THE VINDICATION OR DEFENCE OF ISAAC CASAUBON, AGAINST Those Impostors that lately published an impious and unlearned Pamphlet, Entitled The Original of Idolatries, etc. under his Name, By MERIC CASAUBON his Son.  
Published by his Majesty's Command.  
¶ Imprinted at London by Bonham Norton, and john Bill, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1624.   

TO THE MOST HIGH AND POTENT MONARCH, JAMES  
By the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.  
Most gracious Sovereign,  
THat which I have here in a few days written for the Defence of my Father, I acknowledge to ●aue proceeded from your Majesty, as the first Author of it; who being so highly offended at the injury which Casaubon's name received, that by your Royal authority the deceitful plotters of it were duly punished, I thought it would be some reproach to me, if a Son should confer nothing to the pious vindicating of his Father. And yet it is not so much the defence of him, that I have here undertaken, as the vindicating of the Truth itself, which your Maies●y hath so much disdained, though in a good cause, to have been so ill handled by a furious and inconsiderate writer. Our Adversaries shall be more indifferent to you hereafter, if your Royal Majesty be offended with the forgeries which they bring to maintain a bad cause, when You are so much offended with the falsehoods that are brought against them by others, that would otherwise seem to have undertaken the defence of a good cause. And though such may please themselves with their own fancies, whom any thing will please that maketh for the upholding of such a Religion as they profess; yet it was most proper for your Sacred Majesty (whose Learning and Love of purer Religion are of equal eminency) both to detect, and to show your Royal indignation against these Impostors, that were cloaked over with so fair an appearance. Surely happy is our Cause, that hath ●uch a Defender! For who can now doubt of the Truth of that doctrine, which must have nothing to defend it, but the Arms of Truth itself? Wherefore I present unto your Majesty, with all humility, that which I have here written for the Truth, not only because You were so graciously pleased to accept it before it came to public view, but chiefly that I might oppose the Authority both of Your Sacred Power and exquisite judgement against those Impostors, that durst presume to offer a falseintituled Pamphlet to the patronage of our most Noble and Gracious Prince. God long preserve your Majesty, the greatest of Kings, to flourish with all kind of happiness, for these your Kingdoms, and his Church's benefit.  
Your Majesty's most humble Servant and Subject, MERIC CASAUBON.   

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND MIGHTY PRINCE'S CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, etc.  
May it please your Highness,  
I Ha●e endeavoured, a● my d●ety was, to free my Father from that ●●spicio● of impiety and ignorance, which the late Book, falsely attributed vnt● him, had well-near brought him into. And I doubt not, but by this means I have obtained so much of all men, as hereafter not to doubt, but that Casaubon hath been much abused, to have such a preposterous birth fathered upon him. Yet to little purpose were all that I could say or do, if in the mean time this m●sked Pamphlet should pass through all men's hands under your Highness' Authority; such being the impudence of this Impostor, that he durst venture to inscribe it to your Highness' Patronage, the better to deceive the world. But since without all question your Highness is so far from patronising such kind of men, that You detest as well their fraudulent dealings, as the impiety of the Book itself; I presumed of Your Gracious acceptance, if I should present unto You this Defence of my Father against them; that such Impostors may know, how vainly they have sought for patronage of their forgeries from Your Highness' Authority, which they shall perceive You have bestowed upon the Defence of the Truth. God grant unto Your Highness, as to the most glorious of all Princes, a life of many and many years, with his perpetual and favourable assistance of You in all things.  
Your Highness' most humbly devoted, MERIC CASAUBON.   

THE DEFENCE AND VINDICATING of IS. CASAUBON;  
Against those Impostors, that lately published an impious and unlearned Book, entitled, The Original of Idolatries, etc. under his name.  
Unto how great and various injuries the names of well-deserving men are subject after their death, I would it had been my hap to have learned any other where, then to have had such near experience of it at home. I was in good hope my care had been at an end, in answering their sundry calumnies, that being of a contrary part, set upon my Father's name like open enemies; yet these, inasmuch as they professed themselves his adversaries, and were clean opposite against him in the case itself, seemed to be the less dangerous, and not so much to be feared. But now I must have to do with other manner of men, that pretending nothing less than any malice or hatred against him, have under fair shows of goodwill, most grossly abused his estimation & credit. But the lessesuspition there is of an injury, the greater is the injury done to a man, and the more heinously to be accounted of.  
