. 8. .  
We know the true Church many times doth lurk; when the where sits as Queen, and knows no sorrow 
* Rev. 18. 2. : Yet it is not so obscure, but it hath enlightened the world, that it can despise your outward glory, and deride your lies in Hypocrisy, your tales of Hobgoblins, your deceit from Purgatory, your holiness for gain, and new declarative doctrines.  
Secondly, we hold peace with the Catholic Church, as hath been manifested; when you have and do really excommunicate it. And in fundamentals both with them and amongst ourselves we are faithfully knit together, (although there be some differences in matters of n● absolute consequence, which the purest Churches have been ever subject unto;) when you are not agreed, who is only able to teach uncontroul●ably an infallible point of doctrine, whether a Council, or the Pope 
b Francise. ●icus Theorem. 16. Fuere qui di●erent Concilium in ●ausa fidei praeesse Pontifici, fuêre qui Pontificem Concilio praeponerent: alia etiam quaestio, utrum sine Pontifice, utrum ●o ●efragante, convocari colligique possit. Bellarm▪ l. 2. de Concili●▪ cap. 13. § Sed dum. Vsque ad hunc diem quaestio superest. . When your Church is so fare from holding friendship with other Church●●, that it maliciously sets itself against the whole, rai●ing wars and tumults against the true members thereof, as lately against the Greeks, and eve● against that part of the Latin Church that refused her command, as the Monks of Bangor, the Waldenses etc. can well witness. And although you are continually speaking of dissensions, yet the best judgements & wisest eyes that our ages have afforded, have found your peace to be but the outward effect of Policy, not natural from truth, but forced from▪ your bloody lawe● and cruelest Inquisition.  
What is further urged against schismatics out of the Fathers, we assent unto: Which the jesuite well know, and therefore telleth us, I know our Answerer here will say, that these heavy threats, admonitions and exhortations of the ancient Fathers do make nothing against him at all, forasmuch as he pretendeth himself to be within the true Church already 
c Reply pag▪ ●5 .  
Here we may perceive the jesuite hath taken a great deal of pains to little purpose: For whereas he should have proved us to have been schismatics, before he had given sentence against us▪ he as it seems; according to the practice of their Inquisition (with Hallyfax-law) condemneth first, and inquires for the Schismatic afterward, and so poorly, that a jury of moral honest Papists rightly informed, would find an Ignoramus upon his bill▪ for he bringeth us no proof, but repeats what he hath formerly done.  
But howsoever (saith the jesuite) he is able with this ●ond conceit to s●oth up, and quiet his own Conscience, ● doubt not but other● many willbe found, who taking more t●●eart the business of their salvation, will ponder advisedly what Church the holy Fathers above produced do point at, and whether they declare it not plain enough to be the Roman Church embracing in her holy Communion all Christian Churches of the earth, out of which our Adversaries are confessedly departed, and have erected to themselves a new Congregation, so fare unlike unto that Universal and Apostolical Church designed by the Fathers, that neither in other Nation● doth she find any other Churches to join in one sincere Communion with her, nor yet is able to maintain agreement amongst her own at home itself, as above hath been abundantly declared 
d Reply pag▪ ●● .  
We have showed in answer to that which the jesuite hath formerly produced, that the Fathers never thought the Roman Church to be the Catholic, nor dreamt of necessary Communion with her any further than she communicated with the Catholic Church, teaching that Truth▪ which was first delivered by the Apostles. And that we have left your Roman schism, it is just (as before is declared) in regard you have gone out of the Catholic Church, and corrupted and depraved the Catholic Faith.  
The repetition of Lutheran and Puritan accusations might have been spared, seeing they have been urged and answered before, where the Reader may see not only the Pope and the Council of Basill, but also whole fraternities of Orders accused and charged with Schism or Heresy.  
Whatsoever in this Section followeth, is but the t●ar● of a Crocodile, or the preaching of a Fox, an Homily made of what hath been answered before. That which we are now to examine, is the Jesuits ensuing Discourse, wherein he promiseth to show, that   

SECT: XI.  
Our Answerer by Vanity offereth wrong t● Truth and Charity 
a Reply pag▪ 87 .  
This our jesuite makes the Scope of his XI Section, which he doubts not to make as manifest, as he hath done his former undertake, with a nil ultrà; I hope we have given sufficient satisfaction (saith he) unto our Answerers' de●a●●nd, when he enquired, whether I was able to show one point wherein he and his have broken that Harmony which Iraeneus commendeth in the Catholic Church of his time 
b Reply pag▪ 87 .  
Mr Malone is not so good in his payments as bankrupts, for they will pay debts with good words, but the jesuite thinks, he can satisfy all with invectives, and with the same Method (wanting matter, as they money to pay) quarrels with the form, or by outfacing pretends the debt satisfied, when (poor man) he hath only snarled a little against the speciality; for that which he terms to be the holy Catholic Church hath been declared a Schism; and that, the Catholic Church is not enclosed within the mountains, but dispersed ●ver the face of the earth (with which we communicate and are members▪) hath been sufficiently declared, to which we refer the Reader.  
And now (saith he) a● we have ●ully answered ●nt● his demand, so have we just cause to complai●● that he hath not given us any re●●●●tion of that which I propounded when I desired him to tell, whether of us both have the true Religion; we who do not disagree with the ancient Church in any one point, or they who agree with it in very few, and disagree in almost all? Observe I pray you how vainly he shapeth his answer 〈◊〉 unto 
c R●●l● pag▪ 88  etc. Indeed if that which the jesuite affirmeth for granted could as easily be proved, as it is boldly avouched, (saith the most reverend Primate) the question would quickly be resolved, whether of us both have the true religion? But he is to understand, that strong conceits are but weak proofs: and that the Jesuits have not been the first, from whom such brags as these have been heard. Diosc●rus the heretic, was as p●arte, when he uttered these speeches in the Council of Chalcedon. I am cast out with the Fathers, I defend the doctrine of the Fathers, I transgress them not in any point: and I have their testimonies not barely, but in their very books 
d Answ▪ pag. ●● .  
L●e here what a flourish of words he hath unfolded, and not one to the purpose &c 
e Reply pag▪ ●8. .  
You see that the most reverend Primate his Answer justly conceiveth that such a Proposition as the jesuite desires to be resolved in, supposeth, that (by the confession of our Church▪) either antiquity speaks only for them and against ourselves, or else that the supposition is so clear in itself that it cannot be denied: Then which nothing is more ridiculous, and therefore, you were a little too hasty (M. Malone) as the most learned Answerer tells you to ●ry out. Whether of us both have the true Religion? and might have done well indeed to have bethought yourself more advisedly of that which you had undertaken to perform: as also to have remembered the saying of the King of Israel unto B●nh●d●d; Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast himself, as he that putteth it off. For if you can convince us, that we agree not with the ancient Church in any one point, we will plead guilty, and confess our error, if you can justify yourselves, by the ancient doctrine of the Catholic Church, we will recant the charge of Apostasy, which now we deservedly cast upon you; In the mean time we know, that such as you can pretend with Diosc●rus, the doctrine of the Fathers, when indeed you exclude them, and foist upon the Christian world, old Gibeonitish mustiness of Decretal Epistles, and false births to prove you to be ex genere antique when for all this your chiefest Heralds stagger at your Pedigree; so that his learned Answer, is not a flourish of words, but a detection of your folly, who supposing in your Challenge that to be confessed by us which is the point in controversy, would vainly flatter yourself, as if you had borne us down with the weight of the authority of the Fathers, and so astonished us therewith, that we could not tell what to say for ourselves; whenas you had not laid down so much as the name of any one Father at that time. But you ask the question.  
Why may not Dioscorus his peartenes in bragging so of the holy Fathers when they least of all made for him be applied unto our Answerer, vainly boasting of them in the same nature, rather than to us, who have alleged their assured authorities for our cause so abundantly 
f Reply pag. 88 ?  
This is nothing to the purpose; (let him be like whom he will,) it is apparent by Dioscorus that men may pretend a property in that, which is none of their own, as the Devil, and the Pope, in the kingdoms of the world; which being granted, it cannot be denied, but you may also pretend that Scriptures & antiquity make for you, when truly and re ver â, they batter you, and beat you down.  
And although it be nothing to the point controverted that the jesuite speaks of Dioscorus, yet we may consider it without offence. He tells us, Dioscorus was condemned and cast out for maintaining his own opinion against that of the whole Council 
g Reply pag. 88 , Not so, but an heretical opinion, he might have varied from a whole Council in a truth as your Panormitane insinuateth 
h Panorm. super. p. Decret. Deelect. etelec. potestate c. signif. Quod si Papa movere tur melioribus rationibus et auctoritatibus quam Concilium, quod standum esset sententiae suae: nam et Concilium potest errare etc. In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto PAPAE si ille moveratur melioribus rationibus e● auctoritatibus novi & veteris testamenti, quam Pap●. . And had our Answerer lived in those days, would he not think you, have received the like censure of the said Council for denying unto the Pope that Supremacy 
i Reply pag ●●  etc.  
A fancy, the Council you dare not stand to, you in part except against it, and in a point that comes near the Supremacy 
k Bin●not in Conc. Chaleed. verb. Concilium Decretum illud act. 16. quo Patres Concil. absentibus legatis & postea reclamantibus Constantinopolitanae sedi primatum attribuerunt, ideo, quod instar Romae caputi●●perij effects, primatum meruerit, velut illegittimum à Leone Pontifice justissi●● improbatum fuit. Supponit enim, quod Romana sedes tunc primatum habere merucrit, cùm Romani orbis imperio potiretur, atque adeo non divino, sed humane jute caput Ecclesiarum effecta fuerit. . It might have been that the Council of Trent or such like might have made good your word, but in a true and legitimate assembly of pious persons (such as Chalcedon was) it would never have been done; for they would have distinguished, betwixt pretences and truths, betwixt an heretical sound and a true allegation.  
Your cram hath received his answer before, to which I refer the reader, yet all that is here produced, proves nothing, first that the Pope was head; that is Praeses concilij, head of the representative Church; secondly this is declared by a similitude. Tu quidem sicut membris caput progress, Thou sittest Precedent as the head over the members 
l Reply pag. 12 : which is nothing; for will the Pope claim by the similitude, and not acknowledge a dissimilitude, balaam's ass spoke (sicut heme,) yet no man, Balaam▪ gave his resolution (sicut Prophet●,) yet no Prophet: The beast had two horns, like the Lamb, but spoke like the Dragon 
* Revel. 13. 11. ; so the Pope may be sicut caput, in usurpation, but no head established by Christ. Only your new addition Vine● custodia à Salvatore commissa est [to whom the charge of this Vineyard was committed by our Saviour] sure should be to some effect; yet what makes this to your Papal height? Indeed it may prove your Pope a Pastor but not a Prince of the Church: For to whom is the custody of the Flock of CHRIST committed, but to every Archippus? Which Flock (I think) the jesuite will not deny to be the Vineyard of the Lord: So that you see the jesuite hath done as much as an heretic for his Dalilah, his defiled M●●, he hath pretended her beauty, comeliness, ancient Progenitors, when indeed it is all but painting, (or as he chargeth the Answerer,) but a flourish.  
And now the jesuite challengeth the most reverend Primate with breach of Courtesy, because in bitter terms, he inveigheth against him, viz ᵗ the Pope who never did him any hurt, calling him a supercilious Master, the King of Pride 
m Reply pag. ●●  etc. But will M. Malone tell us the ground of the Pope's mild countenance and courteous behaviour towards the learned Answerer, that he never yet did him any hurt? It is not I think because his affection dissuades it, but because he is out of his reach 
† By the Faculties of the Carmelites (a copy whereof being lost in the streets of ●ublin remaineth in my hands) they have power to reconcile Heretics, but you must conceive it is in places where they cannot destroy where their Inquisitionis not in force Facultates concessae ● SS. more D. N. D. VRBANO divina providen. P. P. VIII. Fratribus Carmelitis Discalceatis infrascriptis in Missione Hibernica & alijs Regis maga● Britanniae Regnis versantibus. 1. Reconciliandi Haereticos 〈◊〉 nationis dummodo non sint ex partibus in qui bus exercetur sanctum. Inquisitionis officium. , not within the compass of his cruelty, for otherwise it is to be suspected, that they love him, aswell, as Crammer, Ridley, Hooper, and the other good Bishops, that he sent to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire. And this (without doubt) the jesuite believed, or else he would not have reviled the most reverend Primate in such a shameless manner, as he hath done, throughout his whole discourse.  
But what evil hath the Answerer done? john the Baptist calleth those wretches which fought against the Kingdom of God, a Generation of vipers 
* Mat. 3. 7● ; yet they never provoked him with personal injury; and john the Evangelist calleth another of like temper Abbadon and Apo●●yon 
* Revel. 9 11. , whom he saw by the Spirit of Prophecy to be such a pest to the Church of God, as he now proveth himself. And we have heard of a man of sin 
* 2. Thess. 11. 3. 4. , that the Spirit of God checked with more bitter terms, then are here given him by the learned Answerer. What hath he sinned by being in his appellation too merciful to usurpation, to cruelties?  
You ought then to pardon, not to accuse his clemency. Those that have lived in the Pope's own Communion neither thought nor speak so tenderly of him 
n Aventin. Annal. Boiorum l. 7. Flamines illi BABYLONIAE soli regnare cupiunt, far pacem non possunt. non desistent, donec omnia pedibus suis conculcaverint.— Ingentia loquitur, quasi vero Deus osset. Aventin. Annal. Boiom● l. 5. Falsi tum Prophetae, false Apostoli, falsi sacerdotes emersere, qui simulatâ religione pop●lum decepert●●●●magna signa at● prodigia ediderunt: & in templo Dei sedere atque extolli super omne, id quod colitur, coeperunt. Dumque suam putentiam dominationemque stabilire conantur, charitatem, simplicitatem Christianam 〈◊〉. Bernardus Morlanensis in 3. l. de Contemptu mund●. Rexo BABYLONIS.  neither did he deserve it 
o Greg. VII. Regest. l. 2. post epist. 55. tom. 3. Concil. edit. Binn. par. 2. Dictatus Papae: Quod solus possit uti imperialibus insignijs. Quod foling Papae pedes omnes Principes deosculentur. Quod illius solius nomen in Ecclesijs recitetur. Quod unicum est nomen in mundo. Quod illi liceat Imperatores deponere. Lib 1. Ceremon. Eccles. Romanae. . So that this charge is just; for it is not washing feet dissembling titles, that can preserve him from being the King of Pride. For paint pride and paint a Cardinal 
p Nicol. de Clemangis, de corrupto Ecclesiae statu. c. 10. Si artifet quisque vellet superbiae similachrum offingere, nulla congruentius ratione id facere posset, quam Cardinalis effigiem oculis intuentium objectando. ▪ Now I hope you will not deny the Pope to be their King.  
Neither can his vain pretences of Scriptures, or fathers, free him from being a supercilious Master, in regard he willbe the only Doctor and Master of the Church, for who knows not, that Christ must teach by his gloss 
q Hosius in fine libri de expresso Dei verbo. Quod Ecclesia docet, expressum Dei verbum esse, quod contra sensum & consensum Ecclesiae docetur, expressum Diaboli verbum esse. ▪ and servus servorum given in humility, is but the contrary of his practical pride 
r Aventin. Annal. Boiorum. ●7. pag. 547. Quiservus servorum est, dominus dominerum, perinde ac st Deus foret, esse cupit. Sacres coetus atque concilia statrum, imo dominorum suorum aspernantur. .  
So that we see Dioscorus his saying is well applied, and the jesuite hath said nothing material, in opposition against it, he likes it not, that Heretics were used to forsake Scriptures, and adhere to Fathers, and herein consists the strength of his confutation.  
Now as this of Dioscorus hath not been received by him, with any good relish, so what the most reverend Primate saith further in this particular, is displeasant also: I will put them down at large, that the Reader may observe this Asthmatical jesuite, in this particular to pant for breath.  
Neither need we wonder (saith the most learned Answerer) that he should bear us down, that the Church of Rome, at this day doth not disagree from the Primitive Church, in any point of Religion: who sticketh not so confidently to affirm, that we agree with it but in very few, and disagree in almost all 
s See the most reverend the L. Primate his answer to the Jesuits challenge pag. 24. .  
To the first, the jesuite saith, it is his constant assertion, that the Church of Rome, at this day, doth not disagree from the primitive Church, in any point of Religion 
t Reply pag. 89. .  
Secondly that neither the learned Answerer, nor any of ours, have ever yet been able to disproove the same to this day, how eager soever they have set themselves against it 
u Reply pag. 89 .  
Thirdly, (having no more to say, than what his foremen have said before him,) he refers the Reader to his sound and pregnant evidences, throughout the whole volume in the particular points propounded 
x Reply ibid. .  
To the Jesuits first Assertion; I answer, that the jesuite is neither Pope, nor inspired, and therefore may err.  
