THE WHETSTONE OF REPROOF. OR A REPROVING CENSURE OF THE misintitled safe way: declaring it by discovery of the authors fraudulent proceeding, & captious cavilling, to be a miere by-way drawing poor travellers out of the royal & common street, & leading them deceitfully in to a path of perdition.  
Errare fecit eos in invio, & none in via.  Psal. 106. 
WITH A POSTSCRIPT OF ADVERtisments, especially touching the homily & epistles attributed to Alfric: & a compendious retortive discussion of the misapplyed by-way.  
AUTHOR T. T. Sacristan & Catholic Romanist.  
CATVAPOLI, Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS. Anno M.DC.XXXII.   

THE PREFACE.  
I Have viewed & perused exactly a certain small volume published by Sir Humphrey Lined. He entitleth it the safe way, but I find it contains nothing either safe or sound. To make it more plausible he gives it a Latin inscripton printing in the front of it, via tuta, not much unlike to the practice of Mountibanks, who to make their powders more vendible set on their boxes strange titles to persuade the ignorant, they are fare fetched & of care virtue. He calleth it a way leading all Christians to the true Catholic Church.  
But indeed it is no way but rather a diverticle, or diversion: or if it be a way, it's only a by-way leading sinple souls into woods & deserts & leaving them there unmercifully to be devoured by ravenous beasts. If it be any way at all, it is not via tuta, but rather via torta, & a Kind of negative way consisting in negation of the true Catholic way, & therefore as according to the doctrine of Aristotle, negatio est malignantis naturoe, negation is of a malignant nature, so it being a negative way, it cannot possible be any other than via, malignantium, the way of the malignant & reprobate people. He adds it leadeth to the true ancient & Catholic faith now professed in the Church of England, but this confirmeth that which I said before, that his way is no true way but a by-way as leading to a by-place, to a Country & people separated from the rest of the world, 
Tote divisus orbe Britannus.  conducting to a nation divided from the rest of the earth, as in situation so is it separated in Religion from others, yea from itself, from the truth, from antiquity, as being no more ancient in all points then the days of Queen Elizabeth as her 39 articles plainly testify, divers of them being first proclaimed by her & her parliament: hither the way leadeth & there it leaveth the poor traveller at a non plus, without any means to pass unto Christ & his Apostles.  
He saith farther in the title that even the Romanists his adversaries do testify, the safety of his way: but this is most ridiculous & most false of all the rest of his inscription; he citeth indeed great tropes of authors in pretence of his positions, some of which are true Catholic writers, but others not acknowledged for such by us, others manistly known to be his own consectaries: & all those that are truly ours, he doth either maliciously, or ignorantly abuse, & so doth but make checker-worke or Cross lines of them alto gether for his ministers to play in the pulpit with their parishioners at fox & geese.  
I imagined his name had been Line, but now I perceive certainly it is not, for he useth neither line nor square in his book, I mean neither method nor square dealing. For setting aside his prologue & Epilogue, his first chapter, or section might aswell have been the last & the laste his first as otherwise, & as for his sincerity, it is not to be found, either in the beginning, middle or ending: wherefore if his name be Lined as he subscribeth, it is more agreeable to the inside of his work, which is very well lined indeed I mean with lies. And the truth is the greatest part of his pamphlet is but overworn brokery stuff, dropped from whites way & B. Mourtons' patched Appeal, forged Imposture, & usher's outrages, excepting some frenchwares taken out of the corrupted store house of that famous mountebank Daniel Chamiere, with whom I perceive his worship hath had no small correspondence.  
He styleth himself knight which no doubt he is, but as that title sounds honesty, honour, and nobility, so none of that I find in his book, which is so replenishsd with brags, boasts, and protestations, as one would swear him rather to be a protesting puritan, than a pure Protestant.  
Which with other reasons move me to suspect the book is not his, but a ministerial bastard fathered upon his nobility for the greater authority of the work: but that I will not much examine: only this I say that when I had read it, I did somaed doubt whether the knight could be so versed in our Roman divines as (thou ' to little purpose) the penner appears to be: which caused me to suspect the true author is some one of greater reading and industry than I imagine Sir Humphrey is: 
Spuria multorum patrum proles.  yet on the other side I am verily persuaded, that considering the multitude of ignorant absurdities it contains; the author of it cannot be a man of any solid learning in divinity, which being supposed, I cannot absolutely condemn Sir Humphrey for taking upon him the name, yet he cannot be judged wholly excusable in his honour for that he consented to be the putative Father of so base a bratte.  
This which I have is the third edition, & the fourth may be daily expected, in regard the book is so full of matter, I mean of corruption: Yet after the contents come once to be exactly discussed & discovered, I persuade myself it will quickly lose it undeserved credit, & the dubtlesse if the leaves were larger it would ride post to Tobaconistis, & gross shops.  
I confess Sir Humphrey I am Tom. Teltruth who cannot flatter or dissemble: yet may you assure yourself that altho' my speech be ordinarily directed unto yourself, my intent is directly to reprove those only who in their contriving of the work for you, & in your name, have so profanely misapplyed, & abused sacred scriptures, ancient Fathers, & an number of other grave & Catholic authors so corrupedtly produced against their own professed faith. Neither yet have I any meaning by my words to offend the dignity of your person which I respect in the highest degree of desert, as neither the persons of those who truly are the authors of the work, & have deceived both you & others: but rather with charitable S. Aug. I chiuse to say of you & every one of my adversaries in religion: Homo vivat, moriatur error. Let the man live, the error dye.  
But now I will descend to particulars, & after due examine pass my sentence upon every several section, chiefly insisting in discussion of the citations of the adversary, dedicating my whole censure not to the gentry of my Country as Sir Humphrey doth, and of whose mature judgements I can not conceive so basely as once to imagine they will be dangerously enamoured with his book, but I will chiefly offer it to the more vulgar rank of people who by reason of their smalller talents may more easily be circumvented, whom if by conferring the one book with the other I shall understand they come to be right informed of the truth, I shall hold myself sufficiently rewarded by them as by those whose wavering minds I only intent to rectify by my labours, which otherwise for any matter of substance I find in the book, I profess I should never have esteemed it worth the pains I have taken in the confutation of it.   

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS.  

PERIOD 1. THE proceeding of the Roman Church with the sectaries cleared & defended from the injurious impositions of the adversary. Father Campian & other authors ill alleged. Where likewise the Romanists are freed from all cause of contention between themselves & the pretended reformers, who are truly the cause of all dissension in the Church by there Preposterous pretended reformation.  
PERIOD 2. Neither are there any corruptions in either faith or generally approved manners in the Roman Church. Nor any want of care, & zeal in the Popes in procuring all necessary reformation in the Church. But the adversary's abuse of the Counsels of Trent & Pisa, & his lies & equivocations discovered. His calumniations against Purgatory, indulgences prayer to Saints reproved.  
PERIOD 3. No true Romanist ever renounced Popery either in his life, or at his death: yet some formerly Romanists for desire of licentious liberty, & other temporal motives, have apostated from the Catholic Roman Church. Witness, Luther, Caluin, & other founders of the misreformed Churches, to omit those of smalller note. Some cited for Romanists which are not such, with abuse of some other authors.  
PERIOD 4. An idle & calumnious discourse of the adversary foolishly affirming that the Roman Church is hindered from reformation by bumane policy, reproved.  
PERIOD 5. The irrefragable argument of Catholics that the pretensive Reformers cannot assign a time in which any one point of the Roman faith was by any public authority before the days of Luther condemned for erroneous, maintained & fortified against the frivolous evasions of the adversary. Some Romanists by him impertinently alleged others cited for Romanists which are not such.  
PERIOD 6. The Catholic Roman doctrine cleared in it succession from all touch of heresy. But contrarily the pedigree of the misreformers much stained with the same where diverse ancient Fathers are abused & corrupted at the least in sense & meaning.  
PERIOD 7. The pretensive reformed doctrine is not proved, eytherby testimony of Romanists, or otherwise, to have either universality or antiquity, but convinced to be quite void of them both. And the adversary promising to prove the antiquity & universality of his faith by testimonies of Romanists, only produceth two or three & in two or three only points & yet those impertinently.  
PERIOD 8. Neither justification by faith, nor the denial of the real presence or transubstantiation, or private Mass: not the dual number of Sacraments, not any unlawfulness of communion in one kind, of prayer or service in an unknown langue, of due honour of images or Indulgences proved by testimony of Romanists, or by any other apparent argument: but all the adversary allegeth is discovered to be faulty, frivolous, or forged.  
PERIOD 9 Not one testimony of Romanists for the certainty of the pseudo-reformed faith, or uncertainty of the Roman, as the adversary idly pretended. But diverse of them abused & detorted.  
PERIOD 10. No safety, comfort, or benefit for the soul, but much for the body, in the pretensive reformed faith: neither did any Romanists ever confess more than this second part of safety, comfort, or benefit to be in the new Religion. Where diverse authors are depraved & abused by the false adversary.  
PERIOD 11. It is convinced to be absolutely false, & calumnious that the Romanists either elude, or reject the ancient Fathers, but contrarily esteem much more of them then any of the misreformers ever did. Where diverse authors are falsely accused & abused.  
PERIOD 12. No true records ever razed by the Romanists, but many by the false reformers partly razed, & partly exauthorized, or destroyed. With discovery of some false dealing in the adversary.  
PERIOD 13. It is a miere calumnious accusation of our malicious adversary to affirm that the Romanists blasphemy the scripture: where it is convinced that the Romanists use the scriptures with much more reverence than the Novellists do. And diverse Catholics are traduced & corrupted touching this matter.  
PERIOD 14. It is miere frenzy to imagine that Bellarmine testifies the truth of the misreformed doctrine either in ihe principal points of controversy, or in any other point of their new tenets. And the same Cardinal is much abused by the adversary in this passage.  
PERIOD 15. Ancient martyrs not pretended but defended to have shed their blood not for defence of the new pretended reformation, but in defence of the ancient Catholic & present Roman faith. And the weakness and folly of the adversary discovered in his proceeding.  
PERIOD 16. The Romanists have no need to draw any argument for proof of their Religion from the confession of the sectaries. And to treat of this was impertinent to the adversary's project.  
PERIOD 17. It is demonstrated to be plainly false that the adversary hath proved by confessions of Romanists that his Religion is safer than theirs. And this is founded only in his own crazy judgement failing & miscarrying in the very foundation of his work.    

APPROBATIO.  
VIso testimonio, cuiusdam viri docti mihique de fide & doctrina probè cogniti, quo testatur hanc Censuram cuiusdam libelli qui inscribitur Viatuta, nihil continere fidei vel bonismoribus adversum sed multa Catholicae religionis dogmata subtiliter explicata, orthodoxorumque scripta vindicata diligenter, Dignam censui quam & ego approbarem Duaci 28. Novembr. 1632.  
GEORGIUS COLVENERIUS etc.   

Correction of faults, & supply of omissions.  
PAge 60. line 13. read Church Apostasy. p. 114. l. 18. for them, read it. p. 116. for be read were. & for there formers read the Reformers. p 127. omit real presence. l. 134. for saint read smart. p. 142. for to dissent read not to consent. p. 154. for to such contrary read contrarie to such & in the same page l. 23. for which is true, read which in his opinion is true. & p. 155. touching the same matter. l. 15. for none of which is contrary, read none of which abstracting from the institution is contrary. p. 145. for but hath, read but since it & the rest were there included hath. pag. 156. line 2. for the manner read the whole & entire manner. p. 158. for declaredly & universally read, so declaredly & universally. page 226. for the word of God, read either the unwritten word of God, & in the same p. l. 14. add althou' there were no other Council for it. pag. 208. l. 20. to people, add as ever so to receive it by Christ's command. p. 265. for thrice, read once. p. 240. lin. 6. to Christ, add humane nature. p. 239. for reconciliations, read reconciliationis. p. 287. for dignity read decorum. p. 202. l. 7. omit other. l. 27. to exhibited add by itself. page 307. to not determined by the Church, add in every particular. pag. 317. to illegitimate, add concerning the doctrine of images. p. 371. to divine worship, add in spirit. pa. 447. l. 16. for in, read since. pa. 463. for t'him, read him. & in the next l. 10. for may challenge, read may in that respect challenge. p. 467. l. 17. add in respect of the people. p. 433. lin. 16. for able, read agreeable. & omit so. pag. 438. lin. 13. for to whom read, & yet. p. 475. for conference read confidence. p. 485. l. 16. for heresy, read material heresy. p. 480. for martyrs read examples. p. 493. l. 26. consequence. add to this purpose. p. 566. l. 24. to sounds, add including the prayers. p 546. l. 8. to glorious, add flash. & l. 26. for gaspell, read Gospel. p. 545. l. 2. read Pamphleter. p. 421. l. 18. omit in a visible manner.  
In the introduction to the Appendix.  
Page 73. line 10. add defined. l. 3. for false, read safe. p. 19 l. 20. omit either, & in the next. l. read works. & l. 24. to some of, add them.  
Besides these neglects I advertise the reader of an other fault committed in the omission of titles for the distinct matters. Nevertheless this defect is sufficiently supplied in regard that in the commencement or entrance of every several period, the contents are briefly declared. There be many other errors of less importance committed by the printer as being a stranger as Nice with a great letter & the like, which the discretion and judgement of the reader will easily correct. In like manner he will pardon the rudeness of the style as penned by one who by reason of his absence & daily conversation with strangers ignoreth the property of his native language. As also he will connive his tardance in the publication of the work, which if it had not encountered unimagined impediments might have appeared many month's paste.   


THE FIRST PERIOD.  
THIS Period shall contain the first and second sections of S. Humfreys way, and I resolved to join them together, by reason I find little matter of doctrine in them, as being rather in the nature of preamble or introduction, and consequently of too small substance for a scholar to insist upon.  
In his first section he purposed to prove and disprove the bitterness of the Church of Room towards the reformed Churches, but he bringeth very little or nothing to that purpose, only citing for his demonstration of the same some  speeches as he termeth them, uttered by father Campian in his first reason. She terms us (saith S. Humphrey, meaning the Roman Church) Heretics, Hellhounds of Zwinglius, Luther's whelps, Turkish Hugonotes, damned persons, and worse than Infidels, which words if they wear truly related I must needs confess include no small acrimony, but I having diligently read over on purpose Campians first reason, I find not them all there, nay nor yet the greater part of them, nor any other equivalent unto them. I find indeed he speaketh sharply against Luther and Caluin and he termeth them and others whom he citeth, 
Quid ille nunc diceret, si viveret in terris, & Lutheros Caluinosque concerneret opifices Bibliorum, qui sua lima politula & elegantula, vetus nowmque testamentum esse raserint. Quid Lutheri Catulis ut Tobiam, Ecclesiasticum, Machabaeos, & horum odio complures alios ea calumnia comprehensos è syncero canon repent dispungerent? etc. Quae quidem Ecclesia custos huius depositi non magistra (quod haeretici cavillnatur) thesaurum hunc vuluersum quem Synodus Tridentina est amplexa vetustissimus olim concilij publicitus vendicavit. etc. Castatio mysticum illud Salomonis Canticum. etc. Nihilo pluris quam cantilenamed amicula & cum pedissequis autor colloquium amatorium venereus furcifer aestimavit. Camp. rat. 1.  heretics for their mangling the holy scriptures according to their own private Spirits, but he hath not one bitter word against the persons of any sectaries of his own Country, but only justly reprehendeth the Novelists in general for rheir abuse of the word of God. But suppose Father Campian had used such speeches indeed, what then? do not the reformers themselves most frequently both in their writings and pulpits use fare worse terms both against the Romanists and the Roman Church, do not they accuse both her and her members of Idolatry, Superstition, and Antichristianity, exaggerating matters with all the satirical phrases they can invent, as even in this very place doth appear where S. Humphrey himself railing not only against the particular members of the Roman Church, but also against her sacred self, charging her to have lost her breasts or at least to give her children little or no sincere milk out of her two breasts, the two testaments, and that she doth daily practise spiritual fornication, and that she hath played the Harlot with a great H. and finally taxing her that she mainetayneth and practiseth manifest and manifold Idolatry, and that her title is usurpation her devotion is superstition, and she herself a professed enemy to the gospel, from whence you may infer what a senseless blindness this was in the knight, to dedicate the first chapter of his book to the disprooving of the bitterness of the Roman Church, he himself having spent a great part of it in railing against her, and also you may perceive how importunely he accuseth her of malignity and want of desire to quench the unquenchable broils of the Church as he termeth them, whilst he himself through his exasperating speeches, as much as in him lieth, putteth no small impediment to the extinguishing of the same, as the reader may plainly perceive, and notwithstanding he compareth the Roman Church and his own to two sisters (which comparison although it be very fond and absurd in itself for that the true Church being but one only spouse of Christ, she can admit no sister nor Corrival according to the meaning of the holy Spirit in the Canticles affirming his spouse to be one, (una ES SPONSA MEA) nevertheless he must needs be convinced to have proceeded most preposterously in this matter, and contrary to all reason, in that he intending or at least pretending to show there ought to be love & union between them as between two sisters descending from one and the same catholic and universal mother as he calleth her, yet as it were with one & the same, breath he accuseth the same Roman Church to have been the only cause of separation; and carrieth the business in such a rough and uncivil fashion towards her, giving her such great occasions of new disgusts, that it plainly appeareth he doth rather demonstrate his own bitterness & rancour towards her, then with any probable argument show any such disposition to remain in her against any such union as he pretendeth to desire. Why then doth S. Humphrey complain of that which is in a fare worse manner practised by himself and his own brothers? beside this I pray you doth the supposed bitterness of F. Campian prove the bitterness of the Roman Church? could he alone be the whole Roman Church who was but one only member of it? Or are his speeches or private positions to be attributed to the whole Church, he being but one part thereof and yet not the greatest? what a false Metonymy is this? if the head of the Church had used such speeches you would have seemed to have had some reason to have attributed them to the whole, because that which the head doth may induce a denomination upon the rest of the body, of which examples may be found even in nature, but whatsoever any other member doth, it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole. So that we now see that in this allegation S. Humphrey himself doth so carry the matter, and giveth the Church of Room even in this same section, so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies taxing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coining of new expositions upon the old, fare different from the doctrine of the Apostles, and that she maintaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry. And the like most false and slanderous exprobrations, that as I said before, it plainly appeareth that he hath rather demonstrated his own bitterness, and rancour towards the Roman Church, than shown any such defect in her, by any argument drawn from Father Campians words by him produced, which words although by his quotation of jewel in the margin he will seem to have taken them at second hand, yet certainly it is a plain imposture, and so let them divide it as they please betwixt themselves, it being ever supposed that S. Humphrey, and his jewel, are of equal authority with the Catholics, I mean of none at all. Moreover S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to clear his own Church from the infamous brand of Apostasy, he imposeth the whole cause of separation upon the Roman Church, and produceth Erasmus for a witness of the same, who being demanded (for sooth) of the duke of Saxony what was Luther's capital offence that stirred up so many opposites against him, made answer that Luther had committed two great crimes, for he had taken away the Crown from the Pope, and had taken down the belly of the monks.  
To which saying of answer that Erasmus is no competent witness against the Roman Church, especially in a case where his sole testimony is interposed. And if S. Humphrey had been circumspect he would not have cited Erasmus his answer for this purpose, as containing one manifest lie if not twb. For neither did Luther ever take the Crown from the Pope, which as the world knows, he still enjoyeth maugre him and all his adherents: neither did Luther ever take down the bellies of the monks, except it was by injust usurpation and rapine to fill his own, and to lead his life in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vows to god and man.  
Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus (which although S. Humphrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers division from the Church of Rome, yet doth it fare more strongly argue a cause in the Pope justly to reject them, than any excuse of their preposterous separation) before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose, 
Cap. 4.15.17.  but only upon his own false supposition, that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous; therefore until I see him prove his supposition, which yet I know he will never be able to perform, I leave it as impertinent: as also I omit the examples he brings of Abraham's departure out of Caldea, and of the jews out of Egypt; which are as fare from the case we treat of, as Egypt is from Europe or Christendom from jewrye. Therefore I will only give notice to the reader how grossly he abuseth certain authors he cities, to testify that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome. For there is not one of those authors that affirms that after it was converted to the Christian faith, it was called Babylon, according as the scripture usually speaks of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically. Neither is there likewise any of the same authors which teach, that since the conversion of that City to the faith of Christ, Christians ought to depart from it, as out of a spiritual and idolatrous Babylon, which is that our adversary here intends to prove, or at the least ought to prove, if any thing he means to prove against the Romanists.  
And to speak first of the ancient authors here cited by the knight, which are Tertullian, S. Hierome, and S. Augustin, it is directly impossible that they should mean by Babylon, the Roman Church depraved by any idolatry of Christian people, for that they were all departed out of the world, before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion, is affirmed by our new sectaries to have begun, which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. year after the time of Christ our Saviour.  
Now as for the modern authors to wit Orosius, Viues, Bellarmin, and Baronius, and Ribera, they are all known Romanists yea and some of them chief defendours of the Roman Church and faith, and so it is evident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to mean by Babylon the Roman Church. 
Cap. 22.  Viues upon the 18. book de cuit. Dei, explicates himself plainly saying: Petrus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat, ut etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur, qui ad Marcellam scribens, non aliam existimat describi à joanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem, quam Vrbem Romam. Bellarmin also speaks yet plainer in the very place cited by S. Humphrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith. Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanam urbem, qualis erat Ioannis tempore. Orosius I have not. But let Baronius speak for himself and others. 
Baron. Adam. 45.  Nec per somninm quidem quis unquam invenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonis nomine nuncupatam, sed ipsam tantummodô civitatem; ac id quidem non semper, sed cum impietate referta adversus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gereret. Ribera understands by Babylon persecuting Rome, not as it is now, I need not cite his words in a case so clear. So that now I do not see why S. Humphrey produced these authors, except it were by corruption of them, to make them precursors of his corrupted way.  
And hence also the reader may gather how weakly the knight proceeds in this his first section, which is the introduction to the rest, in regard that by endeavouring to reprove his adversary, he doth unadvisedly prove his own imperfections, and so doubtless he had better been idle than so ill occupied. And I verily persuade myself, that if the Archflamen had duly examined the contents of this section, he doubtless would have marked it with a, non imprimatur.  
In his second section S. Humphrey pretends to prove the cause of contention betwixt the Reman Church and his own, originally to have proceeded from the Romanists by their own confession. Thus much he promiseth in the title, but performeth nothing. For he cities but three only authors, that is, Cassander, Camden, and Cesenas, in favour of his position, and yet none of them are acknowledged by us for sound Romanists, at the least if we respect their writings here produced. And of Cassander both the inquisitors in their Index, and Bellarmin in his Controversies, sufficiently declare the unsoundness of his doctrine and religion. Camden I hope is well know. Now for Cesenas notwithstanding S. Humphrey styles him General of the Franciscans, as indeed once he was though afterwards deposed by his own order and excommunicated by Pope john the 2● for his pertinacy and malapert manner of defending, that the Fryes of his order could have no rents or possessions, yet if he writ against the Tyranny of the Pope, as he is quoted by the knight, it is most manifest he could not be a perfect Romanist: or at least that work could not be his, as in truch I am persuaded it was not, but falsely fathered upon him, through the iniquity of him who maliciously composed the mystery of iniquity, against the Pope and Roman Church. And having now examined the matter I perceive that which Cesenas writ or Ockam for him was not against the Popes in general: but he writ only an epistle or treatise (if any thing he writ himself) against the errors (as he terms them) of Pope john in particular, with whom he was much disgusted by reason of the foresaid business and excommunications. And as for the words which S. Humphrey cities touching two Churches, one good, and an other evil, I found none such, nor any others to that sense in Cesenas. And if ever he uttered any such words, which according to his whole discourse is wholly improbable, yet doubtless he could not mean, that the evil Church was the Roman Church entirely and absolutely, in regard his own words in his foresaid work do evidently declare, that he subjected himself to the same even in this same business, saying in his letters to the General Chapter of his Order: 
〈…〉  Ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam publicè & solemniter appellavi, & me & mihi adhaerentes, & dicta nostra supposui correctioni, & emendationi, & protectioni, & defensioni sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Et sum semper protestatus me illam fidem tenere & seruare velle perpetuo, quam tenet & seruat sanctae Romana Ecclesia, quae est omnium Ecclesiaram matter & magistra. So that this passage is a manifest imposture either of S. Humphrey or Plessis choose them whether, who out of an unsatiable desire they have to found out some tract or step, though never so obscure, of their imaginary Church before the days of Luther, care not what they forge or feign.  
And yet more than this touching the small authority which Cesenas ought to have, if he had done or spoken any thing against the Roman Church, if S. Humphrey had looked well about him, or had been careful to know the truth, he migst easily have found him registered in the expurgatory Index, even in the first Class for a prohibited author. And so a man may justly demand of our adversary with what face then he can affirm his position to be confessed by the Romanists? Or what truth or sincerity can any one imagine to be in him? and what credit can prudently be given by the Reader to the rest of the allegations of his whole book, who deals in this manner even in the frontispiece of his work. And in truth I wonder that at the least in humane policy, he was no more circumspect, then to prostitute his reputation so lavishly even then, when he ought in reason to be most careful of it. And now this may suffice for the censure of this second section as containing nothing in particular which deserveth rehearsal, or which may any wise redound, either to the authors credit, or serve for the confirmation of his tenets specified in the former section, the proof as you see being here as weak and silly as the matter calumnious before, and consequently deserving no milder sentence of condemnation, than the contents of the former section.   

THE II. PERIOD.  
NOw I will pass to a view of the third section of Sir Humfreys book which is, in effect a continuation of the same matter treated in the two first sections, his chief drift being to show the Pope and Roman Church to be in fault for refusing reformation. 
〈…〉  And because he persisteth in the same manner of proof videlicet, by the confession of the members of the Roman Church, I will examine briefly how exactly he prosecuteth the same, and whether he recovereth in this section the credit which he lost in the former.  
He laboureth to show corruption both of faith and manners in the Church of Rome, and that by confession of Roman Authors; and for the proof of this confession he produceth Pope Alexander the fift out of the Council of Pisa ses. 20. the Council of Senes, the Council of Trent in divers places. Moulin the 21. chap. of his Eucharist. Agrippa de vanit. Scient. chap. 17. the Bull of Pius the 4. Philippus Mornaeus. Card. Caraph. Consill. de emendanda Ecclesia. Paulus Vergerius in opusculis, & de Idolo Lauret. hist. of the Council of Trent in English. These are all the writers he allegeth, which are ten in number. And although he citheth them all as if they were Romanists (for that he rehearseth them all to the same purpose and in one tenor or sequel of words) nevertheless it is well known that five of the ten are so fare from being Romanists, as three of them are professed enemies to the Roman Church, to wit Moulin, Vergerius, and Mornaeus, and the other two that is Agrippa, and the Tridentine history in English, are of no authority, nor credit amongst the Romanists, as being either plain heretics, or suspected of heresy. And as for the other five Catholic testimonies, they contain not one word whereby it may be proved that either the Pope, or the rest, of the Roman Church did refuse to admite of due reformation, as Sir Humphrey affirmeth, but the contrary is most manifest out of the Council of Trent itself, even in the same places which he citeth, where special decrees of divers particular abuses to be reform by the Pastors of the Church are extant. True it is that where abuses are decreed to be reform, those same abuses are of necessity supposed to be, either in times past, present, or future, and so fare I grant the testimonies cited by the K. out of the two Counsels and other Catholic Authors be of force: but to prove that those abuses be corruptions in faith, or yet in manners, except we mean of the evil faith and manners brought into the Church by Luther & his followers) or that they being truly known to be in the Church, yet the Pope will not have them reform, this I say is a mere calumniation divised by Sir Humphrey in disgrace of the chief Pastor of the Roman Church, and cannot possibly be deduced out of the foresaid testimonies, but rather the quite contrary is expressly to be found, and lastely in the decrees of the Tridentine Council, as we have already said. 
Decret. de Refor.  That which Sir Humphrey affirmeth in the beginning of his 20. page, is convinced to be a manifest untruth, to wit that the day of the Roman reformation is not yet come. And although the Knight out of the abundance of his wit, is not content only to say that the Romanists confess there are corruptions in their Church only in manners, but also, that they confess the same in doctrine: nevertheless of the point of doctrine he bringeth not any proof at all, either out of Romanists, or any other way, but instead of proofs he uttereth diverse untruths, mingled with some impertinences and equivocations. He telleth his reader in the 20. page that the Council of Trent, in Paul the thirds time, complained of Indulgences, but this is most false, for the Council doth not in any sort complain of the Indulgences themselves, but only that the Pope's officers in collecting the alms or contribution of the people upon the grant and gaining of them, gave scandal to faithful Christians, as appeareth by the very same words which he himself citeth, 
Vide Con. Trid. sess. 21. cap. 9  among which there is not any one repugnant to the doctrine of Indulgences but only to the abuses of the questours; as also the same words cited in Sir Humfreys margin in latin, do yet more plainly declare, so that this is no less than an inexcusable falsity uttered by the knight for want of an argument, as it seems, to prove corruptions in doctrine in the Roman Church. Another untruth he hath in the 22. pa. where he saith thus: neither did those men (meaning the Fathers of the Council of Trent) seek a reformation in manners only, but in the doctrine itself. Whereas they in that very place by the knight alleged, wish only that the private mass might be restored to the ancient custom of the communion of the people, together with the priest, which as you know is no matter of doctrine in controversy between the Romanists and the reformers, but only of practice, and consequently it proveth not the knight's intent in this place, but rather his ignorant mistaking of the true state of the question in that point of controversy about private mass. Now that which he addeth of the Latin service in the Roman Church to wit that the Council commands all Pastors that they at the Mass do frequently interpret and declare unto the people the mystery of the Sacrament, who doth not see how impertinent it is to the matter of doctrine, and how unapt a medium it is to prove that the Doctors of the Council either did seek reformation in the same, or to show how near the same doctors came to the doctrine of the reformed Churches, as he presently addeth, affirming them so to do, since the Council proceedeth not there, by way of definition or decree in matter of doctrine, but only by way of ordinance and command as the words by himself rehearsed do plainly specify; & yet not so but that the same Council, and in the same place doth either expressly command, or at the least suppose that the Mass ought to be for the most part celebrated in the latin tongue.  
Moreover touching equivocations, certain it is that he doth equivocate in his allegation of Pope Alexander out of the Council of Pisa, where he saith that the Pope promised solemnly to intent the reformation of the Church, whereas in truth Alexander meaneth not of the faith of the Roman Church, as the knight would have it, but of the reformation of manners, or of some abuses practised in the Church by particular persons. Besides this, it is not probable that the Pope would meddle himself in matters of doctrine in such a Council as was assembled purposely for the taking away of a schism. But concerning manners I find that in the laste period of the same Council of Pisa which Sir Humphrey cities there is express mention both of some reformation already made by the Pope & Cardinals, & also of more referred to the next general Synod: the words of which determination are these. Item cum Dominus noster Papa cum consilio Concilij intendere● reformare Ecclesiam in capite & membris, & iam multa per Dei gratiam sint expedita per ipsum Dominum nostrum Papam, moreover in the same Council of Senes which the knight also here produceth I find no mention of corruption in faith except by faith Sir Humphrey will understand the corrupted faith of the wiclefists, Hussits, or the Grecians, the reformation and reduction of all which both the Pope and Council endeavoured so fare to effect and compass, as they declared the first two sectaries to be heretics and that so earnestly as they threatened all those with excommunication who should any way favore them even with as much only as to give them salt to their pottage, & as for reformation of manners there is not a word which proveth that the Pope made any resistance therein but rather expressly laboured for the same, though by accident of impediments incident it was actually hindered at that present. Sacrosancta Synodus universalem Eccles. representans nuntijs sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri Martini quinti summi Pontif. specialiter deputatis ipsius reformationem intentus, incipiens à fidei fundamenton praeter quod nemo potest aliud ponere damnationem haeresum Wiclefistarum & Hussitarum suorumque sequacium etc. In decret. Contra Hussitas haereticos. Con. Sen. By which it is manifest how great the impudency of Sir Hunfrey is in alleging these two Counsels to prove want of reformation in the Pope or Roman Church they standing both so plainly for the contrary to his position or rather imposition. He equivocateth also in that allegation of Card. Schomberg whom he affirmeth to have opposed the reformation made in the Council of Trent. Whereas yet he citeth no words of the Card. but only a bare relation taken out of a certain history of the acts of the Council published in English touching the foresaid Cardinal's opposition or rather proposition only, in the point of reformation. Which fact being related only by an unauthenticall history, the allegation can be of no more authority than is the relatour himself who was then a Caluinian sectary called Suaviss who hath writ a very corrupted narration of that which passed in the Council as relating the contentions or contrary opinions which the Fathers & Doctors held whiles matters were in debate & unconcluded, as if they had continued after the definitions and decrees were made, and so abusing both the Council & his reader egregiously. And yet more than this suppose the relation were most true and authentical, yet doth it not prove Sir Humfreys intent, videlicet that the Pope denieth reformatlon of Corruptions in faith and manners, for that in the words related out of the foresaid history, there is no mention of any corruptions of that nature, but only of abuses in general terms, which Schomberg was of opinion that it had been better to let them alone, yet that was only his particular dictamen and proposition, to which neither the Pope nor the rest of the Council agreed, but resolved, upon a course of reformation as the decrees themselves do testify: so that this passage of the related history is impertinently alleged by the Knight.  
Finally S. Humphrey doth equivocate not only in that which we have said, but also in the very substance of this his whole section. For his chief or rather whole scope being not only to prove corruptions in doctrine and manners to be confessed by the Romanists to be in their Church, but also that the Pope refuseth to take them away, he by his allegations of the testimonies of some Romanists proveth in part that there were corruptions in manners both before and when the Council of Trent was assembled, but he quite dissembleth the other part, to wit, that they were reform also by the same Council; and yet not withstanding the very same places which he produceth out of the Romanists do as plainly aver the one as the other. And so out of those proceed of Sir Humphrey and the rest which hath been said it may plainly appear that he is so fare from recovery of that honour which he lost in the former sections, that he hath now stained the same not a little more, and so we may conclude this section and include it in the former censure.   

THE III. PERIOD.  
IN the fourth section the knight proceedeth to greater matters, to matters I say of life and death; for he affirmeth that many learned Romanists convicted by the evidence of truth either in part or in whole have renounced Popery before their death, But let us see how exactly and solidly he proceedeth in so weighty a matter.  
He citeth 
Med●cir. ● celeberrimus professor D. Venerandus Gablerus, tanti comitis exemplum secutus redijt ad Catholicismum. Adfuerat is Petro Paulo vergerio è corpore migranti apud quem minor quae dam viderat quae illi animum videbantur perfregisse ut non modo Catholicus sed pientissimus quoque Catholicus fieret. Sane aiunt viri graues hunc Apostatam Vergerium sub mortem teterrimos exhalasse faetores ac bovis instar horrendos edidisse boatus etc. anno 1567. Surius Com. pag. 733.  the Council of Basill out of Genebrard. Aeneas Silvius out of Platina. Harding out of jewel. The Rhemish testament out of Causabon. The lord Cook. B. Gard. out of john Fox. Beauties' Controversies. And his last will or testament. Albertus' Pighins. Paulus Vergerius and his brother Baptist. These are all the authors he citeth in this section. For the proof of his vast assertion, which authors being but ten in number yet three of them are known to be no Romanists except he will have L. Cook and the two brother Bishops to be Romanists, which nevertheless he confesseth to to have protested against the Romish doctrine; so that now according to his own confession the whole number of Roman authors he citeth here is reduced to seven, which small number I cannot imagine according to what Arithmetic it can truly be accounted many, especially if we compare them to the infinite number of the Romanists which have been & yet are extant in the Christian world constant maintainers of Popery. And this I say even in case it were true that all those seven had ever renounced the Romish faith either in part or totally, as the knight affirmeth; which nevertheless I will make apparent to be otherwise.  
And first touching the Council of Basil, the very same words which Sir Humphrey citeth do convince the same, for saith he the Council did allow the cup to the Bohemians upon this condition: that they should not find fault with the contrary use, nor sever themselves from the Catholic Church. Now what is here to be found in these words of the Council which is any kind of renuntiation of the Romish faith? nay what is there which concerneth the Romish faith at all? that which the Council determineth being but only a grant to one particular nation upon particular reasons, and that in a point of practice not of doctrine, which also, if our English protestants were as conformable to the Roman Church in all other points of faith and manners as the Bohemians then were, might perhaps upon the like just reasons and upon the same condition be granted in the realm of England, and that without any prejudice to either faith or manners. But our English sectaries are so fare from conformity to the Romanists not only in divers other points but even in this particular that they continually exclaim against them both in their books and sermons as violatours of Christ's institution in that they do not always and in every country communicate the people in both kinds, 
Con. Basiliense initio legitimum postea Conciliabulum Scismaticum, & nullius authoritatis. Con. lat. sess. 11. ex Bell. non refero verba.  accusing them also that they mangle the Sacrament and uniustly deprive the laiety of one part there of, judging the same for a lawful cause, at the least in part, of their separation from the Roman Church, none of which particulars are proved by the testimony of the Council of Basil to have concurred in the case of the Bohemians, but rather the contrary is most plainly specified: so that the knight hath laboured in vain or rather against himself by producing the foresaid testimony, of the Council of Basil in which no renuntiation of Popery is to be found nor any agreement in doctrine or manners with the pretensive reformed Churches. From whence it is also consequently inferred that to be clearly false which our adversary affirms in the beginning of this section, to wit that the reformed Churches have done nothing in this otherwise then former Counsels had anciently decreed.  
He citeth in the second place Aeneas Silvius, who was afterwards Pope Pius the second, as if he had renounced the Romish religion in that he saith, that as marriage upon weighty reasons was taken from the Priests, so upon weighty reasons it were wished to be restored. But what is this to the purpose? is a wish of an alteration in one particular point, & that not in faith but manners or rather in practice of the Church a renuntiation of religion either in part or in whole? or is the prohibition of marriage, or the celibate or single life of priests any of the twelve articles which the knight is pleased to term the new creed of the Roman Church? no surly. How then is it a matter of faith, or the renunciation of it the renuntiation of Popery? and not rather a renuntiation only of a precept of the Church in case it were truly renounced by any Romanist whatsoever he is. Which renuntiation nevertheless was never made by the author cited as his words rehearsed out of Platina by Sir Humphrey himself do make manifest to any sincere and unpartial reader. In which not by way of wish or as giving his real assent with the reformers as Sir Humphrey doth corruptedly relate, but only by a doubtful delivery of his own private dictamen that present time occurring unto him. Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, maiori restituendas videri. Plat. in pio 2. And yet more than that after he was Pope and making reflection upon his former writings published in his greener years, to the imitation of S. Augustin and others he framed are tractation of diverse particulars passages of his own works among which this is one, as appears by the tenor of the same which in his later editions in force of a brief or Bull is usually prefixed to his books. To omit that if the foresaid Silvius had been a renouncer of any point of Popery it were too ridiculous to imagine that ever he would have been elected Pope, as nevertheless the knight confesseth him to have been afterwards. And thus the reader may plainly see that this allegation is of no more force than the former towards the proof of Sir Humfreys intent.  
In the next place is master Harding brought in for a renoncer of Popery. For that as jewel reporteth, he saith that godly and faithful people have since the time of the Primitive Church much complained of Private Mass. But suppose it were true, what is this to the purpose of renouncing of Popery? For what zealous and religious Papist is there in the world who doth not justly complain of want of devotion in the laity for that they have not that fervour in frequenting the communion which those of the Primitive Church had? and if this could be remedied what Romanist would not much desire it, yea and by all means possible procure it? but is this to condemn as unlawful or contrary to Christ's institution (as you sectaries do) all Masses as be celebrated without Communicants? no such matter. No more, nay much less than if for complaining that Sir Humphrey Lined doth not deal so sincerely in the citations of his adversaries as becometh the reputation of a knight, a man should therefore presently be thought to have quite condemned him of dishonest proceeding in that nature even in the highest degree of false dealing and corruption. Which collection if he please to grant, I know not who will be so uncivil as to contradict him. Especially considering that even in this very citation he hath corrupted doctor Harding most unconscionably by applying against private mass that which he speaks only against the negligence of the lay people for that they so commonly omit to communicate at mass, as if that author disallowed of the private mass itself, whose words nevertheless truly cited as he hath them in the beginning of the ninth leaf of his answer to jewels challenge will clear the business and manifestly discover where the fault lieth: that others do commonly forbear saith he, to communicate with the priest it is through their own fault and negligence not regarding their own salvation whereof the godly and careful rulers of faithful people have since the time of the primitive Church always much complained. And thus you see how nimbly the subtle knight hath abused both that worthy doctor & his own reader. Wherefore it being by this which we have said apparent that M. Harding was no condemner of private mass as either unlawful or against the institution of Christ, it also is thence manifestly consequent that he was no renouncer of Popery even in that particular point, and so the proof which the knight would draw from him is of no force, nor available to his cause; nay it is in truth so disagreeable to the state of the question that it is no small wonder how either malice or ignorance could so much blind him as to make use of it in this matter.  
The fourth testimony is out of the Rheims Testament the authors of which (as he affirmeth out of Causabon) avouch the scriptures to have been translated into English by the importunity of the heretics. And he addeth that the Romanists have of late granted a dispensation to some men and women also to read scriptures, and this also was done (saith he) by the importunity of the heretics. Moreover as it were in confirmation of the same, he addeth that most of the Romish proselytes, (as he termeth them) did frequent their Church and service for the first eleven years of Queen Elizabeth: neither (saith he) was it forbidden by any lawful council. Thus he discourseth touching this point.  
Hear is much a do and little to the purpose. And indeed after a great deal of study a man shall hardly collect any thing out of the whole discourse which may seem to have any show of proof for the knight's assertion, videlicet. That many Romanists have renounced Popery before their death. Yet it seems to me, his whole drift may be reduced to these two arguments. The first thus: The Romanists have translated the bible by the importunity of the reformers, & give dispensations to some men and women to read it; therefore many Romanists have renounced Popery. The second thus: most of the Romanists did frequent the reformed Church and service for the first 11. years of Queen Elizabeth's reign, neither was their communication with them prohibited by any lawful Council, therefore many Romanists renounced Popery before their death.  
Lo here two learned Enthymems: they march like two march hares and run stark wild. I wonder what nimble university man hath taught the knight to chop Logic so minshingly, or what polipracticall Alchemist hath instructed him in the art of extraction so exactly, that out of the importunity of his reformed consorts, he is able to draw the translation of the Rhemish Testament, and that with a dispensation for some men and women to read it. So skilful he is in extracting oil out of stones and milk out of mountains. Neither doth his exquisite knowledge stay here, but he will needs persuade his reader he can extract also out of the same, that many Romanists have renounced their Popery by translating the Bible into English and by giving a dispensation to read the same; nay and that which is yet more marvellous he seemeth to glory not a little that this hath been all effected by the importunity of his reformed brothers; as if forsooth, they had exercised an act of some heroical virtue therein. Whereas in truth, importunity is so fare from desert of commendation as it may be much more justly registered in the list of vices then of virtues: and so we see that in the Scripture itself the importunity of a beggar is branded with the mark of improbity, that which I marvel, the knight being so great a Biblist as he is, did not reflect upon it. And admit it were true that the Romanists moved by the importunity of the sectaries did translate the Bible into the vulgar tongue for the laity to read, by what rule of Logic I pray you Sir Humphrey doth it follow that many Romanists have renounced Popery before their death? prove but this one consequence and I yield you the victory. And pray tell me what article of faith is that which teacheth the Romanists to believe that the Bible ought not to be read by the laiety in no case, or upon no reasons never so weighty? or if you can find no such article, as I know you cannot, then confess you have lost the victory in the point, confess you have proceeded weakly, confess you have by your first argument proved nothing: and so I will take that for granted, and pass to the second, which although it hath some more sense in it then the other, yet it is senseless enough as shall presently appear. For that being to prove your antecedent or first proposition you only produce L. Cook's report, that most of the Romish proselytes did frequent your Church or service for the first eleven years of Queen Elizabeth. But you must know that this author is no competent witness against the Romanists, he is one of your own crew, we care not for his reports, we leave them to the lawyers: He indeed (as you do now) presumed to write matters of divinity, but in that he played the Suitor ultra crepidam, as you do, and so laboured only to make himself ridiculous, as you do. But let us admit that which he reporteth, to be true, and that foam frequented your Church and service in those times (as I myself have heard they did at the least in exterior show, yet privately at home frequenting Mass also,) doth it thence follow that in their minds they renounced Popery? no such matter. No more than do divers of his majesty's subjects, who even at this day go to your Churches, whom nevertheless you yourselves hold for none of yours: but therefore do commonly term them Church going Papists. So that according to this and even ad hominem, that is, upon your own Principles, your sequel is to be condemned to be of no force; or at the most out of that fact of those Romanists which you speak of, it can only be inferred that they proceeded contrary to the profession of their faith, but not that they renounced the same, which two things if you could have duly distinguished, I verily persuade myself you would never have discoursed so frivoluslie as you do in this point. But now I grieve I have spent so much time in ventilating so largely such chaffy stuff.  
After this wise discourse Sir Humphrey passeth to his own persuasions, for the proof of his assertion. I am verily persuaded (saith he) that many at this day in the Church of Rome do assent to our doctrine that dare not communicate with us openly in the Church; adding an appeal to their consciences how many of the Romanists have renounced Popery in those divers points in this place. But to this I answer that if Romanists would have been persuaded by this wise knights motives they had long ago all renounced Popery and turned Puritan indeed, but God be praised they never were, nor I hope ever will be persuaded by him and his works, if they have any branies in their heads. No surly. And if they come but once to examine this his book and get a view of the discovery of his deceits, they will be so fare from being moved either by his reasons or by his authority to relinquish their own faith, that doubtless they will rather be quite out of love both with him & his religion. And even in this particular persuasion of his he showeth himself so ridiculous as no man of judgement if he mark his proceeding can ever esteem him as a man worthy either to be heard or followed. For what man in the world will be moved by him who in steed of proofs bringeth his own persuasions only of the testimony of the conscience of those whom he holds for adversaries, and whose consciences if he proceeds consequently, he must either hold for bad, or at the least for unknown to himself. What is this but absurdum per absurdius? and yet he is so confident in this his vain persuasion that he cometh to specify divers points of Popery which he affirmeth to have been renounced by many Romanists, some of which points are no Popery at all, but either his own lies, or else his ignorant mistake of the true doctrine of Papists in those particulars.  
For example in his page 32. he demandeth of us how many Romanists do smile at feigned miracles, at divine virtue ascribed to medals, beads, Agnus this, and the like which saying of his is merely grounded upon a false supposition or rather a slanderous falsity of his own coining, as if it were true that the Romanists in general did both approve false miracles, and hold divine virtue to be in medals, beads, and Agnus this, neither of which is true or was ever defended by any Romanist in the world, it being both true and manifestly known that though all Romanists hold the foresaid things for holy, and do assure themselves that God doth sometimes please to work strange effects by them, yet do not they believe that any divine virtue doth reside in them, no more than they hold to have resided in the shadow of S. Peter which nevertheless wrought strange and miraculous effects. So that by this discourse Sir Humphrey doth only prove his own ignorance and malice, as also he doth most manifestly in the next lines, and that more subtly than before, where he demandeth how many (Romanists) do prefer the lawfulness of Priest's marriage before the keeping of a concubine; although saith he, the contrary be the common doctrine of the Church of Rome? In which words he doth endeavour craftily to insinuate to his reader that it is a point of Popery, and that the Roman Church doth approve the keeping of a Concubine by a Priest rather than he should marry, whereas the Church doth not in any case allow either of the one or the other; but only holds that, that Priest offendeth God more grievously who marrieth to wit after his preisthood and vow of chastity, 
Saecerdos si fornicetur aut domi concubinam foveat, tammetsi gravi sacrilegio sese obstingat: graviùs tamen peccat si contrahat matrimonium. etc. Costerus. Enchir. cap. 17. the caelib. prop. 9  than he who keepeth a concubine at home, as Costerus though incompletlie cited and uniustly taxed by the knigth, doth most truly affirm. And this is a certain known truth among divines consequent to the prohibition of Priest's marriage which prohibition once supposed he that should marry should not only commit a scandalous sin of the flesh, as that Priest doth who should be a concubinary, but also he should in that case commit a Special irreverence against the Sacrament of marriage by his sacrilegious frustration of the same which sacrilegious action and violation of his now is of itself a more grievous sin than is the keeping of a concubine, as all men, 
Aug. de bono vide cap. 11.  except the reformed brothers, do easily apprehend, conformable to which S. Aug. saith that marriage after a vow of continency is worse than adultery. 
Planè non dubitaverim dicere lapsus & ruinas à castitate sanctiore quae novetur Deo, adulterijs esse pe●ores. ibidem.  To omit, that for a Priest to marry in that manner besides the foresaid crimes it includes also the scandal of Concubinate itself.  
But now Sir Humphrey for conclusion of his former discourse passeth to the point of merits. Lastly (saith he) how many for fear of vain glory and presumption and by reason of the uncertainty of their own works do rely wholly upon the merits of Christ jesus? show me that learned man that liveth a professed Papist in the Church of Rome and dyeth not a sound Protestant in this prime foundation of our faith. Thus the knigth; who as you may easily perceive by way of a glorious Epiphonema goeth about to persuade his reader that all the learned Romanists before their death renounce that article of the Roman Church which affirmeth that a man justified by the grace of God can merit the Kingdom of heaven by the good works he doth by virtue of the grace of God and merits of jesus Christ, because forsooth, many for fear of vain glory and presumption, and by reason of the uncertainelie of their own works at their death do rely wholly on the merits of their Saviour; whereas indeed these are two fare different points of doctrine, the first, that is, the truth of man's merit in the sense declared being a matter of faith in the Roman Church; the second which is the confidence in merits, being none; the one being about the substance of merits, the other only about the quality; the one about the absolute acknowledgement of merits, the other only about the overgreate confidence or presumption in them: And so he that renounceth the first, renounceth Popery indeed, but he that renounceth the second doth not; neither can he be called a Protestant as the knight would have him to be, for the only denial of confidence in merits, as in itself it is most manifest. By all which, because Sir Humfrey with all his divinity had not judgement to distinguish, he proveth nothing but doth only hallucinate between truth and falsehood. Neither doth the example of B. Gardiner which he allegeth any whit avail his cause; for suppose that be true which he affirmeth of him, to wit, that in his sickness he set the merits of Christ in the gap to stand betwixt God's judgement & his own sins, yet cannot he thence infer that therefore the Bishop renounced the truth of the doctrine of merits in general, nay nor his own merits in particular, but only the presumption of them, or the confidence in them by reason of the uncertainty of them, as I have already declared. Besides that, this which he is affirmed to say of himself being but only a relation of Fox, we may justly doubt of the truth of it. For he hath been long since hunted to his hole by a learned Catholic and his unright Reverence manifestly convinced to be a Father of lies.  
Wherefore he is of no credit with us; neither can his testimony prevail against us. We care not for him, his acts and monuments are of no moment among us, his testimony is not the confession of a Romanist which is that our adversary promised in the title of his book, and we expect he should perform: and to omit the small credit which I and all Catholics give to the relations of Master Fox, yet I found that he who hath dealt so falsely with others, hath now found one of his own profession who dealt not very sincerely with him in recounting out of his relation the passage of B. Gardiner at his death, for whereas Sir Humphrey will needs prove by the testimony of Fox, that this Bishop renounced Popery at his death in the point of merits: yet Fox in his 2622. page only saith thus: That according to the report of one whom he will not name (perhaps he could not) when D. Day Bishop of Chichester came to him and began to comfort him (great comfort I warrant you) with words of God's promise and free justification in the blood of Christ our Saviour repeating the scriptures to him. Winchester hearing that. What my lord, quoth he, will you open that gap now, then farewell altogether: to me and such other in my case you may speak it, but if you open this window unto the people then farewell all.  
And now according to this speech of B. Gardiner let the judicious reader imagine if he can how Sir Humphrey can possibly gather that he renowced Poprietie and that a wiser man will not rather collect the contrary: to wit that altho' days words might be uttered to him & others of learning and understanding without danger of perversion, but not perhaps to the common people who by their ignorance and frailty might easily misinterpret them (as he did that uttered them) and so easily receive harm by them not withstanding that they of themselves in a found fence include nothing but truth.  
The knight also citeth to the same purpose (yet to no purpose) Bellarmine in his sixth book of justif. 7. chap. and his testament or last will. Saying in the first place that it is the safest way to rely wholly on the merits of Christ jesus. But this according to that which hath been already said of this matter, is at the most but only a renuntiation of presumption or overmuch confidence in our own uncertain merits, as is most apparent out of Bellarmine's own doctrine even in the very same chapter where the words cited by Sir Humphrey are found though much otherwise then by him they are related as afterwards I will declare. Now in the second place, the words are these. I beseech him (that is God) saith Bellar. that he would admit me into the company of his Saints and elect, not as a valluer of merits, but as a giver of mercy; which words, if the knigth had not been overmuch distracted, he would easily have perceived that they favour his intent nothing at all, as not containing any kind of renuntiation of the due estimation of merits in themselves, but only signify a certain negative renuntiation of confidence in his own particular deserts at the hands of God, which is both most conformable to the same most learned and virtuous Cardinals own doctrine in his book of justification before cited, and also most pious in itself. But it seems our learned Knigth, was either ignorantly or maliciously deceived in the true meaning of Bellarmine's words, imagining very sillilie, that because the Cardinal at his death prayed God to receive him into glory, not as a valuer of merits, he had held God for no valuer of merits at all, whereas God knows, the pious Prelate had no such meaning; neither do his words rightly construed, carry any such sense rather do express the contrary by terming God a valuer of merits in general: although on the otherside considering his own weakness, 
Non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus Largitor admitto. Can. Miss.  and the uncertainty of his own particular deservings, out of an humble mind, he feared to put himself upon God as upon an esteemer of the same (which in case he had had no merits at all might have failed him) but rather made choice at the hour of his departure to cast himself upon the mercy of God which he assured himself could never be wanting to those who duly rely upon his goodness and bounty. And put the case a poor distressed creature should beg an alms of Sir Humfrey entreating him to take pity on him, not as a learned man but as a liberal knight, could he therefore justly say the beggar denied him to be a learned man? no surly, and why? marry because the beggar although he knew him well enough to be a learned man, yet he knew also it was not his learning that could relieve his necessity, but his money. After this manner it happeneth in the case we treat of: for as such a beggar could not truly be said to have renounced the knight's learning in that case, so neither could Cardinal Bell: be justly supposed to renounce God as a valuer of merits in the state he was in by recurring unto him only as to a bestower of mercy. And thus we see that Bell: died as great a Roman Catholic as he lived, notwithstanding all Sir Humphrey can say against him he can no sooner make Bellarmin a Protestant than he can make a Protestant of the Canon of the Mass itself which hath the very same words which the Card. Piously, used at the hour of his death. Next after Bellarmine Sir Humphrey hath placed Albertus Phigius, who if we will credit him, telleth us he became a Caluinist even in this very point by reading of Caluins' institutions. Thus he relateth this story and will have us take it on the word of a knight, but he must pardon us Roman Catholics if we refuse to believe it upon the bare relation of an adversary, as holding ourselves to have full as great authority at the least, to deny it as he hath to affirm it. True it is he quoteth a place of the author in the margin, but citeth not a word of his in the text, as in the like occasion he useth to do, which causeth me to persuade myself there is no such matter to be found, or at least some mistake in Sir Humphrey in the true meaning of his words, as he mistook in Bellarmine. Especially considering that Pighius is notoriously known to have been a professed enemy both to Luther and Caluin as his works do testify. And that Pighius differeth both from the Lutherans & Caluinists in the main paint. Of justification it is most manifest by his whole discourse, and particularly in that he absolutely affirms in his 53. page of his Controversy of justification, that faith alone though it be never so perfect is not sufficient to justification, saying: Sed fidem hanc solam non sufficere nobis etc. in which place although he doth not name or mention Caluin, yet doth he expressly and professedly dispute against that doctrine of his and Luther which putteth justification in faith only, so that it hence plainly appeareth that if Pighius did read Caluins' Institutions as Sir Humphrey affirmeth, it was not to follow them but to confute them. He quoteth also Ruardus Tapperus to what purpose I know not except it be to fill his margin for ostentation, and so I leave it till he shall further please to declare his meaning, touching that citation which may be he reserveth for a fourth edition: in the interim that Taperus was a professed papist his books do witness. And now having made it plainly appear that not one of the Romanists which the knight citeth in this section ever renounced any point of Popery before his death, or at the least that no one, nor all the testimonies which he produceth out of Romanists do prove any such renunciation, as he averreth: and also that some of those which he allegeth for proof of his assertion, as true Romanists, were not as much as in external show of the Catholic religion long before their death, and some of them in no part of their whole life as is manifest in jewel, Fox, and Cook, and consequently could not in reason be produced by him as witnesses in favour of his cause no more than Martin Luther or john Caluin, this I say supposed, it only now remaineth that for the conclusion of this Period we do not only censure the Contents of this section for unsound doctrine, but also the author of it for an indirect and false dealer in the confirmation of the seam.   

THE iv PERIOD.  
THE fift section of the book is about the impediments of reformation of such things as the knight judgeth inexcusable in themselves: and for impediments of reformation, he assigneth wordly policy and profit, the things which he calleth inexcusable are the doctrine of Purgatory, Indulgences, prayer for the dead, the communion under one kind, worship of pictures, and such other points of Catholic doctrine all which he temerariouslie affirmeth to be inexcusable and that only by way of an odious relation of then in particular, but adduceth nothing whereby to prove any one of them to be such indeed, and so neither will I prove any thing against him here more than that he uttereth divers untruths in this one section. First in that he affirmeth the faith of Purgatory is confirmed by Counsels merely for the benefit of the Pope and his Clergy, which is nothing else but a manifest calumniation without all appearance of truth, it being a thing wholly improbable and contrary to common sense, either that so many learned, grave and pious men as use to be assembled in Counsels should determine any thing as matter of faith merely for any Temporal respect whatsoever: or that the laity of the Christian world, especially Princes, Kings and Emperors being so much more powerful as they are known to be, than the Pope and Clergy, should condescend to a matter of such indignity as the knight would have it and so much to their cost, if they did not otherwise assure themselves both of the integrity of those who meet in those assemblies, and also of the truth of the doctrine in itself. Besides that the same is manifestly convinced of falsity, for that prayer for the dead, and consequently Purgatory, was known in the world before either Pope, or Counsels were extant as appeareth by the history of the second book of the Macchabies the 12. chapter which our adversaries themselves cannot deny to be a true history, though they impudently deny it to be Canonical Scripture against the plain testimony of S. Augustine who affirmeth the Church to hold it for such though the jews hold the contrary. 
Libros Machabeorum non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet. Aug. l. 18. de Cuit. Dei cap. 39  So that this is but an odious fiction of Sir Humphrey and his companion sectaries invented by them in disgrace of the chief pastor of the Church and the rest of the Priests without either authority reason or sense, accusing them as hinderers of reformation who labour most for it, only because they refuse to admit a reformation of their fashioning which indeed is no reformation but a deformation or defacing of the ancient Church & an introduction of a certain new fantastical Church most disfigured and ugly, uniformiter difformiter deformis, void of all lustre & beauty both internal and external, nor ever known or heard of before the days of Luther.  
His second untruth it in the end of the 39 page, where he affirmeth, that the Romanists in the psalters leave out the second commandment. This second untruth of the knight involueth a double untruth, the first is in that he saith the Romanists leave out the foresaid commandment in their psalters, whereas it is well known that in the whole Psalter the second commandment is not to be found, at the least formally as it is one of the ten. But this untruth because I perceive it proceeds rather of ignorance than malice, I am content to pardon. Yet because when he said the Romanists left it out of their psalters, he either meant they left it out of the text of Scripture, or that they left it out of their catechisms only, I answer that whethersoever he meant, he cannot be excused for telling an untruth, first because he falsely supposeth for certain, that to be the second commandment which indeed is but an explication of the first, in the opinion both of S. Augustine and either all or almost all other divines of later years. Secondly because those same authors: who hold those same words. Thou shalt not make to this self any graved image, to be the second commandment, do not hold that the Images of Christ and his saints, and due honour of them, are prohibited by that precept among Christians, but only a gentilicall or idolatrous use of pictures or graved images of false Gods and other such abuses as be repugnant to the due honour of the true and only God. Lastly it is also false that all Catechisms leave out that precept, if precept it be, as appeareth by the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of Canisius and some others. So that you see now that the knight is every way convinced of an untruth. And although it is true that in divers of their Catechisms the Romanists leave out all the rest of the first commandment as they lie in the text of the 20. of Exodus excepting those: Thou shall have no other Gods but me. Yet they do not so with any sinister intention, as the reformers uniunstly accuse them to do, in regard, it is well known that those who use to instruct children in their Catechism notwithstanding they use not to fill children's heads with such proclamations against graved Images as the reformers do, yet they never omit to declare and explicate exactly the whole tenor of the words of the commandment, inculcating most diligently the true sense of the same and teaching them how fare it is true that images and the worship of them in prohibited by that precept, & the difference between the use of Christian images and those which according to the practice of those times were unlawful. But the true reason why Romanists most commonly omit those words: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved thing, and the rest, is because Catechisms being only a short sum of Religion, it is fitting they be most brief and compendious as being so more easy to learn and more conformable to the capacity of children, then if they were large and prolix in words, especially considering that that which wanteth in words may fare more easily be added by the master by may of cxplication than many lines can be committed to memory by weak, and unapt scholars. Neither do the Romanists make catechisms for jews and Gentiles but for Christians and Catholics and so it were both superfluous and impertitinent to put in all the words of the text or more as the reformers do, some of which do belong rather to the law of moyses then to the Gospel of jesus Christ, and therefore for the very same reason the Romanists leave out of their Catechisms divers words of the precept of the Sabaoth, as judging them unnecessary for the instruction of Christian children. As also because according to the doctrine of S. Augustin in his question upon this commandment, those only words: 
Vide illum infra in fine op.  Thou shalt have no other Gods but me: are the whole substance of the first commandment, and the same in sense with the other which immediately follow in the text, to wit, thou shalt not make to thyself any graved thing, by which graved thing S. Augustin in the same place understandeth an idol & not any graved image as the reformers do corruptedly use to translate and commonly put it so in their Catechisms for the false instruction of their children. And hence it plainly appeareth that the Romanists leave not out of any of their books of Christian doctrine any of the ten commandments, but rather that the reformed brothers put in one more then either according to Scripture or the doctrine of S. Augustin they ought to do, as by the true division and number of them at the end of this work shall the be more manifestly declared.  
Thirdly it is untrue which he affirmeth, though by way of insinuation only, that the Romanists do adore a piece of bread. For it is well known they adore not the bread but that which christ, himself affirmed to be his body, for which adoration besides the scripture, we say with S. Augustin: nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit. Aug. in ps. 98. and so this, though Sir Humphrey as it seems was ashamed to utter it plainly, yet it is no less than a plain leasing. Besides these untruths which I have now rehearsed he hath divers very idle positions either false or frivolous, as for example that the power of binding and losing depends upon Purgatory, that by defect of the Priest's intention the worshipper of the body of Christ in the Sacrament may commit flat Idolatry and the like, these because they are left by him unproved, I will also leave them unrefuted till such time as I shall see his proofs produced, and in the mean time I condemn this whole section, as containing matter both idle, false, calumnious, and full of invective bitterness and puritannical spleen against the Romanists accusing them that they turn the necks of Scriptures clean about; & that it is a common practice of their Church of Rome to make greater price of victory than verity, & other such matter as is unworthy to be published either by print or pen.   

THE V PERIOD.  
THE knight in his sixth section promiseth to refute that which he termeth the Common practice of his adversaries in their refusal of reformation, because saith he, we cannot assign the precise time when errors came in. This I confess is a matter of importance, and if Sir Humphrey can perform his promise he will in part recover the credit which he hath formerly lost; if not, his honour must still lie in the dust. Now to perform his promise he must know that it is not sufficient for him & his partners to assign the time and persons when and by whom those points of doctrine, which they hold to be erroneously maintained in the Roman Church, were first broached, but they must also by some means or other convince them to be errors indeed. And as long as Sir Humphrey fails in the demonstration of either of these, it is manifest he doth not perform his word. He saith indeed very confidently in the beginning of this section, that they (meaning as I suppose himself and his companions in sect) are all eye-witnesses that the errors, of the Roman Church are this day so notorious that a very child may perceive them; but what is this to the purpose? this is but a frivolous repetition of their own bare words, this is no lawful proof among adversaries, this is no demonstration, it is not this Roman catholics are bound to stand too, this is no reasonable satisfaction for us or any other be he never so indifferent. We must be convinced of errors by Scriptures, by consent of ancient Fathers, by plain definitions of approved Counsels. And till you Sir Humphrey, or some of your consorts make this point clear, we acknowledge no errors in our Church, and by consequence no necessity of reformation in that nature, as your discourse in this section doth falsely suppose. Moreover touching the assignation of time & persons, when and by whom the pretended errors of the Roman Church had their beginning, it is apparent the knight is in a great error, in that he persuadeth himself that the Romanists exact of the reformers to assign the time and persons when and by whom such errors as they attribute to their Church were first broached: For the Romanists do not stand precisely upon assignation of the very first time and persons, or the very first Authors of those supposed errors, no they put no such rigorous task upon the reformers, but only oblige them to show when they were first so notorious and apparent in the world, as both they & their authors were condemned in any authentical Council or assembly, and this is that only which the Catholics demand of their adversaries, and not that which Sir Humphrey imagineth; and therefore whatsoever he produceth in this section for the confirmation of his intent in that particular, proceedeth upon false supposition, and consequently proveth nothing but his own ignorance. That which is a thing not only proper to Sir Humphrey in divers places of his book, but also so generally incident to the rest of his conreformers as in reading their works I have often lamented their case to see them so labour in vain like hounds spending upon a false sent. And surely nothing else but the foresaid false supposition was the cause why Sir Humphrey proceeded in this point in so fare a different manner as he doth from the rest of his fellows. He not taking upon him as they ordinarily do (tho' without effect) to assign the time when those imagined errors first began, and who were the first authors of the same; but as it were supposing that to be impossible, or else adverticeing the ill success which his fellow sectaries have had in prosectuing their way, fell upon a quite contrary course, endeavouring to show a distinction and difference betwixt the heresies of the Arians, Pelagians, and Donatists, and the errors which he supposeth to be in the Roman Church: granting that those heresies being such as did (saith he) endanger the foundation and openly disturbed the Church, might easily be discovered, adding that their first authors de facto were observed and the times known & place pointed at. But the change of the Romanists doctrine, saith he, was a secret Apostasy scarcely to be known or discovered, condemning also that for an impertinent demand which the Catholics usually require of the reformers, to wit, that they show the first time and produce the first authors of the supposed Romish errors; by this showing himself very desirous to rid his hands of so hard a task as he hath undertaken, as doth plainly appear by those examples and similitudes which he useth for that purpose tho' not very well applied. And now this being the sense of the first part of this section, let us briefly examine how sound he proveth his intent. 
Matth. 13.24.  In the parable of the sour (saith he) Christ himself gives a full answer to those impertinent dedemaunds, he telleth us that after the good seed was sown, the enemy sowed tares when men were a sleep. Thus he answereth to the impertinent question of the Romaniste as he termeth it. But good Sir Humphrey if the question be impertinent why do you answer to it? why do not you rather pass it with silence then spend your breath about it? but it seems you will needs answer, yea and father your answer upon our Saviour as if Christ himself had answered in the words cited to the same question which you say the Romanists demand of you. Fie what application of Scripture is this! are you a master in Israel and yet ignorant that our Saviour used that Parable to another purpose? did not our Saviour mean by the enemy, the Devil, by the tares vices, and by the field the soul of man? is not this a common exposition of interpreters? or if you will needs have it understood of errors in doctrine, and of the sour of them in the field of the Church, of which we know there are good store in your congregation, yet can the parable of our Saviour avail your purpose nothing at all. For that the question of the parable is general and so a general answer was sufficient. But the demand of the Roman Catholics is particular & so in reason it requires an answer in particular; for example, the question is if Purgatory be an error of the Roman Church, who was the first author of it? In what age did he live? if not to communicate in both kinds be an error of the Roman Church, who was the first author of it? etc. So that in the question of the Romanists there is no impertinency in the sense in which they demand it, but the knight's answer is both impertinent in itself and also falsely fathered upon our Saviour.  
True it is that the Roman catholics, as I have said before, do not oblige the knight nor any of his consorts to answer so metaphysically to their demand as he erroneously persuadeth himself. But they only urge the reformers to name the authors and time of such supposed errors in a moral manner; that is who they were that have been in any lawful Council condemned for either the broachers or public defendours of those he calls errors. Which is a demand so fare from impertinency, that there hath never been any notorious error in the Church of God which hath not been noted so by the writers of the several ages wherein they lived, or at the least, by some others presently after their time. And so hence it appeareth manifestly, that the Roman Catholics being no wise guilty of impertinency in their demand, yet Sir Humphrey is most impertinent in his answer, and not only an impertinent alledger of Scriptures, but also a perverse detorter of the same, as interpreting them by the direction of his own private spirit, and fathering upon Christ that which he never thought nor intended. And this being the substance of his answer to the Catholics, which in truth hath no substance in it: yet he still prosecuteth the same making a great flourish out of the circumstances of the same parable adding that the tares were sown by the enemy when men where a fleepe, and that by consequence they could not see him and much less produce him. I confess that there both have been and be yet in the world who by reason of the excessive moisture of their braives have sleeped both very soundly and very long. I know the history of the seven sleepers who slept some hundreths of years. But I never heard of any kind of Congregation of people that all and every one of them sleeped about a thousand years together and that so profundelie as that not one of them did ever so much as once dream of the enemy who sowed tares in their field. Is it possible that all the good men of the houses in all that space of time and in every place should have been so drowsy and so overcome with sleep as none of them could not one time or other awake & catch the thief before the days of Luther. Surely there was never a Puritan in the world in all that long space of time, for if there had been any, some of them would infallibly have awaked, their hit bravies and fiery spirits would never have suffered them to lie so long in a lethargy, but up they would have been and laid about them most vallantlie with the whole bulk of the Bible, and have gone to cuffs with Penance, Purgatory and prayer to Saints, with pictures, Pope and prayer for the dead, with merits, mass, and monasteries, with confession, tradition, and transubstantiation, with Indults, fasts, and satisfactions. These I say and all other such like tares as the knight esteems them, had been by those Zealous Paterfamillians rooted out as soon as ever they peeped out of the earth, if God had not permitted them to take a great quantity of Diapodium or powder dormant by force of which, as I suppose, they were all so lulled a sleep as not one of them could once awake till the time of Doctor Luther, who if he had chanced to have taken one only dram of the same receipt, it is more than probable that great work of his had lain undone till this present day, and perhaps for ever. From this parable Sir Humphrey passeth to confirm his answer by reasons, saying that the doctrine which they complain of his a mystery of iniquity, and mysteries are secret and work not openly and publicly but by degrees, leisurely, cunningly and warily to avoid discoveries. Thus he, in which words you see he calls errors a mystery, but describes them rather like a monster then a mystery, attributing such subtlety unto them as if they had the use of reason; whereas all errors which are such truly, are by nature void of reason, and so, no mysteries but rather monsters. He saith they are secret and work by decrees: And it is true, errors may be secret for a short time, but long they cannot, especially such as we here speak of, that is public defended by a whole Church and all or most of them many ages together. Mental and private errors may be so smothered as not only not by degrees, but so as they never come to light and knowledge of the world at all, but vocal errors proposed and published to the people cannot possible be long unknown or undiscovered. Witness the errors of Luther and Caluin and of all other condemned heretics, all which doubtless for a time they were, merely mental, yet even before the death of their authors notice was taken of them, & perhaps also they were publicly condemned. And so we see by this reason Sir Humphrey proveth nothing to this purpose, but tells us of nothing but mere impossibilities contrary both to reason and common sense. Neither doth it avail him for defence of his answer to say that errors being at first oftentimes in one or few persons only, they cannot easily be espied, for this is not that the Catholics urge him too, we have told him already that we will not deal so rigorously with him, we are content to grant unto him that errors only so fare published, were not easily, especially by his drowsy consociates, to be discovered: nevertheless we see no reason at all why our supposed errors being so publicly taught, penned, and preached as they were long before either Luther or Wicklifs time should not have been known for errors if such they were, long before either of their days, This is the point of the question, this is the demand the Roman Catholics urge, you Reformers are to answer, as long as you go about the bush as you do, and answer not directly, neither your Evangelicall parable nor your cockatrice egg, though you writ it with a great letter to make it seem bigger, will serve your turn, they are but only similitudes or examples ill applied, they prove nothing but only serve you for a vain flourish. Exempla illustrant non probant, especially if they be equivocal as yours be. And as for your distinction of public heresy and secret Apostasy, it is much more frivolous than all the rest you have brought for the proof of your purpose in this section. And although perhaps you shown no small subtlety in it, as you thought, yet is it in itself a most ignorant piece of doctrine, for that not only the common and usual sense of the word Apostasy, but the very etymology of the same word, which signifieth a defection or discession, doth demonstrate that the thing signified by it must be a much more external and public action in itself then heresy used to be, and so that which is ordinarily and vulgarilie called Apostasy, must be public and not secret; and therefore when any error comes to that degree of malice as it may truly be called Apostasy in this sense, it must of necessity be known, and consequently it is such as cannot be kept secret but may be most easily discerned, yea much more easily than any heresy how public soever it be, as being an aggravating circumstance of the same. And thus we see that for the knight to yield a reason why the errors of the Roman Church could not easily be discovered, because they were secret Apostasy, is both most absurd in itself, and also involueth a contradiction in regard it includeth that a thing may be Apostasy that is a thing of it own self public, and yet remain so secret that it cannot be discovered. Neither is that which Sir Humphrey farther addeth in the same place less absurd to wit that secret Apostasy worketh warely and closely in the time of Darkness when the servants of the husbandman are asleep, for if all Apostasy as it is commonly taken, must be public, as I have showed, how can it then truly be said to work in darkness or by night? or how can the seed of it be scattered at unawares to the servants of the husbandman, certainly except the servants be so sluggish that they sleep both nights and days, months and years, yea and many hundreth of years together, nay and all the days of their life, they cannot but discover the tares of Apostasy, which is not ever in seed as the knight falsely supposeth, but is the increase or rather full growth itself, or yet rather the overgrouth of the crop of heresy which is truly the seed of it.  
From hence the knight proceedeth to the second part of his section, in which he endeavoureth to show us an undeniable truth (as he termeth it) that some opinions were condemned in the Primative Church for eroneous and superstitious which now are established for articles os faith in the Roman Church. And for this his position he produceth an instance out of S. Augustin lib. de moribus Eccles. Cath. cap. 34. in which place he complains that in his time the ruder sort of people were entangled with superstition even in the true Church; I myself (saith he) know many that are worshippers of Images and sepulchres whom the Church condemneth and seeketh every day by correction to amend them as ungracious children: Thus fare Sir Humphrey out of S. Augustin. To which I answer that this place of S. Augustin hath been so often objected by the modern sectaries that it is worn quite thread bare with handling, and I persuade myself that all the Catholic authors that ever writ of controversies have sufficiently answered it if it came in their way. Nevertheless lest Sir Humphrey should think himself neglected by me, 
Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidinibus dediti ut obliti sint quicquid promiserint Deo. Aug. supra.  I answer first that S. Augustin complaineth in this place of certain gentillicall errors and abuses in the adoration of images and sepulchres then practised in the true Church by some private ignorant and vicious persons, who without distinction either of the one or the other did worship the tombs and pictures of all sorts of people. secondly I answer that S. Augustin in the place cited, speaketh not of any general doctrine taught in his time touching the adoration of pictures, but only of some superstitious abuses in the practice of the same, and so also in this respect the objection is impertinent. I answer thirdly that suppose there were some particular persons in the time of S. Augustine guilty either in the manner of their worship of pictures or in their doctrine concerning the lawfulness of the same, doth it thence therefore follow that Catholics are guilty also of the same crime? or is it consequent, that that honour which Catholics grant to the pictures of Christ and his Saints, is just the same with that which Saint Augustine mentioneth? No surly. For as there may be abuse committed in the due honouring of pictures, so there may be also lawful use in the due adoring of them, and so it is clear that it is no true manner of argument or true consequence to collect so. Those people whom S. Augustin reprehended for adoring of pictures in his time did worship images reprehensiblie: But the Romanists do also worship images, therefore the Romanists do worship images reprehensiblie. This I say were it in any figure, yet is it a captious form of argument containing a manifest fallacy or equivocation in the minor by reason of which the Syllogism concludeth nothing.  
Now upon the foresaid words of Saint Augustin, Sir Humphrey addeth a descant of his own, in which he comits divers faults. First in that he saith that although S. Aug. did note some people of his time for superstitious worshippers of images, yet did he neither name the authors of that error, nor showeth the time when it began tacitlie, intending hence to infer that neither are the reformers bound to assign the names of the authors of those errors which they attribute to the Roman Church, nor yet the time of their defence of them. But this inference of the knight is no conclusion at all, for that the case of S. Augustine's time which is the antecedent of the foresaid illation of the knights, is fare different from the case of the reformers as well for that S. Augustine speaketh of an error which happened in his own days (as Sir Humphrey confesseth) and perhaps by such persons as he could not name without prejudice of their fame, as being such as practised those superstitions so privately that they were not known to more, or at the least, not to many more than himself; after which manner preachers do use to reprehend vices of persons known unto them, and yet name them not: as also and chiefly because S. Augustine was never demanded of them in particular, or any other way urged to declare their names. None of all which circumstances occur in the case betwixt the Reformers and the Romanists, and so out of the words of S. Augustine, which be the Antecedent of the knight's argument, no true consequence can be deduced against the Romanists.  

In has autem sanct as ac salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint, eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita ut nullae falsi dogmatis imagines & rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur etc. Con. Trid. sess. ●5. init.  Another fault sir Humphrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. years after by the second Council of Nice for Catholic doctrine, and is now decreed by the Council of Trent for an article of faith. Thus the knight. But this is all false, and grounded only upon an erroneous persuasion of his own, videlicet, that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh, gave to pictures, is the same which the Roman Church practiseth at this day according to the definition of those two Counsels; that which he neither proveth here, nor can ever prove in any other place, as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Counsels in this point, that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin & the Church of his age, even as much as he did in those former times. And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humphrey out of S. Augustins words, nor the whole argument itself concludes any part of his intent in this section: but rather convinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no error can possible so secretly steal into the Church, but it is either presently or within a small time espied and noted for such by one authentical author or other; which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeavoureth here to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter.  
After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of divers points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome, as if they were fare different from the intention of those who first taught or ordained them, but for this his conceit he bringeth no proof at all, and so I leave it as a voluntary tenet founded upon his own small authority. True it is he produceth divers authors for the confirmation of the same alleging them all for Romanists, and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be, as is manifest in Cassander, and Agrippa, which the Roman Church holds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate. Be citeth also joannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist, whatsoever he was afterwards, yet there have been noted in his works divers ill sounding propositions, whether it be for that his books have been corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his works may be justly suspected, or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to have been. But howsoever it falleth out with him in that nature, yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humphrey if it be rightly understood, it proveth no more but that by the private abuses and superstitions of some particular men, many things ordained by holy men with a good intention, have received some accidental change. And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church, Ceremonies, images, Masses, monasteries, yet certain it is his meaning was not that all these are either unlawful or superstitious, or that they are new articles of faith or not to be used in the Church of God, as the knight and his companions would have them to be, but only out of a pious zeal he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceived in his days to have crept into the practice and use of the same; which is a thing so fare from Sir Humfreys purpose of proving an alteration in the Doctrine of ancient times, as it is both very conformable to reason, and also to the decree of reformation made in the Council of Trent above cited. He citeth also Marius de schiss. & Concil. Et Polidore de invent. rerum, as speaking of the uncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priest's marriage. But this is nothing to the purpose the knight here treateth. For how I pray you doth this prove that there are errors of faith in the Roman Church, whereas the restraint of marriage of Priests itself, is no article of faith as Sir Humphrey ignorantly supposeth, but only a precept of the Church and a matter of manners; and yet in case it were so in itself, nevertheless certain it is that the question or difficulty about the first beginning of the restraint (of such only the cited authors speak) is no matter of faith and consequently can be no error even in Sir Humfrey's own false supposition of errors in the Roman Church. To omit that suppose the first beginning of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truly an article of faith in the Roman Church, yet this being but one particular instance or example drawn out of two Romanists only, it cannot sufficiently prove that general position of Sir Humphrey, to wit, that there was a known time when those tenets (meaning the points of doctrine which the Council of Trent defined) were not certainly known or generally received by the Roman Church; since that, according to the rules of Logic no general proposition can be inferred out of a particular, and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine, the reformers are so fare from the assignation of the time of their beginning, that Sir Humphrey himself even in this very place is forced to hold this precise time of the beginning of the same to be unnecessary to be assigned. And altho' by reason that both those authors are censured in the expurgatory Index, we are not bound to give credit unto them: yet this I say that supposing they are both here produced to testify that the beginning of the and prohibition of Priests marriage can not be assigned, it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primative Church itself then introduced of later years. Besides this Sir Humphrey doth falsify Polydore in the place he citeth, for he doth not affirm that marriage of Priests was not altogether prohibited till the time of Gregory the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit. Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit. Antuerp. 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteem not of his authority either pro or contra, yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humphrey for company lest he should laff at his follows, where for those words non temerè reperies thou shalt not easily find, he translates was not expressly defined, speaking of the number of the 7. Sacraments, of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easily find any who have constituted any certain & determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard. non temerè quenquam reperies ante Petrum Lombardum qui certum aliquem & definitum numerum sacramentoū statuerunt. Cass. p. 951.  
To the like purpose or rather to no purpose he citeth also Gregory de Valentia saying that it doth not appear when the communion in one kind began, which saying of Valentia is most true, & his meaning is that the custom of communicating so, is so ancient that it hath no known beginning, and consequently it hath been ever in the Church of God since the time of Christ and his Apostles, and by them practised. And therefore Valentia addeth prefentlie after to that purpose, that ever from the beginning of the Church there hath been some use of the Eucharist under one kind, as he hath showed before. Which words as making plainly against him he was content to omit. So that this testimony either proveth nothing to the knight's purpose, or else more than he desires, as also want of honest dealing in the citation of it. To omit that when that manner of communion first began in the Church is no article of the Roman faith. The same author is also once again cited by Sir Humphrey for that in the same place he affirmeth the foresaid manner of communion not to have been generally received but a little before the council of Constance, which is no more to the purpose then the other allegation or scarce so much. For this and some other testimonies which he citeth page 60. at the most do but only prove that some of the points of doctrine, or rather of practice only of the Roman Church, were not declaredlie known and definede successively in all differences of times since the establishment of the Gospel; which the Romanists do not deny: though they know it is a point impertinent to the matter here in question, which is not whether the Reformers can show a time when the tenets (at he terms them) of the Roman Church were not certainly known or generally received, but also & chiefly whether they were erroneous; and than if such they were, when they were first publicly known and by what authentical Council they were condemned. Which points because Sir Humphrey hath proved neither of them, neither by the testimonies of the authors he cities nor by any other forceable proof, he hath failed of his purpose and promise, and no way recovered the reputation in this section which he lost in the former, but rather hath much increased his discredit, and consequently the censure falleth more heavily upon him than it hath done before. To the testimony of Scotus about transub. I will answer in an other place.   