Not many weeks since there was a Book published under the name of Isaac Casaubon: Which for the Argument was not altogether unlike those works of his, that he had partly published already, and partly undertaken to write, as I shall show hereafter. And for the place; who would imagine that any thing should come forth in Print at London to Casaubon's disgrace; where, as long as he lived, he was so much esteemed of by his Majesty, and the chiefest of the land; and now he is dead, I hope I may say his memory is precious to all honest men? And beside, for him that procured the book to be set forth, he is so profuse in his praise, that a man would think he meant him no small addition of glory by his large commendations. But if you once read the book itself, you shall soon see it is such kind of stuff, as cannot be imagined to have been my Fathers, without his great shame and infamy, being a Pamphlet full of such gross ignorance, malignity, and most insolent desire of novity in Religion. Surely the Author of it deserves the name of a Schismatic, (that I may say no worse) and whosoever he was, is worthy to be punished for such a one, as being no lesser enemy to the Church of England, than he is injurious to my Father's good name.  
But that the Reader may wonder the less at it, it is no new thing for books of novel and unsound doctrine to be fathered upon such men that be free from error, and sound in their opinions. Every one of the worst and vilest Heretics were wont to use this craft long ago, to mask under other men's names of esteem and authority, that so they might the better insinuate their pernicious doctrines into them that little understood what they were, and seduce the simpler sort of people from the right way. And thereupon it came, that so many books fraught with pestilent doctrine were attributed of old, to the holy and orthodox Fathers, and at this day go a great number of them under their names; many whereof at the first perhaps might be their own, but afterwards came to be so corrupted and adulterated by other men's impurities, that like bastards their own reputed parents would not acknowledge them. Of which thing even Origen alone may be a sufficient example; who was long since numbered among the Arch-heretikes themselves, and yet both by ancient and modern writers is most strongly defended to have been an Orthodox Father, many things being falsely imputed unto him by Heretics, and his Books otherwise pure and sound, by them corrupted and plastered over with their own daubings; as S. Jerome and Vincentius Lirinenfis with others have written of his old Apologists. But, to be short, whether we exemplify this kind of imposture by old or new times, I dare say, that there was never any bastard-booke fathered upon a man with more notable impudence and fraud, than this was upon Casaubon.  
What purpose they had that were the contrivers of such cozenage, and what should chiefly move them to do ●o unworthy an act, many probable conjectures may be made. It is not unlikely that some skulking crafty Puritan came stealing out with it, to try if he could do the Church of England a mischief. Peradventure one that bore some private grudge against my Father, thought this way to wound his reputation. Or rather it is most likely that some unlettered fellow, some sharking companion, lighting upon an old moth-eaten Pamphlet, which he thought to be some great treasure, and hard to be come by; and agreeing with a Sordid Bookeseller to get it reprinted; thought it best to put some man's name of note before it, that so their gains, which they gaped for, might come in the faster by the sale. And this last (howsoever the other two conjectures go, for there may be more in it then this alone) they that have had to do, and inquire into the matter, have found to be most certain and true.  
In the mean, who would not lament to see what a miserable case we are now adays brought unto, when such base fellows as these, that never had any thing to do with learning, nor honesty neither, shall take upon them to judge what Books may benefit the people, and deserve to be published? Unhappy Theologie! which must be made a refuge for Runagates; and, whether she will or no, be forced to patronise the base service of such dishonest Mountebanks, that do so shamefully prostitute her to their gain and filthy lucre. The fault whereof, it is a grief to see, how in a manner it comes from the very people themselves, who having once got it by the end, that there is no small religion in making long discourses, and in ostentation of much reading, gape after such novel Pamphlets as fast as ever the Athenians did after news. And so no maru●ile if we have every day such dry kickses & abortive broods sent us into the world, when there are so many to buy them vp● as children do babies and toys. But to make it no wonder, that these Impostors were in such hope to cousin and deceive the unskilful multitude at ease; is it not beyond all the degrees of impudence, that they should go about to make Them Patrons and witnesses of their fraud, whom they should much rather have feared to be the Revengers & inst Punishers of it? Lord! what a licentious age do we live in! that such a lurking obscure fellow (for he is famous and known for nothing but villainy) should dare to inscribe his Book, which he knew to be but forged and counterfeit, to our most Noble and Pious Prince, besides many other great Lords, and all in hope of reward and gain! But to let pass this juggling knave, that sets us forth his wares and toys with such a vaunting kind of language, and to come unto the Book itself.  
Certainly I suppose there is no learned man, specially to whom Casaubon or his Writings were not altogether unknown, that can be so senseless or gross, but upon the first reading of this Book, he will presently both perceive and detest the fraud of these cheating companions. And therefore had the Book come into their hands only that were able to judge of such matters, and to discern truth from falsehood, I might have saved all this labour. But inasmuch as the Book came forth in English, and was snatched up so fast by the unlearned multitude, and is now by their rash judgement so much commended and approved; I have here briefly undertaken the examination thereof, both to rectify the ignorant, and to vindicate my Father from suspicion of impiety; that so at last the vizard being pulled off the Pamphlet, it may appear to all, as it is, in its own natural likeness.  