To the second; the jesuite must deny what Protestants have learnedly performed, or else betray his God on earth, and so break his mancipiall obligation; but as they use to deny any unjust thing, whereof they are convicted, so of necessity, must they not confess, that evidence whereby they are overthrown. It is as bad, as heresy, for them to give our writers their merit 
y Possevin. Bibliothee. select. p. ●30. Vniversa igitur hac ●tactatione haeresim sapit, quod Lutherum, Calvinum, Melancthonem, caeterosque nominet honorifice. , they deny them the honour of their moral parts, and therefore have their quidam doctus, and terms of that cut 
z Index Hispa●. fol 148. Bucerus Theologus. Deleatur verbum, Theologus Ibid Hulderico Zuinglio Theologo. Delcatur Theologo. Ibid. p. 204 Supprimat●● nomen Calvini: ponatut, studios●s quidam. .  
Now for your last, your reforment to your evidences, we accept your motion, and if in them be found any thing else but corruption and confidence, we will confess you hold with antiquity: But the question is so fare from being resolved, that your endeavours have made your cause more full of jealousy, in regard, you have stuffed your volume not as you pretend, with multitudes of convincing evidences, but with counterfeit authors, impertinent allegations, as hath been already discovered and will be further made apparent in the examination of your reply; Yea you have cast behind you all modesty, in handling the testimonies, brought against you, by the most learned Answerer, some passing by altogether as unanswerable, as in the point of ; and others slightly passing over, as in many points of your Reply.  
Another of his Assertions is, that we agree with the Primitive Church but in very few points of Religion, and disagree in almost all 
z Reply pag. ●9 .  
The most reverend Primate, in his answer, would know where he should find those few points in which we agree with the ancient Church; whether in the points controverted betwixt them and us? or else in the whole body of that religion which we profess? dare the jesuite acknowledge our agreement with the Primitive Church in the first. Then he must confess themselves to  from us, where we agree with Antiquity and so leaveth small credit unto himself, who with the same breath hath given out, that the present Church of Rome doth not disagree with that holy Church in any point. Doth he by those few points wherein he confesseth we do agree with the ancient Church mean the whole body of Religion professed by us? Who sees not then the height of impudence? Can those points be esteemed few, which in truth contain the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds? Do we not adhere to this Religion? see our Liturgy; do we not judge heresies by this rule viz. Scripture, Creeds, and four first general Counsels? See the Statute 
* Anno 2. ●●●zab. inter statut. Hiber●. pag 267.  if we approved equivocating, as they learned of Arius, they might suspect us that we speak not as we believe, as they usually practise; but our words being plain, our profession, loathing your practices especially in points of faith and religion; what ground had the jesuite for these outdaring, and outfacing calumnies?  
See the Jesuits defence at large, I doubt not, but if your cause were good, you are of ability and learning enough to frame an Argument more sound, and to divide more judiciously, then here you have done. For every schoolboy may discern that by those few points, wherein I confess you agree with the ancient Church, I could not 〈◊〉 either of these your two sorts of articles at all 
b Reply pag. 89 .  
The jesuite hath bestirred himself here to go from this Dilemma; for first he rails and revyles the whip, the division that afflicts him, as if it might more judiciously have been done, and indeed with a schoolboys reason, because it smarts. For how proves he it not judicious, but because it cannot cohere with his former words? A wise reason. The division detects the incongruity of the jesuits assertions, therefore it might more judiciously have been done. proh sapienti●! But the jesuite by his confession acknowledgeth, that he could not mean these words (of our agreeing with the Primitive Church in very few points of Religion) to have relation either to the points in controversy betwixt them and us, or to the whole body of our Religion, and that this is so plain, that a schoolboy may discern it. And now I would gladly know of the jesuite a third member that doth not lie under the whole body of our Religion, or our negative refutes (as they term them) of their Positions additional, viz ᵗ the points controverted betwixt us.  
The jesuite promiseth something: If you urge me (saith he) to declare what points of Religion th●se are wherein I confess you do▪ agree with the ancient Church 
c Reply. pag. 90 . Indeed this is the thing we would know, but instead of their enumeration, he giveth us a repetition, I say again they are but very f●w 
e Reply ibid. , & an addition, yea s● few, that we may boldly say, they are just none at all 
f Reply ibid. . If this be not a mere Bull, carry me to your Cloister, & make a jesuite of me; we agree in few, and yet in none at all; Christ's little flock might be no flock if this were sense. If here the jesuite be not amazed, let the Reader applaud him. For if we agree in none with the ancient Church▪ why do you agree with us in any? why d●● you believe one God three 〈◊〉, Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and his last coming to judgement etc. Such as accord therewith in none at all, are not heretics or schismatics, but 〈◊〉 Atheists and Infidels; and who 〈◊〉 not but every g●pe of the jesuite is ad oppositum, and cross to himself? And here we shall see to what shifts this jesuite flies for shelter: the question is, whether we agree with the ancient Fathers in points of Religion? the jesuite answers sometimes in very few an other time in none at all, & here to justify this lashing Hyperbole, he tells us. That howsoever some few points might be assigned in the outward profession whereof you will say you do not vary from the common faith of Primitive times: yet whilst we can show that in very many points you believe contrary thereunto, and that with all you hold not with the Church Universal, but have departed from the same, we may not yield unto you, that your inward faith can be true and sound in any one article whatsoever, notwithstanding that from the teeth outward you make profession of this your imaginary agreement never somuch 
g Reply pag. 9●   
All which is sliding and beside the point, for we speak here of doctrine, as in truth of position it doth agree with the ancient Church, and not as it respects the act of belief in the sincere receiving and embracing of it. Suppose we have with us as great a dearth of Saints (as you at Rome) that Protestants were as bad as 〈◊〉 Popes. 
h Geneb. 〈◊〉 in ann. Christi 901. Pontific●● circiter ●0.— à virtute majorum prorsus defec●runt Apotactici, Apostaticive, potius, quàm Apostolici. , yet notwithstanding this will not make the Apostles Creed to be no ancient faith, neither the ancient doctrine which we hold, to be heretical. Who doubts, that the denial of one point of the foundation, perversely or expressly atleast, makes the belief of all the rest uneffectuall? but what will the jesuite infer from hence, that therefore we have not in the confession of our Church one point of Religion, that agreeth with antiquity? We might as well argue, that Arius, Nestorius, a jesuite, had no true and sound inward faith, therefore they agreed in no particular doctrines with the ancient Church.  
Or would this consequent found well? Many of your Popes have had no true inward faith (being such monsters as you have painted them) therefore they agreed in no point of faith with the Primitive Church. if this conclude well, what will become of Papists, who are only Catholics by dependence, whose faiths are judged by their adherence to their Head? The jesuit now runs to another shift, & that of calumny, charging us, that we make profession of the ancient faith with an imaginary agreement from the teeth outward 
i Reply pag. 90 . I must confess we are not so zealous, for that doctrine the ancient Church hath taught us, & the rooting out of your innovations, as we ought to be; pardon us this: but whether you or we embrace the faith of Christ, practised and taught in the ancient Church, with more sincerity, it is not here to be judged, but must be left to him, that knoweth the secrets of hearts.  
And now we may see, how impertinent the Jesuits allegations are. Augustin saith, that Schismatics separated from the body of the Church, are not in the Church, & that heretics & schismatics cannot be prof●●● by the truth they hold with the Church, being in their heresy & schism●, that those, that keep not communion with the Church, are heretical & antichristian, according to Prosper 
k Reply. pag. 90 . Who denies this, & wherein makes it against us? If we acknowledge things in controversy, & that Rome were the Church, & ourselves schismatics & heretics, it were something, yet nothing to this purpose, neither of strength sufficient to prove, that we agree not with the ancient Church in any doctrine of faith, or point of religion, as he should here manifest, so that we see his outfacing cannot protect his impudence, but that he speaks vainly, in charging us, that we agree with the primitive Church in very few articles of Religion, and just none at all.  
And here Augustine and Prospers words are their cutthroats, who not only reject communion with the Catholic Church, but judge that Catholic body to be a schism and heretical, because it will not join in communion with themselves; & if Augustine's and Prospers words may convict a Pope, they have force in them sufficient to perform it, for though he hold all the doctrine of the primitive church in show, yet failing in the point of the Church, denying the authority thereof, and preferring his simple power before the 〈◊〉 authority of all the priests of God, against the stream of antiquity, and the two 〈◊〉 general Counsels of Constance & Basill. Is it not sufficient to bring him within your capital letters? that his holiness, and others of like sanctity ARE NOT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT ALL. And thus you see that the jesuite doth both deceive himself & others, when he would persuade, that upon pain of eternal overthrow all mustadhere to the Pope, who indeed is taken by them for the ancient Roman Catholic Church: And also that the doctrine of the Church of Ireland, is sincere and agreeable to the foundation, neither by heresy forsaking, the doctrine delivered by Christ & his Apostles, & embraced by the ancient Church; neither by schism, departing from the body of Christ making their faith uneffectuall. But that rule of faith (saith the most reverend Primate) so much commended by Irenaeus & Tertullian & the rest of the Fathers; & all the articles of the several Cteedes that were ever received in the ancient Church, as badges of the catholic profession, to which we willingly subscribe is with this man almost nothing at all, none must now be counted a catholic, but he that can conform his belief unto the Creed of the new fashion compiled by Pope Pius the 4. some four & fifty years ago 
l See the mo●● reverend the Lord Primate his Answer 〈◊〉 the Iesuit● challenge pag. 25. . The jesuit tells us that he hath already made it known how far we have strayed from that rule of faith 
m Reply pag. 91 ; and we tell him again that he is deceived in the wanderer, and that we have manifested it also, and that we do willingly subscribe unto all the articles of the several Creeds that were ever received in the ancient Church although the juggler 
† jesuita est omnis home.  is jealous we intent nothing less than what we say 
n Reply pag. 91 . But it is jesuitisme to remove the tongue from the heart, equivocating you defend, we abhor it, why do you suspect us? but upon a sudden the jesuite flying from this calumny, without one word to justify it, but his detraction or jealousy is rapt up with admiration, shall he say of the ignorance, or the folly of the Answerer, when he upbraids him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth 
o Reply pag. 91 .  
Nullus sapien● admiratur, M ● Malone; and therefore take the fool with you: And howsoever you think to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Council, it will give you no shelter; they did (you say) express and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and form of words 
p Reply ibid. .  
So did Athanasius, so others; but this is not the things for which you are accused, but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points; many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time, and therefore your ground from which you persuade us to embrace it, is unsound, viz ●, that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the ancient faith a● all 
q Reply pag. 92 .  
The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed, that Athanafius tells us, Whosoever willbe saved, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith, but your Creed is propounded only to scholars, and chiefly to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholastical or Ecclesiastical dignities 
r Reply pag. 91. .  
Secondly the Apostle S. jude tells us, that the Faith Catholic was once delivered, but all your Trent articles are not so, but brought in, in aftertimes by the authority and definition of your Church, as Transubstantiation 
s 〈◊〉 4. dis●. 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉. ●ect. 41. .  
Thirdly, in the unity of the Catholic faith laid down 
t Irenaeus ●. 1. ●. 3. 3●  by Irenaeus, all the founded Churches in Germany, Spain, France, the East, Egypt, Lybia, and all the world did sweetly agree, but upon many of the new articles in your Creed, there have been continual wars & controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholics, as communicating in one kind, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. So that these points must be additions, or else the Church lost the unity of Faith, for a long time together.  
Fourthly, 〈◊〉 Lirinensis 
u Vincen. Lirinen. advers. profane. novat. Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat. , and other Fathers 
x S. Basil. l. de vera & pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam ●orum quae scripta non sunt. S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const. Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem, & hoc qui repudiat, Antichristu● est & qui simular Anathem a e●●. S. August l. 2. de doct. Christ. c. 9 In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. , and some Schoolmen 
y Scotu● Prologue. in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi & Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita. , make the Scripture sufficient to ●each all points of faith, but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition only, & not by Scripture 
z Coster. in compend. orthodoxae fidei demonstr. 〈◊〉. 5. c. 2p. 162. : so that you see you have vainly sought your defence from the practice of the Nicene Fathers. It had been better I think (Mr Malone) that you had taken another kind of defence, & that you had justified the Pope & your Church, that they make new Creeds, defining verities by the enfolded & still revelation of GOD, which determinations have the force of a certain divine revelation in respect of us, as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said 
a Sua●es ●om. 2. p. 93. ; or with Stapleton, that the church may define a point of faith [Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur] although it be not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures 
b Stapleton Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1 ar. ●. , or with L●● the X. in his Bull against Luther, that it is heresy to say [immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei] that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith 
c Art. 27. ; & not to have run to expressing & declaring, which the Council & Pope never intended; but be it as it will, the jesuite tells us, that the Laiety may be well counted Catholics, though they never so much as heard of it, & therefore we need not to trouble ourselves about so trivial a matter, especially they accounting us of the Lay number.  
But after charges of ignorance, folly, and wrangling, the jesuite accuseth the most mild & modest nature of the most ●overend Primate, that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjury 
d Reply pag. 92.  etc. He that would answer this snarling▪ jesuite with equal currishness, must speak with his teeth, and not with his tongue. But passingby his language, I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander, the truth whereof, he cannot cast off with all his shifts.  
Their Trent Creed is, Neither will I ever receive or expound it, vice the Scripture, but according to the uniform consent of Fathers 
e Bulla Pij IU. p. 478 Nec eam unquam. nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam, & interpretabor. . Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith, he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate. Secondly, he denies that Maldonat● ever took his ●ath. Thirdly he expounds the article of faith, for the saving of the Jesuits credit 
f See the Jesuits Reply pag. 9●. .  
First for his reviling, let Rabshekah rail; for Maldonats' oath, he tells us, that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate took the oath or not, & gives two reasons, one in the Text, because he supposeth he never did: the other in the margin: For he lived & wrote in Paris, where the Tridentine Council is not received 
g Reply pag. 92 .  
A jesuite must believe for the Pope's advantage, why should we think his suppositions should prejudge his cause? he that must believe white black, if the Church enjoin it 
h 〈◊〉 p. 247. , can suppose any thing.  
The other reason is as vain, & might as well have been spared in the margin as in the text; for though the Church of France, receive not the Council of Trent, yet is there any jesuite in France, that doth not subscribe unto it? & to submit in any other manner than the Pope prescribes, is not obedience, but rebellion. Besides, this being made a part of the Papal Creed, he cannot deny his Baptism in that faith (if their faith be as ancient as the jesuite) which is not done without a vow or oath. But if it be, yet it being clear that it is the Pope's will, that that course of interpreting shall hold, their mancipiall vow & oath makes them perjured that violate the same. The jesuite esteems these but shifts, & therefore he will justify his Fathers an other way, & to that end proceedeth, in this manner. But let us put the ease that Maldonate did ●●k● that ●ath (if you do, without a dispensation he must be perjured) yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to show that either he or any other jesuite did once violate the same 
i Reply pag. 9●. . I fear you willbe deceived, for if your excuse fail, Maldonate must get a learneder advocate, or plead guilty, and it seems you are to seek, when you fly from the words of the oath, & seek relief from the extension of the intent thereof. For I suppose he is not so ignorant (saith the jesuite) but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends itself no further, then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers 
k Reply pag. 9●. . He should be as blind as Mr Malone, if he should take his shifts for a fit gloss for this text; who shall measure the extent of this oath, but they that first occasioned it, the council of Trent? and will their decree patronise his conceit? It will tell you that [ad c●●rcenda petulantia ingonia] to restrain petulans wits 
l Conc. Trid. sess. 4. Decret. 3 , the Synod doth decree that Doctors shall not interpret the Scriptures [contra eum sensum quem tenuit & tonet sancta matter ecclesia, aut contra unanimem consensum patrum] against that sense which the holy mother Church hath & doth hold, or against the unanimous consent of Fathers 
m Ibid. . But is this all, if it were, the jesuite would think himself secure, but we shall find that in the first place it inhibites [●t nemo prudentiae innxus, sacram scripturam ad suos s●nsus contorqueat;] that no man lea●ing to his own wisdom, do wrest the Scriptures to his own sense 
Ibid. . which Maldonat doth confess he hath done. [non nego me hujus interpretationis authorem neminem habere] I do not deny (saith he) that I have no author of this interpretation. Besides the council condennes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers, but the jesuit will not have the oath bind, so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded: whether the council wants faith, or the jesuit, let the jesuit resolve. The words of the oath excludes the jesuits gloss, & are stricter than the Counsels decree: The council condemns interpretations that are private from a man's own wisdom, or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers 
o Ibid. , though it be with many assistants, but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures, not only with glosses that are contra, against the Fathers, (this were too little) but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniform consent of Fathers 
p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta etc. : So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose; it neither shadowing nor salving the Jesuits credit, for the question is not, whether a Divine free and at liberty may use S. Augustine's practice in the interpretation of Scripture, but whether a jesuite tied to the oath, nec eam unquam, never to interpret, [nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum] but according to the uniform consent of Fathers, ●ay without breach of faith enjoy this liberty, this is the question.  
But their jesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers, and this jesuite only affords him, a good word, but sweats not at all for his relief, or defence: So that all may see, the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice, slander, ignorance, and of bold and desperate forehead, which the blistered tongue of the jesuite would have cast upon him.  