THE VI PERIOD.  
Here Sir Humfrey from a divine is turned Herold and promiseth the Romanists he will show them their Pedigree in faith drawn down from the ancient heretics, and contrarily the pedigree of his own faith drawn from Christ and his Apostles. So that here you see the knight hath undertaken a large piece of work, and how he will be able to perform it I know not. It is a double task and therefore I doubt he will not go through with it without double dealing. And I suspect this the more for that he saith he will proceed ordine retro grado, that is as I conceive, he will imitate the Crab in going backward, and therefore I can expect no better of him then a crabbed piece of business. He saith he will perform his work by ascending upward, but indeed his proceeding is so preposterous that a man can find neither ascent nor descent it it. For he gins which latin service, as he calleth it and prayer in a strange tongue, the beginning of which he attributeth to Pope Vitalian about the year 666. And ends with the restraint of marriage of Priests which he affirmed in the 60. page, in his former section not to have been altogether established till the time of Gregory the seventh; and so according to this he doth not ascend but descend, and yet more than this, in the middle of his section he treateth of transubstantiation as first decreed in the Council of Lateran about four hundreth years ago, and thus you see one cannot conceive that he either ascendeth or descendeth directly, but rather that he skippeth up and down like a mad man without any order at all; but now I will cease to seek order were none is to be sound, and come to the examine of the particular passages of his pedigree.  
He endeavoureth to prove the Roman faith to descend from ancient heretics, first because they teach prayer in an unknown language not to be unlawful, (as saith he) Epiphanius affirmeth of the heretics Osseni in the first age. But to this I answer that S. Epiphanius is here abused by the Knight, for he censureth not those people of heresy because they held prayer not to be unlawful in an unknown language, as Sir Humphrey falsely and ignorantly affirmeth, but for other errors of theirs which the same Epipha: relates and confutes in his 19 heresy. Neither doth he only affirm the Osseni to teach there was no need to make prayer in a known tongue as Sir Humphrey imposeth upon him to the end their error might some to agrree with the doctrine of the Roman Church in this particular, 
Quibus porro vorbis & inanibus vocibus postea in ipso libro decipit, cum cum dicit: nemo quaerat interpretationem sed solum in oratione hoc dicati, & hac ipsa nimirum ex Habraica lingua transtulis velut ex parte deprehendimus cum nihil sint ea quae imaginatur, iubet enim dicere: Abar, Anid, Moib, Nochile etc.  but he further chargeth Elxai the chief prophet of that sect that he deceived men with idle frivolous and strange words containing nothing of that which he imagined, and commanding his followers to pray in this manner: Abar, Anid, Moib, Nochile etc. adding that they should not seek for any interpretation of them, which form of prayer nevertheless holy Epiphanius doth not so much condemn for the strangeness of the words, as for the obscurity and deformity of the sense, as appeareth by his words here quoted in Latin. All which is fare different from the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this point, which neither in sense nor words useth any other prayers than such as are conformable to that original prayer which Christ himself appointed his disciples to use. Neither can Epiphanius with any show of probability be thought to have condemned them for heretics for that which he knew neither to be contrary to God's word, nor any definition of the ancient Church, either before or in his time. And as for that which the Reformers commonly allege out of the fourth to the Corinthians and first epistle. I say that if the same Epiphanius had understood it as written against such like prayers, infallibly he would have alleged the place against those heretics. But he well knew that the Apostles meaning was not to condemn prayer in what language soever it were, but only to prefer prophecy before strange tongues, or at the most to prefer prayer in a known tongue only as more edificative, not as absolutely necessary, and the contrary to be condemned as unlawful or superstitious, as the novelists will needs have it.  
And as for precept of the Church the same Epiphanius in like manner knew there was none extant. True it is, in his time the practice of the Greck Church was to have their prayer in Greek and the Latin Church in Latin, but as then neither all those of the Latin Church did understand that kind of Latin which then was used in the Church, so neither all those of the Greek which was used in the public service of the Grecians do (excepting Scholars) as I have been truly informed, by one of that nation; which practice as you see, is nothing contrary to the practice of the present Roman Church but rather agreeable unto it. In regard that tho' the Latin Mass be not understood of all the hears, yet is Latin even by the confession of one of the most learned Protestants of this age. The common language in the world and understood by many. And so this citation is no less in effect then a falsification of the foresaid Father; as is likewise another which followeth out of S. Ambrose whom the knight produceth to the same purpose, yet citing his words somewhat corruptedly, which he rehearseth in this manner. There were certain jews among the Grecians as namely the Corinthians who did celebrate the divine service and the Sacrament sometimes in the Syriake, and most commonly in the Hebrew tongue which the people understood not. Thus the knight citeth S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the fourth chapter of the first to the Corinthians: but his words which I have read, in Latin are these. High ex Hebraeis erant qui aliquando Syra lingua, plerumque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus utebantur ad commendationem, gloriabantur enim se dici Hebraeos propter meritum Abrahae. Thus S. Ambrose, where as you see that understands Latin, there be neither the words divine service, nor the word sacrament to be found, but in tractatibus & oblationibus, that is as I conceive in their exhortations and sacrifices. That which as it seems S. Humphrey did deceitfully translate otherwise then the words do sound and signify, lest it might appear to his reader that the jews converted, even in those primitive times did celebrate sacrifice as the Roman Church doth now, and not such a dry rhapsody as the reformers do in these our days. But that which is most remarkable of all, it is manifest out of the same S. Ambrose in the same Comment, that S. Paul did not condemn that practice of the jews as contrary to the law of God, as the sectaries do, but only that he sought to bring them from it as a thing less profitable in regard of the Grecians among whom they lived, and that in respect of their exhortations or instructions which the Corinthians could not understand in Hebrew or Syriac. That which manifestly appeareth in the very same words of S. Ambrose immediately precedent where speaking of the sense and meaning of the Apostle in the place upon which he commenceth saith only: utilius est paucis verbis in apertione sermonis loqui quod omnes intelligant quam prolixam orationem habere in obscuro, that is to say: it is more profitable to speak few words in plain speech which all may understand, then to have a long oration or prayer in obscurity. Besides this: those last words: which the common people understood not, are none of S. Ambroses', but added by Sir Humphrey and foisted in as if they had been the reason yielded by S. Ambrose, why the jews did amiss in using their service in an unknown language, whereas yet he expressly saith they did it for ostentation and commendation, so that S. Humphrey dealeth here deceitfully in diverse respects for the advantage of his false cause. For justification of the which he uttereth a most impudent untruth in his own words following: affirming, that Saint Paul wrote that whole chapter of the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians expressly against prayer or divine service in an unknown tongue, whereas in truth the Apostle expressly and directly laboureth only to persuade the Corinthians that it is better to prophesy, that is, to interpret Scriptures, then to exercise donum linguarum, the done or gift of tongues. And altho' the Apostle in one place makes mention of prayer or praising of God in general saying, si benedixeris lingua etc. yet he neither maketh express mention of public service in a known language, nor giveth any precept about it, but only preferreth that prayer which he who prayeth understandeth before that which he understandeth not; and that not absolutely, but only with relation to that time; leaving it for future times to the discretion of the Church to be determined according to the condition & nature of the persons that live in it, and other circumstances. Always supposing that although, caeteris paribus, some one thing be better than another even ex natura rei, yet by some notable change of the time, place, or persons, that same thing which once was more profitable, may afterwards become less profitable, yea and sometimes quite unprofitable, or at the least of very small estimation, and importance. And yet for all this our Puritanical crew run so a madding with their Bible craste, that they will needs have a precept where none is, rather than want their wills, especially if it be to Cross the Papists. That which cannot appear more plainly then in the matter of which we now treat, where the knight for the conclusion of his discourse citeth Saint Paul his words in form of a precept, as if he had said pray with the spirit, pray with the understanding also, whereas the Apostles words are only these, orabo spiritu, orabo & ment, that is I will pray with my spirit, I will pray with my understanding, in which form of speech you see there is no form of precept or command at all, except one will corrupt the text as he hath done.  
The knight also cities one Wolfius as affirming that Pope Vitalian first introduced Latin service & prayer in an unknown tongue. But he might have saved the labour of citing that author whom he knows we do not admit as a competent witness in regard we find him to be a wolf indeed that is an enemy to our religion, and for such he is noted in the Index Epurgatorie. How be it we do not deny but that Vitalian for the conservation of uniformity in the public service of the Church might make a general ordinance in that particular and extend the practice of some particular and most ancient Churches of the West in which Latin service was ever used, to all the rest of the Occidental Churches. Nevertheless we deny that by this action he either did contrary to God's law or renew the heresy of the Osseni which I have showed all ready out of S. Epiphanius to have been of a fare different nature notwithstanding out adversary doth endeavour falsely to persuade the same to his simple reader neither was this as the knight untruely affirms to introduce service in a strange language, but rather in the most known in the world & that in which most nations agree: and so this may serve to demonstrate that the Romanists derive not this part of their Pedagane from ancient heretics (as our adversary doth calumniate) but from the practice of the most ancient Church at the least in the west parts of the world to wit the Apostolical Church. And hear we see also that Sir Humphrey in steed of deriving the Pedigree of the Roman faith from jews and heretics he derives his own from the Father of lies that is from the abuse of both scriptures and ancient Fathers of the Catholic Church.  
In the next branch of the Pedigree he plaplaceth transubstantiation, going about to prove that it was the doctrine or at least the practice of certain heretics named Helcesaitae, who feigned a two fold Christ as (saith Sir Humphrey) the Mass Priests do, who admit one body with all his dimensions and properties in heaven, and other in the Sacrament which hath no properties of a true body. Thus Sir Humphrey talks most absurdly, ignorantly and falsely. Ignorantly for that according to this discourse he holds the want of local dimensions or properties of a body sufficient to cause an absolute, individual, & substantial diversity in it, and to distinguish it really from itself and so to make it an other distinct body which is so void of reason that if he had not been grossly ignorant in Philosophy have he would never uttered such doctrine unworthy of other confutation them a school stamp or hisse. He speak also falsely first in that he either affirms or supposes Priests to admit that Christ's body in the Sacrament is without any properties of a true body. For they all contrarily teach and believe that as Christ's body in the Sacrament is the same which is in heaven, so hath it all the same properties excepting local extension. Secondly he speaks falsely in that he Fathereth that on Priests which none of them either thought or taught, and so makes them guilty if the Helcesaits heresy only for that which he hath forged in his own fantastical brain. Also abusing the authority of learned Theodoret in misaplying his words in which he utters not any jot or title by which it can be gathered that these heretics meant of Christ in the Sacrament when they feigned a double Christ; but of two visible Christ's, the one above I know not where, and the other below in the world or I known not where else: adding that the supernal Christ did in former times live in many, but at being descended from above. And more, they said, he passed into other bodies, & other such like fabulous stuff they have of Christ which never entered into the cogitations of any people of learning and judgement; and therefore it is as great dotage in Sir Humphrey to impose this upon Catholic Roman Priests as it was in the author to inventit, as will yet more plainly appear by the formal words of Theodoret which here I put in the margin. 
Christum autem non unum dicunt (Helcesaitae) sed hunc quidem infernè, illum verò supernè, & eum olim in multis habitasse, postremò autem descendisse. jesum autem aliquando ex Deo esse dixit (Elxai) aliquando vocat spiritum. quandoque autem Virginem matrem habuisse, in alijs autem scriptis ne hoc quidem; Rursus autem eum etiam dicit transire in alia corpora & in unoquoque tempore diuerse ostendi. Theodor. heret. fab. to. 2. lib. 2. pag. 380.   
And the like absurdity Sir Humphrey commits in that which immediately followees, attributing the doctrine of transubstantiation to one Mark, an heretic, because forsooth he by some kind of enchanting invocation over the Sacramental cup caused the wine to appear like blood, which sacrilegious example and practice of Marcus what force it can have to prove the Romanists to be of that fellow's Pedigree let any indifferent man be judge. And moreover to take away all doubt and assure himself the more, let the reader but consider what S. Irenaeus in the same place cited by Sir Humphrey videlicet. libr. 1. cap. 9 saith of that Marcus, I doubt not but he will, see most clearly how egregiously our adversary abuseth the Romanists in this matter. Marcus (saith S. Irenaeus) pro calice vino mixto fingens se gratias agere, & in multum extendens sermonem invocationis, purpureum & rubicundum apparere facit ut putetur ea gratia ab ijs qui sunt super omnia, suum sanguinem stillare per invocationem eius, & valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo ut in illos stillet quae per magum hunc vocatur gratia.  
By which words let the reader if he understand Latin judge how void of grace is he who so shamelesselie applies this to the Consecration of the Eucharist by Priests of the Roman Church.  
And yet the preposterous knight not being content to have spoken so irreasonably, yet further adds that the authors of transubstantiation were those disciples that beleaved the the gross & carnal eating of Christ's Flesh. From whence he would deduce that the Romanists descend from the judaical Capharnaits in this point.  
But this is a most gross and ridiculous conceit of him to imagine that they can be successors to such as refused expressly and absolutely to believe that same which they hold for a matter of faith tho' not in the same gross manner which those incredulous disciples of Christ did apprehend, and as you also not like reformers but deformers out of the madness of your noddles grossly conceive them to do: but in a much more spiritual manner, and yet, truly, really and substantially, and not only in spirit as your private spirits would have it. Which, if it were so only, it were not the true Sacrament, which necessarily requires to contain really and not by faith only that which it represents: but it were only a mere shadow or figure of a Sacrament as the sacrifice of Melchisedech, the manna and bread of Proposition were signs and figures of the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist as not containing but only representing the body and blonde there contained.  
And supposing that Sir Humphrey himself absolutely denies the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, and supposing also that as S. john doth testify the Capharnaits did also refuse to believe the same, this fable of Sir Humphrey, mutat o nomine, may much more aptly and truly be verified of him and his companions (I will not say then of the Romanists) but even then of the Capharnaits themselves; in regard the Capharnaites, as fare as can be gathered by the text of the sixth of S. john, did according to the interpretation of S. Augustin but only make question of the real presence, or possibility of Christ's giving his body to be eaten not otherwise than in that gross manner which they then conceived in their minds, whereas yet the knight and the rest of his congregation directly & absolutely affirm that Christ's body and blood are as fare from being really contained in the Sacrament as heaven is from the altar or Communion table. And thus it appears that by endeavouring to make us Capharnaites, Sir Humphrey shows greater grossness of conceit them the gross Capharnaites did by denying the real presence upon the same or like carnal imagination for for which he and his mates renounce it.  
From this Sir Humphrey passes to another part of his Pedigree where he putteth in the Pope's supremacy as if it were derived fundamentally from the Gentiles, and to this purpose he applies the words of our Saviour Lucae. 22.25. so ridiculously that it makes me think he is will read in the book of Quodlibets or quaeris, he makes use of Scripture so ingeniously.  
The words of our Saviour are these. The King of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. Out of which place Sir Humphrey will needs infer and prove that the Gentiles have given the Pope his supremacy and consequently that they are the benefactors and founders of the Roman faith in that particular. Which passage of the Scripture how falsely and impertinently it is applied and how contrary to the true sense those words of our Saviour are used and abused by the knight, I will not spend time in examination of it, but leave to the judicious reader to censure of it as he pleaseth: only I cannot omit to take notice how he concludeth this his idle discourse with another place of Scripture, out of the 20. of S. Math. where our Saviour saith to his disciples, whosoever will be great amonght you, let him be your minister, & whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: by which words it is most apparent & agreed upon by all interpreters, except the novelists, that our Saviour intended nothing else but to give his disciples a lession of humility, not so that they ought not in any case to have superiority and dominion in that nature one over an other, which were to destroy the Hierarchy & government of the Church which he himself ordained, but that those who were to have it should not abuse it by dominiering tiramnically over their subjects or subordinate's. And yet Sir Humfrey I know not by what rule of Alchemy, will needs extract out of this place that his and his fellow's doctrine touching the supremacy is received from Christ himself. But in truth with all my Logic I cannot understand how he inferreth any thing hence for his purpose except he will deduce ex quolibet quodlibet, and make a nose of way of the holy Scripture as indeed he doth very frequently, framing such a sense to the words as maketh for his position, and thence deduceing arguments for proof of the same. And if one were disposed to make use of Scripture in that manner, he might-aswell infer out of this place a kind of supremacy for the ministry, especially if we writ the word minister with a great M. as Sir Humfrey doth. And indeed I must confess that your ministers are great among you in divers respects. For some of them have great bishoprics, others great benefices, and almost all greare wives and great store of children. And if the King would be pleased to suffer them, then why might they not come to obtain the supremacy every one is his turn by succession, & in that case they might doubtless make fare better use of the cited places of Scripture in favour of themselves than they do in applying them against the Romanists. And according to his false dealing in applying the Scripture, so doth he falsely affirm that the Pope's supremacy was first granted by Phocas falsely applying the testimony of Vrspergensis to that same fol. 149. for Valentinian the Emperor who lived above 100 years before Phocas in his epist. to Theodosius which is extant in the preambles of the Council of Calced. saith of the Bishop of Rome, to whom all antiquity gave the principality of preisthood above all etc. And as for Vispergensis altho' the authority of his book may justly be suspected as having been published by the reformers or rather deformers of Basill, yet doth he not say as Sir Humphrey affirms that Phocas first granted the supremacy to the Bishop of Constantinople, but rather the quite contrary, for thus he saith. Post Gregrorium Bonifacius sedit cuius rogatu Phocas constituit sedem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, cum antea Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium. After Gregory (saith Vrspergensis) Bonifacius did sit at uhose request Phocas constituted the seat of the Roman and Apostolical Church head of all Churches: for before the Church of Constantinople writ herself first of all Churches. So that as the reader may plainly know, Sir H. hath falsified Vrspergensis relating that to be said by him of the Church of Constantinople which he directly speaks of the Church of Rome: which nevertheless is so little to his purpose that howsoever he takes it, being not a gift of the Emperor (as not being in his power since that nemo dat quod non habet) but only a declarative constitution, I cannot conceive why our adversary should have corrupted this author except it were to exercise his hand. Especially supposing it is a thing impossible to apprehended how either Phocas or any other man or Angel could give the Pope of Rome his supremacy (which is that in this passage he intendeth to prove) by conferring the same (according to our adversary's relation) upon the Bishop of Constantinople. And so I leave this for one of S. Hunfreyes' unintelligible mysteries of his reformed faith.  
For worship of Images S. Humfrey deduceth the Pedigree of the Romanists from the Basilidians and Carpocrationes. But his deduction is false & for it he falsely citeth S. Ireneus, who saith indeed those fellows were heretics for worshipping of images but in another kind fare different from the honour which the Romanists use towards pictures. 
Vtuntur autem imaginibus & incantarionibus, & reliqua universa pererga. Irenaeus. l. 1. cap. 23.  And he expressly condemneth Carpocrates as plainly appeareth by his words, 
Imagines depictas quasdam de reliqua materia habent fabrica●as dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo in temporequo fuit Iesus cum hominibus & has coronant & ponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophorum videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae & Platonis & Aristotelis & reliquem, & reliquorum obseruationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt. Iren. eod. l. cap. 24.  because he put the Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers, and because also he put a crown upon it, and worshipped it in an ethnical manner, and not according to the custom of Christians, but as S. Epihanius heres. 27. explicateth, those heretics, Gentilium ministeria perficiebant, they sacrified unto all those images to wit of Pythagoras & Aristotle together with Christ's image after the manner of the Gentiles: and so this part of the Pedigree contains an error in in heraldry, and proveth no true descent.  
In the next passage which is about the Communion in both kinds Pope Leo tells us, saith the Knight, that the Manicheis a sort of heretics in his time used the Sacrament in one kind videlicet in bread only. 
Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam (Videlicet Manichei) nostris audeant inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant ut tutius lateant, o'er indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant. Leo ser. 4. in quad.  It is true S. Leo saith so, but he doth not condemn them for heretics for that reason, but be cause they abstained from wine as from an unclean creature, and because they did not believe that Christ had blood in in his body, and so that which Pope Leo did when he gave command that those should be diligently observed who usually received but in one kind, was done purposely for discovery of the Manicheis who crastily to conceal their heresy touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholics dissemblingly: the Custom of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kind and in both, as now the Grecians practice, and therefore that holy Pope did discreetly command those should be diligently observed who in all occasions did use to receive under the form of bread only, holding that for an evident argument of their aborring of the blood of Christ. By which it is evident that even that same time the communion was lawfully used by some in one kind otherwise S. Leo needed not to have used any great diligence for the dicoverie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had been obledged to communicate in both, the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would have been discovered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice. And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell: toutouching a proof of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had derived wholly or chief the communion of one species or kind from the practice of their communion, whereas he doth not so, but having by other arguments of Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels and reasons sufficiently established the doctrine of the Church in that particular; he bringeth that of the Nazarites only as a confirmation of the same.  
Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those words of S. Luke, drink you all of this, whereby he would prove that the communion in both kinds came from Christ, and so it did indeed, but not by precept given to all in general, but only to those then present and to those whom they represented as to be their successors that is the Apostles, and all Priests after them but not to any Puritan or puritannical minister as not having from them any true succession. After these passages Sir Humphrey proceeds to invocation of Saints and Angels, the founders of which he affirmeth to have been the heretics called Angelici, and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum. But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretics not for the invocation of Angels, but either for that they held them to have been creators of the world, or in regard they used to boast of their own Angelical manner of life, or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels, 
Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur. Aug. haeres. 29.  that they did use to worship them with latria or divine honour, all which kind of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin give to one only God. And so the knight doth pervert the truth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. upon the Genes. explicating that passage of Apocalips 19 in which the Angel prohibited S. john to adore him saith: neither let it move the that in a certain place of scripture the Angel doth prohibit a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God: for the Angel did so appear that he might have adored him for God, and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretics because they were inclined to adore Angels, he means because they adored them with divine honour and not because they gave that due inferior worship unto them which the Romanists use.  
For works of merit and supererogation he produceth for authors the heretics named Cathari and Puritans, but the heresies of these sectaries were fare different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points. Nay they were never defenders of either merit or works of supererogation that ever I read, but that for which they were condemned by the Catholic Church was chiefly for their defence of the errors of Novatus and particularelie for denying remission of sins and the authority of the keys in the Church, and for that they affirmed their own pretended purity to be above the doctrine of the Apostles as not contained in it but fare exceeding it, and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones. Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant: Secundas nuptias non admittunt, paenitentiam denegant▪ Novatum sectantes haereticum, unde etiam nouatiani appellantur. S. Aug. haeres. 38. And S. Isidor in the very place cited by Sir Humphrey saith of them. That they named themselves Cathari for their purity for glorying saith he in their merits they deny penance etc. And so it appears by this that the knight belies Saint Isidor in two respects. Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres. Christian: as if he did testify that these heretics were the first authors of doctrine of merit, and works of supererogation. Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other. Nor yet makes any mention in that place of works of supererogation.  
And so according to this let our Puritans of England, and Sir Humphrey himself as none of the least of them, examen their consciences well, and doubtless they will find themselves to have fare more affinity with the foresaid fellows then the Romanists, who both grant remission of sins by virtue of the Ecclesiastical keys and also deny and renounce all such purity of Spirit as the Puritans pretended.  
He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to have been the heresy of the Collyridians, 
Quaedam mulieres currum quendam sive sellam quadratam ornantes expanso super ipsum linteo in die quadam illustri anni per aliquot dies panem ponunt & offerunt Mariae. Epipha: impres. Basilicae jano Corn. interp. omnes autem panem participant in ●…tum enim hoc m●…lier●… opinio est. ibidem. Continentiam praedicat nuptias autem scortationem putat asserens nihil differre matrimonium a scortatione sed idem esse. Epipha. ibid. nec recipiunt in suorum numerum coniugio utentem. Aug. haer. 25.  and restraint of the marriage of Priests he attributeth to the Tatians and Manicheis, and for proof of this he citeth Epiphanius heresy 79. and 46. But he abuseth this author in both those places. And first touching the Collyridians both the same Epiphanius and others do expressly teach that they worshipped our blessed Lady idolatrously by attributing divinity & sacrificying unto her, or her image a cake of bread or tart as the very word itself in greek doth signify; and so this superstitious heresy can be no part of the Popish pedigree. Moreover Sir Humphrey doth falsely affirm that Epiphanius calls thes women Idolaters, for he doth not in any place give them that general name, altho' they justly deserved it, but he calls them simulachrificae that is sacrifiers to images, which is an heresy as much repugnant to the Roman Catholics doctrine as it is to protestancy: which word alone is sufficient to clear the Romanists from the heresy of those profane people: but this, as it seems, the crafty Cavallier dissembled for the advantage of his false accusation. secondly concerning the heresy of the Tatians it is certain out of that Epiphanius, Ireneus, and others that they rejected Matrimony absolutely and compared it to fornication which as the world knows the Roman Church doth not, but only for the greater decency and reverence to the service of God, prohibits it in those only who dedicate themselves to the same by receiving holy orders and priesthood. And thus you see Sir Humphrey instead of deducing the succession of the Romanists from ancient heresies, he makes but a Pedigree of his own lies. And the like I say of the Manicheans whom the knight falsely, and injuriously affirms to have been our predecessors in that they prohibited marriage in Priests quoting in the margin S. Epiphanius heresy 46. whom nevertheless I have diligently read but cannot find it. Yet I find in Saint Augustin who both followed S. Epiphanius much in his descriptions of heresies, and also was better acquainted then any writer of his time with the errors of the Manichees, that they did not only prohibit matrimony in Priests, but that they absolutely detested the same, for so he saith of those sectaries. Verum si ad virginitatem sic adhortamini quemodum hortatur Apostolica doctrina: 
lib. 3. contra faust. Manich. cap. 6.  qui dat nuptum bene facit, & qui non dat nuptum melius facit ut bonum esse nuptias diceretis, sed meliorem virginitatem sicut facit Ecclesia quae vere Ecclesia Christi est, non vos spiritus sanctus ita praenuntiaret dicens prohibentes nubere. Ille enim prohibet qui hoc malum tsse dicit, non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit. Denique eum vos precipue concubitum detestamini qui solus honestus & coniugalis est, & quem matrimoniales quoque tabulae praese gerunt liberorum procreandorum causa, unde vere non tam concumbere quam nubere prohibetis. And presently after. Nec ideo vos dicatis non prohibere qui multos vestros auditores obedire nolentes in hoc, vel non volentes, salua amicitia toleratis, illud enim habetis in doctrina vestri erroris, hoc in necessitate societatis. Thus plainly S. Augustin whose words to make them also plain to those who understand not Latin I will put them in English. But if (saith he) you so exhort to virginity as the Apostolical doctrine donth exhort: he who giveth in marriage doth well, he who doth not give in marriage doth better so that you should say that marriage is good, but virginity better, as that Church doth which is truly the Church of Crist, the holy spirit would not thus prenuntiate you saying: prohibiting to marry, for he doth prohibit who saith this is evil, not he who doth prefer before this good thing an other thing better than it. Finally you do chiefly detest that carnal conjunction which only is honest and matrimonial, and which the matrimonial writings also declare to be for procreation of children, whence it is that you do not so much prohibit carnal copulation as you prohibit marriage. And presently after the same S. Augustin addeth. Neither therefore can you say that you do not prohibit to marry. Because many of your auditors being not willing or refusing to obey in this, you tolerate them for friendship sake, for you have that in your doctrine of your error, this in necessity of society. By which words of this most famous doctor we may plainly gather that suppose S. Epiphanius had those words: in sacerdotibus: yet he did not mean of Priests only when he spoke of the Manichean heresy, but of a direct and absolute prohibition of marriage as unlawful and detestable in all sorts of persons: and consequently this passage of Sir Humphrey drawn out of the words of S. Epiphanius containeth no kind of disproof of Roman Catholic doctrine in this particular, but a faule imposture of his own, if he can not produce out of this author the words which he citeth.  
And whereas he affirms that the Manichees were our predecessors & prohibited marriage in Priests quoting S. Epiphanius in the margin, 
Dices mihi omnino in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere presbyteros, Diaconos; & Hypodiaconos at hoc non est iuxta canonem, sed iuxta hominum mentem Epiph. Haeres. 59  I find no such heresy in his Cathalogue of the heresies of Manicheus: but contrarily I am sure I find in an other place of his works that Priests were by the Ecclesiastical Canons prohibited to marry. For thus he speaketh. Doubtless you will tell me that even yet in certain places Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons' get children. But this is not according to the Canon but according to the minds of men etc. And with these and other errors which he affirmeth to be taught in the Roman Church but doth not specify, he endeth his Pedigree of the Romanists, which though he holds it to have descended either from ancient heretics, or at the least to have, as he saith, near affinity with their adultered issue, nevertheless presently after having better examined his conscience and considered more deliberately of the matter, he seems to lose some of his former confidence, and so addeth that if he hath failed in calculating the right nativity of their ancient doctrine, yet sure I am, saith he, they are utterly destitute of a right succession in persons and doctrine from the Apostles and the ancient orthodox fathers of the primative Church, so the knight, by which discourse you may easily perceive even by his own words, and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant than his own surety, which although his authority and credit were fare greater than either we have found it to be, or it can be in itself, yet were it not safe for any man to rely upon it, but rather to hold it for very uncertain and failable. Especially considering that all which he hath produced in proof of the same are either mere trifles, or at the most very poor arguments grounded upon false suppositions yea and upon plain untruths, falsifications, and corruptions both of scripture and fathers, and so partly through ignorance and partly through malice he hath showed himself a most partial and false Herold.  
And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section ensuing because it pertaineth to the same subject, yet lest the knigth should grumble I will a ford it a Period a part.   

THE VII. PERIOD.  
IN his eight section therefore, Sir Humphrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his adversaries touching the antiquity and universality of the Protestant faith in general. So he proceedeth in the title. To which he addeth by way of asseveration that if the Roman Church doth not confess that the reformers are both in the more certain and Safer way in the Protestant Church, I will, saith he, neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresy. Hear we see the knight is as free in his promises as ever he was, let us therefore examen how he performeth them, for if he doth not, he cannot escape either the name of an heretic, or at the least, the desert of punishment itself even in this mortal life. He beginneth thus. He that shall question us where our Church was before Luther, let him look back to the Primative Church: nay let him but look into the bosom of the present Roman Church and he shall find that if ever antiquity and universality were marks of the true Church, of right and necessity they must belong to ours. So Sir Humphrey. In which words as it were by way of general assertion he briefly declareth the antiquity and universality of his Church to be found both in the Primative Church and also in the present Roman Church, in which assertion there being two parts and that no small ones, the first he endeavoureth to prove by showing a conformity between the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primative Church, and descending to particulars he tells us that his Church teacheth and believeth the same three Creeds which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primative Church, and not created by Luther: as also two of the seven Sacraments which were, saith he, by the confession of our adversaries instituted by Christ. The same he affirmeth of 22. books of Canonical Scripture which he saith were universally received in all ages. Likewise of the seven general Counsels he affirmeth that four of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England, and confirmed by act of parliament, and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree, adding to them the confession of his adversaries. And yet in all his large rehearsal of points of faith, he maketh no mention of either those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree, nor of those new articles of the English Creed which dissent from the doctrine of the Primative Church, and which indeed are those that make the reformers guilty of heresy, as its the doctrine of justification by faith only, the denial of the real presence and such like: But craftily leaving them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth, whereas in truth by reason of these new errors obstinately defended by them, there can be no universality nor antiquity in their Church notwithstanding they had never so great conformity both to the ancient primative, and modern Roman Church in all the rest of their belief. Especially supposing that any one error in matter of faith obstinately defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquity and universality of any Church or congregation whatsoever, as even the reformers themselves, as I suppose, cannot deny, for that, as the scripture affirmeth, that he who offends in one thing is made guilty of all the rest, so he that in one only point of faith holdeth contrary to the most universal and ancient Church, maketh himself presently guilty of want or defect both of universality and antiquity in his belief. For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end: the articles of faith are like to a gold chain from which if you take away any one link (as Saint Ambrose saith) 
Ad cap. 9 Lucae lib. 6. in fine.  you take away your salvation, unum horum, saith he, si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam. And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part upon which the very medium of his argument chiefly, or at the least greatly depended, his proof of antiquity and universality in his Church falleth to the ground. But besides this defect he faileth also in that he saith he believeth the three Creeds instituted by the Apostles and Primative Fathers of the Church. For either he means that those three Creeds do sufficiently contain all that he is bound to believe or no. If the first he meaneth, then what will become of his solifidian justification, and of the 39 articles of the English faith, the greater part of which is not to be found in those Creeds. If he means the second, then doth he ill in leaving those particulars out in the rehearsal of his faith. Nay more than this, for if matters were well examined, I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestation of his faith of the three Creeds, yet he would be found holting in the true & generally received, or Catholic sense of diverse of the same, as that of the perpetual virginity of the mother of God, in that of the descent of Christ in to hell, of the Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, remission of sins, and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first General Counsels, and of the Sacraments: in which particulars our adversary's underpresence of reformation maintain diverse deformed errors, specified and confuted by divines of the Roman Church. Moreover the knight is also defective in the proof of the antiquity and universality of his faith, and doth egregiously equivocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome holdeth, are professed by the reformers and confessed by their adversaries to have been instituted by Christ, not broached by Luther. This I say is equivocal and doth not prove his intent: for although it neither is nor can be denied, but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two Sacraments, yet doth she not confess that there are only two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers profess, but holdeth and believeth five more as well as those two to have been instituted by Christ, which five being denied, or at the least three or four of them, both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers, and on the contrary having been received for Sacraments in ancient times, as afterwards shall be declared, the deniers of them whosoever they be, cannot rightly claim either antiquity of universality of doctrine in that particular. And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. books of Scripture, and the seven first general Counsels, in the which he faith of the reformers is neither ancient nor universal first for that they hold those twenty two books for canonical Scripture & exclude all the rest out of the canon, which nevertheless as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margen, 
Totus autem canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus his libris continetur. Quinque Moses etc. Tobias, Hester, judith, & Machabeorun libri duo & Esdrae duo. Et postea. Name & illi duo libri unus qui sapientiae, & alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constantisse perhibetur: qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt. Aug. l. 2. de docti Christiana. c. 8.  were also canonical in the ancient Church. And secondly because they receive but only four of those seven general Counsels, which nevertheless Sir Humfrey himself here confesseth to have been general by giving them all that title as well as the four first. To omit other general Counsels which he & his brothers violently reject.  
And now touching Apostolical traditions Sir Humphrey doth no less plainly Sophisticate then in the former points, for that it is well known that the reformers either hold no traditions at all to be believed but rely wholly upon pure or sole Scripture as the total rule of their faith: or if they hold any traditions to be necessary yet do not they hold all those which the ancient & now the modern Roman Church doth hold, and consequently their manner of holding Apostolical traditions is in words only, and hath no true descent from the Apostles nor any universality or antiquity at all, as neither hath their book of common prayer & manner of ordination and vocation of Ministers or Pastors: and so altho' they have some part both of the ancient liturgy and also of the Apostolical manner of ordination, yet because they do not wholly agree with them, no not in the substance and essential parts of the action, that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucharist, nor in the essential form and matter of order which are the words and imposition of hands, they are defective in the antiquity and universality of the same in regard that the manner and form of prayer and administrations of Sacraments which the reformed Churches use at this present is different from that of the ancient Church, & never known nor heard of in former ages but broach by Luther and his sectatours, quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeavoureth to prove, as by comparing their Church service, their book of common prayer, and of ordination of Ministers with the ancient liturgies, as that of Saint james, Saint Basil, Saint Chrisostome and others, doth clearly appear: as also by confronting the same with the writings of the ancient Fathers and their forms of administration of Sacraments, by which we shall find a main difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that in those ancient monuments of antiquity, be found sacrifice, oblation, altar, incense, host, chalis, holy oil, Chrism and the like: But in the form of service and administration of Sacraments used now in the pretensive reformed Churches, there is none of this to be found or heard. By which it may farther appear that it is no silly or senseless question, as our adversary would have it, to demand of the reformers where their Church was before Luther. Because it hath now been made manifest that although some part of their doctrine that I mean in which they and the Romanists agree, hath both universality and antiquity if it be considered in itself, yet divers other points of it hath neither the one nor the other. That which cannot be found in the doctrine of the Roman Church for that although it is true that some part thereof was not expressly defined as matter of faith before the time of the later Counsels, and sectaries, who by their defection from the ever succeeding Roman Church, and their new errors, gave occasion of new declarations of some particular points, yet were those neither new in themselves nor first broached & taught by the foresaid counsels, but only they by their authority determined & established for certain doctrine that which divers novelists presumptuously brought in question, the same nevertheless in all the ages before Luther having been both anciently and universally taught, or at the least by many doctors of the Church with out contradiction of the rest: or perhaps if any were of a different opinion, it was because matters were not then so plainly declared by the Church, and under her correction. And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted upon them, as the knight vainly averreth, nor yet can the reformers ever be able to answer it, as plainly appeareth both by that with hath been already said, as also by the doctrine of their 39 articles divers of which are not only new in themselves and never heard of in ancient times, but also expressly broached by Luther himself, and that not only in negative but also in some positive doctrine, as is evident particularly in the point of iustisication by faith alone. And hence also it is manifestly inferred how untruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that no Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay involved in the bosom of the Roman Church as corn covered with chaff or gold with dross: for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath been in the Church before Luther, as I have showed, nor yet that any Romanist ever affirmed the same, & so S. Humfrey delivereth two falsities under one form of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leaf grounding his discourse upon false suppositions, & equivocations, & promising to produce testimonies of his adversary the Romanists for the antiquity and universality of the protestant faith (he means the Puritan faith) in general, yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in jewel none of which three authors prove S. Humphrey intent. Costerus and Harding only speaking of one or two particular points & that in no matter of faith, to wit about the manner of the introduction of communion under one kind and private Mass into the Church, as their own words declare.  
And as for Pope Adrian, his own words truly and completely cited show him to speak only of the conditional adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the host should not be consecrated, and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridiculously to prove, for sooth, that the Romanists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditional, I adore thief thou be Christ: which manner of adoration nevertheless they never use but only in special cases of doubt whether the Priest performed his office according to Christ● institution. The Pope's words are these in Latin. Concilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam non consecratam quia facite implicatur condition, si consecration sit recte facta etc. And now let the reader judge how conveniently they be applied to S. Hunfreys' purpose of proving absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner. Further more Sir Humphrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proof of his antiquity and universality, but only useth his own conceits consisting mearely in iffes an andes, or conditional asseuerations, & thus quite throu' the rest of his section he rides post like a man that caries news of a false victory now and then dropping a lie by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his journey, which is nothing else but his own discredit: which because it hath been already sufficiently manifested I need not go to particulars for more proof of the same, especially for that I know I shall have occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those several points which our adversary congesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty, as that Costerus & Harding excuse the communion and private Mass, the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commandment of the Bishops, but that it crept in the Bishops conniving there at, which he attributeth to Costerus: the other, that it is throu the negligence of the lay people that they communicate not at every Mass, which he ascribes to D. Harding. All which is imposed by the knight upon those two Catholic authors contrary to their true sense and meaning, for that as it is apparent by their own words which I will rehearse in an other place, they say not those things by way of excuse in regard they know there is no need of excuse where no fault is found nor acknowledged: it being certain to them and all other Romanists that how soever private Mass, and single communion were at first introduced, yet they are both lawfully practised. And so I conclude this section of his, inroling i'll with the former censures: or rather I may with great reason frame a more rigorous censure for it, in regard that the knight having promised more than before, yet he hath performed less, and having under the name and punishment due to heresy undertaken to show by the testimonies & confession of his adversaries the antiquity and universality of his faith, & that his way even by the confession of the Romanists is more certain than their own, yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole discourse in equivocations and juggling tricks, and so he cannot possible escape the same sentence which his own execration called upon him.   

THE VIII. PERIOD.  
THIS Period shall contain the ninth section of S. Hunfreys' book: with though by reason of the largeness of it, he divideth it in to several paragraffes, yet because they have but small substance in them as he handleth them, though otherwise they be in themselves matters of importance: as also for that his doctrine in te same points hath been already in part examined & confuted, therefore I will not stand to make so many several distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth, but reduce them all to one only period, briefly examining how fare those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the antiquity of his own doctrine, and the novelty of theirs, do reach in the particular points of the same. He beginneth therefore with justification by faith only, 
Page. 85.  I saith he, will make it appear that before and after the conquest, the priests and professors of those times protested openly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching salvation by Christ alone, and with all publicly professed and administered the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and administer to this day. Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appear, which assertion nevertheless containing two parts, yet neither of them is true, but both either false or equivocal, or rather partly false, and partly equivocal. The first part is clearly false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professors both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits. That this is false it is manifestly convinced first because all the works of learned men, and histories both of England and other country's that write of that matter, do testify that from the time of S. Gregory's mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Roman faith (to omit more ancient times) both the Kings, priests, and people as well before as since the conquest have continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they received, until the time of Henry the eight at the least, and among the rest the very same doctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth. As is diligently proved by the author of the protestants apology in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page even by the testimonies of Protestants themselves. And what S. Gregory's own doctrine was in this particular, he himself testifieth in his book of morals the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diversity of works among us therefore with out doubt there will be in that diversity of dignities, to the end that as hear one doth surpass another in merit, so there one may transcend another in the retribution. Thus Saint Gregory to whose testimony as I could, if need were, join the express authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits, as of S. Augustin, Hierome, Ambrose, Hilary, Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctors even till the time of the privative Church: so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confirmation of it S. Bernard: to omit other places alleged by me in an other occasion: in his 8. serm. upon the Cantic. saith. Omne quod feceris bonum malumne, quod quidem non facere liberum sit, meritò ad meritum deputatur. Concilio Aran. can. 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant, sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit ut fiant. To which might be added the Counsels of Lateran sub Inno. 3. cap. firmiter, the florent. decreto de Purgatorio, and the late Council of Trent. Which all teach the same doctrine of merits as our adversaries cannot deny, to which also might be joined all those are testimonies of ancient Fathers who teach that faith only doth not justify, nor is sufficient to salvation, by all which its manifestly convinced that the doctrine of justification could not be openly protested against both before and after the Conquest by the Priests and professors of England, except Sir Humphrey will persuade us that the faith of England in those times was different from the faith of all the world beside, and even of those who directly sent preachers for the conversion of it from gentilism and superstition, all which being wholly incredible, so by necessary consequence is the whole discourse grounded thereupon. Secondly I answer that its manifest out of the words cited by the knight out of the book of the form of administration of Sacraments used in those times (supposing the book is authentical, which nevertheless may be suspected as being being only produced by Cassander a suspected author) there is not any word, sentence, or syllable which excludes from salvation those merits which the Roman Church defendeth: but only such merits as either exclude, pressely exclude the merits of the passion of Christ and therefore the question which according to the order of that directory the Priest maketh to the sick person runneth in this tenor. Dost thou believe to come to glory not by thine own merits, but by the virtue and merits of the Passion of our Lord jesus Christ? which interrogation as you see manifestly containeth an opposition between the merits of the infirm man and those of Christ, and for that cause he calleth them his own as being wholly wrought by his own natural power without the concourse of the merits of our Saviour & consequently in that sense of no force or virtue for the obtaining of salvation. That which is yet more manifest by the like question ensuing made also by the Priest to the same person in this manner. Dost thou believe that our Saviour jesus Christ did die for our salvation? And that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merits of his passion? where you see the opposition still runneth, and especially hear more clearly, betwixt man's own merits or other means which proceed not from Christ's Passion, but from some other cause, not including or depending upon them as the principal agent of all meritorious operations.  
And verily I am persuaded that the reason why in those days & in those occasions the forms and speech where somewhat different in the matter of merit, from the forms used in our times, is no thing else but the differences of errors reigning in the world in those times, and those that are now at this present defended by the novelists. For the Pelagian heresy which did attribute over much virtue to the merits of man having once been and perhaps some requikes of it yet remaining very rife in England when the foresaid directory was used (if any such there were) or at the least not long before, it was necessary that in all occasions humane merits should be as much extenuated as could possible be without prejudice of faith in that point. But contrarily in these our days since the publication of the errors of Luther and other sectaries in this matters, it was convenient, if not necessary, to extol the same merits as much as could be without prejudice to the merits of Christ.  
Now touching that which is added in the second part of the knigts assertion videlicet, that the Priests of former times preached salvation through Christ alone, it is most plainly equivocal, and in one sense it is true and conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church in all ages, but in another sense it is false and disagreeable to the same, it is true that Christ alone is the author of salvation and that no other than he can save us according to that of the Apostle Saint Peter Act. 4. non est in alio aliquo salus. Nec enim aliud nomen est sub Caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos saluos fieri. Neither is there any other name under heaven given to men wherein we must be saved: and in this sense and no otherwise the Priests of England in more ancient times preached salvation by Christ alone: yet notwithstanding all this, it is false that those Priests preached salvation with an exclusion or denial of the merits of man wrought by the grace of Christ and by virtue of his death and Passion, neither was such doctrine ever taught either in England or any other place before the time of Luther, except it were by some more ancient heretics. Moreover that which the knight putteth in the second part of his foresaid assertion, to wit that the Priests of those times published and administered the same Sacraments in the same faith and truth, which they (meaning the reformers) teach & administer this day, this I say is partly equivocal in that he saith they public professed & administered the same Sacraments. For tho' it were true that two of the Sacraments which those Priests administered videlicet. Baptism & the Eucharist, be the same which there formers administer at this day, yet it is false that the foresaid Priests did the use in their time either to profess or administer two only, as may appear by the same ritual out of which S. Humfrey draweth this testimony, in which all the seven Sacraments are contained and appointed to be administered, if the book be perfectly published without corruption. Partly also that same part of the assertion is false, for that it is manifest the foresaid Priests did not receive those two which the reformers hold for Sacraments in the same faith which they do, for as much as the Priests mentioned received those two in the faith of five other Sacraments which also they believe to be such as well as the rest, supposing that the number of all the seven Sacraments were then in belief and practice as much as now they be, as both the ritual cited, if it be not corrupted, and also the histories of those times can testify, of which five Sacraments nevertheless the reformers have no such faith as they themselues confess. To say nothing of the faith of those same Priests in other points of religion, which as it is certain by the relation of historiographes, was fare different from the faith of the reformers and practice of their Churches, and consequently it cannot with truth be said to be the same. And as for the rest of the words which the knight citeth out of the same ritual, they prove nothing against merit itself but only against confidence in proper merits as appears by those words in particular, place thy whole confidence in his death only, have confidence in no other thing, that which is so fare from the denial of merits as that it is counselled & advised even by those who are most professed defendours of the Roman doctrine in that point as out of Bellarmine and other divines we have showed before. 
Period. 4.  Nay and besides this it is most plain in my judgement that the foresaid ritual in certain other words following in the same place did never intent to exclude all kind of merit from the works of man performed by God's grace and assistance, for that it expressly saith in the person of that sick man: I offer his merits (that is the merits of Christ) in steed of the merits I ought to have, for if he ought to have merits as he affirmeth even upon his death bed, though he have them not, evident it is that he denied not the same but plainly supposed the truth of them. And thus we see that the words of the order of baptising benigniouslie interpreted make nothing for S. Hunfreyes' position nor against the Roman doctrine of merits, How be it the same was justly corrected by the Inquisitors both because the manner of phrase which it useth might easily give occasion of error especially in these our days: as also because it is justly suspected to be Apocryphal, in regard it contains certain ill sounding sentences not only in the doctrine of the Roman Church: but also according to the tenets of the Reformers. As where it saith thus. These protestations of such as lie a dying were revailed to a certain religious man. And those words: he that shall protest such things as follow, from his heart cannot be damned etc. All which propositions and some othgers are commanded by the authors of the Index to be blotted as well as the words which Sir Humphrey here cities. And yet more over it is to be advertised that there is not a word in all that which our adversary produceth against merits which doth prove justification by faith only, which is that which he intends to prove in this place as the title of his paragraph doth declare. And so by this means he hath quite fled from his text. And so this may suffice to demonstrate the falsity of the knight's assertion and the nullity of the proof thereof by the testimonies of his adversaries, seeing plainly that he doth no thing therein, but partly by untruths and partly by equivocations deludes his reader not citing any one author either Romanist or reformer in all this paragraph more than the words rehearsed out of the foresaid Ritual, which nevertheless having been, as suspected of corruption, chastised by the Inquisitours, the uncensured copies (which doubtless he and his fellows only use) have no authority nor credit in the Roman Church, or at the most, very little, and consequently he proceedeth most weakelie in producing for a testimony of his adversary that which they do not acknowledge for theirs, especially considering he allegeth nothing else for the proof of his tenet. The second paragraph is of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. As concerning the Sacraments of the Lords supper saith the knight. In the days of Alfrick about the year 996. There was a Homily publicly to be read to the people one Easter day, wherein the same doctrine which, saith he, our Church now professeth was publicly taught and received, and the doctrine of the real presence (which in that time had got some footing in the Church) was plainly confuted and rejected. The words which he citeth are these. There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered and the body which is received of the faithful, the body that Christ suffered in it was borne of the flesh of marry with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, with a reasonable soul living: and his spiritual body which nourisheth the faithful spiritually, is gathered of many corns without blood and bone, without limb, without soul, and therefore there is nothing to be understood bodily but spiritually &c. Thus fare out of the homily. And this doctrine faith the knight was delivered in those times not by one only Bishop but by divers in their Synods and by them commended to the Clergy, who were commanded to read it publicly to the people one Easter day for their better preparation and instruction in the Sacrament, and for the same cause translated into the saxon language by Alfrick: and to the same purpose the Knight also citeth two other writings or Epistles as published and translated also into the vulgar tongue by the same Alfric.  
But to this I answer first that whatsoever doctrine is conteynd in the Hom. & Epistles cited, the Romanists are not bound to believe it, because the knight only citeth them out of his own authors and as printed by the members of his own Church, to wit out of B. Usher, and Doctor james, and so it is both absurd and impertinent to produce them as testimonies of his adversaries, as he professeth to do in the title of his section, especially supposing that he hath not alleged any one author of the Romanists religion where by to prove them authentical, nor yet any other indifferent witness, but only those two reformers whom we have named, who by the Romanists may justly be suspected of partiality in favour of their own cause, especially if we consider that Sir Humphrey himself granteth that the Latin epistle written by Alfric is to be seen mangled and razed in a manuscript in Benet college in Cambridge. And certainly the English copies being found not to aggree with the Latin manuscript which is either the Original itself, or at the least cometh much nearer the time in which the author of it lived, than any other copy the knight could possible have, there is fare greater evidence that the latter translations and impressions are corrupted by the reformers, then that either the Index expurgatorius or any other Romanist hath made any alteration or change in the original copies or first authentical manuscripts, or in any other except it were only to restore them to their prime innocenty and original truth: chiefly supposing that the inquisitors in their expurgation of books intent no other thing more than to reduce such as be corrupted to the former purity of their originals. Thirdly I answer that admit the editions which are published in England be true and sincerely translated and printed, which nevertheless may justly be suspected by reason of the manifold corruptions found to have been used in that nature by divers of the reformed profession as by the expurgatory Index doth plainly appear, the authors of which Index have discovered diverse works Fathered partly by ancient and partly by modern sectaries upon those who never writ them: which was the cause as I suppose, why Antonius' possevinus in the preamble to his select Bibliotheke saith that Sixtus, Bellarmine, and others have manifested very main pestilent books attributed by heretics to ancient and good authors among which we may number one cited by Sir Humphrey in some part of his work, entitled the fiducia & misericordia Dei, which Bell. in his book de Scrip. Eccles. declares to be counterfeit and suppositious and none of Bishop Fishers on whom it is imposed. Nevertheless how so ever the matter stands touching the truth of the foresaid homily, and admit it be never so true and authentical: yet I am confidently assured that the words by Sir Humphrey cited out of it against the real presence, are not so obscure but that they admit such a comodious exposition as doth not in any sort fovour the denial thereof but rather impugn and it confute it. First for that there is not one word which includeth a denial of the real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, but the words only show a difference between the body in which Christ suffered and the body which the faithful receive, which difference is not really in the substance of the body itself, it being one and the same in nature in every place where it existeth; but only in the properties and manner of existence, or being in place: it having been in the passion visible, mortal, and with it entire local extension: but in the Sacrament invisible, impassable, and unextended: in which sense also it may rightly be called spiritual: yea and not altogether improperly, especially taking it with a relation or respect unto the same body perfectly extended in the manner above declared, it may be said to be without blood, bone, sin woe, limb, or soul, that is without extension or motion of these parts, as the cited words do signify, which by reason of the foresaid manner of being of Christ's body in the Sacrament do call it his spiritual body, from thence as it were inferring & concluding that noething is to be understood there bodily but spiritually: all which is noething contrary to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point, but rather most agreeable to the same, which teacheth that Christ's body though it be truly in the Sacrament, yet without extension and not in a Corporal, but in a spiritual manner; yea and very comformable to the doctrine of S. Paul who speaking of the resurrection of the flesh douteth not to call one & the same humane body both corruptible & spiritual: 
1. Cor. 15.  Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spirituale, and that not for the difference of the body in it nature and substance which it hath not but only by reason of the accidental difference which it hath in it properties and manner of existence, & which the same body receiveth in the resurrection not having had them in this mortal life. True it is there is one passage in the homily which in my opinion hath more difficulty & show of repugnance to the real presence & transubstantiation then the former words, to wit where the author makes a comparison betwixt the manna and water which flowed from the rock in the desert, both which he affirms to have been figures of Christ body and blood as the Eucharist also is. Nevertheless he hath consequenter an other passage or two which plainly declare that similitude to be nothing contrary either to the real presence or transubstantiation. For so he adds. The Apostle Paul saith that the Israelists did eat the same ghostly meake, and drink the same ghostly drink, because that heavenly meat that fed them 40. years and shalt water which from the stome did follow had signification of Christ's body & his blood that now be offered daily in God's Church: it was the same (saith he) which we offer, not bodily but ghostly. But which words it is evident that Alfric puts a main difference betwixt that spiritual meat and drink of the jews, & the spiritual food which Catholic Christians receive in the Sacrament, that being but a signification, as the author of the Homily expressly affirmeth, of Christ's body & blood, it being the same not bodily but only spiritually or figuratively with that body and blood of Christ which he averreth Priests to offer daily and of which he also teacheth the foresaid water to be a representation, not the body and blood themselves, which as being every day sacrificed in the altar, even according to common sense they must of necessity be really and truly in the Eucharist. And altho' the author of the Homily calleth if a figure of Christ's body & blood, yet doth he not say it is a figure of them absent, as the water flowing out of the rock was, but truly and really present, as those his words in which he saith and diverse time repeateth, that Christ's body and blood are offered in the same Eucharist by Priests in sacrifice, do evidently convince, supposing it is impossible to conceive the author of the homily should affirm that Christ's body and blood be offered, in the altar, and yet not believe the same to be really truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. Moreover the same Homily saith in plain terms, the wine which in the supper by the Priest is hallowed, show one thing without to humane understanding and another thing with in to believing minds, without they seem bread and wine both in figure and taste, and they be truly after their hallowing Christ's body and his blood throu' gostelie mystery. And afterwards these words do follow, we said unto you that Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering and said this his my body and my blood, yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned trou ' in visible might the bred to his own hodie, the wine to his blood, which words how plain they be for the real presence and transubstantiation, any one that is not violently partial in his own cause may easily perceive, considering that for Christ to turn by invisible might the bread and wine into his body and blood, is nothing else but that which both the definitions of the Roman Church and Catholic divines call by the names of real presence and transsubantiation.  
thirdly it is manifest that the foresaid testimony cannot in reason be alleged in favour of the reformers doctrine in this particular, for that they deny the body of Christ either to exist or to be received really in the Eucharist otherwise then by faith & figure, neither of which nevertelesse is denied by the words above cited, but contrarily they expressly and absolutely aver that the body of Christ is received by the faithful, and altho' they call it his spiritual body, yet doubtless they do it only for the reason alleged as also for that it nourisheth the receivers spiritually, yet they never deny it to be a true body, or to be truly present in the Sacrament, or affirm it to be received by faith only as the reformers commonly do, and Sir Humphrey in particular most expressly in divers places of his book.  
Fourtlie the words alleged call the body which the faithful receive in the Eucharist a body gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without limb, without soul. But the reformers profess to receive no such body in the Sacrament, but the very same body which sitteth on the right hand of God in heaven endued with all the properties and dimensions of a true body, though by faith only; and so there being such small affinity between both the words and sense of the foresaid place and the reformers doctrine in this point, neither S. Humphrey, nor those from whom he received it, had any reason to produce it as a testimony whereby to prove their Church to have been visibly extant, and their faith publicly professed before the days of Luther. And from hence we may further deduce how vain a flourish the knight maketh in the end of his 97. page were by way of conclusion he affirms that the most substantial points of his religion were visibly known and generally published not in private corners but in public libraries, not in obscure assemblies. But in open Churches, and general congregations of our own country in the darkest ages long before Luther's days; All which deduction is most frivolous and idle: first for that suppose it were most true and certain that the denial of the real presence were contained in the foresaid writings, the contrary to which I have made most manifest, yet is it a most vain and false brag of the knight to say that therefore the most substantial points of his religion were visibly known and generally professed in his country long before the days of Luther, it being manifest that with all the Arethmatik he can use, 
The denial of the real presence and transubstantiation confessed by Sir H. to be the most substantial points of his religion.  the whole some of substantial points of his religion falsely pretended to be sound by him in the foresaid epistles and homily, do not pass the number of two: whereas yet on the contrary ther are truly and unfeignedly above twice as many against him and for the Romanists, as mass, prayers in Latin, water mixed to the wine in the chalis, offering of the same, sacrifice, the pronouncing of Agnus Dei in the mass, the sign of the Cross. As also because there are no certain premises out of which any such illation of the knights can be collected, but the quite contrary as hath been already showed: and so for Sir Humphrey to say the most substantial points of his faith have been generally published not in private corners but in public libraries before the days of Luther grounding his saying only upon the foresaid writings, is most absurd and void of truth. To omit that if as the knight affirms, there is a copy of the foresaid Epistle mangled in the foresaid library a man may doubt how the pretensive reformers could come by any more true manuscript than that razed copy, out of which they could by comparing the one with the other, discover that that which was so blotted & defaced, did contain any doctrine contrary to the real presence or transubstantiation or agreeing with their own copies now of late translated in to English and printed by them. And also we may further suspect that the copy which Sir Humphrey mentioneth as mangled and razed, is the only true original, and that the transsumpts of Alfrickes' sermon now published in English, are altered and changed from the purity of their first copies, all which I leave to the judgement of the indifferent reader and my own further examen of the matter as opportunity shall serve. And yet besides this, I cannot conceive how this business hangs together, to wit that Sir Humphrey produces the foresaid homily against transubstantiation, and yet the same Sir Humphrey page 98. affirms that they (I know not who) have in that same homily suggested transubstantiation by two feigned miracles. Now if in that homily there be two miracles to prove transubstantiation, as indeed there be, how can it then be truly produced by the knight against the same? So that here must of necessity be some juggling in the matter. And more, for my part I cannot possible imagine how that old musty copy of the homily being in the saxon language could make two such monstrous jumps as first to leap out of old saxon in to English, and then out of exiter into Oxon even just at that present time when M. Fox had need of them for the fornishing of his moulie monuments. Certainly I hold this for one of the greatest miracles that any of the reformed brothers ever committed. Besides this in my opinion it savours rank of forgery to say that the words razed in the Latin copy of Alfricks' Epistle to Wolstan Archbishop of york were supplied by the saxon copy of Exiter, as some of our adversaries do affirm, notobstanding others say they had the supply from worcester. And I demand further, whether it is not much more probable that the sentence which he mentioneth if any such there were in that Epistle, was never taken away in the Latin, but rather added by Swinglius, Oecolampadius, or Bucer, or some other greater Doctor of that potatorie confraternity. More D. james saith that the Latin Epistle so razed is entitled: De consuetudine monachorum, and yet the same Doctor out of Fox relates it to be against the bodily presence. 
Quibus speramus nos quibusdam prodesse ad correctionem, quamuis sciamus aliis minime placuisse: sed non est nobis consultum semper si lere, & non aperire subiectis eloquia divina, quia si praeco tacet quis judicem venturum enuntiet. D. james detect. part. 2. pag. 55.  Now what connexion the bodily or unbodilie presence of Christ in the sacrament hath with the custom of monks, I am persuaded that, excepting these two great Doctors, all the world beside can not imagine: Especially considering that in the words related by james, there is no mention at all of the body of Christ, but of correction of some certain persons. And surely Alfrick being an Abbot himself it is to be judged fare more proper to him to have writ of things appertaining to the profession of religious persons, them of the Eucharist or transubstantiation, or as they will have it, against the same. Finally Fox refers the translation and publishing of the Homily and Epistles to the year 996. Yet james affirms that the Archbishop wolstan to whom Alfrick written his Epistle concerning that business, was a bout the year 1054. which year differeth much from the other. Wherefore let Sir Humphrey be assured that till he clears these difficulties this his newfound writing caries no authority against the Romanists. And so for conclusion of this matter I say that till Sir Humphrey or some of his companions can produce some authentical author before Luther who without their own glosses or illations doth teach plainly these negatives: Christ's body and blood are not really present in the Eucharist: the bread and wine consecrated by the Priest are not turned into the body and blood of Christ by virtue of God's word and power, let him not trouble himself and us with such obscure new found fragments as this, with which as being subject to diverse expositions he fills his own head and ours with proclamationes neither disproving over doctrine nor proving his own, and only gives occasion of altercation and expense of time in vain about the trial of these his questionablie and faulty wares. From hence Sir Humphrey passes to the second part of his paragraph, that is to the doctrine of transubstantiation in these words. Look saith he upon their doctrine of transubstantiation, and you shall see how miserable their Church is divided touching the antiquity and universality of that point of faith. Thus the knight.  
To which I answer that having exactly examined all the particulars which he produces for proof of this his boisterous affirmation, I find that as he chargeth most falsely the Romanists of division in the doctrine of transubstantiation, so his proof of the same by authority of the authors which he cities, is also most deceitful, in regard he produces them as if they disagreed in their faith of the soresayd point, and consequently as if even according to their own tenets, they had neither antiquity nor universality in their doctrine, whereas in truth none of the cited authors have any disagreement among themselves, but all with one unanimous consent professedly acknowledge the faith and doctrine of the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, some of them only differing about the manner of it. Some holding it to be sufficiently expressed in scripture, as (unless it be Caietan whose meaning I will explicate in an other place) all scholastical divines affirm. Some others (among which scotus  one, or rather scotus alone) being of opinion there is no place of scripture so express that without the dermination of the Church it can evidently convince, and constrain one to admit transubstantiation in the Sacrament. Others that the doctrine of transubstantiation was held even in the Primative Church, tho' perhaps the word itself was not used in those most ancient times but since invented. But not obstanding what they held in these particulars, yet do none of them which the knigth cities, impugn trannssubstantiation, or deny that the bread and wine are truly converted into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but they all expressly avouch, and maintain it, so that a man may marvel where Sir Humfrey's eyes were when he read and rehearsed them.  
And as for Cardinal Aliaco, he doth not express his own opinion in the words alleged by Sir Humphrey, nor yet affirmeth it to have been defended by any author in his time, but saith only, tertia opinio fuit, the third opinion was. Putting his own which he calleth more common, and more agreeable to the scripture and determination of the Church, as also to the common opinion of the holy Fathers and doctors: only granting that it doth not evidently follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration together with the body of Christ, or absolutely ceaseth: or, that which I rather conceive of his true meaning, it can only be gathered out of this author (whom I have exactly read in this passage) that in times passed there were some few who, before the matter was plainly defined by the Church defended that it is possible, yea and more conformable to natural reason, and more easy to be conceived, nor were evidently repugnant to scripture, that the body of Christ might remain with the substance of bread in the Sacrament: none of which is contrary to the doctrine of transubstantiation as it is believed actually in the Church, nor to the universality of her faith therein, supposing that an act may consist with possibility to the contrary, of which nature itself yields infinity examples especially in such effects as depend upon indifferent or free causes.  
But not obstanding this division of the Romanists which, as the reader may easily perceive, being only in accidental points of this controversy betwixt them and the reformers, maketh nothing for Sir Humfreys purpose: yet besides this the testimonies which the knight allegeth out of the same authors are so fare from proving his intent, that there is not one of them which doth not either expressly contain or at the least suppose the truth of the Roman doctrine in the chief point of the controversy of transubstantiation, two especially that is dutand in his Rational, and Cameracensis, speak so plainly in that particular of the conversion of the substance of the bred and wine into the body and blood of our Saviour, that it is to be admired that one of the contrary opinion could possible be either so ignorant as not to perceive them to be against him, or so impudent that perceiving the same, he should venture to produce that which he might easily have perceived it could serve for nothing else but a testimony of his own confusion: especially considering with how small sincerity he hath dealt in using or rather abusing for the advantage of his cause, both the words and sense of some of the foresaid authors, as appeareth particularly in the citation of Bellarmin. page 111. where he affirmeth him to say that it may justly be doubted whether the scriptures do prove the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In which he shamefully belly the Cardinal, for he saith not those words merito dubitari potest cited and Englished by the knight, of the proof of the real presence out of scripture, of which neither he nor Scotus (of whose opinion he there treateth) makes any doubt at all: but he only saith that altho' to him the scripture seems so clear that it may force one that is not obstinate to believe transubstantiation, yet merito dubitari potest, it may with just cause be doubted whether transubstantiation can be proved so expressly by scriptures as they may constrain any man not refractory to believe it: which are fare different matters as any one that is not either very ignorant or very desirous to deceive, may easily understand. 
Secundo dicit Scotus non extare ullum locum scripturae tam Expressum ut sine Eccles. determinatione evidenter cogat transubstantia tiationem admittere: atque id non est omnino improbabile: nam etiam si scriptura quam adduximus videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem non prosteruum: ta: an ita sit merito dubitari potest, can homines doctissimi & acutissimi qualis in primi Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. 3. addit Scotus: quia Ecclesia Cath. in Concilio Generali Scripturam declaravit, ex seriptura sic declarata manifestē probari transsubstantiationem. Bell. lib 3. de Euch. c. 23.   
And in the same fashion, if not worse, doth he abuse Maldonate the jesuit affirming that he confesseth Saint Augustin in the doctrine of transubstantiation to be wholly theirs, citing the foresaid Maldonat's words upon the 6. chapter of Saint john. the 5. verse. For the same; which although they be truly rehearsed by the knight, yet have they no such sense or meaning as he doth either ignorantly or maliciously suppose, nor doth he treat in them either of the real presence or transubstantiation, but only of the exposition of the words of the foresaid verse, Patres vestri manducaverunt Manna & mortui sunt, qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum. Making a question whether in them there be made by Christ a comparison between the several persons that did eat, or between the several kinds of breads which they did eat. And whereas Maldonate citeth Saint Augustine and others to follow that opinion which holds the comparison to be betwixt the eaters, he with other authors who lived since the time of S. Augustin rejecting that as less probable & more near to the exposition of the Caluinists, leaveth it so, and embraceth the contrary: and in this point only, and in this manner doth Maldonate persuade himself that Saint Augustin as a most great enemy to heretics would have been of another mind if he had lived in these our days, and seen his own exposition of the foresaid words come so near the gloss of the Caluinists. And this being all; yet our learned knight is so curious an Alchemist that he will needs draw out of Maldonate by arte, that he confesseth S. Augustin to have been wholly for the reformers in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and (also that which is further fetched) that the Romanists have neither antiquity nor universality in their doctrine. But alas his work hath succeeded so unfortunately that instead of gold he hath extracted dross, I mean that in lieu of one single truth he hath uttered a double lie, falsifying most shamefully Saint Augustine and maldonate both at once, and with in the space of a very few lines.  
And the like Circulatorie and circumventing tricks the knight also useth in the citations of Alfonso de Castro Gregorius de Valentia and Cardinal Cusanus. As if they did testify that there is no antiquity nor universality in the Father's touching the doctrine of transubstantiation, where as in deed they have no such matter, as appeareth even out of the very same words which he citeth in this place: Castro only affirming that there is seldom mention of the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ in antiquis scriptoribus in the ancient writers, not in the ancient Fathers as the knight doth falsely translate. And that which is yet much falser, he translates conversion for transubstantiation; where it is also to be noted that Castro speaks there only of the word transubstantiation not of the thing signified by the word, as is evident by his other words which presently fellow, saying thus. Who but an heretic will dare to deny these things because they are not mentioned in ancient Fathers under such names? So that both Castros words, and sense are grossly corrupted by Sir Humphrey. Valentia only affirmeth that it is not to be marveled, if one or two, or some of the ancients (not Fathers as our adversary yet somat more corrupedtly than before traduceth) before the question of transubstantiotion was throulie debated in the Church, have taught less considerately, and less weigtilie of this matter. In which words the knight also translates palam, throulie for openly, and leaving unmentioned the other ansers which Valentia gives to the testimonies of Gelasius and Theodoret upon whose occasion he speaks in that manner, 
Haec ergo tam multa & tantorum virorum testimonia satis esse debent ut osten damus Luthero transsubtiationem non esse novam nec trecentenariam ut ipse asserit, sed multo vetustiorum nempe ab ipsis Ecclesiae primordijs proditam. Castro li. 6. haer. 5. f. 178.  and yet further omitting the conclusion of the sentence, to wit: maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto questionem; as also other words which follow to the same purpose. Cusanus lastlie saith no more but that certain of the ancient divines (if we may give credit to the knight not here citing his words) are found to be of this mind that the bread in the Sacrament is not transubstantiated in nature but still remaineth, and is clothed with another substance more noble than itself. In which words as you see, whatsoever those innominated men, and as it seems unknown to Cusanus himself, whatsoever I say they did hold touching the truth of transubstantiation, yet certain it is that they were not Caluinists in the point of the real presence as plainly appeareth by that noble substance which they held to cloth the bread after consecration, which doubtless could be nothing else but the most precious and noble body of Christ which the reformers deny to be present in the Sacrament.  
This therefore is all that the cited authors affirm. And to omit that none of them useth the name of Fathers as the knight would have them, translating and transforming the words scriptotes, veteres, and antiqui Theologi, or the like, into Fathers, or at the least citing the foresaid authors as if they spoke planiely of the ancient fathers, which nevertheless their words do not show, I say, to say nothing of this which though it is a trick to deceive the reader, yet it is so poor a one as it cannot much advantage his cause. And to admit that by those forms of speech the foresaid modern authors mean the ancient Fathers: yet doth not this argue want of antiquity or universality of the Fathers in that point, in regard it is not required to the argument of antiquity that all ancient Fathers in all ages none excepted agree in the point for which that kind of argument is used, especially before the matter be sufficiently declared & determined by the Church in case of doubt or opposition of heretics or otherwise: but only it is required and sufficient that the most part of them do consent therein the rest not obstinately contradicting the same, or carrying themselves at least indifferent according to the advice of Vincent lyr. Contra prophanas haeres. novit. saying that, si in ipsa vetusttate discrepantes sententias reperiamus, sequamur sententiam plurium & illustriorum Doctorum. That is, if in antiquity itself we find. different opinions, let us follow the opinion of the more famous Doctors. And this is therefore true because that if such methaphisicall antiquity & universality were necessary for all points of faith, no Church in the world could truly be said to have antiquity and universality in all points of doctrine or to have been always Catholics, it being a thing manifest that not any Church either is, nor was, nor ever will be so ancient and universal as that ail and every one of the ancient Fathers agree ever actually with her in every point, as it is most clear in the ancient Father Saint Cyprian and yet more clear in Tertullian and origen, who by reason of some points of doctrine which either were not in their time sufficiently and expressly determined by the Church, or of which they had, not occasion to treat may seem in some sort to descent from the present Church even in such doctrine as now is known, and believed for matter of faith even by the novelists themselves, as appears in the point of rebaptisation defended by S. Cyprian & his adherents in those times. Which if it were not so, its evident, that the reformers were yet in fare worse case then either the Romanists should be upon that supposition, or then now they are, if in worse they can be imagined to be, who neither have, nor ever can have any kind of universality or antiquity of Fathers either metaphysical or moral on their side. And now this being all in substance, are rather more than those three cited authors affirm, it hence appeareth how small reason Sir Hum. had to cite them in his favour, especially considering that one of them that is Alfonsus a Castro, doth only say that there is seldom mention made of transubstantiation in the Fathers, not denying as it is manifest, their agreement in that point, but rather insinuating their consent therein tho' not so frequently expressed. Furthermore the knigth addeth for the conclusion of this point that many writers, and school men in their own Church are so fare from grant of antiquity & universality to this doctrine, that they profess the tenet of transubstantiation was lately received in the Church for a point of faith. And for this he citeth Scotus as affirming that before the council of Lateran transubstantiation was not believed as a point of faith and that the doctrine of it is not very ancient in the Church. Thus Sir Humphrey.  
Tho which I answer that all tho' Bellarmin affirms that Scotus said transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the council of Lateran yet I find he speaks not so absolutely, but at the most he saith it was not solemnly declared as an article of faith before that Council, not denying but that it minght be also declared in other particular counsels as in deed it was declared by the Roman council under Nicolas the second, above a hundreth & fifty years before, and more expressly in another Roman council under Gregory the seventh: yea and maintained in the Church time out of mind. Nevertheless by way of argument I am content to grant to the adversaries that which Bellarmin affirms of Scotus: 
Et tunc ad tertium, ubi stat vis: dicendum quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo simbolo edito sub In. 3. in Consilio Later. ubi ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam habeantur in simboloo rum vel Atha. vel Nyceni: & breviter quicquid ibi dicitur esse credendum, tenendum est esse de Substantia fidei, & hoc post istam declarationem solemnem factam ab Ecclesia. & Paulo post. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis. Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia declaravit directa in hoc ut creditur spiritu veritatis. Scot 4. d. 11. q. 3 in resp. ad arg.  yet not withstanding this liberal grant, I do affirm with all that our Church wanteth neither antiquity nor universality either in this or any other point of her doctrine, and the reason is because although some points of her faith were not in all ages and times known expressly for articles of faith, yet were they in themselves such indeed and for such believed with an implicit faith at the least, that is with such a faith as all contained in the word of God is believed by all true Catholics as an infallible truth, altho' no one particular were known unto them. For as it is most certain that every faithful Christian which cannot read believeth many things contained in scripture with be knoweth not, in regard that altho' he is ignorant of them in particular, yet in that he believeth all that they include, he also believeth truly even those particular truths which he knoweth not: so also it is certain that every faithful Christian believing universally all that which the word of God contains, hath an universal faith of whatsoever points of doctrine either was, is, or shall be declared for matters of faith by the most universal Church in any difference of time, and consequently he hath as ancient, and universal a faith of those particular points so declared as he hath of those which even both in the Apostles time & in all succeeding ages were expressly known for articles of faith to all the Christian world. And let this suffice to declare that no point of doctrine defined by the most universal Church as matter of faith contained in the word of God, can truly be termed new, but hath as much antiquity and universality as the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, & also that if any novelty it hath, it is only in the declaration of it, & quoad nos; that is in respect of that new or express knowledge which we receive of it by the proposition of the holy Church. Which infallible manner of arriving to a new knowledge of matters of faith, because the sectaries neither have it nor admit it, it necessarily follows that whatsoever doctrine they discover in these later times, must of necessity want both the foresaid properties of antiquity and universality as we have declared, in regard they can not show as much as an implicit perpetually succeeding faith in the articles they have newly broached. Sir Humfrey further more citeth also Hostiensis and Gaufridus out of Durand. in 4. d. 10. q. 1. n. 23. who (as he affirmeth) saith there were others in those days who taught that the substance of bread remains; and that their opinion was not to be rejected, so the knight relateth. But how false and corrupted this relation is I know out of Durand himself for that I find in his 10. d. of the 4. of scent. q. 1. n. 15. that this passage cited by him, is neither Durandes own doctrine, nor yet theirs whom he cities about it, but only related by them, and taken out of them by Durand to frame his objection in the beginning of his question, as he useth to do, which he afterwards solues in plain terms saying in his 25. number. Quod ante inducitur de Glossatoribus Gaufrido & Hostiense super decreta: dicendum quod licet recitent tres opiniones nullam tamen approbant ut veram nisi illam quod corpus Christi sit in altari per transsubstantiationem panis & vim: & si expresse non dicunt aliquam aliam erroneam, non propter hoc non est erronea, non enim sciverunt omnes passus scripturae à quibus discedat opinio supra posita sicut ostensum est prius: And thus the business being well examined, I say no more but that I am sorry the worthy knight should be so unfortunate as to stumble upon the objection in lieu of the doctrine of the author himself. How be it I know it to be a thing so incident to the frailty of other of his religion, that I do not much admire the case.  
The same Durand is also abused by the knight in regard he produces him to prove that the Roman divines are divided in their opinions touching transubstantiation, which nevertheless I have showed by his own words how plainly he maintains it. And that which Bellarmin is here cited to affirm of him lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 13. is not that his opinion is heretical touching the main point of transubstantiation, but only because by a singular opinion he holds that only the form of bread and wine, and not the matter is converted in to the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, which altho' it be false, yet doth not the author therefore make any doubt of transubstantiation itself and so this is an other of Sir Hunfreyes' tricks by which he cousins his reader and iniureth both these divines at once. But put the case Durand were truly cited, yet I say as I said before, that a small number of writers against the whole torrent of the rest cannot hinder the antiquity or universality, either of the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any other point of faith. And if the antiquity and universality of Fathers were to be taken in that rigour which Sir Humphrey will have it, it is manifest that he and his consortes may cast their caps at it for any such they should ever be able to find in their reformed congregations, it being now evident out of the examen and censure of the former sections, that to speak within compass, they have not (I do not say the tenth part in number of the ancient Fathers for the prose of the antiquity and universality of their whole Creed, which the Romanists have for theirs) but not so much as one only author before Luther, which truly cited and understood doth defend their doctrine in all and every particular point.  
And according to this, I answer also to the testimony of B. Tunstall whom the knight citeth as holding the point of transubstantiation to have been a matter of indifferency and not an article of faith within less than five hundreth years. To which I reply first that Sir Humphrey dealeth here according to his accustomed manner that is insyncerelie, first because he produceth this authors testimony as if he had been of opinion that perhaps it had been better to have left the doctrine of Transubstantiation undetermined and free for every one to use his own conjecture, as in his Fancy it was before the Council of Lateran; which is most false for that the Bishop doth only relate that as an opinion of some others which yet he nameth not, his resolution being in that point fare different as his book testifieth in that same place. Secondly he dealeth insincerely in that he taketh hold of that only which maketh for his purpose in some sort but, leaveth out not only that which maketh expressly against him and for the real presence (quaefuit saith Tunstall ab initio Ecclesiae fides, which was the faith of the Church from the beginning) but also he leaveth out the very resolution itself of the author in this same point of transubstantiation, where after the words by the knight cited, he saith expressly he holdeth it just for that the Church is a pillar of truth, that her judgement is to be observed as throughly firm. Adding further that those who contend that, that manner of transubstantiation ought to be rejected (meaning that same which the Roman Church both then taught and now teacheth) because the word is not found in scripture, nimis praefracti iudicij sese esse ostendunt. Quasi vero saith he Christus eo modo illud quod vult efficere non posset, cuius omnipotentiae & spiritus S. operationi in totum detrahere sua assertione videntur. By which plain words of this learned Bishop the reader may plainly see how deceitfully he is dealt with and how much he is abused by the knight. Secondly I answer that how indifferent soever the doctrine of transubstantiation might seem to our adversary to have been before the Council of Latran, nevertelesse both this author and all others truly Catholics both since and before that council, haold it not for a matter indifferent, but for a certain truth and verity as appeareth plainly by that which hath been said already in the declaration and answer to those testimonies which have in this paragraph been produced for the contrary.  
Lastly I answer that there was never such indifferency in the Roman Church concerning the foresaid doctrine of transubstantiation, but that so many authors in all ages followed the affirmative, that the reformed flock shall never be able to show any for the negative, no not one classical author.  
He makes use also of the testimonies of the other. Durand in the fourth of his Rationale chap. 41. of Odo in Can. d. 4. And Christopher de cap. fontium lib. de correct. Theol. Scholast. cap. 11. & alib. who seem to say that Christ did not consecrate with those words, this is my body: but by his benediction. But to these authors I say first that whatsoever they held in this particular, they all agree in that point which is here in controversy betwixt Sir Humphrey and the Romanists, that is they all accord and teach the real presence and transubstantiation, and so they are all impertinently alleged. secondly I say, that these authors dispute in the places cited, only by what words, or action Christ himself did consecrate, and not of the words of Consecration by which the Priests use to consecrate: And altho' they propose a question of this also, yet they agree in that the Priests do consecrate by no other words but those. This is my body. That which in durand, at the least, is most plainly expressed when in his page 166. he saith. Cum ad prolationem verborum istorum, hoc est corpus meum: hic est sanguis meus sacerdos conficiat de consecrat. d. 11. credibile iudicatur, quod & Christus eadem verba dicendo confecit. By which words it is most apparent that durand made no doubt of the determinate words by which Priests do consecrate, nor yet was of opinion that Christ himself did use any other, how be it he relates an opinion of some others which think that Christ did not consecrate with those same words, but he saith in the opinion rather of others than himself) that virtute divina nobis occulta confecit, that he did it by divine virtue or power himself, and afterwards expressed the form sub qua posteri benedicunt, by which the succeeding Priests do bless or consecrate. Now Sir Humphrey in his citation of this author lief out the latter part of his text which doth plainly declare his mind to wit the words, scilicet hoc est corpus meum, which durand includes in the benediction or consecration of Christ, chimericallie joining to some of the authors former words, others which belong to another opinion related by durand, which holds that Christ repeated the words twice first to give them power and virtue of confection or consecration, and afterwards to teach the Apostles the form of consecration, by which the reader may easily perceive that the knight instead of making durand his own, he both lost him & his own reputation by either most ignorant or malicious perverting of that Catholic authors words, and sense.  
The like to which proceeding he useth also in the testimony of Odo whom he cities to prove that Christ's body is made in the Sacrament by his benediction, and not by the words: this is my body. For he neither sincerely relates, nor truly construes them. And first whereas that author by may of exposition of that word, benedixit, saith benedixit, corpus suum fecit, meaning that Christ blessed the bread, that is to say made it is body, Sir Humphrey doth English the words both with a false interpretation of them and a false separation so: 
Math. 26.  and then made that his body, adding the word then of his own stamp. secondly he makes a false construction of Odos' words in that whereas Odo understands by benediction consecration, as diverse other divines do, and as it manifestly appears by his own words uttered presently after, to wit those which Sir Humphrey cities, saying, virtute sermonis Christi factum est corpus & sanguis Christi: that is, by virtue of Christ's speech the body & blood of Christ are made: the ignorant knight imagined that because he affirmed before that Christ by benediction made his body, therefore he made it without those words this is my body: which nevertheless are the very words of benediction or consecration which Christ himself used. True it is Odo speaks some thing intricatelie and obscurely by reason of his brevity, yet those plain words which follow in the same place and matter, videlicet virtute sermonis Christi fiunt corpus & sanguis Christi, do sufficiently explain the authors mind, and serve for a clear exposition of the rest, as the judicious reader of his whole text, will easily perceive.  
Concerning the citation of Christopher De capite fontium I suspect there is some legerdemain used in it: because it seems not to me a thing credible that any man of learning, and judgement as he is held to be, should be so fare out of temper as peremptorilic to conclude for an infallible truth to which scriptures, Counsels and all antiquitite yield an undeniable testimony and consent that the words, this is my body, are not the words of consecration, how be it the might say with the opinion of some others that those are not the words by which Christ himself consecrated, which point as it is not yet declared by the Church as a matter of faith, so neither is it pertinent to the matter we here treat, if so it were: as being no denial of transubstantiation, which only is here in question and not the words of consecration. and consequently if that author (whom I could not have whereby to examen the truth) if I say he speaks in that sense only, than his testimony was cited in vain. As also I may not rashly avouch that, especially if he means in the other sense, and as according to their rehearsal of our adversary, the words do sound. That surely he had tasted of a wrong fountain when he spoke in such an exorbitant manner, if so he ever spoke.  
I have exactly examined Card. Aliaco, and find he speaks in those words cited by Sir Humfrey, only of the possibility of the coexistence or presence of the substance of the bread & the body of Christ under the same accidents, which possibility he affirms neither to repugn to reason nor to the bible, no more than that two quantities or qualities may possibly stand together under one matter videlicet de potentia absoluta, that is by the absolute power of God: which is true in regard that no text of scripture can be found to such contrary possibility, nor implication of contradiction in reason. But all this how true soever it is, yet is it out of the purpose and state of our question, which is not about the possibility, but about the fact of transubstantiation, in which point the resolution of this author is plainly for us saying that altho' it doth not evidently follow of the scripture that the substance of the bread doth absolutely cease to be, nor yet, as it seems to me, of the determination of the Church, nevertheless because, saith he, it doth more favore the determination of the Church and the common opinion of the holy Fathers and Doctors, therefore I hold it. And this same is that which the Council of Trent declares: to which doctrine if Sir Humfrey would consent as fare as Aliaco, this disputation were at an end, for that here is nothingels required either of him or any other of his profession but that they obey the authority of the Church in her definition. 
Ses. 15 c. 4 Secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstantiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transubstantiationis. Alic. in 4. q. 6. art. 2.   
In his 111. page the knight proceeds most sophistically in this same matter, where, upon a false if, or conditionally false supposition that neither according to the doctrine of S. Thomas, the Roman catechism, and the Masse-Preists, as he pleaseth to term them, the consecrated bread is transubstantiated by Christ's benediction before those words, this is my body, be uttered, nor by the same words uttered after benediction, as saith he, the Archbishop of Cefarea and others do affirm; he presently thence infers that absolutely there are no words at all in the scripture to prove transubstantiation for an article of faith: which collection of his nevertheless is no other than to deduce for conclusion of his discourse an absolute proposition from a conditional and this also grounded upon a mere equivocation: for admit it is true that the foresaid authors do not agree whether determinately transubstantiation be made by the benediction, or by the words of consecration, yet they all accord most constantly and conformably in this, that by one of the two, to wit either by benediction or consecration, or at the least by both the one and the other, the transubstantiation is undoubtedly effected, and consequently they agree unanimouslie against the position of Sir Humphrey, affirming that there be no words of scripture to prove the same. And the truth is that Sir Humfreys captious ratiocination proves no more than if two should argue, the one that the colour of the sea water is green and the other blewe, & that some ignorant Coxcomb should step in and tell them that it follows on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all. Which who so ever should presume to do he deserved to be soundly hist at for his audacious folly, & so doth Sir Humphrey.  
And as for Biell whom the knight cities saying, it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament, he hath indeed those words which are quoted by him, tho' not in his 49. as he puts it, but in his 40. lection upon the Canon: but yet this his saying is not contrary to the Romanists who easily admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christ's body in the Eucharist, is neither expressedly declared in the Scripture, nor yet in all ages, and by all authors expressedly taught in the Church as matter of faith: nevertheless this author himself in the same place adds in plain words, that now that opinion which defends transubstantiation is received by all Catholics, yielding for a reason of the same, because (saith he) we ought to hold of the Sacraments as the holy Roman Church doth hold. And afterwards he adds. Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holy Fathers we ought to believe that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament by conversion of the bread into it, we are to fee etc.  
And the like I say of Scotus, & Yribarne his Scholar, who altho' they seem to diminish the antiquity of transubstantiation, yet their meaning only is that it was not in ancient times declaredlie proposed by Public authority of the Church as an article of faith: yet both of them expressly believing and defending the same professedly as a matter of faith. And by occasion of this, I desire the reader to take notice that whensoever he finds any Catholic authors to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time, their meaning is not that the object in itself was no matter of faith in any one time since it was first reveiled by God, either expressly in itself or as included in some other verity, but only that it was not expressly and generally known, and believed for such by all faithful people, by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publicly unto them by the Church in any General Council. For that as much as concerns the doctrine in itself, it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church than it was even before it was so defined, as may appear in the consubstantiality of the eternal son with his eternal Father, in the unity of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like: which in themselves were reveiled verities and matter of faith ever since the new Testament and the law of Christ was published to the world, not obstanding they were not declaredlie and universally known for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene, Ephesin, & Chalcedon Counsels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian, Nestorian & Euthycian heretics. And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this brief observation may suffice to satisfy any indifferent mind.  
Now as I said of Scotus and Yribarne, the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez, in his comment. upon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it upon the first art. Of the 15. quest. he saith transubstantiation, which there he calls conversion, is not in the Euangell expressly, conversio non habetur explicitein Euangelio: and before he saith: we expressly received from the Church that which the Gospel did not explicate. Yet afterwards, the same author expressly teaches and inculcates that those words: this is my body: cause both the real presence and transubstantiation. For thus & adds. Et perhoc, verbae Christi: hoc est corpus meum: quia efficiunt utramque novitatem scrilicet conversionis & continentiae &c. That is. And by this, because the words of Christ: this is my body: do effect both novelties videlicet of the conversion, and the containing. By which words it is manifest what this authors meaning was absolutely touching the real presence, & transubstantiation; howsoever he spoke of the manner in which it is contained in scripture, which is not our question.  
And in this sense speaks Aliaco when he saith, in the place cited by our adversary, that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remain still a possible neither it is contrary to reason, nor to the authority of the scriptures etc. For he meaneth only it is not repugnant to any such express scripture as doth convince the transsubstantiatton plainly to every one, without the authority and declaration of the Church and therefore he addeth: if it could stand with the determination of the Church: in which Aliaco shows such obedience to the Church as Sir Humphrey and his fellows obstinately deny unto her, most piously captivating his understanding even in that which he held more easy, and conformable to reason, and scripture, according to humane intelligence and discourse.  
More ever touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl. cap. 10. His intent in that place, was only to prove that merely by the bare words of scripture without the traditionary interpretation of the Fathers, no certainty can be had in questions of controversy, or matters of faith. And to prove this (which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humphrey and the rest of our novelists) he argueth exhiposthesi, or upon supposition, saying that not obstanding it is true and certain that our Saviour by virtue of those words: this is my body: did make his own body really present in the Sacrament: yet if one were obstinate, standing precisely to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers, and sense of the Church, he might deny, that it doth thence follow that in our Mass, priests make really present the body of Christ. Not meaning to affirm that they do not in deed (for that the rest of his book doth demonstrate him to believe the real presence in Mass especially the fourth chapter) but only intending to declare by examples and reasons, that it can not be convinced that Catholic priests do so, by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctors of the Church, and her infallible authority. And now this being the true sense of B. Fisher's discourse: Sir Humphrey very coningly, by leaving out the precedent, and subsequent words of the author, so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the real presence of the body, and blood of Christ, can be proved by any scripture to be made in the Mass. And that, this is the true meaning of this author both the title of his chapter out of which our adversary taketh the words he cities, which is this. Of the interpretation of scripture by Fathers. And the whole tenor of his discourse, do sufficiently declare, so that if the matter comes to scanning, the fraud will easily appear with shame enough to this our professed adversary of truth. who not content with this, hath also like a cheating gramster to mend his ill game, dropped a card, I mean the word nostra which he hath left out in his translation: but this but a poor trick, and so let it pass. And perhaps it was only the negligence of the printer. But for the readers better instruction I will punctually rehearse the author's words concerning his true meaning, as well those which Sir Humphrey hath omitted for his own advantage, as the rest. Thus he saith. Doceamus quod citra Patrum interpretationem & usum ab eisdem nobis traditum, nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis Euangelij verhis sacerdotum quempiam his temporibus verum Christi Corpus, & Sanguinem consecrare, non quod res haec ambigua fit, sed quod eius certitudo non tam haheatur ex Euangelij verbis quam ex Patrum interpretatione, & usu tanti temporis quem illi posteris reliquerunt. That is let us teach that without the interpretation of the Fathers, and the practice by them delivered unto us, noman can prove by the bare words of the Gospel themselves, that any man in these our times doth consecrate the true body and blood of Christ, not because this thing is doubtful, but because the certainty of it can not be had so much by the words of the Euangell, as by the interpretation of Fathers, and the practice of so long time, which they left to posterity. By which words it is void of all doubt and tergiversation, that the author of them never made question but that true Catholic priests, as he himself was, truly consecrate, and make present the very body, and blood of Christ, the contrary of which our adversary pretends to prove: only intending by this pasage and others to declare against his adversary Martin Luther, that scriptures alone without the exposition of the Fathers and practice of the Church, are not sufficient to convince the truth expecially when the words are obscure and subiet to diverse senses. And therefore in his page 172. giving the reason of this, he saith. Hoc idcirco dixerim ne quis ipsis Euangelij verbis pertinacius adhaereat spreta patrum interpretatione quemadmodum Lutherus fecit, usum, & interpretationem a patribus traditam nihili pendens, & nuditati verborum infistens, quae non sufficiunt ad id quod velint convincendum. Therefore (quoth B. Fistier) I said these thinhs lest any one should over obstinately adhere to the words of the Gospel themselves, as Luther did not esteeming the use, and interpretation delivered by the Fathers, and insisting in the nakedness of the words, which are not sufficient to convince that which they desire. And in the ensuing page he concludeth in this manner. Therefore that is manifest which afore we promised to sbow, to wit that long continuing custom, and concording exposition of Fathers none dissenting, doth yield more solid certainty how any obscure place of the Gospel must be understood, than the bare words; which may be varioufly detorted by contentious people at their pleasure. By all which words it is more than certain and manifest that this author never intended to show that the real presence of the body and blood of Christ can not be proved by any scripture to be made in the Mass, as our false adversary doth endevore to persuade his reader: for he only affirms that this can not be convinced by the bare text of scripture without the exposition of Fathers, if any contensious person should obstinately deny it, as his words above cited, evidently declare.  
And as for those words which Sir Humphrey quotest in his margin which in English are these. Neither is there any word put there by which the very presence of the flesh, and blood of Christ may be proved in our Mass: I say that he dealeth not honestly in the recital of them in regard he omittes the next words following, not obstanding they belong to te integrity of the same discourse, and also are a plain explication of the former as the reader of the whole discourse may more clearly understand, the words being these. For altho' (saith he) Christ made his flesh of the bread, and his blood of the wine, it doth not therefore follow by virtue of any word here set down, that we as often as we attempt the same, do effect it. In which as the reader may plainly perceive, the author absolutely affirmeth not that Priests do not effect that which Christ effected concerning the real presence of his body and blood in the Eucharist, but only saith there (that is among the words of the institution of the Sacrament as they are related, by S. Math. and in which those words: do this in remembrance of me, are not contained) there is not any word by virtue of which the same can be concluded of Priests which is there affirmed of Christ our Saviour: yet not denying, but expressly averring that by other words of the scripture, and particularly by those words rehearsed by S. Luke, and S. Paul: do this in remembrance of me: interpreted according to the exposition, and practise of the ancient Fathers, the making of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament is firmly proved, and established. And hence it is that after he had uttered those words which Sir Humfrey also citeth, tho' not entirely; to wit non potest igitur probari, per ullam scripturam, it can not therefore be proved by any scripture that either lay man or Priest, as often at he shall make trial of the business, shall in like manner make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine, as he himself did, since that, neither this is contained in the scripture: immetiatelie after this I say, he subionines for conclusion of his discourse, this ensuing clause. By these things I think no man will be ignorant, that the certainty of this matter (the faith of consecration, as the note in his margin doth declare) doth not so much depend upon the Gospel, as upon the use, and custom, which for the space of so many ages is commended unto us by the first Fathers themselves. For it seemed to them, the holy Ghost teaching, so to interpret this part of the Euangell, and judged it was so to be used in their times: that whosoever now would introduce, either an other sense, or an other use, he should utterly resist the holy Ghost, by whose instinct, the former Fathers did deliver this rite, and ceremony, in the consecration of the Eucharist. Thus plainly doth Bishop Fisher explicate his own meaning in that which he had before delivered somat more obscurely; so that now I doubt not but this will be sufficient to make the reader capable of the authors true sense, in which I was forced to enlarge myself more than the substance of the matter required, the more plainly to discover unto him the fraud of the adverfarie both in detorting the sense, and mangling the tenor, or continuation of the text of this most Catholic, and renowned Prelate.  
Moreover Sir Humfrey allegeth S. Thomas in 3. par. q. 75. ar. 7. as also the Roman Cathecisme at random. as affirming that the substance of the bread remains till the last word of the consecration be uttered. But this is nothing to the present purpose in respect that how long sooner the substance of the bread remains, if at length it ceaseth as they both confess, they both agree with us Romanists and not with the novelists, in the faith of transubstantiation so professedly, that it was more than ordinary impudency, and madness once to mentione them for the contrary.  
Now for conclusion of the second paragraph of his 9 section, Sir Humphrey affirms in his 115. p. out of Bell: and suavez, that many writers in our Roman Church profess the tenet of transsubstantiatien was lately received for a point of faith. Which affirmation nevertheless is not justifiable, but false, and calumnious to the authors he citeth for it, videlicet Scotus, Durand, Tunstal, Ostiensis, and Gaufridus. Which being all the Romanists he either did or could produce (supposing Erasmus whom he likewise allegeth, is no Romanist in much of his doctrine, in what faith soever he ended his life, of which, I am not able to judge) yet none of these Romanists I say ever affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation to be no point of faith, as I have above sufficiently declared in my answer to every one of their testimonies in particular.  
And touching Bellarmin and suarez the one being alleged by our adversary as affirming Scotus to have said, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, was not dogmafidei, a decree of faith before the Council of Lateran: the other as advising to have him, and those other schoolmen corrected, who teach that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not very ancient. I profess I have diligently read Scotus in this matter, and I finde he only saith, that what soever is averred to be believed in the Council of the Lateran capite firmiter, is to beheld de substantia fidei as of the substance of faith after that solemn declaration: yet he in no place hath this negative: transubstantiation was not a point of faith before that Council, not obstanding our adversary's allegation to the contrary out of the Cardinal, who, if he conceived right of his whole discourse, could not judge Scotus to have absolutely denied transubstantiation to have been a point of faith in itself, as Sir Humphrey will have it: but at the most quoad nos, or in respect of our express and public faith of the same. For that some of Scotus his own words plainly import that transubstantiation is included in the institution of the Eucharist, how be it, it was not explicitly or expressly declared for such in all ages, before the solemn declaration, as he termeth it, made in the General Council of Lateran.  
The words of Scotus to this sense and purpose are these. 
Scot d. 11. q. 3. ad ar.  Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis. Et secundum intellectum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicavit, directa in hoc ut creditur spiritu veritatis. That is. For it was not in the power of the Church to make this (the point of transubstantiation) true, or not true, but of God the institutor: And according to the understanding delivered by God, the Church did explicate it, directed, as it is believed, by the spirit of truth. By which ratiocination or discourse, of Scotus, it is most clear and apparent that the point of transubstantiation was in itself a matter of faith ever since the Sacrament was instituted by Christ, in regard that it being now a point of faith, it must of necessity in substance have been ordained for such by God himself, for that it is not in the power of the Church to make, but only to declare, and propose to believers, the articles of Religion, And according to this, I say, that suarez (saving the due respect I own unto them both) had yet less reason than Bellarmin had concerning Scotus: to tax the same Scotus and some other divines, as if they had taught that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not very ancient. For neither Scotus as his words which I have related do testify, nor any other approved divine of the Roman Church, do use any such manner of speech, or at the least have no such sense in their words, as even by all those their several passages which our adversary could allege, doth manifestly appear. How be it some of them have not omitted to say, that the word transubstantiation hath not been anciently used in the Church, but either invented by the Fathers of the Lateran Council, or not long before: or at the most, that there have been some in the world of a contrary opinion to the truth of transubstantiation in itself: which altho' we Romanists should grant to be true; yet doth it not argue any novelty in the doctrine, but rather the novellitie of some few extravagant wits, as heretics or corrigible Catholics, in opposing the same, which otherwise was generally maintained by the rest of the Orthodox divines in all succeeding ages: the antiquity of which doctrine, even those same authorities which the same Scotus himself professeth to be produced by him out of S. Ambrose, 
Scot d. 11. quest. 3. §. quamt. ergo.  to the number of 11. do evidently convince, yet further adding that many others are alleged cap. de consecrat. and by the master in his 10. and 11. distinction. Wherefore in my opinion both Bellarmin and suarez might much better have spared to pass their censures in that manner upon any Catholic divines supposing such reprehensions serve for little or no other use, then to afford our adversaries the novelists new occasion and matter of contention without either necessity or conveniency, of which the present fact of Sir Humphrey lined even in this place, doth already yielded us some experience.  
In the last place the knight citeth for his tenet Erasmus but he might have saved the labour for that the Romanists hold him absolutely for none of theirs (as in like manner neither do they acknowledge wicklif and the waldensians which nevertelesse he was not ashamed to produce for his tenet though only by way of omission) howbeit in this particular Erasmus only affirmeth that it was late before the Church defined it, which is not contrary to the certainty of the doctrine in itself, but only a superficial relation of the time when it was declared expressly for a matter of faith or infallible truth in that nature.  
And now of this and the rest of the testimonies which have been discussed in this paragraph which if it had not been for the satisfaction of the common people which may easily be deluded by them I would never have prosecuted so largely, as containing noething worthy of a scholars labour: it may I say be easily collected and perceived how fond he concludeth his whole discourse as if he had made it appear that the reformed faith touching the spiritual and sacramental participation of Christ's body, had been generally believed and taugh both in the former and later ages, and as if the doctrine of transubstantiation had no unity among the Romish authors, nor universality among the ancient Fathers, nor certainty in the scriptures. This I say is a most impudent vaunt of the bragadocho knight, for that it hath been already made manifest by the same testimonies which he produceth against the Roman doctrine, that not only the antiquity and universality of the same in those two points stands firm and sound, but that there is no antiquity or universality at all to be found in the doctrine of the reformed Churhes in those particulars: to say nothing of other points of their deformed faith, and so this shall suffice for the censure of this paragraph which as it is larger in words then the former so deserveth it a larger sentence of condemnation as containing noething more but a greater multitude of divers sorts of ill proceeding.  
The third paragraph is of private Mass in which for the honour as I suppose which he beareth towards the mother Church he placeth her definition in the first rank, and then afterwards the article of his own Church. The decree of the council of Trent. ses. 22. can. 8. is this. If am shall say that Masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are unlawful and therefore aught to be abrogared, let him be accursed, but the article of the reformed Church will not have it so, but protesteth that private Masses that is the receiving of the Eucharist by the Priest alone with out a competent number of communicants is contrary to te institution of Christ and the practice of the primative Church. Thus the knight setteth down the matter of disputation, thus he placeth the two armies in battle array with their contrary colours one confronting the other.  
And this special difference I note in them, that the one army consists of milites veterani that is of old Roman soldiers gathered out of the whole Roman Empire and Christian world, the other of fresh men fetched from a corner of the world that is from Ireland. Lo here the armies set in order, now let us see who carries away the victory. You may perceive by Sir Humfreys relation that the Council speaketh with authority, it intimateth those aged Synods of the primative Church, it doth so fulminate that it maketh the reformed brothers tremble to here it. Nay it seems it so daunteth the valiant knight that he found no other refuge then to fly to Ireland for an article of his faith. A man would rather have expected that to confront the Council of Trent and it definition, Sir Humphrey would have had recourse to the Council of Gapp. or of Dort, or to some consistory assembly of Geneva, or to an Act of an English parliament. But alas the poor Cavalier found so small hope of assistance in these, that he was constrained to sail to Ireland for an Irish article as he himself doth term it. True it is the Irish article directly opposeth the definition of the Council, but by what authority I know not, yet certain it is that in the Council of Trent there were assembled by themselves or their legates, or at the least convented, all the Princes both of the old and new Religion, and Prelates of the Christian world, as the Bull of indiction, and the oration had in the last session most plainly testify. And so the authority of this Synod even in common sense must needs be very great: but the authority of the articles which our knight opposeth to the Council, what authority they had, is yet unknown: neither could they possible have any authority of great moment, for that they were gathered only out of a very small corner of the Christian world, and fare inferior in virtue, learning, and other natural parts to the most great, grave and venerable number of the members of the foresaid Synod. Wherefore let the indifferent reader judge whether of these two armies is to be followed. The authors of the article protest that private Mass is contrary to the institution of Christ and the practice of the Church, and hence the knight inferreth that it is unlawful and therefore to be abrogated: and farther that the Council of Trent by cursing those who hold that masses in which the Priest alone doth communicate are unlawful and aught to be abrogated, doth curse Christ that ordained it and God that commanded us to observe it. Hear you see the knight talketh with as great authority as if he were the greatest graduate, either in Oxford or Cambridge, nevertheless he must give him leave who is no graduate to let him know that he faileth mightily in his collection, yet not so much in the gradation itself as in the premises, which being either false or at the least aequivocal, the conclusion must of necessity be faulty. That which deceived him is his Irish article of faith in that it affirmeth the receiving of the Eucharist without a competent number of comunicants, is contrary to the institution of Christ. For though it is true that when Christ instituted the Sacrament, he did actually communicate those that were present, yet it is not true that he included in the institution of it that just so in all occasions it should be practised, neither gave he any negative precept therein in that respect, but only an affirmative which according to it nature, not always but only according to time, place, and persons, obledgeth. So that the distribution is neither any essential part of the Sacrament, nor yet any necessary property of it to be in all occasions exercised, but rather appertaineth only to the due administration of it according to the foresaid circumstances: and herein consists the aequivocation of the first article.  
Now touching the second part which affirmeth that the receiving of the Priests alone is contrary to the practice of the primative church, is also equivocal, for if it means that the primative Church did in all circumstances of time, place, and persons, practice the same either by virtue of Christ's institution or command, so it is false as we have already showed: but if it means only that indeed so it was practised in the primative Church either always, or for the most part, yet not as a thing alsolutely necessary either by virtue of Christ's institution or precept, so we cannot deny but that it is true which the second part of the article affirmeth, but then this being a matter in this sense either of indifferency or at the most of greater merit and perfection, it might lawfully be altered by an introduction of the contrary custom or practice of the Church, especially the communicating or not communicating of the auditors of every Mass being a thing wholly depending upon the devotion of the people themselves. Which devotion although the Church could have desired it had continued in the same fervour in which it was in those primitive times, nevertheless there was no reason why either she should obledge the people to the same, or yet that the Priest for want of devotion in the people, should omit his own, and cease to exercise so high and profitable a function to the members of the whole Church as is the public liturgy and common prayer of the same. And truly this is a matter so conformable to reason and piety that if it were not that our adversaries are quite possessed with a spirit of contradiction they would never contend so much about it as they do, Especially supposing that of all points of controversy between them and us that is of the least moment, and a thing for which they have the smallest reason to strive as well because they themselves reject all sorts of Masses as vain and superstitious whether they be private or public, with communion of the people or without: as also because even they themselves after their new manner celebrate their own liturgy as they call it, oftentimes yea most ordinarily not only without the comunion of the people, but even with out the comunion of either Priest or clerk, as is evident by the most common practice of all the reformed Churches, which only with a dry fothering pass the greater part of the sundays of the whole year. And yet these same Zealous brothers are so Cross in their proceeding that they are not ashamed to reprehend in us the same which they themselues ordinarily practise in a much worse manner. In regard of which preposterous dealing of theirs in my opinion we may not unaptly apply unto them the saying of a certain ingenious Protestant in his description of a Puritan, to wit that they are become so cross in their teaching, that he thinks verily, that if the Roman Church should enjoin the putting on of clean shirts every sunday, rather than obey her precept, they would go lousy. 
Ouerb. Carat.   
But besides this Sir Humphrey for the proof of his Irish faith allegeth scripture out of S. Matth. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. but the words he citeth do not argue Christ's institution in both kinds in respect of all sorts of people, 
Accepit Iesus panem benedixit dedit discipulis suis, & dixit accipite & manducate.  but only his action, manner of administration, not his ordination. we know, as well as the reformers Christ did communicate his body and blood to all his disciples there present at the institution of the Sacrament, even to the traitor judas as many divines do hold, but we know with all he did not ordain it so to be administered in all occasions. Neither do we find one word of command in the whole bible by virtue of which the Priests are enjoined to celebrate this mystery always just in the same manner that Christ did: And otherwise if we should be so tied to every circumstance which Christ himself used and particularie to give the communion to all that are present, we should be bound to give it to those also which we know are unprepared for it, nay even to excommunicated persons and to such traitors as judas. That which nevertheless I persuade myself the most pure precisian of them all will scarcely do, though otherwise I hold them not for very scrupulous in that nature so they know the receivers to be members of their congregation. And touching the foresaid citation out of the Evangelists, it is to be noted that because Sir Hum. will not have his reader hear of the consecration of the Sacrament which the reformers never use, in their Churches, therefore he left out the words, and he blessed it, putting only the words of thankes giving, whereas yet the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both blessing and giving thankes, & therefore when our Saviour multiplied miraculously the fishes Luc. 9 the Evangelist saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he blessed them.  
The knight also citeth a place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. But the Apostle indeed reprehendeth there the fault of the richer Corinthians in that they did exclude or at the least not expect the poorer sort to eat the usual supper with them, when they met to gether to receive the blessed Sacrament, but giveth no precept to them that all that are present should every time they did meet in the Church actually receive the communion, with the Priest: or that the Priest ougth not in any case to celebrate without a competent number of communicants, which is our question in this place: but at the most S. Paul there ordains that when the people comes together to eat either the usual and common supper, or the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, they uncharitably exclude not or prevent one an other, but expect, and do it with order and sobriety, and like brethren together, without schism or separation: and as Christ himself did who imparted his supper most lovingly to his disciples there present without exception of persons: to which altho' I admit the same S. Paul in part alludes in his first verse of this chapter; saying: be you followers of me as I also of Christ, yet not in that sense as if he had persuaded the Corinthians that our Saviour commanded that the Eucharist should never be celebrated by the Priest alone with our receivers, as our adversary foundlie infers for proof of the article he opposeth to the Council of Trent. Neither is the doctrine of that article in any sort favoured by S. Augustin in his 118. Epistle cited by Sir Humphrey: he only there affirming at the most that the Apostle speaketh of the Eucharist, when he saith those words: Propter quod fratres cum convenitis ad manducandum invicem expectate. etc. That is in English: Therefore my brethren, when you come to eat, expect one an other etc. Which words either of S. Augustin, or those of the Apostle, are not contrary to the celebration of private Masses except it be in the imagination of the Novellists, as I have sufficiently above declared: To omit that the greater part of divines both ancient & modern, expound not those words of S. Paul rather of the Eucharist but of the common supper, the truth of which exposition the text itself, in my judgement, doth plainly convince. Yet not to stand upon this it is sufficient for the defence of the doctrine of the Council of Trent, in this particular and confutation of the contrary position, that neither in the cited place of S. Paul, nor in any other place of scripture, private communion, or receiving of the Priest alone without other company, is affirmed to be repugnant to Christ's institution: nor condemned as unlawful either by Saint Augustin or any other Orthodox writer.  
But yet I must further advertise the reader that I perceive Sir Humphrey hath not dealt so faithfully as he ought to have, in his recital of S. Paul's words, putting in by parenthesis and in the same letter those (to eat the lords supper) which words nevertheless S. Paul hath not, at the least in that place, and then omitting the first words of the next verse he connecteth them with the latter part of the same verse, to wit: that you come not together to judgement. Procuring by this fraud to persuade his reader that those words contain the penalty due to those who communicate not with the Priest and the rest of the people which directly they do not, but rather the punishment amenaced by the Apostle to such as by excluding uncharitably their fellows from participation of the oblations, or common supper then used in the Church, and by other abuses and sins mentioned in this Epistle, indignelie receive the body, & blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  
And yet not to stand upon these particular circumstances, certain, it is that none of them could yield any warrant at all for Sir Humphrey to alter the tenor of the Apostles words either by addition, or transposition of them.  
Sir Humphrey addeth also that Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth the Eucharist the communion. But he might have saved labour in citing scripture, the commonly received phrase both by us and them being sufficient to prove that. And yet he might much better have spared the interpretation of the word it self for whether his etymology be true or false, which I will not stand to examen, certain it is that no judicious man can thence infer that all the people present at Mass must of necessity communicate, but it only followeth that when they actually receive the Sacrament, they receive the Communion as a common union not only of Priest & people but also and ceefly of the people among themselves, according to the words of the same Apostle in his next chapter and 33. verse cum convenitis, when you come together to eat expect one-another etc.  
And much like as he did proceed in the former place of S. Paul, so doth he in this: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Where for, communication he puts communion. And yet the scope and sense of the Apostle in this place is not of the communion of Priest and people, nor prescribes he any rule in that nature, but only reprehends those who voluntarily and without ignorance eat idolothytes or meats sacrifyced to Idols, saying that as those who receive the body and blood of Christ communicate or are joined in society with him: so they who of knowledge eat things offered to Idols are made companions of the devil. And therefore the same Apostle in the latter part of his 20. verse saith thus. And I will not have you become fellows to devils. And presently in the next verse he adds: You can not drink the chalis of our Lord, and the chalis of devils. So that the whole tenor of the chapter afordeth not a word or letter for Sir Humfrey's purpose. Wherefore let him examen his conscience diligently, and he will easily find that neither the one place nor the other prove any thing else in this matter then his own dishonest dealing, and his abuse of the sacred text of scripture. Especially considering that in the first place, the Apostle reprehends not the Corinthians so much because they did not communicate together, but chiefly because the rich did unchristian exclude the poor. Which case as the reader may easily perceive, hath no place in the Masses of the Roman Church, where none are excluded but rather expressly exhorted unto the communion, as the very same decree of the Tridentine Council which our adversary him produces, doth sufficiently declare in these words. Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus etc. The Sacrosaint Synod could wish that the faithful people which assist at every mass would communicate with the Priest, not only spiritually, but also by Sacramental reception. Thus the Council. Which words alone doubtless were sufficient not only to justify the practice of the present Roman Church in this particular, but also to satisfy the adverse part, if their importunity were not so exobbitant, that they will rather suffer poor Christians to pass out of the world without that divine viaticum ordained by God for the comfort of their souls, & defence against their enemies in that dangerous trance, then suffer them to receive it without a competent number as they term it: which impious order of theirs may be seen in their book of common prayer title of the communion of the sick: not obstanding our Saviour's most strict, and general charge affirming that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we cannot have life in us. But certain it is that in this as is in other matters the pretensive reformers may ritelie be compared to the Pharisees, exolantes culicem, camelum autem glucientes I who strain a gnat, and swallow a camel, in that they stand so peremptorily upon the communion of the people with the Priest in all occasions which is but a circumstance of the precept: and yet make no scruple of violating the precept itself even in time of it greatest necessity and obligation. But this I speak only upon supposition their communion were sound and according to Christ's instition, for taking it as it is, the want of it is no loss to the not receivers of it: and so I leave them to the general liberty they usurp as well in this as in other matters of Religion, and ancient practice of the Church.  
Furthermore the knight citeth the council of Nants, to prove his tenet, but most ridiculously. For that there is not a word touching the communion in all that text which he citeth. 
Definivit. Sanctum Concilium ut nullus presbyter praesumat solus missam cantare. Cassander. p. 83.  And the truth is the council only reprehendeth the saying of Mass with out a clerk, or Minister as it seems some cloisters of monks did accustom to do in those times, so you see this is quite out of the purpose, as is also another citation out of Innocent the third libr. 2. c. 24. 
Illos igitur (Angelos) quos habemus in oratione participes habemus in glorificatione consortes. Innoc. lib. 2. 24. fine.  he only saying that it is piously to be believed that the Angels of God do assist at Mass accompanying those that pray. Not speaking a word good or bad of the communion of the people in that place.  
Lastlie Sir Humphrey allegeth the testimonies of divers Romanists which he calleth the confession of his adversaries, that private Mass was altogether unknown to the primative Church. But I answer that when the knight cited those authors he ought to have remembered what he was to prove according to the Irish article which he undertaketh to defend and according to his own position viz. That private Mass is contrary to Christ's institution, and unlawful, and to be abrogated. This than he ought to have proved if he meant to prove any thing against the Roman doctrine. But in steed of this which he will never be able to prove, he proveth at the most by the foresaid testimonies, only that which the Romanists, do not deny, to wit that the primative Church did practise the administration of the Eucharist to those that were present, but he proveth not that either that Church did so in all occasions, nor that she held it necessary by virtue of any law, or institution of Christ, and so he laboureth in vain as well in this as he hath done in other proofs often times before. Neither is this present point of Controversy between us and the reformers about the ancient custom of the primative Church concerning the communion of the people present at the Liturgy, but whether it is contrary to Christ's institution or command to celebrate private masses? the affirmative of which question excepting Cassander (whom I have already advertised the reader to be no Romanist) nay nor yet Cassander himself nor any one of the cited testimonies doth prove. Nay there is not one word in any of the places cited touching any such doctrine or precept of the Primative Church but only mention is made of the fact of ancient Christians in that particular, with an addition of their own verdict as holding it for more profitable to the receivers to communicate at every Mass, if their devotion were so much extended as in those more fervorous times of the primative spirit it appears to have been. And although not only all or most of the authors rehearsed, but also the Council of Trent itself doth hold the foresaid practice of the ancient Church to be more fruitful for the Laiety than the custom of more modern ages: yet doth Sir Humphrey most absurdelie hence infer either the novelty of the Roman doctrine, or the antiquity of his own. For that as we have showed already neither in any of the cited authors nor in the Council of Trent itself, as their words do witness, is there any mention of doctrine or precept of the Primative Church but only of her fact and practice, from whence also may most easily appear the great impertinency of a further illation which the knight doth make concluding the greater fruitfulness of his own communion then of ours, whereas indeed his being no true communion at all, as not containing that which according to the institution of Christ ought truly and really to be in it, and so communicated truly and really to the people, and not by figure and faith only, I mean the body and blood of Christ, certain it is that no such inference can be made out of any comparison made between the Catholic communion and his own, in regard there is no true parity or similitude to be found in them: and moreover it is so fare from being confessed by the cited authors that the communion of the reformers is more fruitful than their own, that they teach expressly that according to the doctrine of the reformed Churches touching the real presence, the receivers of their Sacrament can receive no fruit at all. And now let this suffice for anser to those authors In general: Yet because it may be my adversary will not be satisfied with this general anser alone, as also because I find he hath used not a little of his usual proceeding in want of fidelity in the citation of the authors, I am content to descend to particulars, and examen them in order. The first the knight cities, is Cochlaeus out of Cassander, but neither he nor Cassander have any thing in that place against private Mass, but only testify what the custom of the ancient Church was, which, as I have already declared, is impertinent to this purpose. Besides Sir Humphrey translates Cochleus words corrupedtly, for he doth not say that the holy Ghost hath thought us a remedy against the slothfulness of the Priests in celebrating of private Mass, but he saith, the holy Ghost hath invented and introduced a pious supplie of this negligence by the frequentation of such Masses as Priests celebrate alone. So by inverting the words, the malicious knight imposeth upon the Priests only for a fault that which Cochleus calls a remedy provided by the holy Ghost to supply the fault of the less devout sort of people as well as the defect of the Priests. Which defect nevertheless Chocleus placeth not in their slothfulness in celebrating private Masses: but in not exhorting the laiety to communicate at every Mass, as his words sufficiently declare.  
In the second place he cities Durand mymatensis who as speaking only of the custom of the ancient Church and consequently not against the Romanists, yet he corruptes him both in that for Domino dicente, he translates; according to Christ's command: as also by leaving out his ensuing words which declare the reason of the alteration of that ancient custom. Sed excrescente fidelium multitudine traditur institutum ut tantum Dominicis diebus communicarent. 
Durand. rat. lib. 4. c. 53.  But the multitude of believers increasing, it is delivered unto us to have been instituded that they should communicate only on sundays.  
Odo upon the Canon doth not disprove private Mass, but only relates the different customs of the Church in different times. Cum primitus missae sine collecta non fierent, postea mos inolevit Ecclesiae solitarias, & maxim in Caenobijs, fieri missas. d. 2. in Can. circa init. The same I say of Belethus, yet Sir Humphrey omits the rest of his words. As he did in the testimony of durand.  