And first I must seriously confess, that for the original Author of the Book, I neither know him, nor ever heard the least rumour of him, what he was, ●t●r an albus, French or English, or whether he be yet above ground or no; lest haply some might suspect, that I vented any private malice of mine own, while in defending of my Father, I seem to write something sharply against one whom I know not.  
For his Religion, I think it will satisfy a great many, and be enough for his commendation too, to say, he was no Papist, but rather a fierce enemy to them all. Indeed this may be enough for them, that think a man presently right and orthodox enough, if he doth but once profess himself an Adversary to Popery; it being their custom to measure the integrity and soundness of a man's Religion by his hatred against Papists only. And it is to be feared, lest that the Book, being written against the Sacrifice of the Mass, as the Title of it pretends, because I neither approve the Book, nor acknowledoe it to be my Fathers, both Father and Son, as men taken napping, be by some Puritans reputed for errant Papists. But howsoever it were a fault, to give any occasion of scandal unto the weakest members in the Church, yet the love of truth must more prevail with me to undertake her defence, than the pravity of other men's judgements to deter me from it. In my opinion he defined virtue well, that said it was the mean between two extreme vices, which is not only true in Moral and Practical, but in some Intellectual virtues also; of which kind the right apprehension of Truth is. And therefore it is no marvel, if they, which take that way in matters of Religion, do oppose themselves against two extremes, and have two extremes opposed against them. Yet he that keeps this middle course, howsoever he may perhaps differ in opinion from either side, yet in charity he may be united unto both. And for no other cause is he more maligned by the hot-spurres on either part, then for seeking to procure peace and concord betwixt them, and for doing his best endeavour to make up the great schism and rent of the Church, that again we might come to be all one body. Which misery an old Father was wont long ago to lament in these words, that may be very well applied to our times. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith 
Nazianz. Orat. 3.  Nazianzen after he had done speaking of men's maintaining their sides and factions) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, Whosoever keep a middle ●ourse, and follow after peace, are ill used on both sides, being either contemned, or fiercely opposed; of which number we being, etc.  
For the Papists, I have nothing to say to them now. But I have here to do with such kind of men, who striving to run as far from Papists as they can, have also unadvisedly run withal beyond the bounds of Truth. These are the Men, that with incredible pride and arrogancy despise all Antiquity; that most superciliously contemn the ancient and holy Fathers, that study all they can how to abrogate and abandon all the ancient Constitutions of the Church; and in the mean while, that arrogate to themselves a power of making what Laws they list, of appointing Ceremonies at their pleasure, and of bringing in such a discipline, which the Christians of old never heard of, as if they had be●ne created the only perpetual Dictator's and Governors' of the Church of Christ. And though they have no regard at all of any public tranquillity, refusing to give way but to the least thing that may make for the peace and unity of Christians, yet nevertheless they would fain bear up their credit, and for a colour of their bad intents, make us believe they are wondrous zealous men. Of which sort of men that he was one, whosoever was the Author of this Book, which these Impostors have published under Is. Casa●bons name, and that he was no mean one neither, but a chief champion among them, I think no body will make question, that will but run over the book, and of those infinite places which prove the same most plainly, will but a little more narrowly mark a few. There being I suppose scarce any writing extant in this kind, which doth more clearly and evidently argue, what an insolent, perverse, and rash Author it had. A man would verily think that he was one, who● had proclaimed open war and defiance to all Antiquity, or one that being starke-staring mad with novelty and fury, would abandon all the ancient Customs and Constitutions of our Forefathers.  
The Book indeed by the Title is pretended to be written against Papists, but in effect it proves as adverse to the Primitive, as to the Popish Church. And whereas the Church of England, cutting off such corruptions as crept in upon her in declining ages, hath retained many of the Sacred Rites and Ceremonies which the ancient Church had, yet she is also cunningly stricken at through the Papists sides, with so much the more danger, by how much the more craft and close subtlety it is done.  
Therefore let this be the first Argument of all the rest, to prove, that Casaubon neither was, nor could be the Author of this Book. For who was it that ever reverenced the grey hairs of Antiquity more than he? Who ever, without injuring the holy Scriptures, esteemed more highly of the ancient Fathers? And for the Church of England, what should I need to speak of i●? whose Doctrine and Discipline, Rites and Ceremonies he did so much approve and embrace, that he could never seem to himself to have commended and magnified it enough. Though there were none of his works and writings left behind him, out of which it might be gathered and demonstrated what his mind was herein, yet there be many grave and religious men still living, whom I could call to witness, how often they have heard him profess and declare at large, that he was thus affected. But there will be no need of that, seeing his own Books are every where extant to confirm it. For howsoever he had never any occasion offered him purposely and ex professo to handle this Argument, yet seeing all his Works that belong to matters Ecclesiastical and Divine, have nothing in them, not only contrary, or averse from the use and customs of this Church, but what is altogether agreeable to the Canons and Constitutions of the sam● and which, as occasion is offered, do ever and anon defend them; the intelligent Reader will easily perceive, how willingly he submitted himself unto the Form thereof, & rested wholly content with it.  