He wrongeth me in like sort 
q Reply pag. 92 , saith the jesuite: If his learned pen hath done you wrong, it hath been by detecting your frauds, as (before) the perjuries of your Order: For wherein is the wrong, but in showing forth the wisdom of your insinuations? For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader believe, that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not descent from the ancient Doctors, so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture, without making himself more learned, more pious, and more holy than they were 
r See the Reply pag. 92. , but shows that you have done it, enforcing the same from your reason of the Father's learning, piety, and holiness, which looks upon all points with like authority. And suppose that (according to your own) principles) an interpreter should descent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remo●est from the foundations of Faith, as T●bies dog his wagging of his tail, I hope you cannot deny but by that Act, if they be not more pious and holy than the Fathers from whom they vary, yet they make themselves more learned in that particular, if your reason be true, or sound; For if the learning, piety, and holiness of the Fathers, be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture, they that vary from them in doctrine drawn from thence, must make themselves more learned, 〈◊〉, and holy than they were. But upon revisal what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confess, he doth labour to excuse, and to this intent he refines his character, and tells us a long story of his thoughts, that he who in such points of faith, as those be which I laid down in my demand, would prefette his own private interpretation of Scripture before the general and uniform agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancy 
s Reply pag. 93 .  
Is it but arrogancy to deny the Fathers in a point of faith? such as those be which you have laid down? It seems your faith is of your own making, otherwise it would be heresy, especially being perversely done, against so great a light, and conjoined testimony; but why more in these points that are named by you, and such like, then in others? learning, piety, and holiness direct in every point of religiou, as well as in these, and therefore if it conclude arrogancy to those that oppose in these, you must show us a reason why it doth not in others also; And so fare, as I can see the jesuite hath no reason (against the currant of their whole Church) to make learning, piety, and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture, no not in points of faith, when (by their own confession) these three Graces were suspended from guiding the Roman faith, for whole ages together 
t Stapl. Relect. cont. 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum (solâ Haeresi excepta) cogitari potest, quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit, maxim ab an▪ no 100L. , and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine, 
Bellarm. in Chronolog. an▪ 970. Vide seculum infelix, in quo nulli Scriptores illustres, nulla Concilia, Pontifices parum solliciti de republ● Sed divina providentia fecit, ut nullae surgerent haereses novae. ; & from thence persuade obedience▪ then from learning pi●ti● or holiness at all, which you neither acknowledge requisite 
† Papi●ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit; optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint, vel minùs boni quam ●aeteri mortales esse solent. , or assistant to the guider of your Catholic faith. And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent & determined▪ cannot preserve the jesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition, the reason being alike for both; So that there needs no consideration of the points, nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned, the mistake presupposed by the jesuite being a just charge. But he proceeds and tells us, that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldness, when he offered to produce good and certain▪ grounds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he laid down 
y Reply pag. 93 .  
M. Malone; this is boldness (believe it) and such, which the best of your own, notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend; & therefore it is justly so styled by the most reverend Primate. It is apparent that your confidence herein had no other prop at first, but ignorance, to conceit your ability, howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudence for your further assistance, & if your answer to this be not mere blockish you shall triumph everlastingly. In your challenge your promise, for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion, to produce good and certain grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Father's authority will not suffice.  
And further you desire any Protestant to allege any one text out of the said Scripture, which condemneth any of the above written points 
z See the Jesuits challenge. . This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer, a just derision of your boldness & ignorance who against the consent of your learned council will attempt to prove confession, prayers to Saints, image worship, Limbus patrum, & Purgatory etc. by good & certain grounds out of the sacred Scriptures, whenas some of those points are confessed neither express, nor involutè, to be contained therein 
a ●annes 2. 2▪ q▪ 1▪ ●. 10▪ , & all of them referred to the tradition of the universal Church 
b Gloss. in Gratian. de Poeni●en▪ d▪ 5▪ c. 1. in poenitentia▪ Canus lo●. th●ol●. ●. c▪ 4▪ Coster. in compend. orthodo●ae fidei Demonstr▪ propos. 5▪ c. 2▪ p. 162. . Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldness? hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance, who sees not an amazed jesuite? He dares not deny the truth, that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture; neither hath he the modesty to confess his lapse, and therefore frames such an answer, that justly makes him ridiculous unto all.  
When by & by (saith he) we shall come to dispute of Traditions, we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture, that such divine traditions are no less to be believed of us, then are those points of faith, which be expressly mentioned in holy Writ: and then it will appear how it was a confidence of the truth, which did beget this boldness in me, and nothing else but partiality which begot in him that sinister suspicion 
c Reply pag. 93 .  
Is not here wisdom? merus Logicus is a better rational than we find here. He will prove by Scriptures, traditions are no less to be believed, then points of faith expressed in holy Writ; will it follow therefore, confession, image-worship etc. may be proved by good & certain grounds out of sacred scriptures? Where were your Canonists, schoolmen, & late Jesuits their eyes or wits, that they could neither see nor find out this, but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid down in Scripture 
d See before lit▪ ● . They saw what you pretended: your Arguments are no news▪ they used them to the same purpose with as much wiliness, as you either have, or can do, yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition, to have good & certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures. Besides, the points specified, either have good & certain grounds out of scriptures, or they have none. If they have none, how can the jesuit produce them? if they have any, why doth your church persuade their belief from the word not written, the tradition of the universal Church. Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight, for if he prove traditions of as necessary belief, as points expressed in scriptures what gains hath he? for he doth it in gross; & this proves there are traditions, but not conf●rmes any of the points by good grounds out of sacred scriptures, or in particular, that confession, Prayers ●o Saints, Image-Worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatory, etc. are divine traditions. And th●n the Iesuit● hath not performed what he promised in handling traditions, no not in his endeavours, neither will he ever do▪ if ●is own guess aright.  
The jesuite tells us he will forbear to urge any more ●h●● other injury whereby he charged us with forging, coining▪ and clipping, the ●●n●ments of antiquity 
e Reply pag. 93 .  
And do you not think it had been better his forbearance had begun before? But let us examine this injury, and it will not be any great trouble to make the jesuite impudent, or a confessionary of such frauds. And first to begin with the first of forging, and coining; not to name all▪ (this were to much) but some of most kinds, First, D●●ation: as Constantives for his temporal Patrimony 
f See before ●▪ ●05. ●06. . Secondly Counsels, as Conciliu● Si●●●●●an▪ & 〈◊〉 su● Sylvestr● 
g See before p▪ 203. 204. 20●. ; Thirdly Canons, as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africa, and the Arabian to the whole world 
h See before p. ●73. ; Epistles, as your De●●●●●ls never heard of in antiquity, but invented by your Merchant, when Rome had forgot to speak in her ancient elegancy 
i See before p▪ 202▪ ; Besides false titles, have been given to Books, but by whom? for whose benefit? you can judge. If this be not forging and ●●y●ing charge ●s with falsehood.  
But if I should at large prosecute this, it would trouble patience itself to attend. Besides is it not forging and coining, to cite from a father that which he never sp●ke● as your Aquinas hath do●e from S. Cyrill● Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy; an evidence applauded beyond all other▪ For saith Canus, all other anthors never said so much for it, as Aquinas his Cyrill 
Canus l▪ 6. ●▪ 5 Cyrillus apud Thoma●●ul●o evidentiùs quim authores ●ae●e●i huic veritati testimonium perhibet. , and yet in the true Cyrill there is never a word to be found. And further in the Council of Chalcedon hath not the same Thomas 
l In oppose▪ con: ●rrores Graeco●●m.  mentioned decrees they never dreamt of; and laboured to make the Greeks esteemed Heretics by such invented forgeries, that he hath brought against them, and all for App●a●●●● R●●●▪ ●or ●●● holiness' his universal vicarage. The cause showeth the forger, and the forger confesseth the weakness of the cause.  
Now not only forging and coining, but also clipping hath been too manifest. You say yourselves, that Heretics have done this, and we believe it, and who are those heretick●▪ if you cannot declare, who those be, surely they were never done, the assigning of persons, time and pl●●e, by your doctrine, being the medium to find such concealments out; Further, if the monuments of antiquity be corrupted, we may justly accuse you, that pretend to be the keepers and teachers of the Church, that you would suffer such things to be done, and know not whom you may truly suspect; so that if you confess corruption, declare the corrupters; if you know corruptions, and do not assign them, it is more than probable, that you were acquainted with the work. Howsoever, you may not return this upon us, whom you acknowledge to be little ●●●●ienter, than your order, and but a little in antiquity preceding your faith; So that we may conclude the injury is little, the accusation being just.  
The jesuite nameth other injuries that he will let pass▪ as, when to shun that difficulty which pinched him (saith he) in my demand, he framed it f●●re otherwise than it was prep●●nded 
Reply pag▪ 93 94. .  
See the answer thereto, whether the jesuite played not Simplician in the demand. For the ●●i● passages, which he likewise complaineth of, the jesuite promiseth afterwards to discover the● etc. To which we refer the Reader.  
Yet one thing the jesuite must not l●t pass to observe that when he said that the Answerers' Religion cannot be ●●ue, because it disalloweth of m●●y chief articles, which the Saints and father's of that primitive Church of Rome did generally hold ●o be true, the Answerer will needs prescribe unto him what he must prove saying, that it will not ●e sufficient for him, that some of the Father's 〈◊〉 some of those opinions, but he must prove, if he will deal to the purpose, that they held them generally, and held them too, not as opinions, but 〈◊〉 d●●ide, as 〈◊〉 to the substance of faith and Religion 
Reply pag. 94 .  
Surely if these be not fit ca●tions for them to observe that by antiquity▪ universality and consent of Fathers pretend to find the truth of doctrine, let any modest nature discern, for if the jesuite observes not these rules, he may urge at pleasure, but can prove nothing▪ if they be of faith now, they must have been so in the Primitive times; for that rule is unalterable and without change▪ And besides 
Tertul. d● Virg. vel. c. 1. Regula fidei una omnino est sola illa immobilis & i●reformabilis.  if they were then reputed points of faith, the rule to prove doctrine by consent would fail, if the Fathers did not generally consent in every one of these: for if Fathers did differ in grounds of Faith and Catholic Religion, where was their harmony?  
And if they consent not in all, why should their consent be made a rule, for the confirmation of any 
p Cal Lex. jurid. Regulae of●icium est, exhibere nobisgeneraliter definitionem juris. ? But wherefore doth the jesuite distaste these? he shows it is not for any just exception he can take against them, but out of a jealou●ie from whence they proceed, whether from charity, which he will not believe, or which is more likely perchance from a conceit of his weakness, and ignorance whereby (the Answerer) was afraid that he knew not himself, what he had to prove, or how it might be proved 
Reply pag. 94 ; which the jesuite (for his ownsake) is unwilling to acknowledge.  
For (saith he) though I confess myself to be the weakest of a thousand, yet have I no reason to think that he would any way support my weakness. who hath undertaken to enter into 〈◊〉 with me before such Spectator's, ●● in their view the ●east ●●yle cannot be re●●ived without a great disgrace 
r abide. .  
Here the jesuite manifesteth his charity. but declareth no syllable for defence of his knowledge; He makes his own glory the end of his quarrel, and deemeth the Answerers' endeavours to look towards the same end; but it i● 〈◊〉 glory ●● disgrace, that his 〈◊〉 resolution 〈◊〉 ●● fears: ●● 〈◊〉 God●●●uth from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉▪ too keeps Christ's 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉, this i● the work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he be reviled by frogs and locusts▪ he despiseth it, 〈◊〉 ●e knowe● will 〈◊〉 in ●er 〈◊〉, and wisdom will have a time as to be justified of so to 〈◊〉 her children.  
And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answerer● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what he esteems them, the Jesuits cha●●ty appea●●s but small, that feeds Christ's flock (like the hireling) for the wages of appl●●se, and not from the ground of 〈◊〉 Pases, because▪ he 〈◊〉 the Lord. For ●er him 〈◊〉 of the most lea●●ed 〈◊〉 c●●●itie to himself, or 〈◊〉 towards the Fathe●● (as ●● pleaseth) I am 〈◊〉 ●e hath said nothing here, that may persuade us▪ that he hath swallowed down all antiquity, or that his knowledge is so great, that from the Answers learned 〈◊〉▪ he might not receive instruction. But the jesuite 〈◊〉 know that these are not the reasons that moved him to persuade the obs●●●ation of these rules, but their desperate impude●ci●s; for who knows not that they can pretend Fathers for their cause, that held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by devising a 〈◊〉 etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉▪  make them their friends when they are urged against them, and also make that faith, which was not in the Father's Creed, neither found in any of their expositions upon the same. This is the reason of giving these c●●tions, because they use the Fathers to blind, not to manifest the truth of the ancient ●aith: & therefore▪ the jesuite may see how ●ond his imaginations are, & how poor h●● conceit▪ But the jesuit sees the Roman faith to be such, that he dare not undertake to prove it but bysome few, and that not as points 〈◊〉 but as points held by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by presumption▪ as if in antiquity there were not a 〈◊〉 betwixt their Creed, with the points therein, & other remote deductions from the same. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether this 〈…〉 which the 〈…〉 of Fathers. Now he will give 〈…〉 wherefore he 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 is, he 〈…〉 any purpose.  
For first he confesseth it absurd (that is 〈…〉 Father's 〈…〉 and saying of all and 〈…〉 time 〈◊〉 Religion: and therefore it will be much more 〈◊〉 to find out their general consent that a●● so l●ng de●●. And there he would ●●ve the Reader 〈◊〉 that the agreement thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉, which i● not otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●●●led the general con●ent of ancient Fathers▪ and to prove this he hath urged S. Augustine, That when he disputing 〈◊〉 the Pelag●●●s, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers, he thoug●●●● had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby the common ●aith of the wh●●e Church. And the 〈◊〉 of Ephes●● having produced ●●t ●en Fathers, made no 〈◊〉 but tha● by the●● agreeing authority, the consent of the whole▪ Church w●● f●lly 〈◊〉 against Nest●ri●●, for ●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubt (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) but th●s● 〈◊〉 did i● judgement agree with all the rest of their 〈◊〉 
Reply pag. 94▪ 95. .  
But all the wh●●e he doth little consider, that his own do not agree with him, what makes the consent of Fathers: For 〈◊〉 would ha●e those to be coun●●● all the Doctors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be justly 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of their 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉, and the rest neglected 
Greg. de Valen. loco supra citat. Omnes esse censentur i●, quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus consideratis, ●ruditionis, pi●tatis, 〈◊〉, etc. ut à prudentibus certè ●●●um solummodò ratio habe●i deb●●t, c●●●ris neglectis, quasi nihil 〈◊〉, si cum illis 〈◊〉. , etc. 〈◊〉 ●● was of 〈◊〉▪ that 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collect by hi● practi●●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he conc●●●ing Augusti●●, who 〈◊〉 Malachy's day●●● sacrifice of 〈◊〉 and p●●yers of 〈◊〉: and 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
● A●or inst. Mor part. 1. lib▪ 10 cap. ●●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 there be on● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do●●ors ●●●ing, th●● is, 〈◊〉 the rest. Now if 〈◊〉 take consent of Fathers, according to 〈◊〉, than we ●inde a conse●t of Fathers in a point of 〈◊〉, against 〈◊〉 Catholic Church, ●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, Orig●●, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉, A●brose, 
● Stapleton de●ens. Ecclesiastic. 〈…〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ant 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non sunt ●●sens●, sed sententiam contrariam tradiderunt.  Clem●ns 〈◊〉, and Ber●ard, did not assent unto the 〈◊〉 (which 〈◊〉 (saith he) in the 〈◊〉 of Fl●rence, 〈…〉 if you desire more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justinus 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 
〈…〉 obligandi. .  
For your consent, whether it would prove better for you th●● 〈◊〉 hath done, I cannot tell, but I am sure that the Answerer, who durst try the 〈◊〉 by the Fathers, which he is ●ot ●oun● unto▪ their consent being not (by 〈◊〉 confession) the 〈◊〉 of faith, ●● confident that by them you will not find two witnesses, much lesse●enne that will justify your cause, without a personal, or (at least) material opposition: And therefore howsoever this be not their general consent, (if we speak properly) yet we will presume i● to be so for the present▪ to see whether you be able to performs any thing, that so gloriously boast of so much, which we are confident you cannot in regard some of your points mentioned are confessed by your own, neither to be in Fathers▪ o● Scriptures at all; as Ad●●●tion of Images for so Mass●●●● in libelli● de Picturi● & Imaginib●●, doth seem to acknowledge, and Roffens●s your Martyr hath the same opinion, or but a very little better of the scorching Article of your Purgatory faith 
c See before pag. ●4. , so that the jesuite hath little cause to think▪ that we ●ea●e the testimonies of Father's for the points in controversy▪ when as wise as himself know, that they are not th●●● to be found.  
But though w●●ermit this for the prese●●, to see whether the jesuite can prove any thing by his own touchstone▪ yet it will not be amiss to consider that his▪ collection out of S. Augustine is rejected by that Father's testimony: for whereas the jesuite insin●●teth, that S. Augustine was of opinion, that the common faith of the whole Church may sufficiently▪ be▪ pr●●●d by the uniform doctrine ●f 1●. chief Fathers. Yet when S. Hierome brought a ●umber of Fathers, S. Augustine sticketh not to answer him in this manner. I might as I believe easily find● some Fathers to be of the contrary opinion, if I did read much; but the very Apostle S. Paul offereth himself●●●t●●e● for all these, y●● above all these. To him I ●lye, to him I appeals from all other interpreters, and seek unto him in that which he writes to the Galathians 
d A●gust▪ epist. 1●. ●o●●e● qu●dem ut arbitro●, facilè repe●●r●, ●i 〈…〉 ipse 〈◊〉 ●ro his 〈◊〉, ●●ò supra ●os omnes Apostolic Paulus ●ccu●●●●▪ Ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad ipsum a● omnib● qui aliud sen●i●nt lite●●●●● ejus 〈…〉 provo●●● 〈◊〉 i●●●oga●● 〈◊〉, & ●●▪ qu●●o in ●● quod 〈…〉 .  