Hugo in spec.  In the testimony of Card. Hugo who witnesseth only the same in substance, he adds the word together, which is not in the text, to mend his ill market, also letting slip some of his words which denote the cause of the change of the ancient use, which are these. 
Initio nascentis Ecclesiae Christiani qui celebrationi Missae ad erant, post acceptam pacem communicare solebant. Durantus de rit. cap. 58.  Sed propter peccatum circumstans nos, statutum est ut communicaremus terin anno solum. But by reason of sin compassing us about (saith Hugo) it was determined that we should communicate only thrice a year. And in the next allegation of Tolosanus who saith no other than the rest, he translates mystery for Mass.  
In the citation of Mycrologus the craftily omits: iuxta antiquos Canon's: And for ante oblationem he translates before communion, because he will not have his reader to hear that either the communion of the people in every Mass might seem to be an Ecclesiastical custom or law only, or that there is any such matter as oblation in the celebration of divine service, for that they themselves have it not in their new Raphsodie.  
For Cassander's authority we do not care. And yet I can not find in Mycrologus those words which Cassander and Sir Humphrey allege out of him, to wit, it can not properly be called a communion except some besides the Priest do communicate. How be it the same Cassander in the same place doth not condemn private Masses for a Sacrilegious action, or to be prohibited, as Sir Humphrey and the rest of the Novellists commonly maintain: But only playing the part of a pacifier, which he professeth, persuades that the ancient custom may be restored. Nay and he adds further and that truly, that the Priests say when they celebrate privately, they do not participate of the Sacrament in their own private name, but in the name of the Church and people: which doubtless in reason is sufficient to make it a true communion, if otherwise it were not. And as for Mycrologus, certain it is that he is no condemner of private Mass, how soever he might esteem that communion less proper, according to the Etymon of the word, 
Vid. Cassander. pag. 998.  in which more then one do not actually receive, which is all he intends, if any such saying he hath, which notwithstanding is not contrary to the doctrine or practice of the Romanists. Innocentius tertius only explicates the ancient custom of the Church touching the communion of the people at evetie Mass, and the change of it at sevarall times and by degrees. And surely if we consider that the Novelists hold this Pope for one of their greatest opposites in doctrine, it were madnesses to imagine that he should in any sort favour their tenets. And because I reflected that Innocentius as being a Pope had no reason to find any greater favour at Sir Humfreys hands then other Romanists have found, upon view of the place I discovered that he had falsely translated some part of Innocentius words, which make against him to wit, for these words: quia nec hoc digne potuit obseruari, he translates: by reason this custom was neglected, whereas he should have put in English: Because neither this could be dignely, or with due reverence observed: By which false translation he invertes the true cause of the altetation of the foresaid custom.  
Hoffmeisterus only declares the publicitie of the ancient custom with a desire that endeavours may be used for the restitution of it, with whom we Romanists all join to our power; so this is out of the compass of our question. The allegation of Doctor Harding who speaks much to the same purpose, I have ansered in an other place and showed the deceit of the relatour, altho' in this place I find he rehearses his words truly, by reason it had availed him nothing to have here abused him.  
justinian makes no mention of either private or public Masses but only of the participation of one consecrated bread or loaf to signify more expressly the union of charity, which is not to this purpose: as neither is the place of Bellarmin following lib. 2. de missa cap. 9 as afterwards I will declare.  
But to return to Doctor Harding, it is true I find Sir Humphrey cities him towards the end of the same paragraph out of jewel, which altho' he makes nothing for the proof of his intent in this place, but is only brought in upon the by to enlarge and furnish his discourse, as I suppose, yet doth he abuse that learned divine in that he leaveth out one special reason which he alleges why the primative Catholics used to communicate every day with the Priest, because, saith he, they looking hourly to be catched & put to death by the Panimes (I relate the sense not the formal words) should not depart without the viaticum. Which words being the very heart of the authors sentence, Sir Humphrey very slyly omits it, as if it were not to the purpose, and by that means he most deformedlie couples the head and the heels together, which corruption altho' it doth not much avail him, yet it seems he makes a recreation of that art, and so he will rather play small game then sit out.  
lastlly the words of justinian taken out of his Commentary upon 1. Cor 10. are impertinent, for he does not affirm that the Communion directly was given to all that were present, as his words cited by the knight do testify, which author being the laste which he cities, and no more to his purpose then the rest, let this suffice for the censure of the contents of this whole paragraph, and particularly for the confutation of that aspersion of Novelty, and corruption with the knight doth indevore calumniouslie to cast upon the Roman Creed, it now being plainly cleared and justified by that which hath been said, and he himself convinced of false dealing and forgery.  
The paragraph insueing is of the seven Sacraments. And to be plain with Sir Humphrey, I say that in the very entrance of his treaty he telleth a plain lie to his reader, affirming the Romanists to rely wholly upon the Council of Trent in this point. For this Council expressly hath in the margin of the decree of the septenary number of Sacraments, the Council of Florence, and in the decrees of every several Sacrament there is reference to scriptures, Counsels and Fathers, as the margins do testify. Wherefore thus the knight beginneth, and how he will proceed I know not, but yet for the most part an ill beginning makes an ill ending.  
First he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying that the authority of the Council of Trent if there were no other ought to suffice for proof of the septinarie number of the Sacraments. But he might with fare greater reason have reprehend both his own temereity and the presumption of the reformed Churches. Which without any such authority as the Council of Trent hath, do deny the foresaid number of Sacraments. Besides that Beauties' meaning is not that the Council of Trent hath sufficient authority to define the same without foundation of the word of God, or without scripture as it seems Sir Humphrey falsely supposeth, but that supposing such a foundation, it hath infallible power to declare the same as conformeable to truth & to the ancient doctrine and practice of the Church in former ages, and consequently as a matter of faith. And certainly that Church which hath not this authority is no true Church nor such an one as is described in the scriptures, but a mere conventicle or schismatical congregation unsuitable to the word of God. And whereas it seems strange to Sir Humphrey that according to Bellarmine, one testimony of a late Council might suffice for the establishing of an article of faith for that by his own tenet such an article requires both antiquity, universality and consent: let him but truly and sincerely consider what Bellarmine's meaning is, and he will presently cease to marvel at his position. He must therefore know that whereas Bellarmin affirmeth that the Council of Trent alone might be sufficient to declare unto the whole Church as an infallible truth that the number of Sacraments properly and truly so called is no more nor less than seven, his meaning is that because the foresaid Council is of as great authority as other general Counsels ever have had in times past, it ought to have the same credit in the present Church touching those points which it hath defined, that they had in the Church of their times in such matters as they then defined, and consequently that as those points of doctrine which notwithstanding they had been doubtful before, were nevertheless by the same Counsels determined as certain and infallible doctrine of faith without any defect of antiquity universality, or consent, & in such manner as all the whole Christian world was bound under pain of damnation to believe it, as is manifest in the consubstantiallitie of the second person defined in the Council of Nice, the divinity of the third person in the first Council of Constantinople, the unity of the person of Christ in the Ephesin, and the duplicity or distinction of his natures in the Council of Chalcedon, as also the duplicity or distinction of his wills in the sixth Council celebrated at Constantinople: so in like manner ought the present Church to do with the Council of Trent in all it definitions, and particularly in the definition of the number of the seven Sacraments, which definition ought to be held for certain as well as the former determinations of the foresaid Counsels, both in respect it was decreed by the authority of the same succeeding Church by which those definitions were made, as also in regard it hath antiquity, universality, and consent, both in as much as it is deduced from the scriptures by infallible authority, and also for that we do not find any either of the ancient Fathers, or modern divines to have denied the Sacraments to be seven in number, or affirmed them to be only two as the reformers commonly teach.  
Now for the second reprehension which Sir Humphrey maketh of Bellarmin for saying, that if we take away the credit of the present Church and present Council of Trent, the decrees of all other Counsels, nay even Christian faith itself might be called in question: this reprehension I say is as frivolous as the former, for that according to both Bellarmine's supposition and the truth itself, the present Roman Church and Council of Trent, being of the same authority, as I have above declared, with the Church and Counsels of more ancient times, and also it being evident that as in those days divers points of doctrine have been called in question by the heretics of those times, so they might at this present be brought again in doubt by others, as experience itself hath taught us both even in those same matters which in former times have been defined, as appeareth by the heresy of the new Trinitarians, and others: as also in other truths which as yet were ever held in the Church for certain, all this I say being most apparently true and out of all manner of doubt among the learned sort of people; doubtless if, as Bellarmine saith, we take away the credit of the present Church and present Council of Trent, or others which hereafter may be assembled, there will be no power left whereby to suppress such new opinions, and errors, as by heretics in diverse times and occasions may be broached contrary to the Christian faith as well concerning matters already determined in former Counsels, as also touching such new doctrine as may hereafter be invented by other sectaries, of which we have too much experience in the Novellists of these our days who call in question diverse points defined in former Synods, of which we have instances in the doctrine of the distinction of the divine persons questioned by the new Trinitarians, of the doctrine about the lawful use and honour of images defined in the 7. General Council the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Council of Lateran. The number of the Sacraments and the like rejected even by Sir Humphrey himself and his fellows: and consequently that which Bellarmine affirmeth in this sense is most plain and certain and so fare from Atheism, as the contrary is from truth itself. And if Bellarmine be reprehensible for equalizing the present Church and Counsels with those of ancient times, surly the reformers themselves are fare more faulty and guilty in this kind, for that they do not equalise but also prefer the authority of their own present Congregations and Parleaments before the Church and Counsels of fare more ancient times then is the date of their doctrine and religion. And this they do not only in these points of doctrine which the later Counsels have determined against the later errors of Sectaries, as the knight doth odiously sugiest, but also in some articles of most ancient faith and doctrine, as is manifestly apparent in the point of the real present, justification, and the like.  
And as for the reason which Sir Humphrey yields against the authority of the present Church, alleging that the word of Christ is alone sufficient for the faith of all believing Christians; this reason I say is of no force, it is but an old song of the Puritans which hath been a thousand times repeated by the reformers, and as often refuted by the Romanists. And who denies but that the word of God certainly known for such, & truly interpreted, and declared, is sufficient for the faith of all Christians? but to this who doth not also know that the authority of the Church is necessary in all times and places? nay whoe doth not see that the one of necessaritie and as it were intrinsically involueth the other, and that in such sort that the sectaries by excluding the infallible authouritie of the present Church from the sufficienty of the scrpitures do nothing less than deny that part of the scripture which commendeth unto us the constant and perpetually successive authority of the Church till the confommation of the world. And if Sir Humphrey had considered the reason which Bellarmin yields, surely he could not so much have maraviled that he gives so great authority to the council of Trent, and present Church, for saith he, if we take that away we have no infallible testimony that the former Counsels were ever extant & that they were legitimate and that they defined this or that point of doctrine etc. for the mention which historians make of those counsels is but a humane testimony subject to falsity, thus Bell. all which discourse of his because he might have more colour to complain of him, and the the Roman Church, the insyncere knight resolved to keep it from the eyes of his reader. True it is that the reformers out of their great pureness or rather out of their pure madness, do usually exclaim against the supposed superstitions of the Roman Church, but the Romanists may fare more justly complain of them in the same kind, in regard that, superstition is noething else addording to the etymology of the word, but superfluous religion, and to tie the word of God to the precise written character alone, in my conceit, is the highest degree of superstition that can be imagined, because these precisians by that means do so excessively, and superfluously extol the written word, that by their exclusive hyperbole of the sufficiency of it alone, they renounce all other sorts of word of God, either preached or otherwise delivered to the Church, either in plain terms or at the least by necessary sequelle, which is noething else but out of a superfluous preciseness, to assign limits to that which is illimitable, and bounds to that which is infinite, and consequently out of a superstitious zeal of religion to destroyall true religion, and the true word of God itself.  
Furthermore for the sufficiency of the written word precisely, the knight citeth the Apostle S. Paul act. 20. vers. 27. were he saith so: I have not shunned to declare unto you all the council of God. but this is so impertinently alleged that it needs no answer: it being manifest that the Apostle neither speaketh of scripture alone, nor intendeth to exclude other parts of the word of God, nor yet so to limit that which he himself writ or spoke as if he had delivered in writing all the doctrine with out exception which is any way necessary to the salvation of every man's soul both in general and in particular. Otherwise it would follow that all which the rest of the sacred writers have published in the scriptures were superfluous and no way necessary to have been penned. Besides that S. Paul in the place cited, saith not that he hath written, but only that he hath declared unto them all the council of God, and so he neither in words nor sense favoureth the reformers tenet of the all sufciencie of the written word but rather Sir Humfrey is here to be noted for a corruptor of the text. And no less idly doth the knight cite for the same purpose the testimony of Bellarm. his meaning being so fare from this matter as that if he were not his aeversarie as he is most plainly even in this point, yet had it been mere madness to have as much as named him in this darticular, and so perhaps for this reason only he was ashamed to quote the place, yet as commonly he doth in other occasions.  
Finally for conclusion of his disproof of the authority of the present Roman Church, Sir Humphrey demandeth of us how the faith of Christians can depend upon a Church which is fallen from the faith, or general belief of Christianity can rely safely upon a council that is disclaimed by the greatest part of the world. By England by France by Germany? But to this I answer that in this double question, he telleth his reader at the least a double lie, both which we must take upon his own credit, for he allegeth nothing but his own worthy word, which of how little worth it is we have sufficiently tried already. Wherefore we must with his leave tell him that neither it is true that the Roman Church is fallen from the faith, except he means from the faith of Luther and Caluin, or from his own English faith, from which nevertheless the Roman Church cannot truly be affirmed to have fallen, but it from her, she having been in the world many hundreds of years before the authors of the new Religion were created: nor is it true that the Tridentine Council is disclaimed by the greater part of France and Germany at this present time in matters of faith. To say nothing of Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary; and those most vast and spacious Indian Regions of later years reduced to the Roman faith, all with nations do contain a fare greater number of such as embrace the foresaid Council then there are reformers in the world who reject the same. Especially considering that even amongst the reformed Churches themselves notwithstanding the most rigorous laws & proceed which they use against the Roman Catholics where they have the superiority of power, yet is there no small number to be found of those who willingly receive all the doctrine of faith, contained in the Tridentine Synod: and consequently it appears by this that Sir Humphrey hath failed mightily in his cosmography and calculation, when he affirmeth that the foresaid Council is disclaimed by the greatest part of the world; except in his greatest part he includes jews, Turks and Gentiles, or at the least count for his own, all those which are not Romanists of what sect or faction soever they be, as some of his reformed brothers use to do not excluding the most  heretics the Arians out of the number of the members of their Congregation, to make it show more ample and glorious.  
After this the knight out of the vehemency of his zealous Spirit, falls into a fearful execration taking upon him the Anathema if any man alive shall prove that the seven Trent Sacraments were instituted by Christ, or that all the Fathers, or any one Father in the Primative Church, or any known author for about a thousand years after Christ, did teach that there were neither more nor less than seven Sacraments truly and properly so called, and to be believed of all for an article of faith. Thus he▪ with so many turnings and windings as you see, and so many limitations of his speech, that a man would think it impossible but that he might escape the snare of his own conditional curse, which yet he doth not, but rather falleth flat into it, as I will presently show.  
And first I say that if Sir Humphrey would content himself with the authority or testimony of dead men, I could remit him not to one but to one hundreth authors who yet alive in their works do testify the foresaid institution in plain terms, to wit all those divines who lived and writ ever since the time of Petrus Lombardus, of whom as from their common master they received the doctrine of the seven Sacraments as successively deduced from the institution of God, and delivered it to their successors with great uniformity and consent, as appeareth by their books. And altho' this might be sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person in the world, nevertheless because Sir Humfreys importunity is so great that he will needs have the testimonies of live authors, I remit him to all those who either in the public universities or pulpits of all Catholic countries do teach and preach the same at this day to wit that not only a thousand years after Christ, but even from the time of Christ himself or at the least from the time of his Apostles preaching and writing, there were neither more nor less, than seven Sacraments truly and properly so called and to be believed of all for an article of faith as instituted by Christ. The number of which authors being not only very great in itself, but also fare greater and of fare more learned men then all those who in the reformed Churches hold the contrary as I persuade myself Sir Humphrey cannot deny: it is most evident that (to say nothing of those ancient writers which by their proofs of every particular Sacrament by Scriptures and Fathes do plainly witness the same truth) he had no reason at all for this part of his great demanded.  
And now touching the rest of it, I answer first that as it is certain the reformers themselves if we should demand the like of them concerning the number of those Sacraments which they defend for truly & properly such, & to be believed as an article of faith and as instituted by Christ, cannot prove either by scripture or any one author, I do not say for about a Thousand years as they do, but for a Thousand and four hundreth years after Christ, that they are precisely two and no more nor less: so consequentie they ought not to require of us that which they themselves are not able to perform in their own cause and case.  
Nevertheless that our adversary may plainly see we are not behind with him, but rather fare before him and the rest of his brothers in this particular, I answer farther that all those Fathers who by express places of scripture prove every one of those Sacraments in particular, and no other, which the Roman Church holdeth for truly & properly such, do thereby also show at the least tacitly, that those and no more nor less are believed for such by faith. For testimony of which truth because it would be too tedious in answer of one argument to produce so many of the Fathers as might be alleged, I will only allege. 
Cal. Instit.  S. Augustine, who being even according to our adversary's opinion of him, a faithful witness of antiquity, his testimony may justly serve for all the rest: and because of the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist there is no controversy, I will only produce those testimonies which convince the other five.  
Wherefore that confirmation is truly and properly a Sacrament S. Augustine affirmeth lib. 2. contra lit. Pet. cap. 104. where he saith thus. The Sacrament of Chrism in the nature of visible signs, Sacrosanctum est, is a sacred and holy Sacrament as Baptism; and he hath the like of order lib. 2. cont. Epist. Parm. cap. 13. sayinh. They are both Sacraments, and both by a certain consecration are given to man, that when he is baptzed, this when he is ordered and in the same place he also saith, that both of them be Sacraments which no man doubteth. Of Penance he saith lib. 1. de adult. coniug. cap. 26. & 28. eadem est causa Baptismi & reconciliations, fine quibus Sacramentis homines credunt se mori non debere. The same cause or reason is of Baptism and Reconciliation with out which Sacraments men believe they ought not to dye. Matrimony he compareth with Baptism lib. 1. de nuptijs & concup. cap. 10. where he saith that the matter of this Sacrament is, that man and woman joined in marriage may inseparably persever together as long as they live. And the like saying he hath of the perpetual effect of this Sacrament comparing it with the perpetual effect of Baptism. And in the 14. chapter of his book de bono coniugali, he compareth matrimony with the Sacrament of Order, which order as we have cited before, he compared with Baptism in another place. Finally of Extreme unction he maketh mention lib. 2. the visit. infir. cap. 4. and in his 215. Sermon of the saints. Where although he doth not in express terms affirm extreme unction to to be one of the Sacraments, yet he expressly affirmeth there, and serm. de temp. 115. that the ceremony of unction which S. james mentioneth, and the promise, belong unto the faithful, and are to be practised by the Priests as the Apostle commands: all which proves plainily that S. Augustin held it for a Sacrament as well as the other six, and altho' some doubt may be made whether the book de visit. infir. be truly S. Augustine's work, yet certain it is that the author of it is both good and ancient. And thus much out of S. Augustine for the proof of every one of the seven Sacraments in particular, besides that which he speaketh in general of them, and of the benefit which the Church hath received from God by the institution of them, in his first sermon upon the 108. psalm, where he saith thus. What a great gift is the office of the administration of the Sacraments in Baptism, Eucharist, and in the rest of the holy Sacraments? so that we see that S. Augustin stanneth plainly against the doctrine of Sir Humphrey. And doth fully answer his question touching the number of the Sacraments defended by the Roman Church. And supposing he makes so special mention of these seven as he doth more than of any other external sign or ceremony of the Church (to some of which nevertheless he giveth also the name of Sacrament) and supposing also he compareth or all most of them with those two which the reformers themselves hold for proper and true Sacraments, in their effects and sanctity, as also amplifying the benefit which God hath conferred to the Church by the institution of them (that which he doth not with the rest of the holy signs and ceremonies which the same Church also useth) supposing all these circumstances I say, it is more than certain that he speaketh of them as of true and proper Sacramants which for such have been recreaved and believed in the universal Church even ever since the time of Christ the institutor of them. And so let this suffice for an answer of that vast demand of our Thrasonian knight, and to demonstrate, that notwithstanding all his circumspection, his own conditional curse is turned into an absolute, and so is fallen upon him with all it weight and forces as a just punishment of the temereity and excess of that boldness, which he committeth in protesting, against a truth confirmed with such authority and testimony as may satisfy the most tender conscience and settle the most wavering mind in the world. And yet for confirmation of the foresaid answer, we may further add, that supposing the Master of Sentences so many years passed defended the seven Sacraments with the institution of them by Christ himself and their necessity and profit in the Church of God: and supposing the same author writ nothing but what he found in the ancient Fathers, from the collection of whose sentences he took his appellation: supposing I say all this which his works do witness, it is most apparent in the moral judgement of any indifferent man, that the doctrine which he delivered concerning the foresaid number of Sacraments, was no other than the faith of the universal Church & also the very same which by the general consent of school divines in later ages hath been taught & preached even by those of the Grecian Church, as by the testimony of Hieremie the late Patriarch of Constantinople in his answer to the Augustan Confession doth plainly appear; where the septenary number of Sacraments is expressly maintained against the Lutherans as his words here quoted in the margin clearly testify with shame enough to the reformed brothers: for thus he saith. 
Sacramenta verò ritusque in hac ipsa Catholica recte sententium Christianorum Ecclesia, sunt septem. Baptisma, Chrysma sancti unguenti, divina communio, manusimpositio, matrimonium, Paenitentia & sacrum Oleum Et statim. Quod vero haec sola sint nec plura numero: etiam diuisione clarum fit etc. Patriarcha Constantinop. Res. ad Doctores Wittemb. fol. 11.  Truly the Sacraments & rites in this same Catholic Church of right understanding Christians are seven: Baptism, chrism of holy ointment, the divine communion, imposition of hands, Matrimony, Penance, and sacred oil. etc.  
But the knight going yet further in the proof of his dual number, telleth his reader, that the two Sacraments which his Church defends are properly Sacraments because they have element and institution: but the other fine are not such because they want either of these. But to this I answer that the five Sacraments which the reformers reject, have not only this which Sir Humphrey requires to his two defaced Sacraments, but also besides this, they have promise of iustificant grace, which according to the description he maketh here, his two do want; and so I retort his prrofe upon him. For if our five be not properly Sacraments because in his conceit they want institution and element; surely neither are his two properly Sacraments because they want grace, as being but signs or elements instituted by God not giving grace both according to his former declaration, 
Caluin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 14. & 15.  and also in the common doctrine of the reformers: And so we see that the knight's discourse touching the property of his two ministerial elements is but a graceless piece of doctrine, especially considering that if he had been but half so conversant in our divines as he will needs seem to be, he might most easily have found both institution element, and grace, annexed to all those five Sacraments which he renounceth: which Catholic divines altho' they do not all agree in the assignation of the several matters and formers of the same, yet do they nevertheless with great conformity consent in the number & general definition of them, to wit that they are all external and sensible signs which by divine institution have the promise of justifying grace annexed. And lest the knight take exceptions and complain that I do not satisfiie his argument myself, but remit him to others for an answer; I will briefly show out of scripture both the institution and element of every one of the foresaid five Sacraments in particular. Confirmation therefore was instituted by Christ in those places of scripture where he promiseth to his Apostles the Holy Ghost after his ascension, as S. john the 16.5. Luke the 24.48. which collation of the holy Ghost was exercised by the Apostles Act. 10. & 19 by imposition of hands after they had received the same holy Ghost by that extraordinary manner which is described Act. 2. which imposition together with the words used Act. 8. when they prayed for them on whom they put their hands, are the matter and form of this Sacrament. And now here we see both the institution and the element in this Sacrament, which is all Sir Humphrey requireth of us; and so I will say unto him that which S. Hierome said to his adversaries the Luciferians the 4. chap. Si quaeris quare in Ecclesia baptizatus non nisi per manus Episcopi accipit Spiritum Sanctum, disce hanc obseruationem exea authoritate descendere quod post ascensionem Domini Spiritus ad Apostolos descendit, That is to say, If thou dost ask me, why he that is baptised doth not receive the holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop, learn that this observation descended from that authority that after the ascension of our Lord the Spirit descended upon the Apostles.  
secondly the Sacrament of Penance hath both element and institution; the element is the acts of the penitent declared by sensible words or signs, the institution is the collation of power conferred by Christ to remit sins, to his Apostles and in them to all true priests according to that of the 20. of Saint john, Receive ye the holy Ghost, whole sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain they are retayved. In which words both the institution and the element be sufficiently declared; especially if we join the declaration of the Church, without which even those two which the reformers hold for Sacraments cannot be convinced to be truly and properly such, if one were obstinately disposed.  
thirdly in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction both the element and institution are plainly enough found in the 5. chap. of S. james: where the Apostle saith. If any man be sick among you, let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of our Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and our Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins they shalbbe remitted him. In which place to the external signs of prayer and oil, remission of fins is annexed, as the reader may plainly perceive: which effect even according to the doctrine of the reformers themselves as I suppose cannot be found but only in such ceremonies as properly are instituted by Christ himself for Sacraments.  
fourthly the like I say of Order, the substance of which is so plainly contained in the scriptures, 
Vid. Cal. l. 3. Inst. c. 4. §. 20. etc. 19 §. 31.  that some of the greatest reformers have not had the face to exclude it out of the number of the Sacraments of the new law, and the places of Scripture which convince the truth of it are 1. Timo. 4. and 2. Thimothie 1. where both the sensible element which is the imposition of hands, and the effect of grace annexed, are clearly described; which effect I think our adversaries confess, cannot be possibly conferred but only by God's authority and institution. The words of the Apostle are these in the first place. Do not neglect the grace which is in the: which was given the by prophecy with the imposition of the hands of preisthood. In the second place the words are these. For which cause I admonish the to resuscitate the grace of God which is in the by the imposition of my hands.  
Now lastlie concerning Matrimony, a man might justly marvel that our new Evangelistes should make any question of it in this nature. For supposing their extraordinary affection that way, and that single life is so unsavoury to them that if it lay in their power, they would rather suffer the whole choir of virgins to perish, than they would make a religious vow of perpetual chastity, or live without a woman: supposing this I say in my opinion they ought in all reason sooner to have honoured matrimony with the title of a Sacrament, then to have quite deprived it of that which the scripture itself doth give it. Yet supposing they be so preposterous, that they will rather impugn that which they otherwise love best, then seem to agree to the Roman doctrine, I tell them all and particularilie him with whom I dispute, that although marriage was by God himself only ordained in paradise as a civil contract: Nevertheless Christ who came not to dissolve the law, but to elevate it to a higher degree of perfection; amongst other things he pleased to honore the same with the true nature and properties of a Sacrament; giving also tho' not immediately by himself, yet by his Apostle S. Paul, the very name and title of a Sacrament; whereas notwithstanding neither he himself nor any of his Apostles or Evangelists ever gave that name to any of the rest of the Sacraments. Wherefore to come nearer to the purpose; I say that the institution of this Sacrament was by Christ himself, who in the 19 chapter of S. Mathewe ordained the conjunction of man & wife to be inseparable to the end it so might be a sacred sign of the indissoluble conjunction of Christ and his Church, as it is declared by the Apostle Ephes. 5. where he expressly giveth it the name of a great Sacrament in regard of the sacred conjunction (partly by the hypostatical union, and partly by the union of charity) betwixt Christ and his spouse the Church which it signifieth. Which foresaid conjunction of man and wife explicated by words of the present tense is the element; and Christ's ordinance and application of the same to the foresaid signification, is the institution, by virtue of which it also conferreth grace to the receivers, to the end they may live in that perpetual union of minds which is required to the representation of the inseparable union of Christ and his Church; which is all and more than our adversary himself demanded of us before in this particular matter. To which if we add the authority of the Church and ancient fathers for the interptetation of those scriptures which we have produced for proof of the truth of this, and the rest of the foresaid five Sacraments (which authorities of the fathers if need required and the place did serve for them I could easily produce) it would yet more plainly appear with how little reason the pretensive reformed Congregations do exclude them out of the number of true and proper Sacraments.  
And so now according to this a very easy answer may be framed to all that which the knight bringeth against the septenary number of Sacraments in the rest of this paragraph, and particularilie to the testimonies of those Roman authors and Fathers which he produceth in favour of his cause. And first touching the Fathers which he citeth beside that which hath been already spoken I further add, that there was not one of them which was of the reformers opinion in this matter as is most apparent in that Sir Humphrey himself could not produce so much as one Father that averreth the only dual number of Sacraments: Nay they are so fare from this, that there is not one of them, who doth not in one place or other make express mention of more than two, if professedly they make mention of any at all.  
secondly I say, that as the reformers cannot with any probability infer out of those Fathers who affirmed that the two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist have flowed out of the side of Christ, that there are no more nor less than two; so neither can they in any sort thence infer that the same Fathers taught not the septenary number of Sacraments. And more than this if the reformers stand upon this so much that the Fathers by the blood which issued out of our Saviour's side, understood the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, than they must consequently either confess that the same Fathers held the real presence of the blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which yet they themselves deny, or else at the least that the reformed Churches have no true Sacrament at all, for that according to their confession, there is in it neither blood nor bone. And out of this general answer to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, we may infer how falsely Sir Humphrey in the end of his 149. page affirmeth, that they did insist sometimes in the number of two and so restrained the Church to the definite number of two only, which saying of his is a manifest falsity and injurious to those Fathers whom he so chargeth, as that which I have produced out of S. Augustine in this period doth plainly convince in these five Sacraments which the reformers deny: Neither was he able to produce one testimony out of any of them for proof of his feigned position; but so leaveth it unconfirmed more than with that fame untruth by which he belly most impudently the foresaid Fathers all at a clap.  
Neither hath that which he further addeth of the same Fathers in the next page any greater truth or foundation then this, where he saith that had the Fathers believed that those five Sacraments had been instituted by Christ they would of necessity have concluded them for true and proper Sacraments, and have easily found in them the number of seven: Thus in effect Sir Humphrey discourseth, to which I answer first that doubtless if the Fathers had had but half the occasion which the Church hath had since their time, and especially since the foundation of the reformed Churches; they would of necessity have treated and spoken expressly of the septenary number, and have distinguished as now the Church and divines do betwixt proper and improper Sacraments: But the occasion failing, they neither had necessity nor conveniency to speak otherwise of them then they have done: Nay some of them, especially those who writ against the Gentiles, were rather obliged by the course of those times, not to mention the secret mysteries of our faith at all, then to reveal them to the profaners of them, more than was precisely necessary for the answer of their objections, 
Vid. Theodoret. Dial. 2.  which indeed is the true reason, why divers of the foresaid more ancient Fathers have spoken so obscurely and sparingly even of some of the chief mysteries of Christian Religion.  
secondly I say, that howsoever the ancient Fathers spoke of the express number of the Sacraments, certain it is, they either expressly taught, or at the least supposed for certain doctrine of faith that all those which the Roman Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments do give divine grace to the receivers, as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proof of every several Sacrament and their several effects; and consequently they held implicitelie at the least, and if either necessity or just occasion had required they would have concluded expressly the septenary number of Sacraments, and that they were instituted by Christ for such truly and properly.  
And now for the more modern divines who wrote since the time of P. Lombard, of which Sir Humphrey citeth to the number of twelve or thirteen, there is not one of them who holdeth only two proper Sacraments as the reformers do: nay there is not one of them that doth not expressly defend the septenary number of true and proper Sacraments, excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seem to opinate otherwise to the incircumspect reader, of which two authors nevertheless I say first that Hales doth not deny all those seven, nor any one of them in particular which the Roman Church defends to be truly and properly Sacraments, but he only is of opinion that only four of them are to be called Sacraments of the new law, for that as he imagined the other three, to wit Pennance, Order, and Matrimony, had their beginning before. True it is, Hales cannot be excused from error in that he affirmeth Confirmation to have been instituted by the Council of Melda (except he meaneth only, that there it was declared to be properly a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth) but nevertheless supposing this his singular opinion, yet notwithstanding it being with all certain, that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seven no less than he doth Penance which yet he held (as it seemeth to some later writers) to have been instituted by the Apostles, 
juxta numerum malorum spiritualium debet sumi numerus Sacramentorum, septem sunt differentiae morborum. Hal. 4. part. q. 8. mem. 7. act. 2.  notwithstanding all this I say, he is impertinently alleged by the knight as an impugner of the Roman doctrine in the septenary number of Sacraments, which notwithstanding his other allucinations, he as expressly maintains as other divines do as his own words plainly testify saying thus in his 4. part and eight question. According to the number of spiritual diseases, the number of Sacraments is to be taken, there are seven differences of diseases. What therefore can be more manithen that this author taught the complete number of seven Sacraments?  
And as for Durand, certain it is that he doth not deny Matrimony to be a Sacrament absolutely as the reformers do, but he at the most only affirmeth that it is not properly and univocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six do; which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firm with the doctrine of the Church: yet this not our question, and in case it were, yet is there no reason why one man's private tenet, nay nor the private tenet, or error of more than one or two should prejudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him, nor diminish her antiquity and universality in any point of doctrine especially where there is no obstinacy in the author, as in these there was not: neither can the adversaries draw any argument of force against the same in any case, out of one only author or more, if more there were, contrary to the torrent of all the rest. To omit that as vasques noteth, the same Durand in the same place expressly affirmeth that it is an heresy to deny that Matrimony is a Sacrament, which doubtless is a concluding argument that when Durand affirmed Matrimony not to be univocallie or just as the rest be a Sacrament, he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seven which the church did both then hold, & now holdeth to betrue Sacraments; but at the most he only denied the truth & property of it in that strict & univocal manner of conferring iustificant grace, as he and other divines affirm of the rest: which being so, then cannot the Reformers have any colour to allege this testimony either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament, or against the septenary number of it with the other. Nay more than this having now exactly examined the matter I find that Durand beside that he expressly defends the total number of seven Sacraments disputing severally of the nature of every one of them, he doth in particular affirm of Matrimony even in his resolution or direct anser to the question, absolutely that it is a Sacrament; and puts it in the last place for one of the seven. And these are his words in their several places noted in the margin. 
Tenendun est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramentum. Quia hoc determinavit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3.  
Et ita sunt inuniverso septem Sacramenta. Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6.   
To which if we add that which Capreolus doth testify of the same durand, all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away. 
Coactus fuit in ultimo opere cautius loqui, ut scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere & proprie Sacramentum, sed non univoce cum alijs novae legis Sacramentis etc. Capreolus in 4. sent. d. 26. q. 1. §.  For Capreolus saith that in his last work or edition he was constrained to speak more cautelously so that he confessed matoimonie to be truly and properly a Sacrament, but not univocally. By which, and that also which I have said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceive that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alleged against the septenary number of Sacraments, and against the universality of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point, supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their own words witness, Except it be in the manner of defending that same number, yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controversy here proposed by the knight our adversary, 
Quantum ad tertium durandi.  and absolutely affirming that there are truly seven Sacraments in the Catholic Church.  
Moreover in the citation of the other modern divines, Sir Humphrey useth much fraud and cozenage: and remitting the rest till afterwards which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight, I will first produce those two whose books I had at the first, and both of whom he egregiously abuseth. Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three several places cited in this one paragraph. And first he is corrupted in his Second book of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinal saying only that the adversaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they show the name of the septenary number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or Fathers; 
Primo notandum non debere adversarios petere ut ostendamus in scriptures aut Patribus nomen septenarij Sacramentorum, nam nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomen Binarij vel ternarij etc. Bellar. l. 2. de effect. Sacr. c. 24.  yet honest Sir Humphrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his own margin the number of seven for the name of the number of seven, repeating the same twice for failing, and so daceives his ignorant reader persuading him there by that even by Beauties' confession the number of the seven Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers, whereas nevertheless Bellarmin saith no such thing, but only that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers, and yet not the name itself, as appears in the word Trinity of persons, and in the name of the number of two Sacraments, neither of which is extant in scriptures.  
secondly Bellarmin is corrupted in his book of Extreme Unction cap. 2. 
Non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant olto infirmos (Marci 6.) & curabant, illa fuerit unctio sacramentalis an solum fuerit figura quaedam etc. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extreme. Vnct. c. 2.  Where the false knight makes his reader believe that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other divines in the doctrine of the five Sacraments, which he and his companions deny to be truly and properly Sacraments, and yet the Cardinal only affirms with some other authors that that unction which the Apostles used about the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Mark, was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but rather a figure or obumbration of it: Which as you see is a fare different matter from the denial of Extreme Unction as it is used in the Church, to be properly a Sacrament or one of the five rejected by the pretensive reformed Congregations. thirdly the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whom he cities in the nynth chapter of his first book of the Sacraments, where he pervertes both the translation of the words and sense. The words in that he Englisheth these, non est ita notum, it is not so certain, whereas he ought to have translated, it is not so known: The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid five Sacraments have not their institution from christ immediately: whereas he speaks not a word of the institurion, but affirms only that the sacred things which the Sacraments signify are three; justifying grace, the passion of Christ and eternal life; all which, that Baptism and Eucharrst do signify saith he, res notissima est, it is most notorious, de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum, of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or known. Yet further adding that it is certain that even these five Sacraments which the reformers reject signify all those three things at the least implicitlie: But to say that the foresaid five Sacraments have not their institution immediately from Christ, never entered in to Beauties' thoughts. 
tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare etc. Bellar. loco cit.  And so if the knight had dealt plainly and sincerely in the citation of that place of the Cardinal, he could have found nothing for his purpose, but rather the contrary.  
Furthermore Sir Humphrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefully in the 3. part d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudently belly him affirming that Vasquez known well that neither modern divines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true Sacrament of the Church. And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same author professedly defends the same to be truly and properly a Sacrament in the third chapter of the very same disputation which he himself cities: and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proveth it by the testimonies of diverse Fathers, putting for part of the title of the same chap. that the 
Vasquez de Mat.  definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers, and who will please to read vasquez will find it so. In so much that Sir Humphrey in this particular is wholly inexcusable, especially considering that out of the place cited nothing can possibly be collected or inferred whereby it may in any sort be imagined that vasquez ever dreamt that either ancient Fathers or modern divines (excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whom he speaks doubtfully, not daring to affirm him absolutely to have been of the same opinion with Durand, as in truth he is not) did conclude matrimony not to be a true and proper Sacrament, but only affirms that none of the places which divines allege out of S. Augustin to prove the truth and property of that Sacrament, convince the same in the sense in which (saith Vasquez) we now dispute. Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true, as in my judgement apparently it is not, yet doth it not prove Sir Humfreys intent in disproving the septenary number of Sacraments. Especially supposing, as the same Vasquez affirms, 
Con. Carth. 4.  that the fourth Council of Carthage (in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same) makes mention of the Benediction of the Priest used in marriage as in a holy and sacred thing. Grant I say that Vasquez opinion were true, yet would it not serve the knights turn, either for the poofe of his intent, or for the excuse of his false and crafty dealing.  
Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou' according to the order of Sir Humphrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph. in 3. part d. 12. sec. 1. where he charges him to say that the council of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments, 
Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quam Graeci & Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperunt. Suar. loc. cit.  and the council of Trent did expressly decree it for an article of faith, yet suarez says in plain terms, that the same was defined in the council of Florence. So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenary number of Sacraments seem new, as there is also in the words following in which the same Sir Humphrey affirms that the Romanists rely wholly upon the Tridentine council.  
Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged. For they none of them deny that the Sacraments are no more nor less than seven. And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humphrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speaks only of three (which yet is more than the knight will alow of) yet doth he not affirm that there are no more: yea & in other several places he mentioneth three more, Penance, Order, matrimony. And of them all he treats only occasionally not professedly as the reader may easily perceive, and therefore doubtless there is no mention of Extreme unction among the rest, of which nevertheless he was not ignorant how plainly S. james describes it, neither would have omitted it if occasion had served to treat of it. Of Penance he treats lib. 8. orig. page 83. & lib. 2. de offi. Eccles. of Order in his 2. book de office Eccles. page 597. and 598. and of matrimony he hath express words in the same book page 69.  
Touching S. Chrysostome, Ambrose, Cyrill and Theophilactus it is false that they maintained only two Sacraments, and as for Chrysostome and Theophilactus, upon the 6. of S. Paul to the Hebrews, they both make mention of Confirmation. S. Ambrose lib. 1. de Penit: makes a kind of comparison betwixt Baptism and Penance, saying: unum in utroque ministerium est, etc. and S. Cyrill of jerusalem lib. 12. in so. cap. 56. doth also compare these two Sacraments together, and both of them mention the Sacrament of Chrism. the one Catech. 3. the other lib. 3. de Sacra. cap. 2. & de ijs qui mysterijs initiantur cap. 7. so that none of thes Fathers which Sir Humphrey produced for the number of 2. only Sacraments, do agree with his doctrine: and yet more not one of them treats in any one place of their works of the precise number of Sacraments, but only so fare as their matter and drift required.  
Pascasius also is falsely dealt with by Sir Humphrey, both in his meaning and in the translation of his words: for the doth not say, the Sacramets' of Christ are Baptism, Chrism, and the body and blood of our lord, as Sir Humphrey doth put in English but. Sunt autem Sacramenta Christi in Ecclesia: that is: but Sacraments of Christ in the Church be Baptism Chrism etc. Meaning only that Baptism, Chrism and the Eucharist are such Sacraments as he treats of making mention of those only, not to show the precise number but the nature of a Sacrament in general, especially touching the signification and effects of the same, and therefore he doth exemplify in those only which are most notoriously known for such and their matter and forms most obvious, omitting the rest as being less to the purpose he there handleth. And for Sir Humphrey to affirm that Chrism is crept in to the text of the later editions, that is but an idle imagination of his own, otherwise sure he would have produced some other more ancient edition in which the word Chrism is not found. And certainly he that should compare the faithfulness, and sincerity of the Romonists in that nature, and the care they have to publish authors purely, with the insincerity of the sectaries, he would presently judge that copy which wants the word Chrism to be razed by them that have of late years abolished the use of it in their Church, rather than have the least suspicion in the world that the same should be added by Romanists whose doctrine and practice in that particular is so frequent and ancient. Especially considering that it makes no more to our purpose of maintaining the septenary of Sacraments against the pretended reformers, whether the word Chrism be in Pascasius or no, then if it were undoubtedly true that he had made no mention of it. Supposing it is sufficient for us to know that this author in that place neither intended to prove the number of three Sacraments, nor yet to exclude the number of seven. Howbeit, I do not deny but that the word Chrism being in the text, it suffices to convince that the Sacraments of Christ are more than two. And in deed I marvel why the sectaries especially those of the English Church should labour so much to exclude Confirmation from the number of the Sacraments, supposing they either do practice if or at the least ought to practise it according to their own ordinances, altho' there is nothing prescribed by them touching the use of Chrism, but only or chiefly mention is made of the blow which the confirmer gives to the confirmed with a certain phrase or form of words. Concerning which ceremony I have heard that upon a time, a certain nominal Bishop of theirs at the time of administration, was so extraordinary well pleased with one of the company, of the feminine gender, that in steed of the ceremonial stroke he gave her a kiss of kindness, by which the young maid assured herself she received more grace than if she had received Confirmation itself accordnig to their ordinary manner. And now this may be sufficient for the true meaning of Pascasius.  
Hugo a sancto Victore is most perversely dealt with when out of Perkins he is produced by Sir Humphrey against the Sacrament of Penance. For I have read him lib. 1. de Sacramentis cap. 12. where he says thus in express terms. Septem sunt principalia Sacramenta quae in Ecclesia ministrantur. there be seven principal Sacraments which are ministered in the Church. And he numbers them in particular and Penance for one: And in his summa sentent. tract. 6. cap. 10. he saith. Sacramentum Paenitentiae redeuntibus ad Deum semper est necessarium. Est enim secunda tabula post naufragium, quia post baptismum si quis vestem innocentiae peccando amittit per paenitentiam recuperare poterit. And by this you plainly see this Romanist is groaslie abused both by Perkins, and his imitator, as if he were a denier of the septenary number of Sacraments who so particularly doth acknowledge them. As in like manner the same author is abused by the knight page 128. Touching the custom of the communion of the people at every Mass in the Primative Church, by omission of his ensuing words which are these. Sed propter peccatum circumstans nunc statutum est ut communicaremus solum semel in anno. That is to say. But by reason of sin which doth compass us about, it is now decreed that we communicate thrice a year. Whereas likewise neither in the former words of this author cited by Sir Humfrey, there is a jot against private Mass, as he would have it, but only a relation of diverse customs of the Church in that particular point of practice, as I have declared in the paragraph of that matter.  
Bessarion in his words rehearsed by Sir Humfrey doth not deny the septenary number, nor doth absolutely affirm that there are only two Sacraments, but only saith that we read of two only manifestly delivered in the Gospel: which is not contrary to the Tridentine Council, nor yet that which the knight intends to prove, to wit that the doctrine of seven Sacraments is no article of faith. And what if Bessarion should say that some of the seven Sacraments are found not in the Gospel but in the Epistle, what would Sir Humphrey reply to that? But in earnest I have viewed Bessarions treaty of the Eucharist where I find that, altho' he makes no plain mention of the seven Sacraments as not having any just occasion there offered to handle that matter, yet out of some passages of his discourse with other circumstances there unto annexed, it is evidently gathered what his meaning, and faith was touching the same. For in the place cited by the knight and there about, Cardinal Bessarion treats particularly of the form of the Sacrament of Eucharist, proving that it consists of no other words than those same which our Saviour himself consecrated with, and delivered to the Church videlicet. This is my body: This is my blood. And by occasion of this he mentioneth Baptism, as being one of the two Sacraments which only have their forms expressly and in special terms contained in the Gospel and specified by Christ himself. And therefore a little before that which Sir Humphrey cited out of this author, he said. Illud quoque haud contemnendum videtur quod cum duo nobis Sacramenta à Saluatore traditae fuerint Baptismus & Eucharistia utrumque verbis suis confici iussit: By which words it is certain & clear that he there speaks only of such Sacraments as our Saviour most verbally or most expressly ordained his disciples to consecrate and administer.  
And now that this Cardinal did believe that there are more Sacraments than these, it is evidently convinced out of those his words fol. 169. saying. Ante omniaigitur sciendum est tam hoc Sacrosanctum Communionis de quo agimus quam caetera Ecclesiae Sacramenta ideo sacra vocitari, quoniam aliud in se habent quod videtur aliud quod non corporis oculis sed solo intellectu comprehenditur. And after in the same page. Etenim in Sacramento Baptismatis ablutio carnis per aquam ita est Sacrementum ut duntaxat signum sit ablutionis peccatorum. Ipsa enim peccatorum remissio res est significata nihil ultra significans. And to these words he presently adds that which is plainly to our purpose, to wit: Hoc idem in reliquis Sacramentis. Ergo & in Sacramento Eucharistia. And yet more plainly f. 175. Quenadmodum in caeteris omnibus, ita etiam in hoc Sacramento concords sunt Occidenibus Orientales. That is. Even as in all the rest so in this Sacrament the Occidentals (that is the Romanists) do accord with the Orientals) that is the Grecians). Besides, this author was a Greek Cardinal of the Roman Church, and a chief agent, and promoter for the union of the Latin and Greek Church in the Council of Florence, where the number of seven Sacraments was defined and declared. To omit that the same Bessarion fol. 181. makes express mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation for so he saith. Quod manifestum fiet si quis ad Sacramentum Chrysmatis mentem converterit. So that Sir Humphrey could scarce a chosen a worse Patron for proof of his  of deformed Sacraments, then is this Cardinal, if he had sought all Greece over: it being manifest that he was a professed defender not only of the two Sacraments he mentioneth in the place cited by him, but also a firm believer of the other five which the pretended reformers renounce & thrust violently out of the rank of true Sacraments. It is true I have advertised some small sleight of Sir Humphrey in translating or transforming the word  in Latin, into the word plainly in English: but this but one of his diminutive tricks and so I pass it over. Only I desire the indifferent reader to reflect how perverse and incredulous a generation this is which refuseth to believe points of doctrine because they are not manifestelie contained in the scripture. Whereas on the contrary this most learned and Catholic Cardinal Bessarion altho' he granted that two only Sacraments of the Church are so expressed in the written word of God, yet doth he with a firm and constant faith embrace the rest.  
S. Aug. is impertinentlie cited both in his third book of Christian doctrine c. 9 and also the simbolo ad Cathecu. l. 2. c. 6. in regard that in neither of the places he speaks of two only Sacraments as his words cited by Sir Humphrey himself do manifest. Nay in the latter place he speaks not at all of proper Sacraments, as his words following faithleslie omitted by our adversary, do declare, for thus S. Austin finisheth his sentence. Aqua in qua est sponsa purificata, & sanguis in quo invenitur esse dotata: That is, water in which the spouse is purified, and blood in which she is found to be endowed: in which passage no mention is made of any of the seven Sacraments, as the reader may plainly perceive.  
Of S. Cyprian I say the same I said of S. Ambrose, Austin & the rest. 
Vid. lib. de operib. Card. sub nom. Cyp.  And yet more, I know Sir Humfrey will be loath to grant five Sacraments as S. Cyprian doth altho' we should give him leave to put the lotion of feet for one, as S. Ambrose did put it for an unproper Sacrament.  
Dominicus à toto cited out of Bellarmin cap. 4. de Sacramento Ordinis doubteth not of Order in general, but he only makes a question of Episcopal Order in particular, whether it be truly a Sacrament: and so he is ignorantly and impertinently here alleged, with abuse both of him and the reader. As in like manner Suarez or rather Hugo, Lombard, Bonaventure, Hales, and Altisiodor. Of whom altho' Suarez Tom. 4. de Sacramento Extremae Vnctionis affirms that they were of opinion that Extreme Unction was not instituted by Christ, but by S. james from whence suarezes saith it plainly follows not to be a true Sacrament, yet suarez himself adds (which Sir Humphrey fraudulently left out) that those authors denied the consequence. By which it is manifest that those divines absolutely believed Extreme Unction for one of the seven Sacraments: not obstanding their material error about the institution of it, which error being impertinent to this present question of the septenary number of Sacraments, their testimony was impertinently alleged and proveth nothing to our adversary's purpose.  
S. Bonaventure also is abused by the knight p. 165. where out of Chamier he carps him saying: that for want of better proofs, he was prodigal of his conceits in honour of the septenary number of Sacraments. But here I find greater prodigality in the dishonest proceeding of Sir Humphrey, and his master minister chamier in their injust taxeing of Bonaventure, than I find want of proofs in that author, for if either Chamier or the knight had been disposed, they might have found warrantable allegations in him out of scripture for the probation of every Sacrament in particular as his several questions upon them do testify. But these men being much more disposed to cavil then to find the truth: they would not cast their eyes so fare, but only laid hands upon that which came nearest in their way, I mean upon some of the congruences only (and yet purposely omitting the chief) which that pious divine makes use of more for explication then for proof of the doctrine. And thus these ill occupied Pedants trifle with him who had more learning, and gravity, without comparison, than they and their whole Congregation nor yet had they both wit to cite the place they alleged truly, but quoted the second book for the fourth.  
just according to this manner of proceeding the knight also dealeth with S. Thomas, the Council of Trent, and Bellarmin and others, as if they had been so destitute of arguments of scripture and Fathers for their proofs of the seven Sacraments, that they were glad to refuge to figures and similitudes of seven virtues, seven capital vices, seven planets, seven defects proceeding from Original sin, seven days of unleavened bread, the offering of seven Rams, seven laver of naaman, seven candlesticks, seven seals, seven books and the like: whereas in truth these mystical numbers are applied to the seven Sacraments by the foresaid authors whereby to confirm and declare the matter more plainly over and above their other most pregnant and authentical proofs of the same as in them all and particularly in S. Thomas, and bellarmin, is too plainly to be seen in their works, to be brought in question by any one of reading and understanding; S. Thomas having seven severally distinct questions of the seven Sacraments a part, besides that he hath of them in general: and the like I say of Bellarmin. And as for the Council of Trent it either produceth proofs of scripture and Fathers actually for every particular Sacrament, or remittes the reader to other former Counsels and decrees which have them. And so we see by this that Sir Humphrey doth but cog and trifle for want of solid subject.  
Touching the citation of Caietan upon the 5. cap. of S. james, it is true I find the same which Sir Humphrey relates at the least in sense, and so I cannot accuse him in this place of the ordinary imperfection which he useth in citing authors. Nevertheless he might easily have known that the same Caietan in his Commentary upon the 65. question of the 3. part of S. Thomas art. 1. doth agree with him in the septenary number of Sacraments: and therefore in his gloss upon the second article of that same question he numbers Extreme Unction for one of the seven, saying: In titulo intellige per ordinem praedictum, ordinem quo numerata sunt Sacramenta in praecedenti articulo. videlieet Baptisma, Confirmatio, Eucharistia, Paenitentia, Extrema Vnctio, Ordo, Matrimonium. By which it is manifest that Caietan defended with his master S. Thomas Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament, and consequently he is no favourer of Sir Humphrey in this point of which now we treat. And the same I say of the same Caietan alleged by the knight as saying that the reader cannot infer out of the words of S. Paul, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, that matrimony is a Sacrament, because saint Paul saith not, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, sed mysterium hoc magnum est. But what soever out of the predominating subtlety of his wit, Caietan held of the interpretation of this place of saint Paul: in which as also in the exposition of some other scriptures, he is noted and notorious to have been more subtle than solid, yet certain it is that he absolutely defended Matrimony to be one of the seven Sacraments of the Church as both his words above cited do manifestly convince, and also the great punctuality with which he is known to have observed and followed his much respected and reverenced Patron saint Thomas in all points of doctrine, swearing in a manner every where in the words of his master; so that the knight cannot have as much as any conlorable reason to imagine that Caietan stands for him in this matter and against the Romanists: As neither he hath to conceive the like of Canus, whom he in the same manner cities as if we were a denier of matrimony to be a Sacrament, or at the least a testifier that other divines pronounce doubtfully of the same: whereas in reality Canus in defence of his own private opinion that matrimony is not a Sacrament nor conferreth grace except when it is administered by a Priest, doth only name some divines which  in their opinions concerning the determinate matter & form of matrimony, and touching the manner how or when it gives grace, yet both he and the rest constantly & expressly teaching, that absolutely it hath both matter and form and gives graces in one sort or other, and numbering it among the rest of the seven Sacraments as their writings do testify. So that it was great preposterousness in Sir Humphrey to use the testimony of Canus against the truth of the Sacrament of Matrimony since neither he nor those other divines which he names viz. Lombard, Scotus, saint Thom. Ricard. Palud. Durand. 
Vid. Magistrum. in 4. & vid. S. Th. in 3, part. q.  Except they be detorted from their true sense and meaning can possibly be imagined to have been others then professed Patrons and assertors of the whole septenary number of Sacraments, as by all or most of their own words cited by me in other places, may evidently appear to the reader.  
And these being all the authors which the knigth cities is this paragraph, or at the least all that deserve anser, we may plainly see that not obstanding all the art and skill which he hath used to make them seem his own, yet the. Roman faith touching the seven Sacraments of the Church stands still firmly ancient, universal, and visible, which is that he intended to destroy, and I maintain.  
Whence we may infer for the conclusion & censure thereof, that all which our adversary bringeth in it to prove that there is neither antiquity, nor universality in the Fathers, nor consent in the schoolmen (as he speaketh) sufficient to show the seven Sacraments to be instituted by Christ, is mere Sophistry, founded upon his own misinterpretations, falsifications, and corruptions of the authors he citeth, and that consequently his own conditional curse is absolutely fallen upon him, in which we must of necessity leave him till such time as by humble recantation of his errors he shall desire absolution.  
And now hence I pass to the next paragraph which is of the Communion under one kind. In which the knight by a special parenthesis which he makes in his 172. page, perversely persuades his reader that the foresaid manner of Communion in one kind, was decreed as it were in despite of God and man by the Council of Constance, & that from the time of that Council the Communion under both kinds was adjudged heresy, which is not so, for the Roman Church doth not teach that the communion in both kinds is heretical, but only that it is heresy to condemn the communion in one kind for unlawful, or repugnant to Christ's institution, and so his position is both false and calumnious, as appears not only by the decree of the same council, but also by the tenor of the decree of the Council of Trent neither of which counsel defined communion in both kinds either conformable or disconformable to any precept of either God or man in the nature of faith, but they only declare the practice of the communion in one kind as a thing not unlawful, or contrary to Christ's institution or precept, but otherwise convenient for the present state of the Church, in respect of the reverence due to the Sacrament: 
Si quis dixerit ex Dei praecepto, vel necessitate salutis omnes & singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiae sacramenti sumere debere, anathema sit. Conc. Trid. de common. sub utraq. specie. can. 1. vid. can. 2.  and for other just causes also condemning them that shall affirm that all and every faithful person is bound to receive both kinds either by the commandment of God, or as necessary to salvation by virtue of Christ's institution: or that the communion in one kind is unlawfully appointed by the Church, or that the Church did err therein. Which doctrine is so plainly declared by the two foresaid Counsels and especially by the Council of Trent, and so often repeated and inculcated by modern divines, (to say nothing of the more ancient) that if our adversaries were not over much disposed to cavil they would never have the face to calumniate the same by their misconstructions, as Sir Humphrey doth in this place. The knight cities some ten or eleven Roman divines, and among them to increase the number he fosteth in Cassander, whom yet he either knows or aught to know he is none of ours: but the matter is not great because neither he nor the rest teach any thing here, contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point: but they only relate the custom of the Primative Church to have been that the lay people commonly received in both kinds: yet not denying but that the same succeeding Church hath upon just reasons altered that manner of communion. Yea and the same authors here cited defending the lawfulness thereof either in the very same or in other places of their works: nay and 
Cassander. consult. de utraque specie.  some of them if not all, teaching with all that some times the communion in one kind was practised in ancient ages, so that it was great madness in Sir Humphrey to produce then either as confessers of want of antiquity and universality in the Roman Church, or for the proof of them in the doctrine of the pretensive reformed Churches, since that out of their testimonies, as shall be declared, neither the one nor the other can with any colourable probability possible be collected: and for this reason and because I have in an other place ansered what our adversary can say in this matter, I know I have no need to proceed to particulars, but only pronounce my sentence of this whole Paragraph in general terms: yet because I find all, or many of the authors cited to have their sentences and meaning mangled and perverted, therefore I deemed it convenient to give the reader notice in particular of the authors ill proceeding. And first altho' Vasquez with some others, is of a contrary opinion to Taper & many other divines to wit holding as more probable that those who receive the Sacrament in both kinds do receive some more spiritual fruit than the receivers of one alone, yet neither doth he condemn the contrary opinion and practice, not yet doth he conclude that it is absolutely better or safer for the laiety to receive both forms then one only: but rather defends the quite contrary expressly in his 216. disputation and last chapter: where not obstanding his own opinion defended in one of his former questions, yet he solues the sectaries argument in this latter place, and so cleareth the difficulty of their objection, that it is impossible for Sir Humphrey or any of his confederates to gather any thing in favour of their position out of that author, as his own words do make apparent to the reader of them, as here I place them in the margin. 
Licet secundum aliquorum opinionem quam praecedenti disput: defendi, laici aliquo fructu priventur dum ipsis calix denegatur, tamen cum sumentes tantum unam speciem nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem careant (ut notavit Concilium) omissis alijs causis postulantibus, recte potuit Ecclesia laicis alteram speciem denegare. Vasq. to. 3. in 3. p. disput. 216. cap. vlt.   
Salmeron is abused by Sir Humphrey in regard he takes only some certain words of his which seem to make for his purpose, and omits others which make against him which follow in the very next leaf, and do so temper the sense of the former that taking them together neither the one nor the other favour the reformed doctrine. For thus he saith. Nos enim etc. For we quoth he, do so confess the custom to have been of communicating the lay people under both kinds, that yet always in some cases, the use of one kind hath been practised. Which words quite dash Sir Humfreys design of proving that the Church of Rome in this particular, hath created a new article of faith manifestly repugnant to Christ's word, institution, & practice of the primative Church, except he will be so audacious as to condemn here also of sacrilege for her practice in those cases, as he doth our present Church. In which passage I much wonder at the slowness of him that otherwise useth to be so nimble and active as that in this place he took not pains to turn one leaf further for the discovery of the truth. And the same I say of Valentia who speaks just to the same sense and purpose de legit. usu Eucharistiae cap. 10. as also did Father Fisher and Castro in the places cited by our adversary.  
And as for saint Thomas upon the 6. of saint john. And lyra in 1. Cor. 11. they neither of them disprove communion in one kind, as Sir Humphrey doth allege, but expressly defendit. 
Vide S. Thom. in 3. part.  S. Thomas relates that the custom of the auncint Church was to communicate in both forms which custom he saith was observed even till his days in some Churches where also, quoth he, the ministers of the altar do continually communicate the body & blood. But for danger of effusion, saith he, in some Churches it is observed that the Priest only receive the blood, and the rest the body. Neither is this, saith he, contrary to the sentence of our Lord, because he that communicates the body, communicates also the blood, since that Christ is whole in both the species or kinds even in respect of both his body and blood. Thus saint Thomas. By which it is clear how fare he was from patronising Sir Humfreys new tenet maintaining that the communion of the laity in the Roman Church is but a half communion.  
Now touching Lyra, Sir Humphrey hath deceitfully omitted those words of his, which include the very reason & approbation of the change which the Roman Church hath made, it being the same which saint Thomas allegeth in part as his words in the margin declare. 
Fit autem hic mentio de duplici specie, nam in primitiva Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus: sed propter periculum effusionis sanguinis, modo datur tantum sub specie panis. Sacerdos tamen celebrans accipit sub utraque specie non tantum pro se sed etiam pro alijs Lira. in 1. Cor. 11.  So that both these authors are so plain against Sir Humphrey, and for us, that a man may almost perceive that he now reputes that ever he cited them, as also the authors following. To the words of Arboreus: but now the communion of both kinds is abolished: Sir Humphrey ought to have added that authors reason of the abolishment to wit this. 
Propter scandala quae contigerunt, & adhuc contingere possunt. Arb. Theos. lib. 8.11.  For the scandals which have happened, and which yet may happen. And the like I say of Taper, to whose words should have been joined that which follows, videlicet. This communion of the people in both kinds hath danger of Sacrilege annexed unto it in shedding the blood of Christ, and in the omission of the chalis no danger doth occur nor any loss of Spiritual grace.  
The Council of Constance is impertinently alleged as I have declared before. Bellarmin in the same place and words cited by Sir Humphrey, doth directly impugn that for which he is alleged by the knight, to wit for the Communion of all the people in both kinds. For so he saith. 
Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24.  And besides▪ all did not receive in both kinds. As for Cassander altho' we have him not in the rank of Romanists; 
Ex his itaque confici puto hanc integram in utraque panis & vini communicationem etsi simpliciter necessaria non habeatur, ei communicationi quae in altera tantum specie fit, etiamsi mandato contraria non putetur, multis nominibus esse anteponendam etc. Cass. loco. cir.  yet for any thing I can perceive, he doth not absolutely stand for Sir Humphrey in the subsustance of this Controversy, as neither holding it absolutely necessary for the laiety to communicate in both kinds, nor yet contrary to Christ's institution, as his own words in that treaty page 1046. Do plainly either suppose or insinuate. And for as much as concerns private or extraordinary communion, he himself relates diverse examples of it. So that the reader may perceive how small reason Sir Humphrey hath to use Cassander's authority for diverse respects in this matter, especially if he consider his own drift in this place, altho' I cannot deny but the same Cassander leans unto him, in that he desires the present practice of the Roman Church might be changed as less perfect & legitimate than the contrary, in his conceit.  
And this being all I need to say touching the testimonies of the cited authors and of Sir Humfrey's proceed about them, I will now conclude the censure of this whole Paragraph; that directly it containeth nothing which requires so exact a discussion as I have made of it. And that I have oftentimes marvelled why the reformers should stand so peremptorily against the Communion in one kind, supposing that even according to their own principles, neither the words of Christ nor the intention of the minister, nor both these together, are of force and efficacy to make any change or alteration in the matter of the Sacrament, but that when they have said and done all they can, they shall remain bread & wine as truly as if they had received them in the tavern; especially if we consider yet farther that, according to the reformed doctrine, the intention of the minister is not necessarily required to the constitution of any Sacrament; and yet without the same it is clearly impossible to conceive how the Eucharist can be received by them in remembrance of the death and passion of Christ more in both the forms of bread and wine then in one alone, especially supposing that by virtue of the institution and command of Christ each of them in particular is to be received in memory of him. And this I say hath caused me many times to wonder, even yet persuading myself the Novellists can have no other motive than the satisfaction of their own contentious spirits, to stand so nicely upon this puntillio with the Church of Rome; which refractory proceeding of them in this matter may yet seem more unreasonable to the reader if he consider that, altho' Vasquez and some other Roman divines are of opinion that greater fruits of grace are reaped by the communion in both kinds then in one, yet doth it not thence follow that the communion in one kind cannot be lawfully practised, as our Precisians will needs have it, nor yet that the communion under one kind is but a half Communion, as the knight doth here maliciously inculcate; but in either of the two kinds it is most evident there is a perfect and entire Sacrament according to the true definition thereof, in regard there is found in either of the consecrated forms a visible sign of an invisible grace instituted by God: as also because the body of Christ even according to the tenet of our adversaries being truly, really and substantially received under the form of bread only altho' they mean only by faith; it doth follow infallibly that unless they grant that Christ can dye again by separation of his blood from his body, or that his perfect and entire body is not there received but only a part of it: it doth I say necessarily follow that under the form of bread alone there is Christ's blood with his body, and so a perfect communion of them both received in that one kind.  
The Parahraph following is about prayer and service in an unknown tongue, in which point Sir Humphrey saith true in that he affirmeth that the Roman Church celebrates Mass and public service in Latin, and it is also true that the Council of Trent hath declared it not to be expedient that it be celebrated every where in the vulgar language. But yet it is false to say that either the Church or Council hath commanded it to be celebrated in an unknown language; for Latin cannot truly be said to be an unknown language, but rather it is a general language, a known speech, more used than any one language in the world: And altho' it be not understood of the ignorant sort of people, yet it is less uncoth unto them then any other language excepting their own mother tongue, yea then any other public language, I mean then either hebrew or greek, and finally it is a language fit for mutual communication in religion then any other tongue, and among the more learned sort of people of all nations, the most familiar of all. And I would fain know of the reformers what they have to do to call that in question which hath been generally practised in the Church for many hundred years before they and their reformation were hatched. Who appointed them for judges in this matter? Let them meddle in their own affairs, their cause is not ours, we are all one both in our religion, and in the form, and rites of our religion; we communicate with all the members of our Church even in the same external Ceremonies in what place soever they be, and they with us. But you in England have built a new Church different even from the rest of the pretended reformed Churches of other Countries; you are not uniform, neither in doctrine nor Ceremonies, and so it is not amiss for your purpose that you use a language in your public service in which you as little agree with your brothers as in your religion: Nay in my opinion supposing your separation in communion of religion, you have taken a politic course to separate yourselves also in the language of your service, otherwise it might happen unto you and your French and dutch brothers, as it hath done already between the Gummarists and Arminians, (especially now when Arminianism gins to spread itself) who are known to have entered into the Church with zealous communication one with another and yet the fervour of their spirits hath so much increased, that before the sermon was ended, there hath appeared good store of broken pates and perhaps worse; for avoiding of which inconueniencies our English Novellists as it may be supposed have their several Churches and forms of service, and doctrine for themselves, the French, and the Dutch: whereas one the contrary the professors of the Roman Church by reason of their public service or Mass is in a common language, are put to no such shifts, but wheresoever they meet, they find means to serve God and to communicate together in the very same manner they do in their own Countries, whether they be old or young, learned, or ignorant; of which great comfort the reformers by reason of their new form of service in the vulgar tongue, in many occasions do wilfully deprive themselves. To say nothing of the dignity which the service of God receiveth from the gravity of the Latin tongue, and the disparagement which it suffereth by a vulgar language, supposing also that by that means even the secret mysteries of the Christian faith come to be as familiar in the mouths of every apish boy as they be to the greatest Doctor of the Church, a thing both much repugnant to the practice of ancient times, and also which giveth great occasion to many to vilify, and disesteem the sacred words of God included in the public service; yea and oftentimes the things themselves by the words signified, as experience doth daily teach us: to omit the alteration & corruption which it is more subject unto in a vulgar tongue then in Latin which is always the same, as the same experience doth make manifest.  
But Sir Humphrey goeth on, and tells his reader, that some of the Trent Bishops adjudged the first part of the decrec of the Council to be questionable, for that it seemed to contradict itself in that it affirmeth the Mass to contain much instruction for the faithful, and yet commandeth that part of the service to be uttered with a low voice, and in an unknown tongue, and for this, for want of better authors, he citeth the history of the Council of Trent. But all this is but a mere cavil grounded in the relation of a false historiographer: for that if any such thing had happened after the foresaid decree was once confirmed, it is not so long a time since the Council was finished, but that the fact of those Bishops would have been known to the world, yea and their punishment for such their temereity, if they had remained refractory, would have been so published, as at the least some one or other writer would have taken notice of the same, as well as the author of that relation: neither is their any contradiction in the said decree, in regard it is manifest that by the instruction of the people, the Council meaneth either wholly or chiefly the epistle & Gospel of the Mass; as also for that the same Council withal doth expressly give Order that the Pastors of the Church interpret and declare the mysteries of the Mass to their parishioners, which order taketh away all colour of contradiction which can be imagined in the words of the decree; especially supposing that in what language or with what voice soever the Mass be celebrated, the foresaid exposition will supply all the obscurity which from thence can arise. But how be it this which I have said is true: yet I have discovered by reading that passage in the foresaid History, that it doth not so relate it, but quite in an other manner, for that history doth not affirm that the Tridentine Bishops made that doubt or question of the decree which ordaineth the celebration of Mass in a low voice and unknown language as ambiguous in the construction: 
Mandate sancta Synodus pastoribus & singulis curam animarum gerentibus ut frequenter inter missarum celebrationem vel per se vel per alios ex ijs quae in Missa leguntur aliquid exponant etc. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 8.  but the history saith expressly that the Protestants made that doubt by way of objection, to which the Bishops ansered in that form which the same history relates. Which is so foul a falsification in Sir Humphrey that I confess I had small mind to make any further examen of the rest of the citations of this book if otherwise I had not already so fare engaged myself. Let the reader survey the 650. page of the Trid. history printed in Latin at Frankford 1621. and he will easily find the deceit. And now you see this is but a fiction of a contradiction devised in discredit of the doctrine of the Council in this point either by the knight, or some other Sycophant of whom he received it upon trust. Besides that if any such thing had happened in the time of the discussion of the doctrine of the Council, yet certain it is that all such doubt was cleared and quite taken away by the establishment of the decree itself; whence it also appeareth how false a consequence Sir Humphrey deduceth out of the same decree, to wit that because the Council affirmeth that the Mass doth afford great instruction to the people, and for that end ought to be interpreted unto them, therefore saith the knight the Fathers of the Council do consequently affirm that the service and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church. For it is manifest out of the very same place cited by our adversary himself that the Council of Trent doth command that the Pastors do frequently expound some part of those things which are read in the Mass, not for that it having decreed the contrary, could possibly hold it better to have the Mass in a vulgar language then otherwise, but because that, supposing for other reasons it was better for the Church the Mass should not be in a vulgar tongue, and that besides this, it includeth matter of great instruction for the faithful people, therefore the Council prudently decreed not for one only, but for both these causes, that it should oftentimes by the Pastors and Priests be declared to the common people for their greater edification and better understanding of the doctrine contained in it. And this is all that in substance the Council either saith, or from the words of the decree can be truly inferred; and so, that from the Romanists own confession it can be gathered that the service and prayer in the vulgar tongue was better for the edification of the Church, is but such a dream as Sir Humphrey useth to have the night before whensoever he citeth the Council of Trent in favour of the reformed doctrine.  
After this the knight endevoureth to prove that the Mass ought not to be celebrated in a silent and unknown voice, because saith he the Apostles were commanded to show forth the Lords death till his coming: and to this end he citeth Haymo upon the 14. chapter of the firste to the Corinth, and justinian the Emperor in Nou. Const. out of Cassander, also the Greg. Decet. Tit. 31. de Off. jud. Ord. cap. 14. But to this I answer that both the knight's reason and the testimonies of these authors are impertinent, because the command laid upon the Apostles was not that in this mystery they should show forth Christ's death in words, but principally indeedes, and therefore our Saviour in the institution of the Eucharist did not bid his Apostles, say it in remembrance of him, but do it in remembrance of him. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Otherwise the Sectaries themselves should be convinced to violate Christ's commandment, since that those who receive their communion say not one word. In like manner let the reader view and understand perfectly the sense of the the words cited out of other authors, and he will easily perceive there is not one syllable in them against Latin service or prayer as condemning it either for unlawful in itself or otherwise contrary to the commandment of God. Haymo doth only comment upon that passage of saint Paul 1. Cor 14. If I am ignorant of the virtue of the voice, I shall be to him to whom I speak barbarous, only declaring in plainer words that which the Apostle speaketh briefly and obscurely, but saith not a word against the office of the Church in Latin. justinian (if any such constitution he made, of which it is much doubted, by reason this clause is not found in the ancient translation, neither is it expounded by Cuiacio) ordaineth only in general that Bishops, and Priests celebrate the oblation, and minister the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist non tacito modo not secretly, but with a loud voice; but he speaketh not in particular of all parts of the Mass, and at the least he speaketh not of the Canon except he means of the words of consecration which the Romanists do not deny but the Grecians have a custom of pronouncing them loud. And as for other parts of the Mass, the most of them are pronounced commonly in the Roman Church so that the auditors may here. And according to this justinian peradventure might advice the priests of his time to do, when nevertheless it is certain the Mass was in no vulgar language. The decretals speak not of any vulgar tongue but only of Greek and Latin, as, the decree of Innocent the third which may be seen in the ninth chap. of the General Council of Lateran, doth declare. Neither doth the Roman Church so strictly command that the public service be ministered in the Latin tongue, that she doth condemn either the Greek or Syrian Church for using the Grecian or Caldaian tongue in the divine offices or public service, but only commandeth as more convenient that they be not performed in a vulgar language.  
Lastly Sir Humphrey citeth some eight or nine Romanists who confess (saith he) that in the first ages public prayers were used for the understanding of the people. But to omit that he useth no great sincerity in the citation and translation of the testimonies of some of the authors he citeth in this paragraph, as may appear particularly in the quotation of Waldensis; I say not to stand here upon this which I shall more conveniently examen afterwards: I answer, that those authors affirm that which we do not deny, to wit, that perhaps (which word Sir Humphrey deceitfully leaves out in his translation of S. Tho. testimony cited out of his 3. lection upon 1. Cor. 14.) 
In 1. Cor. 14. lect. 3.  the case of the primitive Church was different from the practice of the ptesent time in this matter: yet withal the same authors do affirm that the alteration was made upon just causes, which causes are so sufficiently delivered by Bellarmine and others, even those whom the knight here citeth, that I need not rehearse their reasons they being so easily to be found as they are to those that read their books: And altho' saint Thomas advertiseth his reader, that it might have seemed madness in the primitive Church to have performed all the Ecclesiastical offices in the Latin tongue, for that they were rude & ignorant in the rites of the Church and ceromonies, yet doth he add that now all are so well instructed that tho' it be in Latin, the people understands what is done in the Church: whose saying is most true, at least in general yea and in particular so fare as is necessary for every person, state, and vocation; for that throu' the diligence of their pastors and preachers, and their own industry, they may have sufficient instruction. Howbeit that if it were necessary for every one that prays or sings to understand all they say, the Puritans themselves might put up their pipes, it being most certainly true that there be many things in the psalms which they sing so merrily, and in the scriptures which they read so readily, 
Conscquitur ergo Canonem clare & aperte legendum ut ad gratiarum actionem Sacerdotis populus respondeat, Amen. Cassander. ex Gerardo Lorichio p. 65.  which by reason of their great obscurity they cannot possibly understand even in their own mother tongue. And from hence I pass to a brief Survey of the rest of the authors cited in this paragraph, among which I find Cassander in the first rank of corruption: for altho' the testimonies which Cassander cities do not prove fully his intent yet is it evident by the words of those he produceth that he speaks in that places of the Canon of the Mass especially when he says in the title of his chapter canonicam precem etc. And Sir Humphrey translates it not the Canon of the Mass as he ought to have done, but Canonical prayers, so odious and reformidable unto him is the report of that great Canon that he durst not name it. Moreover the testimony of Cassander is detorted by Sir Humphrey quite from the sense in which he speaks it. For he speaks not there of the vulgar tongue one word, but whether the Canon of the Mass ought to be pronounced with a loud voice (especially the consecration) that the people may hear it and anser, Amen.  
And the same I (or Cassander form me) anser to the constitution of justinian which Cassander himself alleges to that same purpose and in no other sense. And so in like manner the words of the Decretals are violently draw to a sense repugnant to the author's meaning that is from doctrinal tongues to vulgar languages.  
To the words of Lyra, if he had dealt sincerely, Sir Humphrey ought to have added those which immediately ensue and explicate his mind more clearly: Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit & consuevit se conformare ministris Ecclesiae utpote stando cum dicitur Euangelium deposito caputio adorando Eucharistiam, & consimilia fiunt in Ecclesia Latina in Latino, & sufficit quod Clericus respondeat pro populo, expeditius enim fit hoc modo quam in vulgati. But since the people increased and is accustomed to conform itself to the ministers of the Church, to wit by standing at the Gospel, by putting of their bonnet to adore the Eucharist and such like, are done in the Latin Church in Latin, and it is sufficient that the clerk ansers for the people, for it is thus more readily performed then in the vulgar tongue. Lyr. in 1. Cor. 14.  
Which words are so plain against Sir Humphrey in diverse respects that he may be ashamed to hear them. Belethus cited out of Cassander to prove that service and prayer must be in the vulgar language, is abused by them both. 
Ind etiam inolevit usus vel laudabilis consuetudo in Ecclesia ut pronuntiato literaliter Euangelio statim in vulgari, populo exponeretur. Belet. in Proae. Exp. divinorum office  For Belethus expressly supposeth that the Mass and office of the Priest are in Latin, and therefore even in this same place and even in some of the words cited by Cassander he mentioneth a laudable custom of some places an which, saith he, the Gospel being pronounced, it is presently expounded in the vulgar tongue. Now if it were read in the Mass by the Priest in the vulgar tongue, than it had been vain for Belethus yea and impertinent to have made mention of that custom in the entrance of his work of expounding the divine offices for the use of the less learned sort of the Clergy as he professeth to undertake. It is true he hath in the same passage that it was prohibited to speak with tongues without an interpreter, but that is nothing else but the very same which the Apostle himself declared 1. Cor. 14. understanding by tongues the miraculous speech of strange languages which the speakers themselves did not understand, about which saith this author there was in the Primative Church a prohibition except it were with an interpreter. And this is that which by accommodation Belethus applies to the argument of his book by way of Prologue.  
In the rehearsal of D. Hardings' words Sir Humphrey takes only those which testify that in the Primative Church prayers were in the vulgar language. But he leaves out the just reasons which the Doctor alleges for the alteration of the same made by the authority of the Church even with in the first four hundreth years: as also he omits those pregnant proofs which he brings to show that six hundreth years after Christ the service of the Church was in no other language then in Greek or Latin: By all which the reader may perceive this author is not sincerely dealt with in this passage, that which yet will more plainly appear if he will please to see his anser to jewels challenge the 3. article.  
The testimony of Waldensis is used by Cassander only to prove that divine service or Mass ought to be pronounced with an intelligible voice that the people may anser; Amen, but not to prove that the public office must be in vulgar language, and so it is impertinent.  
Honorius cited by Sir Humphrey page 193. is falsified in regard he is alleged for the cause of the alteration of the ancient custom of the use of service in a known tongue. For that author speaks not a word of the vulgar language but only of the secret pronouncing of the Canon which was decreed, saith he, (I know not how truly) by occasion of a strange accident which happened in times past touching that matter. Vnde sinodali decreto sub anathemate est praeceptum ut nullus Canonem nisi in libro & in sacris vestibus, & super altar, & super sacrificium legate. In which words I know not what linx except our Egleeyd Humphrey can see service in the vulgar tongue.  
Gretzer is abused both in sense and words. In sense because he speaks only of the Latin tongue and of that time when it was either vulgar or very common to many nations: and yet the knight applies his speech to prove that public service ought to be delivered in the vulgarly known tongue of every nation and at all times, not contenting himself with less than this. In words he doth also abuse Gretzerus, for that he cities them neither entirely nor consequenter in English, omitting or at the least altering those which have relation to the authors precedent sentence, to wit: hinc illae exhortationes etc. hence are those exhortations of the Fathers etc. and also others before them which he ought to have rehearsed completely because they are to the same purpose. I will put the whole tenor of his words in the margin that the reader may more plainly see the fraud: 
Latini Patres quos citat. (Whitakerus) loqunn tur De eo tempore quo lingua Latina erat multis gentibus vulgaris, aut valde communis, hinc omnes simul psallebant & Missae linguae populo nota celebantur quia Latina lingua erat omnibus vel plerisque nota. Hincillae Patrum exhortationes ut omnes simul psallant, utque faciant attente & intelligibiliter vocenque suam cum Sacerdotum vocibus coniungant. Quae admonitiones iustissimae erant quamdoquidem lingua auditoribus non ignosa omnia peragebantur, & consuetudo ita ferebat ut tota ecclesia simul psalleret. Nunc alia est ratio antiquato vulgari linguae Latinae usu, quam linguam propter intermissum communem usum, ex Ecclesia divinisque osficijs minime conveniebat exturbari, inque locum eius vulgares & vernaculas substitui. Multa etiam dicta Patrum etc. Gretzerus defence. lib. 2. c. 16.  and how repugnant Gretzerus is to Sir Humfreys tenet in this particular as professedly he must of necessity be, as being a professed defender of Beauties' doctrine in matters of Controversy. But now because I have already treated in part of this before, and briefly given sentence already of that which Sir Humphrey produceth for the defence of his doctrine, I will include the contents of this whole paragraph in the same censure, and so pass along to the next which is of the worship of images, where we are to examine whether the knight bringeth any sounder matter than he hath done here, where (as I should have noted before) he falsely relateth a history of certain shepherd's out of his false friend Cassander, which shepherds he affirmeth according to his emendicated relation, to have transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by pronunciation of the words of consecration which they had learned; whereas indeed the authentical history of that strange accident written by Sophronius, saith only that the bread and wine were suddenly burnt by fire from heaven and the shepherds struken speechless for a time. But this howsoever it happened, being it can serve Sir Humphrey for no greater purpose then to replenish his pages, I leave it to the reader to consider of this his proceeding as he pleaseth.  
Presently in the entrance of the 7. Paragraph Sir Humfrey pronounceth a very sharp sentence against the Council of Trent for decreeing that due honour and veneration is to be given to the images of Christ and his Saints, condemning it for a wicked and blasphemous opinion. Lo here the sentence of condemnation, which is to be judged so much the more rash and temerarious in respect the peremptory judge leaveth out the greater part of the doctrine he censureth, which if he had added at large as it standeth in the Council it would sufficiently have justified itself: and because Sir Humphrey for reasons of state would not take so much pains, I will do it for him.  
The Council therefore in the 25. Sess. page 202. decreeth in this manner, The images of Christ the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to be had and retained, and due honour and veneration is to be given unto them, not that it is believed there is in them any divinity or virtue for which they are to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that confidence is to be put in them, as in times past the Gentiles did who put their trust in Idols, but because the honour which is exhibited unto images is referred unto the Prototipes which they represent, so that by the images which we salute, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and reverence the Saints whose similitude they have, that which by the decrees of counsels especially of the second Nicene Synod hath been established against the oppugners of images, thus the decree of the Council of Trent; in which we find not one word either wicked or blasphemous, nay rather every word soundeth nothing but piety and religion towards Christ and his Saints, whom it will have honoured not only in themselves but also in and by their images, which manner of honour as it is declared by the Council is not only not contrary to scriptures as Sir Humphrey falsely affirmeth, but also very conformable to them, both in regard the scriptures make mention of honour due unto material things for the relation of representation which they have to God or other his holy creatures: 
Psal. 95. Matth 5.  as also for that we use no other reverence to images than the Church doth teach us, whose authority the same scripture commendeth and commandeth us to follow and obey, & more than this the Council is so fare from attributing to images any unlawful manner of honour, that it doth not once use either the word worship, or adore, except where it speaketh of Christ himself: which words nevertheless if they be taken in the sense in which divines do commonly take them, include no offence at all, as signifying an exterior action of honour indifferent even according to the phrase of scripture both to God and creatures, and being distinguished only according to the diversity of the internal affection, and submission of the mind, which submission and affection in the honouring of an inanimate creature, as an image is, is never by the worshipper exhibited to the image itself, but only to the thing it representeth: nay nor yet the exterior sign of adoration as genuflection, or inclination of the body, is given to the image itself for itself and to remain in it, but rather by the image which we salute, or before which we prostrate ourselves, the same sign of honour is transferred jointelie with the affection of the mind to the thing which is adored. Which doctrine is both so clear in itself and so plainly declared by the Council expressly teaching that the honour exhibited unto them is referred to the Pattern, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. decret. de imag.  that a very child may conceive it to be free from all superstitious worship and adoration, in so much that it is but gross ignorance, malice, and madness in our adversaries to exclaim against the Romanists as idolaters for the honour they give to images. And I would fain know of Sir Humphrey or any other of his reformed companions in what place of scripture this proposition. The images of Christ and his saints are to be duly honoured: is condemned for wicked & blasphemous? and the same I say of the ancient Fathers. And if they cannot produce as much as one only place either out of scripture or Fathers which doth truly serve to that purpose, I mean which doth truly condemn the foresaid proposition in that manner, as I know neither they nor the knight can perform, let him confess that is censure of the Romanists is temerarious and false, and nothing else but a renovation of an old jewish complaint against the Christians of more ancient ages.  
It is true I know the reformers use commonly to allege for their denial of honour to images both scripture and Fathers as also Sir Humphrey doth in this paragraph, and particularly they use to produce the words of that which they call the second cammaundement, to wit, thou shall not make to thyself any graved image. But touching this I have showed above 
In the 4. Period.  that according to the doctrine of S. Augustin there is no such second commandment, those words being only a part of the first. secondly, howsoever the matter stands, certain it is that except the sectaries will turn jews or Turks they ought not to take those words in that rigorous sense which they do, for so by consequence if they tie themselves so strictly to the letter of the text, they must do the same in the commandment of the Sabaoth and so they will be come Sabatizing jews indeed. Wherefore except Sir Humphrey will turn plain Talmudist, he can prove nothing against Christians out of the foresaid words.  
Now touching authorities of ancient Fathers he confesseth that he for beareth to cite any in particular, and what soever he falsely pretendeth, the true reason was because he found none to cite except he had produced such places as they use only against the idolatry of Gentiles and ethnics as, 
Chamier lib. 21. de imag.  Daniel Chamier and others of the reformed Doctors commonly do, which places never the less secluding their own glosses upon them do not in any sort favore their cause. And so Sir Humfrey instead of Fathers he cities jews and Gentiles in whose doctrine touching this point, he showeth himself to be more conversant then in Christian writers as finding more for his purpose in them then in these, and therefore also as I imagine he useth no other answer to Bellarmin affirming that the making of images is not absolutely prohibited by the law of God because God commanded images to be made, the knight I say useth no other anser than the anser of the jews, to wit that God did say a general command upon them, and not upon himself: and so I say no more of it, but leave to the reader to judge howsolid and good such an ansere may be, and whether it savoureth not much more of judaisme then of Christian religion.  
True it is he cities diverse authors which have writ since the Council of Francford, but some of them as Agrippa, Erasmus, Cassander & Chemnitius, are of no authority with us, others are suspected of corruption, I mean to have been corrupted by malignant publishers, as Polidor Virgil and Agobardus. Others are impertinentlie alleged in regard they either speak only of the image of God himself as Philo judeus and S. Augustin, or of the manner of worship not of the substance of the honour, as Peresius Bellarmin. Wicelius, Hincmarus: for that they either only condemn the adoration of pictures takeing the word adoration for that kind of honour which is due unto God only, or else they speak only of the private errors of some simple people: of which sort is Polidor & Biel when they reprehend the abuses and superstitions of some simple people, who out of ignorance give more honour to images then either they ought to do or the Church alloweth, yet doth Polidor expressly approve of due honour of the same as his own words declare even in those places where he useth that reprehension: for thus he saith after he had made relation of diverse images of Christ and his Apostles mentioned by Eusebius and others even in the most primative years of the Church. 
Hinc igitur natum ut merito tam ipsi Saluari quam ei●diuis statuas in templis poni & venerationi haberi consueverit. Polid lib. 6. cap. 5.  Hence therefore grew the use of putting in Churches and honouring as well the statues of our Saviour, as his Saints. And he adds Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tamque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitne dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe Sanctissimorum Patrum decreto constitutum.  
By which words it is manifestly convinced that is other words razed by order of the Index have either been foisted in by the new sectaries, to wit those which aver that till the time of S. Hierome all the ancient Fathers rejected worship of images for fear of idolatry; or else he means only that they durst not practise the same least their action might seem idolatrous either to the ignorant Gentiles, or to such as were then lately converted from Gentilism and as yet but infirm in faith, and easily scandalised in this nature. All which nevertheless cannot possible prejudice the doctrine and practice of the Church itself in general: So that neither any of these authors severally nor all of them together prove that absolutely to honore the images of Christ and his saints is wicked or blasphemous, which is the assertion the knight here maintains; and yet he is not ashamed to call their testimonies the confession of his adversaries, among which also that his impudency might more clearly appear, he fosteth in to that rank Bellarmin and Vasquez, which authors if the reader be not over grossly ignorant he will easily perceive, at the least by the rest of their works, that they cannot truly favore Sir Humfreys tenets in this point of Controversy, they having both writ professedly of it against the reformers doctrine and in defence of the practice of the Roman Church touching the use and honour of images.  
And as for the Emperor's Valens and Theodosius whom he citeth out of Crinitus saying they made proclamation to all Christians against the images of Christ. It is false that those two Emperors ever published any decree against the images of Christ, but expressly in honour of of the same by establishing by law that the image of the Cross of Christ should not be framed upon the ground, as upon the stones of sepulchres or graves where it might easily be profaned by the feet of those that passed over them, and that this is the truth of that passage of those two Emperors, or at the least of Theodosius, Crinitus his very words would have plainly declared if they had not shrunk in the wetting I mean if they had been entirely related by the knight who is not the first that hath corrupted the tenor of Theodosius his law by leaving out the word, humi, upon the ground for the words of the foresaid law being thes, let not the Cross of Christ be painted upon the ground, or some such like, by leaving out the words, upon the ground, the sense as you see cometh to be quite contrary, that is the sense falleth out to be this, let not the Cross of Christ be painted, which trick of the sectaries was discovered long since by Alanus Copus in his 4. Dialogue the 11. chap. to their utter shame and discredit. And yet besides this, I marvel greatelie that either Sir Humphrey or his predecessors offer to make use of the foresaid words of the law which as they are cited by him are so general that they quite condemn the practice of the reformed brothers themselves, none or very few of them being as yet mounted to that degree of purity as expressly to proclaim a general law against the pictures of Christ as not to be painted or graved at all, and so I conclude that either those words of the two Emperors are to be read as the Romanists do use to read them, and then they plainly prove the reverence of the Cross to have been practised in ancient times: or if they be to be read so generally as the sectaries will have them, then if they prove any thing, they do no less then reprove even the Puritans themselves and their practice in that particular.  
To the testimony of Tertullian whom also so the knight produceth l. de idolat. c. 5. saying. Thou hast his law make thou no image. And presently after, make no image against the law unless God command the as he did moyses: I answer first that if it be against the law to make any image at all, then be these words of Tertullian as much against the reformers as the Romanists. For both the Church of England and all the Lutheran Churches at the least, make both the images of Christ and his Apostles. And I know a famous Puritan I mean a pure Caluinist (whose name is Daniel Chamier) who expressly defends that images are not absolutely prohibited by that precept which he calleth the second commandment, 
Chamier lib. 2. de imag.  but only to the end to honore them religiously. So that the words of Tertullian must of necessity be either otherwise tempered than they be by Sir Humphrey, or they will fall upon his own Church, as well as upon the Roman Church.  
Wherefore I answer secondly that Tertullian speaks only against idolatrous images, or Idols, as the very argument of his book doth show, which is entitled against idolatry not against Christian images, as is manifestly convinced out of an other work of his, 
De Pudicitia.  in which he maketh express mention of the picture of Christ himself graved in the chalices of his time, which he also mentioneth as a thing frequently practised: so that unless Sir Humphrey will say that Tertullian plainly contradicted himself, he cannot possibly be imagined to have spoken against the images of Christ and his saints, but only against such as the Gentiles in his time, or the jews made in time of the old Testament contrary to the law of God as being representations of false and feigned gods and godisses as is own words in his book above cited plainly testify, where thus he discourseth against the Christian makers, of Idols. Potes unum Deum praedicare qui rantos efficis? Canest thou preach one God who makest so many? Tot a die ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit ingemens Christianum ab idolis in Ecclesiam venire, de adversaria officina in domum Dei. The zeal of faith will plead all the day long on this side lamenting a Christian to come from idols into the Church, from the adverse officine in to the house of God. And a little after: to reach those hands to the body of our Lord, which give bodies to devils. 
Eas manus admovere corpori Domini quae daemonijs corpora conferunt.   
The same I say of Origen cited out of Cassander by Sir Humfrey, whom they both abuse in that they use his testimony against the veneration of images in the primative Church. For I have diligently read his 7. book cited by them where I find him to speak much against idols but nothing against Christian images his words are these. Illarum enim gentium nemo ab his alienus est quod vereatur numen ob viles has ceremonias detrahere quae versantur circa arras & materias effigiatas varijs imaginibus, nec quod intelligat daemonas inhaerere certis locis & statuis sive incantatos quibusdam magicis carminibus sive alios incubantes locis semel praeoccupatis ubi lurconum more se oblectant victimarum nidoribus voluptatem captantes nefariam & vetitan divinis atque naturae legibus. Caeterum Christiani homines & judaei sibi temperant abhis propter illud legis: Dominum Deum tuum timebis & ipsi soli services. Et propterillud non erunt tibi dij alienipraeter me, & non facies tibi simulachrum nec ullam effigiem etc. Non adorabis ea neque seruies illis. Aliaque multa his similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris & simulachris ut etiam emori iubeant citiùs quam cotaminemus nostram de Deo fidem talibus impietatibus. Et postea. Liquet enim haec dedicari ab hominibus falsam de Deo opinionem habentibus. For none of those nationes is free from these things because they fear to dishonore the divine power in respect of thes vile ceremonies which are used before the altars, and tables carved with diverse images: For that they neither understand that devils inhabit in certain places, and statues either enchanted by certain magical verses, or others lying in places once preoccupated, where they delight themselves life gulliguts with the savour of the sacrifices, taking nefarious delight prohibited both by divine laws, and the laws of nature. But Christians and jews temper themselves from these for that of the law: Thou shalt fear thy lord God, and shalt serve him alone. And for that. Thou shalt not have strange Gods besides me. And. Thou shalt not make to thyself any semblance, or anielikenes etc. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. them, and many o her things like to these which so debar us from altars, & likenesses, that they command us sooner to dye them to contaminate our faith of God with such impieties. And afterwards he adds. It is clear that these things are dedicated by men which have a false opinion of God etc. Thus origen about the end. By whose own words the reader may evidently perceive, he discourseth only against the images and altars of false Gods. Which authors words I did therefore so largely relate that he himself might demonstrate how much he is abused both by Cassander and Sir Humphrey touching this matter. And indeed I have often times much wondered to see the great stupidity of the sectaries in this point, and especially the most learned sort of them, in they be either so sotishlie ignorant or so jewishlie superstitious and blind, that they are not able to distinguish between the honour which Christians give to the picture of Christ true God and man, and the worship which the Gentiles give to the images of their imaginary and counterfeit Gods. Not ceasing either in their sermons or ordinary discourses to compare most grossly the one with the other, and to pronounce sentence of idolatry against them both a like, and applying most absurdelie unto the condemnation of the reverence which the Romanists usually practise towards the foresaid images of Christ and his saints those same sentences of scripture and Fathers which by them were only spoken against the pernicious error of the Pagans, whereas in truth there is as much distance betwixt the one and the other as there is between Heaven and earth, God and the devil, Christ and Belial. the person represented by the picture of Christ being both capable and worthy of honour, but the persons represented by the images of the false gods being neither capable nor worthy of worship as being either wicked men or plain devils. And moreover, the honour exhibited to the picture of Christ being not given to the picture for the picture or by the picture itself I mean nor without relation to the Prototype, nor yet in the picture permanentlie, but rather to the Prototype in and by means of the picture or by the picture transitorilie: not much unlike to an arrow or dart which altho' it passeth by the air and in the air, yet doth it not stay there but in the mark only: whereas one the contrary the Gentiles went grossly to work, for the honour which they gave to the statues and figures of their Gods the same they gave to the images themselves by themselves and for themselves attributing divinity, or at the least divine operations unto them, and adoring them with actions of honour proper to the true God alone as sacrifices, and the like, all which is so fare different not only from the practice, but also from the cogitations of any Christian man, that it can be esteemed no less than most gross ignorance in the reformers to bring it in question.  
And altho' it is true that the leight of nature only is not sufficient to establish the honour of images which the Council of Trent decreed as the knight doth captiously infer out of the words of a modern divine whom he citeth: nevertheless the leight of nature doth sufficiently teach us the difference between true and idolatrous worship of images, and doth also plainly dictate unto us that those are both ignorantly blind who are not able to conceive it, and temerarious and rash who not being able to conceive it, condemn it as contrary to the law of God, our as sectary commonly do. And thus much for the answer to the testimony of Tertullian and to show that antiquity is neither for the reformers nor against the Romanists in this matter, as the knight doth vanely endeavour to prove, but expressly for them in regard that as I have showed out of the same author even in those most pure and primative times there was use of the picture of Christ, yea and of a graved image (which is that the reformers most directly impugn and exclaim against) and that even in the chalices where of necessity it must needs have been honoured, the same author further affirming that the foresaid image was much used in his time being the second hundreth year after Christ our Saviour when idolatry was not yet extinguished, which is an argument convincing that it was not a thing than first invented but long before established, nor offensive to the most sincere and entire Christians of those prime ages as now it is to the Nyce novelists of our days, many of which are so superstitiously precise that, as an honest Protestant writer affirmeth, 
Sir. Th. Ouerb. Carat. of a Precis.  they had rather see Antichrist then the picture of Christ in the Church Window. And now let this suffice for a brief Scantlin of the antiquity of the reverend use of images to omit others, as S. Augustin who in his book of the Trinity calleth images religious signs. 
Lib. 3. cap. Greg. l. 7. epist. 53.  And S. Gregory who speaketh of prostration before them which is one of the greatest actions of honour that the Romanists use to exhibit toward any image. So that by this the reader may plainly see the Romanists want neither antiquity nor universality for their doctrine in this point as contrariwise the misreformers want them both, for their pure negation of the same.  
And if they demand scriptures of us besides that which I alleged before, we may truly answer them as a grave divine in the seventh Synod answered the heretics of that time. If they ask us (saith he) in what place of scripture we read that the picture of Christ is to be honoured, we answer that there where we read that Christ himself is to be honoured.  
And if now the reformers demand of us what reason we have for the honour of the images of Christ and his Saints: we may answer them that we have the same reason that they have to honore the image of their King or his dearest favourites. For as in civil honour, to respect or honore the Kings picture, doth not diminish the honour due unto the King himself, but increaseth it so it passeth in the worship of the image of Christ, and if the Puritans deny this, there we leave them as guilty of treason against God and man.  
And now here before I conclude I must of necessity advertice the reader of such abuses as Sir Humphrey hath committed in his citations of some of the authors he produceth in this place. Wherefore in the first place I put the two counsels he allegeth as being as I suppose of greatest authority in our adversary's conceit. The one is the Council of Francford which because it is corrupedtly rehearsed by Chemintius, we may justly disclaim from it, if there were no other reason. Yet Sir Humphrey knows beside this that the Romanists hold that council for illegitimate. As for the Council of Eliberis, it is not absolutely rejected by Romanists, yet they know it was but Provincial consisting of 19 Bishops which whatsoever they defined in this matter which as yet is uncertain, yet could it not be any General doctrine or practice for the universal Church, but at the most for their own whole Country as the circunstances of that time, and place required. But of what authority soever they were, neither of those two counsels condemned the adoration of images as it is understanded and used in the Roman Church, for unlawful and much less for wicked and blasphemous as the knight here contends: but if they truly condemned any worship of images, it was only divine not honorary worship they condemned, and so they neither of them prejudicate the antiquity and universality of the Roman doctrine in this point, and much less do they establish the antiquity or universality of the misreformed Churches, which for the most part will not suffer any images either painted or unpainted to appear in their synagogue, either upon walls or windows. And yet besides this, it is well known the Council of Nyce as consisting both of Latin and Grecian Fathers, was much more general than either the Francfordian or Eliberitan Synod; and in the Nycene it is certain that the honour of Images was defended, and established, as our adversary not unwillingly confess, and the decrees of it plainly testify; where as in the other two it remains doubtful and ambiguous even till this day what was truly delivered in them touching this point, there being only some certain fragments of them extant touching this matter: out of all which incertainty it is plain that no assured antiquity or universality can be extracted for Sir Humfreys cause.  
In the citation of Clemang is he takes only that which seemed most for his purpose, and couninglie left out that which makes against him: 
Postquam vero satis in fide (Christiani) imbuti, satis confirmati fuerunt, saluberrima rursus ratione visum est illud statutum debere aboleri, & per generalem decretum est Synodun imagines atque picturas in Ecclesijs fieri, quae á laicis & simplicibus pro libris haberentur. Clemang. de novis celeber. non inst.  for also that author affirms that the universal Church induced by just occasion did decree in the Primative Church that no Images should be placed in Churches in regard of those who were converted from Gentilism to Christian faith (which how true or false it is importeth not much for the present dispute) yet the same Clemangis presently after affirms also that the same Church did alter that law and ordain that Images should be used in Churches for the instruction of the vulgar sort and for memory of Christ and his saints, and yet further adding that he brings this but for an example to show that this being but an Ecclesiastical law it may be changed at the Church's pleasure: so that if Sir Humphrey had cited this author home, he could have found nothing to prove his position to wit that the doctrine of Image-honor is a blasphemous opinion, but rather the contrary is expressed sufficiently by Clemangis, for that to set Images in a holy place that is in the temple of God, as he expressly affirms the same Church did for most wholesome reasons, is one of the greatest acts of honour that the Romanists exhibit unto them. And by this we see that our adversary hath neither dealt sincerely in the alleging of this author, nor in the rehearsal of his words in which he passeth in silence the chief part of them viz: those in which he shows that prohibition of the primitive Church which he mentiones touching the placing of pictures in Churches, to have been only an Ecclesiastical precept and changeable, yea and de facto changed by a general Council, as his words related in the margin declare. That which Cassander also doth plainly insinuate when in his consultation of the use of images, he saith (though falsely) the Fathers in the beginning of the Church did abhor all veneration of images: yet afterwards in the same treatise, he grants convenient, and due honour, unto them as in another place I will show by relation of his own formal words. So now this being all which I need to speak of this matter seeing that by this I have said it will manifestly appear that Sir Humphrey hath failed both in the authentical proof of the antiquity, or universality of his own position touching the use of images, and in the disproof of ours, I pass to the next paragraph in the which doctrine of Indulgences used in the Roman Church is impugned by him most courageously by virtue of an old challenge made in Martin Luther's days but as yet never performed, therefore let us see how our new Champion Sir Humphrey useth his arms.  
First he relates the decree of the Tridentine Council Sess. 25. yet in a some thing different manner than it runneth there. But the true tenor of it is this in substance: that whereas by Christ the power of Indulgences was granted to the Church & that she hath used that power delivered unto her by divine ordinance even in the most ancient times, the sacred Synod doth teach and command that the use of them as very profitable to Christian people, & approved by the authority of sacred Counsels ought to be retained, and doth condemn those with a curse who either affirm them to be unlawful, or deny that there is in the Church authority to grant them: this is the true tenor of the decree which Sir Humphrey hath not so sincerely rehearsed as he ought to have done, which whether he did it to advantage his cause or only out of an ill custom he hath got by his frequent exercise of such tricks in diverse places of his book, I know not; only of this I am sure, that he produceth nothing of any force for the impugnation of it in all his paragraph, notwithstanding he boldly averreth that it will be found (I know not where) that neither Christ nor the primative Fathers ever knew, much less ever exercised such pardons as are now daily practised in the Church of Rome. this he affirmeth most strongly, but proveth his affirmation so weakly that its hard to judge whether his temereity in affirming, or his defectiveness in proving that which he affirmeth, be more excessive, how be it most certain it is that neither the one nor the other can be justified, for that if he had used the least circumspection in the world, he might have found not only in Bellarmin, and other divines but also in the Council of Trent which he citeth, mention both of scripture & Fathers copiously cited & quoted for the proof both of the power and use of Indulgences in the Church from time to time, of which as it seems he durst not take any notice, but passed it over in silence, to the end his great words which he uttered in the beginning might carry a fairer colour of truth, which other wise would presently have discovered themselves to be false.  
True it is he describeth one kind of mitigation or relaxation of punishment imposed upon offenders for denial of their faith, or sacrificing to idols, which he granteth to have been called by the name of pardon or Indulgence, and to have been derived from saint Paul who released the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of excommunication, all which tho' it be true in itself, yet is it but an evasion which he useth to the end he may with greater colour reject those pardons which are truly and properly Indulgences that is a relaxation from a temporal punishment due unto a penitent sinner according to God's justice for satisfaction of the pain of his offences already remitted touching the guilt and eternal punishment of the same, by virtue of the keys, that is by the power of binding and losing sins which Christ gave to his Church, and in her particularly to the chief visible pastor thereof. Of the power and practice of which Kind of pardon, if Sir Humphrey had not been disposed to cog, he might have found good store of testimonies both out of scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers alleged for the same by Roman divines.  
And as for scriptures there are two places especially which do plainly enough convince the foresaid truth of Indulgences if they be reight understanded according to the interpretation of the ancient Fathers. The one is that general sentence of our Saviour Math. 18. in which he giveth an illimitated power to his Apostles and in them to their lawful successors for binding and losing without any restriction either to this or that one matter, or to this or that manner of remission, and consequently in that most general power is included the authority of remitting the temporal punishment due to sins which is that we call the power of Indulgences of which general power granted to Priests we have diverse testimonies of Fathers and particularly of S. Aug. who upon those words & iudicium datum est Apoc. 20. Saith: Non hoc putandum est de ultimo judicio dici, sed sedes Praepositorum est, & ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur. judicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum videtur quam id quod dictum est: quae ligaveritis in terra ligata erunt & in Caelo: & quae solueritis in terra soluta erunt & in Caelo. 
●ug. lib. 2. ●e Civit. c. ●9. idem: ●…act. 49. ●… joan. ●…d. tract. ●…. Vide etiā●il. can. ●8 math. ●… Hier. in ●…p. 18. ●ath.  The like he hath upon the Gosp. of S. joh. Ideo cum processisset mortuus adhuc ligatus, confitens & adhucreus ut soluerentur peccata eius ministris hoc dixit Dominus, soluite illum & sinite abire quid est soluite & sinite abire. Quae solueritis in terra soluta sunt in caelis. S. Ambrose also speaking of the same power l. 1. de Paenit. c. 2. saith: Deus distinctionem non facit qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, & relaxandi licentiam Sacerdotibus suis fine ulla exceptione concessit. God, saith S. Ambrose, makes no distinstion, who promised his mercy to all, & gave to his Priests licence to release without any exception. Neither can any reason be assigned why the pastors of the Church should have power to apply the merits of the passion of Christ for remission of the guilt of the sins themselves with the eternal pain and yet not have power to apply the same for the remission of the temporal punishment as due unto them, after the remission according to the order of God's justice, as the eternal punishment was due before it, especially considering that the temporal pain as being fare inferior in nature and quality to the sin itself, it requires much less power and fewer conditions for its remission then doth the guilt of the sin and eternal pain to the guilt annexed.  
The other place of scripture is not only for the proof of the power to grant Indulgences, but also of the practice of the same by S. Paul himself the 2. chapter of the second epistle to the Corinth. where speaking to the same Corinthians, he saith of himself: And whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, myself also that which I pardoned, if I pardoned any thing, for you in the person of Christ that we be not circumvented of Satam. Which words altho' they be obscure in the Gramaticall construction, yet do they sufficiently declare those parts and conditions which are found in such Indulgences as are now practised in the Roman Church that is to say power in the collator or giver, piety in the cause, and grace in the receiver. S. Paul showeth his authority in that he affirmeth he gave pardon to the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is by authority from him received: he showeth the cause to have been the common profit of the Corinthians themselves, to wit lest they should be circumvented by the devil so that they in the like occasion might fall in to desperation by over much rigour as the incestuous man might have done if he had not been pardoned in the performance of some part of the punishment due to his offence. lastlly he in the precedent words showeth the receiver to have been in the state of grace in that he signifieth his sorrow and penance to have been so great that he was ready to have been swallowed up by the excess of it. And so by this we may perceive how deceitfully Sir Humphrey proceedeth in his 220. page where he insinuateth that S. Paul in the place now cited did only release the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of excommunication, whereas indeed the Apostle did not only that, but also did absolve him from that temporal punishment & affliction in which if he had pleased he might have constrained him to continue longer, and so supplied by his authoritative and suffragatorie pardon that part of satisfaction which otherwise remained to have been performed by the continuation of the punishment imposed and due to the penitent according to the exaction of God's justice, he supplied it I say by application of the merits or satisfactions of Christ, which application also, and not only the authority by which saint Paul did it, is included in those words, in the person of Christ. 
Theod. in 2. Cor. 2.  That which by the comentary of Theodoret upon this passage doth plainly appear who discreetly noteth that saint Paul is said here to pardon the incestuous Corinthians sin because it was greater than his penance. And S. Ambrose lib. 2. de Paenit. cap. 2. speaking of the same matter, saith of S. Paul: Donavit Corintho peccatum per paenitentiam. And a little after: Etenim qui de remittenda praedicavit paenitentia, debuit & de ijs qui iterandum putant Baptismum non silere. By which testimonies of these two most famous and ancient authors Sir Humfreys evasion saying that the Apostle did only free the incestuous Corinthian from the bond of Excommunication, doth evidently appear to be false & frivolous. And thus we see that not only the relaxation of a punishment enjoined, as the knight would have it, but also the same or very like form of pardon which the Roman Church useth at this present time, was practised by S. Paul himself in the foresaid case.  
And in truth supposing at the least certain received maxims of divinity which might easily be demonstrated by scriptures if the place did serve for it: to wit that after the guilt of sin is remitted, some temporal punishment remaineth which according to the exigence of justice must be removeed before the soul can attain to perfect blessedness, either by just endurance or merciful remission: and more over that the same temporal affliction which many suffer in this life even after their sins be entirely remitted, is not for correction and commination only (as the sectaries do frivolouslie contend) as appeareth plainly in the example of David who altho' he known from the mouth of a Prophet that the guilt of his adultery was pardoned, yet understanding nevertheless by the same Prophet that there remained no small punishment behind to wit no less than the death of his dearest child, and that as the scripture itself testifieth neither for correction nor commination only, but because by his scandalous action he had caused the enemies of God to blaspheme his name and as the text declareth in the 2. Book of the Kings the 12. chapter, propter verbum hoc that is for this thy fact taking word for action as it is most frequently taken in the scriptures: and yet besides all this the same David did voluntary penance composing the whole miserere Psalm and crying out with an amplius lava for a perpetual testimony of the same. And now supposing as I say all this, the doctrine & practice of Indulgences now used by the chief Pastors of the Roman Church is so well grounded that except only in those in whom obstinacy reigneth more than reason, it admitteth no trergiversation in the credibility and faith of it. For as God is infinitely not only just but also merciful in himself by essence, so hath he communicated to the governors of his church a kind of participative mixture of both those attributes between which according to that of the psalm iustitia & pax osculatae sunt, he hath made a most loving league to the end that according to diverse causes and occasions his spiritual officers may so use them in earth as the use may be approved in Heaven, sometimes using rigour of discipline for the satisfaction of God's justice, other times lenity for the exercise of his mercy.  
But now touching the confirmation of this doctrine by the authority of Fathers I will only produce the testimonies of Tertull. and S. Cyprian who being both so ancient as they are known to be, they may justly serve for sufficient witnesses of the ancient practice of the same in those primative times.  
Tertullian therefore in his book to the Martyrs and first chapter speaketh of the remission of the pain due to sins which the Bishops gave unto the sinners either at the petition of martyrs, or for other causes, calling it by the name of peace. Which peace faith he some that have it not in the Church are accustomed to ask it of the martyrs in prision, and therefore you also (meaning the Bishops) ought for that cause to have, nourish, and keep it in yourselves to the end that if perhaps you may communicate it to others. where Tertullian by the word peace understands the Bishop's absolution at the least from some part of the sinner's penance by application of the superabundant satisfactions of the martyrs which application is also in the word peace included, as manifestly may be gathered out of the same Tertullian, who afterwards falling in to heresy in his 22. chap. of his book of chastity recalled that which he had taught before, to wit that indult could not be given to those that had fallen, at the petition of the martyrs, because saith he (now turned Heretic) there remain no satisfactions of martyrs, (which satisfactions he calleth oleum faculae) which can suffice for themselves & others. All which as the reader may clearly perceive is nothing else in substance but such an Indulgence as is now practised by the Bishops of Rome, of whom and others by their commission, the foresaid author doth speak in the place rehearsed.  
And the same saith S. Cyprian in his last Sermon de lapsis saith, paenitenti, operanti, roganti, potest clementer ignoscere, potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus & petierint martyrs, & fecerint Sacerdotes. To the working or labouring penitent (the Bishop of whom he speaketh as I suppose) may clemently pardon, & accept as received whatsoever the martyrs demand, & the Priests do, or perform. And the like the same S. Cyp. hath l. 3. epist. 15. or 11.  
I omit Saint Gregory whom yet both S. Thom. and Atisiodorus his predecessor testify to have granted Indulgences in form, which altho' it is not found in his works now extant, yet it is fare more credible, and certain that those two authors would not have used that testimony with out infallible ground that it was S. Gregory's, then that it was feigned because kemnitius and other novelists reject it as suppositious. And if they will not admit of this testimony because they see it not. At the least they must of necessity admit of that which being yet more ancient is to be seem in the Chapel of S. Cross of Jerusalem in Rome written in legible letters, that S. Silvester who was Bishop & Pope above 1200. years' paste did consecrate that Chapel and adorn it with main reliquys of saints and indulted diverse pardons to the visiters of it. I could also cite the Popes which since the time of S. Greg. in several ages have very frequently granted Indulgences, but because I know our presumptuous adversaries contemn their authority (tho' injustly for that they have been of as great authority as their anticessours) I will save the labour, and only advertice the reader that there is fare greater reason for a prudent man to give credit unto them in the affirmative of this question then there is to rely upon the authority of the sectaries for the negation, in regard that even by their own confession the affirmative hath been taught and practised publicly in the Christian world at the least for the space of 400. years even according to Kemnitius, who (though most falsely for that it may be proved That Leo the third who lived in the 8. or 9 hundreth year gave pardons according to the manner of those our times) affirmeth that Indulgences began about the year 1200. who nevertelesse on the contrary contradicting himself granteth that the first deniers of the same were the Waldenses, a company of poor ignorant beggarly fellows. From whence we may infer how impudently the knight affirmeth antiquity & universality in his own Church for the denial of Indulgences, yet dinying the same in the Church of Rome for her defence of them: supposing he could not produce as much as one author either more or less ancient for the negative part living before the poor men of lions, who having no other saint for their founder then one waldo a very idiot, appeared about the year of our Lord 1170. that is many hundreths of years after Indulgences had been practised in the Christian world even according to the form now used. It is true Sir Humphrey allegeth diverse Roman divines as he useth to do, but it is but a mere shift he useth to colour his position as being destitute of all other ancient authority & proof. For I have examined those authors & I find there is not one of them which is not a zealous defender both of the power which Christ gave unto the Church to grant Indulgences, & also of the lawfulness & profit of them; nor doth any one of them confess the want of antiquity & consent of the same: but some of them only confess indeed there is no certainty of their beginning, or when the use of them came into the Church in the manner they are now used. To which purpose the testimony cited out of B. Fisher may seem to serve, who yet doth not say (as the knight falsely relates) that it is not sufficiently manifest from whom Indulgences had their Original, but he only saith non certo constare a quo primum tradi caeperunt, that it is not certainly apparent who first began to give them. And altho' that author hath the rest of the words which Sir Humphrey cities, yet hath he others in the same place which do sufficiently declare his meaning in that manner of speech; for he presently adds that S. Gregory is said to have granted Indulgences, & they say (saith he) that there was some most ancient use of them among the Romans which the stations of the City, give us to understand. And hence it is that the same Bishop in the same place turning his speech to Luther his adversary, saith unto him, wherefore thou art a mere imposter, or deceiver of the people, not the Popes to whom (in this point of Indulgences) both the Gospel favoureth, and a general Council subscribes, & also the universal company of modern interpreters upon those words of Christ math. 16. whatsoever you shall bind in earth shall be bound in heaven, & whatsoever you shall lose in earth shall be loosed in heaven thus he. So that it is plain that Bishop Fisher never duobted of the power of Indulgences, or that the use of them is not lawful or profitable, as neither doth he bring in question whether the ancient Fathers & divines did deny, or not acknowledge these particulars, but as I said before, he only treats of the antiquity of the use of the same, as manifestly appears even by the same words which the knight cities where he saith that, Indulgences began not till a while after the saint, or tremble of Purgatotie. By which also it doth further appear that in his passage that renowned Prelate who not only with his pen, but also with his sacred blood defended the Roman faith as well in this as all other points, is not sincerely dealt with, nor pertinently alleged to the true state of the question proposed by our adversary.  
Now other authors which Sir Humphrey cities, only affirm that much can not be said of Indulgences of certainty, & as undoubtedly true seeing scriptures speak not of them expressly as Durand affirms: to which purpose also Antoninus speaks, & yet neither of them say that nothing can be spoken with certainty of them. Which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Romanists who, altho' they believe there is sufficient ground of the power & truth of them in the Bible, yet they willingly grant with all, that diverse particulars concerning them are disputable among divines. And it is clear that Durand & S. Antoninus as they say only that pauca few things can be said with certainty of pardons or Indulgences, & that the scripture doth not speak expressly of them, so by the same reason evident it is that the same authors grant that both some things may be pronounced certainly of them, & also that at the least, there is implicit & unexpressed mention or containement of them in the scripture: to wit of power of the Church to grant & use them, which alone is sufficient to show that they consequently maintain the universalite & antiquity of the Roman doctrine in this point & impugn the contrary position of the false reformers who absolutely & obstinately deny such power to reside in the Church of God. And as for that which Durand affirms, that diverse of the ancient Fathers make no mention of Indulgences, yet he doth not say that it doth thence follow that they did reject the power or use of them in the Church, & much less doth Durand affirm that other ancient Fathers did not mention them; yea if he had affirmed this, yet he himself kewe well enough that this being but a negative argument at the most, it proveth nothing. But that which follows of those ancient Father's silence in this matter, is that they had not occasion to speak of them as others had, or at the most, that Indulgences were not much in use in their times which doth not contradict the Romanists, who do not stand upon defence of the frequent use of them in the Primative Church, but of the power which they maintain to be as ancient as the spiritual power of binding & losing given by Christ himself to the Pastors of his Church in most general and ample manner. 
Mat. 16.  And to this I add that which Sir Humphrey for his own advantage omitted in the citation of both Durand & Antoninus, to wit, that they both allege the testimony of S. Gregory for the use & actual grant of Indulgences, 
Gregorius tamen loquitur qu● etiam Indulgentias Rom● iustituit instationibus, ut dicitur. Durand. id 4. sent. d. 20. q. 3.  which Pope, say they is reported to have instituted the Roman stations, which words of Durand, & the like of S. Antoninus if the knight had rehearsed as he ought to have done according to the laws of plain dealing, the use of Indulgences would have appeared not to be so new as he indevores to persuade his reader.  
Touching the citation of Caietan Sir Humphrey proceeds no less insincerely, for in the same place which is his 15. Opuscle, 
Ex his hambetur textibus non solum quod Indulgentiarum gratia antiqua est in Christi Ecclesia & non nova inventio, sed habentur clarè quatuor etc. Caiet. Opusc. 15. c. 1.  he adds that in the fourth of the sentences it is alleged by S. Thomas that S. Gregory did institute the stations of Indulgences, & producing many other testimonies out of the Ecclesiastical decrees he concludes thus. Out of those texts it is had that the grant of Indulgences is not only ancient, but etc. Where also the reader is to be advertised that Caietan is corrupted by Sir Humfreys translation of the word hunc or hanc, them, which the author refers to the beginning, or certainty of their beginning, not to the Indulgences themselves or power to grant them.  
And doubtless siluester Prierias had the same meaning where he said, if so he said, that Pardons are not known unto us by the authority of the scripture but by the authority of the Church of Roman, for the sense is that they are not expressly declared & delivered unto us by the text of the scripture in plain words but by the Church whose office it is to propose such doctrine in particular to the faithful as she finds not so plainly delivered in the scripture as they themselves can without her directions come to due knowledge of it. And surely this athour is so fare from denying the Antiquity of the power & use of pardons that he professedly defended the same against his professed adversary Luther.  
And the same I say of Eckius & Tecelius, who as Sir Humphrey can not be ignorant were also Luther's Antagonists even in this particular, to omit that he cities those two authors only upon relation of the Council of Trents history in English to which as I have alreader noted we give no credit. Nay & since I writ this at first, I find that Prierias Eckius & Tecelius are falsely charged by the same false history of Trent to have laid for their ground of Indulgences the Pope's authority in their impugnation & convincement of Luther. 
Pag. 6.  And the marginal note of that place is yet more false, than the text, saying that the adversaries of Luther proved the doctrine of Indulgences by common reasons only. And as for Eckius I have read his whole treatise of Indulgences & so I am sure he foundeth them not upon the Pope's autheritie either only or chiefly, but principally upon scripture, for so he saith page 313. Indulgentiarum figurae fuerunt jubilei in veteri Testamento. De his sumus contenti eo quod habeamus solidum S. Paul● fundamentum ne credamur diligentiores in lucrosa. Porro etc. 
2. Cor. 2.   
And to the sense of these authors may be reduced that which Cunerus saith of the doubtful manner of writing of some Catholic authors, of Indulgences, if the place be sincerely related which a man may justly suspect especially for that the knight hath it out of Chamier & at second hand. And in deed the truth is if that author's sentence had not been violently abrupted before the end of the same period which he delivered with one breath, it would have plainly declared that there is nothing for Sir Humfrey's purpose of proving that neither Christ nor the Primative Fathers (as he speaketh) ever known or exercised such pardons as are now daily practised in the Church of Rome. For the words omitted are those. 
Cunerus declam.  Cum in clavibus Ecclesiae & symbolo Apostolico clarissime fundatae deprehendantur. That is since that (Indulgences) are most clearly discovered to be founded in the Apostolical symbol or Creed, & in the power of the keys of the Church etc.  
And so now we see that those testimonies do not prove want of antiquity or consent in either scripture, Fathers or schoolmen for the doctrine of Indulgences themselves, but only at the most in some accessory points of that Controversy, yet not one of them proving any such want in the main of the question above declared, no more than he should be thought to prove want of antiquity & universality in the doctrine of three persons, & one God, who should affirm the same not to be in express terms contained in the scripture, Fathers, & schoolmen just in that manner in which the Church believeth & defendeth it. And yet granting nevertheless that it is truly contained in the same scripture in an other equivalent manner, or inexpresselie.  
As also the same doth yet more plainly appear even by those same words which Sir Humphrey cities here out of Alfonsus, which altho' they be not sincerely related by him, as leaving out that which most conduceth to the explication of that authors true meaning, to wit that, who but an heretic can deny transubstantiation, the procession of the holy Ghost & Purgatory because they are not mentioned by ancient authors sub his nominibus, by these names or words. And after: what marvel therefore is it if it happened in this sort of Indulgence that, saith Castro there be not mention made of them in the ancients. By which words it is plain this author speaks not absolutely of the substance of Indulgences or of the authority to grant them which indeed is the chief question of Controversy in this place, & of which he makes no doubt but that it is sufficiently contained in scripture & Fathers altho' as he saith minus express less expressly. But he only speaks of the name as his words now related do testify; or at the most of the antiquity of their common use, which not withstanding it is no matter of faith, yet doth he show it not to be so new as the sectaries of our times will have it: & therefore he adds by way of conclusion. Quod non est tam recens Indulgentiarum usus quantum isti haeretici (meaning the Lutherans) exprobrant, nam apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur earum usus ut ex stationibus Romaefrequentissimis colligi utcumque potest. Et de Beato Gregorio huius nominis primo fertur quod aliquas suotempore concesserit. And in the same tenor of words he adjoineth that, et si pro Indulgentiaram approbatione sacrae scripturae apertum testimonium desit, non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam Ecclesiae Catholicae usus à multis annorum saeculis receptus, tantae est authoritatis ut qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur etc. By all which it is evident that nothing can be proved by the words of Alfonsus against the substance of Ecclesiastical Indulgences nor contrary to the antiquity & universality of the Roman doctrine in that point, but rather Sir Humphrey & his brothers are manifestly convicted of heresy for contemning the same. Now Mayor in 4. d. 2. q. 2. is impertinently alleged for he only affirms that it's hard to found authentically in scripture just that manner of Indulgence which is used at this day in the Church: & that some of the ancient Fathers made no mention thereof, which the Romanists do not deny for they say difficilia quae pulchra. And so that which is hardly founded is truly founded. Yet the power & use of Indulgences even as they are now practised the same Mayor defends as well as other modern divines, yea & deduceth the use of them from S. Gregory the great, & thus this author is excused & the citer reproved.  
Touching Silvester Prieras altho' I cannot have that same work of his which Sir Humphrey cities. (if any such be extant now in the world) yet I have viewed the treatise of Indulgences which he hath in his sum, & there I find that he doth not say all that with which our adversary doth charge him, nay nor scarce half so much, for he neither excludes scripture from the ground of Indulgences, 
2. Cor. 2.  but expressly cities the same place of S. Paul for them which others cite, altho' it be with a licet at the and. And much less doth he affirm that the authority of the Church of Rome & the Pope's is greater than the authority of the scripture, which proposition if he had uttered & defended obstinately in my opinion he had deserved the fygot almost as well as his adversary Martin: but I persuade myself the discretion of Prieras was greater than so. And in the same manner. I vehemently suspect our adversaries hath used some of his Gipsian sleights in the citation of the place he quoteth. But yet is meaning is only that Indulgences, that is the present use of them, is not manifestly declared unto us by scripture & Fathers as his words cited here in the margin insinuate, absolutely granting both the power & practise of them. 
Indulgentia nobis per scripturam minime innotuit: licet inducatur illud. 2. Cor. 2. Si quid donavi vobis; sed nec per dicta antiquorum doctorum, sed modernorum. Dicitur enim Gregorius indulgentiam septennem in stationibus Rome posuisse. Et quia Ecclesia hoc facit & seruat credendum est ita esse quia regitur Spiritis Sancto. Sylvester in sum. verbo Indult. Bell de Indul. l. 2. c. 1.   
Lastely touching Bellarmine & Valentia, I say they are neither of them cited by Sir Humphrey either with any great sincerity, or to any great purpose. For altho' Bellarmin doth insinuate that there are not many of the more ancient authors which make mention of Indulgences; yet he doth not affirm that there is want of antiquity & consent in the Fathers in this matter as Sir Humphrey doth falsely deduce out of his words, but only insinuateth that the defect of number of the more ancient Fathers which mention Indulgences, is sufficiently supplied by the use & custom of the Church without writing, by reason (saith he) that many things are retained in the Church by that means only.  
And as for Valentia who as he is cited by the knight, relates out of S. Thomas the opinion of some who called Indulgences a pious fraud to allure men to the performance of those pious works which are required in the form of the Indulgence granted, it is true there was such a tenet in those days: but as it is true that S. Thomas relates it, so is it also true that he condennes the same for very dangerous, that which our adversary if he had dealt honestly ought not to have omitted. And yet not obstanding, he could not but see that position censured by S. Thomas in the very place cited by Valentia, as also he censureth another little better, to wit that by virtue of the Indulgence itself no punishment neither in the judgement of God, nor the Church could be remitted: notwithstanding all this I say, yet Sir Humphrey subtly let it pass, making by that means his reader believe that the foresaid tenet was long before the days or Luther according to the relation of Aquinas (as he saith) an uncondemned opinion of some divines, & rejected as erroneous by Valentia alone: who nevertheless expressly affirmeth it to have been an opinion hised at by all Orthodox writers, opinio ab Orthodoxis omnibus explosa. Nay & which is yet more gross, Sir Humphrey leaveth quite out some part of the words of the foresaid opinion as it is rehearsed by Valentia, to wit those which mention satisfaction made to God by reason of the devotion of the gainer of the Indulgence & value of the pious works in joined him for the obtaining of the same, all which because it sounded contrary to the doctrine of the pretensive reformed Churches, it struck Sir Humphrey deaf one that ear, & so he left it out.  
I omit diverse particulars which our adversary utters here & there in the progress of his paragraph. Because they either consist of some inauthenticall relations about the use or rather about the abuse of some particular grants of Indulgences as that out of the office of Saram & out of Guitcherdin: or else they consist in his own plain calunnious untruths, as that Indulgences are granted only to draw money from the grainers: & that the Romanists pretend universality of Fathers for every point of faith: & that the article of Indulgences wants authority of scripture, of all this I say I need to make no further discussion in regard the apparent falsity of it doth sufficiently confute itself & shows that it proceeds rather from a man maliciously affected & ignorant of the state of the question, & more disposed to cavil then careful to attain to the truth of the doctrine. For suppose the abuses were never so true (which as in all other things so in this I confess there have been some especially in the questors or inferior administrators of Indulgences, & may be more: nevertheless these abuses of particular men, do not impeach the power, & authority, & lawful use of the same, which only is that which my adversary & I have now in question.  
And so now for conclusion of this matter we may hence infer how impiously the sectaries proceed in the denial & impugnation of the Indulgences used in the Roman Church, which altho' they had no other utility or profit in them then to induce people to the exercise of such pious works as are required in the tenor of them, that is fasting, prayer & alms so heighly commended in the scriptures, & receiving of the Sacraments, yet in common reason ought they not to be rejected, but rather maintained & sought for with great zeal & devotion. And so now let this suffice for the entire discussion of this paragraph, in which I have found nothing to the excuse the author from the same censure I have laid upon him in the precedent matters.   