And for this purpose there are not wanting most certain proofs and testimonies occurring in many places of his writings, which will be enough to stop up the mouths of the most impudent gainsayers. As when in his Preface to his Ecclesiastical Exercitations, written to his Sacred Majesty, he saith, Qui Ecclesiam habeas in tuis Regnis, partim iam olim ità institutam, partim magnis tuis laboribus ità instauratam, ut ad florentis quondam Ecclesiae formam nulla hodiè propius accedat, quam tua, inter vel excessu, vel defectu peccantes mediam viam secuta. Quâ moderatione ●oc primum assecuta est Ecclesi● Anglicana, ut illi ipsi qui suam ei foelicitatem invident, saepe tamen ex aliarum comparatione illam cogantur laudare: deinde etc. that is, Who have in your Dominions a Church so established by former ages, and so settled by your Majesty's Royal pains and care, as no Church this day under heaven comes nearer to the flourishing estate and face of the Ancient than yours, which hath taken the middle way between them that went astray on both hands by excess or defect. By which moderation the Church of ENGLAND hath got this special advantage, that even such as envy her happiness, are nevertheless oftentimes constrained to magnify her in comparison of others. Besides &c. Whereunto these words agree in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron, written, though in his Majesty's name, yet according to his own sense and meaning; Certò, clarè ac liquidò sibi constare, si notae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaerantur, & verè necessaria ad salutem spectentur, aut etiam ad decorum Ecclesiae, nullam in orbe terrarum (Deo uni sit laus & gloria) inventum iri quae propius ad fidem, aut speciem antiquae Catholicae accedat etc. That it was most plain and manifest unto him, how for matters essential, and truly necessary to salvation, or belonging also to the beauty and decency of the Church, there was (God be thanked) none in all the world to be found, which came nearer to the faith and face of the ancient Catholic Church, etc.  
It will not be amiss here to set down his judgement about some certain Rites and Ceremonies, which as occasion served, he wrote and inserted into his Ephemerideses, from whence what he thought of all others in that kind, may be easily conjectured.  
Octob. 31. An. 1610. Diem sacram non malè posui Dei beneficio: sum enim invitatus bodiè, ut interessem sacris, quae factasunt ad consecrandos Episcopos duos Scotos, & Archiepiscopum Scotiae. Vidi illos Ritus, & Impositionem manuum, & Preces in eam rem. O Deus, quanta fuit mea voluptas! Tu Domine jesu serua hanc Ecclesiam, & Catharis, qui ista rident, da bonam mentem. God be thanked, I have spent this Holy day well. For I was this day invited to be present at the sacred solemnities of the Consecration of the Archbishop, and two other Bishops of Scotland. I saw the Ceremonies, the Imposition of hands, and the Prayers made for that purpose. O God, what apleasure it was to me, to behold it! Preserve thou this Church, O Lord jesus, and turn the hearts of the Puritans, that deride such things as these.  
jan. 4. An. 1611. Gratias tibi, Domine, quod hodi● ad sacram mensam sum admissus, & Corporis Christi, sanguinis● factus sum particeps in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ, cuius Formulam heri diligenter meditatus admodum probavi, & ordinem agendi mir● laudavi prae receptâ apud alios consuetudine. Thanks be to thee, O Lord, that I was this day admitted unto thy Holy Table, and made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Church of England, the Form of which Administration, having read it over yesterday, I did highly approve and commend above that custom which others use.  
And not only these things which concern the Church of England, but those also wherein he had to do with our Adversaries alone do sufficiently argue for his defence. Even by his whole manner and genius of writing every body may know that the book is none of his. For who cannot tell, with what great moderation and mildness Casaubon was ever wont to treat of Controversies in Religion? insomuch that many preposterous Puritans, out of their ignorant and mad zeal, did blame him for it, and from thence took occasion to suspect him more than they had reaso● to do. But this was the way that he took; and he persuaded himself it was the best and safest way that could be taken, both for the finding out of truth, and the redress of error; to follow that path which meekness and moderation either led him, or went along with him in, without all affection or partiality either way; supposing that such as took any other course, did put pace in a dangerous and slippery path, and put others further out of their way that were gone astray one from another. Now if a man should run through the whole rout of Novellers, and diligently make inquiry into their writings, I think there could not one be found for fury, and malice, and b●tternesse against his Adversaries, to be compared with this Counterfeit-Casaubon; than whom never was any man more childishly and fond in love with his own fancy, or more bend to his faction. It is but a small matter, that he hath railed a little more bitterly than became a modest man, against such things as were worthy of blame; but so infinitely to belly his Adversaries, and to put such forged crimes and calumnies upon them, was unsufferable, specially in such an undertaker for the Truth of Christ. Such manner of dealing with Adversaries, though it may be pleasing to some hot fiery Zelotes, whom learning never taught any modesty, yet wiser men cannot but condemn it, as being fitter to spoil, then to help or defend a good cause. For if there be● strict Laws provided against such colluding pleaders, that pretending to help a man, do of purpose leave out that which should most make for his cause, and bring nothing but false allegations for his defence, so to betray his right to his Aduersaries● what is to be done with such undertakers of Controversies in Religion, that either of purpose, or through gross ignorance let pass those Arguments that be solid, and of greatest moment, and come in with such idle poor reasons, as every child may answer and blow away? Ought not the same Law (when the case is the same) to be made against these men, as betrayers of an honest and good cause? What readier way than theirs can be imagined wholly to alienate our Adversary's minds from us, that being overcome with the truth on our parts, began somewhat to incline unto us? Caius Fabritius is highly commended unto us by the writers of old times, for his virtue and magnanimity, in scorning to accept of that victory in a doubtful battle, which was offered him by the perfidy of a treacherous fellow. And is it not a shame now adays, that Christians contending with Christians about the Truth of Faith, should use less faith and conscience one towards another, than the Pagan's themselves were wont to do, who regarded nothing but their own worldly praise and honour?  