And by this which hath been said, we perceive that the jesuite in a manner is urged to confess, that this Rule wants perfection, and that the Father's consent cannot be absolutely produced, but presumed only.  
Neither doth it please the jesuite the other caution laid down, th●● he must▪ pr●●ve that the Fathers held th●se points not only generally, but as appertaining to the substance of faith and Religion: and from hence he would collect, that the most learned Answerer feareth that they shall be able to prove, that the Fathers h●lde them generally indeed, and therefore provideth this revy, ●rgeing them to prove further, that they held them as appertaining to the substance of Faith and Religion 
e Reply p▪ ●●. .  
A fit collection for a wise apprehension, before he tells us, that in points no● determined, she (the Church) granteth free liberty unto all Catholic Doctors, to expound aswell the Scriptures, as the Fathers, for the upholding of that part, which themselves do think to be most probable 
f Reply pag▪ 9● . In which he means that the Scriptures in points not determined, as in the cause of Predestination, and conception of the blessed Virgin▪ might be interpreted against the general consent of Fathers, as the two Jesuits Pererius and Maldonate have done, and the Fathers themselves expounded with such a gloss, as makes best for the upholding of that part.  
Now if the general consent of Fathers be able to determine a point that is not the fide, why are they rejected by the Jesuits, and the Jesuits justified by Mr Malone? if the Father's consent hath strength only in points of Faith, why doth he quarrel at this caution, which he must acknowledge necessary, not proceeding from fear, but from a wise and prudent consideration?  
And to prevent us herein (saith the jesuite) he affirmeth before hand, that the said points be not all chief articles of faith 
g Reply pag. 93. . what doth he labour to prevent you in, unless it be in resisting you, making those articles of faith, which were never of universal belief in the Christian world?  
But to whom doth he tell these tales? if to those of his own profession, it is idle and needless: if to us, it is most ●●●rue: for (saith he) it is well known that with us they be certainly accounted chief articles of faith, being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible ●●th●●itie of the Church 
h Reply ibid.  It is neither ●eedelesse for his own; nor untrue, being delivered to your selves; For the most reverend Father knows it is his duty, daily to persuade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his own, neither can your Arguments make it untrue: for are all things you account, or the Trent C●●ncell hath determined of so necessary light, that every man must believe them?  
You may persuade this in Peru, or Mexico, but your neighbours the Venetians will not believe you, that dwell nearer home; neither have all your Catholic Children such opinion of that Council as to receive it.  
Now our jesuite would have them of faith from our confession. Neither can our Adversaries' themselves (saith he) deny that they appertain to the substance of Faith and Religion, s●●ing that they condemn them for heresy in us 
i Reply pag. 93. .  
here the jesuite will not have an Heresy to be but in point of faith, that the denial thereof might exclude us from salvation; if this be the rule by which the jesuite will try Heresies, I think these will not prove of that stamp in our opinions; For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them▪ that embrace these gross follies. Secondly, we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith, but are additions, that had nothing to glue them to the Creed; but Babylonish Clement: We take them for gross corruptions, but to make them errors in fundamental points, our Church hath not I think declared it.  
Heresies of deeper error and more elavated pride, then are found in this Catalogue, proclaim themselves among you, those pe●ces declare no● your greatest defection.  
Who abhors not your tyrannical Hildebrandine insurrection, whereby you trample upon God's power, the authority delegated to Kings, and Bishops, and the whole Preisthood of the Catholic Church? Secondly your Conscience▪ Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chair, and give the Pope Christ's infallible office. This Constance could not endure, and 
k Sess▪ 2▪ & 4▪  Basill 
l Sess▪ ●3▪  thought Heresy never doubted of.  
Who is ignorant, that heresies have had their degrees, which they could not have had in respect of faith▪ if all did equally totter the foundation? Augustine defines an heretic otherways then from the foundation; He is an Heretic, that for l●cre of any temporal commodity, a●d especially for his own vainglory and preferments sake (as your Courtiers do) doth beget or follow false or new opinions 
m August▪ in libro de utilieredend. ca●s▪ 2●▪ quest. 3. c▪ Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus temporalis commodi, & ma●imae gloriae, principatusque fui gratia falsos, ac ●o●as opiniones, vel gigni●, vel sequitur. ; and this may be done in points which are not fundamental. Besides, how many are accounted Heretics in this common course of appellation, and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith? For we find Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther 
* 4▪ I●●●●. 1●●●  to style it Heresy, for any man to say that the Church, or himself hath not power [statuere ●rtic●l●s fidei] to make new articles of faith; as also that Luther's assertion was no less, [optima p●●it●●tia, nov● vita,] new lif● was the best repentance: and yet I hope the jesuite will remove these fare from the foundation.  
And if the Pope may err in his Bulls, to call that Heresy which is not fundamental error; why may not you give leave to others to use the same Liberty seeing he is the pattern of imitation? unless you think the Pope above Angels, and that he may deliver what he pleaseth, and make Heresy what he list, and the Anathema that thereby he deserves himself, by his very pleasure should fall upon others. Nay, you have gone further, De Consecrat: dist: 5. Cap. ●t jejun▪ that he will never be a Christian, qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus. Now if a man may be counted an infidel and unbeleiver by you, for omission of the Ceremony of Confirmation: why should you draw from the liberties of men's tongues an Argument, that whosoever by you or ourselves are styled Heretics must needs in regard of those points, err in the foundation?  
Do you not know it often falls out (as when you charge us) that after the way, which is called Heresy, so do many of the faithful serve the Lord God of their Fathers? Shall we condemn to eternal fire Irenaeus, justine Martyr, all the Millenaries, and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius, Augustine, or Alph●●sus de Castro have styled Heresies? it were too rigid a censure, and more fit for the judges of Hell, than the Priests of God.  
So that this proves but a vain ground to infer these points to be of faith, because they are accounted heresies; and if we will observe it, we may from his own words find, that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamental or not, as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any one's conscience being lawfully convicted of the same. And therefore our jesuite will not have them Heretics that deny tradition, Images etc. simply by a bare and naked negation, but wilfully and perversely by obstinate denial.  
Yet will our Answerer say (saith the jesuite) that by the Fathers they were held but only as opinions, and not as belonging to the substance of faith, and this is but his own opinion, for wheresoever the Fathers do profess them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather than for points of faith 
Reply pag. 9●▪ .  
The jesuite speaks of the Answerers divining, but here divines amiss himself & indeed proves downright a Deceiver, for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Jesuits proof for their consent? and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can, the most reverend Primate knows well enough, that they neither held them generally as opinions, or of faith, neither is he so ignorant in antiquity, but that he well understands those ancient Soldiers of the Catholic Church were always ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Colour's, so that the jesuit would persuade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Father's general consent in these points as opinions, but not as of faith, which was never dreamt of by the Church; By this it will appear that they care not by what means they establish their decrees, nor what fetches they use to drag the people to their opinion, so they may sway in the Church of God, and tyrannize with their Antichristian Sceptre over the Kingdom of Saints.  
The jesuite before he leaves off, would fain say something for himself and cause, as first that wheresoever the Fathers do profess them in their works, they never tell him that they hold them for opinions, rather than for points of faith 
o Reply pag. 95 , which we acknowledge, for indeed there is no such profession in the Fathers, yet I think and upon good grounds, if they had known of any such fundamental points, some would have declared them to the Church.  
Secondly he confesseth that some of the said points were not declared by the Church in former ages to be necessary and chief Articles of faith and Religion; yet they were ever belonging to the substance of faith from the beginning and without doubt were held for such at least implicitly and virtually by the holy Fathers, howsoever our Answerer upon no better ground than his divining humour doth give out the contrary 
p Reply pag. 9● .  
Surely it could not be faith at any time, if not then, for to the Church long before was declared the whole counsel of God, so that indeed it may be of the Popish faith, which may be declared 1500. years after Christ, but not that of the ancient Church, which was once delivered to the Saints; And if the jesuite will have that of the Foundation which was never so declared or reputed till our last times, let him prove ex re ●at●, that it is so, and not think himself able, by his without doubt, to persuade us that the Fathers held those points virtually and implicitly, ●● belonging to the substance of faith, and then he doth something, for if the bare act of declaration may make an article of faith, the Bishop of Rome, with his ●●●ncell, may make us an other belief, and turn Christianity into a new mould, a thing much desired, if more than probable grounds do not deceive us.  
But if these points were decreed in aftertimes from some inward and virtual substance of faith which was inherent in them, let him declare it, and by some means or other help our eye-fight, that can perceive no such thing in the points here mentioned.  
And whereas the wizard thinks every man of his own profession, he is deceived, his conjectures are fare from the grounds that are followed by the most learned Answerer; and how fare it is from divining, to express a truth, any will apprehend that knows that divining hath relation to things to come, and not to things past; But what he promiseth in the next Chapter, we will examine whereby I think we may come to more perfect knowledge of their Catholic fr●●des, though not of their 〈◊〉, as he would persuade.   

SECT: XII.  
THe jesuite having travailed in the defence of certain points (from the Father's testimony) that are not of the foundation of Faith; and fearing to be censured by Lyrinensis, who saith, that the aunci●●t consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to be s●ught and followed by us, not in every petty question belonging to the Law of GOD, but ONE 〈◊〉 at least principally in the Rule of Faith 
a See the testimony urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate, in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge pag. 26. , doth in this Section inquire; H●●● a point of Faith may be discerned from an indifferent opinion in Religion 
b Reply p. 96. , and declares the reason of his so doing, Forasmuch (saith he) ●● our Answerer affirmeth, that all the points by me laid down in my demand, be not chief articles, I thought it meet by this disputation, to disproove him herein, and to sh●w that they be all such chief articles of faith, at the obstinate denial of any of them depriveth a man of all true belief, and maketh him a faithless Heretic. For performance whereof we are first to inquire, which is the way or certain Rule to know an article of Faith, from an indifferent opinion? and that being found out, by squaring the said points thereby, we shall easily understand, whether they be thief articles, yea or ●● 
c Reply pag. 96 ?  
Now in this passage the jesuite meeteth not at all with the most learned Answerers observation; For he denies all the points propounded by the jesuite to be chief articles, in regard of those which are more necessary, & fundamental, (which only are to be enquired of by consent of Fathers in Lirinensis his judgement 
d See above lit. ●. , and not because in their own nature they are indifferent, for if he should conceit them such, why should he style you Heretics for your false declarations concerning them; nay why should there be controversies at all betwixt us?  
Secondly, all that the jesuite urgeth here, satisfieth not the most learned Answerer in show only: For unless he can prove, that these points were according to his Rule declared by the Catholic Roman Church for chief Articles of Faith, before those Father's times which he urgeth, in Lirinensis his judgement; all his quotations of antiquity in defence of them are to no purpose. And I would willingly see where the Roman Catholic Church by her declaration hath defined these points de fide, before the Ages of those Fathers, which the jesuite produceth for confirmation of the same. But notwithstanding he goeth a by way, and followeth not his Answerer, yet I will not leave him, but take some brief view of this discourse also.  
And first he excepts against the Scriptures; These must be no Rule, whereby to discern chief Articles of Faith, from indifferent opinions in Religion; nay, to make Scriptures the Rule, is but to shake hands with all condemned Heretics 
Reply pag. 96 . And this (he telleth us) he hath already discovered; but fearing lest it be in conceit and opinion only, he is here resolved further to prosecute the same, and layeth this for his ground, There be many confessed points of Faith, which are not in any sort expressed, or as much as once touched by the Scripture 
f Ibid. .  
Sure they are of the Popish Creed, or not at all: for the Catholic Church taught none as necessary to salvation, but what were contained in the Scriptures 
g Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto. l. 4. c. 11 Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus necessaria, & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant. . Yet he will prove his proposition from Augustine. The Apostles truly (saith S. Augustine as he is urged by the jesuite) have not delivered any thing concerning this point: but that custom which was alleged against Cyprian ought to be held to have been derived from their tradition 
b Reply pag. 96 .  
But what point is this? Rebaptization, a point as fare from the foundation, as Rome from Heaven, that only concerns the manner & for●● of 〈◊〉 Baptism. What points else hath he tha●●● not concludent from the Scripture? Not one, unless (you suppose) that he keeps them as concealments, yet he thinks he doth something when he tells us from Hierome that the scriptures consist not in reading but in the true understanding of their sense & meaning, & that by an evil interpretation the Gospel is no more the word of God, but the word of man, yea which is worse, the word of the Devil 
i Reply ibid. : As if this were not the matter that we complain of, that Popes will interpret as they please, & presume to say; this shallbe the sense of the Holy Ghost. But to fit himself for performance of what he hath undertakes, he saith, that there be ●●● three means or ways, by which a Conclusion deduced from the scripture may be pretended to be infallible 
k Reply pag. 97 .  
But what is this to the foundation of Faith? I hope every infallible proposition is not of such necessary belief, that a ma● must believe it on pain of damnation. You told us, but 〈◊〉, that your new Creed was propounded only to Scholars, and chiefly unto such as are to receive promotions unto Scholastical or Ecclosiasticall dignity 
l Reply pag. 98 , what are all lay-men Clerks, or is the nature of your faith changed?  
Now the jesuite nameth his three only means; the first humane discourse, the second Private inspiration, the third the authority of some extern mean ordained by GOD betwixt the Scripture and us &c 
m Reply pag. 97 .  
To avoid the two first, he makes a long discourse, but he fights with his own shadow; for we make not the Scripture of private interpretation, as being against the Apostles rule 
* 2 Pet. 1. 20. , neither do we make our reason the only Inquisitor to find out the sense of Scripture knowing, that the carnal man perceiveth no● the the things that are of GOD: Yet this we say, that reason being assisted by grace becomes a divine instrument, whereby the scriptures may be used to saving knowledge and to find out the mysteries of our Faith.  
Now seeing that neither humane discourse (saith the jesuite) 〈…〉 by God betwixt the Scripture and ●●▪ (such as is the authority of the Magistrate 〈…〉 the Prince's law and the people) that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and propound unto us all decisions and 〈◊〉 whatsoever 
Reply pag. 97 .  
The jesuite shall never find that there is any such exter●● infallible means 〈◊〉 by GOD betwixt the Scripture and ●● to 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and conclusions whatsoever that we are bound to believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Neither when they come to point it out are they agreed who it is. For sometime, it is the general and uniform consent of ancient Fathers that is the assured Touchstone to try all controversies betwixt us 
o See the Jesuits Epistle to the King. , and this general consent may consist of 〈…〉 father's 
p Reply pag. 94 , ●●● sometimes of fewer, (as in 〈◊〉 of the Commandments and leaving out the Second, they cannot find the one half to reckon them after that sort●) sometime the practice of the Church; sometime the rule of Faith; sometime the Counsels interpretations; and sometime, all must vanish, and that which the Head determineth is a known truth, that which the Head condemneth is a known error 
q Hart colloque cum Rainolds. pag. 44. .  
Now which of all these are infallible? For Consent of fathers, Cajetan will tell us, that God hath not tied the exposition of the Scriptures to the sense of the Fathers, and therefore he resolves to follow a new sense agreeable to the Text. [〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alienus] though it be repugnant to the stream of the sacred Doctors 
t Cajetan. in Prooem. comment in Genes. . In like manner Andradius 
Andradius Defens. Triden. Fid. l. 2. pag. ●●●. Non 〈◊〉 debentur eorum explicationibus addicti, & alligar●, quin sit 〈◊〉 omnibus illis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid Dei praesidijs adjuti explicando valeamus, & sensum alium 〈◊〉 etiam dissimilem afferre atque noris explicationibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae & sanctorum 〈◊〉 fidem; atque pietatem illustrate. .  
For the practice of the Church; (if they mean the Roman) it is no good direction, in regard (as we have showed before) it is very subject to variety, as in the point of children's receiving of the Eucharist 
t See before pag. 25. ● See before pag. 100L. , and in the point of judges and the like, all which are full of uncertainty.  