THE IX PERIOD.  
WE are now come to the 10. section of the book in which Sir Humphrey produceth the testimonies of the Romanists touching the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith, & the uncertainty of the Romish. this is his design, but I am verily persuaded he will fail of his purpose. I will examen particulars that the truth may appear. But before this I must advertise the reader that in this section there is little substance to be found, & it consists chiefly in a large recapitulation of the supposed confessions of the Romanists: as that they have confessed that justification is by faith only, that the conversion of the bread in to Christ's body, was not generally received by the Fathers, that the certain & definite number of Sacraments was unknown to scripture & Fathers, & that the Indulgences now used, have no authority from scripture or Fathers, & the like all which particulars we have already disproved in their several places. In substance a great part of it is but an idle repetition of those falsities which the kingh hath uttered before, with some new additions to make the number of his lies more ample & complete & this he performeth with great abundance of words of amplification: & thinking to make all sure calleth to witness both men & Angels: And thus for space of a leaf or two, he bringeth nothing but verbal discourses which with the very breath of any judicious reader presently vanish away, & so they need no other confutation. Afterwards he comes to some particulars which I have not yet touched & of these I will make a brief examen.  
And to omit those points which I have before discussed, in his page 242. he endeavoureth to prove out of Bellarmin that the Church of Rome hath overthrown in one tenet all certainty of true faith, & he performeth it very solidly, because for sooth Bellarmin affirmeth that none can be certain by certainty of faith that he receiveth a Sacrament by reason of the uncertainty of the intention of the minister without which the Sacrament can not be made. And the argument the knight framed of the doctrine of the Cardinal is this. It is a positive ground of the Roman Religion that a Sacrament can not be made without the intention of the minister but the intention of the minister can not be known by faith, therefore the Church of Rome hath overthrown in one tenet all certainty of true faith. I ansere first that altho' this is the form which Sir Hunfreys' argument must be reduced unto if any it can have, nevertheless if we should examen it according to the rules of logic there will scarcely be found either form or figure in it, yet lest the knight should hold himself too rigorously dealt with as not making profession of that art, I am content to let that pass and answer secondly that I grant the mayor in this sense viz. That whensoever the Priest doth administer a Sacrament it is required that he intends at the least in general to do that which the true Church useth to do in that action I mean either formally or virtually, & this is defined by the Council of Trent as a certain truth. But in the minor there lieth secretly a certain false supposition which is this. That to the faith of a Sacrament is necessarily required that the intention of the minister in particular cases be known by faith which is not true, nor defined by the Council; because to the faith of a Sacrament is sufficient that faith by which a Christian believeth that every one of those visible signs which the Church proposeth to the people to be believed & received as Sacraments of the new law are instituted by Christ to confer grace to the receivers, & that to every one of them is required a sincere intention to administer or perform that particular action as is was instituted, or as the Tridentine decreeth, intention saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, that is at the least with intention to ho that which the Church doth; & that seriously & not in mockery: but notwithstanding it is not necessary that either he that performeth that ceremony, or he that receives the same, have certain knowledge of faith that this or that individual Sacrament hath been instituted with the foresaid intention, but to this a moral certainty doth suffice both in the minister & in the receiver, & the reason is because to know whether one hath received, or doth truly receive a Sacrament or not, falleth not upon the essence, or making or marring of a Sacrament as a thing necessarily precedent unto the constitution of it, but it is only a thing consequent or following the same as serving only to rectify & quiet the consciences of those that either administer it or receive it, to the which as being but a moral matter, moral certainty only is required. And surely if all true faith should therefore be overthrown, as Sir Humphrey infereth because of want of certainty of faith in the receivers that they receive true Sacraments every time they receive them, than should it follow by an argument ad hominem, that the faith of the reformers were also overthrown; for that they themselves neither have nor can have any such certainty of faith: or if they say there is no faith of any such intention of the minister in their religion, so do we say the same of ours: for altho' it is a matter of faith in the Roman Church that the intention of the Priest is necessary in general to the constitution of a Sacrament, yet that intention is not necessarily known by faith in every particular case, & in this consisteth the equivocation of the whole argument, & if the knight had distinguished between the intention & the faith of the intention, he might easily have perceived that his discourse was founded upon a false foundation. To say nothing of the conclusion which although the premises were never so true, yet had they not been able to infer such à vast consequence as is the overthrow of all certainty of true faith, precisely in respect of the supposed want of faith of intention about the Sacraments.  
And now by this general ansere may be solued what soever Sir Humphrey saith afterwards of the intention required to the Sacraments in particular. To which I alson add that if certainty of faith were required in the receivers of the Sacraments that as often as they receive them, the receive true Sacraments hic & nunc, & that as often as they want that faith they overthrew all certainty of true faith, than the reformers themselves were in a more pitiful case then the Romanists, in regard that it is impossible for them to known more than either by their own seight, or by relation of others, that the true matter & form of the Sacraments, be truly applied unto them: & yet certain it is that upon neither of these two knowledges any supernatural faith can be founded, but only either a kind of natural cognition or knowledge at the most, taken from the senses, or a certain moral certitude proceeding from the relation of their parents or others, all which is fare inferior to the knowledge of faith as no man can deny.  
That which may by a special reason be yet more plainly urged against the receivers of the Sacraments in the reformed Churches, in regard they are so fare from certainty of faith of the truth of their Sacraments in particular, that they cannot possible have as much as a moral certainty of the same nay nor moral probability I mean such an one as may justly move a prudent man to give credit, by reason they have no certainty, nor yet probability of the truth of the vocation & ordination of their ministers, without certainty of which two conditions, it is well known on both sides, that no certain knowledge of the truth of individual Sacraments can possibly he had. And so we see that whereas Sir Humphrey thought he had framed a stung argument against the doctrine of Bellarmin, he only heapeth coals upon his own head. And from hence also we may gather an easy solution to that which he addeth against the necessity of the Priests intention in some of the Sacraments which he specifieth as baptism, Order, & Matrimony.  
Touching which matter I desire the judicious reader consider whether it is not much more conformable to reason, to the dignity of the Sacraments, to the honour of Christ who instituted them, & to the comfort & security of the receivers, that a sincere intention of the Priest God's substitute, be required to the truth & due administration of them as the Roman Church doth teach & ordain: or only so, that if the receivers take them in the name of God, as the reformers speak, it is sufficient for the minister to perform that external action which Christ did institude, tho' he doth it in jest or morkery as Luther teacheth, or animo illusorio, that is with an intention or meaning to delude as kemnitius affirmeth, or to have no intention necessarily required as Sir Humphrey here professeth: this I say I leave to the judgement of any indifferent man to discern whether the Romanists or the reformers proceed more safely & religiously.  
And as for the illations which the knight deduceth out of the necessity of the intention of the minister in administration of Sacraments they are so ignorant & sotish, as I am ashamed to rehearse them, for example when he saith that if the Priest fails in his intention at the time of solemnisation of matrimony the married people live all their days in adultery, or fornication: which is a most gross error in the knight: for that the Romanists & the reformers agree in this that altho' Matrimony were no Sacrament, & consequently that the married people should not receive it as a Sacrament, yet were it sufficient to free them from adultery, in regard they receive it at the least as a civil contract, whatsoever the Priests intention be. And if it were not so, certainly all sectaries of this time, & particularilie Sir Humphrey himself for one should live perpetually in that damnable state of adultery which he mentioneth. And yet this sequel I am sure it imports him to deny as earnestly as he can if it be but only for the conservation of his own, & his wife's honour.  
And the like foolish & false inferences he makes about all the rest of the Sacraments, as also about the succession of the Popes & pastors of the Church as if by the confession of Romanists themselves there were no certainty in any of them: whereas yet he himself citeth Bellarmin in this very place as teaching that in all these things there is at least moral & sufficient certainty of their real existence & truth. 
Certitudine autem moralem & humanam quae sufficit & ut homo quiescat ex Sacramentis, habemus etiansi pendiāt ab intentione alterius. Bel. de Sacr in genere li. 1 c. 28.  So that all these deductions are void of all sense reason, & truth, merely framed by the knight out of the superfluity of his brain, & obtruded upon his reader as confessions of his adversaries in a peremptory & odious manner in disgrace of that Church whose doctrine he is not able to impugn in any more substantial manner.  
In a semblable fashion doth he also prosecute the like captious kind of argument against diverse other points of the Roman doctrine, as for Example because he findeth in Biel & Peter Lombard that they speak not with any certainty of the manner how Saints do understand the prayers of their supplicants, he inferreth that the Romanists are uncertain touching the doctrine of invocation of Saints itself, which nevertheless is a most false illation for that although there be some uncertainty in what manner or by what means the Saints do come to know our prayers by reason of the diverse opinions of divines in that particular, yet as well those who Sir Humphrey citeth as also all the rest of the Romanists agree and hold for certain that Saints are piously & profitably to be invocated & prayed unto, all without exception teaching & inculcating the same expressly in their books & writings. Gabriel Biel is so plain for the doctrine of the Roman Church, that if the knight had not corrupted him both in words & sensc, he could not have alleged him with any coulorable pretence: For in the very precedent lection to that which he cities against us. Biel resolves the question in our favour saying. Whence it is apparent that our prayers, & hope of obtaining beatitude by the mediation of the Saints, are not void in Heaven: but by order constituted by God himself; we ought to recurre to their help, & assistance: & perpetually implore them with due veneration that we may be saved by their merits. In which words, & the rest following, I am sure there is sufficient to make the author a plain Papist, yea & much more than Sir Humphrey desires to hear in favour of the Roman doctrine & so it is clear he hath corrupted his sense. And now for his words, he hath likewise corrupted them most perversely, by displaceing, & tranferring them from one purpose to an other. For these words: non est certum per omnia: By which Biel ansers only to that question, whether it pertains to the accidental Beatitude of the Saints to hear our prayers (which question as you see is only about the manner, or quality of the Saints understanding our petitions, not of the main substance) he respondes: Non per omnia certum est. It is not altogether certain. And yet Sir Humphrey applies this, as if Biel had said, that it is not certain that the Saints hear our prayers at all. Yet further connecting unto the same, those other words: unde probabiliter dicitur: Which he also somaed. Insincerelie Englisheth: it may seem probable: & rehearsing them in one series, or tenor, whereas yet they are uttered by their author, many lines after, & to an other purpose, where ansering to the question before proposed he said thus: Vnde probabiliter dicitur etc. Whence it is probably said, that altho' it doth not necessarily follow the beatitude of the Saints, that they hear our prayers: by congruity, yet God almighty revels unto them all that is offered unto them by men. All which particulars concerning the corruption of this place by the guilie knight, may more plainly be perceived in the author himself, than I can possible here express.  
As for the Master of sentences, & Scotus in the 45. d. of the fourth book, altho' perchance they seem to one that reads then superficially, not to speak with certainty of the invocation of Saints, yet to the anttentive reader it appears clearly they both suppose for certain, & of which they frame no disputation, that the Angels, & Saints hear our prayers, & that we lawfully & profitably pray unto them, of which points it is most undoubtedly to be supposed that those two authors could not be ignorant, nor maintain the negative part, in regard the public litanies in which the invocation of Saints is expressly included were used in the Church long before their days, as histories so commonly testify that I need not produce them. Besides that the writings of the ancient Fathers whose sentences Peter Lombard professedly collected, as much as was for his purpose, & of which Scotus could not be ignorant, are full of the same doctrine as in our Catholic Controvertists may easily appear to the reader.  
And therefore whereas the Master uses the words: non est incredibile, & scotus probabile est, they speak not either of the absolute invocation of Saints, or of our prayers unto them of which neither of them proposes the question: but they apply those words to the manner only of their understanding our intercession. And therefore the Master puts the title of the question thus: 
Quomodo Sancti glorificati audiunt pre●es supplicantium Magister in ●it. quaest. ●…. 45. in 4. ●…ent.  quomodo? how or in what manner, or, by what means do the Saints hear our prayers, & how they interced for us unto our Lord? To which he ansers, it is not incredible that the Saints which in the secret of the face of God, enjoy the illumination of the true leight, understand in contemplation of him so much as appertains either to their own joy, or our assistanse. For as to the Angels, so to the Saints who assist in the Seight of God, our petitions are known in the eternal word. 
In abscondito facie Dei.  By which it is evident that Lombard speaks only of the means by which the Saints understand the prayers of faithful supplicants. And there being two several ways chiefly where by the Saints may understand our prayers: the one by virtue of their beatitude, or beatifical vision by which they see the prayers directed unto them by seeing God: the other by special revelation accidental to their blessedness. The Master is of opinion, they see them in the word by virtue of their vision of God, as I conceive: But Scotus seems to hold that, the knowledge that Saints have of our prayers, doth not necessarily follow of their beatitude, but is only accidental, & by congruity: & therefore he says in his anser to the question. Dico quod nrn est necesse ex ratione beatitudinis quod beatus videat orationes nostras. Neque regulariter sive universaliter in verbo, quia non est necessaria fequela beatitudinis, neque quod revelentur, neque talis revelatio necessario sequitur beatitudintm: Beatitudo enim in obiectis creatis, non transcendit quiditates seu illa quorum essentia visa est necessaria ratio videndi: tamen quia congruum est beatum esse coadiutorem Dei in procurando salutem electi eo modo quo hoc sibi potest competere, & ad istud requiritur sibi revelari orationes nostras specialiter quae sibi offeruntur quia illa specialiter innituntur meritis eius tanquam mediatoris perducentis ad salutem quae petitur, ideo probabile est quod Deus beatis revelat de orationibus sibi vel Deo in nomine eius oblatis. That is in English. It is not necessary by the nature or state of beatitude that the blessed see our prayers, neither regularlie or, universally in the divine word, because that is not any thing which as is it were a necessary sequel of beatitude. Nor that they are reveiled because neither such a revelation necessarily follows bertitude: for the beatitude of the understanding in created objects transcends not the quiddities, or those things the sight of whose essense is the necessary cause of seeing. But because it is congruous or convenient that the blessed man be God's cooperator in procuring the Salvation of the elect, in that manner in which it grease unto him, and that to this is required that our prayers be reveiled unto him especially those which are represented unto him, for that they especially are founded in his merits as a mediator conducting to the salvation which is asked. Therefore it is probable that God gives a revelation to the blessed of the prayers offered to him, or to God in his name. Thus Scotus. By which it is manifest he only here discusses the diverse ways by which according to the diversity of opinions in divinity, the blessed Saints in Heaven understands the prayers of us that live in this world, holding for probable that the knowledge which they have of our supplications unto them is not by any other means but by revelation from God. And in this sense he speaks when he saith probabile est it is probable, & not because he held the invocation of Saints it in self as a matter only probable, this being quite contrary to his cited words as being about the manner of the saints understanding our prayers which necessarily implies that the prayers themselves directed unto them are lawfully made. And so now it clearly appears by all these words & circumstances that these two famous divine are as rank Romanists as the rest in this particular, in regard they call not in question the lawfulness of prayer to Saints in itself but only the condition or quality of it.  
And this I have added of the doctrine of Scotus not as used or abused by my adversary but only the better to declare the true meaning of the Master of sentence.  
And as for Caietan whom also Sir Humphrey produceth to the same purpose, it is manifest even out of the words cited by him, that he only speaketh of some want of certainty in the miracles which the Church useth as an argument in the Canonization of saints by reason that altho' as he confesseth expressly, they be most authentical, yet are they not saith he, omnino certa altogether certain, because the credit thereof depends upon the reports of men. But for all this neither doth he affirm absolutely that miracles are the ground wherein the Church foundes the Canonization of the saints (as Sir Humphrey affirmeth most corruptelie translatinng his words omitting those. Quae maxime authentica sunt: & for ab Ecclesia suscipiuntur, putting in Inglish whereon the Church grounteth the Canonization, and detorting them to that sense as the reader may clearly perceive by conferring the translation with the quotation in Latin) nor yet doth the same Caietan either in this or any other place of his words deny either the certainty of the doctrine of the invocation itself, or yet the doctrine of the certainty of the Canonization, but he only, at the most, saith that the Church cannot receive full, but only humane certainty from such miracles alone as she hath by relation of particular men, not evidently operated in the eyes of the whole Church.  
And according to this we may easily answer to the saying of S. Augustin, that many souls are tormented in hell whose bodies are honoured in earth, for this S. Augustin speaks only of certain suppositious saints whom the common people honoured for true saints, as it is manifest by the example which the same S. Aug. produceth out of Sulpitius who relateth how the vulgarity did long celebrate one for a martyr who afterwards appeared & told them he was damned. And the like is related of a discovery which S. Martin made of a false martyr: which particular examples of error in the common people ought not in common prudence to prejudicate the certainty of the doctrine of honour due unto such as the whole Church in all succeeding ages hath honoured for true saints & blessed friends of God. Neither doth S. Augustin in the cited place speak to any such purpose of calling in question the general doctrine & practice of the Church in the points of honour or invocation of Saints as may appear by that in other places of his works he expressly averreth the same as in his first sermon of S. Peter & Paul, & in his 44. ep. where he hath thes notable words. In Petro quis honoratur nisi ille qui defunctus est pro nobis? Who is honoured in Peter but he that died for us? And in his 84. treatise upon the gospel of S. john he saith. At the table we do not so remember martyrs as we also pray for them, but rather so that they pray for us. And in his book de cura pro mortuis 
Cap. 14.  he expresselie speaketh of the prayer of Saints for those that are buried near unto their tumbes. All which sayeings of S. Augustin are plain enough, & yet our noble adversary turns the cat in the pan & persuades his reader that he flatly denied invocation of saints, but to convince him & his follows yet more plainly I will conclude this point with the words of the same S. Augustin in psal. 99 where speaking of the worship of Angels against the Gentiles, he saith: utinam & vos colere velletis, facile enim ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere. Would to God you also would wosship them for you might easily learn of them not to worship them. That is not to adore them as Gods but as saints. To this I add that Bellarmin professeth he could never find the foresaid words in S. Augustin, neither could I having diligently searched for them; ever find them. In this same manner Sir Humphrey proceeds in the matter of Purgatory. For where as S. Augusitn in his 69. chapter of his Enchir. speaking not of the existence of Purgatory but only of some particulars which are consequent unto it propoundeth a question whether the soul separated from the body be subject to those inordinate affections to temporal things to which she was subject when she was united to the body, to which question because Saint Augustin answereth doubtfully & with uncertainty, the knight handleth the matter so nimbly & cunningly that the reader may easily be persuaded by him that S. Augustin was doubtful of the existence or being of Purgatory itself & so for the greater furtherance of this persuasion, where S. Augustin speaking only of the foresaid question saith▪ it is not incredible that some such thing should be aftfer this life, honest Sir Humphrey to make his market the better fosteth in the word Purgatory in the beginning of the sentence as if that were it of which S. Augustin saith quaeri potest, it may be questioned, & so deludeth his reader egregiously with the falsification both of his words & sense.  
Some other particulars touching this same metre Sir Humphrey addeth partly impertinent & partilie false. Impertinent, for example, is that passage of his 248. page. in which he affirms that Bellarmine saith it is dpubtfull whether the punishment of Purgatory be by material fire, or some other means? For what incertainty soever there were in the Church about this point: yet this being I say not touching the pain itself but only the quality or manner of the pain, it is out of our controversy in this matter, which is not here of the circumstances of Purgatory, but of the existence or being of Purgatory itself: the manner, continuation of time, & instruments by which the souls are punished & the like, being left to Catholic divines to dispute at there pleasure. And so this allegation of Bellarmin by the knight against the certainty of the Roman doctrine concerning Purgatory, is as fare out of quare as if he had alleged either our divines or his own to prove there is neither Hell nor Heaven, because they make disputable questions or doubts, concerning the pains of the one, & glory of the other.  
And yet besides this, it is not true that Bellarmine makes any such doubt of the materiality of the fire of Purgatory, but he expressly avers that the common sentence of divines is for it. Adding that it is not in deed a matter of faith, because it is in no place defined by the Church. Yet saith he, it is a most probable opinion (besides other reasons he alleges) in regard of the consent of the Scolastikes, which cannot be contemned without temereity. And now supposing the Cardinal speaks so plainly: Sir Humphrey proceeded not sincerely in that he insinuates the contrary by a defective citation of his words.  
secondly he falsely affirmeth that S. Greg. gave the first Credo to Purgatory, & that he learned it by revelations, insinuating also that the Roman Church groundeth the faith of Purgatory upon the spirits & apparitions of dead men, which is all false & calumnious, for that neither S. Gregory nor any other Romanists ever founded any doctrine of faith upon such grounds, but only at the most, use them for confirmation & illustration of those arguments which are founded in scripture for that purpose as their writings make manifest.  
And that S. Gregory was not the first established, or gave the first Credo (as the knight speaks) to Purgatory, it is manifestly convinced by the testimonies of such Fathers as lived long before him, & make express mention of it. And to omit others yet more ancient, S. Gregory Nyssen in his oration of the dead, hath these plain words▪ Non poterit à corpore egressus divinitatis particeps fieri nisi maculas animo immixtas purgatorius ignis abstulerit. The departed can not be partaker of the divinity, unless purgatory fire take away the spots residing in his soul. adding after words: alijs post hanc vitam purgatorio igne materiae labes abstergentibus. Others cleansing after this life the corruption of the matter with purgatory fire. I indeed find these words smat different in an other translation, as also the words of an other pregnant place of the same author to the same purpose in his precedent page about the midst of the oration: but the sense is the same in all places & versions,  
S. Austin also in the 16. of his 50. homilies saith thus. Qui temporalibus paenis digna gesserunt per ignem quendam purgatorium transibunt, de quo Apostolus ait▪ saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem. Those who have done things deserving temporal pains, shall pass by a certain purgatory fire, of which the Apostle saith: he shall be saved, yet so as it were by fire. So that all this which the knight utters of S. Gregory, is frivolous, & untrue, as these testimonies convince.  
Only one place which Sir Humphrey citeth out of S. Augustin, carrieth some more appearance than the rest. Where in his book de vanitate saeculi the first chapter he saith thus. Know that when the soul is separated from the body, presently it is either placed in Paradise for it good works, or cast headlong in to the bottom of hell for it sins. To which I say First, that book attributed to Saint Austin is not found in the Index of his several works collected by Possidonius nor cited by Beda in his commentary upon the Apostles of S. Paul consisting of the sentences of S. Aug. Wherefore it is noted by Bellar. de scrip. Eccles. not to be his: yet because it is printed among his works & perhaps composed by some ancient author: I answer secondly that suppose it is his work yet S. Augustin speaketh only of those that either dye in mortal sin, or of those that die quite free from sin & all punishment due unto it, as martyrs do.  
thirdly I answer that S. Augustin speaketh there only of those two places to which all souls are finally destinated, and to one of which generally speaking, & for the most part, every one presently passeth, yet as there is no rule so general which doth not admit exception so doth this general sentence of saint Augustin include those only who die in either of those states which he mentioneth in that place, that is either absolutely in such good works as presently deserve paradise, or else in such ill works as presently deserve the pains of hell; & yet it admitteth an exception in others who pass out of this world in neither of those two states, but are of those whom the same S. Augustin in an other place calleth nec valde bonos nec valde malos: or, mediocriter malos & mediocriter bonos. 
Enchyr. c. 110. & lib. de cura pro mot. cap. 1.  Neither very good, nor very evil, and of whom he also meaneth when in his first book of care for the dead he saith non dubium est orationem prodesse defunstis, it is no doubt but prayer is profitable to the dead, which speeches he would newer have uttered if he had ever denied the faith of Purgatory & that this is S. Augustine's true sense, it is plain in regard it was sufficient for his purpose in that place, whose intent is only in general to persuade to virtue & good life, that when men come to die they may be found in state rather to go presently to heaven than to hell, to which purpose of his because it was impertinent to mention Purgatory, therefore he passed it in silence, where as yet in other places where it cometh in his way, he doth not omit it.  
Lastely I advertise the reader of the small fidelity which Sir Humphrey useth in the citation of this place of S. Austin traslating those words pro meritis bonis: for his good merits, his good works, flying from the word merit out of his Puritamnicall spirit as a bear doth from the ring.  
Fron hence Sir Humfrey passeth to prove the uncertainty of Indulgences & honour of images by the testimonies of the Romanists, but the truth is none of them prove any uncertainly among the Romanists touching the substantial points themselves, for all the authors which he citeth here for this purpose do uniformly consent in both those particulars of exhibition of honour to images, & about the power & lawfulness of the use of Indulgences as we have showed before.  
And only there is some uncertainly in that which is not determined by the Church, as for example how fare Indulgences are extended, & about the beginning of the practice, what manner of honour is due to images, & the like, which questions are out of the subject of this section the title of which is, if Sir Humphrey remembreth, of the certainly of the reformers faith, & uncertainly of the Romish faith, & not of such disputable questions as the Romanists in the cited places speak of. Where also it is to be noted by the way that the knight ahuseth S. Thomas, first in that he affirmeth him to teach that the image of Christ is to be adored with divine honour. For although it is true that S. Thomas saith that seeing that Christ is adored with adoration of latria, it is consequent that his image is to be adored with adoration of Latria: nevertheless the same S. Thomas addeth afterwards, non propter ipsam imaginem, sed propter rem cuius imago est, meaning that altho' both Christ & his image be adored with the same external action of divine honour which he calleth adoration of Latria, yet is not the Latria itself or divine honour in spirit & truth attributed or exhibited to the picture, but only to Christ himself by reason of his divinity, which divinity as S. Thomas knew it not to be truly & really in the picture, so knew he also that divine worship ought not to be given to the same not as much as by accident, but only that the external adoration, or external action of Latria or the matter of it was so to be exhibited to the image that the formal part there of, that is the affection of the mind ought wholly to be cast upon Christ himself represented by the same.  
secondly I say that the knight abuseth S. Thomas in that he calleth him the founder of image worship, whereas yet he himself had cited the seventh Synod immediately before which useth the same term of adoration, and that which is more the foresaid Synod is alleged by Sir Humphrey in another place for the author of idolatry, which nevertheless was celebrated some hundreths of years before Saint Thomas of Aquin was borne. And altho' this doctrine of his is some what obscure in the terms which he delivereth it, & soundeth harshelie in the ears of the common people, yet as it is true in the sense he speaketh it, so may it also be so explicated by pastors, & preachers, that even children themselves may be capable of it, especially if first they be told in general that no picture is to be honoured by itself, without relation, or reference to the prototype, or thing it represents, or for itself; & that whensoever they exhibit any act of honour towards an image, they must withal fix their mind & affection upon that only which it representeth, referring the whole action finally & lastly not to the picture, but to the thing pictured: even as they do who bow or make courtesy to a man whom they salute & honour by touching his garment (as the fashion in some places) in which action of honour altho' the exterior sign is directed as well to the apparel as to the man himself, or rather more immediately to the apparel then to the person, yet the internal affection of the saluter is settled upon the person only where finally it stayeth & remaineth. An so it is in the worship of the images of Christ & his Saints, in which there is no more danger or show of idolatry then there is danger of excess of civil reverence towards him whose garment is honoured in the manner before described. And according to this if Sir Humphrey & his blind mates had but light of understanding to conceive it, they should not need to fear any danger of idolatry in the Romanists, tho' they were never so ignorant, or simple, but those might more justly fear spiritual idolatry in themselves who do so much adore the Idol of their own private spirit that they will not yield to the judgement of the most universal Church, and to those who are both fare more in number, & incomparably fare more learned & religious than all the impugners of honour due to the images of Christ and his Saints.  
And yet upon supposition of this same false idol of his own conceit that all kind of reverence done to any kind of image is idolatry, Sir Humphrey doth most shamefully calumniate Gregorius de Valentia affirming him to maintain that there is a kind of lawful idolatry. Whereas the foresaid learned divine only saith that a man might not obscurely gather out of S. Peter's words in his first epistle chapter 34. vers. 3. that he insinuateth that some worship of images to wit, of sacred images, is lawful, & reight, by reason that saint Peter speaking against idolatry, he calleth it not absolutely worship of images, but unlawful worship of images, illicitos simulacrorum cultus. Which discourse of Valentia how well grounded it may seem, I will not dispute. But this I assure myself that defence of idolatry was so fare from the thoughts of that pious man (as plainly appeareth by the rest of his doctrine even in the place cited) that if Sir Humphrey either had not been very full of corrupted meaning, or had not had great want of matter for the finishing of his false dealing in this section, & for his last plaudite there in, he would not have had the face to abuse so much the innocence of so sincere a writer. Especially considering that altho' Valentia had committed such a gross error as to defend some kind of Idolatry to be lawful, yet had his error been wholly impertinent to prove the uncertainty of the Romish faith in the doctrine of honour of images, which is the point here in controversy; of which Valentia being know not to have ever doubted in any part of his works, whatsoever orher absurdity he might be supposed to have taught in that matter, it can not argue any disagreement from the rest of the Romanists in this particular.  
The knight also citeteth Bellarmin & Canus But I have before sufficiently declared their meaning in an other occasion, and as for Canus, he by labouring to establish his own singular opinion that matrimony is no Sacrament but only a civil contract except it be celebrated by a Priest with sacred & solemn words as he is an Ecclesiastical minister, only allegeth the uncertainty of the doctrine of divines touching the determinate matter, & form of that Sacrament, and about the manner how it giveth grace, or rather when it giveth grace & when it doth not, by reason he holds it uncertain among divines whether it be a sacrament or not, except in those cases in which it is celebrated by the Priest, & by consequence he holds it uncertain among divines whether in those occasions it confers grace to the receivers, which he will not have for a matter of faith, nor yet more than the more common opinion, 
Si hoc, (matrimonium) inquam, argumententur Sacramentum Ecclesia non esse, tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter, animose defendat, secure contra pugnet. Canus l. 8. c. 5.  & therefore he saith. Nego scholae certo constantique decreto definitum matrimonium sine Ecclesiae ministro contractum, esse vere & proprie Sacrnmeneum, nego eam rem ad fidem & religionem pertinere. Yet notwithstanding all divines agree & Canus with them, that matrimony is truly one of the seven Sacraments: & consequently that which Canus saith in the place cited is not for the knight's purpose. And so now I will end this section in which our adversary in steed of proving the infallible certainty of the reformed faith as he promised in the beginning, by reason of his unfaithful proceeding he hath lost all certainty of his own humane faith for which he deserveth a most rigorous censure.   