Can there then be any body so injurious to Casaubon, or so quite bereaved of his own judgement, as to think these things, that smell only of a furious Sycophant, and a most impudent Calumniator, could come from him? Fron him, I say, Whose mildness and moderation in matters of Religion is so evident in all his writings, that to take any pains to prove it, were but to waste time, and to light a candle in the Sun.  
And howsoever it befits not the modesty of a son to contend about the learning of his Father; yet I hope I may have leave, without the breach of good manners, to say that he was no mere Block, or such a one as had no good learning at all ●n him; which, let but be once granted me, and I doubt not of the good success I shall have, in vindicating his name and estimation from these Hucksters hands, that put this book upon him. A book which is so full of excessive ignorance and stupidity, that whereas every thing in it (except a few scraps taken from others) argue a most unlearned writer; there are many things beside, which I wonder how they could come from a man that was sound in his senses: if yet he is to be thought sound in his senses, whom this pestilent mad puritanism hath once possessed.  
But I suppose the Reader expects, that for the better confirmation of what we say, we should produce some Examples out of the Book it s●lfe, concerning these things, wherewith we have all this while charged the Author of it. It remains therefore, that we briefly run the Book over, rather pointing at the places, then undertaking any refutation of them.  
IN the first part of his Book he reckons 
Pag. 2, 3, etc. 8, 9, 21.  up all such things, which either happened by occasion, or were directly ordained by God in the old Law, having some mystical or typical signification in them; as the Trees of Life and Death, of Knowledge of Good & Evil; the Rainbow; the Feast of unleavened Bread; the cloudy Pillar that went before the Israelites in the day; the flame of Fire that guided them in the night; the division of the Red Sea; the heavenly Manna; the water that gushed out of the Rock; Oblations and Sacrifices of diverse sorts; the Temple of jerusalem; the Priests vestments; the water of cleansing, etc. And all these he will have to been no less truly and properly called Sacraments of the old Testament, than Circumcision and the Passeover were; in place whereof were instituted those two Sacraments of the new Testament, Baptism, and the Supper of the lord I am not ignorant what a large signification the word Sacrament hath; but never (that I could learn) were all these promiscuously accounted, and reckoned up among the number of Sacraments by the Fathers; and while I weigh this man's words a little better, I find by most certain confequence, that his meaning and purpose was, in making all Sacred Signs to be true Sacraments, withal to make us believe, that the Sacraments of the New Testament are nothing else but mere naked Signs and Figures. Neither is there any other meaning to be collected from him in all his passages about the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. For howsoever he would sometimes seem to be far of another mind, when he useth the words, really and truly; yet he applies them no otherwise to the Sacred Symbols of the Supper, than he doth to any of those Shadows and Figures of the old Law; acknowledging no power in them of really exhibiting, but of signifying only, as pag. 36. or really signifying, at most, as pag. 81. upon which ground, that is to say, that there is no more virtue in the Eucharist, then in those Signs, he thinks he hath most learnedly and strongly confuted the new opinion of Transubstantiation, (a conceit otherwise most absurd and gross,) because forsooth there was no Transubstantiation in the 
Pag. 85, 86.  Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, none in the Manna, or in the Rock that flowed with water, or in the brazen Serpent, etc. As if it were not easy to answer our Adversaries truly out of S. Augustine's own words. Prima Sacramenta 
S. Aug. contra Fa●st●●. l●b. 19● c. 13.  cum suo adventu Christus implevisset, ablata sunt; & alia sunt instituta, virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora. The Sacraments of the old Law being accomplished by the coming of Christ, are taken away; and others ordained in their place, which be greater in power and efficacy, better for our profit, easier for performance, and fewer in number.  