For their rule of faith, we see, that this may be in the Roman Church enlarged, extended; yea we have wits in the Church of Rome that can censure it making it in some considerations standalous, heretical 
x Censura Symboli Apostolorum censur. ar. 3. Tota Haec propositio equivocatione la●orat, quae inducere potest in haeresim propter ambiguas particulas de & ex: & quia ordinaria de habitudinem importat principij componentis etc. Ideo propositio in hoc sensu falsa est, scandalosa, haeretica. , 〈◊〉 
y Censur. ar. 4. Haec propositio ambigua est, & aliquo sensu haeretica.— Periculosa est propositio, & 〈◊〉 obrium illum sensum intellect●, quas● divini●as aliquid passa, aut ●●●tua fuctit, non solum haeretica est, sed etiam impis, ● blasphema. , deceitful 
z Censur. ar. 2. Tota haec propositio captiosa est; & ●●llax. , blasphemous 
z See before lit. , erroneous 
See hereafter lit. ●. , false 
c See before lit. ●. , dangerous 
d See before lit. 7. , absurd 
Censura ar. 9 Absurda. , ambiguous 
See before lit. ●. , contrary to the word of GOD, the common sense of the Fathers and of the universal Church 
g Censura ar. 7. Propositio 〈◊〉 est, 〈◊〉, falsa, & erronea, nec non verbo Dei, & communi Patrum totiusque Ecclesia sensui contraria. ● Wadding. Legat. Phil. 3. Sect. 2. orat. 9 § 9 Pro Petro & in fide Petr● succedentibus, non pjo Concilio oravit, & exoravit. Adversus ho●, & adversus Ecclesiam in Petro, in illisque fundatam, non adversus Concilium, dixit, infernum non praevalituram, 〈◊〉 ●oncilia errâsse viderimus quando à suo capit●, à quo 〈◊〉 sanctius & veritatis influentia, recesserant vel dissen●●r●nt. Non ●●●buit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●em Pontifici, sed à Pontifice habet Concilitum, ut sit ratum ac 〈◊〉. .  
For Counsels interpretations, we shall have as much to do for to find out the sense of a Council, as of the Scripture itself. Besides, how many weak particulars may suspend a Council from her pretended infallible authority, as if not rightly called rightly headed & c? So that there remains none but the Pope for whom Christ prayed; It is he that gives authority to a Council, not the Council to him▪ But if this Lord (that would be of our conferences) prove a Lord of Misrule, where then shall we find this judge, that represents the Magistrate betwixt the Scripture and us? And surely, if the Spirit of GOD doth interpret the Scriptures, as he delivered them (holy men speaking as the spirit gave them utterance). I have said sufficient before to declare, that your Popes are no such manner of men. And many of your own exclude the Pope from this sovereign power of interpreting the Scriptures 
i Bellarm. de Concil. ●●c●. l. ●▪ c. 14. Concilium esse supra Pontific●m asscrit candinalis Cameracensis, joannes Gerson▪ jacobus Almainus, Nicolaus Cusanus, Pan●●mita●us, Cardinalis Florentinus, Abulensis et alij.— Alij vero vol●n● Papam esse in Ecclesia id, quod est Dux Venetiarum in republs. Veneta. , some reckoning up his Here●i●s as Alphonsus de Castro 
k Advers. Haer. l. 1. c. 4. Omnis enim home, erra●e potest in ●ide, etiam ●● Papa sit. Nam de Liberio etc. .  
Yet if the jesuite will have another judge then the Spirit of GOD in his word, let him be ruled by it; He s●●●●e none of our ruler; we follow that rule which the Apostles have taught Acts, XV. XXV III It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to ●●, etc.  
Neither is this supreme judge without atongue dumb and mure (as they caluminate,) but speaks by the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles, wherein every necessary point of Faith is determined and made known. And who can be judge of these hid and secret matters, but he that knows them and makes them known, even the Spirit of GOD? 1. Cor. II. X. XI. XIII. Who should interpret the law but the maker of it 
l Vult. come. in●● l. 1. tit. 2. §. 9 n. 1. I●s interpretandi leges, est penes ●undem, qui habet jus ●●●●n●i leges. ? Whose words are the Scriptures, but the words of the Spirit of GOD? Acts, XXV III. XXV. II. Pet. 1. XXI.  
Neither is it to be omitted, that the Scriptures speak as a judge, for what is attributed to GOD in regard of his supreme power and justice. Rom. XI. XXXII. [GOD hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all] is spoken of the Scriptures, Gal. III. XXII. [The Scripture hath concluded all under ●i●●●, that the promise by faith of JESUS CHRIST might be given to them that believe.] Who is it that accuseth? who is it that condemneth but this judge? Io. V XIV. The law, the word, is the judge absolute and infallible; a ministerial duty only is committed to the Pastors of the Church. Io. XII. XLVIII. Neither are Papists able to cast of this blessed Samuel from judging Israel and to erect up their own Saul, but by blaspheming the word of truth, charging it with imperfection, obscurity (and what not?) that may deprive it of its power. So that there is nothing but the wrangling of Heretics to plead for the Papal Headship and this is as vain as the rest; for unless he may irresisteably enlighten not only the understanding, but also the will, he can never compound and silence Controversies; in regard his words (let them make them divine or otherwise) are as subject to misinterpretation, as the Word of GOD, and may with more facility be perverted.  
But if we do but observe, we may perceive how they casting off the absolute direction of Truth, are involved in error and blindness. For by making their Church the only teacher, & determiner of an article of faith, they tie themselves to receive no other light from the Scriptures, than Lucifer their Pope, (for he is their Church) will convey unto them. And howsoever they boast of the Fathers, of Counsels, of the Church; yet when all comes to all, their judge of Controversies is only their Roman Bishop 
m Gr●gor. Valent. tom. 3. Commentar. in Thomam disp. 1. quaest. 1. punct. 1. Cùm dicimus propositionem Ecclesiae esse conditionem necessariam ad assensum fidei, ● nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus ejus caput, id est Romanum Pontificem pierce, vel unâ cum Concilio, ex praedicta auctoritate propositiones fidei fidelibus declarantem. , either with or without a Council 
n Ibid. punct. 〈◊〉 Si quando oriantur controversiae de Fide, Ecclesia non potest in ijs definiendis à verita●● aberrare, Haec autem Ecclesiae infallibilis auctoritas ad definiendum non est in singulis fidelibus, quip qui sine controversiâ possunt errare singuli. Neque est etiam in omnibus omninò fidelibus Frustra enim data illis esset cùm ●ieri vix possit, in fidei causis, ut ab omnibus illis sigillatim sententia dicatur. Sed residet summa illa Ecclesiae auctoritas in Christi Vicario s●●●●o Pontifice, sive unâ cum Episcoporum Concilio, sive absque Concilio res fidei defini●e velit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. Summus Pontifex cùm to tam Ecclesiam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo easu errare potest.— Constat generalia concilia saepè errasse, quando caru●●unt Summi Pontificis suffragio.— Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem Concilio●um legitimorum esse â Pontifice: non partim à Pontifice, partim à Concilio. Stapl●ton. relect. prin●▪ doctr▪ contr. 6. quaest. 3. in explicatar. 5. Potestas & infallibilit●s Papalis est potestas & gratia personalis, personae Petri & successorum ejus à Christo data▪-▪ Majoritas discretionis & maturitas judicij, si de scientia rerum sacrarum intelligatur▪ non solùm Concilium, sed & Theologo●●m collegium, imò unus aliquis Theologus Pontificem facilè superabit. Si autem de judicio fidei, & determination● sensus Scripturae, quem credere oporteat intelligatur, non est Concilium supra Papam, sed unus Papa Petri successor, cui uni Christus inde●ectib●h●atem fidei impetravit, super omnes est. , (it matters not.)  
So likewise they are deluded with the spirit of error in giving the power they do to this external judge; for our jesuite will have the judge to be the rule whereby to discover which is a point of faith, and which not; the manner how, I have told you before; whatsoever he saith is faith, must needs be so, let it be with a Council, or without. Others make the Pope's authority equal to the Scriptures 
o Christophorus de Sacrobos●o. Defence. Decr. Triden. part: ● c. 6. Dico Ecclesi● authoritatem parem esse authoritad Scripturae, & ratio est, quia unu● & idem Deus; qui regebat Apostolos & Prophetas, ne e●●arent scribendo, diright Ecclesiam, ne labatur in interpretando. , to the v●yce of GOD. Neither will they have their Pope or Church only equal to the Scriptures, but also somewhat superior thereunto 
p Albert. Pighius l. 1. Hierat. Eccles. c. 2. dicit, non so●●● non infer●orem, non sol●m parem, imo quodammodò ●●periorem, & ●●otiorem Ecclesiae autoritatem autorita●● Scriptura●um. ; for the Church is a Prophet 
q Defensor. johannis Pistor●● falso 415. Ecclesia Prophe●● est. , more than a Prophet 
r Idem falso 224. Pl●●qua● Propheta. , yea, greater than all the Prophets 
s Idem circ▪ fals. 286. Major omnibus Prophetis. , having the Spirit of GOD for 〈◊〉 ●i●ar 
t Idem (falso 416.) Spiritum Sanctum Ecclesiae Vicarium dicit. .  
Thus we see what judge the jesuite doth contest for, and how fare they labour to extend his power, to wit, that the Pope (who is not only a Prophet, but more than a Prophet, yea● greater than all the Prophets who hath the Spirit of God for his Vic●●) either with or without a Council, hath only power to determine matters of Faith, whereby we may know what to believe, and what not, with authority not only equal, but superior to the scriptures. Now what strength doth the jesuite bring to confirm this Rule?  
His first place is Esay LIIII. and the 17. Thou shalt judge every tongue that shall resist the● in thy judgement 
u Reply pag. 99 .  
Surely the jesuite is like to their Divines in the Council of Trent, who being restrained to the Scriptures, and forbidden schoole-disputes, brought all the places out of the Prophets and Psalms, where they stand the words Confiteor and its verbal Confissi●, to prove Auricular Confession, and they were accounted best learned who brought most of them 
* Hist▪ Concil. Trid●● l. 4. p. 345. : For here is nothing whereby to make the Pope the infallible judge of Controversies, unless he will conclude, that wheresoever judge or judgement is expressed, it is meant of him.  
The second is out of Mat. XI and the 18. H●ll gates shall not prevail against her 
x Reply ibid.▪ .  
We confess that all the powers of Hell shall never prevail against the Church; but we say this Church is neither the Pope naked, nor Roman as hath in many places been showed: Yet I would gladly know to what purpose this text is here produced.  
The third place is Mat. XVIII. and the ●7. H●e that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee a● a Heathen, and a Publican 
y Reply ibid. .  
If an infallible judge be here pointed out, than all these absurdities will follow. First, that every particular Church should be infallible, and the judge of Controversies; for, D●c Ecclesia hath relation to particular Churches, not to the Catholic. Secondly, a particular Church should not be subject to error in criminal causes, if this place pointed out an infallible judgement: when as this infallibility is denied not only your own Counsels, but your Popes also. 3ly, If the Church's judgement must be infallible, because CHRIST requireth us to hear the Church: How can the Pastors of the Church be excluded from this privilege, when the people are enjoined by the Apostle to obey and follow them, Heb. XIII. 17.  
His fourth place is, Ephes. four II. and 14. God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Pastors and Doctors etc. To the end that we be ●● more little children, ●a●oring with every wind of doctrine 
z Reply ib●●▪   
I shall show hereafter that this text maketh against his judge, his Monarch; for the present he may take this with him. First, that we acknowledge as long as the Church had Apostles & Prophets, their testimonies were divine and could infallibly direct. Secondly, although the ●a●tors now are means ordained by God, to the end that we be no more little children wavering with every wind of doctrine: yet it doth not follow, that they are infallible judges, seeing the argument may as well hold of each as of all who are ordained to the same end, which I think the jesuite will not acknowledge.  
His last is 1. Tim. 2. The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth 
a Reply ibid. .  
What? therefore the Pope the infallible judge! This follows not: For he is the rock (if we believe Popish interpreters) upon which the Church is built: How then can he be the Church infallibly to direct? The foundation surely differs from the roof; the Church that is builded, from the rock that she is builded upon. Secondly, the jesuite may know that we envy not the privileges which GOD hath given his Church, nay he were no member of her, that should not reverence her with obedience; and therefore we acknowledge her, the pillar and ground of Truth (if containing the Apostles) absolutely, perfectly; if without the Apostles, we deny not her Counsels▪ but with all obedience embrace them, if she command (as she is limited in matters of faith) by the Scriptures. But we see this place is more for the Church of Ephesus, concerning which the Apostle speaks literally, than Rome; and yet experience hath persuaded us, that there is no infallibility there. Further than this, some of your own dare not go, but make a difference betwixt the judgement of GOD, and the judgement of the Church, the one (they say) is infallible, but the other may sometime deceive 
b Panorm. in Decret. De senten. Excom. cap. 28. judicium Dei veritati, quae nec fallit, nec fallitur semper innititur, judicium autem Ecclesiae aliquando sequitur opinionem quae s●pè fallit & fallitur. Dried. de dog. Ecclesl. 2. p. 58. Generale Concilium Papae, Cardinalium, Episcoporum, Doctorum ●● Scriptures propheticis intelligendis non est tantae authoritatis quantae fuerit olim Apostolorum collegum. .  
For Ruffinus his testimony, that S. Basil, and S. Gregory Nazianzen did take the interpretation of the Scripture, not according to their own proper understanding, but according to the tradition of the Fathers 
c Reply p. 99 . The jesuite pointeth not out the place; if he did, I think little would appear for his purpose, in regard he is to prove the authority of a judge, not the discretion of a Doctor. And who doubts, but any wise interpreter will use all means that may inform him to perform his work? But let Ruffian pass, Augustine maketh an outcry.  
And doth not S. Augustine cry out (saith the jesuite) that Truth reposeth in the belly of the Church etc. 
d Reply ibid.   
And who saith otherwise? He that should think, that Truth is removed out of the Church, thinks amiss. But to conclude from hence, the Church, the Roman Church, the Roman Pope to be the judge or Rule of faith, is inconsequent. Neither doth that place of Augustine, cited by the jesuite in the Xth Section, [Evangeli● non credere●●, nisi me Catholica Ecclesiae commoveret authoritus] contain any thing to enforce this; for many things may move us to believe, that are not the Rule of Faith. Miracles did this work in many, but this (I hope) is far from your Rule. What is urged from Vincentius Lirinensis, hath been fully answered. His note from the Geneva Bible proves nothing: If he find this judge at Geneva, he speeds well. In these words I fear he cannot be espied.  
And now having little or nothing, he begins his Peroration. Behold here, gentle Reader, how although the articles of our Faith be grounded some way or other in the Scripture, yet the Rule to find out which is a point of faith, and which not, must be taken from the Church 
Reply p. 100 .  
Observe here what we gain from the jesuite, and then we will attend his arguments: First, he that in the page before told us, that there be many confessed points of Faith, which are not in any sort expressed, or as much as once touched by the Scriptures 
f Reply pag. ●● : in this place would persuade the gentle Reader, that the articles of their Faith are some way or other grounded in the Scripture.  
Secondly, he makes the ground of Faith to be the Scripture, yet the Rule to find out which is a point of Faith, and which not, must be taken from the Church, so that although he make their Pope their Cater-Pillar, yet Scripture is acknowledged the ground of Faith. But to make this discourse an oversight, I would know how the Rule can measure without the ground, or how Faith can remain grounded in Scripture, when their rule measures without it?  
Now the jesuite would make this known by the practice of the Primitive Church: but before he gins, he prepares his Reader. Some points there are in which controversy arising, 〈◊〉 the affirmative, nor yet the negative part is by the Church declared to be true, nor commanded to be so believed, & professed by her followers; in which (saith S. Augustine) that Faith whereby we are Christians remaining safe, either we do not know which part in true▪ and ●● suspend our definitive sentence: or else by humane and weak suspicion, we do guess otherwise then the truth is, and consequently are deceived 
Reply p. 100 .  
We know that Augustine in this place speaketh not of any matter of Faith, that is or can be by declaration of the Church, but telleth us, that our belief whereby we are Christians remaining sure and settled, our ignorance & error in other things, which are far from being of faith, will not be so dangerous.  
And other sort of points there is (saith the jesuite) wherein when controversy doth arise, one part is already found declared for true, and commanded of necessity to be so believed by all, and in these, if a man be advertised of the Church's declaration, and notwithstanding will obstinately maintain the contrary, then is he said to hold against a point of Catholic faith, and therefore accounted to be an heretic. Let us suppose (saith S. Augustin) that some man doth hold of CHRIST that error which Photinus held, which he thinketh to be the true Catholic Faith; I do not yet account him for an Heretic, except when the doctrine of the Church is laid open unto him, he yet maketh choice to continue in that error which before he held 
Reply ibid. .  
Was ever any man so mad, to think, that the Church could not point out an article of Faith? This may be done by private Churches, private Doctors: but show us if you can, that Augustine made a point of Faith from the naked ground of the Church's declaration, with Scriptures, or without, only, and for no other reason, then because it is declared. Augustine affordeth nothing here for this purpose▪ he showeth his charity, that if some man by weakness and infirmity, hold on heretical opinion if it be not obstinately and pertinaciously, he doth not account him an Heretic, ●ut I ask you (although 〈◊〉 with mercy the errant) whether you are persuaded, that he would do so of the Heresy? The point is, whether S. Augustine would have accounted Photius his opinion denying CHRIST to be GOD, an indifferent point of Religion, (as the jesuite would persuade us) before it was defined by the Church? No, the words of Augustine plainly declare, that the doctrine of the Church taught from the Scriptures, not defined by a Council, is sufficient to detect Heresy, though he would have the obstinacy of the party appear against the truth before he condemns him for an Heretic.  
But this will appear (saith the jesuite) yet more manifest, by the manner wherewith S. Augustine excused S. Cyprian etc. for that his error was not against any point as yet declared by the Church 
i Reply ibid. & pag. 101. .  