The X. PERIOD.  
THIS Period shall contain the eleventh section of the knight's book, in which. He endeavoureth to prove by the testimonies of his adversaries that there is greater benefit, comfort & safety of the soul in his faith, then in the Romish. And this his task he beginneth with great gravity saying that he proceeds from the certain way to the safe way. Against which position nevertheless if one were disposed to proceed according to rigour of Philosophy, he might easily demonstrate a plain impossibility in it by an argument ad hominem. For if as Sir Humphrey holds there is no certainty in the Romish faith & way, & that all the certainty is in his own as he hitherto hath laboured to show, then can he not truly say that his way is the safer way, for that the word safer involueth a comparison between two which are both safe, because a comparison as Philosophy teacheth, cannot be but betwixt things of the same common nature, comparatio non est nisi inter resciusdem generis. Wherefore since that according to the tenet of Sir Humphrey there is neither certainty nor safety in the Romish faith, & yet that, as he supposeth, they are both in his own, it is consequent that altho' it were a safe way, yet upon his supposition it cannot possible be truly called either a safer way, or of more comfort & benefit then the Romish way. To say nothing of our knight's presumption & folly in offering to call that a more safe, more comfortable, & more profitable way to the soul, which as yet he hath not showed with any probability either before or now in this section, to have any one of those attributes in it, but hath been rather by me already convinced to be void of them all. Ad altho' this general ansere might serve for all Sir Humphrey bringeth in this place, as being in substance but a new repetition of the same points of doctrine of which he treated in several places before: yet to give him fuller satisfaction, and because tho' the doctrine be the same, yet the application is different: I will descend to particular examen of it.  
He gins with Bellarmin whom he citeth as a confesser of the all sufficienty of scripture as he termeth it, but it is as clear as day that Bellarmin made not any such confession there being not any such word or sense to be found in his works, but rather the quite contrary is found even in the same book which Sir Humphrey here citeth, in which he expressly confesseth & professeth traditions to be necessary besides the scriptures, yea & in the very-next words to those which the knight citeth he addeth that all other things (meanig besides those which the Apostles publicly & commonly preached to all men) are not written. His words are these in Latin. Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria, & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicawrunt, alia autem non omnia scripta esse. I say that all those things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to all men, & which they openly preached to all vulgarly or commonly, but all other things are not written. Which last words not with standing they are a part of the same position or sentence, & contain the very point of difficulty in this controversy: yet by a notorious imposture Sir Humphrey left them out, & so at one stroke quite corrupteth both Beauties' sense & sentence. Wherefore, qui legit intelligat, he that shall read Bellarmine in the place cited by the knight, that is de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Will easily preceive him to be so fare from the confessing all sufficiency of scripture in that sense in which the reformers take it, that the very title of his book, which is of the unwritten word, doth manifestly convince the contrary. And as for the words which Sir Humphrey cited altho' we take them in that mangled manner in which he hath rehearsed them yet if they had been reight understood by him, I am persuaded he could have found no just colour to produce them in favour of himself. For that it is manifest by those two limitations, necessary for all men, & preached generally to all men, that the Cardinal's meaning could not be that absolutely all things which are necessary for every person or state of persons in particular, or as the logicians speak, necessary either pro singulis generum or pro generibus singulorum, are written in the scriptures: but only Bellarmin meant that altho' all those things are written which all men both in general & in particular must necessarily know, & have for the obtaining of salvation, yet that there are some other things necessary to some particular persons or to some particular states of persons included in that general number of all men, which are not written, as namely about the Government of the Church & administration of the Sacraments, & in particular the Baptizme of children, & the rites of the same, & that the beptizme of Heretics is valid. All which Bellarmin doth so plainly specify that it is impossible for him that reads & understands him, to doubt of this his meaning.  
And yet not unlike to this doth Sir Humphrey proceed with the same Bellarmin whom he citeth to the same purpose in his first book of the word of God: where out of these his words, the scripture is a most certain, & most safe rule of believing, the knight concludeth that it is a safer way to rely wholly upon the word of God which can not err, then upon the Pope or Church which is the authority of man, saith he, & may err. Which conclusion nevertheless is most false, & captious, as well in regard that according to Sir Humfreys own confession Bellarmin holdeth the scripture to be but a partial rule of faith; 
●age 258.  as also & chiefly because when Bellarmin calleth the scripture a most certain, & most safe rule, he doth not exclude the authority of the Church or divine tradition, but expressly includeth them both as the other part of the total rule of faith, which scripture also, so only, & not otherwise, he calleth with great reason regula credendi certissima & tutissima, knowing nevertheless on the contrary & supposing for certain that with out the authority of the Church & traditions the scripture can neither be known to be true Scripture, not in what sense it is to be understood, & consequently as Sir Humphrey taketh it, it is not either an all sufficient, certain, or safe rule, & by & an other consequence, it can much less be imagined to be a safer way to rely wholly upon the written word as the reformers do then to rely upon both the scriptures, & the authority of the Church & divine traditions, as do the Romanists, taking God for their Father in the written word, & the visible Church for their mother in the knowledge, interpretation, & sense of the same.  
And thus we see by this discourse, that Sir Humphrey proveth nothing but his own dishonest dealing with Bellar. whom besides that which I have already showed, he doth more than impudenlie belie in that he affirmeth him to allow the word of God to be but a partial rule of faith, which Bellarmin doth not say, but only that the scripture is a partial rule, 
Page 258.  not denying but the word of God in all it latitude js a total rule of all the Christian & Catholic faith, but yet supposing for certain that the scriptures are not totally convertible with the word of God, but that they are distinct things the one from the other, as ta part is from the whole which any man of common judgement may easily perceive. And if these be the tricks & shifts by which Sir Humphrey meaneth to make Bellarmin a confesser of his reformed religion, in steed of gaining him, he will lose his own faith & credit.  
The knight still passeth on his way, & tells his reader it is a safer way to adore Christ jesus sitting on the reight hand of God the Father then to adore the Sactamentall bread which depends upon the intention of the Priest. But I tell him again that the safest way of all is to adore Christ both in Heaven, & wheresoever else he is. And he himself hath told us his body & blood are in the Sacrament, whe● if we will not be accounted infidels we most constantly believe he is. And so we say with that most ancient & vanerable Father Saint Cyrill of jerusalem, 
Hoc est corpus meum: hic est sanguis meus. Math. 26. Mark. & Luc. 22.  since that Christ himself affirmeth so, & saith of the bread: this is my body, who dareth here after to doubt of it? & he also confirming, & saying: this is my blood, who can doubt, & say it is not his blood?  
And supposing this his real presence which we Romanists truly believe with ancient S. Cyrill & the rest of the Feathers, the safest way is to adore him in the Sacrament & not as sitting at the reight hand of his Father only. But as for you reformers as it can not be safe for you to deny Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, so neither is it safe for you to refuse to adore him there where in the true Sacrament he is truly present. I know Sir knight you make your comparison between the adoration of Christ in Heaven & the adoration of the Sacramental bread, but it proceds upon a false supposition, for the Romanists adore not the bread, but Christ under the form of bread, whose existence there, doth not so much depend upon the intention of the Priest, but that sufficient certainty may be had of the same & at the least much more than you can have that you receive a true Sacrament when you take the bread at the ministers hand, who if he hath no intention to do it as Christ did when he gave it to his disciples, then may you receive as much at your own table as at the communion table. But the truth is that all this is nothing but captious cogging in Sir Humphrey; for proof of which he most impertinently produceth S. Aug. de bono pers. lib. 13. cap. 6. Where he hath not a word to this purpose but only treateth there of the supernatural actions of man, saying that to the end our confession may be humble & lowly, it is a safer way to attribute them wholly to God, because although we will, yet it is God that worketh in us to work. All which is quite out of this matter, & serveth for nothing but to stop holes with a vaneflorish graunded only upon the words safe way which the knight found in S. Augustin to sound to his own tune & there upon founded a verbal argument. And the like dictionariall manner of proof doth he use whereby to show his safer way in the points of private Mass & communion in both kinds but most rediculously.  
For whereas he findeth in some of the Romanists that the Mass as being not only a sacrifice but also a Sacrament is both more commendably administered & more frutfullie received when both Priest & people together are partakers of it, Sir Humphrey applieth this to the Raphsodie of the reformed Churches: which nevertheless hath not a scrap in it either of true sacrifice or Sacrament, but is only a poor hungry scamling of bread & wine not conformable either to the form of the ancient Lythurgies of S. Chrysostome or S. Basil, nor ever heard on in the Christian world before the days of Luther, and of so small estimation even among themselves that if it chance to fall, they will scarce take pains to take it from the ground, as may appear by a pretty passage of that nature which not many years passed I received from the mouth of one who was then of the ministry, what he is now I know not, who told me that coming in to a certain Church, the minister as he delivered the communion to his parishioners did let a peace fall from him, but there was not one in the whole congregation excepting a dog that showed so much devotion towards their unuenerable Sacrament as once to offer to take it from the ground. It is true he told me with all that the honest minister by tasting a little to often of the cup was some what distempered in his head, but that me thought was but a poor excuse for a man of his coat, & a teacher of reformed doctrine, especially at such a time & in such an occasion. Which want of respect in the reformed brothers towards their communion, doth yet further appear if we compare it with the extraordinary great diligence & care which the Priests & people use in the Roman Church for the avoiding of all Kind of irreverence towards the holy Eucharist as both the rubrickes of the Missal, the ancient Canons, & daily practice testify, in so much that one, & perhaps the chiefest reason of the restrainte of the Sacramental Cup to the laiety was for the avoiding of such irreverences as might easily have happened among such multitudes of people as use to Communicate at one time in the Roman Church. So that now we see it was great absurdity in Sir Humphrey to argue the greater safety of the doctrine of his Church out of that which the Romanists speak only of their own, especially considering there is not one word of safety to be found in any of the places cited by him, the authors of them not intending to show any less safety to be found either in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church concerning private Mass & single communion, but only at the most, that some more spiritual profit would redound to the people then now doth, if either their devotion were so fare extended as that in every Mass some would communicate, or that the Church, in other respects had greater reason to permit the use of the Chalis to the laity than not to permit it, always supposing as a certain truth that not withstanding in some respects the contrary to that which is now practised might be more profitable yet, that all circumstances considered that is the safest for men's consciences which is done according to the present custom of that Church which is known even by our adversaries to have visibly succeeded from the Apostles, at the least personally, & is also known even by jews & gentiles to be the most universal Church in the Christian world. And let this be sufficient to redargue the proceed of the knight in this matter, yet not omitting that two of the authors he citeth for Romanists to wit the Apostata Deane & Cassander, are not such, & that in the citation of Bellarmin he useth one of his accustomed tricks, & whose words although he rehearseth them truly in the margin, yet he translateth them corrupedtly. For whereas Bellarmin saith that the Mass in which communicants are present, is more perfect & legitimate, ex hac parte, that is in as much as it is ordained to the spiritual refection of the people, the knight omitteth in his translation the words ex hac parte, & by that trick doth notably pervert Bellarmin's meaning, making the reader believe he affirmed that absolutely, which nevertheless he did expressly & purposely utter with limitation, with an intention to show that altho' in one respect private mass is less perfect, & less conformable to the ancient custom of the Church in regard of the profit of the people, yet that absolutely in itself it is as perfect & lawful as that in which communicants are present.  
Furthermore touching the marriage of ministers, Sir Humphrey saith it will appear by the confessions of the Romanists that it is the safer way to live chastely in matrimony then by a single life to hazard their souls by incontinency, thus the knight which if he means of the ministers of his own misreformed Church only, I will easily grant that supposing their slippery inclination to lechery, and the small means they use for mortification of the flesh & conservation of chastity, it is a safer way in my opinion for them to marry then to live a single life, especillie considering they are no true Priests but only equivocal Clergy men both in Order & function, & that if they had not wives it is to be doubted the maids of their parishes would scarcely live with out danger among them. But if Sir Humphrey speaks of Roman Priests which have true vocation, true ordination & sacred function, than I will say with diverse grave authors that if the Priests of the old testament observed those day's continency in which they sacrificed by their turns, than ought the Priests of the new testament to observe chastity every day, because, they every day offer sacrifice. 
Hier. ●. tit. ●…os. l. ●…fi c. ●… ve●…. ●…. ●… ca ●…c.   
And therefore the Roman Church hath most religiously ordained the law of perpetual chastity of Priests, for that altho' perhaps it may seem more safe for some particular persons to marry supposing their negligence & frailty in that nature: & abstracting from a vow already made, & the law of the Church in that particular, yet allthings considered, & for as much as even the most inclined to vice may live chaste with God's grace if they will make use of his gifts, & of such means as the Church hath ordained for that end & purpose; it is to be judged better, safer, & greater honour to God, that the whole state of Preisthood or Sacerdoce should be tied with the sacred band of perpetual chastity. 
●…e non ●…ius ●…otes 〈◊〉 plu●…●…orati ●…am 〈◊〉 sal●…tur ●…cerdo●…●…uga●…●…i in 〈◊〉 pre●…atu ●…antur. ●…as 〈◊〉. l. 2 de 〈◊〉 con. 〈◊〉. ●…nder.  Neither doth all nor any of the authors which the knight citeth absolutely confess the contrary to be safer than this, but only (they being but three in number) one of them with a perhaps it were not worse, an other with an it were good, & wholesome, & the third (who yet is no Romanist) with a may be thought necessary, but show their particular dictamen, & being so few as they be, thou ' they were the greatest Oracles in the world, they could not possible cause any safety in the consciences of those who shall follow them against the stream of all other divines, nor can they in any true sense be said to be the confession of the Romanists as the knight doth affirm, since that two or three cannot in any case carry the name of the whole nor justly prejudicate the weight of their authority in case they did agree with the misreformed doctrine in this particular as yet they do not.  
And touching Panormitan whom Sir Humphrey calls a great Canonist I will not examen how great he was in that science: yet I do not see why his authority should be accounted great in the Roman Church, supposing he was only a schismatical Cardinal of the schismatical Pope Felix. secondly suppose he were as great a Canonist as the author of the Canons himself, yet doth his great authority favore Sir Humfrey's cause never a jot in regard he doth not affirm, as the latter part of the 32. article of the English Creed doth, that it is lawful also for Bishops, Priests & Deacons, as for all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion: But Panormitan only said (to use his own words) I believed it were a wholesome statute for the good & health of souls) that these who will contain, & merit more maybe left to their own wills: but those that are not able to contain, may marry. Because experience tsacheth that the quite contrary effect followeth of that law of continency. In which saying altho' I must needs confess, he erred in presuming to prescribe a new rule to the Church, yet is it plain he differs from the faith of Sir Humphrey in this point in diverse respects. First in that he uttered not this as a matter either of faith, or yet of moral certainty, but only delivered it as his own private opinion. How be it Sir Humphrey hearing the sound of the word Credo (as it seems) he presently conceived it to be as certain as the Apostles Creed itself or at the least desired his reader might so apprehend it. secondly Panormitan doth not affirm absolutely that it is either wholesome or yet as much as lawful for Priests to marry notobstanding the precept of the Roman Church to the contrary (as our novelists do who also condemn that law of single life for injust, 
●…rte quod ●…erdoti●… inter●…tum fuit ●…iugium, ●…factum ●…impia ●…annide, 〈◊〉. ●…l. Inst. l. ●…. cap. 12. ●… 23.  & tyrannical) But he was only of opinion that it were good for the health of the souls of some particular persons, that the same Church should alter her course, & make such a statute for the time to come. Thirdly Panormitan if his words be duly ponderd, doth not affirm that the Church might do well to constitute that Priests with the restriction of Sacerdoce or Preisthood, I mean after they have received orders, may marry, but he means only that Priests with ampliation, that is such persons as intent to be Priests may marry if they found themselves not able to live chaste: where as the pretended reformers hold it lawful not only for Priests but also even for such religious persons as have made a special vow of perpetual chastity, to marry at their pleasure, as the very author & Antesignane of their sect did both in words & example teach them. By all which particulars it is manifest that Panormitans case is fare different from the doctrine & practice of the modern sectaries especially of the Church of England; & consequently his testimony can not possible prove any safety for Sir Humphrey in this part of his way, as being quite an other extravagant way which neither meets with his nor ours. More over for conclusion I wish the reader to take notice that I neither found in Panormitan those formal words which Sir Humphrey cities, nor any others intyrelie equivalent unto them, nor yet are they intyrelie & continuatlie rehearsed by the knight but with interruption, as the authors own words which here I truly quote in the margin will declare. 
Credo pro bono & salute animarum quod esset salubre statutum ut volentes continere, & magis mereri relinquere voluntati eorum: non valentes autem continere, possint contrahere quia expe, rientia docente contrarius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege continentiae. etc. Panor. 3. p. c. cum olim de Cler. coniug.  And besides this the faithless knight in steed of the words non valentes puts non volentes, & for the word Credo (which denotates the weakness of the authors dictamen, signifying thereby that it was only a particular credulity of his own) he translates, it were good, & behooveful, & attrihutes the surmised Licentiousness of the Catholic clergy to the law of celibate itself, whereas the author only saith. sequitur ex lege, the contrary effect followeth of the law.  
And by occasion of this passage, the reader may reflect what a poor shift Sir Humphrey was forced to use for excuse of the falacitie of his misreformed ministry when he catched at the authority of this one Apocryphal Cardinal, who nevertheless upon due examen appears to have so much frustate his sinister expectation.  
Now for Aeneas Silvius, the doth less favore Sir Humfreys tenet, nay not at all, as his own words above quoted in the margin do manifest to the reader. He only speaketh by a perhaps it were not worse that very many Priests had wives: & yet this he recalled of his own accord after his assuption to the chief Pontifical seat or Popedom, by a special Bull of retractation of that & some other immature positions uttered in his youth. So that the knight was fare out of his way, when for the safety of this part of his new devised way, he produced these authors, & if he have no better guard & defence for it than the testimony of them (as in truth he hath not) then ought every one to take heed of it, & avoid it as a most uncouth, & perilous path.  
And so to conclude this I may not unfitly say with Erasmus: quae malum est ista tanta salacitas in nostris vovis Euangelistis ut sine uxoribus esse non possint? what in the mischief, saith Erasmus, a great inclination to lechery is this in our new Evangelists that they can not be with out wives? An I say further that if they persuade themselves they can not possible contain, & therefore must needs be married; at the least why do they reprehend Roman Priests who have the contrary persuasion, for obledging themselves to a single life? If they upon supposition of such carnal conceits hold they can not go safe to Heaven without wives at their heels, why should those be condemned who hold it safer to go without them? An oculus tuus nequam est quia ego bonus sum? wherefore do the ministers censure the Roman Priests so severely for that which is a virtue in them? But in deed it is to be feared that those who can not possible live chastelie without a woman, will hardly content themselves with one in all cases, but rather some times make bold with their neighbours, or at the least fall to that large axiom of lecherous Luther, si non velit uxor, veniat ancilla, in which I know not what safety can be found for the soul, except Sir Humphrey holdeth that for the safest which is most agreeable to the delights of the body.  
Wherefore if we will discourse rather like men than blatter like beasts, the only safety that can be had in this matter, especially for Priests, is to follow that melius facit of S. Paul 1. Chorinth. 7. I mean that statute of a chaste heart which there he mentioneth, and this statute being once well & firmly made, the melius est nubere hath no place, but then the spiritual marriage of the soul with Christ her sponse is made, & then it is to late to use that violent medicine; an other antidote must be used for the cure of that surfeiting Vri, to wit mortification of the body, which medicine the same Apostle prescribes in an other place saying, castigo corpus meum. And if the reformed ministers would make use of this, than perhaps they would change their opinion & account the way of single life safer than the way of marriage, & that way which as S. Hierome saith filleth Paradise, 
Contra jovin.  not that which filleth the world, & finally that which S. Paul counselleth absolutely, not that which he only permitteth as a remedy for a supposed imperfection, which permission tho' it be the easier way, & therefore perhaps is more willingly embraced by Sir Humphrey in favour of his deformed Clergy, as a man not ignorant of their imperfections in that nature, yet was the other ever commended as the safer way both by God & his Saints, & generally embraced by the Church an clergy before the days of Luther.  
About prayer in an unknown language none of the authors the knight citeth, affirm that it is the safer way to pray in a vulgar tongue, or yet, that it is absolutely better, but only secundum quid, that is for the edification of the Church as Caietan speaketh, yet not meaning but that is the best & safest all things considered which the Church doth practice: which practice as the same Caietan well kewe (as being a Cardinal of the Roman Church) is to have the public service in Latin rather than in the mother tongue for such reasons as I have delivered in an other place. And touching the testimony of S. Thomas whom here the knight produceth in his commentary upon the 14. chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians (as I suppose, for he quotes not the place) as affirming it is manifest that he receives more benefit who prays & understands what he saith, because the mind of him who prays & understands not, is without fruit & refection. To this I anser, that S. Thomas doth not mean by this that it is better that the public service of the Church be in a vulgar language which is that we here have in question, & not the private prayers of every particular person, of which S. Thomas only speaks, as his own words do testify in that place which I have exactly read & duly pondered. Ever supposing that many things may be profitable for single persons which yet in common are esteemed much worse yea and in some circumstances absolutely ill, as by examples which pass in the laws of temporal republics may plainly appear. That which S. Thomas did doubtlesselie persuade himself to be true whom the world knows to have daily celebrated Mass in Latin not in any vulgar language. To omit that even those simple people who pray in the Latin tongue altho' they want that particular instruction of the understanding which the learned receive in prayer, yet sans doubt they often times perform that action with greater devotion & fervour in their wills & affections then the greatest scholars in the world: God almighty by reason of their pious & humble desires supplying as it were in one power that which wants in an other.  
And the same I say to the words of Lyra & Caietan who speeches to the same purpose which S. Thomas doth & upon the same place of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. where altho' Caietan extends his speeh even to public prayer of the Church: yet is it manifest that the same Caietan doth neither condemn the contrary practice of the Roman Church, nor yet holds it absolutely better or safer that public prayers were (especially in these our times) not in Latin but in the vulgar language. But he only meaneth that it were better in that one respect of edifying the Church if other circumstances did also in like parity concur, or if there were not more prepondering reasons for the present practice of the Church. And therefore Caietan presently after the words cited by Sir Humphrey addeth others which if they had not been omitted by him, they had quite cleared this difficulty, for so he proceedeth saying. Et ne intelligeres reprehendi a Paulo eiusmodi divinas laudes (to wit such prayers as are made in an unknown tongue) subiungit: nam tu quidem bene gratias agis: by which words it is plain that Caietan was not of knight Humphrey opinion in this particular.  
lastlly the Rheims Testament cited by Sir Humfrey upon the same passage of S. Paul confesseth the same that S. Thomas saith of a particular man's private devotion, that in deed it is not so fruetfull for instruction to him when he prays in a strange longuage, as when he understands his prayers, yet the authors of the note add an other clause which if the knight had proceeded like a friend, he ought not to have omitted, to wit that the Apostle forbides not such praying neither: confessing that such a man's spirit, heart, & affection prayeth well towards God tho' his mind & understanding be not profited to instruction, as otherwise it might be if he understood the words: neither doth he appoint him to translate his prayer into his vulgar tongue etc. Thus the Rhemists, Which as the reader may easily perceive doth quite contradicte Sir Humfreys purpose, & the doctrine & practice of his Church.  
Sir Humphrey also falsifyes Gabriel lect. 12. in Can. or at the he lest he falsely & ignorantly understands him, when in his own 265. page he cities him, affirming that he dilivereth there seven reasons why vocal prayer should be understanded by the people, For Biel teacheth not there in what lenguage vocal pryer ought to be, but only proveth that it must not be merely mental but so uttered & pronounced as it may be known for such by the people, ut innotescat populo, which words do not signify (as the knight falsely English them) may be understood, but may come to the notice or hearing of the people in regard it is vocal prayer in what language soever it be, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. 
Circa primum an oratio debeat vocaliter perfici?— Tunc dicitur ad dubium quod oratio publica necessario est vocalis. Oportet enim quod talis oratio innotescat populo pro quo offertur. Biel. in Can. lect. 62. f. 124.  So that the reader may perceive that this author is neither pertinently nor sincerely produced by our adversary.  
For the greater safatie of his rejecting the wiship of images he produces expressly three only authors, two of which nevertheless are no Romanists, one of them being the dimi-Romanist Erasmus, the other Cassander neither of whose authorities we admit for current. It is true the same Cassander brings out of Biel something to the same purpose, who supposing he be truly alleged, yet it must always be true that one suallowe makes not summer, & so what soever he saith his authority alone can not engender safety. And since I writ this by taking a view of the authors themselves, I found that Sir Humphrey hath thrice corrupted Cassander by omission of some of his words which he rehearses out of the 979. page of his consultation of images: for all that clause of Cassander: imaginum moderato usu pacis & tranquilitatis causa: conseruato: Sir Humphrey lets quite drop out of his pen, which words not withstanding are of so much importance to have been truly related that together with some others in the same page (which he also pretermits) they be the only words which most declare the author's meaning touching the honour due to images. The words are these. Non tamen haec quae diximus eo pertinent ut imagines sanctorum si in ijs modo decorum seruetur non aliquo honore illis convenienti, & debito affici possint, videlicet si ut signa & monumenta sanctorum honorifice habeantur & in gratiam illorum quos significant & referunt, reverenter conspiciantur & tractentur, modo ab eximo cultu temperetur, & nihil divinitatis & virtutis illis tribuatur, sed eo tantum loco habeantur quo litterae & voces quae rerum absentium quas diligimus & veneramur gratam memoriam suggerant. All which long sentence as being much disagreeable to Sir Humfreys Precisian spirit he made shift to pass over in lurchers silence. And in deed in my judgement the foresaid words taken as they stand in the text, are so plain for the worship of images in that sense in which the Roman Church holds it lawful to honore them, that I can not easily preceive in what they differ from the tenor of the decree of the Tridentine Council in that point.  
In the other place Sir Humphrey likewise omits the latter part of Biels' sentence as it is cited by Cassander, & as the words are found in Biel himself, the words which Sir Humphrey scips are these, quia qualitercumque consideretur imago est res quaedam insensibilis & creatura cui adoratio latrie minime exhibenda. Which words in deed are those by which both Biel & Cassander chiefly declare what they deny to be lawful in the due worship of images that is adoration of Latria or divine honour: And yet both of them grant an other inferior worship or honour due to them, so that the industrious knight to save labour falsified these two authors both at once. And altho' Biel doth reprehend & that most justly, the blockish error of some ignorant people (of which perhaps some there may be some times in the universal Church) that believe some divine virtue or sanctity to reside in images, yea & in one more than an other, & the like sotish conceits, yet doth it not follow out of this reprehension of Biel that he denied it absolutely to be lawful to worship images in due manner, as our captious knight would have it: Nay Biel is so fare from this that in the very same place quoted by Sir Humphrey he expressly defends adoration of the images of Christ even with Latria improperly or per accidens, which is as much as any Roman divine grants to any image what soever. To which we may add that the same Biel doth in express terms put for conclusion of his 59 lection these words. Haec de imaginum adoratione ratione representationis. This of the adoration of images in respect of their representation. By which words it is clear that is author this grossly abused in that he is cited by our adversary against honour of images, he being so plain a defendant of the same that he doubts not to use the words Latria & adoratio.  
Erasmus & Cassander are also here produced by our adversary against the use of images practised in the Roman Church. But these two altho' I doubt not but both of them in their writings incline much more to Catholic Religion than they do to protestancy: yet absolutely they are but neutrals who followed more their own wandering wits than any other certain rule of faith. And so their testimonies are not admitted by us for Orthodox and authentical. And therefore Sir Humphrey commits an error as often as he useth them for Romanists.  
Against the safety of invocation of Saints he produceth S. Augustin saying. Tutius & iucundius loquor ad meum jesum. But this sentence he cities he knows not where, and it proves he knows not what, nor I neither. S. Augustin truly affirmeth that he speaketh more safely & delighfully to jesus than any other, & so do I, but as he doth not say that he speaketh not to his Saints also, no more do I. 
Tract. 84. in joan.  And as Saint Aug. tract. 84. in Io. saith that we make commemoration of the Saints at the table that is at the altar, to the end they may pray for us, so do I. the knight citeth also for his purpose Chemnisius & Cassander, but I care not for them, their testimony is neither safe nor sound.  
Against the safety of the doctrine of merits he citeth also S. Bernard saying that, dangerous is the habitation of those that trust in their own merits. But here the knight rides beside the saddle, for S. Bernard speaks not directly of merits but of confidence in merits, which we Romanists grant to be unsafe by reason of the uncertainty of them in this or that particular man. In an other place the same S. Ber. saith he dueleth in the wounds of our Saviour with more safety: which saying we grant also to be true in the highest degree, but what is this to the denial of true merits grounded in the mercy & grace of God? of which the same S. Bernard saith in an other place, indevore, or procure to have merits, but when thou ' hast them acknowledge that thou hast them given thee. merita habere cura, habitadata noveris. And the truth is that by rejecting the counsel of holy S. Bernard in this particular, the reformers commit a most pernicious error in regard that by holding all merit of man with God impossible, they come to neglect the exercise of virtue & those good works in which both merit doth consist, & without which the Kingdom of Heaven is not obtained, which doctrine how domageable it is to the Salvation of souls let the indifferent reader consider.  
Sir Humfrey cities also frayer walden whom he most falsely affirmeth to agree with the Protestants in the doctrine of merits. For as appeareth by those same words which he citeth here, he doth not deny all merit, as they do, but at the most such a kind of merit in particularie: that is, that no man simpliciter, simply meriteth the Kingdom of Heaven, which merit yet he doth not absolutely deny, but only saith that no man can merit it but by the grace of God or will of the giver, which are his own express words as they are rehearse by our adversary, and in a sound sense do not differ a jot from the doctrine of other divines. In fine he doth with the rest of the Catholic divines expressly teach that the good works of the just performed by the grace of God are absolutely meritorious of the Kingdom of Heaven, yet he is opinion that the words ex condigno & congruo, are not to be used; in which he differeth in deed from the opinion of most divines, but not from the Roman faith which stands not upon those terms, but only upon true merit, as may be seen in the Council of Trent. ses. 6. Can. penult. p. 48. Which Council useth not those terms, but only the words vere mereri, that is to merit truly. And consequently friar walden agrees with the Council of Trent but not with Sir Humphrey and his precise brothers who fly the very name of merit, as devils fly the Cross. And to descend, to a more particular discussion of friar waldoes meaning touching the doctrine of merits of which the knight subtly contends to make him a flat denier.  
I say in primis, waldo in the place cited by Sir Humphrey disputes against Wiclef, who thought such confidence in proper merits that he seemed to exclude the merits of Christ, & his saints. And therefore speaking of his perverse tenet he saith thus. Maledicta ergo doctrina Wiclef quae potius confidere iubet in merito, & hoc proprio, ut Christi, & Sanctorum videatur excludere, quam in oratione humili pro Christi gratia. That is: Maledicted or cursed be the doctrine of Wiclef which rather commands to confide in merit, & that proper, so that it may seem to exclude the merits of Christ, & his Saints: then in humble prayer for the grace of Christ: Now this Kind of confidence in merits, as our adversaries themselves can witness if they please, is not any part of the Roman doctrine, but rather we Romanists concur with friar waldo in his approved curse. Yea & we are so remote & averted from the doctrine of Wiclef in this point, & from teaching such confidence even in true & approved merits, that we cantelously advice the members of our Church as the safer way not to rely upon them but upon the mercy of God as in an other place I have more largely declared.  
More having most attentivelie read his several treatises upon that subject, I plainly perceive that religious, & zealous defender of the Roman doctrine against Wiclef, did only reject such merits as either excludes, or at a the least prefers not the grace of God before them, or admits not grace as the foundation of merits. For touching merits founded, & performed by the concourse of God's grace, friar waldo absolutely grants both in this same chapter cited by our adversary, where he mentiones both the merits of Chtist & his saints & particularly of Saint Paul in these words. Whence it is that neither the Apostle did apply any thing to his own merits but by premitting or preferring the benefits of God, according to the psalmist saying. Because he would so have me. As also more clearly in his tenth Title & 98. chapter where he most professedlie defends against Wiclef, the very participation of merits especially among religious persons. Which doctrine of participation of merits necessarily supposes a grant of merits themselves, as common sense doth easily apprehend. Not to let pass, that some of the authors own words in that same place, evidently convince the same to be true: For that thus he questiones his adversary. cur merita non ijs partimur quos reddimus bene meritos nostris meritis? Why do not we part merits with them whom we make well merited by our merits? By which words waldensis appears to be so clear from denial of merits maintained by the Roman Church, that he rather heapeth merits upon merits in defence of the same. And in the 8. chapter of his first Title he speaks most expressly even of merit of eternal life saying. Sed noueriut vitam aeternam dari nobis pro meritis si cum meritis ipsis numeremus & gratiam sine qua nec ipsa sunt merita, quia nec Dei dona. But let them know (saith walden) that eternal life is given us for merits, if with merits we number grace, without which neither are they merits, because they are not the gifts of God.  
And by this it further appears most manifestly that those words of waldensis alleged by Sir Humphrey & with which he makes his flourish, to wit. I repute him the sounder divine, & more consonant to sacred scriptures who simply denies such merit: in reality are not for his purpose, in regard that there is not in them any denial of that merit which the Roman Church defines & appooves: no not the merit of eternal life: but the author of them, only rejects from the desert of eternal life tale meritum, that is merit as it is signified by those terms de condigno, And, de congruo, used among divines both in his time, & at this present: from the use of which according to his private dictamen, it were more conformable both to divinity, & the scripture to refrain, to the end (as he after adds) they might by the avoiding of those terms, be found both to accord better with the former saints (he means the ancient Fathers of the Church) & with the phrase of the Apostle saying: 
1 Cor. 3.5.  sufficientia nostra ex Deo est: our sufficiency is of God. As also for that in respect of the grace of God, they might be found more disagreeable (as in their doctrine so in their manner of speech) from the Pelagians, & wiclesists who (as the same walden saith) either conceal or deny the grace of God, & wholly confide in the merits of men: 
Qui gratiam Dei, vel tacent vel abnegant, & in meritis hominum omnino confidunt. Ibid.  so you see that all the controversy which friar walden hath with our Roman divines is only a bout the use of those two phrases: meritum de condigno, and, meritum de congruo: as persuading the foresaid divines that when they dispute of merits, they never silence the grace of God, but either express grace & not merits: or else prefer grace before meritis: and as he says in Latin. exprimentes gratiam, silentes de meritis, aut gratiam meritis praeferentes. All which is but questio de nomine: a nominal or verbal disputation, or about what manner of speech may seem most fit to be practised in this point for a voiding offence in the hears: yet walden & those same divines uniformly according in the substance of the doctrine of merits themselves as I have said once before. And so now let this be sufficient to declare unto the reader how fare out of square our Cross adversary hath detorted the true sense of this religious divine, to make him seem to teach according to his own new divinity in the matter of merits. I confess I have enlarged myself much more than the matter requires: if otherwife I had not considered how much it imports in all occasions to daunt the audaciousness of a presumptuous adversary, who by making most plausible use of that is least for his purpose maintains the small reputation of his own newfashioned religion chiefly by the ruins of other men's honour: not sparing this his own renowned contriman endeavouring by indirect means to make him speak against his own faith & conscience among the rest: of which I could not possibly be insensible: but was obliged even according to the rules of natural affection, to labour to clear him of such a foul & injurious aspersion.  
But now I come to a conclusion, where yet the reader if he please may further take notice of some other more trivial abuse offered to this same famous divine by the slippery knight by leaving out the adverb igitur in his translation of the Latin in to English, which in reason he ought not to have omitted in regard it necessarily implies a relation or reference to the authors former discourse in which he argues against merit without mention of grace, & of which he speaks in his subsequent words, tale meritum etc. alleged by Sir Humphrey in a contrary sense to his meaning. Besides this, the same Sir Humphrey hath not a little transposed some of waldens words in his recital of them in English. Connecting to these: or will of the giver: those, as all the former sants, (until the late schoolmen) & the universal Church hath written. Which nevertheless, he ought to have set immediately after those other which follow in the author's text: to wit: invenirentur esse discords: they might be found disagreeable. But because in deed I do not perceive it could much import our adversary to proceed in this manner; therefore I charitably persuade myself it was not done of malice, but rather of ill custom.  
lastlly Sir Humphrey produceth Bellarmin for the safety of his way in this same point. But he that should have read his fift book of justification, would judge that man fit for Bedlam or Bridwell then for the school of divinie, that would offer to cite Bellarmin against the doctrine of merits. The words & meaning of him I have declared in an other place & so hold it in diverse respects superfluous to repeat them. He cities also S. Austin out of chemnitius as it seems, as saying (I know not where for he quoteth not the place) that he speaks more safely to jesus, tutius & iucundius loquor ad meum jesum. But what is this to the purpose of denying invocation of Saints. For besides that this comes only out of a jugglers bugget & so may justly be suspected for false wares, yet admit S. Austin saith so, what Romanist is there who doth not say the same yea & practise the same daily in their prayers▪ While they acknowledge with all submission & humility that all their saftetie & comfort of conscience proceeds from jesus as the fountain of their Salvation, as the conclusion of all or most Catholic prayers demonstrate: Yet not so but that they may cry also unto his friends & servants as being more near allied unto him both in place, favour, & merits than we ourselves, that they interced & mediate for us for the obtaining of that which we ourselves are not worthy either to obtain or crave at his hands. Which kind of invocation of Saints, S. Austin himself doth approve in diverse places as tract. 84. in Io. Ser. de verb. Apost. & de cura pro mart. cap. 4. And so these being all the authors which Sir Humphrey hath produced in this section, I will conclude the censure of it in this manner. That whereas he promised in the beginning to show the greater safety of the Protestant faith then of the Roman by the confession of the Romanists themselves, he hath showed no safety at all, but only trifled in the words & meaning of his adversary's doctrine, & that only in some few negative articles of his faith omitting all the rest, & so he hath performed just nothing which may serve for the demonstration of any way at all, & much less of a safe & perfect way, but only hath brought himself & his reader further into the labyrinth of his wandering wits.   

THE XI. PERIOD.  
IN his 12. section Sir Humphrey tells his reader that the Church of Rome doth seek to elude the records, & real proofs in the Fathers, & other learned authors, touching the chief points in controversy betwixt us. This accusation no doubt maketh a foul noise in a pulpit, but let us see how the knight will be able to justify it.  
For his first witness he produceth S. Chrysostome Home 49. operis imperf. where it is said that, the Church is known only by the scriptures. But first the very title of the treatise showeth this testimony to be of small authority as being opus imperfectum an unperfect work, & so it ought not in reason to be admitted for a sufficient proof: especially considering that Sir Humphrey allegeth no other witness; & yet on the contrary we know that our Saviour said. In ore duorum, aut trium testium stet omne verbum, in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And so suppose it were true that S. Chrysostome said just that which Sir Humphrey would have him, yet is not one testimony enough to convince an adversary, thus much I say for as much as concerneth the point of controversy itself of the all sufficiency of scripture. But because the knight may say this is not that which he intendeth directly in this place but only to convince that Bellarmin hath eluded the foresaid testimony, therefore I answer secondly that Sir Humphrey needed not to have gone to Bellarmin's Chronologie for the censure of the foresaid work, for he might have found it more plainly censured before in his controversies, as appeareth lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto, the 11. chapter. Where the Cardinal hath these words. But this testimony is not of Chrysostome but of the author of the imperfect, who was either an Arian or certainly his book was corrupted by the Arians in many places: Thus Bellarmin. Showing the corruptions by two several instances taken out of the work itself, where he speaketh against the Homousians that is against the Christians of the Catholic Church to which he giveth that name because they defended & believed the consubstantiality of the eternal son with his Father, & yet it's well known that saint Chrysostome never either writ or spoke against the Homousians as being one of them himself & a professed enemy to their adversaries the Arians.  
And hence it is plain that Bellarmin had reason to censure that work & not to acknowledge it for S. Chrysostom's, as Sir Humphrey would have it, except he would have condemned that glorious Doctor of the Church for an Arian heretic, as the reformed brothers must of necessary consequence do if they will have him to be the author of that unperfect treatise. Neither did yet Bellarmin tax it for that sentence which the knight allegeth out of it as he craftily & falsely insinuates, but for other erroneous doctrine which it containeth, which is no more contrary to any article of the Roman faith, if it be truly understood: than it is to the faith of the reformers, except perhaps they be nearer in some points of their doctrine to the Arians then the Romanists be, who quite detest & abhor the same. Which I leave to their own consciences to determine. For altho' the Romanists deny that the sole scripture & pure text of the bible is sufficient to determine all controversies & doubts in doctrine or manners, yet they do not deny but that the sole scripture doth sufficiently declare the most & greatest part of the doctrine necessary to salvation, & particularly they grant that the true Church may be sufficiently known by only scripture truly expounded, which is the very same that the author of the imperfect affirmeth in the foresaid words. Neither is it all one to affirm that the Church is known only by scriptures & to affirm that the scripture only hath all sufficiency as Sir Humphrey doth falsely suppose when he useth the first proposition taken out of the author of the Imperfect as a medium to prove the second which is his own position, because to know the Church only is not all the doctrine which the scripture containeth as necessary to salvation, but only a part of the same, & so it is clear that how true soever it be that the church is known by scripture only, yet can it not be thence inferred that all the doctrine of the Church necessary to salvation is sufficiently known by only scripture except out of the pregnance of his wit & extravagant skill in logic, the knight can infer an universal proposition out of a particular, which I know he can no more perform than he can extract by art two oysters out of one apple. And thus we see that Sir Humphrey hath not proved by the exception of Bellarmin against the foresaid treatise, that either the Roman Church or Romanists have eluded their records, or real proofs of Fathers touching the question of all sufficiency of scripture, for that the sentence thence produced proveth no such thing. And consequently there was no necessity that Bellarmin should endeavour to infringe the authority of the whole work for such a testimony drawn out of it as is not contrary to the Roman faith, neither can it with any colour be imagined that the Cardinal would ever have laid his censure upon the same if it had not been faulty in greater matters.  
secondly Sir Humphrey produceth saint Augustin touching the denial of honour of Saints, where he saith that many are tormented with the devil who are worshipped by men on earth. And whereas Beauties' answer, according to Sir Humfreys relation, is that peradventure it is none of Augustins that sentence, the honest knight as if Bellarmin were all the Romanists that ever writ or spoke, maketh a general interrogatory saying what say the Romanists to this? As if that which one only private man speaketh in a private matter were to be accounted the voice of all men of his profession. And yet Bellarmin doth not only add more in his ansere yea & much more to the purpose, which not withstanding our brave Sir Sycophant very slyly omittes viz. that he could not find those words in S. Augustin, but also addeth three other principal anseres to the same objection. And so it appeareth that instead of proof that Bellarmin eludeth the records of S. Augustin, the elusorie knight eludes both Bellarmin & his reader egregiously by deceitfully omitting that which both justified the Cardinals proceeding, & also declared the true meaning of the place cited in saint Augustins name.  
Thirdly, he taxeth Bellarmin & stapleton for saying that S. Augustin was deceived, or committed a humane error in his interpretation of those words super hanc Petram, caused by the diversity of the Hebrew, Grek & Latin tongue which either he was ignorant of or marked not. But I ansere first that what soever error S. Augustin might commit in this matter, certain it is that it was only about the interpretation of those words Math. 16. thou art Peter, and upon this rock, will I build my Church For touching Saint Peter's supreme authority in itself (which is that our irreligious adversary intends chiefly to diminish in this occasion) it is most apparent that S. Augustin strongly maintains it in his second of Baptism cap. 1. saying. Quis nesciat illum Apostolatus Petri principatum, cuilibet Episcopatui esse praeferendum? That is who can be ignorant that Principality or sovereignty of Peter's Apostolate is to be preferred before any Episcopate or Bishopric? And in his 15. sermon of the saints, he speaks yet more plain to this purpose, affirming that our saviour did nominate S. Peter for the foundation of the Church, & ideo digne fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit, supra quod Ecclesiastici officij altitudo consurgit. And therefore (saith S. Augustin) the Church deservedly honoureth this foundation upon which the altitude of the Ecclesiastici structure ariseth. And by this S. Augustins faith of S. Peter's sovereignty in the government of the Church most clearilie appears, so that no other peculiar opinion of his concerning the sense of those words super hanc Petram, could possible prejudicate his own constant doctrine in the substance of this matter in itself, as neither could stapleton or any other Catholic divine by their taxation of him.  
And yet neither did S. Augustin in deed reprove the common opinion of divines in expounding that place of S. Mathewe of the person of S. Peter: but expressly remittes the choice of the one or the other to the judgement, or affection of the reader, as is manifest by his own words upon this same subject in his retractions concluding his discourse about the two several opinions in this manner. 
Lib. 1. retract. c. 21.  Harum. autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Of these two opinions let the reader make choice of which is more probable. And so this allegation is nothing to the purpose of Sir Humfreys malicious endeavours in proving the evident testimonies of ancient Fathers to be eluded by Romanists, as being neither any evident testimony in itself, as I have declared, nor yet within the sphere of faith, or including the point of controversy in the matter proposed by our adversary in this passage, as he falsely supposeth: out of which compass every one may lawfully abound in his own sense: as well the Fathers in the delivery of their private opinions, as also the modern divines in passing their censures of the same as occasion serves, So it be performed with discretion & modesty, as here it was by learned Stapleton, as his words do show.  
And besides this, altho' we should admit the foresaid words of the Evangelist may diversely be expounded either of our Saviour or of saint Peter, or both: nevertheless the Pope's supremacy cannot suffer thereby any prejudice, as being sufficiently established both by other words of the same passage, & by other places of scripture, particularly by that of S. john 21. pasce oves meas etc. Feed my sheep. Which words are so forcible for the proof of saint Peter's supreme authority over all Christ's flock that they alone with the circumstances of the text, were sufficient to convict any reasonable persons judgement.  
thirdly concerning the communion of the Cup he reprehendeth Bellarmin for saying in his answer to the words of S. Ignatius one cup is distributed to all, that in the latin books is not found distributed to all, but for all. But first I say that why should Bellarmin be produced for an eluder of the Father's records for telling the truth? or for reporting that which he did see with his eyes, & perhaps without spectacles. And if it be found by eye witnesses to be otherwise in the Latin copies then in the Greek as truly it is, as also it is found that the Greek copies are not sound in diverse other particulars in which they are discovered not to agree with the citations of S. Athanasius & Theodoret, What sin did Bellarmin commit in uttering the same? But howsoever it be good Sir Humphrey, doth Bellarmin rely only upon that anser, nay doth he not give two other more chief ansers then that? both which you dissemble. And yet more than this, you have shamefully corrupted that one ansere which you cite. For Bellarmin saith not that S. Ignatius hath the words distributed for all, but, one chalis of the whole Church, unus calix totius Ecclesiae, meaning that there is one common chalice because it is offered to God for all. Nay besides this, Bellarmin yet further addeth, that the Magdeburgers read those words of S. Ignatius as the Romanists do, of which also crafty Sir Humphrey taketh no notice: so that the reader may see that Bellarmin is here diversly abused by the false knight, & yet is he no more guilty of eluding of the Father's records in this particular than the foresaid Lutherans themselves, that is nothing at all.  
fourthly he taxeth Sixtus Senensis for saying he suspecteth Origen to have been corrupted by the heretics where he saith: Thus much be spoken of the typical & symbolical body. But what if Senensis utter his opinion in that manner of that place of Origen. For doth not either he, or at the least, a number of other divines give other solid ansers to the same as may be seen in Bellarmin & others. As that it is not certain that works is truly Origens': & that those words are not spoken of the Eucharist, but of the bread of the Cathecumes which we commonly call holy bread, that Origen terms the body of Christ Sybolical & Typical because it is present in the Sacrament as a type or sign of the same body of Christ as it is united to the divine word in the mystery of the Incarnation in a visible manner. For in that place Origen compares the body of Christ as it is in the Sacrament with the same as it is in it proper existence.  
And so in like manner  and Baronius for diverse reasons hold the words cited by Caluin out of the epistle of Epiphanius to john of Jerusalem touching the cutting of a veil with an image of Christ, or some other man, which he found at the entrance of a Church; for suppositious as being added after the whole epistle was ended. And yet notobstanding, they rely not entirely upon this answer, but yield others also which, supposing the foresaid addition were truly the words of that holy Father, yet those same authors abundantly clear the difficulty & declare the truth of his meaning in the controversy of honour of images. As also doth Valentia about the words of Theodoret touching transubstantiation, who saith that the substance of bread & wine ceased not in the Sacrament. To which both Valentia & other divines, (notobstanding they kewe by that which passed in the Council of Ephesus, Theodoretus authority not to be great, or at the least not to be so great as that he alone could or ought to preponderate the rest of the Fathers, 
Vid. Greg. de Val. l. 2. de transub. c. 7. & Suarez de. Eucha. D. 46. sec. 4.  I have given other  answers to his words besides this which is related by the knight, as that he calleth the accidents of the Eucharist by the name of the substance of bread & wine attributing to the natural properties of nature or substance, the name of nature or substance itself, as both the scriptures & other Fathers in the like occasions use to do, 
Gelas. ep.  & particularly Gelasius whom the reformers use to cite against the truth of transubstantiation, he only taking the word substance (which is ambiguous & signifieth both the interior substance itself, & the external signs of the same) for the second, not for the first: all which may be easily perceived by him who shall read the authors themselves with attention & care. And as for Theodoretus, james Gordon in his fourth Controversy of transubstantiation noteth that if he be truly translated according to the force of the Greek words, all difficulty touching his true meaning doth presently cease. And thus much for Theodoretus who is no way eluded by Valentia, but truly & sincerely expounded.  
As for Bellarmin whom when he answereth to the testimony of S. Cyprian about traditions, the knight seemeth to tax for attributing error unto him. It is not true that Bellar. saith that he doth not marvel that S. Cyprian erred in reasoning, as Sir Humphrey affirmeth, but the Cardinal only saith of S. Cyprian, ideo non mirum si more errantium ratiocinaretur: therefore it was no marvel if he should argue after the manner of those that err, because he writ that passage to which Bellarmin doth ansere in the place cited by the knight, when he defended his error about rebaptisation against S. Augustin. But withal Bellarmin addeth that S. Cyprian rejected not all traditions as the reformers commonly do, at the least in faith & manners: but only he disallowed that tradition in particular which S. Augustin alleged against his error, & only for that reason because he conceived it to be cotrarie to scriptures, which yet afterwards appeared not to be so by the definition of the Church not to be. So that Bellarmin is both here falsely accused to have absolutely affirmed S. Cyprian to have erred in reasoning, & also it is false that his testimony touching traditions in general is by him eluded, which is that Sir Humphrey ought to prove if he speaks according to his own purpose in this place.  
And not much unlike to this is the same Bellarmin falsely accused by the knight to have affirmed that S. Chrisostome exceeded the truth when he said. It is better not to be present at the sacrifice then to be present, & not communicate, for Bellarmin said not that saint Chrysostome exceeded the truth, but only that he spoke by excess, per excessum ita esse locutum, or amplificandi gratia, as he saith afterwards, which is not to exceed the truth but to use a tropical speech by which the truth is as fare extended as may be possible within her bounds but no further. And more over Bellarmin addeth so much beside to this ansere to Saint Chrysostom's words, 
Vide Bell. l. 2. de Missa. cap. 10. § Porro Chrysost.  as takes all difficulty quite away touching his meaning in the point of Private Mass.  
Neither is Sir Hunfreys' complaint against Bellarmin less unjust, where he saith, yet not specifiing about what matter, that the Cardinal affirms Prudentius to play the poet, for why should any man be reprehended for attributing to a Poet that which is proper to all those of his profession that is to speak by way of fiction or to use poetical licence. The truth is I can find no such words of Bellarmin as Sir Humphrey citeth, but suppose he speaketh in that manner of Prudentius, yet I hold it to be no greater an extenuation of his authority than it were an extenuation of Sir Humfreys honour to say he useth his weapons dexterouslie or playeth the Champion courageously. But yet worse than this doth Sir Humphrey deal with Bellarmin about his ansere to a certain testimony of Tertullian. For whereas he only saith that Tertullians' authority is of no great account when he contradicts other Fathers, & when, as S. Hierome speaketh, he was no man of the Church: the knight to save labour, but not to save his honesty, leaveth out that speech of S. Hierome & putteth the whole censure of Tertullian upon Bellarmin only, notobstanding it appears plainly that the greater part of it is taken out of S. Hierome, & so consequently if any proof or record were eluded in Tertullian, Sir Humphrey might more justly have accused him, than the Cardinal. But it seems the knight proceeded in this as those that in cases of revenge either for want of wit, or valour, still strike their next fellow whether he be in fault or no.  
In conclusion Sir Humphrey had no reason to stand upon Bellarmin's ansere to those two authors, I mean Prudentius & Tertullian; for that neither of them in the places cited speaketh of any point of doctrine defined by the Church, but of other matters in which as it was free for them to speak what they pleased, so was it also free for Bellarmin to ansere what he pleased, especially supposing that Tertullian speaks but doubfullie in the matter for which he is taxed by the Cardinal, that is in the manner of Christ's penetration of his mother's womb: & if he held he was borne according to the course of nature, he contradicteth the rest of the Fathers, in which case no one Father hath the credit of an absolute testimony amongst the Romanists, neither can he or any for him justly complain if he be disesteemed in such a case.  
Now for the censure which Rivera giveth of Origen to wit that he was full of errors which the Church hath always detested, it is so manifestly true that no man that will not dogmatise with him can deny the same. And the truth is that the reformers make as little, yea & much less account either of him or any other ancient writers, than the Romanists do, as the world knoweth, especially when they find them contrary to their positions. And not of one, two, or three dissenting from the rest, but even of the torrent of their consent of which over plain testimony is extant in Luther, Caluin Kemnitius, & Chamier. 
Vid. Luth. de captain. Babyl. c. 1. Calu. 4. Instit. c. 18 Kem. pag. 798. Cham. de descens. Chr. ad Inf.  And yet for all this the knight could produce nothing in particular in which he could accuse the Romanists to have rejected the records of the foresaid authors at the least in matter of faith.  
As for S. Hierome whom Canus affirmeth to be no rule of faith. I would know what reformer will maintain the contrary? And if they hold him to be a rule of faith then a dieu their all-sufficiency of scripture. Besides Canus yields a pregnant reason why S. Hierome was not to be followed in that particular of which he speaks in that place, to wit in the assignation of the Canon of the old testament, because saith Canus he followed joseph the jew, but S. Austin followed the Christians in that point of doctrine: which reason of Canus Sir Humphrey ought not to have omitted if he had dealt sincerely.  
As impertinent as this also is the taxation of Beauties' answer to justin, Ireneus, Epiphanius & Oecumenius who seem to have held that the devils are not to be tormented with the pains of hell before the day of judgement. For this is so absurd a position that I think few or none of the misreformed Churches defend it, & so I see not why Bellarmin can justly be reprehended for saying that he seethe not how the foresaid authors can be excused from error in that particular, for that the Cardinal only condemneth them in that which the reformers themselves according to reason & sound doctrine ought to condemn also, & that in no question of Controversy between us & them, nor which can justly prejudice the foresaid Father's authority in other matters, especially in which they all agree.  
lastlly saith Sir Humphrey, we produce the uniform consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. To which Salmeron the jesuit, quoth he, ansereth that, weak is the place which is drawn from authority. But first I ask of Sir Humphrey what he & his consorts have to do with the immaculate Conception? For that is no Controversy of faith betwixt the Romanists & them, it is a question among some Romanists themselves, & lawful for either side to make the best use they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by embracing them, or expounding them in that particular point, as they find them most advantageous for the defence of their several opinions so fare as the Church permits them, & that without any disparishment to their authority in regard their words are not so plain, but that they may seem to admit diverse expositions in that particular. And as for Salmeron he neither speaketh of the Fathers in general when all or most of them consent in a matter of faith, nor yet when they plainly agree in any other point of doctrine, but only when they speak doubtfully or obscurely, & this I say upon supposition the place of the foresaid author is truly cited, which, in regard I have taken the knight so often tardy in that Kind of proceeding, I may unrashlie suspected. And the truth is that having now viewed the place in the book which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron upon the 5. to the Romans. I find that he speaks not of the uniform consent of Fathers or Doctors, but only of a certain great number of them to which he opposeth an other as great, as he supposeth, yea & greater: & therefore he adds. Quare si authorum numero decertare velint (meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgin) procul dubio absorbebuntur. So that this author is abused just as I did conjecture before I sa his book. And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for any great ingeniousness in his application of the shepherds' sentence, yet sure I am that if he applied it not very aptly, you Sir Humphrey apply it much worse & more absurdelie. And thus having now examined all the particulars of this section & having found nothing which proveth the authors intent, I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humphrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to have heard the proof of the Romish witnesses in the behalf of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselves; which notobstanding is all false & mere delusion, for that I have made it clearly appear that neither any Romanist by him cited hath granted that any one of the Fathers doth teach any point of Protestant doctrine, nor yet that they speak in those places here cited of the chief points of doctrine in Controversy: but contrarily it appeareth that they speak only either of other matters which little concern the Catholic faith, or at the least they speak in an other sense then the reformers pretend: yea & that which is more remarkable, not with uniform consent, but rather few or at the most two or three in one matter, in which manner of proceeding, what argument soever may be deduced from them, it is no more truly to be judged & called the testimony of the Fathers absolutely, then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which nevertheless only some few of them yield their testimonies, & yet that but in some particulars, & those no principal points of faith.  
And as for this complaint which Sir Humphrey maketh so formally of the elusion of the proofs, & records of the Fathers, as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition, or censure of books, I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practised in his own Church, in which there cannot the least pamphlet, or smallest volume come forth which if it doth but seem to contradict any part or point of the English faith, or any other point of Puritanimse, is not presently ceased upon by a pack of Pursuivants, & put to the torture of the consistorial assembly there to receive sentence of condemnation, by virtue of which it seldom scapeth the flames of Vulcan. Of which in part is witness Doctor Mountagues' lately published book, which by reason it savoured a little of some points of Romanisme; by an express Appeal even to Cesar himself, could not be saved from the severe censure of the Puritan synagogue. And particularly touching the authority of ancient Fathers, if it were a fault in the Romanists to call in question some passages, or sentences of some of their writings where they justly suspect them to have been corrupted by heretics: Surely the sectaries of these times are much deeper plunged in this nature them they are, in regard that under the breight colour of reformation they do not only use to reprehend particular passages, but reject whole books, & that not only of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchy of saint Denis, but also whole books of the scriptures themselves, as is manifest in the books of the Machabies & others which they utterly renounce & condemn for Apochriphas, not sparing the book of wisdom itself, such cruel patrons they are of ignorance, and, of want of divine knowledge. Nay & now of late they are be come so precise in this their spiritual tyranny that in their last editions as I am informed, they have quite banished the foresaid books of Machabies Toby, judith, wisdom Ecclesiasticus out of their bible. To omit other books of less moment which they have either mangled or left quite out of their editions, as in the Inquisitors Index may be seen. So that now the reader may plainly perceive that Sir Humphrey & his pure simmists, are so fare from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular, that we may justly compare them to those Phariseiss who could sooner see a mote in their fellow's eye then a beam in their own. And so here I leave them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himself, & pass to the next section.   

THE XII. PERIOD.  
THIS Period shall contain an other accusation of the knight, in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the records of the reformers, & clipping their own authors tongues, by which, saith he, they are convinced of an ill cause, & conscience. But how falsely the Romanists be accused by Sir Humphrey it plainly appears by the examen of witnesses which I will make presently: and in the mean time let but the reader reflect upon that which hath hitherto been said, & he will easily perceive that Sir Humfrey himself is convinced not only of a bad cause, & an ill conscience, but also of such gross proceed as is not able either to the parts or sum credit of a Cavalier. But now to particulars.  
His first charge is laid upon the inquisitors for blotting out a certain note made in the margin of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus upon the 4. chapter of the deuter. That God prohibiteth graved images to be made. But what razing of records is this? Is a new note made by some one, modern, unknown author not suitable to the true sense of the text, & in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of any long standing, to be accounted one of your records? And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there? hath not the Inquitor as much authority to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in? the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note, nor any other is, that God did prohibit absolutely all graved images (as one of the greatest divines you have, doth ingenuously confess) 
Daniel Chamierus Panstrat, l 21. de imag. c. 8. n. 1.  but only he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods, or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatry, and yet the foresaid wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all graved images absolutely. Wherefore it's nothing but a false record ordained to deceive the reader by abusing the true sense of God's word, & so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur, he did but execute justice upon a falsifier of the King's letters, which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience, but showeth both of them to be in the author of the counterfeit record which he foisted in to the sacred bible. To omit that it being no note of any Roman author as it manifestly showeth itself not to be: yet the knight leaped quite out of the choir when he cited it for a record of his own, except he supposeth all the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soever they be, to be records for his Church against the Roman doctrine: which is both most ridiculous in itself, nor yet was any such razing of the reformers records ever intended either by the Inquisitors, or by any other censurer of books in the Church of Rome.  
His second charge is about a certain gloss upon Gratian, which gloss affirmeth (according to Sir Humfrey's relation) that the Priest cannot say significativelie of the bread, this is my body, without telling a lie. This gloss (saith he) is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out. It is true the Inquisitor did so, but what then? did he therefore do it wit an ill conscience, I deny the consequence. And in your conscience Sir Humphrey is it not an idle gloss indeed? Do not your ministers themselves when they deliver the communion call it the body & blood of Christ? And if the Priest lieth when he saith so not of the bread (as the false gloss saith if so, it saith) but of that which is contained under the form of bread, surely your ministers tell a fare greater lie when they say significativelie of the bare bread, that it is the body of Christ, truly & really, as Master Caluin affirmeth. 
Instit. l. 4. cap. 17.  And so I conclude this point, that Sir Humphrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing only such a record as is no less repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches, then to the Roman faith if any matter of faith it were, which indeed it is not; & so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question.  
thirdly Sir Humphrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassander's whole tract of the Communion in both kinds. But what worse conscience showeth the Inquisitor in this fact than the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches do, who are not content with a simple doleatur, but daily condemn whole Catholic volumes to the unmerciful Vulcan. And as for the records which you take out of Cassander we make no more account of them then we do of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin, & so you may take them & make yourself merry.  
fourthly Caietans opinion that the words, this is my body, do not sufficiently prove transubstantiation, is no record for you, as you falsely suppose, for he doth not deny transubstantiation as you do, but expressly defended it, as his own words declare which I afterwards recitie: nay he doth not affirm absolutelle (as suarez words quoted by yourself in your own margin expressly declare) that the foresaid words do not sufficiently prove transubstantiation as you corrupedtly relate, but only saith at the most that, secluding the Church's authority, they do not prove it: which, not as contrary to faith, but as a singular, & extravagant opinion of that author, Pope Pius did (if perhaps he did) piously blot it out, not precisely because it favoureth the reformers (as in truth it doth not to any purpose) but because it sm'at disfavored the truth, which is that transubstantiation is indeed plainly enough contained in those words of Christ, this is my body. Howbeit I must needs advertice the reader that I neither find those words supposed to be Caietans, blotted in any Index that I have seen, nor yet can I find them in any edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez, that is upon the 75. q. art. 1. But only these. Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio, & these. Quod Euangelium non explicavit express, ab Ecclesia accepimus. Nay more than this I find other words in the same place which convince that Caietan held transubstantiation to be sufficiently contained in those words this is my body, for so he argues. Sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod significant, ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt utramque novitatem scilicet conversionis & continentiae (ut expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur) consequens est ut cadem Christi verba significent utramque novitatem. Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the words: this is my body: contain not sufficiently transubstantiation, but only not expressly: I cannot conceive what foundation Suarez might have for this his relation, except peradventure Pius quintus found that edition alone of Caietan to have been corrupted by heretics, & therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage: as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discovered by the authors of the prohibitive Index to have been in that same fashion fraudulently depraved, as the same Index expressly testifies in these words quoted in the margin. 
In Thomae Caietani commentarijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino corrigantur errores qui fraude haereticorum irrepserunt, ut notatur in expurg. Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu. impres.   
The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious, which is paoved to be so because it is superscribed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times, the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne, and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead. Neither is it any way probable that such a holy Bishop as Walricus was, should commend marriage in other Priests, who lived and died in unmarried chastity himself, and so the foresaid Epistle being a false record, as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible relation, it was justly condemned with a deleatur. To omit that if this Epistle were authentical, the reformers would gain nothing by the bargain for that it teacheth expressly that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church, and that Priests at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marry.  
Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole book is condemned, as may appear by the judgement of the University of Douai approved by the Censurers of books inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by joannes Pappus a reform deformed divine with certain odious prefaces of his own coining, & printed at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole book was not commanded to be blotted out, but only some few things to be corrected, or altered in the reading, or to be expounded benigneously. And as for the doctrine of transubstantiation, the foresaid Doctors of Douai expressly declare that Bertram often times in the first part of his disputation teaches Catholic transubstantiation plainly enough, using the words convertere, mutare, commutare, permutare transponere creaturam in Christum, in corpus Christi etc. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainness of those words, confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis, seeds of transubstantiation. And also the same Dowacene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are found in him touching the real presence, which chiefly are two, to wit that he seemeth to have been of opinion that Christ's body is no more in the Eucharist than the body of the people, and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church cannot be called God; are either to be understood of the external forms of bread and wine: or else that those sentences be inserted by heretics who printed that book first at Colen. 1532. & after at Basil. 1550. & 1555. so that this is no record of the reformers, except it be upon supposition of their own corruptions or false glosses added unto it; but rather may serve for a pregnant testimony against them, and consequently he that should have blotted it out, had done them no injury but a very great favour.  
Seventhlie I say to the sentence taken out of the book of baptizme under the name of Anselme, that many passages be blotted out by the Censurers of books, by reason they are such as may easily be taken in an erroneous sense, & so scandalise or give occasion of error either to the simple, or malicious reader, which nevertheless in a sound sense contain no false doctrine, & so might be left uncorrected if it were not for the corruption & malignity of the tyme. And of this nature be the words of the book of the visitation of the sick & Baptism, if they be rightly recited by Sir Hum. Dost thou believe that the Lord jesus Christ died for our salvation, & that there is no means to be saved by own merits? Which sentence in a true meaning is no record of the reformers, & in a false meaning, it is better blotted out than left in. And such diligence argueth no ill conscience, but a motherly care of the Church towards here children.  
8. We have said sufficient already touching the credit of Cassander, whose doctrine the Romanists hold for false records either in part or totality. And he maketh such preposterous glosses upon the Ecclesiastical hymns, as the Index noteth in one place, that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a commentary contrary to the text. Yet to give the reader a taste What truly this man was, who is so fare in Sir Humfreys books: I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist, as being in the Index of prohibited books for diverse singular positions, nevertheless the knight cannot justly brag of him in regard it is manifest by his works which I have seen & read in part, that he expressly defends the Roman doctrine in most points of Controversy betwixt us & the Reformers: as also because in a greater part even of the same places which Sir Hum. cities in his favour, he is not a little abused & either corrupted or detorted by him contrary to his meaning. Howbeit in respect he professeth the part of a Pacifer & mediator betwixt us, he could not but lean some thing to their side, yet is it so little that I perceive by one of his writings that he had small thankes for his pains from some of the faction, & therefore was most sharply handled by them accusing him of dissimulation, imposture, interruption of the course of the Gospel & the like. An infortunate man who by his great labours & earnest endeavours to content both parties, contended neither: a just punishment due unto such as destitute of true knowledge in divinity (which he himself in part confesseth in his general Preface) presume to treat of those sublime subjects sans a guide.  
The Basilean edition of Polidor virgil printed in the year 1544. compared with other former & the most ancient editions is found to have been corrupted by the sectaries & so no true records can be taken out of it for Sir Humphrey & his confraternity. And such is that passage which the Inquisitours commanded to be blotted out, which is this. All most all ancient Father's condemned images for fear of idolatry. This sentence as false & foisted into the foresaid Basilian edition, is justly cast out as none of the authors doctrine, or at the least vehemently suspected for none of his. And touching the doctrine of honour of images itself, it is clear that he can afford no record at all for the reformed divinity, for that he expressly relateth the use of images in Churches deduceing it historically from the most primative times. Langius or Langus is of no authority among the Romanists & so he yields no records of credit. And at the best he is but a pedantical Annotator, & as I take it a Lutheran, that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours.  
As for Ferus certain it is that some of his editions have been found to be mightily corrupted particularly that of Mogunce. Which the knight citeth & so the records drawn out of him are of no authority. But suppose Cephas did indeed not signify the head, yet what great record I pray can that be for Sir Humfreys Church? And so whether Cephas signify the head or the feet, & whether ridiculum est be in, or out of the books, it avails him nothing but some small matter to quarrel about: yet the truth is that the most authentical edition of Antwerp 1585. hath the same words which Sir Humfrey's cities out of the Roman print: in such sort as one may rather much more suspect those words, it is ridiculous: to be falsely added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others.  
Finally whether the words of the Council of Laodicea be that we ought not to leave the Church of God & invocate Angels, as Sir Humphrey will have it, & also some Catholic copies have: or whether in steed of the word Angels we read angles or corners, as some other editions have, the matter is not great so the decree be reight understood, that is so that the sense be this: we ought not to leave the Church of God & invocate Angels superstitiously as some did in those times. For this being the true meaning of the Council as it appeareth by the subsequent words which are those, and make congregations of abominable idolatry to the Angels, it is more than plain that no record can there be found for the doctrine of the reformed Churches. But only it serves Sir Humphrey to make a plausible flourish to the simple reader, to the end that by working upon his weakness by falsely taxing his adversaries, he may make his own impostures saleable, which otherwise would putrify & spoil for want of utterance.  
lastlly for proof of his accusation, Sir Humphrey after all this stir he hath made, produceth only one witness, & that a false one: and altho' for the greater credit of his cause, he held it expedient to give him the decree of a divinity reader & professor, & Deane of Louvain, yet having examined the matter, I found by better information than Sir Humphrey can have, that Boxhorne before his revolt had only the place a certain of obscure Deanrie: which function altho' it be a place of some credit, yet it is fare inferior to the dignity either of a Dean of a Capital Church, or of a public professor of divinity in the university of Louvain, both in learning, honour, & profit. And yet this man as I received by authentical relation of the Dean of S. Gudula Church in Brussels, & others: after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his over amorous nature he used to a domestic maid servant of his own, & out of an unsettledness of his lubrik mind, began at first to defend that, it was not necessary for the Priest to prononce the words of consecration orally, but only to speak them mentally, & afterwards (as nemo repent fit malus) 
Boxorno once a pettie-master.  by degrees falling into plain heresy, found opportunity to pass into the land of liberty, I mean into Holland, with bag & baggage, I mean with his Sacrilegious spouse & the sacred spoils of his Church. Where from the place of a fugitive Pedant, he is preferred to the dignity of a new Evangelist, & is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations.  
And this is the only man which Sir Humphrey could bring for a witness against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring books or correcting the same, or approving them according to the order & decree of the Council of Trent, which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I have specified, and more which I could relate, doth appear, and being also now a professed enemy and Apostata from his mother Church, let the reader judge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her: and let him withal be pleased to consider that Sir Humphrey in lieu of convincing his adversaries of ill conscience, he hath by his own bad proceeding in this section convinced his own to be the worst of all, & so is fallen in to the same pit he prepared for his enemies incidit in foveam quam fecit, by forgeing of false records, & hath incurred a fare deeper dungeon of censure then hitherto he did, in which he must remain either till he hath paid a double fine, or put in surety for the amendment of his manners.   

THE XIII. PERIOD.  
IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humphrey endeavoureth to convince his adversaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions, as he calleth them, against the scriptures, by which we see that as his book increaseth in number of leaves so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations, and these being the cards he playeth with, let us examen his gaime.  
He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Dean of Louvain for a witness against the Romanists, whose word notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of law to be admitted for record against those from whose religion he hath revolted. And so whereas he accuseth the Roman Church of poison in religion & tyranny in the common wealth, it is to be taken as proceeding from a poisonous mind, which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomach loathes dainty meats.  
As for the scriptures, it is false & slanderous to affirm that the Romanists refuse to be tried by them so they be taken together with the authority of the Church which the same scriptures commend, as Saint Augustin speaketh against his adversaries, and in a true sense without which as one of the ancient Fathers saith, verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is, the word of God ill understanded is not the word of God. 
Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exemplum tamen earundem scripturarum à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod universae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commendat authoritas. Aug. lib. 1. contra Cres. c. 33.  And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the days of Luther without alteration, is as you calumniously affirm, ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos, among the prohibited books, but your execrated Bible I mean your execrable translations and annotations, & mutilations of the most holy Bible, are those that are registered in the censure, where whether it have, as you affirm, I know not certainly, but I am sure it deserveth the first place, because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima, and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badness, so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemns.  
And of the censure of your own abuses I grant you may with shame enough to yourselves be eye witnesses, but if you mean you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures it is most false & calumnious that either they, or the authors of them be called in question: and yet more false & slanderous it is that Christ and his Apostles are arraigned & condemned at the Pope's assizes (as you odiously affirm) of obscurity & insufficiency in their Gospel. 
Bibliorum versiones tam vet. quam novi Test. à dictis (damnatis) authoribus editae, generaliter prohibentur. Index ex Purgatorius. Regul. 3.  For that neither Pope nor Prelate of the Roman Church ever uttered more of the sacred scriptures in that nature them that which S. Peter himself affirmeth, to wit that in the epistles of S. Paul there are many things hard to be understood, or that which S. Augustin saith in general of the written word. That is, that certain obscure speeches of the scripture bring a most dense or thick mist upon them. And that they are deceived with many, & manifold obscurities & ambiguities that rashly read them, understanding one thing for an other. 
Lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 6.   
And as for the Gospel of Christ & his Apostles, neither the Pope nor any other Romanist ever condemned it of any insufficiency or defect, but only teach with the same scripture itself that it doth not contain all things necessary so explicitlie that they suffice for the instruction of the whole Church according to all states of people & in all particulars without traditions, as appeareth by the saying of saint Paul 
2. Thes. 2.  Therefore brethren stand & hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word, or by our epistle. Which words of the Apostle neither can truly be verified nor his command obeyed, except we grant that he delivered more to the Church of the Thessalonians than he left in writing. Neither do the Pope & Romanists any more condemn the scriptures of insufficiency by denying that they contain clearly all things necessary, or by affirming that divine & Apostolical traditions are also necessarily required, than the reformers themselves, who besides scripture profess at the least in words to believe the Apostolical, nicence, & Athanasian Creed: not no more than that man should be thought to condemn the common laws of insufficiency who besides them judgeth it also necessary to observe those ancient customs which the laws themselves commend as by the legislators & first authors of the same delivered to the people by word of mouth. And so to conclude, touching the scriptures thus understood, the Romanists are so fare from refusing to be tried by them that they fly unto them with saint Chrysostome in all occasions as to most height montaines in which they find a most comodious place to plant their ordinance against the enemies of the faith, & particularly against the sectaries of this our present age, as is most evident in the late Council of Trent all the decrees of which renowned Synod are founded upon those heigh hills of the written word of God according to the true sense & meaning of the same. And as for Causabon & Agrippa whom the knight citeth, he & they may go together for their authority viz. in lying. Agrippa & Causabon are already registered in the Predicament of Novelists, 
Vide Indicem lib. prohib.  & althou' the knight as yet is not preferred to that honour, yet his deserts are such as he may justly expect the like advauncement.  
You ask us, Sir Humphrey, whether the word of God is subject to alteration or needeth & Index expurgatorious, but to this your wise demand I anser, that the word of God in itself is wholly immutable, so pure that it can need no purifying, yet as it is & expressed by artificial characters for the use of man, so it is not only mutable & corruptible, but also the facto it is & hath been corrupted, witness your own Bibles in England. And witness that renowned King james your own sovereign & best defender of your faith, who was so ashamed of the translations which he found at his arrival to the English Crown, that he presently sought a remedy for the same (tho' he found it not, as appeareth by his new translation which yet is not as it ought to be) publicly declaring in the Conference of Hampton Court, 
Anno Domini. 1624.  & ingenuously confessing that he had seen no true translation, & that the Geneva translation is the worst of all others.  
Neither ought the corruptions found in the reformed Bibles to be called peccadilloes or small faults as Sir Humphrey would have them to the end they may be the more easily winked at: for suppose they were never so little in themselves, yet are they to be esteemed great & horrible abuses in regard of the great reverence which ought to be had towards those sacred volumes of the word of God, it being treason in the highest degree to offer to falsify or alter them any way whatsoever. And let the reader be judge whether it be but a small fault to translate images for idols, as the English bible of the year 1562. hath in the text: or as an other of the year 1577. hath in the margin upon the first chapter of the Epistle of S. john, in the last words. Or as the same, or other editions upon the words of jacob. Gen. 37. v. 35. descendam ad filium meum jugens in infernum, hath translated the word infernum, hell, into the word Sepulchre, or grave: notobstanding both the Hebrew word Seol & the Greek word adis signify not the grave but either properly hell itself, or some part of the earth fare deeper than the grave. And in this manner Beza hath done upon those words of the psalm. non relinques animam meam in inferno, translating for animam Cadaver & for inferno, sepulchro, & so Metamorphizeth Christ's soul into his body, & hell into his grave. And upn the 22. of saint Luke where according to the Greek text, the sentence is, This is the cup of my blood which cup is shed for you: Beza to enervate the force of the argument for the real presence, purposely translateth the words thus. This is the cup of my blood which blood is shed for you. Also the English bibles, whereas saint Peter in the first chapter of his second epistle v. 10. saith, brethren labour the more that by good works you make sure your vocation & election. Lest here, it should appear that good works are available or necessary to salvation, they leave out in their translations the words: by good works, notobstanding the Latin copies have them universally, & some Greek copies also, as Beza confesseth. And if these be the faults which Sir Humfrey calleth but peccadilloes, surely he hath a conscience as large as a friar's sleeve: & if these be his small faults doubtless according to due proporrion his greater sins are abomination. And this is that Bible which the Romanists say needeth an Index expurgatory, not that Sacred Bible which is truly & sincerely translated according to that text which hath been at the least since the time of S. Augustin commonly used in the Church, as appeareth by the Rheims Testament, which because it is found to have been rightly translated, is not arraigned by the Pope, but exposed to be read even by the laity, at the least by licence & advice of their Confessors.  
Further more in regard of the foresaid corruptions & many other which for brevity I omitted, made by heretics in the holy scriptures, those modern authors which Sir Humphrey citeth (if they be truly cited) have been induced to utter some such speeches concerning the same as, if they be not truly & piously interpreted, may give occasion of offence to the reader: for example when they affirm (as he saith) the scriptures to be dead characters, a dead, & kill letter etc. such phrases nevertheless (as it manifestly appeareth by the rest of their doctrine & discourse in those places) are not used by those authors with an intent in any sort to disgrace or diminish the dignity of the true word of God, but only by those comparative speeches, to declare how subject the scriptures are to be corrupted & detorted to the defence of heresies & errors if they be considered precisely as they are the external written letter, & interpreted otherwise then by the authority of the visible Church in all ages, the ancient Counsels, & Fathers, they have been uhderstood. Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreverently & blasphemonlie of the holy scriptures do no more injury unto them then S. Paul did when 2. Cor. 3. he saith of them, litera occidit, the letter killeth, 
Lib. de Synodis.  or then did S. Hilary when he teacheth that many heresies have their origin from scriptures ill understood, or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the book of heretics. None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humphrey will dare to condemn either of blasphemy or irreverence, nay if he have his senses about him he will easily perceive that those & other such like phrases are not meant activelie of the word of God, but only passively, that is that throu' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreverently detorted & abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of wax. And according to this we see that none of that which our adversary produceth here out of the Romanists is any argument of irreverence against the truth, & inviolabilitie of God's word, but a calumnious accusation quite contrary to the sense & meaning of the foresaid authors, who had not any intention to tax the scriptures but the corrupters & false interpreters of them, such as you pseudoreformers are yourselves.  
And now altho' by this which I have said in general touching this point of blasphemy against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists, the authors by the knight cited remain sufficiently cleared from the imputation which he lays upon them in that nature: nevertheless because by the particular examen of the places cited I have discovered that either all or most of their words, be either corrupedtly rehearsed, or their sense detorted, & abused, therefore I will severally repeat their passages, & declare in what respects our adversary hath deceitfully traduced them.  
And to begin with Lindanus, his stromata in deed I could not have, but I have read the place cited out of his Panoplia, where I find that when he names the scripture a dead & kill letter, he only alludes to the words of S. Paul 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth, but the spirit give lives. 
Sicut illud eiusdem authoris dogma in mortuas, imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum. Panop. lib. 1. c. 44.  Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture than the Apostle himself: & affirming at the most, that the bare letter of the word of God ill interpreted doth kill the soul, but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church, it doth revive & nourish it, & brings it to eternal life: yea & having better pondered his words in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humphrey, I perceive the doth not absolutely call the scriptures a dead & kill letter, but only that the doctrine of that author (meaning the holy Ghost as I conceive) is put in to dead & kill letters. As his words quoted in Latin in the margin declare. And in this same sense I may justly & truly suppose the same author speaks in the place quoted out of his other work if any such saying he hath, in regard that a grave & learned man as he is known to have been, is ever judged to be suitable to himself in all times & places. Which learned divine is yet further convinced, never to have spoken otherwise then reverently of the scriptures in that in every several place cited by our adversary, he styleth them sacrae litterae. sacred letters. And in like manner I conceive of Charon, who as being of the same faith & religion he neither did nor dared to speak otherwise then with the same due respect which the Roman Church commands the Romanists to use towards the holy written word of God.  
Canus in his 3. chapter of his second book is abused by the knight, 
Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendam nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles, sed potius esse per se expositas & in promptu cuique sine magistro & docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca 7. f. 176 edit. Lovan.  by his imposing upon the Romanists that which Canus speaks of the Lutherans saying, that they will not have the scriptures to be like a nose of wax subject to diverse senses but rather plain for every one to understand without a master or teacher: & thus the preposterous kniht doth positively & affirmativelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus only relates to be negatively asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans.  
Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphic sword, the riddles of Sphinx and the like: for he doth not absolutely say they are such, but only saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule only which the pretended reformers received from Luther, to wit that scriptures are easy to be interpreted and understanded, and according as they have hitherto expounded them in their own sense, then saith Turrian, what else should we have of them then a Delphic sword? In which words you see he doth not affirm absolutely that the scriptures are such a sword, but only that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding, they may be so compared: and for this cause he puts for his marginal note, how to interpret scriptures according to one's own proper sense is as to have a Delphic sword: & so by this & the author's words which I quote in the margin in Latin, his meaning is sufficiently declared together with the knights calumnious proceeding against him. 
Vos enim sicut a Luthero didicistis scripturas sanctas faciles ad intelligendum & interpretandum esse putatis, & sic eas hactenus vestro sensis intellexistis & interpretati estis. At si hanc solam regulam fidei Christus in Ecclesia reliquisset, quid aliud quam gladium delphicum haberemus etc. Quomodo interpretari scripturas ad libidinem proprij sensus sit ut habere Delphicum gladium. x Sad. p. 99   
Lessius is ill cited, for in his 11. reason he hath none of those words quoted by Sir Humphrey, yet in his table he hath those. Scriptura quâ ratione nasus cereus, regula lesbia etc. nuncupetur. Citing for this, his own page 130. of his consult. Where yet he hath not those formal words which Sir Humphrey cities, but only some others to that sense: yet the truth is he doth not apply either the words or the sense to the Romanists, but to the novelists saying of them and their interpretation of scriptures by their private spirit. Scripturam autem quisque pro suo captu & iudicio intelligit, unde cum se putant scripturam habere, regulam credendi, loco scripturae habent imaginationem propriam etc. So that here we find no blasphemy in Lessius, but imposture in Sir Humphrey.  
It is true, Lessius in his disputation of Antichrist hath those formal words cited by Sir Humphrey, in his page of the same number where he saith: the scripture is called by Catholics a nose of Wax & a Lesbious rule etc. but he presently explicates in what sense, to wit when it is taken for the bare words or letter only secluding the sense of the Church & the interpretation of Fathers as saith he, it is taken by heretics. So that it is plain that Lessius doth not say that Catholics call the true scripture together with the true sense, a nose of Wax, but only the naked text & as it is abused by corrupters. 
Lessius demonstr. 15. p. 131.  An non regula illis Lesbia quam omnibus suis imaginationibus quantumuis absurdis accommodant & seruire faciunt, qui per Antichristum designari volunt non unum hominem, sed plurimorum seriem etc. And presently. Apud Catholicos non est regula Lesbia quia est animata vero nimirum sensu qui contrarijs placitis aptari nequit Among Catholics, saith Lessius (the scripture) is not a lesbie rule because it is animated with true sense which cannot be applied to contrary opinions. By which words it is evident that this author is mightily wronged being he hath the very negative proposition to that is imposed upon him.  
In the citation of Pighius Sir Humphrey ought to have continued his rehearsal from the beginning of his words to the end of the period of the authors whole passage, & then it would have appeared plainly how falsely he is accused. For so he discourseth. But because (saith he) no place of scripture is so plain or open as it can defend itselte from the injury of the heretics who adulterate, deprave, & detort it to their own sense, for they (as one no less truly then merrily hath said) are even as a nose of wax which doth easily suffer itself to be fashioned & drawn this way, & that way, & which way thou wilt, & like a certain leaden rule used in the buildings of Lesbos, which is not hard to be accommodated to what you will; there must be a line joined unto it, such a one as is not as flexible as itself, but firm & stiff, I say that pillar, that firmament of Catholic truth, that is the common sense & sentence of the Church, than we shall be certain & sure of the true understanding of the scriptures, if it be consonant in all things to her which as she gives Canonical authority to the scriptures, so is she truly the Lydius Lapis or touch stone of the true & Orthodox interpretation of the same etc. 
Pighius l. 3. Hierarc. c. 3.  Thus fare, Pighius. Where he puts also for his marginal note. Scriptures ab haereticorum vi & iniuria se prorsus vindicare non posse. That is: the scriptures can not vindicate or free themselves from the violence, & injury of heretics. By which note alone, if his words in the text were not so plain as they be: yet is it clearer than the leight, that the comparisons which Pighius useth be not applied by him to the scriptures absolutely but only as considered according to their bare characters & letter, & as they are subject to be corrupted by false interpretations: neither is he who used such speeches only with relation to the abusers of scripture more guilty of injurious proceeding against the scriptures themselves as truly they are the word of God: then those are esteemed to be injurious to the writings of S. Thomas, & Aristotle, who by reason they are expounded in contrary senses occasioned by their obscurity, affirm their expositors make them a nose of wax, or compare them to some such other flexible matter, mierly in that respect.  
And conformable to this also which we have said because the Romanists know by experience how falsely the misreformers use to deal in their citations as partly hath been convinced in diverse places of this censure, therefore & not for any other cause do they some times if they cite the Fathers, justly reject them as by them corrupted or falsely cited. And so if they cite Berengarius & the waldenses they justly reject them as heretics: If they cite reformers for Romanists they justly reject them for none of theirs. If they cite Catholic authors impertinently, corrupedtly, or in a false sense, they justly rejected them as abused by them & so remit them to the Censurers purgatory. If they cite scriptures either falsely translated by addition, or detraction, or falsely interpreted, or falsified, they justly reject them as imperfect, & as made by them a coverture for thiefs, & an officine or shop of heretics, And yet notobstanding all this it is manifest both by an express decree which the Council of Trent made in the fourth says. against the profaners of the sacred scriptures, 
Decret. de edit. & usu sacrorum l. vers. fin.  as also by some ceremonies of the Mass itself, that the Romanists give fare greater reverence every way unto them without comparison than the Reformers. And the same I say of the ancient Fathers whom the Romanists as it is well known, respect so much that they account it plain temereity in any writer to teach any doctrine contrary to the common consent of them: Whereas one the contrary, there is nothing more ordinary among the writers of the misreformed Churches them to reject the authority of the ancient Fathers, or at the least to vilify them & speak contemptuously of them as diverse of their works do testify.  
But for all this Sir Humphrey is still harping upon that string that the Roman Church holds the scriptures to be imperfect: but I know none that makes them so imperfect as the misreformed Churches by cutting of diverse parts of them, and condemning them for Apochriphas in their consistorial sessions, & by corrupting the text by false translations & erroneous interpretations as I have above declared. And touching the Roman Church I have already told him that he belly her. For neither she here selfe nor any of her members ever defended that tenet absolutely that the scriptures are imperfect. But only some Romanists affirm the scriptures alone to be no perfect rule of faith, yet they never say they are imperfect. For one thing it is to be perfect in themselves, & an other thing to be perfect as they be a rule of faith. The first is absolutely true & maintained by all Romanists; the second is but true secundum quid, & with restriction, as before hath been declared, or as it is but one part yet the chiefest & the fare more perfect & noble. Wherefore the Romanists as the reader may perceive hold both the scriptures & Fathers for perfect & campleit absolutely speaking, where as the reformers whatsoever they say in words, yet indeeds they do mangle & martyrise them most cruelly, as a book published by a reformed minister, called the censure of the Fathers doth give over plain testimony. 
Censura Patrum.  And thus handled by t'him I grant the reformers may challenge them for theirs, but taking them in their complete & perfect latitude & purity, the Romanists my justly say all mine, in which action notwithstanding there is no policy used to deceive the ignorant, as the reformers use to do, but plain dealing for their true instruction.  
And to say the Romanists silence scriptures, it is so manifest an untruth as it needs no other confutation. But by the lie. Neither do they otherwise purge either them or any learned writers, but only, or at the least chiefly from such darnel as you enemies to the Crop of Christ use to sow by night in the field of faith. According to the sentence of the author of the Impect Commentary of S. Mathewe hom. 44. speaking of heretical Priests, whose words altho' the knight world fain apply them against the Romanists, yet they can not possible be so truly & fitly accommodated to any as to his own ministers & Bishops, whose common & known practice is by severity of laws & all forts of punishment & not by their books & writings to mussel the Romanists mouths, because (to use the words of the foresaid author) they know that if the truth be once laid open, their Church shall be forsaken & they from their Pontifical dignity shall be brought down to the baseness of the people. And now we see by the examen of this whole section how false Sir Humfrey's cards have proved & how plainly he hath lost the game notwithstanding all his iudling tricks & counterfeit shuffling, of which sleights there are such great store in this section that there is no place for any matter of substance but only verbal flourishes to give colour & countenance to his feigned & calumnious accusations.   