But to make an end with him in this point: His only doctrine is, That by faith we do really participate of the body and blood of Christ, and be made one with him● and that the signs and symbols of this our conjunction and fellowship are in the Eucharist: whereas we do not call them Signs only, but believe them further to be the very Instruments and Means of our Communion with Christ; which is the same that the Primitive Church teacheth, the doctrine of the Church of England, and the Belief of Is. Casaubon, as may be seen in his 
† Exe●c. 16.  Exercitations, and his 
𝄁 Num. 47.  Epistle to Card. Perron. For them that have such base and abject thoughts of this divine Sacrament, it is no marvel if they can find nothing to wonder at in it, as this Scribbler elsewhere doth grant, and some do much more impudently affirm; but the godly Fathers, being wont to call it tremend● Mysterium, a Mystery full of horror and dread, would not have us once to think upon so great a matter without a holv and sacred fear.  
In his third Chapter, going about to 
Pag. 10. 11, etc.  show, how from time to time, the Signs & Sacrifices of the old Law were depraved, and subject to corruption, without any judgement, or discretion at all, he reckons us up a number of sins and offences, of a far different nature; which nevertheless he will needs have properly to belong unto the Sacraments; as the Loathing of Manna, and the People's murmuring that followed; the sin of Achan; the impiety of the sons of Heli; the rash attempt of Uzzah, and others the like; among which Iephte's vow, and Gedeon's garment are numbered for corruptions of Sacraments. And hither he refers that of 2. Kings 17. 17. 
Pag. 15.  Where the Israelites made their children to pass through the fire, which this fellow calls Purgatory Fire, and saith, that from it was derived the opinion of the Alcoranists and Mahumetans at this day for Purgatory: meaning by his Alcoranists, the Papists of our times. For so he calls them elsewhere, them and their rituals 
Pag. 63. 65. 66. 70, etc.  Durand's Alcoran, Titelman's Alcoran, etc.  
In his Seventh Chapter, he cities us his Ecclesiastical Commentaries, and Pag. 50. he sends us unto them again. 'tis very well. Still have we the advantage, & every where matter enough to detect the fraud of these Impostors. For whose soever these same Commentaries be, sure I am, they be none of Casaubon's. He never published, never wrote any Ecclesiastical Commentaries. But I am afraid lest these Commentaries 
In his Epistle to the Reader.  and those of Elasopolitanus, be twins, out of which the Author of this book himself confesseth, he had every thing to make us up this Pamphlet, such as it is. What these Commentaries of Elasopolitan are, I think no body yet ever knew, or is like to know, being at least so unknown and unheard of, as the very name of the man seemed strange and monstrous to all learned men's ears that I could meet withal.  
In the same Chapter, among the superstitious Ceremonies of Baptism heretofore brought into the Church, he 
Pag. 27. 28.  numbereth up Chrism, Exsufflation, and Exorcisms; which though they were not undeservedly taken away by the Church of England, when they began to be abused unto ridiculous superstition; yet inasmuch as they be known to have been of very great Antiquity, it was not the part of a modest man to rail upon them for abominable things, specially as they were used in the Primitive Church. Certainly the old godly Fathers, S. Cyrill, S. Ba●il, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine and others (a little better Doctors of Religion and Piety, I trow, than our new upstart Zelotes) would never have admitted or allowed them, if, as this man affirms, they had been first invented to adulterate the true use and prime Institution of Baptism. And for Casaubon it is not likely that he would ever have given any such censure of these Ceremonies against the manner and custom of the ancient Fathers, whom how much he reverenced, he hath elsewhere made known in matters of greater moment.  
But we must not here let pass this one most notorious example of the senseless stupidity and malignity both of this lewd and idle writer. Wherefore 
Pag. 28.  O you Missalians (saith the man) have you foisted in oils into the holy Sacrament of Baptism, imitating herein the here●ie of Marcus and Marcosus, who commanded that Infants to be baptised should be anointed? In his Margin he sends us to Epiphanius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There was one Marcus (saith Epiphanius) of whom the Marcosians were so called. Now who would not wonder what a monstrous blind bayard this fellow is, to make us proper names of denominatives? as if a man should say, there were two certain famous Heretics called Arrius and Arrianus. But what is the madness of the Marcosians to the ancient custom of the Orthodox Fathers? The Marcosian Heretics used not their oil for an indifferent Ceremony in Baptism, but made the virtue and efficacy of the Sacrament to depend upon it, insomuch, that some of them never baptised their young beginners, if they were once anointed after their own fashion with oil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Epiphanius there, Some of them think Baptism superfluous.  