Surely S. Augustine doth not contest for that the jesuite dreameth. He excuseth Cyprian, & why? Because the Roman Church had not condemned this opinion. This is false, for this opinion was condemned, & Cyprian excommunicated by the strength of Rome (as is before showed & confessed by your own 
* See before Sect. 10. ) & yet he adhered thereunto. But that which Augustine saith here, may be interpreted by his words urged immediately before, that though Cyprian held this opinion, yet was it not with obstinacy, as the 〈◊〉 maintained theirs, but that he would have forsaken that error, if the falsehood thereof had been demonstrated unto him, not by a General Council only (as it was at Nice) but (as the jesuite urgeth his words) if any man had showed the contrary unto him. Now the Pope with his Council did decree against it, but this Augustine did not conceive (as the jesuite would collect) to be a demonstration sufficient to convict S. Cyprian; so that the jesuit doth but trifle in urging this testimony.  
Now (saith the jesuite) although this point is made plain 〈◊〉 by this holy Father's authority 
k Reply p. 101.  etc.  
What hath the 〈◊〉 no more but one Father's authority and (as you perceive) a poor one for his infallible judge? Yes, That I may leave it past all doubt (saith he) or replication, we will give a glance to see how the practice of this Doctrine was performed: and to this purpose he telleth us, that we shall find how 68 Bishop's writing from Garthage to Pope Innocentius, after having related unto his Holiness, what they had concluded themselves in the matter, they say, that they thought it convenient, to intimate the same unto his Charity, to the end, that unto the decrees of our mediacritie (say they) be annexed the authority of the See Apostolic, for the preservation of the health, and good estate of many, and also for the correction of the perversity of some others. And that the second Council held at Milevitum, sent an epistle to Pope Innocentius about the same matter beginning with these words. Seeing our Lord God by the gift of his especial grace, hath placed you in the See Apostolic &c: we beseech you to use your pastoral diligence in remedying the great dangers, wherewith the weaker members of Christ are environed 
l Reply p. 101. 102. .  
Nowhere is nothing that may conclude the Roman Bishop to be this infallible rule, it being manifest that other Bishops were sought unto and consulted as well as himself, nay after he had declared his judgement: For in the point of Easter after the Bishops of Egypt had declared their minds, and the Church of Alexandria (with the Bishop of the Roman Church) had defined the matter, yet, They do as yet expect my sentence, what I think fit to write concerning Easter day, saith Saint Ambrose 
m Ambros. ep. 83. Meam adhuc expectant sententiam, quid 〈◊〉 scribere de die Pascha. . But we are not ignorant that the consent of the patriarchal Sees was a great help to the advancement of Truth and repelling of error, and therefore those Bishops were sought unto to add their assistance for suppression of innovations or arising Heresies. Yet was not Rome sought unto in point of infallibility any otherwise then Alexandria: For we find lovinian seeking to Athanasius, that from his hand-writing he might receive an exact exemplar or declaration of the Faith 
n Theodoror. histor. Eccless. l. 4, c. 2. .  
But what judgement would the jesuite have their Innocent to have had? A judgement of assent? This, what Bishops had not? Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theoguis of Nice (Heretics) exercised it 
o Sozom. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 15 Illa quae vestro judicio decreta sunt, non contradicendo impugnare, sed consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus, et hoc libello consensum illum roboramus. : Yea Liberius a Pope desires the Emperor, that the Nicene Council might in the same manner of all Bishops be confirmed 
p Sozom. hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 10. Liberius postulavit ab Imperatore, ut fides in Concilio Nicaeno tradita subscriptionibus omnium obique Episcoporum confirmaretur. ; which I am persuaded he would not have done, if he had conceived that subscriptive. Confirmation had made a judge of Faith.  
It may be he will have the Bishop of Rome's subscription to make an Edict! Why, if this were granted, it were too weak to conclude him the rule of Faith; for Emperors did the like with a power not usurped but solicited and that by Counsels and Popes too. The first Council of Constantinople petitioned Theodosius to ratify the Decrees of that Council, that as by his Letters he called the Council, so by Seal he should fortify their Decrees 
q Epistola Synodalis ad Theodosium Imperatorem. Rogamus igitur tuam clementiam, ut per literas tu● pietatis ratum esse jubeas, confirmesque Concilij decretum, et sicuti literis, quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es; ita etiam summam corum quae decreta sunt conclusionem sententiâ ●tque sigillo tuo corrobores. . And Euagrius reports your Pope Felix to do the like, sending his Nunneries to the Emperor by his authority to confirm the Chalcedon Council 
r Enagrius histor. Eccles. l. 3. c. 18 Mittantur à Felice ad Zenonem Vitalius & Misinus Episcopi, ut ejus authoritate tum Concilium Chalcedo●●●se confirmaretur. ; and many places to the like purpose may be urged.  
But if the Church be the rule of Faith, how many absurdities will follow thereupon? As first, that there must be a Church before (and so without) Faith; because faith in the jesuits judgement cannot be before it is defined. Secondly, the Church must be the Rule of itself, unless they will put forth that Article [The holy Catholic Church] out of the Creed. Thirdly the Church must rule the foundation upon which it is built. Ephes. 2. Revel. 21. Fourthly, it is not denied by the jesuite, that this rule is ruled someway by Scripture, and therefore it hath not its rectitude in itself. So that we see the Church of God hath her ministry; the word of God the control. The Council of Nice did her duty, but Theodores telleth us how, l. 1. c. 8 
s Ibi animadversa fraudulcntia allegârunt Episcopi ex Scriptura resplendentiam soutem, flumen charactera ad substantiam, & hoc, In lumine tuo videbimus lumen, Et hoc, Ego & Pater unum sumus: & luculentius deinceps ac com pendiosius conscripsere, EIUS. DEM CUM PATRE ESSE FILIUM ESSENTIAE. .  
And that all may perceive with how much fraud and falsehood these places of Augustine are forced, we may consider that the Scriptures are sufficient 
t August. in joan. tract. 49. Cum multa fecisset Dominus Iesus non omnia scripta sunt sicut idem ipse sanctus Evan gelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse & fecisse quae Scripta non sunt, electa sunt autem quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. Serm. 38. ad fratres in Eremo inter opera August. Legite sacram Scripturam in qua quid tenendum, & quid fugiendum sit, plene inveniet●. , not only to teach faith, but also to condemn heresies 
* See before pag. 199.  in that father's judgement: and that General Counsels themselves may be amended 
u See before pag. 319. . Further he would never have moved to have passed by the Counsels of Nice and Ariminum 
x August. con. Maximin. l. 3. c. 14. Neque ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense tau quam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium. Nec ego hujus autoritate nec illius detineris. Scripturarum autoritatibus, non quorumcunque proprijs, sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re, caussa cum caussa, ratio cum ratione decertet▪ (Reply pag. 100 , if the Church had only ruled the Faith. So that the jesuite hath concluded upon halting principles: For never was the Pope acknowledged always or at any time the only Pastor of the Church; neither the Roman Church the rule to find out heresies or to declare truths: neither did the ancient Bishop's dream of submitting to the Roman Church as the only way to prevent error: neither did they think Arius his blasphemy only cursed after the determination at Nice: neither did Augustine ever breath forth as the jesuit would father upon him y, (though with caution) that an opinion which formerly was not held for a point of Faith, may by the declaration of the Church be received and held for such: Neither lastly did the Catholic Church expressly declare the Jesuits points for Chief articles of Faith.  
True it is, that a point of the Catholic Faith may not be so fully preached, or so openly professed, or so publicly declared at one time as at another; but that the same article might be no chief point of faith at one time in the Christian Church, and at another time by the Church's declaration be fundamental, is gross and ridiculous. For either the Church's declaration doth make that, which was not, to be of the substance of Faith, giving it authority and credit, making it of necessary belief and so fundamental; which is too gross to be defended at Midday: or else it doth declare to others what was formerly the foundation out of the Scriptures against some new arising Heresy: And what doth the point gain from the Church? whether authority or light? Authority they fear to say: Light they cannot affirm; for by the producing of it the darkness is detected, the Heresy is condemned. Truth it receives not, for it was there before. Nay how could an Heresy against the foundation be observed, if the Truth were not before known? The declaration doth not make it Faith, but showeth that the faithful do adhere unto it as revealed by God: for if the truth were not there the declaration of it were an Heresy or error at least.  
Neither doth he produce any thing: afterwards to make the Church the rule of faith: Whereas, he tells us that S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome requesteth him that setting down the Catalogue of Heretics he would jointly express in what points they had been condemned by Catholic authority: and again in his Preface to the above mentioned Catalogue of Heresies, he mentioneth himself, what the Church holdeth against such Heresies, without making any mention of the authority of Scripture 
z Reply p. 10. .  
I think the jesuite would have a Church embracing heresy? What doth the Church's adherence to truth make her the judge or rule of it? and because Catholic authority condemneth Heresy, must therefore the contrary truth have its life from the declaration thereof? Faith must then follow the Church, not lead it. The jesuit may conceive, that this Father means not by the Church's authority, a power inherent in their Roman Apollo, excluding all other assistance, but a lawful determination according to the Scriptures by the Bishops & Priests of the Catholic Church. For otherwise he must acknowledge in the Church such a domination, as was amongst the Gentiles, Luke 22. But sure it is, that S. Augustine dreamt no more of your judge, than the blessed Apostle S. Paul, who in the enumeration of the divers degrees of the ministry [Ephes. 1111. v. 11.] left him out. Besides, the jesuite by Apostolical directions in matters that concern faith, may see a Rule, not a judge pointed out, as having authority to guide us. Phil. 3. 16. Gal. 6. 16. by which rule as the Church receiveth strength, so limitation.  
Finally (saith the jesuite) observe how all the points laid down by me in my demand, being declared by the Catholic Church for articles of faith, are of necessity to be believed, and held for such, & the contrary for d●●●able Heresy 
Reply p. 104 . What the jesuite doth say for the express declaration of all his points of Faith, willbe examined in their several places▪ here an induction he brings us, & a conclusion, whereby he would prove, that the only Rule to know a point of faith from an indifferent opinion in Religion, is the declared & determined judgement of the Church; by which all the points laid down in his demand being propounded unto them for such, must of necessity be accounted chief articles of Catholic belief 
b Reply p. 105. 106. . But from whence the jesuite draweth this conclusion, I cannot see: for if the Church command by the express Scripture and sense agreed on in all ages; the Church than doth judge at least with undependant authority, but direct▪ calling for obedience to a former judgement: if it decree in points doubtful, the Church's declaration can bind us to peace and external obedience, but here no infallible judge is allowed to make matters that were doubtful to be of faith, or to create from uncertainties a new Creed.  
That the Church by her particular ministers and body representative hath applied the Scriptures to several heresies & thereby detected & condemned them, we deny not: but will this make every point decreed by a Council wilfully & from their own ends without direction or limitation to be a chief article of Faith? Your Quartadecimani were convinced of heresy by the Scripture as Alphonsus de Castro telleth us 
c Alphons. de Castro advers. Hae●. l. 12. de Pascha. Istorum ergo sententia inde convincitur haerescos, quòd supra in titulo de lege o●tendimus esse h●resim asserere caeremonias & judicia legis veteris obligare tempore legis evangelicae— Nam Paulus reprehendens Galats co quod caeremonias legis observandas puta●ent, inter alia dicit, Dies observatis, & menses, & tempora, & annos. , but where by the naked declaration of Pope Victor without this rule? Neither did he excommunicate all the Bishops of Asia in this cause, if Alphonsus speak truth, but they escaped it by Iren●us his chyding of your Pope 
d Idem. ibid. F●cisset nisi illum Iraeneus ob hoc redarguisset. . Here you see that these heretics of the East after the Pope had condemned them, had one Catholic Bishop pleading for them. In like manner the Novatians 
e Alphons. de Castro adver. haer. l. 12. de ●●●n▪ hae● 3 Cum non sit alia res pluries & apertius in sacris condicibus p●odita, quàm mis●ricordia quam Deus erga peccator●s maxime poenitentes exercet, illis peccatorum suorum indulgentiam tribuens. , might be condemned, as the Arians 
f Socrates Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 7. Evangelici enim & Apostolici libri, n●●non antiquorum Prophetarum ora cula planè instruunt nos, inquit (Constantinus Imperator in Nicaea Synodo) sensu numinis. Proinde hostili politâ discordiâ suma●●us ex dictis divini Spiritus explicationes quaestionum. Haec & his similia memorabat ille velut amans paterni nominis filius, sacerdo●ibus tanquam patribu●, cupions confiteri Apostolicorum dogmatum unitatem. Quibus & assensus maximae conventus partis acce●●it. , Macedonians 
g Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 9 jam enim semel formam protulimus, ut qui se Christianum profiteatur, server ●a quae ab Apostolis tradita sunt, quum dicat Sanctus Pa●lus: Si quis vobis annunciat aliud quam accepistis, anathema esto. , Nestorians 
h Epistola Cyrilli & Synodi ad Nestorium. tom 1. Act. Concil. Ephes. Occum. c. 14, Haec tenere, haec sapere, cum à sanctis Apostolis & Evangelistis, tum ab universa quoque sacra & divina Scriptura▪ tum ex veraci denique sanctorum patrum confessione edocti sumus. , E●tich: 
i Euagrius Histor. Eccles. l. 2. c. 4. Dominum nostrum jesum Christum confitemur etc. si●ut antiquitùs Prophetae de ●o, & postille ipse Christus nos doc●●t, & idem ipsum nobis Patrum Symbolum tradidit. , Pelagians 
k Concil. Milevit. c. 2. , & the Monothelites 
l Council Constant. Vniversale VI Act. 1. & 2. Propositis in medio Sanctis & intemeratis Evangelijs▪ : but was this done by the judgement of the Church only and absolutely? surely no, but by the Scriptures.  
And it is more than clear that the reason why you distaste the Scriptures, is as Clemens Alexandrinus observeth because you hold not the rule of faith 
Clemens Alexandr. Stromat. l. 7. Necesse est enim labi in maximis, cos qui res maximas aggrediu●tur, nis● reg●lam veritatis ab ipsa veritate acceptam tenu●rint. Qui autem s●nt ej●smo●i, ut qui à recta via excide●int meritò etiam falluntur in plu●imis singularibus, propterea quòd non habeant verorum & ●also●um judicium plan● exercitatum in ijs quae opo●●et eligere. Si ●●im haberent, pa●erent Scriptures divinis. .  
But the jesuite that will have the Church to have this absolute judgement, that what is decreed must be a point of faith hath in his Catalogue left out the fift General Council, where he might have found the Pope confirming [TRIA CAPITULA,] the three Chapters 
n Baron. an. 553. nu▪ 218.  which are fraught with Heresy, and the Council detesting him, and accursing his act 
n Ibid. nu. 219. ▪ yet never was this Council reputed Heretical, but with reverence received in all Succession 
o Ibid. nu▪ 229. & An. 869 nu. 58. .  
And let the Pope their Church declare what he pleased and let what he declares be faith, yet no man is bound in Conscience to it, unless that which he declares be agreeable to the law of God, the sacred Scriptures, for seeing the sentence hath not strength further than it is declarative of the law, when he is not an interpreter of the right law, his sentence is void in conscience 
p Sotus l. 3. de Iust. & jure. Quia cum sententia nullum habeat robur, nisi quia est juris declarativa ubi non est recti ●uris interpres ●ulla est in Con●●ien●ia. , and therefore your judge of Controversies was in the sixth General Council and others also adjudged (for declaring Monotholisme contrary to the Scriptures) an Heretic 
* See before pag. ●07. .  
For those other that follow in your Catalogue, most of them were condemned for the Truth, and therefore the Pope's sentence was no sentence, when he declared his own bloody disposition and not the Truth from the law of God against them. And as at all times, so especially ought we in the height of Antichristian tyranny to fly to the Scriptures; The reason you may find in the author of the imperfect work upon Matthew amongst the works of Chrysostome. Then when you shall see the abomination of desitation standing in the holy place. That is, when you shall see w●●ked Heresy, which is the haste of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, in that time those which are in judea shall fly unto the mountains: that is, those that are in Christianity, shall betake themselves to the Scriptures 
q ●omil. xlix. Tunc cum videritis abominatione● desolationis st●●tem in loco sancto.) Id est, cum videritis haeresim impiam, quae est exercitus Antichristi, stante● in locis sanctis Ecclesiae, in illo tempore qui in judaea sunt; fugiant ad montes: id est, qui sunt in Christianitat●, conferant se ad Scripturas. . And wherefore doth Christ command all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures? Because at that time▪ when heresy shall have prevailed over those Churches, there can be no trial of true Christianity, nor other refuge of Christians willing to know the v●rity of faith, but the divine Scriptures. For before it was sundry ways apparent; which was the Church of Christ, and which Gentilis●●: but now it is no way made known to those who desire to understand which is the true Church of Christ, save only by the Scriptures 
r Ibid Et quare juber in ho● tempore omnes Christiano● confer se ad Scripturas? Quia in tempore hoc, ex quo obti●ui● haeresis illas ecclesias, nulla probatio po●est esse verae Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud, volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripturae divinae. Autea enim multis modis o●●endebatur, qu● esset Ecclesia Christi, et quae gentilitas: nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur, volentibu● cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas: ▪ and, Who therefore would know which is the true Church of Christ, whence shall he know it, but only by the Scriptures? For the Lord knowing that there would be so great a confusion of things in the last days: did therefore command, that Christians, who are in Christianity, willing to be confirmed in the true Faith should fly unto nothing, but the Scriptures. Otherwise if they shall have respect unto other things, they shallbe scandalised and perish, not understanding which is the true Church 
s Ibid Qui ergo vult cognoscere, quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi, unde cognoscat, nisi tan●●mmodo per Scripturas? Sciens ergo Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in novissimis diebus esse futuram; ideo mandat, ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate, volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae, ad nullam rem fugiant, nisi ad Scripturas. Al●●qui si ad alia respex●rint, scandalizabuntur, et peribunt non intelligentes quae sit ve●a Ecclesia. .  