THE XIV. PERIOD.  
SIR Humphrey tells us that in this section following there are contained allegations collected out of Bellarmin for testification of the truth of the reformed doctrine in the chief points of controversy.  
I have already declared that the Romanists reject not either true scriptures, or Fathers; nor yet any other authors of the Roman Church, but only as either corrupted by heretics, or else only where we find them to have some singular opinion, or tenet against the uniform doctrine of the rest in matters of faith manners, or Ecclesiastical practice or discipline: or else in some particular points not then sufficiently declared & determined by the Church when they did so utter their opinions; of which sort of writers nevertheless there never were any such either in number or quality of doctrine as could either make or mar the antiquity & universality of the Church in that nature.  
And as for Bellarmin whom Sir Humphrey citeth in this section, we are so fare from taking exceptions at any thing that he ever writ & published, that we all hold him for a most faithful & diligent defender not only of the principal points of our faith but also of every one of them in particular, & of the whole Roman doctrine in so much that I account it no less than plain madness in that man who shall offer to make use of his testimony for the contrary, knowing for certain that if he be sincerely alleged & rightly understanded, nothing can be found in him for the adverse part. And to the end that this may more plainly appear I will briefly examen those particular places which Sir Humphrey produceth, for the contrary.  
First therefore he citeth Bellarmin as confessing the uncertainty of all the Trent Sacraments (as the knight termeth them) because forsooth in his third book of justification the 8. chap. he granteth that none can be certain by the certainty of faith that he receiveth a true Sacrament, in regard in depends upon the intention of the minister. But this testimony I have already showed to be delusorie, & it is wholly impertinent to the purpose, for that the question about the necessity of the knowledge of the intention of the minister by faith, is no principal controversy betwixt us but rather merely incident. Neither yet can the reformers find the contrary position in any place of scripture by that means to make it a point of faith for themselves.  
secondly he induceth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. touching the reformers denial of transubstantiation. To which place I have also ansered before; & it is not for this purpose, in regard there is no mention of any denial of the truth of trassubstantiation, or confession of the Reformers tenet in that point: but only of an other incident question, viz. whether transubstantiation can be proved by express words of scripture. And at least touching the main point (to omit the other as impertinent & disagreeable to the title of our adversary's question which is of principal points of controversy,) it is too clear that Bellarmin defended the affirmative in terminis, in plain terms. And so this is no such confession as Sir Humphrey seeks for in this place. Besides that all Beauties' confession is but one poor non est improbabile:  
thirdly he citeth Beauties' confession against private Mass lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9 & 10. But the latter place I have examined before & found it corrupted by Sir Humphrey both in words & sense neither are the words sincerely recited by omission of omnino, & sine declaratione Ecclesiae, & transposition of the text. And here I further add that neither of the places is to this purpose, because they prove no unlawfulness, or absolute imperfection in private Masses, but only at the most their less lawfulness, their less perfection, or their want of frequentation in the primative ages: which is no principal point of controversy between the Reformers, & Romanists, nay none at all.  
And touching Beauties' confession contained in the first place, viz. That we read not expressly, but gather by conjectures that the ancients did sacrifice without communion of some person, or persons, I say it is impertinent in regard it involues no disproof of private Masses, as our adversary counningly indevores to persuade his unadvised reader. It being sufficient for the instification of the practice of them, that besides the authority of the present Church which approves them, not any word either of scripture, or ancient Fathers can be produced in which they are condemned for unlawful, or repugnant to Christ's institution, or command. And if more than this were required for matters of practice in this nature: certain it is the pretensive reformers of the Church, would never be able to justify their own order, and prescription of communicating at Easter, or some twice or thrice more in the year: or their new prohibition of not receiving their communion even at the point of death without a competent number: of neither of which they have not as much as one poor instance, or example in the primative Church. By which it appears that Beauties' confession is in this passage preposterously alleged by the knight both in respect of the Roman Doctrine against which it concludeth nothing, as also in respect of the inconvenience which by sequel and illation it induceth to his own: who yet offers the Cardinal some further abuse by omission of the word facile, in the recytal of his text. 
Tamen id possumus ex coniecturis facile colligere. Bellar. supra.   
Where the reader may yet once more reflect, that altho' Bellarmin in his modesty termed the examples of antiquity which he produceth for the practice of private Masses at the least in some particular cases, no more than conjectures: yet if some of them be duly pondered & urged with their circumstances, they may justly pass for solid reasons: as that S. Chrysostome diverse times reprehending the people most sharply & vehemently for making the Masses private by their not communicating in them: yet doth he not once either condemn such Masses in themselves, or he himself ever ceased to celebrate them daily even then when he most preached against the negligence of those who were present in them without receiving the sacrament with the priest. Which doubtless is a morally concluding argument that Masses without communion of the people were used and esteemed lawful even in those more primative & ancient ages. To which may not unaptely be added for confirmation of the same discourse by way of advertisement, that S. Chrysostome never affirmed in these occasions of complaint of the people, that Masses in which communicants are wanting, be evil or contrary to Christ's ordinance or precept, but the most he said was, that the oblation is frustrate when there be none to participate: which words of his are so fare from reproving the practice, & use of Masses without comunion of the people, that they necessarily imply that the sacrifice was in reality cebebrated, notobstanding the people did frustrate the intention of the priest in that by their want of devotion they received not the Communion which he had prepared for them: supposing it is absolutely inpossible to conceive that the Mass or oblation could be frustrated for want of partakers, except it were in itself a Mass or oblation truly & really performed by the sacrificer.  
fourthly it is true that Bellarmin confesseth that in the primative Church, because the Christians were but few, they did all sing & ansere in the divine offices. But he affirmeth not that either it than was, or now is unlawful to have the public, or private prayer in an unknown tongue, which is the only point in controversy, the reformers defending touth & nail the affirmative, & the Romanists the negative. Nay Bellarmin is so fare from confessing the reformers doctrine in this particular, that he expressly affirmeth in the same place that the divine offices in those primative times were celebrated in Greek which all the people did not understand, & yet cleareth this whole question so fare that if Sir Humphrey had used any spark of sincerity in citing Beauties words home & truly, they would have taken away all doubt concerning his meaning: Whereas by leaving out deceitfully the latter part of his clause, he caused in his reader a previdicate opinion of the true sense, touching which, and the faithless proceeding of our adversary about the same, the Cardinals own words entirely recited will tell the truth: for thus he speaks. At obijcies sicut Apostolus etc. But (saith Bellarmin) you will object. As the Apostle would that the people might subjoine, Amen: so also he was to ordain that the divine offices should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue that the people might answer, Amen. 
Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei. c. 16.  I anser by denying the consequence, because the divine offices were performed in the Greek tongue which many of the people did understand, tho' not all, & this was sufficient; for the Apostles will was not that all should anser. Besides this, because then the Christians were few, they all sung together in the Church, & ansered in the divine offices: but afterwards the multitude increasing, the offices were more divided, & it was left to the sole clergy to acomplish the common prayers, & Laudes in the Church. Thus plainly doth the Cardinal declare himself for a ptofessed adversary of Sir Humphrey & his comperes in this particular even so fare as to solve their greatest objection which they use to frame against the practice of the Roman Church.  
Firstlie touching the allegation of Beauties' confession of the reformers tenet about the Communion in both kinds, it is most false that Bellarmin confesseth it in the point in controversy, 
Bellarmin. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 16.  I mean it is false that he confesseth either Christ to have commanded the communion in both kinds, or that the ancient Church practised the same only in both kinds, both which points Bellarmin so expressly declareth that Sir Humphrey could not possible have found any colour to have alleged his confession for the contrary if he had not mangled his words as he did in truth most shamefully as may appear most plainly to him that will take pains to examen them as they are by him delivered towards the end of the chapter cited by the knight, where it is evident that the Cardinal proceedeth diametrally contrary to the reformers doctrine in the principal point of this question according to his own express words quoted in this my margin. 
Idcirco quaerendum superest utrum saltem divino praecepto positivo eiusmodi obligatio (communicandi sub utraque specie) in Ecclesia sit nos enim negamus, illi (sectarij) asserunt. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucha. c. 24.   
Sixthly touching the confession of Bellarmin about the dual number of proper Sacraments, we have already showed him to be quite opposite to the reformers doctrine, & also have examined the same place which Sir Humphrey citeth here and found the sense of the Cardinal to have been egregiously by him transuerted & corrupted, & so here is no confession of any principal point of controversy made by him in favour of his adversaries, but a new repetition of an old imposture of the knights own making.  
lastlly the knight citeth two places, of Bellarmin. The first out of his 3. book of justification the 6. chapter, is touching the reformers faith & good works which he affirmeth Bellarmin to confess. But what a ridiculous allegation is this? For it is true Bellarmin confesseth in the place cited that the reformers hold faith & repentance are requisite to justification & that without them no man can be justified, but this is no principal point of controversy: nay no question at all between the Romanists & the reformers, but only a point of doctrine which the reformers do commonly teach & the Romanists do not deny. So that this is impertinently alleged out of Bellarmin for faith & good works since that in the words cited out of him there is not one syllable of good works, but only of faith & repentance as the reader sees. But yet that which is most absurd of all is that Sir Humphrey having here cited Beauties' confession that the reformers hold both faith & repentance to be required to justification, yet presently after he citeth the same Bellarmin as concluding with the reformed Churches justification by faith only, so that within the compass of one page the knight out of the profundity of his great head peace resolveth in favour of his own cause out of Bellarmin both that without a lively faith & an earnest repentance no man is justified, & also that according to the doctrine of the reformed Church's man's justification is by faith only. Let the reader if, he be able couple these two together, but if he can not let him hold for certain that Sir Humphrey line was fare out of quare when he uttered such disparates. Now the second place of the two laste is touching justification by faith only. But this hath been examined before, & found to contain no confession of justification by faith only (as the knight will have it, unadvisedly contradicting himself out of an inordinate desire to make Bellarmin seem to stand for the doctrine of his Church) but only that Bellarmin speaketh there of confidence in merits according to the sense above declared.  
And thus Sir Humphrey having cited all he can, which all nevertheless is just nothing, he addeth for all this that he wondereth why the Romanists should send out such Anathemas & curses against all or any of those that deny their doctrine. But I wonder more that he who hath produced nothing either in this chapter or in the rest of his book out of Catholic authors which in his sense & meaning doth not rather deserve to be hissed at, then to be admitted for any proof of his doctrine, yet should not be ashamed to affirm that the best learned of the Romanists confess that many principal points of their own religion & many articles of their faith, are neither ancient, safe, nor Catholic. And surly I can not conceive but that both he & who soever else should use so much false dealing as he hath done, in propugning their own tenets especially in matters of religion, deserve the Anathema in the highest degree, that curse being the proper brand of the defenders of erroneous, heretical, or scysmaticall doctrine. And indeed it seems Sir Humphrey had not very great conference in the industry which he hath used in this his work. For notobstanding it appeareth manifestly that he putteth the greatest streingth of his proofs through out his whole book in the multitude of authors especially Romanists, whom by way of emendication or begerie he allegeth as confessers of his faith, yet he here flieth to the little flock & to the paucity of believers & to the simplicity of babes as to special characters of the true Church, & utterly disclaiming from humane wisdom, power, & nobility: a poor refuge after so many great boasts & brags of the victory obtained (as he imagineth, but falsely) by mere authority & multiplicity of testimonies piled up both in text, & margin; now to plead paucity, simplicity & want of power, & wisdom. And as for your paucity in number Sir Humphrey I will not stick to grant in regard that how great a show soever you have made to the contrary, yet I know you to be most poor & beggarly in that nature, but yet I deny that to be a special & infallible mark of the true Church as you insinuate, no more than the paucity of Manicheans or Donatists was a mark of the truth of their Churches. And the same I say of the want of might, wisdom, nobility, I mean of true, power, wisdom, & nobility, for of power, wisdom & nobility of the flesh you must needs have much more than the Romanists, in regard it is well known you both handle & eat fare greater quantity than they do, witness your little abstinence & the rest which modesty causeth me to pass in silence: And touching your simplicity except by simplicity you mean plain ignorance, you have no colour here to brag of it, for that there was never flock in the world, in my opinion, so full of all sorts of duplicity as your own. Neither hath any man greater reight to be a sheep of that fouled then the noble knight Sir Humphrey, who out of the abundance of his double dealing even in this place, to say nothing of that which is paste, hath made choice of as false & fallacious marks of his own Church as he hath calumniouslie feigned marks for ours to wit counterfeit miracles which nevertheless we disclaim from & detest more than he and all his consortes. And if they will needs meddle of these matters, let them reflect upon their Master Caluin how fain he would have confirmed his new Gospel with a forged resuscitation of a poor man who by his instructions, feigned death, but the false Prophet failing of his purpose committed a murder in steed of a miracle.  
The knight saith further that we believe lies: But I say that he doth not only believe them but makes them, as appears by this his pamphlet in which, as we see, there is great store. 
In Deut. 14.  We do not deny with Lira but that some times in the Church there may be great deception of the people among the Priests in feigned miracles: but these miracles if any such there be, are in the Church & in the Priests only, as Lira discreetly insinuate, not approved by the Church, & the Priests or their companions for lucre, as the false knight injuriously affirms, most corruptedly omitting in his translation of Lyra's words both the word aliquando in the beginning, & also the end of his sentence to wit: 
Lyra in c. 14. Dan.  & talia exstirpanda sunt à bonis prelatis sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele. 
De civet. l. 2. c. 8.  And we yet further affirm with S. Augustin that he that seeketh to be confirmed by miracles now, is to be wondered at most of all himself in refusing to believe what all the world believeth besides himself. But in those words S. Augustin doth not deny but that true miracles may be in the Church, nor yet that they were not in his time, 
Lib. 22. c. 8.  for in his books de Civit. he affirmeth expressly that Christian doctrine, not only in the beginning but also in the progress, of the Church was confirmed by miracles, as besides other places the very title of that same chapter rehearsed in my margin makes appear to which these his words in the discourse following plainly agree. 
De miraculis quae ut mundus in Christo crederet facta sunt, & ficri mundo credente non desinunt. Tit. c. 8 li. 22.  For (saith S. Augustin) even at this present time miracles are operated or done in his name: (in the name of Christ) either by the Sacraments, or by the prayers, & memories of his saints. And the same S. Aug. in the same place further relates one famous miracle in particular done at the body of S. Gervase, & Protase in Milan where he himself remained at that present time. And by this it is evident that S. Aug. in the other place produced by Sir Humphrey only condemneth him who for want of miracles should refuse to believe, to which we Romanists most willingly agree. And by this it appeareth that S. Augustin is here impertinently alleged by the knight. But the truth is that because these companions have no miracles in their own Church, they strive by all means possible to obscure the miracles of the Church of Rome & cry out like Bedlams: there is no need of miracles.  
And now to come to a conclusion of this section, & the censure of it, I would fain know of Sir Humphrey what is all this discourse of miracles to the purpose of testifying his doctrine by the confession of Bellarmin, surely nothing at all. & I persuade myself the knight was mightly distracted when he penned it, and so I leave him till he returns to his more perfect senses.   

THE XV. PERIOD.  
SIR Humphrey playeth the part of a Charlatan so fare that he is not content by his prestigious tricks & sleights to lay claim to ancient Fathers & modern Romanists for confessors of his own faith, but also out of the groasenes of his education, in this section he presumeth to lay his greasy hands upon those holy primative martyrs, & champions of jesus Christ engrossing & conveying those sacred wares into his own stinking store-house, which nevertheless all ages, all Christian people, all nations have till the days of Luther proclaimed & testified to pertain to the renown & glory of the Roman Church. And altho' he would seem to prove that the foresaid prime martyrs do not belong to the Church of Rome, yet his chief proof is but prating & an idle application of his own tenets already examined & confuted in their several places, where they have been all found either plainly false, or at the least equivocal & founded upon false suppositions upon which no true argument can be framed: which being so I may justly save labour to descend to particulars, yet one only will I specify which is so shamefully impertinent that it is sufficient alone to shame the rest.  
He saith therefore that Father Garnet being demanded whether if he were to consecrate the Sacrament that morning he should suffer death, he durst after consecration affirm upon his Salvation that the wine in the cup consecrated was the very blood of Christ which flowed from his side, he made ansere it might justly be doubted. This is the wise story which Sir Humphrey telleth us out of Bishop Andrew's, which altho' we are not bound to believe as being justified only by our adversaries, yet suppose it is as true as their Gospel, it maketh not any thing for this purpose, for that Sir Humfreys task in this place was not to meddle with martyrs of these later ages, but to demonstrate that those ancient martyrs of former ages did not die for that faith which the present Roman Church professeth, & so what soever he or his Prelate can feign of Father Garnet is but a fools bolt which flying at random cometh not near the mark. Father Garnet saith he, durst not pronounce openly over the cup after he had consecrated it, this is the blood of Christ, ergo never any martyr did take it upon his death that the consecrated bread is the corporal & real flesh of Christ. Behold I pray this most subtle Logic of a knight & admire it. Or if you list rather laugh at it as I did when I found it out, & so I left it without any further confutation, imagining that perhaps Sir Humphrey long before he was borne did miraculously speak with some of those ancient soldiers of Christ, & so came to know that none of them ever gave their lives for the real presence. Which in deed is the point in question, & not whether a man can lawfully pronounce upon his Salvation whether this or that host in particular after consecration, containeth the body of Christ, as the knight captiouslie supposeth  
But yet showing us some more grains of his folly he saith further, that it is undoubtedly true that the ancient martyrs could not dye in that faith nor for that religion which was altogether unknown to their church. O ingenious gentleman! but yet I pray tell me if the fore said martyrs died not for the Romanists religion because as you feign, they died not for the profession of the real presence, For what religion did they dye? Suerlie not for yours, because if our religion was unknown unto them, much more was yours unknown to their ages which was not in the world before the days of Luther, except perhaps your 39 articles were known unto them by extraordinary revelation before they were coined. It is true here we have Sir Humfreys ipse dixit for confirmation of his tenet, & so it must needs be doubtless, his authority is so excessively great. 
Sir Tho. Ouerb. in his carat. of a Puritan or Precisian.  And so I grant the hypothetical to be most true: And me thinks it is not much unlike to an other such like position of the Puritans, who use to say: it is impossible for a man to be damned in their religion, & so a facetious Protestant confesses for certain, as long as helives in it, but if he dies in it, there's the question. Wherefore since all is but trifles that Sir Humphrey bringeth, I wish the reader of his book to consider with himself how small probability there is to imagine that those glorious champions of Christ who so valerouslie suffered torments & died for him in the Roman Church, & many of them at Rome itself, could possibly belong to any other Church in the world, then to that Church which as in that time it had the name of Roman Church so doth it still remain with the same appellation not otherwise then by a continual succession of the Popes of Rome, three & thirty of which (as eloquent Campian truly observeth) were put to death for their faith, which their faith as it is manifest partly by their own works, & partly by the authentical histories of their martyrdoms, was the very same according to the manner I have before declared, which now is taught in the present Church of Rome.  
And if this be not so, if those glorious martyrs were not defenders of that Roman faith which by succession of pastors is derived & arrived to this our time, I demand of our adversaries of what other faith they were, for of the reformed faith they could not possible be in regard that none of them either taught in their life, or died for the defence of justification by faith only, or for the denial of the real presence of the body & blood of Christ in the Eucharist, nor for denying that there is any other word of God but only scripture. Nor for affirming that the images of Christ & his Saints are Idols, or that they who honore them adore idols, or sticks & stones, or that the Pope was Antichrist: nor do we find in any history either any of this, nor yet that the foresaid martyrs suffered for these, or any other point of the reformers doctrine which is contrary to the faith of the present Roman Church. Wherefore the said reformers must necessarily confess that the ancient martyrs died either for ours or for no other Christian doctrine, & consequently that they are either ours or no martyrs at all.  
And if they were Popes of Rome as you Puritan yourselves cannot deny, how could they possible be yours who believe the Pope is Antichrist, & are so fare from that kind of government that you do not willingly admit either Pope, Prince, or Prelate, but only a consistorial Anarchy without head or feet. And he that shall duly ponder these particulars, doubtless his conscience will tell him how uniustelie Sir Humphrey endeavoureth to wreist from the Roman Church those rich prizes. And let this suffice for the censure of this section & to show that the Romanists by their claim to the martyrs of the primative Church pretend nothing but their due.   

THE XVI. PERIOD.  
THE 17. section containeth an ansere to an objection of the Romanists drawn from the opinion of Protestants touching the Salvation of professed Romanists, where Sir Humphrey telleth us, he is come to the greatest wonder. And I confess the wonder which the knight proposeth is great, but it being of his own making, it is not he that ought to wonder at it but rather in my opinion he should leave that to others. And truly it is most wonderful to me to hear that the Romanists themselves should confess their own doctrine to be different from the ancient Church in many principal points of faith, but this having already been demonstrated to be false & feigned by Sir Humphrey, the greatest wonder of all wonders is that he should have the face to make a wonder of his own so often repeated untruths. It is true the Romanists constantly hold that neither Lutheran nor Caluinist, nor any other heretic or Schismatic dying in his heresy obstinately can be saved, for so they say with him that could commit no rash judgement, he that doth not believe is already judged. 
Qui autem non credit iam iudicatus est. joan. 3.18.  Nevertheless we Romanists do not deny but that probably some simple people may live in heresy, & yet not be damned at the least for heresy, & yet be saved by ignorance if with all they be free from other mortal sins, either because they never lost their baptismal grace, or if they lost it, by contrition they recover it again; which altho' it be not impossible, yet is it very full of dangerous difficulty morally speaking, & almost a Metaphysical case, & for such I leave it.  
Sir Humphrey proceedeth on babbling about a City seated upon seven mountains which he fondelie holdeth for a mark of the false Church & applieth it to the Roman Church. But if Rome were the seat of the false Church because it is planted upon seven mountains, then how scaped it from that stain all those five hundreth years in which the reformers themselves grant it was the mother Church? 
jacobus Rex epist. monit.  Neither hath the Roman Church any such mark of assuming supreme authority over Kings & Princes as the knight doth odiously affirm, but only with due respect & humility useth that authority over them which Christ himself did confer upon her, in such manner as is most conducing to the Salvation of their own souls & their vassals according to the rules of Christian prudence, & the precept of charity. Yet not to domineer over them, or their subjects in any sort, & much less to approve or allow of their oppression either by Massacre, or any other unlawful means, as the sectaries & especially the Puritan do use calumniouslie to object, notobstanding that none in the world are more guilty than themselves in those practices, of which we have too many examples in Scotland, France, & other places even against Kings, & Princes, which doubtless caused King james of great Brittany to speak so plain as he did both in his books & ordinary discourses, of that particular. 
Nihil nisi calumniam & seditionem spirantes Basilic. dor.   
After this Sir Humphrey descends to diverse particulars & demandeth whether he & his fellows be accursed for maintaining them or no? and whether the Romanists be blessed for such & such points which they defend against the sectaries? And thus he runneth a long between blessing & cursing till he concludes casting the curses upon the Romanists & the blessings upon his own Congregation. But because there is little or nothing but such false stuff as I have already examined & censured, & because I have quite surfeited with so frequent repetition of the same subject: I only say in general, as he is blessed who heareth or obeyeth the Church in all things in regard that by obeying the Church he obeyeth Christ who blesseth them that obey him: So contrarily he that disobeyeth the Church in one only thing he is accursed according to the words of Christ him helfe, if he will not hear the Church let him be unto to the, like an Ethnic or Publican. 
Mat. 18.  And so Sir Humphrey had no reason to marvel if the Romanists account him & his fellows accursed because they refuse to embrace & obey any point of that doctrine which the most universal Church of the world proposeth unto them as doctrine to be received, believed, or practised by all faithful Christians. And as S. Augustin in the 41. of his fifty homilies saith. Whosoever is separated from the Catholic Church that is to say that Church which spread in over the whole world (as he specifieth in the precedent words) how laudably soever he thinks he liveth, for that only sin that he is divided from the unity of Christ he shall not obtain life eternal, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him. In which words as the reader may see according to the sentence of S. Augustin, separation from the obedience of the universal Church is sufficient to bring the curse upon any man notobstanding in other respects he liveth never so virtuously.  
And according to this the Romanists may boldly say they are accursed who deny all merit in works proceeding from the grace of God, 
Scr. 68 in Cant.  & they blessed with Saint Bernard (whom Caluin himself calleth a holy & pious man) that affirm with him that it is a pernicious provertie to want merits, & yet especially at the hour of their death for humility with the same S. Bernard put all their confidence in the mercy of God; that which the Romanists do much more than the reformers, notobstanding their defence of meritorious works.  
They are accursed who otherwise then Christ taught or affirmed, teach & affirm it unlawful for the laity to communicate in one kind: And they blessed who with Christ & his Church take it for a thing indifferent of itself to receive in one or both kinds, & stand to the ordinance of the most universal Church without contention, according to the difference of times, places, & persons.  
They are accursed who being unlearned read scriptures & interpret them falsely for the maintenance of their errors, according to that of S. Peter saying: 
Epist. 2. c. 3.  there are certain places in S. Paul's Epistles which the unlearned deprave to their own perdition: but blessed are they who read them as the Eunuch did, that is with a S. Philipe, I mean with one to show them the true sense, & as S. Basil & his brother Nazianzene did, 
Lib. 11. cap. 9  (who according to Rufinus) read the scriptures following the sense of them not according to their own presumption, but according to the writings of their predecessors, notwithstanding they were both, very famous, & renowned in learning.  
They are accursed who either prohibit marriage or meats as ill in themselves as some ancient heretics did, or abstain not from them both at such times & in such cases as God & his Church ordaineth them to abstain: And they are blessed who according to the order of the Church directed by the spirit of God remain with S. Paul unmarried, & refaine from eating flesh at such times as the same Church appointeth.  
Those are accursed for contemning of Christ in his Church, who contrary to her appointment, do schismatically administer the public service & Sacraments in the vulgar tongue, erroneously defending the same to be commanded by the scriptures: & blessed are those who for reverence to the holy scriptures & conservation of the dignity of the divine offices, & other just reasons, hold it fitting to administer public service & Sacraments in a language most common to all nations, to wit in the Latin tongue.  
They are accursed who love Christ & his Saints so little as they account it idolatry, & contrary to the scriptures to honore their images, notobstanding there is no place of scripture truly interpreted to be found against them: & those are blessed according to the same scriptures who to show their exterordinarie affection to Christ, duly reverence both the images of him & his blessed servants.  
They are accursed that refuse either to adore Christ's body wheresoever he affirmeth it to be, or account it idolatry or superstition to honore the Saints who he himself saith he honoureth with a crown of glory: & blessed are they that perform his pleasure in both by adoring his precious body & blood in the sacrament, & by honouring his Saints in Heaven where he doth honour them as his servants & friends. 
Si quis mihi ministrauerit honorificabit eum Pater meus etc.   
They are accursed who contrary to scripture reject such ancient traditions as the most universal Church approveth: & blessed are those who with due obedience observe the same.  
Accursed are they who reject charity from the formal cause of justification, 
Maior autem horum est charitas. 1. Cor. 13.  which notobstanding according to the Apostle, is greater than either hope or faith: & blessed are they who admit it in justification as well as faith & prefer it before faith with the same Apostle.  
Accursed are they that by denying with the jews the books of the Machabies to be Canonical scriptures, deny Purgatory & prayer for the souls departed: & blessed are they who with the Church & S. Augustin hold the foresaid books for canonical scripture, & say with him it is an undoubted thing that prayer doth profit the dead. 
Non dubium est oration prodesse defunctis. Aug. de cura pro mort. c. 1.   
And in this manner, if need were I could pass throu' all the rest of the points of controverted doctrine, & easily show the curse to fall upon the misreformed brothers for their obstinacy & disobedience to God & his Church.  
Sir Humphrey would fain seem to bear a charitable mind towards the Romanists in regard he saith, he dares not pronounce damnation upon their persons, and yet he proclaimeth confidently & openly to the whole world that their doctrine is damnable, to which it is necessarily consequent that all such as die obstinately in it are directly damned: & so if Sir Humfrey proceeds consequenter to this his tenet, he must necessity judge the same of at the least in general of those which die in the foresaid obstinate manner & with out invincible ignorance end their lives in it. But if this be that which he calls greater charity them Romanists have, & all the favour he doth us, we thank him not for it, & such charity he may better reserve to himself & his brothers who in my opinion have no more than they can spare. And if this be all the difference which can be found betwixt the proceeding of the Romanists & the reformers in this particular, than I say that notwithstanding Sir Humphrey much laboureth to make his reader believe that he & his reformed brothers are more charitable than the Romanists in judging of the state of the souls of such as depart in each religion: nevertheless it is manifest he quite faileth of his intent: supposing that the Romanists do not use to judge but rather suspend their judgement of particular persons, except they have some special reasons prudently & morally to persuade themselves that this or that party died in actual obstinacy & defence of his erroneous faith, otherwise their censure is only conditional or a general & abstractive manner. It is trrue he granteth that some of his doctors affirm that a Papist may be saved, but he delivereth his own gloss upon it saying it is meant only by invincible ignorance, & so by his own commentary he corrupted the whole text. And if this be the best construction his charity can afford we will thank him for it as much is it deserveth. Nevertheless it is no matter what either Sir Humfrey or his fellows say in this point, we esteem not so much of there judgements as to frame out of them, any rule for the safe way of salvation: for this rule, we had long before their Church was built we had it from the way maker himself. And I tell you by the way Sir Humphrey that if any of your Church be saved in the manner I have declared in the beginning of this Period, they are absolutely said to be saved in our Church not in yours, thoguh exteriorlie they live & dye in yours. And so to conclude, if you will not permit the Romanists to draw an argument from the confession of some of your authors, but will needs affirm with your greatest doctor & Arch Puritan whitaker, that upon his word there is not one Papist to be found in Heaven, I for my part upon condition you brag not of a victory as you use to do, I will not contend with you, but as in a matter neither of faith, nor yet of any great consequence supposing your own perverse glosses, I leave you to your own sense, as also I do those Romanists who used that argument against some of their adversaries.   

THE XVII. PERIOD.  
SIr Humphrey hath played the jacke so long that in this his last section he playeth jacke on both sides, telling us in the title that he intendeth to show that the Protestant religion is safer by the confession of both parties, that is, both of Romanists & Reformers.  
But I know not to what end he made this section except is was only to make the number of his sections even, for I find nothing in it but a new repetition of old matters so often already inculcated that my ears are weary to hear them. And if Sir Humphrey was disposed to play in the number, he ought rather to have made choice of the odd number them of the even as being in the Poet's opinion more pleasing to God, Deus numero inpare gaudet. But let this pass, for how soever he doth, I for my part desire not to stand upon numbers but upon substance. If he had brought either new matter, or at the least, some new proof of the old, it might perhaps have been worth the labour to examen it, but I find only old matter & new equivocations, sleights, & falsities, & these only I will briefly discuss.  
But the whole drift of the knight in this his last section is, as he saith himself, to make good the title of his book, which is that therefore he & his fellows are in the safer way because quotteth he, the Romanists agree with us in the principal points of doctrine: & because that is the safer way wherein differing parts join both in one, & this I hold to be the substance of his whole discourse if any there were to be found in it.  
First therefore he telleth us great news to wit that there is a Heaven & a hell, in the belief of which, saith he, we both agree, & thence he concludeth that this is the safer way because both sides join in it. But this, if you mark it, is mere Sophistry, for in stead of a whole way both in this particular and in the rest of the points of controversy he passeth throu' in this section, he showeth but a piece of a way. The whole way which he ought to show in this one point is the reformers belief of heaven & hell & their denial of Purgatory & limbus, Now Sir Humphrey putteth in truly the first part of his way to wit, the reformers belief of heaven & hell, (how true this is I know not) but he leaveth out deceitfully the second part of the way viz. the Reformers belief in the denial of Purgatory & Limbus, & so as I said before in stead of the whole way he showeth but a piece, which piece altho' it be supposed to be never so safe, yet it will not serve the turn to bring a man to his journey's end, nor yieldeth him any more certainty or safety in his way then he that should tell one who is upon his journey to york, that his safest way is to go from London to Islinton, & there should leave him to shift for himself for his directions in the rest of the way, in which case certain it is the traveller should be little or nothing obledged to him who shows him that part of the way only which all the world knoweth. And the truth is that Sir Humphrey argueth in this whole matter as if he should say of himself & his fellow reformers, we & the Turks agree in the creed of one God & differ in the belief of Christ the Messiah, therefore it is the safer way to believe only in one God in which we all agree, then to believe in God & Christ too, in which we stand single. Even so concludeth the knight of the faith of Purgatory, Limbus, & the rest of the points in controversy which he particularizeth in the discourse of this section, arguing no otherwise then in this absurd manner. Neither is it, o Sir Humphrey, our standing single by ourselves, or double with you that either maketh or marreth either the faith of Purgatory, or any other article of the Roman doctrine as you falsely & fallaciouslie suppose in your argument: But scriptures, general Counsels, Fathers & the authority of the most universal Church are the pillars upon which the house of our faith is built.  
And as for your joining with us in any one article, or else in the general assertion of some of your authors that we may be saved in our Church, how soever it may seem to some to be a confirmation of our faith, yet it is not any part of the foundation of our faith, but only a kind of moral argument or motive that we are in the safer way because even some of our adversaries themselves hold we may be saved in it. But yet as this alone, if otherwise we did fail in the true grounds of our faith themselves, can not be a sufficient proof that we are in the safer way than you, so ought it not to be a sufficient proof that you are in the safer way because we agree with you in some part of your doctrine. Especially considering you fail in the chief grounds of your faith as hath been showed partly in my this censure, & partly by other Catholic divines in their several works. And if any argument for the greater safety of your way could be drawn from our agreement with you in some points of faith, so in like manner might we deduce a proof of the greater safety of our way from the certainty of those points of faith in which you agree with us, all which is but nugatory, frivolous, & absurd in regard that as, a part ad totum, from a part to the whole no lawful deduction can be made, so neither can it be inferred that because one part of the object of a man's faith is true, therefore the whole object of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one part of the object be true, yet there may be in the whole object or matter truth & falsity mixed together, of which we have instances both in divine & humane matters.  
And more than this, Sir Humphrey must give us licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proof of his tenet. For before he went about to prove his way to be safer than ours, he ought first to have convinced his own way to be a true & perfect way, & not to have given his reader a part for the whole by a false Senecdoche, or contrary to the Grammar rules to obtrude upon him a comparative without a positive, that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all, or at the least no safe & entire way. And yet more over it is to be observed that besides those positive points of doctrine in which he saith that both parts agree, there be also diverse negatives which they quite distinguish one from an other, which negatives nevertheless are part of the reformers faith as well as their positive doctrine, & so in this part of their Creed they stand single as well as we, & consequently if standing single, as he averreth or at the least supposeth, doth hinder the safety of our way, the same effect it must of necessity have in theirs, & according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can never have the safer way till we join with them in every point thereof by that means to hinder their single standing, which yet we assure ourselves will never come to pass, except God almighty reduce them to us from whom they once departed, as we greatly desire & daily prey.  
And according to this we may briefly ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth. And so we Romanists confess we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heaven & hell, but we stand not with them in the denial of Purgatory & limbus. We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of jesus Christ: But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits & satisfactions of those that live in the grace of God, & by the virtue of the same & the cooperation of their own free will, perform good works of charity, mercy, justice, & the like, holding for certain with S. Augustin that he who created us without us, will not save us without us: yet further assuring ourselves that God doth not operate with bests & men both in one manner. We stand with them in the defence of Baptism & Eucharist so fare as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them, but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other five Sacraments. We stand with them in that they affirm that the images of Christ & his Saints are ornaments & memorials of the absent: but we stand not with them in their denial of due honour to be exhibited unto them for the great love & reverence we bear to Christ & his Saints. We stand with them in the defence of the divine worship of God: but we stand not with them in the denial of intercessive invocation & honour of his Saints. We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God & man: but we stand not with them in their denial of the secondary mediators, or intercessors which are his servants & friends. We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant & militant: but we stand not with them in their denial of the visible & Vicarious head the Pope or chief pastor of the visible Church in earth subordinate & subiet to Christ in the government of the same. We will not refuse to stand with them in that they grant that S. Peter had a Primacy of Order: but we stand not with then in that they deny his Primacy of power & jurisdiction. We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. books of Canonical scripture: but we stand not with them in the refusal of the book of Toby, judith, two first books of Maccabees, the book of wisdom, Esdras & Baruch the Prophet. We stand with them in that they affirm the scripture is the rule of faith: But we stand not with them in their denial of divine traditions, not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them & included in them in a general manner. We stand with them in that they say there are twelve articles of the Creed: But we stand not with them in their denial of the rest of the doctrine defined in general Counsels: as neither do we join with them in the defence of all the 39 Articles of the English faith or Creed.  
And so now by these particulars the judicious reader may evidently perceive that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight only in some part or partial of his doctrine, he could not possible prove by their confessions the greater safety of his way, as both in the title of this his last section, & also in the title of his whole book he did propose. Nay he is so fare from the proof of this, that he hath most apparently failed in the proof of the very argument of his whole work which to the end it may more plainly appear I will reduce to this Syllogism.  
That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true, ancient & Catholic faith, which is proved by the confessions & testimonies of the best learned Romanists to have been visible in all ages especially before the days of Luther. But the faith now professed in the Church of England, is proved by the confessions & testimonies of the best learned Romanists to have been visible in all ages especially before the days of Luther. Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true, ancient, & Catholic faith.  
Now there being contained in the minor of this Syllogism the whole argument, purpose, & drift of Sir Humfreys whole book, & yet nevertheless it having been by me in this my censure demonstrated not to have been proved and made good by any argument by him produced, all he produceth to that purpose being void of force as by the discussion of the particulars of every section the reader may easily understand, it followeth by a necessary sequel that his way can not be safe, but is to be avoided with most great care & circumspection as a false & erroneous path, by all those that tender the safety of their souls & eternal Salvation.  
And thus having now resolved the man into his principles or prime matter I mean into the dust & ashes which he casteth in his reader eyes: & having passed throu' all the passages of his imaginary safe way, I have found it & shown it to be no way at all, but an intricate diverticle or obscure path leading poor distressed travellers quite out of the true royal street with an impossibility ever to come to the end of their journey, that is to the true ancient Catholic faith, which faith altho' the knight both in the title of his book & in diverse other places of it, hath seriously promised to show it to be the same which is now professed in England, even by the confession of the Romanists yet have I made it manifest that no true Romanist that is no author which is acknowledged by the Roman Church for a member of the same, did either in general or in particular ever confess the foresaid faith of England to be the ancient Catholic faith, or that did ever, absolutely & in the same sense in which the reformed Churches do, defend any one article of the pretensive reformed doctrine in matter of faith or generally defined manners. In regard of which & because my chief intent was when I first resolved to undertake this business out of a tender compassion to free the readers from the great & general delusion which I understood this pamphlet of Sir Humfreys had caused, or might hereafter cause in the minds of many, & especially the more unlearned sort of people, altho' in very truth in itself it containeth nothing worth the labour of a scholar, I do now advertice them as they esteem the safety of their souls, to beware of it as of a shop of most deceitelie & poisonous drugs of which they can not safety taste without an antidote, I mean the illiterate or unexperienced persons in this kind of study, can not securely read the the book except with all they view the adverse part, & so by detection of the authors frauds, & couning deceits they behold the truth discovered, which otherwise as being most subtly involved & mixed by him with abundance of plausible untruths, equivocations, false suppositions & Sophisms, can hardly be found out even by those of greater learning & capacity then ordinarily the laiety use to be.  
And as for Sir Humphrey himself, altho' I have small hope of his reclamation in regard of the great arrogancy which I perceive in him, as being mightily blinded with the vanity of his own conceit, 
If truly the work is this.  yet will I not omit to cry a loud unto him with the sacred psalmist, utinam saperet & intelligeret, ac novissima provideret, would to God he would seriously consider that there will come a time when his book shall pass a fare more strict examen & sentence of condemnation then here it hath passed, or can possible pass in this mortal life. And yet if perhaps he finds in the answer of it, any more sharp or unpleasing speeches than he would willingly hear, I earnestly entreat him to account them not as spoken against his person, but precisely as he is infected with the spiritual plague of schism & heresy, and as whose conversion to the most universally flourishing Church an faith (notobstanding whatsoever words have passed in heat of disputation) I earnestly desire & pray for. And with this desire & affection I commend him to the infinite goodness & mercy of almighty God.    

THE ROMANISTS AGREE WITH S. AVgustin in the division of the Commandments.  

In his 71. question upon the book of Exodus and in his 119. epistle to januarius he divideth them in this manner.  
1. THou shalt have no other Gods but me.  
2 Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.  
3. Thou shalt sanctify the sabbath.  
4. Honour thy Father & thy mother.  
5. Thou shalt not kill.  
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.  
7. Thou shalt not steal.  
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.  
9 Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's wife.  
10. Thou shalt not desire any of thy neighbour's goods.   

The Romanists in their brief Catechisms for children commonly rehearse them thus.  
1. THou shalt have no other Gods but me.  
2. Thou shalt not take the, name of God in vain.  
3. Remember to sanctify the Sabbaoth day.  
4. Honore thy ffather & thy mother.  
5. Thou shalt not kill.  
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.  
7. Thou shalt not steal.  
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.  
9 Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's wife.  
10. shalt not desire thy neighbour's goods.   

The misreformers division of the Commandments is this.  
THou shalt have no other Gods but me.  
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved image etc.  
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain etc.  
Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day etc.  
Honour thy father & thy mother etc.  
Thou shalt do no murder.  
Thou shalt not commit adultery. thou shalt not steal.  
Thou shalt not bear false witness.  
Against thy neighbour.  
Thou shalt shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt nor covet thy neighbours wife, nor his servant, nor his made, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.   
In this division they descent both from S. Augustin & the scriptures as appeareth by their Catechisms publissed ever since the change of Religion in England.  
From S. Augustin, in that they put for the second Commandment: thou shalt not make to thyself any graved image: where as he on the contrary in his epistle to januarius, expressly putteth not for the second but for the first Commandment these words. Thou shalt not make to thyself any idol.  
They descent also from the scripture both in that those words which they put for the second Commandment, the scripture setteth them down in the very same tenor & continuation of style with those which according to both parties is the first Commandment, to wit: Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, adding also one & the same punishment after that which the Reformers will needs have to be an other Commandment, which yet if they were distinct commandments, they should rather have had distinct punishments assigned them severally.  
As also secondly because in the text of Exodus out of which the reformers rehearse their Commandments, the words are not, as they corruptedly translate & relate them. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved image, but: thou shalt not make to thyself any graved thing. Which is yet more plainly explicated in the fourth of the Deut. to be understood not so that there ought not any graved similitude to be made, but that there ought not any to be made of those things which God prohibited, especially supposing that the Deuteronomie as the word itself doth signify, is an exact explication of the law Exodus, & that that which in the first Commandment is forbidden in the Exodus, in the 26. of the Leviticus the same is declared to be idolum, & sculptile, that is an idol & a graved thing.  
And thus we see the reformers stand single in this matter, & that the Romanists in their division of the ten Commandments proceed upon a most sound & approved foundation, it being both conformable to the doctrine of S. Augustin who they more willingly follow then any other, & especially to the true sense of the scriptures themselves expounded aceording to the orthodox faith and tradition of all succeeding ages.   

A POSTCRIPT OF ADVERTISSEMENTS FOR THE READER.  
I Request the reader of my Censure so take notice of some particulars which occurred since the finishing of it.  
And imprimis touching the homily and epistles alleged by Sir Humphrey in the 9 section of his safe way against the real presence and transsubstantion, I ansered in the 8. Period of my Censure what I conceived at that present, to wit, that there was not any doctrine publicly or commonly read or preached in England contrary so the real presence, or transubstantiation, or in any public manner delivered to the people either by Alfric or any other Bishop or Bishops in any synod or public assembly in those days. since which time of the dispatch of that work some delay having been made in the committing it to the press, & having had greater opportunity & leisure to view the histories of our country which treat of the affairs of those ages in which Alfric lived, which was in some part of the 10. and leventh Centuries, by more exact examination & search in to the matter I find myself assured of the truth of that which I then delivered. And now for greater satisfaction of the reader and more clear convincement of the same, I add that touching Alfrics person, and state of life, he was first a monk by profession in the monastery of Abington, and as Malesburie relates, 
lib. 1. de gest. Pont. Aug. pag. 203.  Abbot of the same: then Bishop of wilton, and after Archbishop of Canterbury. There is diversity of opinions whether Siricius alias sigericus, or Alfric did immediately succeed S. dunstan in that seat, but that importeth little; certain it he was a Roman Catholic, 
Vid. Harpsf. saec. 10. cap. 7.  for that an ancient Chronicle writ by a monk of the same monastery of Abington (where of as I alleged our of Malesburie, Alfric was Abat) convinceth testifying that he went to Rome for his Episcopal pall, as the custom was, which journey Alfric would neiver have made, nor ever have obtained his request, if he had not been of the same faith in every point which at that time the Pope himself professed.  
That which also is most plainly demonstrated by an ample testimony which the church of Canterbury gave of the same Arcbishop Alfric, and at their request sent to the monks of his order and monastery Abington for a perpetual memory of his faith and manners: which for greater sattsfaction of the reader, I will here rehearse at it as recorded by the foresaid religious man.  
To the children of the holy church of Canterbury the clergy, and the same church after their devout prayers. It is known unto you all how long since it is that by the successes of diverse and various events the mother church of England hath been deprived of her pastor and destitute of her rector, which doth pertain not only to our loss but also to the detriment of you and all this Island, since it is apparent that the solicitude and care of the whole country is committed to the Metroplican. For which cause we have elected Alfric by name monk of the holy church of Abington most sufficiently known unto us, noble in birth and manners, endued with Apostolical and Ecclesiastical discipline, and in faith a Catholic, by nature prudent, docible, patiented, temperate, chaste, sober, humble, affable, merciful, learned, instructed in the law of God, cautelous in the senses of the scripture, exercised in Ecclesiastical decrees or determinations. And according to the path of scripture, orthodox traditions, and Canons, and constitutions of the Prelates of the Apostolical seat, understanding, teaching, 
Praesulum Sedis Apostolica.  and observing the Ecclesiastical rules in a sound sense, and embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine: and reprehending with modesty those who resist it; and having power to resist and redargue them: hospitable, modest, well ruling his house, not a neophit; having a good opinion or testimony, ministering in every degree or order according to Ecclesiastical tradition. Prepared for all good works, and to give satisfaction to every one that shall demand it, of the hope which is in him. etc. Thus proceedeth the testimony of the electors of Alfric.  
And to this I join that S. Dunstan his immediate predecessor (excepting Ethelgar or at the most according to the opinion of some writers. excepting Ethelgar and Siricius who both lived but five years or there about) as our histories report at the time of his death spoke much of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a sermon he made the same day he died. 
Svy S. Dunstan.  And in like manner of Elphegus Alfrics successor it is reported by our English historians, he was such a mortified man by reason of his great abstinence, and fasting that when according to the custom of the Roman church he elevated the sacred host in mass, the reflected air appeared as it were in a glass throu' the iunctures of his fingers. Now touching the two immediate predecessors of Alfric which I mentioned before to wit Ethelgar & Sricius neither any historiographer nor yet any of our adversaries themselves do note them to have diwlged or admitted in their time any other doctrine concerning the Eucharist then that which was then professed in the Roman church. By which it is manifest that both immediately before and immediately after Alfrics days, the same doctrine of the real presence which at this time the Roman church maintains was commonly taught & practised in England and no other: so that morally speaking it is not apprehensible that in the time of Alfrics being Bishop of Canterbury which according to the computation of times was but ten years or littlemore, 
Godwins' Catalogue.  the contrary doctrine and the denial of the real presence and transubstantiation could have been publicly professed and published by diverse Bishops in their synods as Sir Humphrey Line affirms.  
Besides this Lanfranc who in the next age succeeded Alfric in the seat of canterbury, 
habetur in vlt. edit. Bibl. Patr. tom. 11.  in his book against Berengarie of the sacrament of the Eucharist: som'at after the midst he speaks thus against his adversary. Propulsatis iam quantum satis visum est calumnijs etc. having sufficiently repelled the calumniations which with cantumely of Bishop Humbert & the Roman Church thou hast temerariously uttered; it remains that we expound the faith of the holy church & the opinion of this sect, & that having expounded them we approve one & reprove the other by a few authorities & brief reasons. For neither epistolar brevity doth permit, nor any reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation. For such as are faithful people but seduced, do not pertinatiously insist in defence of their depravation: but rather having heard & understanded reasons, desire humbly to return to the way of truth, few things will suffice. But those who are addicted to contentions, & determined to persist in their infidelity, would not be satisfied althou many reasons should be proposed unto them.  

Divinitus.  Wherefore we believe that the terrestrial substances which in the table of our lord are divinely sanctified by priestly ministration, are infallibly incomprehensibly, & admirably by operation of supernatural power converted in to the essence of our lord's body, the species or forms of the things them selues remaining with some other qualities lest the receivers should abhor crude & cruent things: 
Cruda & cruenta.  & to the end that the credents or believers might receive more ample rewards of their faith, the body of Christ itself existing nevertheless in heaven at the reight hand of his Father, 
Illeso.  immortal unviolated, entire, incontaminated, unhurt, so that it may truly be affirmed that we receive the body of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin, and yet not the same. The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue: but not the same if you respect the species or forms of bread and wine; and the rest before comprehended.  
This faith from ancient times did hold and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholic: whence it is that, as it is said before, our lord said in the Euangill. Receive and eat, this is my body. And this is the chalis of my blood etc. In this clear manner speaketh Lanfranc of the real presence in this place. And page 346. of the same book: he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiastical histories. Which Scriptures saith he) altho' they do not obtain that most excellent tower of authority which those do which we call Prophetical and Evangelicall scriptures: yet they are sufficient to prove that this faith which now we have, all faithful people which have gone before us, have had the same from privative times. 
A primis temporibus  And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus. moreower if that be true which thou believes and maintains of the body of Christ, 
ubique gentium.  it is false which the church believes of the same matter in every nation. For all those who rejoice to be called, and to be Christians, do glory in that they receive in this sacrament the true flesh and blood of Christ's body received from the virgin. Inquire of all such as have knowledge of the latin tongue, and of our writings. Inquire of the Grecians, armenians, or of Christian people of any nation what soever, & they will with one mouth testify that they have this faith. Furthermore if the faith of the universal church be false, either there never was Catholic church, or she hath perished. nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of souls than a pernicious error. But no Catholic will grant that the church either was not, or that she hath perished. In this plain sort testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the universal church in which it were madness to imagine he did not include his own I mean the church of England. And supposing he lived & writ this the very next age following the age in which Alfric died to wit in some part of the leventh century, it is more than monstrous impudency in our adversaries to affirm that in the days of Alfric the denial of the real presence and transubstantiation was commonely preached and believed in the Realm of England.  
Further more. Pascasius Rathbertus writ a book entitled of the body and blood of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram, as is commonly supposed althoù I find him not named by Pascasius: & he hath also an Epistle of the same subject to one Frudegard, with an exposition of those words of the Evangelist. 
Math. 26.  Caenantibus autem illis etc. In all which writings Pascasius most plainly defendeth both the real presence and transubstantiation, most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same body and blood which Christ received of the Virgin Marie, and the same in which he was crucified, is really and truly present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice. I need not relate his words for every particular, because I know our adversaries can not deny but that this Author is plainly for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine: only I will rehearse some general words of his in which he declares the faith of the universal church in and before his times: for after testimonies of diverse ancient fathers alleged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid words of S. Mathewe thus he saith. Ecce habes amantissime etc. Behold most loving brother, thou haste in the end of this little book the sentences of the Catholic Fathers compendiously noted, by which thou mayst learn that I have not seen such things in rashness of speech when I was a child, but that I have proposed them by divine authority, and by the authority of the holy Fathers to such as demanded them. But now it being clear that Since that time the faith of all men is not one and the same, then cease I pray to believe with such as they be, if as yet they can not understand that nothing is impossible to God, and let them learn to assent unto the divine words in all things, & to doubt nothing of those: For till this present no man is read to have erred in them except those who erred about Christ himself: notobstanding many doubted or have been ignorant of the Sacraments of so great a Mystery: And afterwards the same author in the same treatise saith thus. Qua expleta voce, etc. Which words being pronounced (meaning the words of consecration) we all with one consonant voice say. Amen.  
And so the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confess, that it is that thing which she prayeth for, whereby let him who will rather contradict this then believe it regard what he doth against our lord himself, against the whole Church of Christ.  
Therefore it is a nefarious and detestable villainy to pray with all and not to believe that which truth itself doth testify, and that which universally all in every place do teach. Whence it is that since he himself affirms it is his body and his blood, doubt ought not to be made in any thing, altho' we see not with carnal yes that which we believe. We have seen also what Pope Gregory holdeth of this, what S. Cyrill with all his fellow Bishops assembled in Ephesus, what Greece with them, what Egypt, and what S. Hierome himself whoe published the lives of the holy Fathers in latin. And therefore not obstanding some err in this by ignorance neverthebesse as yet there is none that openly contradictes that which the whole world doth believe & confess. Thus Pascasius a learned and venerable, and virtuous Abbot testifieth the faith of the universal Church in his days touching the real presence, of Christ in the Eucharist. Who altho' he was not English nor lived just in the time of Alfric, yet he lived within the compass of the same age in which Alfric was Bishop of wilton and Archbishop of Canterbury that is the year 900. yea it may be Pascasius was yet alive when Alfric was Abbot and consequently when he is supposed by our adversaries to have writ those epistles which they produce in his name concerning this matter. So that by this testimony of Pascasius a forcible argument is made that the contrary doctrine of the real presence cauld not possible have been so public and common in any part of the Christian world in so short a space of time as passed, (if any passed) betwixt Pascasius and the writing of the homily and Epistles attributed to Alfric if he did- ever writ them.  
And how be it is may appear by the writings of Pascasius that there were some in, or about his time who argued & writ in an unaccustomed and new manner touching the doctrine of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament as particularly joannes, Scotus, Bertrame and Frudegarde, yet as much as I can perceive by reading Pascasius, Fulbertus, Stephanus Eduensis, & others who writ of this matter, the broachers of this question did never absolutely aver and maintain any assertion directly repugnant to the true, and real existence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, but only made a school question of it arguing the matter pro and contra: and that not determinately of the real presence, but whether the same body, & blood of Christ which was borne of the Virgin Marie & was crucified upon the Cross, was contained under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament, & not rather some other kind of Christ's body and blood, yet truly his and truly present in the Eucharist, thou in a figurative and tropical manner.  
And that neither the named authors nor any other in or about Pascasius time did plainly or of set purpose impugn the real presence, it plainly appears by his words above cited affirming that not obstanding some erred by ignorance, yet that none did openly contradict that which the whole world did believe and confess.  
That which is yet further confirmed, for we read not that either Scotus, Frudegard, or Bertrame were ever condemned by the Church in their persons in any Council, or otherwise, which is an evident sign they were not obstinate in defence of their opinions, but only delivered their doubts by way of proposition, as at the least in Frudegard in particular, doth manifestly appear by the responsion of Pascasius to his Epistle, saying thus. Quaeris enim de re ex qua multi dubitant. You inquire of a thing of which many doubt. And for conclusion of his own Epistle Pascasius saith to Frudegard. Tu autem velim, relegas libellum nostrum de hoc opere. For I would have you read my book of this matter which you say you have read in times past. And if you reprehend, or doubt of any thing in it: let it not be tedious unto you to reviewe it. And finally towards the end of his exposition of the words of the institution of the Eucharist, he speaketh to Frudegard in this manner. Quapropter charissime. Wherefore most dear beloved do not doubt of this Mystery which Christ the truth itself hath of himself bestowed upon us. For altho' he sits in heaven at the reight hand of his Father, yet doth he not disdain to be Sacrifyced daily by the priest in the Sacrament as a true host.  
Now that the same Frudegardus doubt was only whether the body of Christ contained in the Sacrament was the same body which he assumed of the Virgin Marie, is plain by Pascasius anser saying thus almost in the beginning of his Epistle. Ergo cum ait. Wherefore when he saith this is my body, or my flesh, or this is my blood. I think he intimated no other flesh than his own propter body which was borne of the Virgin Marie and hanged en the Cross. Nor any other blood then that which was spilt upon the Cross, and which then was in his body. No man therefore which is sound wise doth believe that jesus had any other flesh or blood then that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and suffered upon the Cross. And for conclusion of his foresaid exposition he saith thus to the same Frudegard. Ad ultimum quaeso te. Lastely I pray fallow not the fooleries of the tripartite or triple body of Christ. Do not mingle salt, nor honey in it, as some would, do not add nor substract any thing, but believe and understand it all as Christ instituted, etc.  
As for Scotus and Bertrame althou' their books have hen reproved, yet it doth not fallow that their authors did directly and absolutely impugn the real presence, or transubstantiation, but they only delivered their minds in a doubtful, obscure, and ill sounding manner, for which cause and for avoiding of danger they were justly prohibited, the only the Council of vercelles: the other by the purgatory Index. Howbe it I find nothing in Bertram which with a pious interpretation might not pass among the learned sort of people.  
And thus much may suffice for proof that in Pascasius time there had been no plain denial of the real presence or transubstantiation in the Christian world, but only some incident doubts made by some particular persons, and that in a discussive manner, not as obstinate maintainers of such Doctrine.  
And now by this same and the rest which I have above produced out of the same Pascasius & Lanfranc and others, the false Archbishop and Primate of Ireland is convinced of an apparent falsity, for that in the 79. page of his anser to a jesuits challenge, he had the face to affirm that till the days of Lanfranc this question of the real presence continued still in debate: and that it was as free for any man to follow the Doctrine of Bertram (he calls him Ratrannus) or joannes Scotus, as that of Pascasius. This audacious affirmation of usher I say is clearly condemned of falsity by the same Pascasius whom he citeth, and who as I have alleged, testifyes that the doctrine of the real presence in his time was not as yet contradicted by any (except those who deny Christ) but believed and professed by the whole world, althou some, saith he did err in the same by ignorance. And this only by way of divertion, briefly to signify to the reader how common a practice it is even among the most famous of our adversaries to maintain their doctrine by lies and false dealing of which I perceive by a brief view I took of some part of his work an industrious reader may discover no small store in the great primate doctor Usher, as well as his fellows.  
But now to return to my direct purpose, I yet more efficatiously confirm that which I have said of Alfric by the chronology of our English historians. 
In his cata. wulstan dunst.  For first according to the computation of Bishop Godwin there passed only some six years betwixt the decease of wlstan in the Archibishoprie of york, & the promotion of S. Dunstan to the seat of Canterbury in which space, as likewise in the time of wulstan himself it is quite incredible that there was any doctrine contrary to the real ptesence commonly toucght in England, since S. Dunstan at the day and hour of his death expressly professed the same as out of our own histories I have already showed by the relation of Harpesfeld. 
Vid. Osborne in vita dunst.   
Besides this it is certain there were but only two wulstans Archbishops of york as appeareth by Godwins' Catalogue: the one as he reporteth deceased the year 955. which was at the least forty years before Alfric possessed the seat of Canterbury according to the account of the same catalogue. The other wulstan as the same Goduin recounteth began not his seat at york till the years 1003. which was more than 50. years after the death of the first wulstan. now this conographie being thus established even by one of our adversaries: 
Safe way. sect. 9 §. 2.  I argue in this manner against knight Humbrey affirming that the homily and Epistles which he allegeth were translated by Alfric, and appointed to be read to the people in his days, my argument is this.  
If this supposed homily, and Epistles were ever translated, written, or published by Alfric, either it was when he was. Abbot, or Archbishop. But neither of these is true.  
Therefore it is not true that the homily and Epistles were ever translated or published by Alfric.  
The Minor which only hath need of prose I convince by the testimony of my adversary, who affirms the translation and publication of the freifaid writings to have been a bout the you're 996. 
Sir Humf. page 92.  and directed to wulstan Archbishop or york and wulfstius Bishop of sherborne by Alfric Abbot, I mean the Epistles. And yet at this time neither was Alfric Abbot but Archbishop of Canterbury, neither was either of the two wulstans Archbishop of york at that tyme. the one being dead 40. years before, and the other not invested in that dignity until the year 1003. as Godwin doth witness. so that by this argument it manifestly appears that the knight's relation touching this matter of the publishing of the homily and Epistles alleged by him- against the real presence and transubstantiation is contradictious & void of truth.  
More over I find in our English histories that about the year 950. which was some forty and odd years before Alfric was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Vid. Harps  in the time of Odo Archbishop of the same seat, there were some convented before him who were in an erroreous opinion about the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, but the maintainers of it (how soever Fox doth fable) neither were many, nor did it long continue, but was miraculously at an instant exstinguished. For the pious & zealous pastor Odo much lamenting the illusion of those miserable people, prayed God with tears in mass, that his divine majesty would be pleased by his infinite power manifestly to show some thing by which both the truth of the real presence might appear, and the contrary error might be confounded, when suddenly at his servant's petition God almighty turned the consecrated bread in to visible flesh, and the wine in to visible blood. Which wondrous spectacle being seen, the incredulous persons presently complained of their own perfidy and misbelief, and all the rest of their days conserved their faith entire and sound: now this having happened about the same time at which that wulstan was Archbishop of york who having been in that place some years: deceased the year 955. as Godwin relateth, it clearly appears incredible that Alfric then Abbot should direct any doctrine repugnant to the real presence to wolstan Archbishop of york, and to ulsine, ulsius, or wulfstius Bishop of sherbourne, as our adversaries affirm, since that Odo Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of England, at the very same time, as of out of histories I have rehearsed, did by the power of God operate so strange a miracle in confirmation of the same, and confutation of the contrary error.  
More than this, Vlsin or ulsius whom the knight calls wulfstius (of which name nevertheless I find none in Malesburies' Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne) could not possible have any Epistle directed unto him by Alfric while he was Abbot of Malesburie or Abington, as Sir Humphrey and the rest of these tryfelers allege, for that while Vlsine, or wulfstius was Bishop of Sherbourne which was but only five years, as our histories do testify, 
Hrapsfeld. saec. 10. c. 9  being Abbot only of westminister in the days of S. Dunstan and by his procurement, whose death happened the year .988. as Stowe relates: Alfric was no more Abbot but Bishop of wilton, and consequently he could not as Abbot write to Vlsine, Vlsius, or wulfstius Bishop of Sherbourne, but if he had writ any such letters as our adversary's attribute unto him, to that Bishop, he should have styled himself not Abbot, but Bishop as in deed he was all the time yea and some years before the foresaid wulfstius was by king Ethelred preferred to the Episcopal seat of Sherbourne.  
But that which doth strike this quite dead, is that (there having been but only two wolstans Archbishops of york) the first wolstan died before ever Alfric was Abbot, to wit the year of our Lord 955. where as Ingulphus in Edgar relates Alfric to have been created Abbat only about the year 970. at the soon, so that he could not possible write any Epistles to the first wolstan while he was Abbot as our novelists pretend, bebause this wolstan was departed out of this life before Alfrics time of being Abbot. And as for the second wolstan it is well known and testified by Godwin that he was not Archbishop of york before the year 1003. At which time Alfric was not Abbot but Archbishop of Canterbury as our adversaries themselves refuse not to grant.  
And so this computation and collation of times utterly destroys the machination of our abversaries in attrituting the foresaid writings to Abbot Alfric.  
And touching Vlsius or Vlsinus I add to this that Alfric was consecrated Bishop of wilton in the year 985. or there about some fourteeme years after the coronation of Ethelred. 
lib. 1. de. Pont Aug. pag. 203.  And he sat 11. years in that place as Malerburie relates. But now Vlsine as it appears by a brief of john the 15. Pope of this name touching the peace he composed betwixt king Ethelred and Richard marquess of Normandy, was Bishop of Sherbourne about the year 991. of which year the Pope's letter carrieth date, in which althou the Pope doth not call him Vlsine, but Edelsine, yet both by the time and place of his seat, as also for that there is no other in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne year the after in which I find related by Ingulpsus, Alfrics was Abbot of malesburie which resembleth that name; it is convinced that this is the same man which the knight calleth wulfstius, and to whom he affirms one of Abbot Alfrics Epistles to have been directed. which nevershelesse is concluded to be false in regard that at that time of the date of the Pope's epistle to wit the year 991. Alfric was not Abbot but Bishop, this having happened but five years before that Alfric then Bishop of wilton, was assumpted to the Arcgbishoprie of Canterbury which was the year 996. as all agreeably testify.  
Now if our adversaries should say that this Vlsius, Vlsine, or Edelsine is not that Bishop of Sherbourne to whom they mean that Alfric writ his Epistle, but an other long before him called wulfstius.  
To this I reply, first that I find not this name of wulfstius in any author or Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne, and so I suspect it is a trick of knight Humfrey who as it seems first invented the name, 
Westminst. an 940.  supposing I find it not in any other either friend or for the name of any Bishop of that seat. Secondly.  
It is true histories make mention of one Vlsius Bishop of that seat and successor to Alfred, but neither the name agrees to knight Humfrey's feigned wulfstius, neither was he then in the world when Alfric was Abbot, but according to the catalogue annexed to Ingulphus, deceased the year 966. For whose successor the same catalogue putteth Alfwoldus. where's yet it appears by the testimony of Ingulphus that Alfric was not Abbot till either in, or after the year 970. by which it is clear he could not write to this ulsius or wulfstius as Abbot, in respect he was dead some years before Alfric was preferred to that place by appointment of king Edgar. and so this evasion is intercepted by the way and appears to be frustrate and false.  
Further more according to Bishop Ushers chronology affirming that Alfric writ his homily about 605. years a go Alfric should have writ the same the year 1026. or there about, deriving the account from the time of Usher's publication of his book; for so by putting five or six years which I suppose hath passed since the time of Usher's writing, to the 605. years which he assigneth for the time in which Alfric writ, & joining to all this 1026 or 7. the whole number amountes just to 1632. which is the year we now live in. But this implies impossibility in regard it is received by both parties that Alfric died the year 1006. that is some 20. years before 1026. which Usher assigns for the year of Alfric's writing the homily by which it appears that Primate Usher is a most prime yea and a most unmindful liar in attributing this writing to Abbot Alfric. And concerning the writing of Alfrics two supposed Epistles, if Usher means they were writ and directed to wulfsine and wulstane at this same time, he is likewise manifestly convinced of falsity, for that at the time assigned by him, there was no ulsius, ulsine or wulfsine (as he nameth him) Bishop of sherbourne in the world to whom Alfric could have directed any writings, the last of that name being dead the age before as I have showed, as also the first wulstan Arcbishop of york. True it is the second wulstan of york was then a live to wit unto the year 1023. but then Alfric being dead Archbishop of Canterbury (as I have showed by Godwins' Catalogue) almost 20. years before, the supposed direction of Epistles unto him is even in that respect concluded for repugnant and impossible with a plain dissent of the author from himself as affirming the publication of these writings to have happened in the days of Alfric, & yet only about 605. years ago.  
More over these relators agrees in their chronography like dogs and cats, the parts of which hange together as thiefs hang upon the gallows never a one joining to an other. For as I have said, Usher affirms Alfric Abbat's Saxon homily to have been written by him about 605. years which according to true computation considering the time in which Usher writ this, comes to fall about the year 1020. 
In the 2. §. of the 9 sect of his safe way.  But Sir Humphrey speaking of the same homily, saith it was publicly appointed to be read to the people on Easter day about the year 996. at which time Alfric was not Abbot but Arcbishop of Canterbury, as even our adversaries themselves do relate: and so these two brothers in Christ proceed not like brothers but repugn plainly one to an other in their accounts: the knight affirming the foresaid homily to have been published & read some 24. years before Usher allegeth, it to have been written. Besides this, Alfric died Arcbishop of Canterbury the year 1006. 
Godwin in Alfric p. 65.  according to Godwins' Catalogue. How then could he possible writ his homily about 605. years ago as Usher tells us? that is the year of our lord 1020. as I have declared: except Alfric did miraculously rise again to broach the new English faith of the Eucharist, which our adversaries will needs defend for ancient thou ' it cost them as dear as the forging of a false history.  
More over the publisher of the same writings I mean the homily and Epistles printed at London 1623. under the name of Alfric, tells us, he writ them 700. years ago in king Edga'rs time which falls jump with the year of Christ 923. if we count from the time of the foresaid publication of them. And yet as both Malesburie, Stowe, & the rest of our historians testify, Edgar was not created king until the year of our Soviour 959. so that here is an apparent blur in this wise Conographer's computation involueing both an impossibility in itself, and a contradiction to the rest of his companions in this business, who as I have declared attribute them to Alfric in the time of Ethelred about some 600. years since, others some years before.  
Lastely Fox in his Acts and monuments althou' he doth not descent from his follows (excepting the fore said late publisser) in his assignation of the time in which the homily imputed to Alfric, is by them affirmed to have been proposed for the instruction of the people in England, viz. about the year 996: nevertheless in two several respects he proceeds most deceitefully and quite contrary to common honesty, and reason. First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the real presence and transubstantiation to the said homily; secondly because in his rehearsal of the tenor of the same, he leaveth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proof of both those points of the Catholic faith in it alleged by the author, which crafty and vulpine tricks of Fox (with which and many others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes) as it appears seemed so shameful that his successor the late diwlger of the same homily was ashamed to imitate him: yea and not obstanding he was bound under pain of loss of the labour of his translation and publication of that work which otherwile he well considered would have been in vain, to tax the said miracles of fiction (as he did in a marginal note) yet was he not so impudent nor frontless as to raze than quite out of the copy. 
inexcusable deceit in Fox.  And how be it I can not deny but there is a great difference belweene these two actions, yet must they give me licence to tell them that neither of them both is clear of ill proceeding, the one being guilty of plain imposture, the other of plain temereity. For supposing they would venture to make use of the homily for the advantage of their denial of the real presence and transubstantiation, for all that, they ought to have taken it as they found it for better or for worse, & not go a bout to pick out what they find for their purpose, and cast a may the rest, like such unreasonable caterers as will needs buy flesh without bones. And in deed those two, bones that is those two most patent & clear miracles by which both the real presence of the body & blood of Christ in the Eucharist are manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our times, were too hard for old Father Foxs' teeth to chew, or for his stomach to disgeast, therefore doubtless he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte. But these sycophants as they deal with the scriptures themselves, so they deal with ancient authorities & testimonies. 
lib. de bono person. c. 11.  Suo quidem privilegione dicam sacrilegio utquod volunt accipiant, quod nolunt reijciant. as S. Augustin said of the manichees.  
Again concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric there is yet more discord among our adversaries. For the publisher of them and the homily above mentioned in his preface unto them affirms there were certaines lines rare zout of a book extant in the library of worceter which lines, saith he, which contained the chief point of controversy (that is as he supposeth against the real presence and transubstantiation) were taken out of two Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin. But Doctor james and Sir Humphrey tell us that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts' College in Cambrige yet there to be seen. And whereas the author of the publication saith that the lines razed are to be restored by two other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the library of Exeter, contrarily D. james tolleth us they are to be restored not by any latin copies, but by certain Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to have been in the public library of Oxon when he writ his book which was the year 1611. Besides this the same james out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirms to have been thus mangled and torn was to wulfstan Archbishop of york and hath for title, de consuetudine Monachorum: whereas yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new found writings, intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monks, Egneshemensibus fratribus, to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham. Which jars I confess I am so unable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these men's reports to be false and counterfeit. Especially considering that james affirms the latin Epistle so razed as they report, to have been directed by Alfric to that wulstan who was Archbishop of york about the year 954. where as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings are contained, in his prefate to the same, saith that this Alfric to whom he attributes them was equal to Alfric Archbishop of Canterbury which he also affirms to have been in that seat six years before that wulstan to whom Alfric's Epistle was written, was Archbishop of yoke: so that the one reports this Epistle to have been wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops (among which is Godwins') do testify so long a space of time to have passed betweixt their standings, as it is from the year 955. and 1003. so that these two relators draw back ward and fore ward like two ill match asses.  
More over the foresaid publisher will needs have Alfric the supposed author the homily and epistles to have been a distinct man from that Alfric who was Archbishop of Canterbury whereas nevershelesse john Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the several works of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterbury maketh no mention of any other writers of that name but of him only, neither doth he put any epistle among his writings but only one entitled, de consuetudine Monachorum, of the manner or custom of monks, which subject how fare it disagreth from the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, and transubstantiation, I leave to the judgement of the reader to consider.  
In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first, that if it were true as our adversaries pretend that in the foresaid writings there were any thing contained contrary to the real presence and transubstantiation, yet have I convinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them, neither could any such doctrine have been publicly maintained in the Church of England in or about his days. But what soever doctrine was then published and taught in our country was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I have manifestly declared. Secondly Althou I am not able to judge determinately who might be author of those writings because I have no means to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our adversaries: nevertheless I persuade myself they were writ by some Roman catholic author, so that taken in their innocence and prime purity and piously interpreted they contain no unsound or erroneous doctrine, but rather express testimony and proofs of diverse points controversed betwixt the novelists of these our times and catholic Romanists. As appeareth in the mention they make of mass, miracles, the sign of the Cross, and other particulars which I have noted in my censure.  
Thirdly. the judicious reader may easily persuade himself that supposing these writings according to the relation of our adversaries, have remained in public places and libraries for the space of above 600. years, if they had contained any doctrine repugnant to that faith of the Eucharist which I have historically demonstrated above to have been professed in our country of England ever since, and before, that time: it's more than morally evident they would have received long a fore this time reprehension, or censure according to their desert.  
Finally. Supposing it were true that the foresaid writings did in deed contain doctrine contrary to the real presence, and transubstantiation as they are believed and defended by the professors of the Roman Religion whereas yet they do not so, but only exclude the carnal, palpaple or Capharnaitical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and instruct the people in the invisible presence of his body, and blood in the Sacrament in an obuius and easy manner: yet in reason ought not any judicious Catholic to alter his faith of the same for any argument which can be drawn or deduced from such testimony as is void of other credit than is to be given to adversaries in favour of their own cause which is just none at all, especially they being no other than these who not only in this particular, but also in other matters of controversy have used much partiality, & deceit as in an other place I have demonstrated out of their several works. And in particular the publisher of the same pamphlet in which the homily & Epistles of which I hear treat, are contained, besides diverse untruths which he uttereth as well touching the author and time of his writing, as also his titles and marginal notes, and likewise in that he couningly and couseningly publisheth in the same volume a treatise of the old, and new testament in the name of Alfric as if it included a different canon of scripture to that which is now used in the Roman Church, and agreeable to their now English Bible: which is yet most apparently false for that (as I remember) it putteth in the number and order of the Canonical books Ecclesiasticus, Sapience, Toby, judith and the Machabeiss, which yet our adversaries reject for Apocryphal: As also in that more over the same Pampheter addeth a testimony to show that in times past the lords prayer, the creed and the ten commandments were extant and used in the vulgar tongue; a work most impertinently performed by him, and as it seems only or chiefly to enlarge the bulk and price of his pamphlet: it being certain that the Romanists never neither held that matter unlawful, or at this present prohibit the use of the vulgar language for the ten commandments and private prayer of the common people but rather the contrary as both their Catechisms and their daily practice most plainly witness.  
By all which particulars and the rest of this my advertissement it is evidently apparent that the glorious which the novelists of our country make by their publication of the homily epistles and o- writings in the name of Alfric, be no other than certain prestigious impostures to persuade the simple sort of people by these false flourishes, that their denial of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and transubstantiation is not quite void of antiquity, but hath been preached and professed in our country before the days of luther. And now let this suffice to repulse this fictitious and deceitful calumniation of our adversaries touching these putative wrings of Alfric by the publication of which and the like counterfeit wares they pick simple people's purses who take all for as true as gaspell that is put in print by any of their own brothers.  
The second advertissement I give to the reader is that whereas the knight page 205. of his fafe ways cities Agobard for a denier of honour of image in his book of that subject: 
Agobardus Episc. Lugdun. li. de pict. & imag.  I have dilgently perused the same, and find that in deed this author speaketh more harshly of this matter then any other catholic writer of these days how be it this was the age in which images had their greatest enemies. Nevertheless it is most certain this author only confutes the exhibition of divine honour and the like, unto images, as is sacrifice, or confidence in them or prayer unto them: reprehending the error of some particular persons who superstitiousely adored them, for so he discourseth a bout the end of his book saying.  
But none of the ancient Catholics did ever think them to be worshipped or adored: yet now the error by increase is become so perspicuous that it is near, or like to the heresy of the Antropomorphits to adore figments and to put hope in them, and that by reason of this error faith being removed from the heart, all our confidence be placed in visible things. And a little after. So also if we see penned or feathered Angels painted, the Apostles preaching, martyrs suffering torments, we must not expect any help from the pictures which we behold, because they can neither do good nor ill: rightly therefore (these are the words cited by the knight) to evacuate such superstition it was defined by orthodox Fathers that pictures should not be made in churches lest that which si worshipped and adored be painted in the walls which words being not his own but alleged out of a fragment of the Provincial council of Eliberis in Spain and having joined them immediately to his own in which he only treats of divine honour as not due to images, it is clear and evident he intends to prove nothing else by their authority then that which he there proposeth. To omit that this passage of the Eliberitan council was delivered in a sense much different from this in which Agobardus construeth it, as I have convinced in others places, and occasions.  
And that this author intends to teach nothing else, but only that images must not be honoured with worship due to God, the several testimonies which he largely produceth out of S. Augustin, S. Hierome, & other ancient writers do manifestly demonstrate, not one of which can be taken (if they be truly understanded) in any other sense, as clearly may appear to the diligent reader of their words, which expressly exclude only honour of Sacrifice, prayers directed unto the images them selves, or religion proper to God only, in the worship of saints, and their pictures: and also Agobardus himself upon occasion of the places which he citeth doth aver, plainly declaring that he granteth some sort of honour to images where thus he exhorteth.  
Let us behold the picture as a picture destitute of life, sense, and reason: let the eye be fed with this vision, but let the mind reverence God who both gives to his saints a crown of victory, and to us the assistance of their intercession. And the like he affirms of honour of saints a little above in this same page. Where althou' he justly reserveth the supreme worship of Sacrifice to God alone, yet he expressly grants an other inferior honour to Saints and Angels saying. Adoretur, colatur, veneretur a fidelibus Deus, etc. Let God be adored, worshipped, or served, and reverenced by faithful people, let Sacrifice be offered to him alone, either in the mystery of his body and blood, or in the Sacrifice of a contrite and humble heart, let Angels or holy men be loved, honoured, with charity, not with servitude, let not Christ's body be offered unto them. And according to this sense Agobardus speaks throu' his whole book, particularly in his second leaf where he reprehendeth certain idolaters who imagined a certain sanctity to reside in images saying. In which nature these also who call images holy, are found not only Sacrilegious for that they give divine worship to the works of their hands, but also foolish in attributing sanctity to images which have no life or soul. By all which words it is clear that Agobarde only condemns the exhibition of such honour to saints, or images as is due to God alone. Which doctrine is so fare from being any way contrary to the honour of images practised in the Roman Church that it doth rather exactly agree with the honour of the Council of Trent in this particular, which in the 25. Session defines that, due honour is to be given to images not because it should be believed that there is any divinity or virtue in them for which they are to be worshipped, or that any thing should be craved of them, or that confidence or hope should be put in them, as in times past the Gentiles did, who placed their hope in Idols, but because the honour which is exhibited unto them is referred to the prototypes or persons which they represent. so that by the images which we salute or kiss, and before which we uncover our head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore and reverence Christ, and the saints whose representations or similetudes they bear.  
True it is, I have noted in reading his book that Agobard purposely refuseth to use these words adorare, colere, adore, or serve: yet I plainly gather by his whole discourse, he doth not so to signify there by that images are not to be used with any honour at all, as I have already declared by his own text: but only declineth the use of those words in regard he takes them in a strict sense, as they signify religion or honour proper to God himself, and not due to any creature: and perhaps also because at that time as it may seem by his niceness, and some others of that age, the word adoration was offensive even to some who otherwise were both Catholic, and learned men: to say nothing of the common people some of whom peraduentute out of ignorance, and weakness of judgement, even at this day make danger to use it, and scruple to hear it: yet neither the one nor the other omitting to honore images according to the approbation, and practise of the Church. Whereas yet if it be taken in the sense in which the Roman Church, according to the definition of the 7. Synod and custom of divines, accepteth it, that is for a kind of inferior honour distinct from proper latrie and religion, and as (even according to the use of scriptures) it signify worship common also to creatures, then doth it include no manner of scandal or offence at all. 
Cumque introisset in conspectu Regis. & adorasset eum pro nus in terram etc. 3. Reg. 1. 24.   
And now in that rigorous meaning Agobard takes the word adoration when alleging the same words of the Eliberitan Council which Sir Humphrey here researseth, he intendeth only to prove that images are not to be adored or served: in which passage he proveth nothing against the Roman Catholic honour of images, but only disputeth either against some reliquys of the Antropomorphitan heresy: or against some other superstitious, and idolatrous adorers of Saints & images of those days, from both which kinds of errors as Agobardus himself was, so also the Roman Church with her chief Pastors and rulers (to which he then was a subordinate member, and prelate as other of his works do witness) were free and innocent as likewise now they be in this our present age not obstanding the frequent calumniations of our modern sectaries to the contrary.  
Finally I add to this that in the very conclusion, and last period of his book, Agobard expressly teacheth that genuflection is to be made to the name of jesus, which yet our Puritan adversaries out of their singular purity, or rather pure singularity, reject as idolatrous, not obstanding by God's commandment, not only men but devils also are enjoined, and compelled to bow their knees at the sound of that sovereign name. And surely he who holds this for lawful, as Agobardus doth, must for the same reasons hold it likewise lawful to honour the images of jesus, supposing that the name of jesus being to be honoured only for the representation it hath of him, much more lawfully may his image be so honoured in regard it doth more permanently and ferfectly represent him then doth his name which consists in characters, and a transitory sound of letters. Besides this, Agobardus as the very first words of his book do declare, doth not directly and professedly treat in it of the honour and use of images as it is practised in the church, but of the sense of the first commandment, in which he includes the prohibition of the adoration of images delivered by God in the old Testament as a part of the same, only intending to prove in his whole work that by virtue of this precept, divine honour is not to be tendered to any creature but to God alone, & not to either idols or images.  
And Therefore in his laste page the same Agobardus expressly speaketh of honour proper to God himself, applying to his purpose the words of Isaias honorem meum alteri non dabo. by all which it is most clearly apparent that what soever Agobarde seems to utter against the adoration of images, is only spoken against such as attributing over much honour unto them worship them in an idolatrous, or superstitious fashion contrary to the tradition of Fathers and practice of the Catholic Church as his words quoted in my margin sufficiently declare. 
haec est sincera religio hic mos Catholicus haec antiqua patrum traditio etc. Agobardus fol. vlt. post authoritates Patr. citatus  And so I leave him as no enemy to the Catholic cause, nor any favourer of the disalawers of the same in this particular point, how be it the ambiguity of his speech may give occasion of error to ignorant, or ill affected readers.  
To this I join my responsion to the other words cited by our adversary in the same place & out of the same book of Agobardus as I suppose, for he joins them to the rest of those which there he had. to wit these which follow. There is nos example in all the scriptures, or Fathers for adoration of images. They ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight, not to instruct the people. To which I answer in primis, touching the former part of the sentence, Agobardus hath no such express words as those; he only saying thus: the ancients also had the images of saint painted, or graved: but for rembrance not to worship them: which words are somaed different from those other rehearsed by sir Hum. nevertheless because they seem to include a denial of honour of images, I respond secondly. Agobard takes the words colere & adorare which there he useth, in the same sense in which he useth them in the rest of his book; that is for divine honour as I have above declared by several passages of the same. According to which acception his words are very true, nor any way repugnant to the doctrine of the Roman Church either in those days, or at this present time, which as in all former ages, so in this in which we live doth zealously detest, and abhor as plainly idolatrous all divine adoration of creatures, tho' never so eminent either in nature, or grace. Thirdly to the latter part of the same sentence, I say confidently, I am sure there are no such words in Agobardes' book even as it is published and printed at Paris by Papyrius Masson himself, out of whose Bibliotheke be it good, or bad, sir Humphrey produceth it: so that I do not understand this juggling for other then plain forgery, or falsification.  
Fourthly, those laste words. They (images) ought to be taken for an ornament to please the sight, not to instruct the people: are just contrary to the doctrine of S. Gregory teaching expressly that pictures are the books of the illiterate, and simple people. Which doctrine of S. Gregory, Agobarde was neither so ignorant as not to know it, nor yet so impudent as to deny it.  
Fiftly, those same words manifestly disagree to the rest of Agobardes' own doctrine, as his words by me related sufficiently declare, partucularly those: Habuerunt namque & antequi magiues sanctorum ad recordandum etc. Lastely, Sir Humphrey must know that Papyrius Masson is registered by the authors of our expurgatore Index, and consequently, he is no current Romanist, and much less is he any of our best learned men as neither was Agobardus which are yet those whom he professeth in the title of his book to allege against us.  
And so by this, Agobarde is absolutely cleared from all imputation of iconomachie or error against images, and the objection of our adversary convinced to be void of force.  
Furthermore touching that which the knight allegeth out of Hincmar concerning the decree of the council of Francfort a bout images, he delivered it only as a relator, & being young in years & unexperienced he mistook the definition of the foresaid synod for the schismatical determination of a private Conventicle, which having been in the same place & at the same time, or presently after the dissolution of the council, he might easily take the one for the other. In which historical passage, as some authors opinate, by the credit he gave to the supposed Carolin books, he both erred himself, & gave occasion of error to others whoe relying upon his report have put the same in their general histories published since his time: yet this being only a private error of fact and that uncertain it was without any prejudice to the faith and practise of Catholic Church  
Besides it appears evidently by an epistle of 55. chapters which the same Hincmare Archbishop of Rheims writ to his adversary Hincmare Bishop of laon, he was a very pious & Cotholique prelate & an ackowledger of the Pope's supremacy over the rest of the Christian Churches Greek & Latin, for so he speaks in Hic fift chapter of that work. qui in illius (Sedis Apostolicae) primata beatus Petrus cunctorum oucra portat, cuius principatus authoritate mediator Dei & hominum homo Christus Iesus sedem Romanam super omnes sedos sublimavit, Alexandrinam decoravit, Alexandrinam confirmavit etc. wherefore it is improbable that Hnicmare who speaketh so honourably of the Roman Church, should at the same time have uttered any doctrine so contrary to the then received practice of the same, as is contained in those words viz. Images are to be taken for an ornament to please the sight not to instruct the people.  
To this I add for confirmation of my anser, it is not credible to imagine that there having passed diverse letters betwixt Pope Adrian (in whose time due honour of images was defined against the opposers of it) and other Popes of those times, and this Hincmare, for composing the controversy between him and Bishop Hincmare of Laon, as also about other matters; it is not credible I say those Popes should not once have reprehended and condemned him for this position, if truly he had been a maintainer of it Besides the Ecclesiastical histories do testify that about the same time, this same Hincmar at the persuasion of Pope Nicolas confuted the criminations of the Grecians against the Roman Church, of whom he would never have made choice for such a business, if he had been either known or suspected to have defended any doctrine repugnant to the use and honour of images established in the 7. Synod and then commonly practised in the Christian world.  
And thus we see that nothing produced by our adversary out of this author repugneth to the doctrine of that moderate honour of images which hath been universally professed in the Roman Church both in the time of Agobarde and in this present age.  
My third advertissement is that the knight in the 289. page of his safe way injuriously accuseth Charon for a blasphemer of scriptures alleging him to affirm they are imperfect, obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, perplexed. And yet I find that this author in his third book de tribus veritatibus (which is the same our adversary cities althou' not in the same language) page 97. 98. and the rest immediately following in his french edition (for I could not have him in latin) expressly clears himself and Roman church of that foul and odious calumniation feigned by Plessis in their disgrace. Charon's words are these. Venons an particularitez qu'ils nous font dire, encore qu'ils les proposent mal, & autrement que nous ne le disons, pour nous render odieux: premierement que nous le disons l'escriture este imperfect: an contraire nous la croyons, confessons & preschons, perfect, pleine, entiere, tressuffisante come estant oewre de Dieu, du quel ne sorte rien qui ne soit tel. Parquoy tout ce que Du Plessis dict, scavoir est qu'elle est perfect, suffisante, a salut que IESV son autheur est la perfection, c'st en vain. car cela a este ensign par nous deuan luy: & ne fut iamais dict par les Catholics chose au contraire. quant a l'obscurité, doubt, ambiguite, nous n'en parlons pas de tout si cruement, mais nous disons bien franc hement deux choses, & l'auons asses dict & monstré cy dessus, que l'scriture est fort difficile a entendre: qu'elle est prisé & employee de touts indifferemment bons & mawais en caution & defence de toutes opinions, & a la ruine de plusieurs. Thes are Charon's express words which I english in this manner. Let us come to particulars, which they make us speak althou' they propose them wrong, and otherwise than we utter them to make us odious: first that we say the scriptures are imperfect: on the contrary we believe, confess, and preach them to be perfect, complete and entire, sufficient, as being the work of God, from whom nothing proceeds which is not such, for which cause all that which Plessis saith viz. that the scripture is peafect, sufficient to salvation, that jesus the author of it, is perfection itself, is in vain. For that hath been taught by us before him: neither was any thing to the contrary ever spoken by the Catholics. For as much as concerns, obscurity, doubtfulness, ambiguity, we do not spaeke altogether so crudely or rawly, yet we say freely two things of which we have sufficiently said, and demonstrated them before, that the scripture is very hard or difficult to understand: that it is taken and applied by every one indifferently good and bad in caution and defence of all apinions, and to the ruin of many.  
This is that I find in this author to this purpose, which how repugnant it is to our adversary's purpose the reader can not be ignorant except he be affectedly ignorant as the knight seems to be even in this particular, only this excuse I conceive he may have, if it be as I persuade myself, to wit that trusting to that pit of corruption Plessis, he delivered this passage to us by retail as he received it from him which if he did I shall not besorie, for that I desire not to charge my opposites more than I must of necessity: neither is there any need of amplification in that nature, where the matter is so copious, and aboundante.  
Touching Christophorus de cap. fontium alleged by Sir Humphrey in the 108. page of his safe way for a denier of transubstantiation althou' I have said something already in the place cited itself: yet having since had a seight of that authors work against the sacramentaries, I have further discovered he is falsely and with manifest injury to his person produced by our adversary, supposing he is so fare from uttering any doctrine against either the real presence or transubstantiation, that he professedly defendeth them both in his foresaid treatise, in which particularly touching transubstantiation I find these plain words; in the 58. chapter of his fourth Action- Transsubstantiationis articulum verbi Dei authoritate probaturi, illud in primis tanquam basim ac fundumentum immobile ponimus, haec Christi verba (hoc est corpus meum) in literali sensu esse verissima, proinde supernacaneum ne dicam impium esse haec ita depravare, detorquere, mutare, ut & corpus in corporis figuram, & verbum est in significat, convertatur, quasi haec sententia alioquin vera esse, sibique nisi ad hunc modum mutata constare non possit, dicimus igitur singulae dominicae sententiae verba in sua naturali significatione sumenda esse. Hoc ita constituto ut verborum Christi veritas constet, primum necessariò consequens esse dico ut panis essentia convertatur & mutetur. We being (saith Christophorus) to prove the article of transubstantiation by authority of the divine word, In primis we put it were for an immoveable foundation or grand work that thief words of Christ (this is my body are most true in a literal sense for which cause it is I will not say impious, but at the least superfluous so to detorte, deprave, and change them, that the word body be changed into a figure of his body, and the verb is into signify as if this sentence could not other ways be true and hang together, unless it be altered in this manner. Wherefore we say that every word of our lord's sentence is to be taken in their natural signification. This being thus established, to the end that the truth of Christ's words may stand firm, I say first that it is necessarily consequent that the essence of bread be converted and changed etc. Thus clearly speaketh the Archbishop, which if perhaps it be not sufficient to convince our adversary that this author was no denier of transubstantiation, let him but take a brief view of his book, and he will be sure to find both that point and the real presence most exactly and copiously proved by such a multitude of testimonies both of scriptures and ancient Fathers, as I know he will not be able to look upon them without confusion.  
It is true I must confess this author, in his first Action of this work, hath broached an extravagant opinion touching the words of consecration, for which cause principally as I suppose the expurgatory Index prohibiteth his book till it be corrected. for in his 264. and 265. pages he endeavoureth to prove that priests do not consecrate by virtue of those words hoc est corpus meum: but by virtue of those, hoc facete in meam commemerationem. In confirmation of which his opinion althou' he discourseth in an unaccustomed manner among divines both ancient and modern, yet having diligently conferred one of is passages with an other and duly pondered the whole sense and meaning of them, I perceive his intention was only to dispute against and disprove those who hold that by the virtue and operation of these words (hoc est corpus meum) only materially and literally accepted & pronounced the consecration is performed, he himself earnestly contending that those words have their virtute & force from the precept Christ (hoc facite in meam commemorationem. And therefore in his page 263. where he stateth his question he hath these words fellowing. permulti sunt qui horum verborum (hoc est corpus meum) materialiter pronunciatorum operatione ac virtute consecrationem fieri putant, Vnde nonnullos equidem vidi qui cum ad consecrationem perventum esset, miris modis halitum suum cum dictis iam verbis, super panem & vinum conijcerent, non secus ac si & in quantum nuda tantumivodo verba sunt, nihil aliud in ipsis considerando, consecrationem fieri arbitrantur. Ego vero consecrationem horum verborum operatione (hoc facite in meam commemorationem) fieri existimo. Christus enim etc. There be very many (saith this author) who think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these words (this my body) materially pronounced. Whence it is that I have seen some who coming to consecrate do in a strange manner cast their breath with the foresaid words upon the bread and wine as if in as much only as they be naked words, not considering any thing else in them, they did hold consecration to be performed by them. But I think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these words, do this in rembrance of me. For Ghrist etc. By which words it clearly appeareth that Christophorus did not absolutely deny that priests do consecrate by these words, this is my body; but he only affirmeth that they have not their consecrative virtue or force included in their own material sound, but receive it from the precept of Christ contained in those other words of his Do this in remembrance of me.  
That which I yet further convince by o- other words of the same author in this same Action where thus he discourseth in confirmation of his position. Nemo proinde existimet haec verba hoc est corpus meum technice & materialiter prolata consecrationem efficere, sed ipsius Sacerdotis orationem (in qua & haec ipsa recitantur) mandati huius, hoc facite, virtute atque operatione irrogatam ac spirituali virtute roboratam. Let no man therefore think (saith he) that these words (this is my body) artificially and materially pronounced do make the consecration, but the prayers of the priest (in which these same words also are recited) proceeding from the virtute and operation of this precept do this, and strengthened by virtue of the same. Thus Christophorus. By which it is manifest he had no intention to deny these words, this is my body to be them by which priests do consecrate since he expressly affirms that they are included and rehearsed among those prayers, benedictions and gratiarum actions by which according to his tenet, they daily consecrate: But he only in his own private opinion holds, that as well those words (this is my body) as the rest of the prayers which the priests use, have their virtue and efficient force of consecration not from their own material sound, but from the precept of Christ, do this in remembrance of me. Which altho' as it hypothetically or totally sounds, it is an extravagant and singular placet or dictamen of his, yet is it not repugnant to the Catholic Roman faith, either in the point of the real presence, or transubstantiation, as may plainly appear to any judicious reader: But only hath some affinity with the tenet of the modern Grecians in this particular; who not obstanding constantly defend both the one, and the other, as I have showed in an other place by the doctrine of their late Patriarch in his responsion to the lutherans.  
And now I hence infer as a thing more directly for my purpose that the words which Sir Humphrey produceth against transubstantiation out of a certain treatise entituled de Correctione Theologiae Scholasticae, are not truly the words of this author; But that Treatise is falsely ascribed unto him and forged in his name how soever our adversaries make great estimation and use of it: That which I clearly demonstrate because it containeth doctrine repugnant to that which he himself teacheth in his own undoubded work against the Sacramentaries. For whereas according to the citation of the knight in his 108. page of his safe way, in his Treatise inscribed de correct. Theol. Scholar Christophorus hath these words: Therefore it most certain that Christ did not consecrate by those words (this is my body) neither are they any part of consecration. And yet in his Treatise against the Sacramentaries he directly affirmeth the contrary saying thus Christus enim horum verborum (hoc est corpus meum) vi & operatione consecrationem confecit: panis natura in verum ipsius corpus sese mutante etc. Which is in English. Christ did consecrate by virtue and operation of the words (this is my body) the nature of the bread being changed or changing itself in to his body etc. Now it is plane that these words plainly contradict the other rehearsed by our adversary, these directly and expressly affirming that Christ did consecrate by these words (this is my body) the other directly and expressly denying the same. In so much either we must of necessity grant that the Archbishop plainly contradicted himself, which is not to be admitted especially in a grave & learned divine as he was: or else that the Treatise in which is so expressly contained a denial of that same which the same author affirmeth in his own known & acknowledged work, is not truly his, but falsifyed and falsely published in his name. and consequently what soever our adversary produceth out of it proveth nothing, but is to be registered in the list of such other counterfeit wares as he selleth to his reader for current in the rest of his work. And touching his Treatise against the sacramentaries & some other of his works althou' they contain some extravagant positions and therefore were justly condemned to be expurged by the authors of the Index, yet because particularly in his book against the deniers of the real presence, the author exprssely submitteth his doctrine to the censure of the Roman Church purposely placing in the frontispiece of his book, omnia sanctae Eccesiae Catholicae ac sanctae sedi Apostolicae Romanae iudicio submissa sancto, therefore his authority can not any way prejudice the Roman faith. And now let this suffice to show the falsity of this citation: only the reader must further suppose that if I had seen the Treatise itself I could have cleared the matter more exactly: But our adversaries take an order for that keeping close all such obscure works and reserving them for their own palates as great novelties and most dainty dishes.  
Some few more authors remain unexamined by reason I could not have them: as Cardinal Carapha. joamnes Marius, & two or three others. But I assure the reader the allegations drawn out of them by my adversary contain no matter of importance which is not sufficiently cleared without any further search of the places as they stand in the books. Only this inconvenience there is in this matter viz. That if I had obtained a sight of the authors them selves, I should probably have discovered some more of the allegers ill proceeding. In respect of which, and my other more trivial defectivenes. I will use the same excuse which S. Augustin hath for a certain work of his, concluding thus. Si quid ab eis dici solet quod forte disputando non attigi, tale esse arbitratus sum, cui mea responsio necessaria non fuisset, sive quod tam leue esset, ut a quolibet redargui facillime posset.   

AN APPENDIX TO THE WHETSTONE, OR A COMPENDIOUS ANSER TO THE BY-WAY, CHIEFLY consisting in a brief discovery of the authors indirect, partial, & false dealing with a detection of some particular examples of falsification.  
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.  
Sicut novacula acuta fecisti dolum.  Psal. 51. 
CATVAPOLI, Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS. Anno M.DC.XXXII.   