A little after he doth malapertly inveigh 
Pag. 29.  against the ancient Bishops, as if they had permitted women to baptise: which is a mere false tale. Tertul. de vel. virg. Nonpermittitur mulieri in Ecclesiâ loqui, sednec docere, nec tingere, etc. It is not permitted to a woman for to speak in the Church, or to teach, or to Baptise, etc. In a case of extreme necessity the very same Father saith, that Laymen might do it. Whereupon the Church of England, howsoever it alloweth not women or Laymen to baptise, yet the last being once done, when necessity so requireth, it doth not believe it to be void, or to have no account mad● of it● In the mean while, what a wicked and ungracious companion is this same Pseudo Casaubon of ours, so impudently to bespot the integrity of the ancient Church, with the foul imitation of the Montanists, Marcionists, Cataphrigians, and such other rabble of Heretics, who permitted their women, and ●he● their whores too, to do any thing whatsoever?  

Pag. 30.  Then in his Eighth Chapter, as if he had all this while thought himself too modest, he begins with open face, as they say, and a tongue past all shame to fly upon the venerable face of Antiquity. And first of all, see how bravely he gives the onset. Wherefore when errors came in and prevailed even in the Apostles times, Let no man hereafter think it strange, that the Apostles Successors from time to time adulterated the true use, and rites of the holy Sacraments. As if it were all one, that there were some Heretics in the Apostles times, and that the Apostles Successors were Heretics themselves. No body will deny but that there have been Heresies from the beginning of the Church, or at least have sprung up not long after: But if the heads of the Church, immediately succeeding the Apostles were tainted, what hope is there, that the rest of the body, specially in after ages may be sound? Wherefore that which he repeats by 
Pag. 32.  and by again, w● will not care to grant him, that there were from the beginning of the Church many and infinite corruptions crept in● but, by his leave, none of them were received by the Church, or approved by the godly Bishops, and sound members of the same. It is the open profession of the Church of England, that she doth wholly assent, and firmly adhere to the doctrine of the first four hundred years, and more. That which the holy Fathers of those times delivered, and taught with common consent, she willingly embraceth That which they did not teach, she forbids to be now taught unto the people, as necessary for them to believe; which is apparent by that golden Canon ofhers (as Casaubon was wont to call it) made in a Synod Anno 1571. and set forth together with the Articles of Religion, and confirmed by subscription of all: whereby all Preachers and Pastors 
In the Chapter of Preachers.  are bound, That they should never teach any thing, as matter of Faith religiously to be observed, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and is collected out of the same doctrine by the Ancient Fathers, and Catholic Bishops of the Church.  
But a God's name, what are these so great corruptions of the Primitive Church, which this same swinger of Antiquity hath made such a stir withal? 
Pag. 31.  Next and immediately (so he says) after the Apostles times there was a contention about a certain Compromission of days, when this holy Sacrament was to be celebrated, and then they began to make Holidays, and appoint days of fasting, etc. That there were any days appointed for the celebration of the Eucharist in the Primitive Church, or that there arose any contention among the Bishops about it, I think is this idle man's fancy only, and that no sufficient testimony can be brought to prove it. For the innocence and purity of these first ages was such, that as the ancient Fathers and other writers do witness, not only any day, but every day was appropriated to this Sacred Celebration; the Christians then for the most part never missing a day, but they did communicate. A long while after, when devotion began to wax cold, there grew a necessity of making Laws, to meet with the people's contempt of so great a blessing. Then were times appointed, chiefly to tie those that were so negligent and averse of themselves. But this dull Ass, living perhaps among such as thought it religion enough to communicate once a year, whatsoever he had read about the Feast of Easter, which was a long time variously observed, he applied most fond unto the time of receiving the Lords Supper, as if that had been the only appointed day for the celebration of that Sacrament. But (so he goeth on) the Apostles left us nothing in writing about Fasting, and Feast days. But so would Casaubon never have written in a matter not merely belonging to Faith, who hath often admired and approved of that Rule which S. Augustine giveth us. 
S. Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 24.  Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Apostolicâ authoritate traditum rectissimè creditur. That which the universal Church holdeth, which is not defined by Counsels, but hath been always retained and used, we do rightly believe to be a Tradition of Apostolical authority. And for the observation of the Hebdomadasancta, that Great and Holy week before Easter, he freely professeth his mind in his Exercitations. 
Exerc. pag. ●71.  Ego sanctissimam illam consuetudinem iam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus initia habuisse, aut non multò post facilè crediderim. I do easily believe, that either in the Apostles times, or not long after, this most holy Custom had its beginning.  
In the same Chapter, he tells us that Pope Alexander the first of that name, who was the fifth from S. Peter, (as Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 4. c. 1.) and one that was crowned with Martyrdom, as other Authors testify, that this Alexander going about 
Pag. 33.  to reform the Gospel of Christ, was the first that invented the mingling of water and wine in the Eucharist. Concerning which custom, what the practice of the ancient Church was, and what S. Cyprian, and S. Augustine say of it, they that know any Antiquity cannot be ignorant.  