So that the jesuite hath made a long transcription to little purpose, it being plain that Scriptures, (as I have showed both here and elsewhere) were ever the resolvers of all doubts and controversies.  
Yet before this Section pass, I pray the jesuite, that terms all these his points chief Articles of Catholic belief, to tell us what articles of their Faith ought not to be called Chief? Whereby I think we shall find that all are not chief articles of faith which are declared by their Church; or that something is of Faith with them that the Church never declared.  
For his Coleworts that conclude this Section, they have been answered before 
* pag. 199. : and the most learned Primate doth not think that Heresy can escape the judgement of God, where men hold their peace. Their own think it inconvenient to stay for the determination of a Council to make the denying of the immaculate conception an Heresy: May not the breath of God's mouth do as much as the Popes? Heresy is condemned when it is revealed; & what light shineth clearer than the lamp of divine truth? If it shall destroy the whole glory and kingdom of Antichrist: shall we think that the train of his iniquity, (these points,) will escape as fugitives. Ebion and Cerinthus, were condemned by the Scripture, to wit, the Gospel according to S. john 
t Alphons. de castro advers. Haer. tit. de lege. haer. 1. B. Hieronimus in libro illustrium virotum dicit beatum johannem rogatum ab Asiae Episcopis scrip sisse Evangelium contra Ebionis dogma. ; without a declarative sentence of the Church: and so is Popery, though the execution be suspended till the appointed time.   

SECT: XIII.  
THe jesuite telleth us, that he must for a conclusion inquire, How vainly our Answerer chargeth us with Novelty 
a Reply p 106. , and in his inquisition he proceedeth in this manner, Notwithstanding that our Answerer sometimes affirmeth our opinions to he fare spread Heresies, and of so long continuance, that the defenders of them are bold to make universality and duration the special marks of their Church: yet forgetting himself in other places, he is not ashamed to term them, profane novelties, and heretical novelties 
b Reply ibid. .  
I have made it good before, that Heresy is more ancient than the Papacy, and that duration doth not exclude their opinions from being profane and heretical novelties 
c Before p. 193. 194. , in which place, as also hereafter, the Inquisitor may receive satisfaction. But he telleth us, that the most learned Answerer consequently will have us to believe, that his Religion is of more antiquity 
d Reply p. 106. .  
Now as the jesuite distasted the term of Novelty, deservedly cast at himself and his, so he is impatient, that antiquity might any way belong to us, and therefore in a disgraceful manner saith, that the most learned Answerer endeavoureth to make good the antiquity of his profession, first by jumping at once over a Thousand six hundred years, and squaring his faith by that of the Apostles 
e Reply ibid. .  
But this is not vanity (if it were done) unless the jesuite will condemn himself as vain also. For in several particulars he is forced to jump to the Apostolical times himself, as hath been before observed 
f Pag, 86. 87 . Neither dare he adhere to his touchstone [the fathers] but where his holy Father hath approved him 
g Reply p. 98. . And for GOD'S Pen, although he doth distaste it, yet he is willing to pretend from thence some safety, though imaginarily, when otherwise he can find no protection at all 
h See the direction at the letter. , But let the jesuite know, that he leaps short that reacheth not the Scriptures. And to be taught by any other, without CHRIST and his Apostles, in divine mysteries, is to be deceived. Give GOD and his Word the first place, the Fathers will never be denied to be great helps to truth and devotion, and this is all that the most learned Answerer doth desire.  
Secondly (saith the jesuite) by adventuring (though faintly) to justify it by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did profess 
i Reply p. 106. .  
Here the jesuite detects himself, that what he hath uttered before is untrue; for there he chargeth the Answerer with jumping at once over a Thousand six hundred years, and yet in this place he acknowledgeth him to justify our profession by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did profess. Here we may see the reason why Mr Malone pleads the Fathers for his touchstone, and accuseth us for rejecting them; not because he accounts them the Rule, or is confident in their trial, but because the people (whom they daily deceive) are not so well able to make use of them, whereby to convict their errors. These are they that cry, the Fathers, the Fathers, and yet despise them. We keep them under the command of their MASTER, yet deny them not their just reverence, their deserved honour.  
We have seen (saith the jesuite) how he hath failed in the first, producing no more for himself then all Heretics have ever done 
k Reply p. 106. .  
If the most learned Answerer had only pretended Scripture without the truth or true sense of it, he had done no more than the Devil, Papists, and other Heretics have done: but how will the jesuite prove this to have been practised by his learned Answerer? The Scriptures he desires not (as Papists and heretics have abused them) but in their true sense. This light because you cannot endure, must you therefore be a conqueror? Poor fugitive! How doth he dream, when he flies from that power that prosecutes and would condemn him? For the sword of the Spirit would not only as the sword of the Angel make the Ass bruise the leg 
* ●●●. ●●. ●●. , but even break the heart of the false Prophet, if his eyes did behold the brightness of it.  
And as vainly doth he charge the most learned Answerer with fear and shameful tergiversation from the Father's testimonies 
l Reply p. 106. , when as whatsoever he hath said concerning them is the same that some Papists, nay the jesuite himself (notwithstanding he calls them the touchstone) hath affirmed. Was it not Mr Malone that rejected the Fathers generally consenting, and defended them that did likewise 
m Reply p. 92. ? Who declared it lawful for every one in points that the Pope hath not made faith to press & urge the Fathers, or reject them as they please 
n Reply p. 93. ? Doth not a troop of their own exclude them from that authority in the Church which the jesuite would seem to give them, neither affording them the honour of a rule, or touchstone either 
o Bellarm. ● de Concil. author. l. 2. c. 12. Scripta Patrum— non sunt Regulae neque habent auctoritatem obligandi. Wadding legate. de concep. Virg. Mariae. sect. 2. Orat. ●. §. 6. Nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem, sed Dei sapientiam, & spiritum pro regula, & rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra, quae fall● non potest, matter Ecclesia. ?  
The jesuite further telleth us, that the Answerer in demonstration of his forwardness taketh upon him to give the first onset himself▪ But it is easy to espy (saith he) how this pretended hardiness is nothing else but a mere cover and cloak to hide the weakness of his cause, and to bolster out his book with a show of antiquity, more than with a substance of verity, being flush always in words, and refined periods, yet still failing in sound reason and judgement 
p Reply p. 106. .  
What the jesuite hath espied, I presume he hath not kept secret, & therefore whether this conceit be not one of his self flatteries will be espied in the proper place, where he hath declared what he hath been able to perform. But though we should grant him (saith the jesuite) whatsoever be allegeth out of the Fathers, and that we should confess their sayings to make altogether for him, hath not his own mouth pronounced, that all this will not be any way sufficient, forasmuch as no authority but that of the Scripture can suffice? And if he had reason to cry out with S. Augustine and say, let humane writings be remooved, let God's voice sound, with what sense now may he be thought to have stuffed such a deal of Paper with humane authorities? It willbe answered, that it is done only to show▪ the confidence he hath in his cause, and that the Fathers, howsoever he esteemeth them little, make wholly for him, and against us 
q Reply p. 107. .  
To this we answer, that i● his cause did not gain by it, yet the Catholic Church is no loser, when the grand deceivers of the Roman Faction are detected, and their pretences of antiquity made known for delusions. Secondly, is the cause of Religion no way assisted by the writings of the ancient Fathers, unless we acknowledge them with the jesuite, the assured touchstone? Navigators (as are all that sail in the Ship of the Church) have much comfort and direction by the other Stars, although the North alone infallibly direct their course, and assists them to the haven.  
Thirdly, if the most learned Answerer said no more than S. Augustine, Let humane writings b● removed, let God's voice sound. I would know of the jesuite, why he might not urge antiquity as well as that Father did, and to as good effect?  
But how vain he is h●re●in, his own Masters and Grandsires' do sufficiently declare (saith the jesuite) whilst they themselves confess, that the holy Fathers do altogether stand for us, and therefore with one consent, they do utterly disclaim from their opinions and doctrine, as here in part shall briefly be made known, to the end that our dog Bagg, even by the C●rrs of his own tow●e may be made cry, and run away, after being shaken in the mire before his own door 
Reply p. 107. .  
Vocis horrendae frag●r per ora missus terno. Will no tone affect the jesuite, but that of openmouth Cerberus? Will no march please him that is not under Rabs●eka●'s colours? Doth he think the day is won, if he can revile the host of the living GOD? Believe it, this was Golia●s heresy, though it were never condemned by Papists, who most constantly practise in this kind. But pardon me (M. Malone) that I bark not for company, but pass by your furies with contempt and silence.  
Yet it may be observed how the Printer amending the copy and for Bragg impressing Bagg is so distasted by the jesuite that though he let pass many of his own o● the Printers errors▪ yet this is put amongst his Erra●●, as indignly taking it, that the Dogg-letter should forsake his discourse, or the D●gg-starre be left out of his Calendar.  
But leaving this; two things we find here insisted upon by the jesuit, first, that the most learned Answerer his own Masters and Grandsyrs (as he styles them) do confess that the holy Fathers altogether stand for them. Secondly, that we utterly disclaim from their opinions and doctrine, Both which are so notorious untruths that no modest man would ever affirm it: For the place in Cartwright is his only evidence to prove the first, and I suppose he never saw i●, for he hath cited him falsely, the book being, The defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply of T. C. where we find that M. Cartwright favoured not S. Augustine's rule; but this was so far from being approved by the confession of the Church of England and other learned Protestants, that the rule by the Jesuits own confession is avouched by the most reverend Father, Archbishop Whi●g●ift to have been of credit with the writers of his time: namely with M. Zuingli●●, M. Calvin, and M. G●alter: yea, (as the jesuite 
s Reply pag▪ ●▪ li●▪ ● i● m●rgi●▪  tells us) he was persuaded, that no learned man dissented from them. And that the Rule was true & good, and so fare from establishing any p●ice of Popery, that it quite overthroweth the same, it was then published by that most reverend Father 
In that defence of the Answer pag. 100L. , and so received of all other for any thing the jesuite hath said.  
Now the rest of his particular witnesses tend nothing at all to his advantage; for either they point out only particular Fathers, which will not conclude with the jesuite, that the holy FATHERS do ALTOGETHER stand for them: or else particular points, as Freewill, Marite, Invocation of Saints, Limbus Patrum, concerning which the Papists are no more beholding to them then we ourselves. For in the points of Merit and Freewill, Maldonate telleth us, that the Prodigal by losing his substance is interpreted to lose his freewill by Many Fathers 
u Maldonat. les. come▪ in ●●n●. 15. ver. 13. Solent pl●●ique substantiam, quam pr●●ig●s d●citur p●r●●disse Luc. 15, Liberum arbitri●m▪ ● interpreta●i. Sic August. ●●da, Euthym. & Bernard. . And Augustine gave less to the will, than the Schoolmen did, in the judgement of Eras●us 
x Erasmus epist. dedicat▪ ante libros Hilarij. Divus Augustinu, adversu● Pelagium di●i●ans minus trib●it libe●o hominis arbitrio, quam▪ nun●●●ibue●●dum putant, qui nu●c in schools regnant sc●olasti●is, possem ●ujus generis exempl● multa comm●●o●are▪ .  
As for Merit, the Fathers are also charged with error by our Adversaries 
y Pe●e●. Ies. comm. in Rom. ●. dis●▪ ●●. num. 106. & disp. 23. num▪ 111. Gr●ci Patres ne● panci La●inorum▪ Doctorum arbitra●● sunt Praedestinatio●● causam fuisse praevisa hominum opera, ●u● fidem, non me●●● Dei gratiam. Sed hoc Scripturae adversatur. . Further, whosoever will read the Answer to the Jesuits Challenge, shall see how little advantage they get by the Father's words concerning some of those points, although in some sense they are not received by us. Yet I could wish the jesuite to consider how grossly he hath abused the most learned and reverend Bishop Bilson, by urging his objection for his solution, when as if he will but see the Author himself, he shall find that he concludeth no such thing.  
For the second; that we utterly disclaim from the Father's opinions and doctrine. I have showed before with what truth this is affirmed▪ yet I will lay down his argument, whereby he seemeth to enforce this, that by the repetition of it, all may take notice of the Jesuits vanity. For is there any consequence in this, that because Cartwright, Luther, etc. have excepted against the Fathers (and it may be with terms not altogether so decent) therefore all the reformed Churches do utterly disclaim fro● their opinions and doctrine? This is so weak, that it falls of itself. But if better Arguments than this will serve, we have manifested that the Fathers have forsaken their corruptions, though they seem to follow after with a corrupt pursuit by clipping and cankering, forging and fretting, when they could not persuade them otherwise to plead their cause 
z See before sec. ● .  
And if to argue after the Jesuits manner willbe received by himself, we can tell him that Ludovicus Vives being well acquainted how the Fathers were accounted of in the Roman Church, spared not to say, that those which served not to their purpose, were of no better esteem than a company of lewd women in a weaver's shop or the baths 
y Lud. Vives co●▪ in Aug. de civet. D●● l. 20. c. 26. Itaque illa demùm ●is videntur ●dicta & concilia quae in rem s●a● faciunt, reliqua non pluris a sti●anda quam conventum muli●rcularum in textrina vel thermis. . And let the jesuit resolve, whether we may conclude, that they have utterly disclaimed from the doctrine of the Fathers, because Sixtus Senensis hath mentioned eleven of those Ancients that held prescience of Merits, & were therefore censured by him for condemned Pelagians 
a Sixtus Senses. Bibliot●▪ san●●▪ l. 6. Annot. 251. Haec igitur sunt Patrum dict●, (scil. Chrysostom Orige● Am▪ ● br●s. Hi●roni●▪ Augustin. The●d●●●t. S●d●l. Th●●phylact. O●●●m●n Th●●dul. etc.) ex quibus collig● videtur. Praescientiam me●itorum esse causam divinae praedestinatio●is, quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est. . Moreover Baronius hath slandered all the Historiographers of the fourth age with words as uncomely, as any the jesuite hath produced from any of ours, charging some with obscurity, others with defect of ●rder, diligence, piety, truth, and some with writing lies for private affection 
b Baron. Ann 395. n. 43. Licet tot historicis haec ae●as abundâsse videatur▪ tamen adhuc i●op● harum facult●●um remansit▪ & in no●nullis obscura; quod ex his alij res multas▪ brevitate nimia contra; ●e●int, alij intactas penitus reliquer●●t: desideretur au●● in alijs ordo, in alijs ve●ò te●po●● exaction indagatio▪ pericli●enturque alij veritat●, a● pariter ●i●tate▪ affectuque privato ducti pro arb●tri● mendacia veris a●texuerint. . And in the point of the immaculate conception, although the affirmative point brought more Doctors than will make a consent in the Jesuits judgement, yet the negative ●ast them off, & tell us, that they are not tied to so poor a number of the Fathers 
c Wadding Legat. de con●●●● Virg▪ M●ri● sect. 2▪ orat. 9 §. 6. Totidem (scil▪ 15.) & plures Doctores non ita potestatem Ecclesi● coarctent, & ligent, ut si consultum, & rectum duxerit non possit contra ●os cum alijs d●fi●●●●▪ , neither hath the Church the Fathers, but the wisdom of GOD & his Spirit for a rule and governor, which cannot be deceived 
d Ibid Ne● enim parvum Docto●●m agg●rem, sed Dei sapientiam & spiritum pro regula, et rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra, quae falli non po●●●, M●t●● Ecclesia. .  
Further Alphonsus de Castre will believe Anacletus (a Merchant) better than either Augustine or Hi●rom● 
Alfons. de Castro adver. haerverbo Episcop. ●uic Anacle to ●oli magis credid●ri● quam ●ille Wicle●itis, im●o magis quam Hi●●●nymo aut Augustine. : Yet although they thus censure, sometimes justly, ofttimes unjustly those Ancients, I will not conclude against them, that they utterly discard their opinions and doctrines.  
Now as their own affirm, that although the writings of the Doctors are to be received with reverence, yet they bind us not to believe them in all their opinions, but that we may justly contradict them when they speak against Scripture or truth 
g Turrec●em in cap. sanct. Rom dist. 15. n. 12. , so the Fathers themselves profess the same, as I have at large showed in many places before 
h See before S●ct. 5. . And S. Augustine as he could not please himself without the Scriptures, so he feared to offend others, and therefore presupposing, as the most learned Answerer hath affirmed, that without Scripture no certainty, no satisfaction can be had, he thus declareth himself. That which I say brethren, if I cannot avouch it as certain, you must not be offended, I am but a man, and what I am assured by the Scriptures, that I dare affirm, and of myself nothing. Hell neither I have yet experience of, neither you; and perchance there shallbe an other way, and by he●● it shall not be. For these things are altogether uncertain 
August. in psal 85. Quod dici●●● fra●res, hoc si non vobis tanquam cert●● exposuero; ●e ●uccenseatis▪ ●omo enim sum; & qua●tum conceditur de Scripturis ●anctis tantum a●deo dic●●e, nihil ex ●e: In●e●●●ne● ego exper ●us ●um ●dh●c, nec vos: & 〈◊〉 alia via erit, & non per in●er●um 〈◊〉. I●cer●a ●●nt enim haec. . So that we see the most learned Answerer his lesson. [Allege what authority you list without Scripture, and it shall not suffice] is both Orthodox and ancient also.  