THE INTRODUCTION TO THE APPENDIX.  
BY that time I had in a manner finished my censure of knight Humfrey's nicnamed false way, I received sudden news of another way, either of the same author or of his friend for him, which like a second part of the Pickro came ruflling out with a greater noise than the first: & the reason is as I suppose as well for that it carrieth a more extravagant title to wit via devia, as also in regard it is some what larger both inleaves, & as I think in lies.  
Why the author should call his firste book via tnta or the safe way, & this via devia or the by way rather than the contrary, in my conceit few will be able to imagine any other reason then his own knightly pleasure: & for my part I must needs confess that his titles severally applied to the contents are to me mere riddles, as not containing either explicitlie or implicitlie that which they make show of, but rather standing only for cyphers or marks of the authors affected folly promising much but performing nothing, as I have made appear in part by mine ansere to his first work, & partly also shall be showed by God's assistance in this against which I now write; of which altho' I do not intent to make any fotmall confutation in every particular point of doctrine as I did before, more than once repenting myself that I spent so much time upon such idle matter: yet will I make a brief survey of every distinct section principally noting & notifieing to the reader such faults as I shall find the author guilty of, whom I also advertise that notobstanding the knight with these his two books as it were with the delivery of two prodigious twins, would seem to have brought forth some great & strange novelty to the world: yet in verity there is nothing of moment alleged by him either in this or in his former treaty, either out of scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers, which hath not been long since examined & confuted by a greater & fare more learned number of Catholic divines then all the pretensive reformed Churches can afford as apposers of the Roman doctrine. And altho' I do ingenuously confess that Sir Humphrey hath used no small art & industry in the application of his predecessors labours to his own intent & purpose; nevertheless he hath performed the same in such a cozening & deceitful manner, that the reader may assure himself 'tis almost one & the same labour to discover his lies, equivocations, false suppositions, impertinent & corrupted allegations, & other his insincere dealing, & to confute his doctrine, it being little more than a mass or compound of those & the like corrupted & vicious ingredients, nor containing any grave or solid discussion of any one question in terminis or professedly, but only or chiefly consisting in a certain abstractive way by compacting patches & shreads of furtive & stolen divinity delivered in a plausible & persuasive manner: of which altho' I do not deny but the author hath received great part at the second hand from his antecessors, especially from his great Patron Daniel Chamier who in the art of cheating doth in my opinion either exceed or at the least equalise any that ever writ before him; in regard of which altho' the knight might seem in some sort excusable at the least by ignorance: yet hath he or his chaplains invented & added so much in that nature of his own coining, that I do not see what colourable excuse can possibly be alleged for justification of his bad proceed. And when reading of Bellarmine's books of controversies I found so many untruths, falsifications, & corruptions, by him discovered out of Luther, Caluin, Beza, Brentius, Kemnitius, & other sectaries who had writ before him, I imagined that, at least, for, very shame their successors as being such great professors of reformation would have reform themselves in that kind; but now of late since I came to read the works of Daniel Chamier & Sir Humphrey Lind, I profess I have quite lost my hope of their reclamation, especially reflecting that as they are all men of one profession, & have all of them an ill cause to maintain, so are they all fallen into a fatal necessity of abusing their readers with tricks & sleights: the reason of which is plain, in regard that falsehood as being of a contrary nature to truth it cannot possibly be defended & patronised by the same truth, but must of necessity be defended by itself. And as for Sir Humphrey he is so deeply plunged in that muddy ditch, that he & his honour are like to lie there for ever, his ill custom being now almost turned into nature, & as proper to him as black is to an Ethiopian, or white to a swan.  
And to proceed to particulars, he is so void of shame that he doubts not to abuse Bellarmine in the very frontispiece of his book, where for posy or sentence of the same, he putteth certain words of his taken out of his first book de verbo Dei cap. 2. intending by this indirect means to persuade his readers that the contents of his whole work have that famous Cardinal for their patron & approver, which in my judgement is a point of the greatest cozenage & impudence that ever was heard of among Christian writers; since that neither that which Bellarmine's words import contain the whole, or yet the chief drife of Sir Humfreys book, neither are they uttered by him in that sense in which he doth apply them, to wit that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith, & that there is no other rule but only them: where as Bellarmin only affirmeth that the scriptures are a most certain & a most safe rule in case they be rightly interpreted & according to the ancient tradition of the Church, 
Vid. li. 1. de verb. Dei c. 2. & l. 3. de verb. Dei c 1. & seq. Scriptura regulacredendi certissima tutissimque est supra. Lib 4. de verbo Dei cap. 12.  & that they are not to be neglected by embracing the private spirit, which is fallible & uncertain, & to be relied upon by none but such as neglect the certainty or safe way of salvation, in which sense & meaning how the words of Bellarmine can possibly be applied to Sir Humfreys Devia or by way, let the indifferent reader judge, especially considering that he could not be invincibly ignorant that the learned Cardinal in another place plainly declareth himself touching the totallity & partiality of the rule of faith, where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his own purpose.  
And now from hence I pass to the Epistle dedicatory, on which I had scarce cast mine eyes, when presently I discovered two or three slanderous lies uttered by the author: the firste is, that the pretended Catholic Church as he phraseth her, is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists: the second, that the Roman Catholics are taught to eat their God & kill their King: the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the jews Talmud & inhibiteth the books of Protestants. And those untruths I have noted only, not for that I could not have marked out others, but because they seemed the most obvious gross & palpable. I omit also to specify diverse places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humphrey both here & in many other parts of his work, which well examined can serve him for no other purpose than to coulore his cousinage.  
And as for the rest of his preface, I can assure the reader, it is little more than an idle & tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste book: and whosoever will take the pains to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehearsal of the same things that his ears will tingle to here them: nay some whole chapters of this book there be, which excepting the title have little other matter then the same which is found in the other, as will appear in particular to him who shall confer the two last sections of it with the tenth & eleventh sections of the safe way; In so much that I think I may not unfitly say of the works of Sir Humphrey that which a certain pleasant wit said once of the writings of Luther, Tolle contradictiones, calumnias, mendacia, dicteria, ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos, inanes digressiones, ambages, atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes, & duo eius volumina in unum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito: that is, take way Sir Humfreys contradictions, calumniations, & lies, take away his scoffs, & jests against the Roman Catholics, his idle & vain digressions, & multiplication of words, or repetition of matter, with his frivolous circumlocutions, & I do not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulk of one small pamphlet. And thus much concerning the Preface & the book in general, from whence I pass to particulars.   

THE DISCUSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order.  

Sec. 1.  In his first section, I think I may truly say Sir Humphrey telleth but one untruth, but it is so large a lie that it reaches from end to end, I mean but one total lie, for partial lies there are diverse. This total untruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page, that the difference betwixt us & them, is such as was betwixt S. Augustine & the Donatists, which is manifestly convinced to be false even by those same words which he himself cities out of that holy doctor, 
Aug. de unit. Eccl. cap. 2.  who directly saith that the question between him & them was ubi sit Ecclesia? where the Church is? And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists & the Reformers where the true Church is, but which is the true Church? that is, whether the Roman church & all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to & obeying that Church as the chief & mother Church be that true Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed & commended in the scriptures, or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoever they be: which the reader may plainly perceive to be a fare different question, from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the knight. Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth upon a false supposition to wit that the Romanists refuse to prove the truth of their Church by scriptures only, as S. Augustine did, saith the knight, against the donatists; but this is not true, for the Romanists are so fare for reproving that course in this point, that they scarce use any other proofs than those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily useth for that purpose, as may be seen in the works of both ancient & modern divines.  
Thirdly nevertheless when the Romanists say they prove the truth of their Church by scriptures only, they do not therefore mean so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholic Church; for so neither S. Augustine either against the Donatists or any other heretics in the like case, alleged the scriptures, but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different words & to another purpose, 
De unit. Eccles. c. 19  ut non nisi verum sensum & Catholicum teneamus, not so but that we do follow the true & Catholic sense of the same scriptures. And in few words that which the Romanists mean is, that they do not use the scriptures for proof of their Church in the sense of the pretensive reformed Churches, but overly in that sense which anciently hath been embraced by the most universally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diversity of times.  
And thus we see clearly that Sir Humphrey in divers respects hath grossly & ignorantly mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine & the Donatists, & also betwixt himself & the Romanists. And consequently those authorities which he produdeth either out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent & of no force against the faith of the Roman Church: but on the contrary by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his adversaries; in which nevertheless he himself if he proceed in this manner is like to walk even to the end of his journey, I mean throu' all the sections of his book.  

Sec. 2.  In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences, as he termeth them, taken by the Romanists from the obscurity of scripture, & from the inconveniences which he saith his adversaries allege for the restraint of the lay people's reading them, yet he is so fare from performing his task in this behalf that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which move the Roman Church to ordain the said restraint, but only catching at one or two of the less important causes alleged by Bellarmin to that purpose, & giving a very sleight & superficial ansere unto them, he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falsely conceiveth to have been the only or chief motive which the Roman Church had to prohibit the reading of the Bible; to wit for fear, as he saith, their Trent doctrine & new articles should be discovered, And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speeches of some particular Romanists touching the inconveniences which that liberty which the Novellists have given to the common people in reading the scriptures, hath caused in the Christian world in these our present times, as that to permit every ignorant man or woman without distinction or order to read them is to cast pearls before hogs, & the like, which because thy are both impertinent in this place, as also for that I have in part ansered them in my censure, I omit to rehearse them: 
Period. 13. & alibi.  that which in like manner I do for the same reason in the rest of the authors which the knight citeth in this section, only advertising the reader that beside that they make not to the purpose, diverse of them are by him corrupedtly alleged & mangled either in words or sense, or rather both in words & sense, 
By way page.  as particularly may appear in the citation of Sanders whom our adversary affirms to say that it is little better than heresy to translate the scriptures, 
Haeresi●… esse si quis dicat esse necessarium. vis m●…. Haer. 191.  & yet Sanders only saith that it is an heresy if one do affirm it is necessary for scriptures to be translated into vulgar tongues, as the same words which Sir Humphrey cities do testify.  
He also abuseth Acosta whom he cities lib. 2. de Christo revel. cap. 2. & yet Acosta speaks note a word of reading scriptures in vulgar language, & much less affirms that much profit may redound to the lay people by reading them in these our days, especially in that manner as the knight falsely allegeth, who if he will prove his intent must needs speak in that sense when he imposeth upon that author the approbation of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue.  
In this fashion he also couseneth his reader in his citation of S. Hierome, affirming that in his epistle to Paulinus he saith that the book of Genesis is most plain for every man's understanding; whereas S. Hierome rehearsing severally all the parts of scripture with an intent to show briefly what they contain, & what means is required to the true understanding of them, & particularly signifying to Paulinus that he would have him understand that he cannot undertake the work or enterprise of reading scriptures without a master; putteth the book of Genesis firste in order as it lieth in the Bible, saying thus, videlicet manifesta est Genesis, meaning not that the contents of the book are manifest & easy to be understood as Sir Humphrey doth most falsely affirm him to say, but only affirming that in the whole number of the books of scripture the Genesis is manifestly known to be one & the firste of the same number: for which reason he doth in like manner consequently add of the two books following, saying presently after, patet Exodus, in promptu est leviticus etc. By which particulars the true sense of S. Hierome doth so plainly appear to make nothing for our adversary's purpose, that we may justly wonder how he could have the face to pervert & detort it in so shameless a fashion.  
And by such tricks & frauds as this, & now & then dropping a lie or two by the way, as that the Romish priests agree like Pilate & Herod both to the condemnation of Christ & his word: & that it is a crime worthy the Inquisition for the people to have a Bible, & the like; still dissembling the true state of the question, which is not whether the laiety can lawfully read the scriptures absolutely, but whether they can read them commonly & without licence, & that in vulgar tongues; it being ever supposed, that in Latin Greeke or Hebrew any one that can, may read them: by those frauds I say & such like insincere dealing the knight patches up this piece of his by way for his private spirit to walk in, where I leave him to his melancholy contemplations & pass forward to the next matter.  

Sec. 3.  The third section is about the interpretation of scripture, in which question Sir Humphrey affirms that according to the judgement of the ancient Fathers the Bible is the sole judge of controversies, 
Quod si non poteris assiduitate lectionis invenire quod dicitur accede ad sapientiorem, vade ad Doctorem. Chrysost. hom. 3. de Laz.  & interpreter of itself. For this his affirmation he cities diverse places out of S. Augustine, Ambrose, & Chrysostome, but in this he showeth very small judgement in the reading & understanding of the ancient Doctors: For it is clear to any clear wit that these holy Fathers only speak by way of instruction, & to such only as for their own private profit, comfort, &, understanding read & interpret scriptures as they read them to themselves, & not as public judges or deciders of doubs in faith or manners: And in this sense only & not otherwise the foresaid Fathers proceed (excepting the place of S. Augustin cited out of his confessions which yet is to a different purpose from this we here treat as in an other place I will declare) perhaps to the end they might more easily persuade such as in their time were slow & aught to have been more diligent by reason of their profession quality & capacity, to retire & cohibit themselves from the accustomed vanities of those days, & apply themselves to that holy & wholesome exercise. And yet more than this except Sir Humphrey will add to the Father's sentences the word sole, as his Father Luther did to the text of S. Paul: nay & the word controversy also, he will never justify by their authority his vast proposition, viz: that scripture is the sole judge & interpreter of itself.  
Optatus speak of one particular case for which the scriptures were plain & clear, not in general, nor yet doth either he or Pope Clement speak of sole scriptures, but of scriptures interpreted according to the traditionarie & current sense of the successive Catholic Church or chief pastors for the time present, 
Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret authoritas. tom. 7. contr. ep. fund. Quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritatem quaestionis, Ecclesiam de illa consulat etc. Lib. 1. count. Cresc. cap. 33.  not of particular Doctors of private spirits, in which distinction consisteth the main difference betwixt the Romanists & the Reformers in this points, which if you Sir Humphrey had duly pondered, & considered how much authority the ancient Fathers & particularly saint Augustine commonly attributes to the Church in expounding scripture & determining controversies, I persuade myself you would never have had the face either to deny that ever the ancient Fathers made ansere to the Heretics of their times that they must here the Church or that their Church was that Catholic Church which is the sole judge of Controversies, & the vive or live interpreter of scriptures, & which they ought to here in all doubtful cases & obscure, or difficult questions: nor yet could you have so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirm in one place that the text of scripture is the sole judge & expounder of itself indefinitely & without li●itation, & yet on the contrary in another place that you do not deny the authority of the Fathers jointly agreeing in the exposition of them in matters of faith, & yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them; as if the holy Ghost were bound to appear visibly to deliver the true sense of them as often as any controversy of faith occurreth: All which & the like disparates the vertiginous knight uttereth within the compass of this one section, also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselves judges & plaintiffs in their own cause, whereas indeed the Romanists neither make themselves, but the ever visible continueing Church judge of their cause, nor do they hold themselues for plaintiffs but for defendants & faithful possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they received from their ancestors. And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his own received Principle touching the interpretation, & sense of scriptures of which he & his brothers make every private person, man or woman, judge & umpire, & yet condemns for unreasonable that the Roman Church should use the like authority, even when it is publicly assembled in a general Council. So that these & all those a foresaid particulars delivered by our adversary touching this point are but only his own fancies of which he makes use for want of better materials to patch up this part of his by path, in which as you see he continueth his peripatetical exercise even to the next section.  

Sec. 4.  In which, it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter, telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise, yet they make themselves sole judges & interpreters of scripture, thus the knight fableth, of whom I tknowe I may justly say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. And in reality of whom I pray can this be so truly verified as of those who notobstanding that under a false colour that even in cases of doubt & controversy they ingenuously profess that scriptures must be interpreted by themselves only, 
Vid. Chan. Panstrat. I. de inten. scrip.  yet nevertheless do most pertinaciouslie maintain that the exposition of them belongs to every member of their Church in particular, & that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another; for what is this but to make themselves sole judges & interpreters of the scripture, & not the scripture itself as they deceitfully pretend? Let the indifferent reader be judge of this.  
It is true the Council of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrary to the uniform consent of Fathers, yea & Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities & places of care of souls take an oath of the same; but as they take the oath so do they perform also the obligation of it. And I demand of Sir Humphrey who hath such a great talon in reprehending, whether he thinks not in his conscience that those who under the strict bond of oath are obliged to any matter, are not more like to perform it then those who have no such obligation whereby to restrain their actions? surely there is a great difference in the circumstances, & consequently a great reason to judge that those Romanists who have such an oath obliging them to follow the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture, will be fare more careful to perform the same than the reformed Doctors who have no such bridle to refrain the inclination to novelty of their itching wits,  
Now whereas Sir Humphrey after his ordinary cavilling manner doth say, that if the Roman Church can make good the uniform consent of Fathers for their twelve new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation & prefer it before any private or later exposition, this I say is a mere sophism in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes, that he who interpreteth scriptures must have positively the uniform consent of Fathers for his expositions, but only that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith & manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers; the which because the knight did not rightly understand as it seems when he read the council & the Bull of Pius, he abuseth Cajetan, Canus, Andradius, Bellarmine, Baronius, & other modern Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree, whereas yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established, the rest being known for notorious defenders of it: & so running upon false grownes, the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts, & building his By-way (to omit others of less moment, & divers scurrilous scoffs touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it's well known he & his companions are much more guilty in that kind) with two notorious untruths affirming that all the priests & jesuites are sworn not to receive & interpret scriptures but according to the uniform consent of Fathers, & that it is an article of the Roman faith so to do: all which needs no further examen in regard that to any judicious reader these two particulars only will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the author's juggling tricks which he useth in this part of his by-way, which being void of substantial matter it suiteth best to him that made it, but agreeth nothing to the Catholic Roman faith.  

●ect. 5.  In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures, which he promiseth to prove by pregnant testimonies of all ages, that it is the same which learned Doctors & professors entirely preserved in the bosom of the Roman Church in all ages.  
I have treated of this in part in my former Censure, to which I add returning that Sir Humphrey saith of Campion upon himself, which is that if this Novellist had been as real in his proofs as he is prodigal in his promises, he had gome beyond all the reformed proselytes sinces the days of Luther, for never man made greater flourishes with proorer proofs, all that he bringeth being founded upon the same equivocation which he used in his safe way consisting of this proposition, the Fathers of every age have acknowledged the 22. books of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonical to be the true Canon & no other. For it is true the Fathers of all ages received from Christ & his Apostles those same books, acknowledging them for Canonical, but it is false, that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonical, of which truth particular instance may be made in S. Augustine who (as Caluin confesseth being a faithful witness of antiquity) 
Lib. 18: de Civit. cap. ●6.  
Calu. li. 4. inst. c. 14. Sac.  testifieth touching the books of the Maccabees, that althou' the jews receive them not for Canonical, yet the Church doth receive them.  
And according to this it being true that few or none of the great multitude of writers which the knight produceth in every several age do positively affirm that those 22. books of scripture only which the reformers use were by the universal Christian Catholic Church held to be the complete or entire Christian Canon of the old testament, or that those particular books now in controversy betwixt us & them were expressly rejected even by the jews themselves, as not Canonical, or not of infallible credit, & not rather held by them for sacred & divine althou not registered in their Canon (which is the chief part of Sir Humfrey's proposition) it followeth clearly that he quite faileth in his proof, & that for all his brags, he only steppeth out of his pretended safeway into the same by path he hath ever walked in since he firste began to write, never omitting his occustomed sleights in the allegation of authors & concluding his section with that laregelye so often repeated by him in this & other places, as affirming that by his adversaries own confessions the true & orthodox Church did reject those Apocryphal books which his Church rejecteth, & the Trent Council alloweth at this day for Canonical: out of which thrasonical audacity of this boisterous Cavalier, the reader may easily take a scantling of the rest, & so come to know the fox by his tattered tail.  

●ec. 6.  In his sixth sex section he pretendeth to solve the Romanists arguments deduced from authority of Fathers & Counsels for those books which the reformers hold for Apocryphal. Touching which point, althou' it cannot be denied but that doubt was made in former times among the fathers whether the foresaid books were Canonical or not, in which there was diversity of opinions especially before the Council of Carthage: nevertheless it is certain that neither the whole Church in any Council, nor yet any of the Doctors or fathers did positively at any time ever agree to exclude them out of the Christian Canon, but as some of the fathers made doubt of the same so others made none at all, among whom S. Augustine was so confident in that matter that in his 2. book of Christian doctrine, & that not obiter but professedly treating of it; he setteth down the very same number & names of the very same books which the Roman Church defendeth for Canonical at this present day: & yet notobstanding this our adversary is so presumptuous & void of shame that he doubts not to affirm that Saint Augustine did not allow the books of judith, 
●…. 132.  wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees for Conanicall. In justification of which his impudent assertion it is wondrous to consider how the crafty Sycophant doth excercise his wits in framing evasions whereby to elude the plain testimony of that renowned orthodox Doctor, & the decree of the Council of Carthage in that particular, to which, the same S. Augustine subscribed even in this same point of the Canonical scriptures rejected by the pretensive reformed Churches. Howbeit all that Sir Humphrey could invent for the infringeing of these two sound & irrefragable authorities consists either wholly or chiefly in equivocations & insincere dealing in the citing & construeing of the authors he allegeth, yea & in uttering of diverse plain untruths, as where he saith of the third Council of Carthage, that it is not of that authority as the Romanists themselves pretend, adding presently after for reason of his first lie another as great or greater against Bellarmine, affirming that the Cardinal when the Protestants produce this Council against the head of their Church, answereth that this provincial Council ought not to bind the Bishops of Rome nor the Bishops of other Provinces, & citing him for this saying in his 2. book de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. where nevertheless there are no such words to be found, And finally to omit other of less noise, he affirms that S. Augustine declares by pregnant & several reasons that the Maccabees are Apocryphal, & yet he denyeth not even in this very place but that the same S. Augustine both put them in the Canon of the scriptures in his second book de doct. Christ: nor yet that he affirmed in his 18. book de Civit. Dei cap. 36. that the, Church hath them for Canonical thou ' the jews hold them not for such.  
By which it appears, that Sir Humphrey touching this point of controversy, is not in the way of S. Augustine & of the determination of the Church of Rome in his times, but is with shame enough fallen again into his own by way, where he & his progenitors have ever wandered since the days of Luther.  

Sect. 7.  In the seventh section he reprehendeth the proof of Catholic doctrine by traditions, & makes such a trade of dealing untruely, that one would think sure he life's by lying. And now I verily persuade myself it is most true which a certain ingenious Protestant said of the Puritans, that they will rather afford ten lies then one oath. In his very firste words he affirms that to admit traditions & other constitutions of the Church is the firste article of the Roman Creed to which all Bishops & Priests are sworn, citing in the margin the Bull of Pius the fourth: this is his first lie in this section, but he will make sure it shall not be his last, for he incontinently addeth two or three more one in the neck of another affirming that those observations & constitutions of the Church which Pope Pius mentioneth, are declared by the Council of Trent to be those traditions which the Church receiveth with equal reverence & religious affection (for so the knight insincerelie translates the words pari pietatis affectu) as she receives the holy scriptures: 
Ego firma fide credo omnia & singula qua continentur in symbolo fidei etc. Bul: Pij. 4. sup. form. iur. prof. fid.  adding more that here was the firste alteration made touching the rule of faith, with diverse other falsities too large to recount. And yet if when he read the foresaid Bull he had not for hast scipped over the whole Creed (which the Pope placeth in the very firste part of the profession of faith) showeing even by that unfaithful trick how little faith he hath, I think he would never have had the face to calumniate in this manner. And if to speak in commendation of divine & Apostolical traditions in that form of speech which the Council useth, were to make alteration in the rule of faith as the knight will have it, yet is it apparently false that the Tridentine Council was the firste author of that alteration, for that (to omit other authorities of ancient Fathers of the same nature) saint Chrysostome who lived in the beginning of the fourth age of Christian religion useth the same manner of phrase if not plainer, 
Com. in c. 2. Epist. 2. ad Thes.  saying that it doth appear that the Apostles did not deliver all by epistles, but many things without writing, but as well these as those deserve the same faith. The which is not only as much as can be expressed for the authority of traditions, but also a more plain & commendable testimony than any Romanist ever uttered concerning the same. From whence the reader may deduce that the knight is here also out of the right way of the primitive Church, in which he runneth forward till the very end of his section, & like a man over heated breatheth out nothing but abuses of divers modern divines which he citeth & in a cavilling & captious sort perverts their true sense & meaning in all, or most places by him alleged.  

Sec. 8.  In the eight section he pretends to prove that the traditions of the Roman Church were unknown to the Greek Church & that they want universality antiquity & succession; but on the contrary that faith which the reformed Churches maintain at this day, is the same in substance which the Apostles published in Greece, & therefore hath antiquity universality & succession. And this is the substance of his section, if any substance it hath.  
But in truth he proveth his position with such mediums, that I am scarce willing to relate them for loss of time; the greatest part of his proofs being but either his own bare & false affirmations, or only frivolous arguments long since ansered & destroyed by Bellarmin, and other Romanists, & partly also by myself in my Censure; or else they are only authorities drawn from his own brothers both in religion & lying, as from Illiricus whom Bellarmine doth clearly discover to have been most expert in that black art, or from other professed enemies of the Roman Church as Nilus & other Grecian Schismatics: adding also the resistance or disclaim of some Grecians in different occasions, & here & there a without doubt of his own citing diverse authors unfaithfully for his own advantage contrary to their meaning, especially Bellarmine whom he abuseth in diverse places, partly by perverting his sense & partly by mangling his sentences, as lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 16. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 30. lib. 1. de Sanct. beatid. cap. 19 mingling also some untruths, as that most of the Greek & Latin Fathers did hold that the faithful till the resurrection do not attain to the beatifical vision of God etc. And now let the prudent reader judge whether Sir Humphrey doth proceed sollidlie, or rather not most absurdly & weakly in that he goeth about to elevate the antiquity, universality, & succssion of the Roman faith either in general or particular points by virtue of a scattered company of modern Grecians, who in those matters they descent from us contrary to the doctrine of their most ancient & renowned ancestors, have no more authority than the pretended reformers themselves; nay & especially considering them to be of a religion which agrees neither entirely with ours, & yet much less with theirs, what a madness is it in the knight to make use of their authority, either to infringe the antiquity, universality, & succession of the Roman doctrine, or for confirmation of his own?  

Dicunt (Armeni) in Christo Domino unam naturam esse, unam voluntatem unamque operationem. Aub. Mir. not. Episc. p. 43.  
Hodie (Aethiopes) & baptisantur & circumciduntur. Idem p. 54.  Neither is Sir Humphrey (thou ' most repugnant to the known truth) content to say, that the Greek Church hath continued the truth of his doctrine in all ages, but he also addeth further that if we look beyond Luther, we shall easily discern that the Muscovites, Armenians, Egyptians, & Ethiopians, did teach their reformed doctrine, even from the Apostles time till now. By which porticulars I doubt not but the reader may perceive even without a comentary how ridiculous he makes himself & his Religion & to what streits this man was put, & how impossible it is for him to avoid the by way in the proof of his antiquity, universality, & succession, who by his own confession was forced to fetch his faith from such by places & devious regions where yet he hath not found it, but remaineth still in his own uncouth English by way.  
The nynth section pretendeth to prove that the scriptures are a certain safe & evident way to salvation, & traditions a by way. In which section Sir Humphrey beginneth with a large homely about the certainty & safety of scriptures, which two words because he peradventure dreamt the night before he writ this, that he had seen them in the scripture, the one in the firste of S. Luke 4. the other Philip. 3.1. he assured himself he had thrust the Papists from the wall at the first push. But alas for pity, his dream proved so false that when he awaked he found himself in the channel; for in neither of those places are those words found, nay nor yet the sense which he intendeth here, which being no other than that only scriptures & no tradition is to be followed in any matter of faith or manners, neither those two places of scripture nor any other testimony that he bringeth either out of any scripture or Fathers doth prove his peremptory position, but only show that all scriptures are profitable to instruct a man in all good works to the end he may be perfect, & moreover that the scriptures be as Bellarmine saith a most certain & most safe rule of faith; yet that they be the sole or only certain & safe rule, neither Bellarmine nor any other Romanist, nor yet any proof or testimony which the knight produceth doth either teach or testify. It is true Sir Humphrey allegeth diverse authors, but all according to his accustomed manner, that is neither much to the purpose nor yet very faithfully, & the testimonies of those either impertinentlie produced, or already cleared by Bellarmine & other Controvertists, to contain nothing contrary to the Roman doctrine in this particular: or else such obscure grolles as neither his predecessors, as I think, did ever cite by reason of their small authority, nor are they of that moment that they deserve any ansere at all: as Waltram & Favorinus which at the jest by reason of the ill use he maketh of them serve the knight for nothing more than to lead him out of the common path of the everduring & constant Church (as a sure guide which according to the scriptures cannot fail even by the power of hell) into a dangerous diverticle of scriptures expounded by deductions proceeding from the private spirit of particular men, which is all he concludes in this his section.  

Sec. 10.  From hence Sir Humphrey passeth to another matter, that is to the testimonies of the ancient fathers, where he chargeth the Romanists that they either openly reject them, or secretly decline their authority by evasions in particular points. This is the tenth section a great part of which is repeated out of his firste book & ansered by me in my censure. He makes a large preamble touching the claim the Romanists make to the ancient fathers as patrons of their doctrine, & as if they did arrogate that which is not their own: but the discourse is very idle & mutatis mudandis, may be very justly verified of the knight & his predecessors, especially jewel & Plessis who both of them were the greatest braggars in that kind that ever were, & yet none so shameless in corrupting the Father's works & abusing their sense, as themselves. The rest of this section is very mean stuff consisting of captious constructions of the sayeings of some Romanists, & contorting them to this matter as if they did disesteem or reject the ancient Father's authority which is impossible to be true, as is manifestly convinced by the continual use they make of them much more than the Novellists, as it is well known to the world: And the truth is that the Romanists only modestly confess especially when they are urged to it by the clamours of the sectaries, that some of the Fathers in their single opinions, or in such cases as they did not all consent together, did sometimes perhaps fall into some erroneous point of doctrine, & that they are not always & in every point to be followed in their expositions of scriptures or otherwise in matters nothing concerning the controversies of these times: But only when they all agree in matters of faith, or by granting that in points of practice (for example about the Communion in one kind or private Mass) they are not all & in all matters expressly for them: How beit they know they neither are against them all things considered. Which if it be duly pondered is no inconvenience at all, in regard that these things & such others be mutable according to the diversity of times & persons, & consequently might be otherwise than by practised them by us. Neither do the Romanists when they affirm the Fathers to be for them teach (as the knight doth falsely & deceitfully suppose) that all the Fathers in every point of faith be it transubstantiation or any other, are positively for them; but only that the whole stream nay nor any part of them is positively against them in any such doctrine, & that in the most points they are expressly & wholly for them, & against the reformers in all.  

Pag. 290.  Out of which the reader may collect how impudently the knight doth belie the foresaid Romanists, when he affirmeth that, they are reputed no good Catholics by their own tenets that teach not contrary to the uniform consent of Fathers, especially considering that he himself hath already related how the same Romanists take an express oath to follow that consent. 
Sect. 4. init.  And by this it may in like fashion be easily perceived, how little credit this man deserves when he accuseth his adversaries of citation of counterfeit authors, whereas he himself doth deal so unjustly in that nature, especially with Bellarmine, that he doth not only mutilate his words, but also citeth that which is not to be found, as by way of example you may see page 290. where he affirms Bellarmine to profess that they are not to be numbered among Catholics that think the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin; for having diligently passed over two several times the 15. chap. of the 4. book de amiss. great. which is that same Sir Humphrey citeth, I find no such sentence nor words in it, but rather the quite contrary doctrine, as by his own words in my margin related clearly appears: 
Neque desunt qui impudenter affirment ab Ecclesia Romanae defendi conceptionem immaculatam Virginis Mariae tanquam articulum fidei. Bell. loco cit.  neither is it less plainly false which he affirmeth for the conclusion of this section, to wit that Bellarmine & the Romanists in general some times condemn the Fathers as counterfeit some times they purge them as if they were full of corruptions, & that according to several occasions they have their several devices to produce them or avoid them at their pleasure, yea & that they confessing them to be counterfeit, yet produce them for their doctrine: all which particulars are so fare from truth, that they cry shame on the author, & so much the more in regard that he & his brothers are not a little guilty in this business, but do daily offend in the same kind as by many instances might be proved & particularly in that one for example of the Imperfect, which passing under the name of S. Chrisostome is convinced by Bellarmine & others not to be his, in regard it holdeth the Homousians for heretics, & yet is it commonly cited by our adversaries & even by Sir Humphrey himself in diverse places of his works, in which they verify most fitly that of the Apostle, 
Rom. 2.21.  in that while they preach to others that they must not steal, they steal themselves.  
Neither yet do any of the testimonies which the knight produceth for his accusation of Bellarmine in this nature prove his intent, nor any thing more than that both Bellarmine & other Romanists do indeed some times produce such authors in favour of their doctrine as are not by all Romanists held to be of certain & undoubted authority, or at the least not certainly judged to be the works of those authors whose names they bear, thou ' otherwise althose who cite them hold them for works of ancient standing & not counterfeit, at least in the substance of they authority, as the knight doth counterfeitly indevore to persuade his reader: nay Bellarmine whom the knight particularly taxeth in this behalf showeth himself so just & sincere in this point that he is not content either always, or for the most part to advertise the reader when he cities doubtful authors in his tomes of controversies; but also to take away all occasion of scruple in himself, & of calumniation in others, he hath made a particular censure of such authors as are in any sort held for doubtful or Apochriphal, or otherwise called in question. And so to conclude this, the reader may see by what indirect courses Sir Humphrey huddles up this part of his by-way for himself & friends to spend their time in.  

Sec. 11.  In his eleventh section he endeavoureth to prove that the substantial points of the Roman faith as they are now received & taught by the Church of Rome were never taught by the primitive Church nor received by the ancient Fathers; these are the contents of the section, but it contains so little substance that we may truly say it stands only for a Cipher to increase the number. He gins with a great commendation of the scriptures, because he would seem to say some thing plausible to the common people, but I know none make less estimation of them in reality than he & his consorts who tie them like a nose to the grindestone, to the interpretation of those private spirits who have walked with in the compass of a hundred years or little more, rather than to the consent of all succeeding ages since they firste were penned. And I pray you what is this preamble to the purpose of proving the Roman faith not to have been taught by the ancient Fathers or the primitive Church? the knight produceth certain places out of saint Augustine, & Ambrose, to prove that they preferred scriptures before the writings of the Fathers, & that they appealed from them to scriptures: but what Romanist in the world denyeth that the scriptures have incomparable pre-eminence above all other writings whatsoever? or what Roman Catholic doth not willingly grant that when the scriptures are plain & the doctrine of the Father's obscure or doubtful, provocation from them to the scriptures is rightly made: But that even in such cases as the Fathers do uniformlie agree in matter of faith or generally received practice of the Church, it is usual & lawful to appeal from them to scriptures, especially when they are not plain & manifest; this I say neither those holy Fathers produced by the knight did ever teach, neither can any reason be found to prove it, but rather it is clearly against all reason, as opening the by-way to all sorts of heresy.  
And if Sir Humphrey when he read S. Augustine contra Crescon: had but passed one other step forward, he might have found that famous Father not to appeal to scripture only, but also to the authority of the Church, since that presently after he had said that he held not saint Cyprians epistle for Canonical, but examined it by Canonical scripture (which are the words our adversary cities) he adds & that with a great emphasis saying. Non accipio inquam, I say I do not receive that which S. Cyprian holdeth of rebaptisation, because the Church doth not receive it for which blessed saint Cyprian shed his blood: By which the reader may plainly perceive that one & as it were the chief motive which saint Augustine had to reject the doctrine of rebaptisation, was not the sole authority of the scripture, as not being in that case so clear as to convince S. Cyprian, but he struck the last stroke by force of the authority of the Catholic Church. And thus you see Sir Humphrey is still out of the way of the Fathers which he himself citeth, if they be ritelie understood; & followeth his own crooked tract, relating the particular points of the Roman doctrine unfaithfully as he useth to do & making many conditional promises to subscribe in case the ancient Fathers be found for us, but remitting the performance to his next opportunity, which is so fare to seek that I assure myself he will never find it.  

Sec. 12.  In his twelfth section he comes to particulars contending that S. Augustine is rejected by the Romanists in the several points in which he agreeth, 
Page 317.  as he supposeth, with the Reformers. I expected Sir Humphrey would have performed the large promise which he made in his precedent section, saying he dares confidently avow that in all fundamental points of difference the Romanists either want antiquity to supply their firste ages, or universality to make good the consent of Christian Churches, or unity of opinions to prove their Trent articles of belief: but in steed of proving this he goeth about the bush & evading the difficulty which he found impossible for himself to overcome, he only endeavours to persuade his reader that according to the Romanists own confessions, saint Augustine is wholly for the presumed reformers doctrine; for proof of which he produceth diverse instances out of Roman divines, but effecteth nothing, in regard that althou' it is true that some of the Romanists confess that S. Augustine did descent from their opinions, partly in the interpretation of some certain passages of scripture, & partly in some other particulars, yet none of them confess that in any main point of religion or faith even those which have been declared by the late Council of Trent, that holy Doctor dissenteth from them, & in this consists the equivocation, which together with some untruths, which he uttereth, as when he affirms that those which he rehearses here, be chief points in question betwixt us, & such like, is the by-way in which his worship walketh with great gravity all the length of this section.  

Sec. 13.  In his next ensueing section which is the 13. in number, he pretends that S. Gregory who sent S. Augustine the monk into England to preach the Christian faith is directly opposite to the Roman religion in the main points of faith.  
By the contents of this section it appears that the knight is as fit to write matters of divinity as an ass is fit to play on the fiddle, & he makes such fiddling work as one may plainly perceive that either he doth not understand the Fathers, & other Catholic authors that writ in Latin, or that passion & malice quite obfuscate his wits when he reads them. In his 350. page he affirms that in the undoubted writings of Gregory there will be found few or no substantial points which are not agreeable to the tenets of their Church, & altogether different from the Roman, this he saith but in stead of proof coming to particulars he commits diverse palpable frauds: for firste whereas he professeth to compare the doctrine of Tridentine Council & his own with the doctrine of saint Gregory in lieu of that he cities the doctrine of Bellarmine, the notes upon the Rheims testament, & the expurgatory Index, which altho' they be authentical Catholic authors, yet are they not rules of the Roman faith. Neither yet doth our adversary convince them to be repugnant to saint Gregory's true meaning in any one point of faith. And I earnestly wish I had time & place to discover to the reader the egregious fraud the knight hath used in his translation & interpretation of this holy Father's words touching the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: 
Greg. in 6. ps. poenit.  for by this only passage, he might frame a conjecture of the rest.  
secondly whereas our adversary treateth in this section of substantial points of faith, yet some of the particulars in which he exemplifies, are not substantial points of faith, but rather of manners which according to diversity of times may alter & change, as private Mass, the double Communion, reading of scriptures in vulgar language, in which there is a main difference from matters of faith, which can never .  
thirdly of all the points which he rehearseth being all as I take it 9 in number. There is but only one in which it can be said with any colourable probability that saint Gregory in any of the places here cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church, & that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures, in which patricular althou' he refused to give the books of Maccabees the title of Canonical scripture, (as yet S. Augustine & others did before him, & the rest of the writers, for the most part, ever since have done (whether it were because he meant only they were not contained in the Canon of the jews, or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonical under that name) Nevertheless he is not to be judged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point, than those who notobstanding that in the primitive Church certain books of the new Testament, as the epistle to the Hebrews & others, were doubted of, yet now with infallible certainty & faith receive them for divine, & sacred scripture, althou' they were not accounted & believed for such by all the orthodoxal Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world. Especially considering that the same saint Gregory never denied neither in the place cited nor in any other of his works, but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithful people that those books of which before his days there had been doubt, were then truly Canonical scripture thou ' not known for such in every age before him: so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those books which in his time so generally & undoubtedly were not as yet held for such. Neither according to the rules of divinity can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is, because he now beleaveth some thing more in the material object of faith then the other did in that time in which he lived; but at the most it can only be truly verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the object, as neither the Apostles were of a divers faith when they were firste instructed by Christ before his passion from that they had after his resurrection, when yet doubtless they received more express, & extensive knowledge in matters of faith then before they had received. And sure I am S. Gregory without exception cities both the book of Toby, & Ecclesiasticus: & sapience most frequently: none of which books nevertheless the misreformers admit for the word of God. And till Sir Humphrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin & S. Gregory as plain & pregnant places either for his own tenets, or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists have long since produced for theirs as their works upon every several controversy make apparent, let them for shame never claim them for theirs in any one point of controversy: for notobstanding they make a plausible use of some few patches of their more ambiguous, ill construed, & ill related sentences, yet turn but the judicious & unpartial reader to the books themselves, & he will ingenuously confess & absolutely cry a loud, all is ours.  
And if it would please his majesty of his royal clemency to suffer us freely to make trial of our cause by scripture, & Fathers, I know which side would be found minus habens, many grains to light. But it is our great misery (yet in one sense our great happiness) to be so crossed & kerbed with severity of temporal laws that we cannot be safe in the most private corners, much less can we appear in any public assembly for defence of our Religion. 
Vid. Bell. in quatuor Contr. tom. valent. Anales. fid.   
But yet supposing that S. Gregory had been contrary in that particular of the books of Machabies (for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficiently cleared from that imputation by Bellarmine & other Romanists) yet could it not possibly prove that monstrous great proposition of our adversary, to wit that S. Gregory in his undoubted writings directly opposeth the Romish faith in the main points thereof: & consequently from hence it manifestly appeareth how fare Sir Humphrey hath walked by the way, when in the end of his eleventh section he avouched his reader should plainly discern how the later Popes & Bishops do differ from the former, & how these two Fathers of the Church (meaning saint Augustine & saint Gregory) concur expressly with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman; it being most apparent by the premises, that by any thing which he hath here produced out of the foresaid Fathers, he hath neither proved any one point of his own religion, nor disproved ours; but hath only prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable flourish, & yet in reality remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royal street of the ancient Doctors of the primitive Church.  

Sec. 14.  The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confess that the Counsels which they oppose against the Reformers, were neither called by lawful authority, nor to the right ends.  
Hear I find that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans saying, their religion willingly admits no founder, but Bragger & they flourished much about a time. And in sober sadness the best Sir Humphrey can make of his adversary's confession throu' out his whole work in favour of his doctrine, doth nothing more than plainly convince him to be of no other progeny: Neither do their confessions fit his purpose any better than if he should put his shoes upon his hands, or his hose upon his head.  
A pattern of this you may see in this very section, in which how soever he vaunteth of the confession of his adversaries, & that by two principal conditions (as he saith) anciently in use for the authority of Counsels are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Counsels, to wit because, quoth the knight, now a days the Pope calls Counsels without right, & he & his assemble them in their own name & for their own ends: for proof of which calumnious position he cities but only two authors & those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists: neither yet doth either of them plainly aver his position as it is uttered by him; but they only speak by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or any other in particular, as the knight would maliciously infer out of their words for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome & her head in earth. The rest which he hath in this section is but either his own bare assertions & those not true, as that from Moses to the Machabies all temporal Princes practised power of calling assemblies, & that as soon as Kings received the Christian faith they executed the same power, & that the later Counsels celebrated in the Roman Church are not assembled in the name of Christ: all the rest I say is either such stuff as this, or else malicious corruptions of some Roman divines as appears in Bellarmin & Valentia, the sense of both which authors he deceitfully perverteth, the one lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 10. the other tom. 3. d. 1. q. 2. p. 5. by which false & indirect dealing he doth nothing in this whole section but show himself to proceed in that by-way which his progenitors Luther & Caluin have showed him in their corrupted writings.  

Sec. 15.  In the 15. section Sir Humphrey affirmeth that Counsels give no support to the Romish religion: In his former section he professed great reverence & respect towards the authority of Counsels especially the four firste, yet here he spareth not the very firste General Council of those same four which he so highly commended before, but at once he striketh at no less than 60. of the 80. Canons it is commonly held to contain, like a squinteyed waterman looking one way & roweing another, just, as he did before in his feigned commendation of traditions & Fathers. But let the reader mark what this man is to prove & how preposterously he proveth it, & he will presently judge him not to be squinteyed only, but either stark blind or stark mad.  
He is to prove as he saith firste that many general & particular Counsels have erred in every age which yet are produced for the Roman religion, but how doth he prove this I pray? marry because the Council of Cayphas saith he, is confessed by Bellarmine to have perniciously erred when it adjudged Christ a blasphemer, therefore by Bellarmine's confession Counsels produced for the Roman religion may err. Obstupescite caeli! O ye heavens stand ye astonished to here this man's logic! & this being his firste card judge what the rest of his hand may be, & how like he is to conclude, who argueth from caiphass to Christ, from the old law to the new, from a Council of false jews to Counsels of true Christians: 
Vid. Bell. de Conc. l. 2. cap. 8.  the reader may see Beauties anser to this parologisme, if any further anser it deserves in his opinion, for in my judgement it needs no more but a loud laughter, & thus I leave it.  
He passeth to the second age & saith that the Council of Antioch is cited by Gretzerus, by Turrian, by Baronius for the worship of images, & yet that the firste publishers of the Counsels never mentioned it. But what is this to the purpose of proving that by the confessions of Romanists many decrees & Canons of Counsels by them produced for the Roman religion are counterfeit or devised to prove the Trent doctrine? doth it follow that because some publishers of Counsels did not find this Council or other such like in their days, therefore they did confess them for spurious or Apochriphall or that those who afterwards have brought them to light as the authors above named Baronius Turrian & Binnius have not as much authority to publish them for authentical as you & your critical Cook to deny them or condemn them for counterfeit; 
Censura Patr.  especially considering that those who allow this particular Council of which we now speak, are all known to be of fare greater knowledge in matters of antiquity than those that collected Counsels before them, to wit Merlin & Crabbe Surius & Nicolinus, who althou' they be one more in number then those modern Romanists who allow this first Council of Antioch as found in the library of ancient Origen, yet neither doth the greater number contradict the less, nor yet if they did have they so much authority as to prevail before them.  
In the third age the knight sets the Carthaginian Council celebrated by S. Cyprian & his Colleagues, which Council, saith the knight, may serve to prove that some Counsels rightly called are dischareged by our adversaries, adding that this Council is therefore rejected by the Romanists by reason that S. Cyprian & the whole Council opposed the title of the Pope's supremacy.  
But in this proof Sir Humphrey committeth diverse gross faults, firste in that he supposeth falsely that a Council orderly convocated ought not to be rejected, which is a position that I am sure no Romanist, & as I think, no sectary before Sir Humphrey ever defended: & the reason is for that it is not the assembly, but the proceeding & concluding of a Council is that which gives it decisive authority, otherwise a Council without definitions subscriptions & confirmation should necessarily be received, which is most absurd.  
Secondly the knight telleth his reader a manifest untruth, where he affirmeth that the foresaid Council is therefore dischareged because S. Cyprian & the whole Council opposed the title of the Pope's supremacy; for that Council was assembled only about rebaptisation of those which had been baptised by heretics, neither is there any mention of the Pope's authority either good or bad: but only S. Cyprian by way of preface or prevention warneth those Bishops that were present that every one deliver his sentence or verditt freely without judging one another, because saith he, none of us doth constitute himself Bishop of Bishopps, & so what is this I pray to the Bishop of Rome or Pope's supremacy whom S. Cyprian so much respected that even in this occasion as S. Hierome testifieth, 
Dialog. adverse. Lucif.  he directed his synod to Pope Stephan, which is an evident sign that he was not contrary to the Pope's supreme authority, but rather did disetely in that his fact acknowledge the same. Thirdly Sir Humphrey dealeth falsely when for conclusion of this point he saith that this may serve for proof, that Counsels rightly called are descharged by his adversaries, when they make against the Trent faith, it being manifest that this Synod contains not any one of those matters which he contemptuously termeth the Tridentine faith. From whence it appears that in steed of proofs the liberal knight hath given us his own impostures: And thus it fareth with him throu' all this section captiously concluding universal propositions of particulars, as that some Romanists do cite for the Pope's supremacy one or two Counsels of whose authority others make doubt, therefore the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy is wholly grounded upon uncertain Counsels: notobstanding he himself acknowledgeth that besides these few doubt full authorities, there be many more in number cited by Bellarmine & others that are undoubted: & with such sophistical illations mingling diverse equivocations & false suppositions, confounding general Counsels with particular & confounding truth with falsity, yea & much falsity without any mixture of truth, he concludeth his section in such a fashion as it is easy for any that hath his wits about him to perceive he intendeth nothing else but to lead his reader into that same by-way which he still laboureth to finish for himself & others of his own profession.  

Sec. 16.  In his sixteenth section the knight makes hot war against the Council of Trent; & after he had in a couning & secret manner spit his poison at diverse other Counsels of more ancient standing in the precedent section, he singles this out alone as his most professed enemy, & most severe censurer of his faults & crimes, using all his whole forces & art to diminish his strength & power, & that not in hugger mugger but in plain & manifest terms: affirming the same to be of small or no credit as being neither lawfully called nor free, nor either general or generally received. He saith it was not lawfully called because it was assembled by the Pope's usurped authority & not by the Emperor: but this being the firste part of he proof, it is both false in it self & also left unproved otherwise then by his naked affirmation, 
Serenissimo etiam Imperatori gratias agere, & gratulari iure optimo debemus.— ille de nostris his rebus pro sua eximia pietate sollicitus mirifice fuit Orat. hab. ses. 9  & so it needs no other confutation than denial; how be it so certain & manifest it is that the Emperor consented un to that Council & approved both the convocation & proceed of it (as much as lay in his power) that I am persuaded the sectaries themselves with all their audaciousness have not the face to deny so plain a truth, & so plainly expressed in the oration had in the last session of the sacred synod, in which great thankes are rendered unto him for his zeal & care therein employed.  
The second part of the proof consists of a false supposition that no Council can be legitimate except it be convocated by the Emperor: but that this is false it is clearer than the day, otherwise it would follow that those Counsels which were celebrated before there were any Christian Emperor in the world should have been unlawfully called, as even that of the Apostles themselves: 
Act. 15.  & more if that position of the novelists were true, what truth or authority can the Counsels of the pretensive reformed Churches have, none of which as yet had ever any Emperor of their religion (& as I hope in God never will have) at least since the days of Luther even by their own confessions: which poverty of their poor ragged flock it seems Sir Humphrey had quite forgot when he uttered that false maxim of the reformed doctrine. Secondly he saith, the Council of Trent was not free, 
High (nuncij) Aquilon is parts prope omnes peragrarunt, rogarunt, obsecrarunt, obtestati sunt, tuta omnia, atque amica promiserunt. &c Orat. ut supra.  & yet he confesseth in this same place that he denieth not but that safe conduct was promised as well to the Lutherans as to the Romanists, & yet as it seems like cowardly dastard they feared danger, timuerunt ubi non erattimor. And if they feared where there was no fear in whom I pray was the fault? now for freedom of speech in proposing of matters & discussing them Sir Humphrey cannot deny if he will stand to the testimony of his own Dudithius cited by himself who plainly supposeth freedom in that nature, in that he affirms being a Protestant that the field had been theirs if they had not been overcome by number.  
Thirdly he affirms that it was not general, but how could it be more general then by a general & amicable convocation of all Prince's Prelates & learned divines, which the Bull of indiction declares. And as for the number of those who came unto it thou ' the knight doth use all his art for the diminution of it, yet was it fare greater than he vouchsafed to recount, as the Catalogue prefixed to the Council doth plainly declare, amounting to the number of 255. 
Acclam. Patr in ●…nc Conc.  of those who subscribed to the decrees; & the truth is, if more had come more had been admitted, & none rejected, which even of itself alone excepting others is a sufficient note of Generality.  
Fourthly, he saith it was not generally received, but in this he useth one of his usual equivocations, for althou' in some places as yet it is not received in matters of reformation & practise as in those places especially in which it hath never been proclaimed. Nevertheless in matters of faith it is generally received of all Roman Catholics where soever they be, fare or near, in Europe Asia, or America, or other foreign Countries converted to the christian Catholic faith, & so the reader may see that this saying of our adversaries which they perpetually buzz into the ears of the simple people that the Council of Trent is not generally received by the Romanists themselves, is mere cozenage & imposture maliciously invented to avert their minds from the most wholesome doctrine & profitable precepts of the same for the general reformation of the Church, which because the false reformers plainly see it trenches to near upon their Copyhold, they join heaven & hell together to infringe its authority. And here I advertise the reader that our adversary useth the relations of Some histories touching the proceeding of the Tridentine Council which are not admitted by the Romanists, & particularly those passages of Thuanus, of whom I have received credible information that dying a Roman Catholic he made a general retractation of all such positions or relations as he had publishedlesse advisedly, or any way dissonant to the doctrine, or practise of the Roman Church: & so all such passages as Sir Humphrey produces out of his works, are esteemed as void of force for confirmation of any part of his doctrine.  
The rest which Sir Humphrey uttereth in this section is nothing but certain hereditary untruths & impostures which he received from Caluin, Illiricus, 
Tertium nonnulla, atque etiam quartum discussa: summa saepe contentione certatum etc. Orat. hab. ad finem Concil.  & Sleidan & the counterfeit history of the Council of Trent published in the English tongue in disgrace of that most renowned Synod, whose authority will they nill they, they must suffer us to honore, embrace & obey at the least till such time as they can show us one of their own of the like generality, gravity, & authentical & exact proceeding which it hath used in discussion & determination of the most received doctrine of former & present ages, which if they cannot perform, then let them confess they have left the common & royal way of the ancient Church, & fallen into a by-way of parlamentall, or pure consistorial government in matters of faith, not heard of in primitive ages: as neither, was their extravagant form of Conventicles, truly general, national, or provincial, as appears in their Pseudosinods of Gap, 
Vide relat. Synod. Dordrecht  & Dort, in which the reformed Prelates carried themselves so zealously, that as it is credibly reported they spent 2000 pounds in Rhenish wine to heat their spirits before ever they had decreed any one point of their controversies.  

Sec. 17.  In his seaventeenth section Sir Humphrey doth nothing but foist, babble, & abuse Bellarmine & other Romanists about the Church as if they extolled her above the scriptures & accusing here to have spoilt herself of them, & as if it were uncertain among them whether the Roman Church is the true Church because they teach it hath diverse acceptions, which is all false & frivolous matter; for that altho' the Church according to the heterogenial parts & diverse functions of the persons of which it consists, may admit several denominations, as are the essential, representative, or virtual Church, in which point also peradventure there may be found some difference among the Romanists in their manner of speech & speculations: yet in substance they all agree that the visible Church to which the faithful must seek in their doubts is the visibly & perpetually succeeding Church from the time of Christ till this day, which is the plain way in which etiam stulti ambulant, even the most simple sort of people may easily find & walk in; all other Churches especially the invisible Congregation of Sir Humphrey & his fellows is but a blind diverticle & by-way, fit for wanderers & vagabonds then for the true & honest people of God to walk in.  

Sec. 18.  In the title of the 18. section, the knight pretendeth to prove that the Plea which the Romanists draw from the infallible authority & title of the Catholic Church is false vain & frivolous.  
Althou' the name & authority of the Catholic Church hath ever been so odious to all sorts of sectaries, that they made it a chief part of their labours to impugn the same, of which, several instances might easily be produced: yet this practice of theirs hath never been so much used or so earnestly pursued as in these present times. For as it is well known that their Captain & Antesignane Luther struck his firste stroke at the Pope & Church's power to grant indulgences, so is it also apparent by experience, that all his followers continue the same battle with all their strength & stratagems. For proof of which we need go no further then to this our adversary. Who throu' his whole works laboureth nothing more than to diminish the lustre, & power of the Catholic Roman Church; in so much that in this very section he maketh choice rather to lay violent hands upon the sacred Bible, & shamefully to corrupt three several places of the divine scripture then fail of his purpose, or want colour for his perverse intent, which to the end the reader may more plainly understand I will particularly rehearse.  
The firste place therefore consists in diverse passages of the epistle to the Romans especially in the firste chapter, where that which the Apostle by way of admonition speaketh only to those particular Christians & members of the Church which were then at Rome, exhorting them to be constant in their faith & humble themselves lest God cut them of for their sins as he did the jews; the knight doth violently draw it to the who●… Roman Church, as if S. Paul did intimate t●…●t had a possibility of falling, & consequently was but a particular Church, feygning also that saint Paul did therefore pray for the continuance & stability of the Roman faith, as if saith Sir Humphrey he had for seen by the spirit of prophecy they would glory in their own merits: all which is quite repugnant to the meaning of the text, as the reader may easily perceive. And the like abuse of the knight the reader may see in other places which he cities to the same purpose viz. to prove that the Roman Church is faileable as 1. Thessal. 8.2. Thessal. 3.1. Tim. 3.15. Ephes. 3.14. In all which places he useth much of his accustomed craft perverting the sense most sacrilegiously in all those sacred texts, & in the firste to the Corinthians he falsifieth the words, putting thou for us, the particulars of which I am sorry I cannot stand to examine, to the end his gross cozenage might more clearly appear, and how under colour of scriptures the sacred word of God & truth is adulterated even by him who so much braggeth & glorieth in it.  
After this same fashion he eludeth two pregnant places of Fathers for the authority of the Church the one is of Saint Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 3. the other is of saint Augustine contra epist. fund. cap. 5. & to coulore his evasion about the words of saint Augustine which are these, 
Praterea Ecclesia quae nunc est in fide errare non potest ergo si credidarit aliquem librum esse canonicum ex eius testimonio ● loneum, firmum quo sumetur à Theologis argumentur. Canon lib. 2. c. 7.  Euangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret authoritas, he citeth Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. as if this author did favore his false interpretation of saint Augustine's meaning; who nevertheless (besides that his words are not cited home by Sir Humphrey) he only affirms that saint Augustine did not intent in that place to make the Church the formal reason why an infidel or one lately converted believes the Gospel, but only the necessary condition of his belief of the Canonical scriptures; which doctrine of Canus makes nothing at all for our adversary's intent in this place, which is to disprove the infallible authority of the Catholic Church, which Canus doth not deny, 
Lib. 7. de Canon. c. 10.  but professedly maintaineth & particularly in the very precedent chapter in other places in a most Catholic manner.  
To this purpose the knight also cities Durand, Driedo, & Gerson, but rehearseth not their words which notobstanding I have seen cited by Chamier; but if they be truly & sincerely understood, they convince nothing against the infallible authority of the Church, as neither the words of saint Thomas who only affirmeth that saint Augustine speaks of the Church as an overuling cause, but not as the foundation of faith, which no Romanists denies, but all uniformly teach that their faith is founded upon the word of God, whose only authority is the supreme rule of the same, but the Church the proponent only.  
In the rest of his section Sir Humphrey makes a diversion to the universality of the Church for which he only produceth some impertinent reasons of no force with the authorities of the Counsels of Ferrara & Basill, waldensis & others, none of which proves any thing appertaining to the matter in treaty, but only serve to patch up this part of his bypath, in which I leave him.  

Sec. 19  The 19 section following affirmeth that the Church is finally resolved into the Pope, whom saith the knight the Romanists make the husband & the spouse, the head, & the body of the Church. This man is so full of falsity & untruth that it seems his whole living is by lying, I am persuaded he hath had his breeding in brazen faced College where impudence & untruth are the chief lessons in the schools. And here the knight hath in a manner gone beyond if not beside himself in that faculty. For I find no less than there lies even with in the narrow limits of the title of his section: nay there is not any one part or parcel of it true, by which alone althou' the reader might make a strong conjecture of the rest, yet will I give him an instance or two in particular which doubtless will quite convince his judgement of the authors knavish dealing.  
In his 502. page, now at last saith he, they have made him (meaning the Pope) the whole Church in so much that some are not ashamed to profess that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles, yea against the new testament upon good cause, & also against all the precepts of the old. This lie is so exorbitant & monstrous, that it seems he who made it doubted it would not be taken upon his own bare word, wherefore he fled to the authority of his friend jewel whom he quotes in the margin to make it more authentical, as if that famous Father of false dealing could sufficiently supply all that which in that nature is wanting in himself. But I hope the judicious reader will register them both in one predicament & give no more credit to the one than the other, but send them together to the whetstone.  
Another instance I give the reader out of the 504. page, where the knight chargeth Bellarmine to teach that if the Pope should so much err as to command vices & forbidden virtues, the Church were bound to believe that vices are good & virtues evil, unlesses she will sinne against her conscience. It is true the Cardinal hath the same words which Sir Humphrey cities hitherto, but yet he useth most dishonest & double dealing, in regare that if he had either rehearsed the whole place entirely as it lieth in Bellarmine, or else had veiwed his recognition, he might easily have found the authors true meaning to be, not that in general & every matter & all occasions, but only that in doubtful cases & in things not necessarily good or ill of themselves, & in matters indifferent, such obedience is to be given to the Pope, lest otherwise men should proceed against their consciences, & therefore saith he, Si Papa, If the Pope should command that which is clearly known to be a vice, or should prohibit that which is clearly known to be a virtue, than we ought rather to obey God then men. And so we see, that taking away the imposture & cousinage of the knight, there is nothing in Bellarmine's doctrine that may either justly offend the reader, or that makes for the purpose here intended of proving that the Pope ought to be obeyed whether his doctrine be true or false, as our adversary doth falsely & calumniously affirm. All the rest which the knight hath in this section is only sophistical fopperies & cracks of his crazed brain abusing the doctrine of diverse Romanists & framing such sense to their words as comes neerste to his own purpose & is farthest from theirs, & so falsely fathering it upon them, & confounding the faith of the whole Church with matters disputable & in opinion, he concludes discourse of all which let the reader consider whether the Romanists or he himself rather be not in the by-way he hath fallaciously framed for his adversaries.  

Sec. 20.  In the section following which is the 20. in order, he affirms, that the Church, which he saith is resolved finally into the Pope, hath neither personal nor doctrinal succession, neither in matter of faith nor fact.  
It appears by the knights proceed in this whole section, that he hath met with his greatest enemy against whom he useth all his art & cunning hoping to have the mastery by striking most strongly at the head that is the Pope, whom to make his blove the fuller, he feigns to be the whole body, & like a venomous spider gathering poison from the fragrant flowers of the Roman doctrine spits the very quitessence of it against his sacred person. Yet a great part of his matter is but loathsome inculcations of that which he hath a hundred times repeated, & which have been as often anseared by myself & others. But because his importunity is so great, I will give the reader a taste, thou ' I confess it is most tedious unto me to eat so often of the same Cram.  
The knights chief plot in this place is by confronting the doctrine of the ancient Popes not only in matters of fact, but of faith also with the modern doctrine of the Roman Churches & Popes, he begins with private Mass saying that Pope Anacletus did decree that after consecration, all present should communicate according as the Apostles set down, & the Roman Church then observed. Now this Sir Humphrey compareth with the doctrine of the late Council of Trent, which determines, under pain of excommunication, that Masses in which the Priests alone communicates are not unlawful or to be abrogated; as if this decree were contrary to the other, which directly it is not, for that althou' the words of Anaclet do show the common custom of his time, yea & of the Church of his time (notwithstanding they also insinuate that the contrary had been practised at the least in some places) to have been that all present at Mass did the facto communicate, yea & that those, that did not should be put out: Yet in regard the Council of Trent doth neither deny nor disallow of that custom (nay rather expressly desires the continuation of it) but only defineth that such Masses as are celebrated without more communicants besides the Priest are not to be condemned & abollishhed as the clamorous sectaries of our days do contend, it is more than evident that there is no contrariety to be found between the one & the other, nor more than if the same Council had defined, that those Communions are not unlawful, or not to be condemned in which infants are not admitted to receive the Sacrament, notobstanding the custom was in the primitive Church to admit them. To omit that Sir Humphrey is very ignorant in the doctrine of the Roman Church if he knoweth not that althou' in matters of faith there can be no change, yet in matters of manners alteration may be made; so that according to diversity of times, places, & persons, that which once hath been practised yea & commanded by one Pope & Council at one time, may be otherwise practised in another, & that without any prejudice, but rather with great profit (in some cases) to the universal Church which doctrine because the knight wanteth either wit or will to conceive it rightly, he runneth a madding throu' his whole section upon an erroneous supposition proving nothing but his own spleen against the Pope, & want of understanding, & judgement.  
And in this same Frantic fashion he dealeth with saint Gregory in his 9 epistle of the Register; & the Bull of Pius quartus concerning images, equivocating in the word adoration, which by reason holy S. Gregory takes it for divine honour, he teacheth with great reason, that althou' images may be lawfully made & used with due reverence as he showeth in another place, yet they cannot be lawfully adored in the other sense. From whence Sir Humphrey will needs collect that the modern Pope Pius contradicteth that which his famous predecessor did teach before him, in that he declareth according to the doctrine of the Tridentine Council, due honour & veneration is to be given to the images of Christ & his sainres in which nevertheless there is no contrariety at all, but rather great agreement & conformity not only in the matter itself, but even in their manner of speech.  
And by these two points which are the chief matter of moment which our adversary hath in this section, the reader may easily conjecture of the rest; & if besides this, if he doth but mark how deceitfully he dealeth with Bellarmine in the conclusion of this section about the succession of the Popes to S. Peter, I am persuaded he will never trust Puritan writer as long as he life's. But note the impostors subtlety, that which Bellarmine saith of the immoveable placing of the seat of saint Peter at Rome by Christ's appointment which he affirms not to be a matter of faith or immutable precept of God, this honest disputant applies it to the absolute being of saint Peter at Rome & the seating of his chair there, & then upon this false & detorted understanding of his doctrine, inferreth as from his own confession that therefore at the best it can be but probable that the Pope should succeed Peter in that Seat, & three is no necessity to believe it, for that Bellarmine saith it is no point of faith, & that if Christ gave any such precept, it may be changed, thus the knight. And yet the truth is that in none of those places the Cardinal speeches of the succession of the Pope to saint Peter, but only of the certainty of the connexion of the Apostolical seat with the particular Roman Church, & whether the one is so strictly joined to the other that it cannot be transferred to another place viz. to Antioch where saint Peter did fitly for a time abide, or to some other Episcopal seat of the Catholic Church, which Bellarmine affirms not to be a point of faith or immutable divine precept: but of the infallibility of the succession of the Pope in the seat of S. Peter he makes no doubt, but constantly defends it to be a matter of faith & divine institution as is manifest by his own words in the 12. chapter of his second book de Rom. Pont: where he saith expressly Successio Romani Pontificis in Pontificatu Petri ex institutione Christi est, & a little after Si quis tamen petat an iure divino Romanus Pontifex Pastor sit & caput totius Ecclesiae, omnino id esse asserendum. And now by these plain words of Bellarmine it manifestly appeareth he is so fare from standing upon probabilities in the point of succession of the Pope to saint Peter, that all those places which the knight cities out of the second & fourth book de Rom. Pont. as that, non est improbabile Dominum iussisse ut Petrus sedem suam Romae figeret. And, non est de fide divina & immutabili praecepto Romae sedem Petri esse constitutam; est tamen probabilissimum & pie credendum. And those other words, forte non est de iure divino Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere. And those, Ius successionis Romanorum Pontificum in eo fundatur quod Petrus Romae suam sedem fixerit. All those places of which the knight makes a prey to deceive his reader, are spoken not of the succession, but of the reason of the succession, of the Pope to the Apostle Saint Peter: for Bellarmine doth expressly distinguish in the same place saying, aliud esse successionem aliud rationem successionis: & the firste which is the succession, he teaches clearly to be by the institution of Christ, but the manner of the same succession that is the reason wherefore the Bishop of Rome rather than the Bishop of Antioch or any other doth succeed S. Peter in that Seat hath it beginning from the fact of Peter: But Bellarmine neither in any piace of those cited by Sir Humphrey nor in any other affirms that the right of succession is founded in the fact of Peter: But this was the craft of our subtle knight whereby he might infer that the fact of Peter being no matter of faith, but at the most of moral certainty, the whole frame of the Roman religion might therefore seem to be doubtful & uncertain. And to this end he falsely applied to the succession itself that which by Bellarmine was spoken only of the manner of the same succession. From which unjust proceeding of Sir Humphrey we may gather by the way, that there is no dealing with these people but at hand blows, I mean by producing of the books out of which they make their allegations, otherwise if they can but scape without examen, they will make no scruple to cousin their own Fathers as experience hath already taught us.  
To conclude I assure the reader that the rest of the matter in this place is but such loathsome stuff as this, mingled with so many impudent untruths that I am not able to recount them severally: All which because I perceive the more it is stirred the more it stinks, I will leave it to himself to make the best he can of it, & if by corruption & fraud he will needs build a by-way for us Romanists, he doth but labour in vain, since that he can no sooner finish it, but that we can as soon return it upon himself & fellows.  

Sec. 21.  In the next section which is the 21. the knight treateth of the Pope's judgement, which he saith, is not yet certain & agreed upon among the Romanists, notwith standing it is by them made the rule of faith.  
In this section I find nothing meritorious of a scholar's labour either in reading it or ansering it, for it is but an idle continuation of the authors former fooleries concerming the Pope's authority in the determination of matters of faith, which on the one side he will needs have it so that the Romanists hold his judgement for an infallible rule of faith, & yet he himself cities diverse Romanists which do not hold the Pope's authority to be infallible, which in my opinion is no less than plain dotage. For who is he, if he be not quite deprived of judgement doth not conceive that if there are Romanists which do not defend the Pope's authority to be infallible there most of necessity be also some, yea & the same Romanists that hold his judgement not to be an infallible rule of faith; from whence it doth further necessarily issue that the infallibitie of the Pope's judgement in determining Controversies is no point of faith among Romanists, how be it is commonly held for the most safe doctrine, & consequently as the proposition of the title of this section is but a fallacious paradox of the knights own inventing, so are all the authorities & proofs which he produceth to show that there is uncertainty among the Romanists of the Pope's infallible judgement in the rule of faith in vain & of no force, as tending to demonstrate that which is not denied by all Catholic divines. And thus Sir Humphrey marcheth on in the by-way of his own devious francies even to the end of his section, never omitting to excercise himself by the way in some part of impiety against the Popes, carping maliciously at the evil life of some of them in particular: all which how true or false it is (yet not doubting but that they have been much calumniated by emulators & heretics & ill advised persons as by the writers of their lives appeareth, I cannot here stand to examine by reason I study & profess brevity, but will only answer generally with pious S. Augustine in the like case of objection touching the Popes which lived before & in his time, that although some traitor had cript in to that order of Bishops which is deducted from Peter himself to Anastasius, (I say to urbanius) who doth now sit in the same chair, yet should he not prejudice the Church & the innocent Christians to whom our poruident Lord said Do what they say, but do not what they do.  

Sec. 22.  In the 22. section the knight affirms that the Church upon which the learned Romanists ground their faith is only the Pope: but the Church upon which the unlearned rely is no other than their parish priests.  
It is just so, why? because ipse dixit because Sir Humphrey said it. But how doth he know it to be so? by scripture or by tradition? if by scripture, let him turn his Bible & produce the text: if by tradition, he is a traitor to his own cause. One said pleasant, that the faith of a Puritan is resolved 1. in Biblia 2. in spiritum 3. in carnem, firste into the Bible, secondly into the spirit, thirdly into the flesh; & here rests the last resolution of their religion.  
But now seriously to the matter, but indeed there is little matter except by matter we understand corruption, & of this I am certain there is no want. For to begin with the title of the section, it hath two parts & they both false: the one is that the learned Romanists ground their faith upon no other than the Pope; the other that the unlearned rely upon no other than their parish priests, neither of which is absolutely true as experience doth teach. And yet if it were true that the simple sort of people did rely wholly upon their Parish priests, what then? may not simple Romanists as safely rely upon their Parish priests as simple reformers upon their Parish ministers, who are sometimes even as simple & ignorant in divinity as themselves, setting aside that perhaps they are a little more expert in reading the text of the Bible in English, or a misreformed homily. And touching the learned Romanists they do not rely upon the Pope only, but chief upon the word of God as also the most simple Romanists do thou ' not interpred according to their own private sense as the pretended reformers do, but expounded according to the consent & commonly received sense of the universal visible Church.  
To this I add a most odious & slanderous lie of the knight where he saith of the belief of the Romanists that if it be received with an affected ignorance & a blind obedience, 
Page 573.  the party shall be saved by the fire of Purgatory, which is most palpably false, & never asserted by any Romanist, but coined by his own frothy brain, besides this & the like dishonest dealing he abuseth Bellarmine in diverse places, as lib. 1. de iustif. cap. 7. in which place whereas Bellarmine produceth S. Bernard's exposition of those words of job; the oxen did plough & labour, the asses did feed by them, to prove against sectaries, that iustifieing faith consists not so much in knowledge as in assent, saying, docet Bernardus, Bernard teacheth that by the oxen are understood the learned doctors of the Church, by the asses are meant the ignorant, which by their simple belief rest satisfied in the understanding of their superiors: nimble Sir Humphrey applyeing this (thou ' very fond & preposterously) to the disprofe of the ignorant people's relyeing upon their pastors in their faith by changing the word dicit, he saith, (meaning S. Bernard) in to these words the Cardinal, saith he makes his reader believe that the foresaid exposition is Bellarmine's own gloss, whereas yet he doth but allege it out of S. Bernard only to confirm his own doctrine touching the nature of the form of justification.  
Another place the knight corrupts in the same Bellarmine lib. 5. de Euchar. cap. 5. concerning the doctrine of Peter Lombard, & S. Thomas, where the Cardinal affirming that they were not careful of the question now in controversy, to wit whether that which the Priest celebrateth daily be properly a sacrifice, but supposed the affirmative part as a thing known to all men; the crafty Cavallier relates the words of Bellarmine so transuersly that the reader cannot but understand by them that the Cardinal affirms that those two most famous divines cared not whether the Mass were a proper sacrifice or no; but that they did only content themselves to hold that it is a commemorative sacrifice only, as the reformers teach. And now let these examples suffice to demonstrate the infidelity of our adversary in this section: to omit much other impertinent false & captious matter & allegations, diverse of which I have ansered in my censure, & are here superfluously repeated by the knight towards the building of this part of his crooked & blind by-way, which as you see by the materials of it, is so fowl & rugged that it is not fit for any person of reputation to appear in it.  

Sec. 23.  The next section is the 23. in number affirming that the visibility of the Church is no certain note of the true Church but rather the contrary thus Sir Humphrey; but he that should duly consider how fare even by his own confession he is engaged to the jesuit his adversary to prove his own Church to have been visible in all former ages since the Apostles times till this day, doubtless he would much wonder at this his title: altho' if contrarily he ponder how slow the same Sir Humphrey hath been in the performance of his anser to that challenge, than he would instantly cease to marvel, persuading himself that the knight having better considered of the matter, he is resolved upon a contrary course as it may now more than probably appear by the contents of this present section in which he professeth to impugn that same visibility which so many days, months, & years ago, he solemnly avouched to make good viz. the succession of his own Church. I for my part am very sorry that the knight hath so altered his design in regard I have long since had a vehement desire to have a sight thou ' it were only tanquam per speculum in anigmate, as in a perspective or astronomical glass, of those fair faces which have lain in lavender so many hundreth years together; yet now I perceive there is no remedy but patience, & so I will leave those inordinate desires, & examine how soundly the author proceeds in the impugnation of that which according to his promise he ought rather to defend then confute.  
Wherefore to the intent he may seem to have said some thing to the purpose, he stateth the question in another sense than that in which it is disputed betwixt the Romanists & the reformers, he putteth the case in a conspicuous & eminent visibility of the Church in all ages perpetually: And this visibility I grant diverse of the testimonies which he produceth do prove not to be necessary to the true Church: Neither do I deny that the proofs our adversary bringeth, if is supposition of such a glorious visibility were true, but this is out of the choir, for the question is only whither such visibility is a certain note of the true Church as that in all times some at the least true professors of it may be assigned & named: & this kind of visibility of the true Church is not disproved by all, or any one of the testimonies which are here alleged by the knight, but all of them are in vain produced. But now as he himself doth name Adam, Abel, Enoch, No, Abraham, Lot, Tobias, jeremy, Simeon, Anna, joseph, Marie, Elizabeth, to which diverse others might be added in every several age, I say as he could & did name these visible professors of the old law, so do we demand of him to show & name us in like manner some professors in every several age before the days of Luther who have professed the same religion in all points which is now professed in the pretensively reformed Churches. For this is the true state of the question betwixt us, & this is that which we hold for a necessary note of the true Church, & as we are ready at all times to perform this, yea & some of us have already performed it long since in proof of the visibility of the Roman Church, so do we expect the like from the defenders of the reformed Church in proof of the visibility of the same. And to deal plainly, till Sir Humphrey or some body for him performs this task, & in this sense, what soever he or his companions either do or can produce to impugn the visibility of our Church, we hold it for a mere by-way invented only to avoid that difficulty which absolutely in their understanding they judge insuperable, & impossible to be cleared.  

Sec. 24.  In the next section which is the 24. the knight prosecuteth the same matter that is the visibility of the Church in the new testament; but he walks quite out of the true way from the beginning to the ending. He pretends to show that the Church hath not been conspicuouslie visible but latent & obscure in all ages, & yet to demonstrate this he produceth nothing but such testimonies as prove there have been ever many heresies schisms, persecutions & people of ill life, which have so much darkened the splendour of the true Church that it was sometimes under clouds & mists, proving with a multitude of testimonies with great ostentation that which we Romanists do not deny: nay we all ingenuously confess that the true Church must not of necessity be always eminently & flowrishinglie visible, yet never so obscure & covered which clouds, but that the professors of it may be found & named even in the midst of her greatest mists, for we say with saint Ambrose, 
Li. 4. Hex. cap. 2.  videtur sicut luna deficere sed non deficit, She seems to fail like the moon, but she doth not fail, obumbrari potest, perire non potest, she may be obscured but she cannot perish; so that in this section Sir Humphrey in steed of an egg gives us a Scorpion, & in lieu of proving the Church, to have been so obscure & latent that none of her members can be found & named, he only or chiefly produceth the errors & heresies of those who did most impugn & obscure her: 
In so much, as both those who were called, & those who where chosen by Christ, did err grievously both in manners & doctrine etc. By-way page. 611.  nay it seems his passion did so much transport him, that rather than fail of his purpose of impugning the absolute visibility of the Church in all ages, he layeth violent hands even upon the holy Apostles, accusing then that they erred both in doctrine & manners as in his 611. page the reader may see in plain terms, to omit that all or most of the authors which he cities are either of his own profession, & obtruded in among the Romanists, as for example Morney, Erasmus, Cassander, & other suppositious writers, or else such pious Catholics, as out of their zeal have justly reprehended the private errors, & abuses of particular persons (thou ' in general terms as the custom is) which have in several ages like darnel among corn sprung up in the field of the visible Church; & this being the substance of the contents of this section, I remit it to the reader to judge whether the knight hath not run an extravagant & by course for the building of this parcel of his by way.  

Sect. 25.  In the 25. section upon a supposition of the declination of faith & manners in the Roman Church which he falsely supposeth as proved in his former section, our adversary proceeds to an application of certain places of scripture to the same supposed declination of the Pope & Church, but so ridiculously & corruptedly that on the one side a man of judgement that reads it will hardly abstain from laughter: But on the contrary he will be sorry to see the divine word of God so profaned & abused especially by those who so much brag of the scriptures that they will scarce vouchsafe to read any other book but pure Bible. And to the end the knights sergeant proceeding in this particular may appear, I will rehearse one instance or two that by them the reader may consider of the rest. Page 670. how comes it to pass (saith he) that the number of the faithful are so few, that at all times, they cannot easily be discerned? His ansere is, because it was foretold in the 18. of saint Luke, that when the son of man cometh he shall not find faith upon the earth: mark the wisdom of this great Solomon & admire it. S. Luke as his words do plainly testify, speaks & prophecies of the time of the coming of our Saviour to judge the world at the day of the general judgement, & yet Sir Humphrey most absurdly, abusedlie, & falsely applies them to that vast Chaos or large space of time, which hath passed since the time of the Apostles to the days of Luther; yea & as it seems by his discourse even to the time of Christ's coming to judgement in the end of the world: as if according to his reformed Logic this were a good consequence, when the son of man cometh he shall not find faith upon the earth, therefore the number of the faithful is so small that at all times they cannot easily be discerned: o acute & subtle Logician! & in my opinion much fit for the cart than the school of Dialect. Another example I give the reader in two places cited by the knight, the one out of the 2. of Peter 2. chap. the other out of the 18. of the Reuel. 3. verse which he applieth to Indulgences & pardons saying in his page 671. how comes it to pass that Indulgences & pardons are granted for money & made the treasure of their Church? Because saith he it was foretold there shall be false teachers among you by whom the way of truth shall be ill spoken of & throu' covetousness shall with feigned words make merchandise of you. Now it is true the place out of saint Peter thou ' falsely & fondly applied, & might fare more fitly be accommodated to the pretensive reformed Puritanical Novellists whose greatest part of scholarship si to rail at the Pope & Roman Church, yet it is not untruely rehearsed, but in the place quoted out of the Apocalips, there is not one title to this purpose, excepting that the Apostle once nameth the word merchants; which nevertheless, according to the true sense of the text, maketh no more to the matter in hand, then if he had named the word minister.  
The rest of the places of scripture which he cities according to the common & current exposition of the Roman Church even at this present, are understood partly of the precursors of Antichrist which are the heretics & persecutors in general of all ages: & partly of that great Antichriste properly so called, whose coming all true Catholics have ever expected only about the end or consummation of the world: howbeit if a man were delighted in trifles & tricks he might much more commodiously apply those same places to Luther & his sequaces, as having their pedigree & descent from several heretics of former times, then either to the Pope or Church of Rome, as may also plainly appear by the 39 articles of the new Creed of England, of which excepting those few that agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, there is scarce any that have not been defended by other heretics of more ancient standing, as diverse learned Romanists have demonstrated in their several treatises. By all which it doth appear that althou' Sir Humfrey hath used no other proofs in this section than the pure text of scripture, yet hath he made so bad use of it that all the world may clearly perceive that he is entered much further into his by-way than he was before.  

Sec. 26.  The 26. following is the conclusion of the treatise, in which the author laboureth to show the safety & certainty of his own way, & the uncertainty of the Romish way; This is the whole drift & scope not of this section only but of the whole work, as being a brief sum of the same.  
I confess that if the Romanists were bound to give credit to Sir Humphrey linds bare word in matters of faith & manners, than they ought of necessity to yield him the safe way & content themselves with the by: but they are otherwise taught & instructed, they know that for the space of above 14. hundred years together they had unquestionable possession of the safe way to salvation, & may justly say with ancient Tertullian. Nos prius possedimus, we had firste possession, why then should we yield unto you & take the by-way which you have framed & invented of later years? nay why should we not rather with the same Tertullian boldly demand of you who are, according to the saying of another ancient father, prodigiously borne of yourselves Quiestis vos? unde & quando venistis? ubi tamdiu latuistis? who are you? from whence & when did you come? where have you laid hid so long time? & with S. Hierome Quisquis es assector novorum dogmatum queso ut parcas Romanis auribus, parcas fidei quae apostolico ore laudata est who soever thou art that art a defender of new doctrine I beseech the spare the Roman ears, spare that faith which is commended by the Apostles own mouth: & in another place. Cur post 400. annos docere nos niteris quod ante nescivimus? why after 400. years (I may say after 1400. years, do you go about to teach us that which before we knew not? & with optatus, vestrae Cathedrae originem ostendite qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam vendicare. Show the origen of your chair, you that calling to yourselves the holy Church: wherefore if you under pretence of a reformation will enter into possession of the safe way, if you will claim the truth, & leave falsehood for us, it is not sufficient for you with a plausible flourish of speech (as you use here Sir Humphrey) to say so it is, but you most firste prove your claim & convince your title, & that not by accusation of us (that which you have only performed through both your books) for, si accusasse sufficiat quis erit innocens? if to accuse be sufficient who will be innocent? but by positive proofs of your own, which as yet neither you, nor any of your copemates have ever performed. You pretend sole scripture for your evidence, but in place of God's word you obtrude unto us your own glosses & captious illations & sophiticall inferences or deductions, & you for your part Sir Humphrey, you know you are engaged by promise to ansere the jesuits' challenge, which is not as you affirm (hoping so to scape the brunt of the battle, to prove out of some good authors that the Protestant Church (so you please to call it for matter of state, althou' yours, as I suppose is not truly the Protestant, but the Puritan Church) was all ways visible; which althou' I know I have made manifest that as yet you have not performed that task neither, I am confident, ever will be able to perform the same, yet that is not truly the jesuites challenge, but that you produce some which have professed your religion in every point, & in every age before the days of Luther. This is the charge you have undertaken, & till you have discharged yourself of this, your honour still remains at the stake, & for all your brags your safe way is to the Romanists & all other of mature judgement, but only a by-way, & serveth only for a cowardly excuse of your want of ability to perform your promise.  
But now to return to the contents of this section in particular from which I have in some sort digressed. I say it consists only in a recapitulation of those several points of controversy which I have already examined, in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I have not sufficiently confuted & convinced to be of no force, but all either false equivocal or impertinent, it is most apparent that what soever he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is no conclusion, nor of any more authority than his own bare affirmations or negations, & consequently notobstanding the vain knight will needs seem to have the victory & to have gained his cause, yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather judge in favour of the anserer then of the abiector, especially considering how fare more easy a matter it is for any man to impugn the doctrine of another then to defend his own.  
Wherefore I join issue with mine adversaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath here set down, applying the same to the safe way & by-way as he hath done, by-way of antithesis or oppositive comparison betwixt them both in the manner following.  
And firste I say; The Romanists teach that not scripture only, but scripture with divine & Apostolical traditions received for such by the universal Church in all ages, the approved general Counsels, & the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the only certain means & safe way to salvation. But Sir Humphrey with his complices teach that scripture only interpreted otherwise them by authority of the most universally flourishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers & doctors of the same is sufficient to salvation, & this is a doubtful & by way.  
Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certain a most safe & perfect rule of faith, yet in some places obscure & ambiguous as even some of their adversary's confess, & therefore it is not sufficient alone, but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter; & this is a safe way to salvation: but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation & conference of one place with another by every private man or woman that can but read it, is a sure evident & perfect rule of faith, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Thirdly, the Romanists teach that traditions appertaining to faith or manners received from Christ by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselves by inspiration of the holy Ghost, & as such conserved in the Church by continual succession, are to be embraced & reverenced with like pious affection as the scriptures; & this is a safe way to salvation: but the reformers teach that only those traditions concerning faith & manners that can be proved by scriptures of which sort they deny any to be in the Church notobstanding saint Paul in the scripture expressly commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions delivered unto them by word of mouth or by epistle. And this is an uncertain & by way.  
Fourthly the Romanists teach that the uniform consent of undoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures & some certain persons in the Church as professors of divinity & some others for the avoiding of novelty in doctrine, take an oath of the same: & moreover that where they find that consent, they are to receive it as a certain rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or invention of other new sense or glosses, & this is a safe way to salvation: but the reformers teach that the uniform consent of undoubted Fathers is to be followed only so fare as according to their private spirit or judgement they agree with scriptures, which is a captious & deceitful rule of expounding them: And this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholic Church is a congregation or company of people believing & professing the true faith of Christ under one chief head our Saviour jesus Christ & his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as chief Pastor & visible governor of the same under Christ, saying with all that the notes whereby the true Church is known from all other heretical & schismatical conventicles are not only & chiefly exterior splendour, amplitude, & miracles, as our adversary doth deceitfully insinuate; but principally the name Catholic, antiquity, continual succession etc. And this is a certain & safe way: but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastors & people with out any certain & infallible authority & assigning for marks of the same that which is common to all congregations even of heretics & schismatics according to their several opinions, as all & every one of them holding they have the true word & Sacraments rightly preached & administered in their conventicles, which consequently can be no certain marks of the true Church in particular, no more than the name of a Christian in general can be an infallible note of a true beleiver; & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Counsels by the Pope's authority or approbation convocated & confirmed are not only of great use in the Church: But also of certain & infallible power for the determination of all doubts & controversies in religion which may arise in several times & occasions, & this is a certain & safe way: But the Reformers teach that General Counsels althou' they say they be of great use & authority in the Church to determine controversies in religion, yet they hold them of uncertain authority & subject to error both in faith & manners, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Seaventhly; the Romanists teach that the chief rock & angular stone upon which the Church is built is Christ the Saviour of the world, yet they say with Christ himself that Peter is also in his kind a rock upon which he promised to build his Church, & this is a certain & safe way: But the reformers teach, that Christ alone is the only rock upon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the express words of Christ in the scripture saying to Peter, upon this rock will I build my Church: & this is a diverticle or by-way.  
Eightly, the Romanists teach that the operation & effect of the Sacraments depend chiefly & principally upon the institution of Christ, yet they say withal, that both for the security of the consciences & comfort of the receivers etc. The Priest must have a sincere intention to minister, the Sacrament & not in jest as Luther & some other sectaries do teach & this is a certain & safe way to salvation. But the Reformers teach that only the instistitution of Christ is sufficient, & the Priests sincere intention not required, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Nintly the Romanists teach, that Christ is our only mediator of redemption, & who only of himself & by his own power knoweth the secrets of our hearts; yet withal they say that his Saints in heaven, who in & by him do assuredly know the secrets of our hearts in such things especially as concern the good of our souls, are our mediators of intercession, by offering our unworthy prayers to God, & this is a certainty & safe way to salvation: But the reformers call upon Christ only & exclude & neglect his saints & servants whom nevertheless he himself doth promise to honore in heaven, condemning also for impious & sacrilegions the saints intercession for sinners, which notwithstanding he doth not condemn for such in any part of holy scripture, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Tenthly the Romanists teach we ought to adore Christ's body present in heaven where he sits on the right hand of his divine Father, yet withal they say it is lawful yea & we ought to adore him wheresoever he is, & particularly in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, & this is a certain & safe way to salvation: But the reformers teach that the body of Christ ought not to be adored in the Eucharist but only in heaven, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Eleaventhly the Romanists as the word of God instructs them, confess themselves to be unprofitable servants in regard neither they nor their actions bring any profit to God who hath no need of any thing, & yet they say withal that no man living can be justified by his own merits, that is such merits as proceed purely from his own natural forces & actions, & more than this that all those who expect salvation must believe in Christ with a lively faith & wholly rely upon his merits & satisfaction as upon the proper & principal cause of their salvation; yet they say beside this, that altho' they may not rely upon their own merits or the satisfactions of the saints alone, nevertheless they may use both the satisfaction of saints & their own merits as a means to salvation, by virtue & application of the merits & satisfaction of Christ's passion, & also that they can by the grace & assistance of God observe his commandments, yea & by virtue of the same divine grace perform some works of supererogation or not commanded by precept of God but counselled by his advice, & this is a certain & safe way to salvation: But the reformers teach they are unprofitable servants (which I confess that in deed they are both to God & his Church as ever were any in the world) & that no man's good works altho' they proceed from the special grace of God can in any sort justify him before God, & that every Christian must so wholly rely upon the merits of Christ, that he believe also that no man can have any of his own even by the power & grace of God, & that he is bound to expect & hope for salvation without any such works or merits, merely by a sole & bare faith that his sins are remitted in jesus Christ, & this is an uncertain & by-way.  
Hear you see a plain confrontment of diverse particular points of controversy betwixt the Romanists & the reformers by way of affirmation & negation, & because I know that my adversary & I are not agreed of a judge of our cause, I for for my part remit myself to the indifferent reader as our only umpiere to determine of the matter not only for as much as concerns the contents of this particular section, but also of the whole work, who if he consider with due ponderation the proceed of both parties, & compare the sincere & plain dealing which I have used with the insincere and double dealing of my adversary, who hath so persevered in his indirect courses that even in the end & conclusion of his work he hath practised no small partiality and fraud in the rehearsal of the doctrine of the Roman Church, as particularly where he affirms that the Romanists teach that diverse traditions of faith and manners whereof there is no ground nor evidence in the scripture are to be reeeaved with equal reverence and respect with the scriptures themselves: and that they rely partly upon their own merits and satisfaction of Saints for their salvation and the like. I say if the judicious and unpartial reader duly ponder all the particulars, I doubt not but he will easily discern the house of truth and safe way to salvation to be where he finds honesty and plainness, and in the contrary the house of falsity & the by-way where he finds tricks & cousinage. And therefore the more to facilitate & rectify his judgement in the business I will reduce the whole argument of the knight's book to a form of syllogism in this manner.  
That Religion is a by-way leading the weak & unstable into dangerous paths of error which is founded upon colourable shows of Apochriphall scriptures, unwriten traditious, doubt full Fathers ambiguous Counsels and pretended Catholic Church.  
But the religion of the Church of Rome is founded upon colourable shows of apochriphal scriptures, unwritten traditions, doubtful father's ambiguous Counsels & pretended Catholic Church.  
Therefore the relgion of the Roman Church is a by-way leading the weak & unstable in to the dangerous paths of error.  
Now, the minor of this syllogism in which the whole force of the conclusion, and by consequence the whole scope and authority of the work depends, not only having been in the discourse of my anseere to every several section disproved for false & counterfeit, but also more appear to be such ex ipsis terminis even of itself by the terms & propositions of which it consists, to all such as shall consider it with due attention: I persuade myself the judicious reader will presently perceive & determine with himself that the author of the work hath quite failed of his project, & that by composing a by path with a sinister intention to father it Falsely upon his adversary's, he hath in stead of that, only framed an ingen for his own torment.  
And thus having attained not only to an accomplishment of mine own desires in finishing my labours, but also in some sort to a satisfaction of the request of my adversary in regard that at the least in show (as I perceive by the conclusion of his preface) he desireth nothing more than in ansere to his book; I now convert my speech unto him & tell him, that as now according to his own petition I have impartially read his book, & clearly & faithfully, yea & as moderately or more moderately than his own immoderate proceed require, discovered unto him not one or two but a multitude of errors, untruths, & corruptions, and false applications both of scriptures Counsels & particular authors as well ancient as modern: so do I in contemplation of the same expect from him the retractation which he promiseth upon condition his faults be shown unto him, which if he shall accordingly perform I will not only as he professeth with holy job of the ansere of his adversary, bind it as a Crown unto me, but also saying with the same renowned saint, I will read it & pronounce it at every step I make, yea and offer it to my understanding as a most princely present, earnestly praying in the mean time with the same job, ut desiderium meum audiat Omnipotens. That the omnipotent may here my desire of his reclamation & reduction to the most universally flourishing Catholic Roman faith.   

A SUPPLEMENT OF ADDITIONS TO THE APPPENDIX.  
I Have already noted diverse most foul corruptions and falsifications in Sir Humphrey linds pretended safe way in so much that I am almost quite surfeited with the multitude of them, yet in my opinion there is scarce any among all those which comes near to the false dealing and cousinage which the same Sir Humphrey useth in the 205. page of his Devia, which if it were for no other reason, yet for this a lone it might most justly deserve the name, not as it is falsely applied to the Romanists, but as it is his own proper work, which if the reader will but please to have a little patience, I will plainly set before his eyes.  
Wherefore Sir Humphrey in the place now cited undertaking to prove that transubstantiation wants antiquity, universality, and succession, having first cited some testimonies both out of Greek and Latin authors (which nevertheless are either of no force for his purpose, or else have been ansered partly by Bellarmin and other Catholic divines, and partly by myself in my Censure he stumbles last upon the late Patriarch of Cnnstantinople whom he also produceth to the same intent in the 10. and 13. chapters of his first anser to the Germans, affirming that this author teacheth what is meant by that change or transmutation made in the Sacrament, saying, he tells us: the body and blood of Christ are truly mysteries not that these, Metaballomena, are changed in to humane flesh but we unto them: thus Sir Humphrey so confidently as if he had been Greek Professor in Oxford he could have done no more. And in deed I must needs confess that this passage of his is able to make a great show especially bringing a Greek word in the midst of it.  
But now when I came to examen the matter in the book itself and conferred the Greek and the Latin together as I found it printed at witerberg a place void of all suscipition on our side, I found first that the author speaks so plainly of the real presence and transubstantiation, that altho' he useth not the very same word, yet doth he use other words equivalent, as, conversion, transmutation, or the like, at the least ten or a dozen times, only in those very chapters. Nay and more than this, I found that where he speaks of the conversion or transmutation he useth that very word Metavallo, which the knight denyeth him to use, where he dinieth the change of the body and blood in to humane flesh, which is a forceble argument a contrario that the Patriarch speaks of a real change wheresoever else in this matter he useth that word.  
Secondly. I found that those words which Sir Humphrey cities are not spoken by the Grecian Patriarch of the proper transmutation in the Sacrament, but of an other transmutation which belong only to the use of the Sacrament to wit, he saith and that verre truly, that when a faithful person receives the Sacrament, the body and blood which he receives are not changed in to humane flesh, but the receivers in to them. Non quod haec (saith the Patriarch) in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus his praevalentibus: and here it is that he useth the word Metaballomeva and denyeth it to be verified in this kind of mutation, speaking according to that which an ancient Father of the Church saith to the same purpose: Non tu mutaberis in me, sed ego mutabor in te. That is to say. O lord thou shalt not be changed in to me, but I in to thee. Which spiritual change or union the same Patriarch doth learnedly prosecute and declare with examples, not intending by that to exclude the real presence of Christ's body & blood in the Sacrament by transubstantiation (as Sir Humphrey would willingly persuade his simple reader but supposing and includeing the same as in diverse of his passages in these two chapters is most apparent, and particularly where he saith not fare before, ac quamdiu panis positus iacet, nihil nisi panis est repositus tantum Deo: postea verus panis fit & revera transmutatur, cuius rei ratio & modus nullo ingenio, nullo ore humano explicari potest. And page. 97. Honorabilia haec dora in ipsum Dominicum transmutantur corpus quod haec omnia recepit, scilicet quod crucifixum sit, quod resurrexit, quod in Caelos ascendit. the honourable gifts (he means the bread and wine) are changed into the lord's body itself &c. and in the precedent page, qui operationis sanctorum mysteriorum proprium hoc opus statuunt ut dona (intellige panem & vinum) in divinum Christi corpus & sanguinem, transmutentur, in finem hunc ut fideles sanctificentur, peccatorumque remissionem, regni haeriditatem, & id genus alia accipere credant, non tales beatos praedicamus?  
Thus the Patriarch so perspicuously that he who either understandes Greek or Latin yea or English either, may evidently see that the Patriarch is cited by our adversary evidently against himself, and quite contrary to his true meaning.  
Yet was not Sir Humfray content with that, but as a man running forward in madness to his own confusion he cities the same author in his former tenth chapter intending to prove out of him that it is not the real and substantial flesh of Christ which is offered but the Sacrament of his flesh, he tells us saith the knight, that the flesh of Christ which he carried about him was not given to his Apostles to be eaten, nor his blood to be drunk, neither doth the body of our lord descend from heaven for this were blasphemy, which words I confess the Patriarch hath (excepting these: in the Sacrament: Which are added to the text by Sir Humphrey) but as he hath them so hath he others omitted by our adversary the knight both before and after these, which clearly declare his mind touthing the real presence. The precedent words are these: Dominus enim illa nocte accepit panem gratias egit, fregit, & dixit, accipite & comedite. non dixit hoc est azinum, aut typus corporis, sed hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus: that is our lord that night took bread, gave thankes, broke it, and said, take and eat. He said not this is unleavined bread, or this is the figure of my body, but this is my body, this is my blood. And then immediately ensue the words cited by Sir Humphrey, after which also immediately follows: Sed & tunc, & nunc invocatione & gratia omnipotentis illius sacrorum rituum Antistitis Spiritus sancti, sacrarum precationum & divinorum oraculorum interuentum panis quidem in ipsum Domini corpus, vinum vero in ipsum Domini sanguinem convertitur & transmutatur. But both then and now by invocation and grace of that omnipotent Prelate of sacred rities the holy Ghost, by intervention of sacred prayers, and divine oracles, the bread truly is counuerted and changed into Christ's body itself, but the wine into to his blood.  
In which words the learned and prudent reader can not but see both the real presence and the conversion or change of the elements of bread and wine (which is nothing else but transubstantiation) into the body and blood of jesus Christ most plainly specified. Which may abundantly serve to demonstrate the truth of the Patriarches meaning, and that no man living excepting such a lad of mettle as the courageous knight would have had the face to make use or rather abuse of such a testimony as this, so quite opposite to his purpose, 
multa enim de illâ (Caena) audiuntur apud vas quae nobis displicent. jerem. Patriarch●…  especially the second place being taken out of that chapter in which the author himself in the beginning of the same doth expressly affirm, that there are many things maintained by the lutherans in the supper of our lord which displease the Grecians, one of which doubtless and not the least, is the point of transubstantiation which the Lutherans rejected in their remonstrance to the Greek Church, and jerimie the patriarch maintains in his anser to the same. To all which may be added yet more express words of the same Patriarch saying thus. Statuit igitur Catholica Ecclesia mutari conseeratione facta panem quidem in ipsum corpus Christi, vinum vero in ipsum sanguinem eius per spiritum sanctum etc. The Catholic Church therefore (saith he) defins that the consecration being made the bread is changed into the body of Christ but the wine into his blood by the holy Ghost etc. And it is to be noted that he useth the word Metavallomena in these places in which he speaks of the conversion or transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, which doth manifestly the monstrate the Grecian Patriarch to maintain that same change of the bread and wine in the consecration of the Eucharist which the Romanists in Latin call transubstantiation which is sufficient to convince the preposterousnes of the iniudicious knight in making use of this great Prelate for his own contrary position.  
Touching invocation of saints and their worship Sir Humphrey in the 232. page of his devious way alleges against the Romanists the confession of the Greek Church quoting in the margin the same Patriarch of Constantinople and relating his words in his anser to the Germane Doctors cap. 1. Where according to his relation, the Patriarch saith in the name of himself and fellows, that they do not properly invocate saints but God, for neither Peter nor Paul hear any of those that invocate them, but the gift and grace that they have according to the promise: I am with you till the consummation of the world. Thus the knight rehearses that author's words but yet corruptedly, for first the Patriarch hath not those negative words: We do not properly invocate saints, but this affirmative: invocation doth proporly agree to God only, and it doth agree to him primarily and most immediately (which words Sir Humphrey leaveth out) but invocation made to saints is not properly invocation but accidentally, and as if we should say by grace or favour: which latter words also the knight partly mangled and partly omitted.  
Secondly the Patriarch dot not say Peter and Paul do not hear their invocators but he saith: they do not exaudire, that is they do not hear and grant by their own power the petitions of those that invocate them. And there is so much betwixt audire & exaudire, that his hearing and granting that which is heard, that althou' the one undoubledly agreed to the saints both in the doctrine of the Grecian Church and the Roman: yet of the exaudition or hearing with a grant, doubt may be made even according to the doctrine of the Roman Church whether it is proper to saints or Noah, in regard it may be conceived that altho' the saints be truly intercessors between us and God, yet have they not power to grant out requests but only to mediate for us by way of impetration. And therefore the same author saith that Peter and Paul do not exaudire that is, not so hear us as they themselves grant our petition which they hear but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according or by the favour they have by virtue of the promise of our Saviour: I will be with you till the end of the world, as the Grecian Patriarch doth sufficiently declare. And that the Grecians do in general terms grant invocation of saints (which is that which both agrees with the Roman doctrine and differs from the doctrine of the pretended reformers) it is manifest not only out of this place but also out of other places of the Patriarches anser, as particularly in the 13. chapter pag 102. where it is said by him: that in the sacrifice or mass, mentionem beatissimae Virginis facimus, laudes eius praedicantes, intercessione sanctorum omnium petentes, misericordiam Dei implorantes pro vivis mortuisque supplicantes etc. And yet more plainly in the very 21. chapter cited by our adversary, where the Patriarch hath these words. Haec meditatio nunc in Ecclesia fit & depraedicatur, & ad sanctos exclamamus, & ad dominam nostram & ad sanctos Angelos: & ad dominam quidem nostram, tersancta domina Deipara pro nobis intercede peccatoribus: ad sanctos autem Angelos, omnes caelestes potestates sanctorum Angelorum, & Archangelorum orate pro nobis etc. This meditation is now made & preached in the Church: we both cry aloud to the saints and to our lady, and to the Angels: and to our lady truly, thrice holy lady mother of God intercede for us sinners. But to the holy Angeles all you, Celestial. Powers of holy Angels, and Algels pray for us etc. Lo hear the very same form of prayer to saints which the Romanist use: so that the reader may easily judge how preposteroussy Sir Humphrey hath proceeded in the citation of this author. And howsoever it is that the Grecians will not call this proper invocation of saints, yet that is but questio de nomine, a question only about the name or word invocation, which little imports supposing that in reality and substance they disegree not from the Romanists, but rather are most conformable unto them even in the manner of their interpellation.  
And besides this if we note the Lutherans words to the Patriarch, it will even thence manifestly appear what the Grecians defend touching his point. For say the Doctors: Non dubium est quin sit de sanctis reverenter sentiendum, & loquendum &c. non tamen sentimus eos esse invocandos ut sint nostri mediatores atque iutercedant apud Deum pro nobis qui iam mortui sunt. Which words of the Lutherans being those which they directly oppose against the doctrine of the Grecians in this particular, it is clearer than the leight of the sun that the Grecians agree with us, and be contrary to the tenets of Sir Humphrey and other sectaries of our times. And thus we see that altho' Sir Humfrey both in this and diverse other places of his books doth much labour to persuade the reader that the Grecian Church agrees with the pretended reformers and differ from us in doctrine of controversy, nevertheless his work will not fadge, it being manifest to them who have viewed the doctrine of their Patriarch in his foresaid anser to the lutherans, that excepting the point of the Pope's supremacy (in which nevertheless the Grecians do not in every respect agree with them) they do not fully join with the novelists of our age in any one of the questions in controversy betwixt us and them. And so I may conclude that Sir Humphrey not obstanding all the frauds and divises he hath used in labouring to make the Grecians seem to stand for his faction, he doth but only raze dust to molest and dasle his reader's eyes.  
More over the same Patriarch page 243. of his anser to the lutherans doth absolutely prnounce that saints are to be invocated for thus he saith. Ad haec nos ope divina respondemus invocandos esse sauctos quod ipsi etiam auxiliari pessint. And he addeth after ward. Nec id faciunt solum vivi sed etiam mortui. And a little lower he subjoineth. Inuocatione sanctorum daemones abiguntur, morbi fugantur, tentationes tolluntur etc. Also page 244. honorandi igitur sunt sancti tanquam amici Dei.  
In like manner touching the images of Saints he further addeth. A nobis etiam imaginibus ipsorum reverentium exhiberi, aut adorari nemo reprehendit. etc. That is, none of us reprehendeth that reverence, or adoration be exhibited to their images. Meaning of the Saints. And in the page following he saith in this manner. At (inquit aliquis) Deus dixit. Deum tuum adorabis & illi soli seruies: & non facies ullam similitudinem. He ansereth thus. Est vero ita; sunt hoec lege divina sancita, verumtamen qui hoc praecipit Deus, idem docet nos in deuteronomio. Non adorabis ipsa, non seruies. And page 254. So he speaks.  igitur qui non honorat filium (ut ait dominus) non honorat patrem: sic qui non honorat imaginem nec illum quem imago refert honorat. And in the same page. Qui non adorat Crucem, eum nequidem Dominum crucifixum adorare iustum est. Non quidem certe naturam ligni etc. Sed memoriam & picturam perpessorum etc.  
Finally of merit he saith thus. Haec & similia sunt ob quae homo regno coelesti dignus habetur. That is these & the like are these thing for which a man is held worthy of the celestial kingdom, thus much touching the abuse of the Grecian Patriarch by Sir Humphrey.  
But one of the grossest errors that I find committed by our adversary in the Doctrine of the latinists or Romanists, is in his page 234. where he hath these words. Others (as namely Antisiodorensis & Biel) teach that neither the Saints pray for us, neither are we to pray to them. Thus Sir Humphrey, further adding that he may safely conclude these and the like reasons considered that invocation of Sains wants antiquity, universality, & succession.  
And yet I having examined the matter & taken a view of the 30. Lection of Gabriel Biel which is the place the knight cities for his hallucination, I find that author expressly teacheth the affirmatives of both those negatives which he falsely affirms him and Antisiodore to maintain.  
Wherefore touching the first proposition, Biel in the place cited hath these words for his conclusion. Credendum est igitur & nullatenus dubitandum sanctos in patria intercedere nobisque suffragari merito, ac prece, sive voto. And for proof of the same he addeth thus. Quae veritas authoritate ostenditur & ratione, authoritate utriusque testamenti veteris & novi simul, & sanctorum Patrum. And before his conclusion he saith: fuit haeresis quorumdam, nimia temeritate omnem sanctorum cultum penitus tollere volentium qui nullum sanctis honorem impendi debere mussitabant, neque ullas ad eos preces dirigi, nec eorum reliquias venerari. Huius author & haeresiarcha primus fuit Jovinianus &c, Which words although they do sufficiently declare what this author holds of the second part of this point, yet doth he more expressly utter the same towards the end of this lection saying: ex quibus patet preces nostras spemque consequendae beatitudinis per mediatores sanctos in Coelo inanes non esse sed ordine à Deo iustituto nos ad eorum auxilia confugere debere & debita veneratione eos semper implorare. By all which words Biels' doctrine is foe plain for the Romanists, & so plain against Sir Humphrey that I am verily persuaded he either never read this author touching this particular, or if he read him, he did not understand him.  
And the like I say of Antisiodore who being in the same place cited, I find that he himself teacheth quite contrary to that which the knight chargeth him with. For whereas he is allegeth by Sir Humfrey in the 4. part of his sum lib. 3. q. 6. to resolve that neither the saints do pray for us, neither are we to pray to them: it is true Antisiodore relates the opinion of many who say that neither are we to pray to the saints nor they pray for us but only improperly, to wit because we pray God that the merits of his saints may help us, whence it is consequent that their merits may help us: Nevertheless for his own resolution of the question he puts the contrary proposition saying. Concedimus quod oramus Sanctos proprie, & ipsi orant pro nobis proprie, ut cum dicimus sancte Petre ora pro nobis, etc.  
We grant saith Antisiodore that we pray to the saints properly, & that they pray for us properly as when we say: Saint Peter pray for us. And now lo here how faithlessely the knight hath proceeded in his allegation of the testimonies of these two authors, who both so plainly conspire against him: & let the reader also consider how little reason our adversary had to conclude that invocation of saints hath neither antiquity, universality nor succession, supposing that he can conclude no other safety out of these and the like premises then such as proceeds from his own forgery & deceit.  
And altho' Gabriel cities an opinion of many others that grant the Saints do pray only improperly for us by mediation of their merits, yet do they not exclude all prayer to saints, as Sir Humphrey & the rest of his pretensive reformed brothers do, who if they would but grant the same, the Roman Church would not so much complain of them; neither is the difference of those Romanists from others in the substance of this question in controversy, which is whether the saints intercede & pray for faithful Christians living in this world, & whether we may pray unto them & invocate them, in both which parts of doctrine all Romanists agree, but these divines mentioned by Biel do dissent from the rest only about the manner of intercession which saints do use making a question whether they perform that charitable act by formal prayer made unto God for us or by interposition of their merits by that means to move his divine majesty to grant our requests, which manner of mediation as it is not the chief question betwixt our adversary of these times & us, so neither is it an argument of defect of antiquity, universality, or succession in the Roman doctrine, nor any proof of the same notes to concur in the tenets of the modern sectaries as Sir Humphrey doth falsely suppose & proveth not, but only equivocateth in the state of the question, or rather by affected ignorance transuersteth the meaning of the foresaid divines touching this point taking the manner for the substance of the matter, & so either throu' affected ignorance or plain malice diludes his reader. To let pass that altho' the foresaid authors do not grant that the saints use any formal or proper form of prayer to God for us, yet do they not defy our in vocation unto them. Nay supposing these divines of whose doctrine the knight would fain take hold as if it were contrary to the universality of the Roman faith: supposing I say as Sir Humphrey himself relates out of Gabriel they defend the mediation of saints by their merits at the least, if he had had is senses in readiness, he might easily have either inferred that those same authors in like manner hold that we may invocate & pray unto them even peoperly & formally: or at the least it is plain he neither ought nor could deduce the non invocation of saints from the foresaid mediation, as erroneously he doth, & consequently he greatly abuseth the maintainers of that opinion in that he produceth them against the universality, antiquity, and continual succession of the Roman doctrine in this particular; seeing they differ not a jot from other Catholic divines in it touching the substance of faith: yea they are so fare from this, that they expressly consent with them both in the doctrine of mediation & merits, both which points nevertheless the Novellists do obstinately impugn, so that it appeareth as a manifest truth that Sir Humphrey can not possible with all his art & devices scrape any thing out of them for the antiquity, universality, & succession of his pretensive reformed congregation, but rather that which doth quite destroy it if he had his dyes about him to perceive it.  
To the words cited by Sir Humphrey page 263. concerning images; Biel subjoineth these. Nec tamen propter haec imagines proijciendae sunt aut de oratorijs eliminandae occasione idololatriae devitandae, aut peregrinationes ad certas imagines vel certa loca praesertim consecrata vel etiam consecranda penitus reprehendenda, non enim usque quaque negandum est quin in certis locis singulariter reluceant beneficia & maiora crebrius quam in alijs vel propter imagines sanctorum, reliquias ibi conditas, vel occulta ministeria (alias mysteria) futuris temporibus ibi celebranda aut celebrata vel alias causas nobis occultas propter quas Deus unum locum elegit suo cultui, non alium,  
Thus much Biel in can. missae sec. 49. Which words nevertheless are slyly omitted by Fir Humphrey, & his friend Cassander, which other wise are so plain for the Catholic practice in this matter even at this day, that they confounded them both. And this is their false plot which they used to make this most Catholic author seem to favore their ill cause, whereas in reality he is plainly against them.  
Page 152. of the by-way, Canus is cited by Sir Humphrey lib. 3. cap. 3. And falsely alleged as if he gave a reason wherefore traditions are above scriptures. For he only affitmes that they are of greater force to convince haeretikes then scriptures, that which in substance was taught long since by ancient Tertullian & is no blemish unto the written word of God, which in other respects both the same Canus & all other Romanists at the least equalise yea prefer before the unwritten doctrine of the Church in general.  
In his citation of Canus page 399. of his by way, Sir Humphrey puts the objection as if it were the doctrine of the author who propoundeth & ansereth the same in his last chapter of the first book, sharply reprehending Pighius out of whose opinion the objection is framed by Canus & reproved. Although he insinuates with all that the error of Pighius. Is not in matter of faith & doctrine necessity to salvation, which is that only which Canus professeth to maintain in the defence of the authority of Counsels, Nos enim in dogmate fidei & deeretis ad salutem fidelium necessarijs Conciliorum authoritatem asserimus: in rerum gestarum iudicio & ordine non asserimus. Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. vlt. ad sep. argumentum.  
When Costerus pag. 44. of his Enchir. prefers traditions before the word of God: he takes tradition as it is written in carnal tables of the heart by the finger of the holy spirit: & on the contrary he takes the written word of God precisely as it consists in letters & characters which may perish or be corrupted by the false construction of heretics, or otherwise. And therefore Costerus calls the first internal, the second external scriptures in the margin of the same page 44.  
And when the same costerus citcd by Sir Humphrey page. 149. of his Devia, in the first chapter of his Euchyr. saith these words. praestantia huius scripturae etc. the excellency of this scripture doth surpass the scriptures multis partibus, in many respects or by many degrees those scriptures which the Apostles left us in partchement, he doth not speak of the unwritten tradition of the Church, but of that scripture which (as afterwards he declareth) Spiritus sanctus in cordibus imprimere dignatus est, that is which the holy spirit doth digne or vouchsafe to imprint in our hearts. Which as he speaks before in the same chapter, is nothing else but the spirit of consent of the Catholic Church in faith, and the concording doctrine of all faithful Christians, not of those only which now live in the whole world, but those also who by continual succession have propagated the faith of Christ from the time of the Apostles which is that Scripture which the Apostle saith 2. cor. 3. is read by all men, and the unction. quaest. 2. Io. 2. docet nos de omnibus etc. which teaches us all things, which as he further addeth afterwards hath all truth in itself and containeth all faith and mysteries of Christian religion, and resolves all doubts which may arise in matter of faith, and so costerus compareth not the unwritten word with the written precisely but the internal with the external, which internal scripture is justly preferred by him before the bare written word or character, because as he takes it here it includes the true sense of both the one and the other: by which it appears that the exceptions which Sir Humphrey takes at this author's words are captious and void of reason.  
Vrspergensis is produced by Sir Humphrey page 400. of his devia as a witness that the second council of Nyce or seventh general synod assembled in the year 788. was rejected in the council of Francford as utterly void and not to be named the seventh. And yet having examined this passage in that author, I found he speaks not a word of the Nycene council but of a cettaine council of Constantinople which he affirms to have been called the seventh synod general by the Emperatrice Irene and her son Constantine: his words are these. Sinodus etiam qua ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli congregata sub Irene & Constantino filio eius septima & universalis ab ipsis appellata est, ut nec septima nec aliquid diceretur quasi superuacua ab omnibus (nimirum patribus Concilij Francfordiensis) abdicata est. Vrsperg. pag. 176. in which words of what soever Council urpergensis intended to speak, yet none of them mention the Council of Nyce as all those who understand latin may easily perceive. And if Sir Hunfrey will reply and say that tho' that author doth not mention the Nycene Council in words, yet doth he sufficiently declare his meaning to be of no other Council than the seeond Nycene Synod in regard he affirms it to have been under Irenne and her son, and the same which was condemned in the Council of Francford, I anser that by reason this author doth utter two things which seem to imply contradiction to wit that this Council was assembled at Constantinople and yet that it is the same which was rejected by the Council of Francford, it evidently followeth that no certain argument can be drawn from his words whatsoever his meaning was, and this is sufficient to show that he is cited in vain by the knight.  
Secondly I say not obstanding uspergensis hallucination, and suppose he did truly mean that the Council of Nyce concerning the adoration of images was reproved by the Synod of Francford, as some other authors admit in their disputations with the sectaries of our times, yet doth this nothing avail our adversary's cause both in respect the Synod of Francford is not accepted by the Romanists for an authentical Council in this particular, as also for that (as some opinate) it proceeded upon false information, and persuasion that the foresaid Synod of Nyce had decreed that images were to be adored with divine honour, and by this means the Fathers and doctors there assembled were deceived and committed an error of fact. Which error nevertheless neither can nor aught to prejudice that doctrine which was before established by an authentical general Council as was the second Synod consisting of a happy conjunction of both the latin & Grecian Church as of sune and moon. And the reader may see that Sir Humphrey hath both dealt some thing insincere in the allegation of Vspergensis, and also hath proceeded preposterously in that he endeavoured to infringe the authority of the greater Council by the uncertain proceeding of the less.  
Page 261. of the same devia he detortes the S. Irenaeus words contrary to his meaning against Apostolical traditions. And yet S. Irenaeus even in the words which are cited by him, speaks only against those who denied absolutely that the truth is delivered by the Scriptures but only by tradition, and so made themselves or their onwe traditions the rule of faith. Of which number of hererikes saith he were Valentinus Martion, Cerinthus, Basilides, of whom he uttered the words cited by Sir Humphrey, as affirming that the truth could not be found by Scriptures by those who were ignorant of traditions for say they: the truth was not delivered by writing but by word of mouth, yet notobstanding this the same Irenaeus afterwards speaks against others who do not deny scriptures, or rather against such as follow scriptures only and reject traditions received from the Apostles by succession of priests and conserved or observed in the Church saying that they have found the pure truth. (as the pretended reformers now commonly babble) of whom he saith that They neither consent to scriptures nor tradition, and against whom (saith the saint) we ought every way to resist. So that it is clear that he disputes here only against such heretics as neither yielded to scriptures nor traditions, and therefore he putteth for the little of his chapter in this place quod neque scripturis neque traditionibus obsequantur haretici: that heretics neither obey scriptures nor traditions: both which S. Irenaeus doth expressly embrace.  
And by this let the reader judge how intempestively the knight doth produce this testimony against those (I mean the Romanists) who neither reject the scriptures nor approved traditions but like two individed companions receive them both: and let him also consider whether the doctrine of holy Irenaeus in this place be not fare more contrary to the tenet of the pretended reformers then to the doctrine of the Roman Church: who make only scriptures expounded according to their own sense the sole rule of faith. Especially considering that the same ancient Father in the next ensuing chapter doth expressly receive Apostolical traditions saying in the very first words: traditionem itaque Apostolicam in toto mundo manifestam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera volunt audire, & habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesijs & successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur. By which words it is manifest that S. Irenaeus doth confute his adversaries the heretics not by scripture only, but also & chiefly by traditionary authority of the Bishops succeeding from the Apostles: which is directly opposite to the tenets especially of the purer sort of novelists who neither admit traditions nor Episcopal authority but the only written word for absolute and sole judge of all Controversies & confutation of heresies.  
Caietan in his Commentary upon the historian books of the old Testament (as I am persuaded) doth not plainly affirm (neither doth Canus charge him with that error) that the books of Machabies are not absolutely Canonical, as Sir Humphrey allegeth but he only reprehendeth him for using a vain distinction of Canonical scriptures as if there were some Canonical only for instruction of manners and not for matters of faith: against the infirmity or unsoundness of which distinction Canus useth this reprehensive conclusion saying. Cum sub eodem contextu omnes illi libri nullo facto discrimine definiantur esse Canonici (scilicet Ecclesiasticus. Sapientia, Tobias, judith, Machabaeorun libri duo, & Baruch) ridiculum est ut partim in una significatione partim in alia libros Cenonicos habeamus. Ac si hanc semel distinctionem admittimus authoritate Conciliorum atque Pontificum nullus liber Sacer constare poterit.  
And presently after Id quoniam absurdum omnino est, retineamus potius eam rationem oportet quam Caietanus voluit evertere vir (ut saepe iam dixi) cum primis eruditus & pius, sed qui in libris Canonicis constituendis Erasmi novitates ingeniumque secutus, dum alienis vestigijs voluit insistere propriam gloriam maculavit. And so you see Canus doth not confess that directly Caietan maintained the Machabies not to be Canonical but only with that distinction: neither did in deed Caietan more deny the authority of those books than he did the Epistle to the hebrews, & that of S. james which nevertheless he held absolutely for Canonical tho' not perhaps in the same rigorous sense in which he judged all the rest of the books of scripture to be in the Canon, by reason those, as also some other parts of scripture, have been by some ancient authors doubted of, in which doubt only he seemeth to found his distinction.  
Touching the Canonical books of the old Testament Sir Humphrey doth most falsely allege the authority of S. Isidore persuading his reader that he rejecteth those same books which he and his companions in the new religion condemn for Apochriphas. Weras in deed that ancient author numbereth them all in the Christian Canon. And to the end the knight's impudency may more plainly appear I will rehearse S. Isidores express words concerning the same who in his 6. book of origenes or etymologies saith thus. Quartus est apud nos ordo veteris Testamenti eorum librorum qui in Canone Haebreo non sunt: quorum primus sapientiae liber est. Secundus Ecclesiasticus. Tertius Tobias. Quartus Judith. Quintus & Sextus Machaboeorum. Quos licet Haebraei inter Apochrypha separent, Ecclesia tamen Christi inter divinos libros & honorat & praedicat. By which words it is so evident that this holy Father stands for the Romanists and against the pretensive reformers in this point; that I much marvel how Sir Humphrey could have the face to produce him in favour of his cause. Nay more than this out of the distinction which he maketh between the the Hebrews & us Christians in receiving the foresaid books for Canonical, I frame a firm conjecture that either all or most of these ancient authors who seem to exexclude them out of the Canon, do only intent to declare that they were not included in it by the jews as S. Hilary. S. Hierome, & S. Epiphanius & other authors: concerning which point the reader may please to read the same S. Isidore in lib. Prooemiorum de libris veteris, & novi Testamenti.  
In the 431. page of his by-way the knight abuseth Canus whom he there cities lib. 12. cap. 13. For he fosteth in by a parenthesis of his own the word real which neither Canus hath, nor yet putteth the force of his reprehension of the bishop of Bitont in that he affirmed in the Council of Trent that Christ did not offer his real body in his last supper, but because he affirmed that Christ did not offer his own body absolutely, abstracting from real or not real, the question not being in that passage of the real presence, but of the Sacrifice of Christ's body & blood in the Eucharist, which as it seems by Canus relation the foresaid Bishop in the discussion of this point by way of proposition was of that private dictamen, how be it after wards he willingly conformed himself to the rest of the Fathers & to the decree of the Council. By which it is plain that this Bishop was not of any firm & settled opinion which might favour Sir Humfreys doctrine in that particular. Illud primum animaduerto iure Cornelium Episcopum Bitontinum in Conelio apud Tridentinum à Patribus & Theologis universis explosum qui dixerit Christum in Coena non suum corpus & sanguinem obtulisse. 
Canus loco citato.  And so you see this is one of Sir Humfrey's pretty petty tricks which omong other greater will serve to replenish his pages.  
The knight also in his 157. page of his devia corrupteth the same author cited in his third book & third chapter. Where for these words, in sacrificio Eucharistiae simul cum corpore sanguinem sacerdotibus esse conficiendum, & sumendum &c. Sacrae litterae nusquam forte tradiderunt: he translates, the consecrating & receiving of ehe body, & blood of Christ by the priest etc. Are nowhere happily to be found in scripture. In which passage the attentive reader may easily see that the knight playeth the juggler most nimblely. For whereas Canus putteth the force of his sentence in the words simul together, or at once, & in the other word sumendum, making an hipotheticall proposition of all his words joined together: our crafty Circulator so handleth the matter that his reader may imagine that Canus affirmed that the consecration of the Eucharist according to the custom of the Roman Church is not found in the bible. That which that author never dreamt, but only intended to produce as an instance of Apostolical traditions that copulative of the practice of the priests consecrating & actual receiving both the body & blood at one & the same time in the use of the Eucharist, which Canus supposeth rather to be a tradition then expressly contained in the text of scripture.  
More over Sir Humphrey cities Gretzerus but only twice: first in his defence of the tenth chapter of the third book of Bellarmin de verbo Dei pag. 15. And of his own by way page 503. And secondly in the same Gretzers' defence of the first chapter of the first book of Bellarmine verbo Dei.  
In the first place he abuseth that author in that he produceth him to prove that the Church is finally resolved in to the Pope as head & body of the same. And yet in the very same chapter page 1456. & next leaf Gretzer plainly teacheth that our faith is lastely resolved in to divine revelation, or in to God revealing or that which is the same in to the prime verity in which our faith is founded. His words are these in latin. Name sides nostra ultima resoluitur in revelationem divinam seu in Deum revelantem seu quod idem est in primam veritatem qua & nititur fides nostra tanquam fundamento paimario tametsi non inficior fidem quoque resolui in Ecclesiam seu Ecclesiae propositionem, although I do nor deny that faith is resolved in to the Church, or the proposition of the Church: etc. Immediately after this he saith. Sed haec resolutio non est omnivo ultima & in principium plane substantiale & essentiale: sed tantum ut in fundamentum secundarium seu ut in conditionem sine qua fides neque recipitur neque retinetur. And even in these words by the knight, the Pope alone is not put by Gretzerus for the whole Church, but he doth only say, he denyeth not that the Romanists understand by the Pope the Church in one acception, not absolutely. Which is manifest out of his words in the precedent page where he saith: Intelligimus etiam nomine Ecclesiae Pontificem pro tempore viventem quod ipse congregare & convocare potest Concilium, & hunc summi Pastoris & aliorum Praesulum caetum dicimus esse immediatum & ordinarium & visibilem omnium Controversiarum quae de religione existunt judicem. By which words it is apparent that Gretzerus doth not take the Pope's person alone for the head & body of the Church, but for the head of the body of the Church. How be it I do not deny but that the Pope as head & chief part of the whole Church may by a senecdoche be taken for the whole Church as he is accepted both by Gretzer and other divines, but yet this acception will nothing profit Sir Humphrey whose wise design in this place is to persuade his simple reader that the Romanists take the Pope alone without a general Council truly and properly for the whole Roman & Catholic Church which is his own phamtasticall dream, not our doctrine.  
In the other place Sir Humphrey plainly falsifyeth this author, for whereas Gretzerus only redargueth his adversaries who falsely affirms that what soever the devil suggesteth to this or that Pope in particular even against manifest scripture, the Romanists receive it for God's word, saying, that these things be crepitacula nugantium Praedicantium, the clappers of prating preachers, & that in truth we Romanists only receive & reverence for the word of God that which the chief Bishop doth by Cathedral definition propose unto us as the supreme master & judge of controversies: Sir Humphrey by fraudulent displaceing of the word only & putting it before the word of God, quite pervertes the sense making his reader believe that Gretzer affirms, that only to be the word of God which the Pope proposeth, and as if they held not the scripture itself to be God's word; the contrary of which nevertheless the jesuit delivers immediately before in express terms saying that, it (meaning the scripture) is had & reverenced by the Pontificians for the word of God which is so well known that the impudency of the Predicants can not deny it. And thus much touching the corruption & abuse of Gretzere by the calumnious knight.  
Moreover whereas Sir Humphrey cities Castro in his 12. book as affirming the denial of Purgatory to be a most notorious & known error of the Grecians & armenians, that author is abused by him, for he means only of the modern Grecians not of the ancient Grecian Fathers, as the knight gives his reader to understand, falsely applying Canus words page 181. to the Greek Church of the first ages, so that here is plain forgery.  
In like fashion in his 536. page of the Devia, he falsifyes the same author lib. 1. cap. 9 For where Castro saith: quamuis enim teneamur ex fide credere verum Petri successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae pastorem, for those words quamuis teneamur that is, altho' we are bound, Sir Humphrey translates, admit we are bound to believe that point, as if Castro had doubted of it, of which nevertheless he makes not any question, but only saith, men are not obledged to believe by faith that this or that particular person is true Pope. Neither yet doth he deny that every Pope hath infallibility in a reight line of succession from S. Peter as the knight doth falsely tax him: but he affirms only that it is not a matter of faith so to believe of every Pope in particular. And therefore he addeth that altho' he were not to be accounted an heretic that should deny obedience unto this or that particular Pope, to wit Clement or Leo, yet should he not for doubt of his election sustract himself from his obedience. And so we see that here his no other argument then of want of honest dealing in our adversary.  
And yet in his 21. section of the devia page 551. he traduceth the same Alfonsus as if he had scoffed at the Dominicans in general for that they were wont to brag before the people that he that hath once received their habit can not err or fail in fairh. Where it is true that Castro reprehends sharply, & not without reason, some particular religious men that used such speeches, but he is so fare from saying they are Dominicans, that he expressly adds that least he should seem to tax the whole order he purposely concealed the name. Ne hoc toti ordini ac societati impressisse videar nomen ordinis ex industria subticui. & this he did of Charity. But Sir Humphrey contrarily is so fare from the exercise of that great virtue that he will needs make Castro to impose that upon a whole order which he meant only of some particular person of persons. Which is a trick of a juggler thou ' a very poor one. Neither can I conceive, except it were by revelation, how Sir Humphrey came to know that Castro spoke of the Dominicans more than of any other religious order, but let that pass for one of his great miracles.  
Touching the marriage of priest's cassander is corrupted by Sir Humfrey in the 23. art. of his consult. p. 990. where for antiquae consuetudinis immutandae, he putteth in English, the change of the law, and so leaving out the word ancient as also the words prisci moris, which signify the custom of celibate to have been no new law as he would falsely persuade her reader, but established in ancient times. And more than this he fosteth in to his translation the word necessary in steed of flagitare videntur, And thus like a bungling boteher he patcheth together those uncertainties of Cassander to make himself and others a deceitful safeguard of greater comfort and benefit for the soul which he erroneously supposeth rather to be in his misreformed faith them in the Romish. And now how unfaithful, weak, & poor proceeding of Sir Humphrey this appears to be, let the indicious reader consider.  
The knight moreover traduceth Bellarmin in the preface to his book de Romano Pont. translating in every place for Graeci, the Greek Fathers, as if the Cardinal did confess that the ancient and most famous Greek Fathers to wit S. Chrysostome, S. Basil Epiphanius and others did impugn and resist the supremacy of the Bishop of Roman. Whereas it is plain Bellarmin meaneth only such Grecians as sat in the Council of Chalcedon who frandulently defined in absence of the Pope's legates, that the Patriarch of Constantinople is so the second after the Roman Bishop as that yet he hath equal privileges, whence Sir Humphrey will needs infer that the supremacy of the Pope wants succession: as if the Pope's resistance to this attempt of usurpation in those Grecians were sufficient to extinguish a true and estblished succession of all former times.  
In his page 104. of the devia touching Salmeron the knight falsely affirms out of chamier that he speaks in the person of the Grecians when he uttereth those words. For as much as the benedictton of the lord is not fuperfluous etc. For Salmeron neither mentions Grecians nor Latinists but only argues for the second opinion which he putteth of those which seem to hold that Christ did not consecrate his body and blood with those words. This is my body. But whose soever those words be the matter is not great, yet certain it is that Sir Humphrey dealeth falsely and deceitfully in that he produceth them and Salmeron to prove that the grand point of transubstantiation (as he pleaseth to term it) hath neither foundation in the scriptures, nor certainty in the Fathers, nor unity among the Romanists whenas neither those words of Salmeron are spoken to prove that the grand point of transubstantiation (as he pleaseth to term it) hath neither foundation in the scriptures, nor certainty in the Fathers, nor unity among the Romanists. When as neither those words of Salmeron are spoken to any other end but only to confirm the opinion of such as hold that out Saviour did not consecrate with those words: This is my body. Howbeit, both he and they agree most uniformly in that how soever Christ himself did whose power being infinite was not tied to any words at all for the effecting that which he intended no more than he was in the operation of miracles & particularly in the miraculous transubstantiation of water in to wine in the marriage feast of Cana: yet Priests who are but his substitutes or instruments in that sacred action do undoubtedly consecrate with those determinate words: This is my body, in which all Romanists yea & Grecians (excepting some modern Grecians whoe add some other deprecatory words) do consent & unanimously accord. Where upon Salmeron before he comes to rehearse opinions touching that point whether Christ himself did consecrate with these formal words, saith plainly. Illud igitur tanquam certum & constitutum est apud omnes hanc fuisse nobis formam consecrationis praescriptam, & iure divino institutam ac nobis traditam. Which words sufficiently declare that there is no incertainty among the Romanists about the foresaid words of consecration: Nay & if there were that incertainty among divines about the form of the Eucharist which Sir Humphrey pretendeth, yet doth it not follow that the Doctrine of transubstantiation is uncertain supposing that both Salmeron & all the same divines agree that the bread and wine are truly transsubstantiated or turned in to the body & blood of Christ, & consequently this author is impertinently alleged as having nothing for the knight's purpose. Besides that part of the words which he cities out of Salmeron whether they be the Grecians or not, they include clearly the doctrine of transubstantiation, to wit those in particular, when he grave it transmutation was already made: & so the unwary knight hath allege this passage against himself. For if the change of the bread & wine was made before Christ gave the Sacrament to his disciples, the Romanists have their desire & intent, that Christ did truly transsubstantiate the elements, it importing little to this question by what means he performed his action.  
Page 547. of his devia the knight corrupts Salmeron by a mangled relation & false construction of his words which he produceth to prove that some Romanists & particularly Salmeron hold the Pope's judgement infallible. But how soever it be that some Roman divines hold the Pope's authority even without a general Council infallible in determining controversies in matters of faith, & others the contrary which as Bellarmin noteth is no matter of faith. Yet certain it is that Salmeron is here abused by Sir Humphrey for that in this place cited (what soever he doth in others) he rather attributes all infallibility in resolving & declaring matters of controversy, chiefly to the assistance & power of the holy spirit, then either to the Pope or Church. His words are these. Neque haec sunt satis nisi accedat unctio & eruditio Spiritus Sancti quem Dominus mansurum nobiscum in aeternum, qui & in generalibus synodis, & in Christi Vicario & Petri successore residens omnes incidentes quaestiones & ortas de fide contronersias sua authoritate terminet atque absoluat. Thus Salmeron prologom. 9 can. 1. Where the reader may perceive that the knight hath either ignorantly or maliciously applied the relative qui to the Pope, which nevertheless is referred by Salmeron to the holy Ghost. As any Grammar boy that understands latin, may eassely perceive. And yet blind Sir Humphrey who not being yet a perfect Grammarian, will needs play the Doctor of divinity, englisheth & rehearseth Salmerons' words thus. The lord promised his Spirit to Christ's Vicar & the successor of Peter & by his authority the determins all matters of faith. Let the reader compare the english with the latin & he will presently discover the fraud.  
S. Isidor Pelusiota writ the Epistle cited by Sir Humphrey page 630. to a monk named Zenon, complaining unto him of want of virtue & corruption of manners in the Church in comparison of the primative times, all which that holy man affirms to proceed from dissension & wickedness or malice of these who govern especially of priests thou ' not of all: but he hath not a word of the Pope, or of any defect, or of the latency or invisibility of the Church which our adversary professeth to prosecute in that his section.  
And this which I say is made plain by the last clause or conclusion of the epistle which is this. At tu ò conspicue Ecclesiae alumne ne ad eos qui naufragio pereunt animum attendas nec cum segnibus & ignavis teipsum compares: verum scientiae lumen splendidius, subinde red per vitae probitatem ac virtutem ipsum irrigans. Atque sponsum expecta ingressum quidem cum ijs qui animis & corporihus virgins sunt. De ijs autem qui virginitatis & sucerdotis dignitati per flagitia sua contumeliam intulerunt, supplicium sumpturum. By which words it is plain here is nothing of any reformation in Faith made or yet desired in those days which is that Sir Humphrey aimeth at. Nor is there any word which favours luther's pretended reformation of the Church. Nevertheless if Sir Humphrey and his consociates could but pick us out one half dozen of such chaste and religious monks as these, out of all the several Congregations of their illuminate brothers since the days of Luther, then would we most willingly give licence unto them to reform the Church at their pleasures.  
Sir Humphrey in the 24. chapter of his devia cities a great number of Romanists with intention to prove the invisibility of the Church: & the medium he useth for his proof be the testimonies of those authors who acknowledge abuses to have been in the Church in their several ages even till the days of luther: & who signify in their writings that they have desired reformation of such abuses. Out of which holting premises Sir Humphrey inferreth this crooked conclusion to wit that Luther was the man that made the so long wished reformation. Which illation as the reader may easily perceive is as lame as her parents, neithet is that consequens any more necessary than that Mahomet was the reformer of the Church because at the same time and before he founded his sect there were perhaps some things which wanted amendment. And yet much less can any man imagine how out of those two propositions viz that diverse learned and pious people complained of abuses and corruption of manners and desired redress, therefore the Church was latent and obscure or invisible, or yet further that that latent and obscure Church was the Church of the pretended reformers, or that those zealous and godly persons who so complained in several ages, were members of the same, and not rather virtuous and religious Romanists as in deed they were, all which inferences because Sir Humphrey neither doth nor can possible prove to be sound and legitimate, therefore he hath spent much time in vain in that he maketh a large rehearsal of the speeches of such authors as have noted the common and public vices of their days, which and the like sins and abuses no Romanist ever denied but they may be even in the members of three true visible Church.  
Now to come to particulars to the end the folly of our adversary may more plainly appear I will examen some passages which he citeth out of Gerson which being those which seem most plausible for his cause when the reader shall see them declared and rectified, he will without any more exact discussion be able to judge of others of less appearance and colour.  
I confess that Gerson was free in his speeches as being a zealous and plain man, and a sharp represender of vices, nevertheless I find not in his writings but that he was an humble acknowledger of the Pope's authority yea and an earnest defender of those points of doctrine which luther and the rest of the pretended new reformants hold for errneous and false opinions, for superstions and idolatry. As the use of images, prayer to saints, Purgatory, the seven Sacraments, the real presence and the rest of the matters in controversy between us and then: 
de numero Sacramentorum sciendum quod septem sunt Gers. 2. part. Act. 26.  as his works printed at Strasburg in four parts or tomes declare, neither did he ever desire any reformation in the substance of these particulars, how be it I deny not but that as he might find some abuses in the practice of the same, so might he also wish for amendment of them, but this is not contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Romanists but most conformable to the same, whoe as they confess that some things deserving correction may creep in to the particular members of the Church yea and into the head and chief pastor himself, so do they not only desire but also procure reformation of the same by all direct and lawful means. And so whatsoever Gerson saith in this nature if it be not detorted to a sense contrary to the true meaning of the author (as here it is by Sir Humphrey) the Romanists most willingly embrace it as profitable to the souls of many and for the good of the universal Church.  
It is true Gerson speaks something harshly and by excess when he saith: even as we see in like manner in some country's touching censures and laws invented about particular observances or rules not necessary to salvation which are often times preferred before the laws of God and of the Gospel, And this same we see mânifestely in the decrees and decretals. whence it is that some times a monk is more severely punished for going without his hood then for committing adultring or sacrilege, and he that offends against one of the Pope's commandments than he that sins against one of the commandments of God, and the Euangell, according to that reprehension of our Saviour: you have frustrated the commandments of God for the traditions of men.  
In an other place the same Gerson complains of the abuses and sins of friars, Nuns, and priests of the great variety of images which he bids the reader consider whether they be not occasion of idolatry in the simple people: of the canonisation of new saints and religious orders, of which he saith there are to many already, and that the feasts of the new saints are more religiously observed then the feasts of the Apostles, of Apocrypsall Scriptures and prayers, superstitious opinions of obtaining remission of sins by saying so many Pater nosters in such a Church before such an image. And in his treatise de Concil. Gen. unius obedientiae he saith thus: if the Church may not be reform according to the state in which it was in the time of Christ and his Apostles, yet at least it should be borough to the state it was in the time of Pope sylvester.  
In an other place Gerson as it were by way of complaint saith in hac tempestate (meaning in that season in which he lived) he did see, matters standing as they did, that scarce any due determination or speedy and free execution of justice was found in doctrine appertaining to faith, religion, to good and hoalsome manners, unless it were by strong favour of the secular power.  
This is that in substance which Sir Humfrey allegeth out of Gerson yea an something more than he himself produceth: And yet nevertheless as the reader may easily understand there is nothing agreeable to the reformation of Luther and Caluin. For Gerson only reprehends, and that justly, some particular persons in some particular countries and in some particular observations, which so exactly and rigorously observe their rules & laws & so exorbitantly estreeme of them that they often times by indiscreet zeal are more diligent in performing them then they are in keeping the laws of God, and that they some times punish more severely a religious person offending against one of those monastical rules or statutes, or against one of the Pope's precepts, or laws of the decretals, or others, than they punish him who committeth adultery or sacrilege. Where as those two false reformers Martin and john were not content with this, and to procure a reformation in some particular persons, rules, and statues, but they took away all monastical observations either of vow, rule, or constitution, and extingnissed all Ecclesiastical laws both of the Pope and Church as much as lay in their power violating, everting, and razing the very buildings of religious houses and consuming by fire the books of the decretals and whole Canon laws, quite destroying that and much more by rage and fury which Gerson out of a pious & Christian zeal only wished to have amended.  
Gerson complained of the evil life of fryres and nuns with desire to have them reform and reduced to the observation of their ancient rules and constitutions, only excepting against the multiplicie and variety of religious orders: 
suntque per haec caelestia tonitruasublata prohibita & damnata omnia istius generis vota penitissimè. Lut. tom. 2. fol. 272.  But those companions in impiety Luther and Caluin would have all religious and monastical discipline wholly extinguished as Sacrilegious damnable, and contrary to the law of God using opprobrious speeches against all Religious persons & their profession.  
Gerson took to consideration whether the multitude and variety of images might not be occasion of idolatry in the simple people yet did not he reprove the due honour of them: But our new reformers or rather deformers either will have no images at all in Churches as Caluinists, or at the least they will not have them honoured with religious reverence as Lutherans, reproving all kind of veneration or worship of them as superstitious and idolatrous.  
Gerson only reprehended the excess (as he apprehended) in the canonisation of so many new saints & the more religious observation of there's feasts then of the feasts of the Apostles by some particular persons or Churches: but these two profane fellows allow not of any religious celebration of the feasts of either ancient or modern saints neither of Apostles nor Evangelists, neither of confessers nor martyrs, making account only of the sabaoth day (as they commonly call the sunday) in that nature: also holding the canonisation of no saints for either necessary, laudable, or authentical desiring rather their memories should be extingiushed then reverenced. Gerson likewise comdemneth instely superstitions commited by particular persons in the worship of saints, & vain observations, & over great credulity given by them to every passage recounted in some inauthentichall legends, yet admitting & defending due & moderate honour of saints & the authentical & true histories of their lives: But our pretended reformers reject all religious honour of Saintcts & hold the relations of their lives & miracles for Apocryphal & fabelous at the least of modern saints.  
Gerson defended the Roman doctrine of indulgences most catholicly as his treatise of that matter doth testify, 
Indulgentiarum concessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectenda devote, & in fide spe & charitate Domini nostri jesu Christi qui potestatem lium clavium Ecclesiasticarum dedit hominibus Gerson p. 2. act. 23.  and only taxed some particular pardons of sins as he relates, for saying so many pater nosters in such a Church, before such an image, calling them superstitious opinions and frivolous additions as having never been approved by the Roman Church: But our new doctors & masters Luther & Caluin utterly condemn all sorts of Indulgence granted by the Pope yea and the power of the Church to grant them.  
Gerson speaking only of some vicious Ecclesiastical persons reprehends priests for that under the pretence of maids they keep concubines yet plainly supposing the law of Celibate or single life of clergy to have been in use in and before his times as a thing laudable and fitting for their vocation: 
& quoniam assidue nostri sacerdotes sacris occupantur mysterijs quid divinius quam ut continua polleant castitate. Gers. 2. part. dialog. de celib. Act. 4  But those two luxurious imps the one a professed friar, the other a vowed priest, according to their new reformation teach it lawful and laudable for priests not obstanding their vows of chastity, to change the state of chastity in to the state of marriage they being the first that gave example of that sacrilegious action and leading the dance themselves.  
Gerson complains that Cathedral Churches are made dens of thiefs, and consecrated monasteries markets & Inns: But by the followers of Luther and Caluin, those holy cloisters are not only made markets and Inns, but even stables and hogstyes, & Cathedral Churches as it were common burses or exchanges for relation of news and negotiations, in which manifold injustices and illicit contracts are plotted and accorded to the great profanation of the house of God ordained for only prayer, service, and Sacrifice, so that if Gerson were now alive doubtless he would rather tax the pretended reformers in this nature then those Catholic profaners of his own times.  
Gerson bids inquiry to be made if there be not Apocryphal Scriptures, and prayers introduced in the Church to the great prejudice of Christian faith, not meaning of any Scriptures or prayers approved for Canonical, and pious by the authority of the Roman Church as are the books of machibies, Sapience, Ecclesiasticus, Toby, and judith and prayers to saints all which Gerson himself did receive for such but he only reprehends such false Scriptures or prayers as some new-fangled private persons had published and invented with out warrant or authority of the prelate's and governors of the Church: But Luther Caluin and their scholars peremptoriely rejected and excluded out of the text and canon of scripture the forosayde books and some others, as also all manner of prayers to sainrs, even those prayers and kookes of scripture which had been most anciently approved and read in the service of the universal Church at the least since the time of Innocent the first Pope of that name, and so used in the days of S. Augustin and ever since till the late days of Luther.  
And now by this brief collation or comparision which I have made the reader may plainly view the great difference there is between the desired reformation of Gerson and that of the pretended Innovators of our times, the one being almost quite opposite to the other: the one intending only to redress the Church in some particular accessory defects, the other endeavouring violently to destroy the whole frame and foundation of the visible Church and to build a new one: and finally the one being a reformation either wholly or chiefly in the life and manners of some corrupted persons the other chiefly in faith & doctrine and not regarding reformation of life but rather giving more scope and liberty to licentiousness then ever was heard of in the Christian world.  
And altho' Gerson doth insinuate the necessity of reformation even in matters of faith and religion, yet doth he not mean of the faith and teligion maintained approved and practised by the Roman Church, but he speaketh only of the errors of heretics & some abuses of other particular persons cropen into the exercise of the true religion in which he desired reformation to the end the state of the Church may remain and continued firm in her former purity without stain of erroneous doctrine or corrupted manners. In all which he wished the slowness of the prelate's might be hastened by the power of the secular authority of kings and Princes, rather than lie unamended, with danger of the Roman faith and prejudice to the salvation of souls. Which pious zeal of that renowned chancellor was highly to be commended as fare different from the proceed of the authors of our new pretended reformation who to acquire themselves a name of famous men under the colour of reforming the Church made a prey of the same with infinite loss of Christian souls and general damage to virtue and religious life.  
More over I am to advertice the reader that in the citation of this author Sir Humphrey hath commirted two notable frauds. The first is in that he reherses a great part of his words as if he had found them allogether & in one continuated order or text, whereas the author hath them in diverse places & to diverse purposes. For example Sir Humphrey joineth that which Gerson saith of remission of sins by so mainie Pater nosters, which he hath in his treaty of Indulgences, with that other passage of preferring the particular observations of some countries before the law of God, which he hath not in the same place, but in an other treatise entitled the directione cordis.  
Secondly I find those words of Gerson which all or most of them being spoken by him only of correction of manners, the knight applieth them to matters of faith to persuade his reader that there were corruptions in the Church even in matters of faith, and that the chancellor procured reformation of them. An example of this fraud you have in the 650. page of the devia, where the knight saith Gerson wished at the least a restoring of the ancient faith of the Father's time citing for this his treatise entitled, de Coucilio Generali unius obedientiae, and quoting these words in the margin. Ecclesia sinon ad statum Christi & Apostolorum Saltem ad statum Syluestri restituenda. Which words nevertheless Gerson speaketh not of matters of faith, but only of the provision and collation of benefices as both his whole discourse and especially his precedent words do most clearly demonstrate. Which are these. Sed longe aliter imprimativa dolatione 
donatione.  distribuebantur bona talia quam postmodum tempore praelatorum qui caeperunt paulatim refrigescere a sanctitate priorum tandem abusi sunt collationibus bene ficiorum & ciusmodi administratione quod Papae ad se paulatim multa revocaverunt usque adeo quod finaliter datis occasionibus & acceptis quas non est hic opus recitare quasi tota iurisdictio & collatio talis paenes Papam & eius curiam remanebant. And after theses words Gerson uttered those other at which Sir Humphrey catched yet according to his inveterated custom related not syncerily, which if otherwise he had truly reheharsed they would have presently discovered the truth and of what matter they were delivered, for Gerson saith: vel redeundum esset ad statum Ecclesiae tempore syluestri & Gregorij quando quilibet Praelatus dimittebatur in sua iurisdictione & sollidudinis parte. now let the reader confer all these words of Gerson with the citation of Sir humphrey in the page above noted & he will presently perceive how he hath corrupted them both in tenor and sense, and how he hath foisted in the word Ecclesia where it is not to be found in the text of the author.  
As also in the place taken out of Gersons in his consolatory tract of rectifyind the hart, he transposeth and mangleth his words leaving out the word particular: and for the words in aliquibus religionibus, translating, in many convents putting many in steed of some. And where the same Gerson in an other place complaining of the imperfections and vices of the regular and secular Clergy doth explicate himself not to mean of all but of some particular persons, Sir Humphrey guilefully omits his words which are these. Sed nunquid hodie omnes Domini & Paelati in intedictis & post dicendis culpabiles sunt malis? absit, reliquit enim Dominus sibi in Israel septem millia virorum quorum genua non sunt curuata ante Baal. and where the author speaking of disorders of the monasteries of nuns and fryres useth the word quasi to give the reader advertisement that he speaketh not absolutely but only by way of comparison: 
In consolat.  the malicious knight leaves it out, as if it were not to the purpose, as he omits also the word nonnunqnam when the author speaks of the danger which some times happeneth among the simple sort by reason of the multiplicity of such things as he there mentioneth.  
In like manner in an other tract in whereas the Chancellor at the first making some doubt of the obtaining of a certain Indulgence by saying so many Pater nosters before an image of the Crucifix, yet afterwards doth moderate his own speeches so that it plainly apppeares he doth not condemn the same, the fraudulent knight so relateth the passage as if Gerson had not only taxed that form of indulgence in particular but also had absolutely renounced the Roman doctrine touching the lawfulness of Indulgences in general: his words are these Circa haec itaque & similia multum caute procedendum est & providendum, ne opponatur firma vel pertinax credulitas propter erroris periculum neque etiam oportet eiusmodi omnino & pertinaciter dissentire, nec etiam penitus contemnere & improbare, est igitur ambulandum in his via media etc. by which and other the like submissive & temperate words which he hath afterwards in the same place, the reader may see Gerson was as fare from being one of the new reformers as is the spirit of humility from the spirit of pride and contempt, which is the only guide of all those who reject and impugn the Roman doctrine in all points of controversy.  
Finally in those words cited by Sir Humfrey out of Gersons Apolotgeticall dialog, whereas the author speaks in the case of schism when the true Pope was not certainly known, and chiefly of one particular point to wit of the condemnation of that proposition, a tyrant may be lawfully killed by private authority or by any private man. the deceitful knight so applies the words as if Gerson had generally despaired of the reformation of the Church, and the more easily to persuade his reader he omittes the words, hac tempestate and those rebus ut sunt manentibus. Gersons' words truly rehearsed are these. video quod in doctrinis quae religionem, quae bonas & salubres respiciunt mores, vix invenietur in hac tempestate (rebus ut sunt manimentibus nec habito forti favore potentiae saecularis) terminatio debita vel expedita iustitia Which words if the reader compares them with the words cited in English by the knight he will easily spy more faults than I have noted. And then from hence, and the rest which I have produced touching the whole allegation of Gerson he will be able to judge both of the false deiling of our adversary & how small reason he had to indevore to make that famous and renowned Romanist one of the blind brothers of his invisible Congregation. But now for conclusion & plainer intellection or understanding of that which I have said touching this author, the reader must take noticie that Gerson lived in a time of a great schism razed by the erroneous election of diverse Popes by diverse parts of the faction, by reason of which strife finding in his judgement no other means to bring matters to a peaceable issue and atonement then by giving greater authority to a general Council then to the Pope, he preferred the power of a Council before the authority of the Pope: which schism also was the true cause why he likewise seemed to despair of the reformation of the Church, and therefore he laboured to have a general Council under one Pope by occasion of which desire he writ his treaty entitled De Concilio unius obedientiae to deliberate the composing of the Ecclesiastical debate a and Papal dissension all which is by himself clearly delivered in several places of his works and particularly in his Apolageticall dialog fol. 75. saying. hoc unum scio quod zelus hahendae unionis in scismate tam desperato tantique temporis, fecit multa tolerari quae fuissent aliunde nec tolerabilia nec toleranda etc. And now by this it is sufficiently clear that Gerson is not for the new reformation of modern sectaries in any one point of doctrine or manners.  
In his citation of Cusanus lib. 3. concod. Cath. cap 16. the knight hath in his own page 378. 8. 9 of the by way notably corrupted him, for he rehearese his words without any order, & also quite contrary to his sense & meaning as that authors own words most evidently convince in his 17. chapter following, where he hath this plain clause Ecce quod de pertinentibus ad religionem Imperator inter Episcopos iudicare non debet. Et in his 18. chapter he saith thus. Firmitas autem iudicij & omnium quae ita aguntur in concilio per quoscunque ex consensu tantum, synodica dependent authoritate. Quare etsi aliquando sententiasse iudices tales leguntur, ex cousensu & synodica commissione vigour sententiae dependebat, & non ex imperiali commissione, cuius authoritas synodum virilem non praecellit. Thus much Cusanus touching iudicative authority in general counsels, which as is plain by these words doth not depend upon the Emperor. It is true Cusanus grants (I known not how truly) that he finds the Emperor did always praesidere that is preced or take the first place in the counsels, but he doth not say (as Sir Humphrey feysteth in) primatum habuit, he had the primacy. But only granteth the Emperor & his judges with the senate, local pre-eminence before the Pope or at the most depending on the Pope, & council, as his whole discourse in diverse chapters of the book cited by the kingth. manifestly declare.  
And concerning the congregation or convocation of general Counsels, it is almost evident out of the precedent chapters of the same book that this author grants no Primacy to the Emperor, but chiefly to the Pope. For altou ' in the beginning of the 13. chapter he hath these express words ex superioribus habetur Imperatores sanctos congregationes synodales universalis concilij totius Ecclesiae semper fecisse. Yet presently after explicaing himself better he saith. Breviter dico quod ita se habet Imperator ad universalem Ecclesiae Catholicae synodum, sicut Rex ad universale Regni sui concilium, non quad coactive sed cohortatiue colligere debet. And yet more plainly presently after. Vigilare dehet Imperator & fidei & pacis custos, & Romani Pontificis primo synodi necessitatem insinuare, & eius consensum congregandi concilij in definito loco requirere. By all which it doth manifestly appear how shamelessly the knight abuseth Cusanus, & how small reason he had to produce his testimony for the Pope's usurpation (as he termeth it) both in calling & assuming pre-eminence of place & dignity, in Counsels, supposing that author (as being Cardinal of the Pope's creation) so professedly maintains his authority both in the resolutorie assembling & confirming of general synods.  
And if the reader desire greater satisfaction concerning the doctrine of this author about the Pope's authority in Counsels, let him please to read his epistle to Roderic, & he will easily perceive how plainly he purgeth himself from all sinister imputation in that nature: and that if perhaps in his immature age when he writ his Catholic concordance by reason of the great fame which he conceived of the Council of Basill, he inconsiderately uttered any thing which might seem to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome in respect of a general Council: yet afterwards perceiving that those who preferred the authority of Counsels before the authority of the chief Bishop & pastor the Church proceeded so fare as to attempt the election of the Antipope Foelix, against the true Pope Eugenius, then presently he repent himself that he had so much extolled their schismatticall syond, imitating in this both Cardinal julian & Aeneas syluius, who both of them in the beginning defended the Council of Basill against Eugenius the true Pope, yet in the end retracting their action maintained most earnestly his authority against t●e same synod. That which is sufficient to manifest the inconsideration, ignorance & insynceritie of Sir Humphrey in his production of this author who suppose he had delivered his mind less clearcly in one place & occasion, yet did he amend the same in another more exact work of his own hand & industry, & of his own accord, how be it althou' our adversary takes him at the greatest advantage he can, yet reightly unlierstanded & alleged he doth not a jot advantage his cause.  
In his citation of the Rheims Testament in the annotation upon the 6. of the Epistle the Hebrews v. 16. the knight relateth words in which the author of the notes affirms that God should be injust if he rendered not heaven for meritorious works, But to make the matter more odious he craftily omittes the words of S. Hierome there cited for proof of the same lib. 2. contra jovinianum cap. 2. saying that in deed great were God's injustice if he would only punish sins and would not receive good works. And if that conditional of the Rhemists be not iustifyable, then may our adversary more justly tax, S. Augustin who lib. de not, and Grat cap. 2. And lib. 4. contra julianum cap. 3. gave then examples of that form of speech. Saying in the first place▪ non est iniustus Deus qui instos fraudet mercede iustitiae, and in the second, per quod vera iustitia per hoc & regnum Dei: Deus namque ipse, quod absit, erit iniustus, si ad eius regnum non admittitur iustus. Wherefore except Sir Humphrey will join in his accusation those two renowned ancient Fathers, he can not in reason accuse those learned doctors.  
Althou I conceive it may seem unseasonable to my present purpose distinctly to treat of any matter of doctrine in this place and occasion yet in regard I have lately reflected that Sir Humphrey professes himself an enemy to implicit or unexpressed faith, therefore I esteemed convenient for the accomplishing of my work, to insert a compendious discourse touching that point.  
And to come to the purpose, I can not conceive or invent any other motive in our adversaries for their so obstinate denial of unexpressed faith, except it is because every one of them confidently presumes to know the express contents of Scriptures as well as him who made them, yet on the contrary I am assuredly persuaded that in reality a very great part (if not all their congregation) enjoys not this great extravagant privilege what soever they imagine, or conceive of themselves. For altho' it is true that the illuminate brothers generally use to brag they are docibiles Dei, and admit no other schoolmaster in this matter then God almighty himself: yet is it certainly known that some of them be so ignorant that they know not as much as their Abcedarie, or Christ cross row. And now of these who can not read the Bible, I question our adversaries thus, either these ignorants believe allthings contained in the whole scripture, or no? If they do not, than they are heretics for refusing to believe the whole word of God. If they do believe all, and every particular contained in the Scripture, then necessarily they must have an implicit faith, in regard many particular truths be there included which they can not possibly know by reason they can neither have themselves, nor receive a perfect knowledge from any other of every several truth therein contained: and consequently, if any faith they have of those particular verities contained in the Scripture which they know not, it is only an implicit, unexpressed, or implied faith supposing this consists in nothing esse but a general faith even of those particulars of which the believers have no express knowledge, except only in a certain confuse or general manner, or as they are contained in other general propositions, or matters, which expressly and sevelally they know to be reveiled in the word of God, and of which they have an explicit, express, or disinuolued faith. For as he who eypressely granteth, or assents to any general Principle or proposition, for example, that all Angels are incorporal, or without bodies, or that all men are reasonable creatures, doth by necessary consequens assent implicitly to all the particulars there included, viz, that S. Michael S. Gabriel, and every other particular Angel is incorporal, and that S. Peter, and Paul, and every other particular man is a reasonable creature altho' he never had any particular knowledge of them: So in the very same manner those who with an express act of faith believe all the Church proposeth unto them in that kind, or all the scripture contains: do likewise necessarily believe with an implicit or tacit faith every several matter included in those general terms.  
And this kind of implicit faith, our adversaries must either grant, or else necessarily confess that every Mecanike hath as much knowledge in the Scripture as the most learned Minister, and every sheep as much as his pastor: which nevertheless every rude rustic is able to judge for most absurd, and void of truth. So thus we see that of the denial of an implicit faith either the ignorant, and unlearned sort of people in the pretensive reformed Churches know as much in the Scripture as their greatest doctors: or that they are plain heretics because they believe no more in the Bible but that only which they expressly know.  
And the same I say with proportion even of the learned sort themselves, in regade they seldom, or never are so conversant in Scriptures that they explessely know every several proposition, or particular truth contained in the text, and consequently even they who are the greatest Rabbis in their reformed flock, have no explicit, or express faith consisting in an assent to all they expressly know in the text of scripture, but they must as well as their brothers, be content with an implicit faith of those particulars they expressly know not, or else they are to be accounted heretics for not believing them, as I said before of the ruder sort In respect of both which sorts of people I mean both the learned and unlearned believers in the pretensive reformed Churches, this same argument may yet farther be urged even according to their own received doctrine by which they confess they have not all their faith expressly in the scriptures, but part of it drawn by their own consequences, or deductions from the text of scripture: of all which illations or inferences of theirs it is manifest they could not possible have any other faith of them then implicit or unexpressed, before they made them, in regare that those supposed verities or truths which they so deduce were not otherwise contained in the text or delivered to the Church then in that inclusive or hidden manner as it most apparent in regard that if otherwise they had been contained in the scripture that is clearly or expressly, than no illation or deduction had been necessary for believers for the bnowledge and establishing of their faith in those particulars, as both natural reason, and even common sense convince: and consequently either the pretensive reformers had an implicit faith of all those objects which they now confess themselves to believe according to that deductive manner, or else they had no faith at all of them before they were deduced: whence it farther follows that ever since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is new and quite distinct from their own faith in former times: the absurdity of which most necessary sequel I remit to the censure of the reasonable, and judicious learned reader to determine.  
By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more clear notice of the great perversity of the preposterous Novellists, who as they reveal their violence in reproving the foresaid received doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith, so likewise they are no less peremptory in defending their own new distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion, according to which their position they obstinately maintain the Church can err in matters of faith, that is in such points of faith as in their conceit are not foundamentall.  
But against the falsity of this distinction I argue first upon their own supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be believed in matters of faith which is not found in scripture either explicitly and clearly, or by clear and certain consequence wherefore this doctrinal distinction of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not found in scripture in either of those two manners related, plain it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine, it neither deserves faith nor credit. More over this distinction is so newly coined by our adversaries and so fare from having any foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I never read any mention of it in the first and chief establishers of the pretended reformation. Only Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his book de natura Ecclesiae, 
Cap. 13. num. 11.  seems plainly to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholic Church can err, licet non in fundamento salutis: tho' not in the foundation of salvation.  
Yet Chamier having writ his Panstratia but of late years either our English Novellists received it from him, or invented it themselves not long before so that the novelty of it alone were sufficient to convince it of untruth and vanity. And altho' I might justly take exceptions at the word itself for the newness of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to avoid profane novelties of words, in regard the word not fundamentals as it is applied to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church there in by our adversaries, it is a kind of profanation both of divine faith itself which is truly fundamental in all respects, and also of the authority of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other: Nevertheless my chief intention is not to insiste in the reproof of words (which I grant may upon occasion and for better declaration of a truth, be invented and used by the Church's authority) but I only stand upon the sense or object of them, directly convinceing the matter signified by those words not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and, Fathers. That which I prove by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressly teaches that 
1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est  the Church is a pillow or firmament of truth. And our Saviour promisseth his Father will give to his Apostles (and their successors) an other Paraclete the spirit of truth to remain with them for ever, 
joan. 14. joan. 16.  which same divine Spirit (as he himself declares afterwards in the 16. chapter will teach them all truth, which universal term all, includes and signify both fundamental and not fundamental truths, and consequently it expressly excludeth this vain distinction of the novelists. To which purpose S. Cyrill upon the 10. chapter of the same Evangelist speaks most fitly and appositely saying, that althou' in this life we know only in part as S. Paul affirms, non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit: yet not a meamed or imperfect, but an entire true faith shined unto us in this small knowledge. And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and modern expounded of the firmness and stability which the Church hath by the assistance of the holy Ghost in her delivery of true doctrine to her particular members, conformable to which sense Tertullian (to omit the rest for brevity) in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the universal or Catholic Church can err in matters of faith. Can not (saith he) the holy Ghost have respected her so much as to have induced her into all truth, he having been sent by Christ to this end having been required by his Father to be the Doctor of truth, should villicus Christi vicarius the steward, the vicar of Christ have neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the mean time to understand and believe otherwise then he himself preached by the Apostles, Thus plainly, generally & absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibility of the Catholic Church in points of doctrine and faith.  
And now farther supposing that all these passages both of the scripture & their expositors are absolute, general, & sans limitation, it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense & interpretation, but that at the jest the catholic Church can not teach or believe any error at all in such things as are contained within the total object of faith in which there can not possible be any part or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kind of divine faith is the very foundation of Religion & christian justice according to the saying of S. Augustin. Domus Dei fide fundatur, the house of God is founded in faith: & if the foundation of the house of God were faulty, it would doubtless fall to ruin, contrary to his own promise or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  
Neither is it available for our adversaries to say that the Church can not err in the chief articles of her faith, as are the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, which are fundamentals: but in such points as are not fundamental, as are the real presence, justification, the true quantity, & sense of Canonical scriptures, & other such like matters in controversy with us & them, the Church may teach erroneous & false doctrine.  
For their evasion I reply it is grounded not in invincible, but in vincible & gross ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in itself one simple, or single entity or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle, God & Baptism ar. una fides, unum Baptisma, unus Deus; how different soever its object be, it is ever essentially one & the same in itself clear from distinction, & clear from error, the contrary to which nevertheless should necessarily be true if ei-faith were divided in to fundamental & not fundamental faith, & the Church could err in her proposition of the one & not of the other. And to this I add that one property of the true Church is holiness: but now what sanctity, integrity, or holiness can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature so ever they be. For as the scripture affiirmes, sine fide (that is true, pure, & entire faith) impossibile est placere Deo. True faith is the form, fashion, & beauty of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not having spot or wrinkle. In so much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place, & like wise in the Canticles she is described, all fair, or comely, but rather she would be like a leper, or most deformed creature.  
Thirdly, I confess for my part I could never perfectly understand what the Novellists truly mean by fundamental & not fundamental points, by reason I find the matter in none of their works sufficiently explicated, & I veriely conceive they purposely annoyed the declaration of it, to the end the absurdity may less appear. Nevertheless it seems in probability that by fundamentals they mean all those points which according to their own exposition are contained in scriptures, & the three creeds. And by not fundamentals the points of controversy betwixt us & them: as is the number of Canonical books, the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures, the real presence, transubstantiation, iustification' etc.  
This being supposed I argue thus. Either those points which our adversaries call not fundamentals, are matters of faith' & to be believed by all sorts of Christians according to the diversity of their tenets, under pain of damnation, or not to be believed. If they are thus necessarily to be believed by faith, then doubtless they are included in those truths touching which, (as I have declared & confirmed before by both scriptures & Fathers) Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the divine Spirit to remain with it eternally that is till the consummation of the world, and consequently the Church can not commit any error in proposing them to the people as being no less fundamental in that respect then any of the rest of the articles of faith.  
But if our adversaries on the contrary deny them to be necessarily believed under pain of loss of Salvation, & hold them only as matters of indifferency, & such as may either be believed or not be believed without prejudice of faith: or manners upon this supposition I grant the Church may err in proposing them to her flock, but yet in this case that part of our adversary's distinction affirming that the Church can err in not fundamental matters of faith is still false and impertinent in regard those particulars above telated in which they teach the Church can err, are so fare from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith, that according to the former supposition they are not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith: and consequently that part or member of our adversary's dinstinction viz that the Church can err in not fundamentals is both false, nugatory, and impertinent in which sense soever they intent to maintain it.  
Fourtly I prove directly that the affirmatives even of those particulars controverted betwixt us and the professors of the English Religion, are fundamental points of faith, and by consequence that if the Church can err in them that part of their new distinction is false according to which they aver the Church can not err in fundamental points of Religion: which I convince in this form of argument.  
That distinction is false and absurd according to which it necessarily follows that the Church can err in matters the true faith of which is necessary to salvation.  
But according to the distinction of fundamental, and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily follows the Church can err in matters necessary to salvation.  
Ergo The distinction of fundamental, and not fundamental matters of faith, is a false and absurd distinction.  
The minor in which the total difficulty consists, I prove because according to this distinction, the Church may err in these propositions. The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture, The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture. Christ's body and blood are truly, really, substantially, and not by only faith contained in the sacred Eucharist etc. And yet the faith of these either affirmatively or negatively, is necessary to salvation, as the adversary's them selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter so clear and manifest, can not deny. Therefore it is hence concluded by forcible sequel that their distinction of fundamentals, and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurd.  
fifthly, I reason in this manner against the same distinction. If the infallibility of the Church's authority consists in fundamental points of Religion only, and not in all that the true Church shall at any time declare unto her members concerning their faith and Religion, than were not t●e providence of Christ perfect towards his sponse, but more defective than God was towards the synagog of the jews, neither were this any other then to imagine that Christ in deed did say a sound foundation for his Church, but left walls and roof exposed to be dejected or cast to ground with every puff of wind which how repugnant to reason & his own inviolable promise this is, the reader may easily consider, and censure.  
Sixtly, I argue yet more positively against the distinction related because, our adversary's frame it either in respect of the greater, or lesser dignity of the objects of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith in themselves, or in respect of the greater or less necessity of them to salvation by reason of the necessity of faith which the members of the true Church have of them all and every one in particular, Now if we respect only the material objects in themselves, and the necessity of them to salvation precisely, so I confess there are some particular matters of faith which much surpass orhers, and in that respect also the one may not unaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which have not that preeminency. For example that there is a God, and that God is a rewarder of works quod Deus est, & remunerator sit. That he is one in three persons, that the second person in Trinity became incarnate or took humane nature upon him, was borne of the Virgin Marie, suffered death for our dedemption etc. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in themselves, than those: Christ fasted forty days, and forty nights, an Angel appeared to him in his agony, Peter denied Christ, and other such like truths, Yet this how true soever it be, it is nothing to the purpose which here we treat, nor afordeth any ground or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our adversaries, in regard that althou' there be never so great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignity of the material objects, by reason of which in some sort the one may be named fundamental, the other not fundamental: nevertheless because the faith of the one is no less necessary to salvation then the faith of the other, thence it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently there are no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out adversaries doth falsely suppose.  
And hence in like manner it farther ensueth, that if the Church should err but only in the definition, or proposition even of those matters of less quality, the error would be directly against divine faith, and consequently the Church in this case should truly be said to have erred eved in fundamental points of faith, and in matters necessary to salvation, fundamental points, as I have declared and often repeated, being no other than all those revailed truths the faith of which is necessary in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life, not obstanding any difference which otherwise may appear in the nature of the several objects or matters, supposing no one part but the whole entire faith of Christ and every part and partial of those verities which he hath revailed to his Church, is the foundation of true Christian, and Catholic Religion, it being as necessary to salvation for every true Christian to believe truly and sincerely if it be proposed unto him by the Church that the cock crowed at the time of S Peter's denial of Christ, or that a soldier lanced our saviors side with a spear, as that he died upon the Cross for our redemption, and risse again for our justification.  
But Finally, If peradventure our adversaries should say that within the compass of true faith some things be necessary to salvation and others not necessary, and that consequently some things be fundamental, but others not.  
To this instance I reply, it is founded in a manifest equivocation. For althou' it is true that their be some, things within the compass of saith which are not necessary for every member of the Church to know them expressly, yet is it necessary to salvation for every faithful Christian thou ' never so simple or ignorant, to believe every part and partial of those objects or matters which God hath revailed, if for such by the Church they be proposed unto him, otherwise he should incur the censure of that strict and fearful sentence of the most just and equal judge Christ our Saviour, qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur: and so the faith even of all those things which every one by reason of his state or condition of life, or for want of understanding is not obledged to know, is necessary to salvation, and consequently all kind of faith of what matter soever it be that God hath revailed, is as much fundamental as is faith of the greatest matter or mystery of the whole Christian belief: whence it is that as S. Gregory Nazianzen treating of the unity and integrity of faith in his 39 oration about the end declareth by example or similitude that faith is like unto a golden chain connected and compounded of diverse links, from which if you take any one away, you lose your salvation as S. Ambrose in the end of her sixth cook upon the Euangell of S. Luke declares. By which it is  that faith of every point or matter within the compass of faith, is necessary to salvation and therefore fundamental absolutely, whether the object be great or little, and no faith not fundamental, as the new distinction of the Novellists most falsely affirms: which there distinction doubtnesse was invented by them to the end they might have a more plausible colour to accuse the Roman Church of errors commited in faith, (as also for excuse of their own) their malice and irreligion being so great that like unconscionable tailors they chose rather to cut out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuff as this, then to live or dye unrevenged of the Catholic Roman Church.  
And for conclusion I add that since I have made manifest by these my reasons that the faith even of those points of Religion which our adversaries term not fundamental, is absolutely required to the salvation of every Christian soul, if even in rhese particulars only the Church could err, none could assuredly be persuaded that by making themselves members of it, they are in the certain & infallible way to the obtaining of eternal blessedness, but still should remain in the like dangerous & desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ, & consequently by reason of this uncertainty & peril a general neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the minds of men, which inconvenience in regard it proceeds by inavoiable consequence from this distinction broached & used by our adversaries, it plainly appears the doctrine of it is in diverse respect most pernicious & damnable as not tending in any sort to the reformation of the Church, as is by them pretended, but directly to the ruin & destruction of it. 
Devia. sec. 3. pag. 45.   
S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. book of his confessions affirming that spiritual men must not judge of the scripture, is corrupted by Sir Humfrey, for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in any case judge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false, yea & repugnant to the doctrine & practise even of the pretensive reformers themselves who as they can not deny, whether they be spiritual or not spiritual use to read & interpret scriptures much more commonly than the Romanists do: yea & give liberty therein even to those of the feminine sex or gender. But the true & obvious sense of that divine doctor in the cited place only is, that spiritual men must not judge any thing contained in the scripture (as presently he subjoines) non rite veraciterque dictum esse, that is, not to be rightly & truly spoken, but submit their understanding, etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not clear, or perspicuous in it. This is the pure & sincere sense of S. Augustin as his very words declare, And now let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or war against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Novelists practise, then againsts the Romanists: how be it I sincerely confess it directly makes neither against the one nor the other, but precisely against such as judge those passages of scripture to be false, or not rightly delivered, which they are not able to understand. Spirituales ergo sive qui presunt, sive qui obtemperant, spiritualiter iudicant: non de spiritualibus cogitationibus quae latent in firmamento. Non enim oportet de sublimi authoritate iudicare, neque etiam de ipso libro tuo: etiam si quid ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ei nostrum intellectum: certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris recte veraciterque dictum esse. Sic enim homo licet iam spiritualis' & renovatus in agnitionem Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creavit eum, factor tamen legis debet esse, non index. These are the words of S. Augustin sincerely rehearsed in which as any understander of latin may easily perceive, there is nothing found in favour of Sir Humfreys tenet in the place above cited, viz that scripiure is the sole judge of controversies & interpreter of itself: but rather is there some thing expressly repugnant to an other position of his congregation defending that scriptures are easy to be understanded or interpreted only by conferring one place with an other, the contrary of which nevertelesse, is plainly insinuated by those words of S. Augustin, certumque habemus etiam quod clausum est aspectibus nostris etc. And we are eertaine even that which is shut from our eyes, is rightly & truly spoken. And yet our corrupt adversary hath corruptedly interrupted them conjoining the first part to the last & omitting the very heart of the sentence, & for the latin words spiritualibus cogitationibus, putting in English, spiritual knowledge, for spiritual cogitateons: like wise inserting by a parenteses this his own gloss upon the word firmament expounding it of the scriptures themselves I know not by what other rule or authority then by the dictamen of his own private or familiar spirit: all which particulars I remit to the censure of the judicious reader.  
And by occasion of this passage I advertise the reader that whereas the author for the greater credit of his work, & as it were to limb it with the authority of that aureous Doctor S. Augustin hath cited him in his by-way alone, at the jest 60. several times: yet having diligently viewed and discussed the places as they stand in the tomes, I indoubtedly assure him that of those 60 sentences there are not 6. to the purpose for which they are alleged, and yet those 6. either such as partly by diverse Romanists in their several work, and partly by myself in this my censure, have sundry time received their anser: the rest of the total number being some of quite impertinent others neither for our adversaversarie nor against the Romanists, others plainly against him, and for the Romanists: especially those which prove the apparent and conspicuous visitabilitie of the Catholic Church; others finally are not syncerily rehearsed, but mangled, cropped, or curtailed with abuse of the author and reader.  
S. Chrisostome like wise, and S. Ambrose have their meaning detorted by the knight in the same section the one in his 13. homily upon Genesis, in his 7. homily upon the first epistle to the Thesalonians: the other in his 8. sermon upon the 118. psal. for. S. Chrisostome only treats in those places of two particular cases, to wit in the Genesis he argueth against some who denied the terrestrial Paradise, and upon the foresaid Epistle of saint Paul, he reprehends some others who were of opinion that the soul is a particle of the divine nature. And touching these two particular points S. Chrysostome affirms that the sacred scripture expondes itself, and suffers not the reader to err, but he said not that the scripture in all other places and in all other matters doth so interpret itself as Sir Humphrey falsely allegeth.  
Now S. Ambrose saying that the door shall be opened unto him who diligently examen the difficult and obscure passages of scripture by no other but by the word of God, he doth not there mean by the word of God the scriptures themselves, but the divine word that is Christ our saviour the second person in Trinity, and therefore he adds to the words cited by Sir Humphrey. de quo legisti in Apocalipsi quod Agnus librum signatam aperuit, of which thou haste read in the Apocalips. that the lamb opened the sealed book, which laste words of S. Ambrose because the knight perceived that by their plain explication of the former, they discovered the whole sentence to be nothing for his purpose, he deceitful smunthered and left them unrehearsed by which his palpable and gross abuse of these two grave and ancient authors doth evidently appear.  
An much according to this fashion he proceeds with Pope Clement whom he cities in the same place, and for the same purpose. Who nevertheless is so repugnant to the tenet of the novelists in making the sole scripture interpreter of itself in all cases, that he expressly teaches that we must not according to our own sense but, secundum traditionem patris, according to the tradition of the Father, that is either according as the tradition of the Pope himself as deliverer of the sense of scriptures unto us, or secundum traditionem Patris, that is according to the tradition of the ancient Fathers: and therefore he adds afterwards. & ideo oportet ab eo intelligentiam discere scripturam qui eum a maioribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam reseruavit ut ipse possit ea quae recte suscepit cempetenter asserere. That is, And therefore we ought to learn the intelligence or understanding of scriptures of him who reserved it to himself according to the truth delivered unto him by his ancestors to the end he might competently assert those things which he rightly received.  
But Sir Humphrey concealed these words, as also the greater part of the period out of which he cited those words he alleges, yet joined unto them the rest of those which he rehearseth, not obstanding they are part of an other clause, also adding the word seeing which neither is in the author's text, nor agrees with his sense and meaning, which is not that the scripture alone is an entire and firm rule of faith, but the scripture expounded according to the sense received from the ancients, as immediately before he affirmed. But vain Sir Humphrey was so desirous to seem to his reader to have a Pope for an a better of his position, that he choosed rather to prostitute his own honesty in the evil use he made of his authority, then seem to want the testiminie of so renowned a personage. And yet is the knight so fare from obtaining his purpose, that if the words were not so many that they can not with conveniency be intyrely related, they themselves would make it apparent how much the author of them is abused by the false relater. The supply of which I remit to the more diligent reader as time & leisure shall give him occasion.  
But I confess now I am quite tired with the examen of my adversaries misalledged testimonies of the authors he produces in favour of his misremormed doctrine and must needs draw myself to a conclusion of my labours, hoping I need not doubt but by these few passages the reader will easily persuade himself touching the rest they are all of the same nature and so be satisfied with that implicit or general knowledge he will have of them by this means, and his own discourse, althou perhaps by his own industry and inquisition he is not able in particular to discover the frauds and come to the true sense and menning of them in any more express and declared manner. Yet if my adversary himself will not be satisfied with this compendious course I have used, but will farther require an cxacte anser to every particular allegation, upon condition he will first justify his proceeding in these I have showed defective, I promise with God's assistance I will be ready both to maintain so much as I have already done and said, and also to proceed farther in my view and censure of those places which as yet I have not touched if God be pleased to give me health and opportunity of books, these being the greatest difficulties I have had in the performance of the work.  
To omit the print which is well known what a trouble in is unto those of our Religion and nation, and how great an advamtange our adversaries have of us in these particulars, some of us being forced to pass the seas for every small matter we have to publish, besides the peril of importing the books into the country, which is subject to immunerable casualties and dangers of molestation for the same as experience doth testify, God almighty amend it and restrore us to our ancient Catholic liberty and Religion.  
And to return to thee proceeding of my adversary I say for a man some times inculpably to err, or mistake either in words or sense especially in intricate matters, I do not admire it, neither dare I justify myself in that particular (I let pass the faults of the printer to which every one is subject) but that one should err so frequently and grossly as Sir Humphrey hath erred in his citations of all sorts of authors both ancient and modern in the whole discourse of his two books, and yet never in favour of his adversaries, but ever in favour of his own cause, this I say is no way excusable, and in my opinion it is such a fortune as chanceth to no creature excepting himself, or some of his illuminate brothers.  
That which I so much the more lament and deplore in regard he hath not only suffered his own proper judgement to be insotted with such inconsiderate delusions but likewise, as I perceive by report of others, hath by the same prestigious sleights delivered his own nearest and dearest friend his ingenuous lady, whose otherwise well disposed and once Catholic judgement, if yet he had convinced by sincere proceeding and honest use of scriptures. Fathers, and other writers, it had been less intolerable, but to win her with such false wares as these, is an action no way justifiable either before God or men.  
And if I might be admitted to your Counsel Sir Humphrey, I would advice you to cease writing books in this nature, which is neither your profession neither as I conceive, and am informed, are you able to perform any such work without the assistance of tutors which must of necessity be chargeable unto you. A dozen or sixteen of the Puritan Ministry will quickly make a great hole in an ordinary knight's estate, especially if they be assembled in such a place as the wine office, which as the very sound of the word denotes, necessarily implies much good fellowship and consequently great expense. Beware of that black guard, they will haunt your house like so main ill spirits, not so much by night as by day: they are meridian spirits, they assault most in the midst of the leight, thereby to dasle men's eyes more easily, about dinner time you shall be sure to have them most busy about you.  
For as a conceited Protestant reports. Where the meat is best there a Puritan confutes most, for (saith he) his arguing is but the efficacy of his eating, and the Pope he best concludes against in plum broth. This counsel proceeds from a friend, wherefore if you please to make use of it, the profit will be your own, the thankes due to me. This is now the third anser your first book hath received by men of three several professions, by a merchant, a priest, an a clerk, triplex funis difficile rumpitur which cords I hope will tie your judgement with in the bounds of reason. Far you well Sir Humphrey in Christ our Saviour, and receive this as from him who desires nothing more than your most happy reclamation, & sempiternal blessedness.   
FINIS.