But letting this pass, as sufficiently urged already, will our Answerer have the Forehead now (saith the jesuite) to charge us any more with Novelty 
k Reply p. 100L. ?  
Truth needs not a brazen Forehead, but where it is persecuted, and then it hath defence little enough to have not only her Forehead, but face of brass also: For how doth the jesuite outface, brow-beate, triumph, and tell every Passenger, that he hath beaten her (against her nature) into a Corner, when there is no thing but a raging Sea, and watery foam.  
But the great ones of his own profession teach him (saith the jesuite) that the ancient Fathers did maintain those points we now defend against him: and therefore one of them calleth our Religion, A patched Coverlet of the Father's errors sowed together. Although then our Religion did consist of errors; as Whitaker doth affirm, yet may our Answerer blush to call them novelties, seeing they be confessedly as old as the a●●ncient Fathers themselves 
l Reply p. ●●● .  
All this will not suffice to exempt the jesuite and his party from Novelty: For it being admitted by him, that their Religion doth consist of errors, notwithstanding that we in courtesy should grant, that they lay long lurking among those that were ancient, they will yet deserve, & (I doubt not) obtain of all men the title of Novelty. For as I have before declared, that is new in Religion, which is not most ancient 
Pag. 19●. 194 : yet I will wait upon his repetition a little, and show, that if the jesuite cannot derive his Religion further than from the Fathers, the tradition whereupon it is builded, is then but humane, & so a new thing, even Novelty itself. And therefore T●rtullian telleth us, That is most true, which is most ancient: that most ancient which was from the beginning, that from the beginning which from the Apostles 
Te●●●l▪ l. 4▪ a● M●rc. Id veri●● quod ●r●●s, id pri●●, quod est ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolic. . How convincing an Argument than hath the jesuite produced for his purpose? Will he find a truth in Faith that was not from the beginning? If CHRIST was always and before all, Truth is a thing equally ancient, and from all eternity, saith the same Father 
Idem de Veland▪ Virgin. c. 1. Si ●emper Christus, & prior omnibu●●què veritas sempiterne & antique res. . And therefore whatsoever savoureth against the Truth, this (saith he) is heresy, though it be of long continuance 
Ibid. Quodcunque advers●● ve●itatem sapi●, ho● erit h●resis, eti●● venus' consummated. . And although errors which are as ancient as some of the Fathers, be not Novelties in the Jesuits judgement, yet they are new, and herefies also to him that hath received his Commission & doctrine from CHRIST; for which cause Tertullian adviseth those that measure Novelties, as the jesuite doth, Viderint quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est. Let them behold to whom that is new, which they apprehended as ancient 
q Tertul. loco ult. cit. , supposing that present Heretics many times conclude that for ancient, which CHRIST and his Apostles distaste as Novelty.  
Besides, if the jesuite collect aright, the Church of Rome hath in many things defined for Novelty against antiquity, rejecting sundry points which the major and sounder part of the ancient Fathers did teach in the Church 
r Wadding. legate▪ de Concep. Virg. Mariae. Sect. 2. orat 9▪ §. 6. m●●. 31. ●lures sunt & graviores ij, quos supra retuli, contra quos cum alij● definitum est circa anima●u● ante di●m judicij, beatitud●●em. Plures & gra viores, contra quos docet ecclesia A●gelos esse spirituales▪ Plures & graviores, contra quos ●el quibus dubitantibus d● varijs libris & Scriptures Canonicis ●o●umque editionibus, pl●t● sunt statuta ab Ecclesia Multi & graves sunt, quos quidam citant ●t volunt ●●nsisse ipsiss●●am hanc Virginem actualit●r pecc●sse, contra quos tamen actualem ejus in●o●en●iam 〈◊〉 ●●●dit Ecclesia. Aliaque multa sunt h●jusmodi. .  
And if his confidence in this kind of reasoning be so strong, why doth he after labour to manifest us for Novelists, when Brist● acknowledgeth, That some there have been in many ages, in some points, of the Protestants opinions 
s Mot. pre●▪ et Mot. ●●. : And Reinerius hath (as before 
Pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Margin  hath been showed,) derived our doctrine condemned by you in the Leonist●, from the Apostolical times.  
Whereas he saith that the most learned Answerer may much more be ashamed to tearse them profane and Heretical, when he is not able to find out, as I said before, (saith the jesuite) that either by authority of Church, Council, or Fathers, they have been condemned for such 
Reply p. 109 : I have answered hereunto before 
x Pag 99 , and but even now told him out of Tertullian, that whatsoever savoureth against the Truth is Heresy 
y Above lit p. : but if a point as Bellarmine affirms may be defined usu ecclesia 
z Bellarm. de Reliq sanct c. 6. 〈◊〉 determinata ●rat usu totius Ecclesiae. , why may not the precedent Non-use of the Church condemn their intrusion of those points which the Church in her best times never practised? And if no points of Religion can be profane and Heretical, but such as are condemned by authority of Church, Counsels and Fathers; I desire the jesuite that he would forbear to style us either Heretics or profane, until he can produce one Article of those agreed upon in the Synod held at London in the year 1562. (concerning which he and all his Complices have been Challenged 
† In the Lord Primate his Preface to the Reader, before the Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. ▪ but have given no Answer thereunto) that hath been condemned by authority of Church, Counsels or Fathers, within the first 500 years.  
Now the jesuite vainly conceiting that he hath freed themselves from the imputation of Novelty, proceedeth in this manner; Let us (as heretofore we have often done) retort his terms upon himself, and make him swallow down his throat the shameful reproach of Novelisme 
a Reply p. 100L. .  
Here is a Champion in campis Gurgustidonijs; He tells strange things, monsters of his own labour; yet very few (I think) will believe him. But how will he perform this? Why, by proving that Martin Luther was the first broacher of the Protestants Religion 
b Reply ibid.▪ .  
The jesuite (I suppose) knows that the Apostles were first called Christians at Antioch, though the Reformed Churches are mistyled by them after Luther began to Preach: But let them prove the Doctrine as new, as the name they have given it, otherwise they vainly contend.  
Whereas he is further of opinion, that this same cannot be more strongly proved, then by the open confession of the said Luther himself 
c Reply p. 109.  &c.  
To This I Answer, that if Luther should speak as the jesuite beareth us in hand, yet this should sway no more with us, than Tetzelius did with Luther when he preached for Indulgences. But I know not how this jesuite is turned out of the way, for we find him snarling at a Latin work formerly set forth by the most reverend Primate (but never answered by any jesuite) wherein he hath pointed out a continual succession of his Church for many ages before Luther, but with such unfortunate event, as even his own (if we might believe the jesuit) have judged him ridiculous herein 
d Reply ibid. . And for what reasons I pray you? Because first of all (saith the jesuite) he took upon himself a task impossible to be performed, when he went about to search, and to find out his Church in those times, wherein, by the confession of his own learned Fathers and Brothers, it was invisible, and not able to be s●●n● 
Reply p. 1ST▪ .  
This willbe be tried in the examination, when the jesuite will entreat one of his Brethren to examine the same and answer it. In the mean time he chargeth us falsely to hold the Church absolutely invisible. For if the Church be considered, as containing all, of all ages, that believed the truth; this we say is not totally visible, the greatest part being in Heaven. If we take the Church for those which are sincere in their profession and are true members of CHRIST [2. Tim. 2. 19] Then we say, that an humane eye cannot behold any member thereof, but by probability and conjecture. If fo● the people that profess and the Pastors that teach the faith of CHRIST in several ages; this we say was never totally invisible, but was known to them that professed the same, though to persecutors that contemned the faith [2. Cor. 4. 3.] or sought to oppress it [Rev. 12. 14.] it might many times be hid. So that all the places brought by the jesuit may be answered by that which hath been said: for some speak comparatively in regard of the outward glory of the Ro●an Synagogue, some in regard of precedent times, some in regard of the world that persecuted them. But doth the jesuite conjecture that the most rever●●d Primate thought by that book to declare the Church in her succession as outwardly visible and glorious as R●me? This was not his in●ent, but to declare that there were many that professed the truth of CHRIST in all ages though under persecution in the succession of the Babylonish tyranny. And this the jesuit might have observed if he had read the same, for by the place of Ambrose in the Title-page, we may conceive that his intention was to show, that though the Church be in condition many times like the M●●ne, at full, decreasing, increasing, yet it ever doth remain a Church▪ and such a one, whose motions may be discerned and described 
f Ambros H●x●●●er. l. 4. c. ●. Ecclesia vide tu● sicut Luna d●ficere, sed no● d●ficit, ob●●●●ari po●●●●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ .  
Seco●dly, (saith the jesuite) he bringeth in for Pillar● of his successive Church▪ Waldo, Wicklife and Husse 
g Reply p. 110. .  
Here is sufficient to show, that the jesuite doth not care what he saith, nor feareth to censure things that he never saw: For it is c●●are that the most reverend Primate in that Historical explanation did not descend to the ages of Wickli●● or Husse, and therefore could not bring them in for Pillars of his successive Church.  
The jesuite further telleth us, that they are confessed to be damned heretics 
h Reply ●. 11●. : but bringeth not any testimony for the same. He that speaketh most bitterly is O s●a●der against the Waldenses who taxeth their opinions as absurd etc. But I hope we are not tied to believe him, where it is apparent he was altogether deceived. That the most learned and holy Bishop I●well did cast off the Waldenses as none of ours, may be imputed to this, that he beheld them as their persecutors painted them out with spots of Ma●ich●isme and other heretical errors. But if the jesuite will read that discourse which he cavils at, he shall see that the heresies imputed to th●m were bred in the malicious minds of Papists, who did therefore f●ig●● these opinions to be theirs, because they reproached their dissolute lives and no otherwise 
i Girard. Histor. Franc. lib. 10. Quam. vis pravis i●buti ●●erint opinionibus, non hoc ta●en tantum Papae & magnorum Principum odium in ●os concitabat, quantum libertas orationis, quâ dic●o●um Principum atque Ecclesiasticorum vitia & mor●s dissol●tos culpare, ipsiusque Papae vitam & action's reprehendere cons●everunt. Haec praecipua res fuit, quae universorum ●is con●●avit odium, quaeque ●ffecit,▪ ut plures ●efari● affingerentur ●is opiniones, à quibble 〈◊〉 ●●●●ant al●●●●▪ .  
Thirdly (saith the jesuite) both Luther himself and all his followers, do make him the first Author of Protestancy 
k Reply pag▪ 110. .  
What, Luther the first that ever taught the doctrine professed by Protestants? Those that are better read in story than our jesuite confess otherwise; for Poplinerius acknowledgeth the Waldenses and Protestants to differ little and that this doctrine was preached and defended throughout Europe, in France, Spain, England, Italy, Germany, and other Nations also 
l Popli●er. hist. Franc. lib. 1. ●dit. a●. 1581. fol, 7. b▪ High (Albigenses) invitis Principibus Christianis omnibus, circa annum 1100▪ & temporibus subsequentibus, doctrinam suam, ab eâ quam hodie, PROTESTANTS amplectuntur parùm differentem, non per Galliam solum totam, sed●●iam per omnes p●n● Europae ora● disseminârunt▪ Nam Galli, Hispani, Angli, Scoti, Itali, Germani, Bo●●mi, S●xon●●▪ Poloni, Lithuani & gentes aliae, ●am ad hunc diem pertinaciter defenderunt. . But I need not to stand in defence of that book which doth defend itself, and ever will against either the jesuite or his fellowlabourers; neither hath he urged any thing worthy observation against the same; For there is no question but Luther did powerfully preach against Popish corruption, and by his ministry (together with others whom GOD raised up with him) did publish the Gospel, the light whereof for a long time they did disgrace and revile. It is not enough to make Luther the Author of our Religion, because after your Apostasy he● was one that at first did publicly and zealously preach the same. When the Arians persecuted the Catholic Faith, eclipsed, obscured it, & made it reputed Heresy, insomuch that the whole world 
m See before pag▪ ●5 lit▪ ● in marg.  was an Arian, and Catholic also in her own judgement; was the Catholic faith afterwards published with zeal and victory, the birth of Christian Religion, the beginning of our Creed? Nothing more trivial.  
That which the jesuite speaks afterwards of Luther's remorse of Conscience is ridiculous and might have been spared: for who can doubt, but that in his ●calous performing of his duty in publishing the Truth of the Gospel of CHRIST, the Devil did as violently assault him within▪ as the Pope without, & thereby he was afflicted, with as many superstitious fears within, as outward terrors? & for the same reasons▪ (I suppose) in regard the preservations of their kingdoms did depend upon it.  
Now at last that he may conclude, he casts up his Audit; S●●ing that our Answerer cannot tell us that which we demanded, to wit, when or by whom our Catholic Religion was first brought in 
n Reply p. 11●. .  
Although there is no Injunction for it, (as hath been showed) that he should answer your Demand; yet he hath in all your particulars discovered your innovations; which how it hath been avoided willbe examined in their due place.  
Yet the jesuite telleth us, that he will do the Answerer the favour to tell him briefly where, when, and by whom his Protestant Religion was first begun 
o Reply p. 113. .  
But I ask the jesuite whether in his Conscience he is not checked for urging Calvin &c, with a corrupt mind▪ when from their words he would have it concluded that the Catholic Faith did first b●gin at Witt●nberg●? I hope the jesuite can consider, that the repairing of the Temple, was not the laying th● foundation of it: neither David, H●●●●hiah, or josiah their regulating of things amiss, a bringing in of a new law. Teaching for doctrine, the Traditions of men, this makes a beginning: but let the ancient of days be preached in the last times, this is no Novelty, no new thing.  
But saith the jesuite, Lo● here then the place where, Wittenberg: the year 1517: the day of the month, the xxxi. of Oct●ber: the day of the week's, Saturday: yea the very hour of the day, twelve of the clock, when first protestancy was br●●●hed by Luther 
p Reply p. 1●3. .  
Nothing more fond: Luther resisted Popish abuses such a day, therefore the Faith preached by Luther did then first begin. What? did de make a new Gospel, as some of you have attempted 
q See before pag. 330. 331▪ ▪ or frame a new Creed, as you have lately done 
r See before 359. ? I desire the Jesuits evidence, or his modesty; his evidence to convict Luther, or his modesty to condemn himself. For if the opposing of I●dulgences be the beginning of our Faith, as the jesuite doth insinuate, Bellarmine will show that he hath failed both i● person, time, and place 
s Bellarm. de Indulgen. l. ●▪ c. 1. Primi q●● indulgentias contempserunt & oppugnârunt, furrure Walden●●●.— Seq●●tus est Valdenses, joannes Wicle●●●▪— Wicle●um seq●●ti s●●● Hussit●— Hos MAIORES & PARENTS habit Ma●tin●s Lutherus. . And although he give Luther the name, yet Bzovius will not have Luther, but Sta●pitius to have first begun the work 
Bzovius Annal▪ Eccles. in ann. 1517. num. ●. Sta●pitius quoque quamv●● PRIMV●●ap●d●m, valid●ori postea brachio vibrandum, contra Ecclesiam conj●●iss●t, sects tamen, cujus si non ●●ctor, certè promotor 〈◊〉 ●●●en dar● non potuit, sed ●●rpi●●dinem hanc Luthero reliquit. . And notwithstanding the jesuite telleth us so confidently that protestancy was first br●ached by Luther the year 1517. yet the same Author affirmeth that he disputed against them in the points o● freewill, merit's, and traditions the year before 
Ibid. nu●▪ 1● Superiore po●●o an●o 1516▪ Idem Lutherus disputavit con●ra Scholastico● Theologo●, de libero a●●●trio, merit's bono●um op●●●●▪ & traditionibu● Ecclesiastici●: ●asque propositio●e● To●o▪ 1. op●●u● 〈◊〉 ●●ser●it▪ ●● 〈◊〉 ●●ique appa●e●● 〈◊〉 jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ . So punctual the jesuite is that in the judgement of his own he hath in every circumstance trod awry.  
His repetition of A●g●stines rule [That Custom which ●en looking up into former ti●●s, do not find to have been brought in by any that lived after the Apostles, is rightly believed to hav● been delivered by the Apostles themselves.] helps neither them nor their cause, for they never have, nor ever willbe able to manifest either by our confession, or otherwise that Ro●ish customs have been universally received, neither can they defend them from Novelty in their ●●●rance. wherefore they may well be cast forth into th● Dunghill, as wanting the Salt of Apostolical institution for their seasoning. So that S. Augustine's Rule condemneth their Novelties, and the general CONTROVERSY is cleared, but indeed no otherwise then to the detection of their Egyptian Darkness.