Again he tells us that from this Custom their Abuse sprung up, who steeped 
Pag. 35.  the bread of the holy Supper in the blood of young infants, and so celebrated the Sacrament. What a most detestable wickedness of a man is this, to join the monstrous impiety of lewd miscreants, (that went for Christians indeed among the unskilful multitude, but were nothing less) & the universal practice of Christ's Church together! and to ascribe the wickedness of heretics, to innocent and harmless men! So the Pagans of old, what villainy soever any base fellow, that was but thought to be a Christian, had done, they were wont to lay it upon the true Christians themselves, as the Writers of those elder ages have so often complained. But so true is it, that this wicked bloodshed of infants sprang from the Custom of the Churches mingling water with wine, whereof he makes Alexander to have been the first Inventer, as that many of better authority than he, fetch the beginning of it from Simon Magus, who was a whole hundred years elder than Alexander. And it was this Alexander also, whom he makes to be the Reviuer of jewish Ceremonies in the Church, and the first Inventer of unleavened bread to be used in the Eucharist. A wonder the man should be no more afraid of the Allobrogicall Consistory, the Tribunal seat at Geneva, where the same bread, according as the old custom was, is used at this day.  
In his ninth Chapter, to mak● 〈◊〉 way for that which was to follow, like a wise fore-caster, he begins to treat of the Religion and Rites of the ancient Roman people: which Argument he handleth just like himself, having no more knowledge in Antiquity, than what he could get from B●ond●● and Alexander, and such other late Writers, whom he cities every where for antiquity, as witnesses beyond all exception: yet for this he is to be commended, though for nothing else, that he doth so ingenuously acknowledge his good Benefactors. But how well this kind of writing agrees with Casaubon, to depend wholly upon new Writers, and neglect the old, let them say, that are fit judges in these matters.  
But it made altogether for his purpose, to explicate the Paynim Rites and Ceremonies of the Romans, from whence he undertaketh to deduce the whole Mass, and to convince it of Paganism. For his undertaking, let honest and moderate men judge how laudable it is. I know he is not the first, or at least the only man that hath attempted it; there have been those that would needs fetch the whole Religion of the Papists, both in Faith and Ceremonies, from Turks & Pagans. But sure I am, that any such thought was very odious to Casaubon, who was neither so inept to believe any such thing himself, nor so malignant to persuade other men to it. Which I speak not, as if I meant to excuse the many and detestable superstitions of Popery: no such matter. But it is one thing, faithfully to reduce errors and corruptions unto their prime beginnings, which many excellent men have with great felicity undertaken; and another, shamefully to detort, and bitterly to exaggerate all things, for the bringing of them into hatred; which the Author of this Book hath most impudently done, above all others that ever belaboured themselves in this kind. And seeing the Church of England hath retained many things in her public Liturgy, that were before in the Roman Missal, the one cannot altogether be accused of Paganism, without the opprobrious injury of the other.  
But we said even now, and it is too manifest, that this Pamphlet is in most things repugnant to the Church of England. We will briefly point at some of them.  
In the eighth Chapter, The keeping of Lent is reckoned up among those ordinances that be contrary to Christ's precept. 
a Pag. 41.  Temples that bear the names of Saints, are scorned, and taunted at, as if they were built to the honour of men, and not to the worship of God. 
b Pag. 61.  Praying towards the East, and the situation of Churches that way, are condemned for inventions of superstitious heretics. 
c Pag. ●1.  The Titles of Father, and Reverend Father, which we use to give unto Ecclesiastical persons, are traduced, as being derived from the custom of the Gentiles. 
d Pag. 41.  Confirmation of children is ho●ted at, as the fond device of idle men that had nothing el●e to do. 
e Pag. 46.  Through the Pope's sides all distinction of Order in the Church is pulled apieces; and a parity of E●a●gelicall Ministers set up, and maintained as Ius Divinum. 
f Pag. 59  The use of a Surplice in performance of Divine Service, he deriveth from the idolatrous Egyptians: and 
g Pag. 73.  again, those that brought it first into the Church, he saith plainly were men inspired with the spirit of Numa Pompilius, whom he is eue● and anon calling the Magicians 
h Pag. 40.  All the Furniture and Ornaments of the Church, as vessels of silver, Hangings and Tapisteries are condemned and scorned. 
i Pag. 64.  The use of Music, as well vocal, as instrumental in the time of Divine Services he doth most reproachfully rail at; & affirms, that Numa the Magician, and not the Bishops of Rome, was the first bringer of it into Churches. 
k Pag. 68  Dispensations for pluralities of Benefices are but an old renewed custom of the Roman Idolaters with him, and no Constitution of Christians.  
And these, with such other like monstrous absurdities, he is not only so impudent to affirm, but he will needs betray and show such great ignorance al●o to confirm them with reasons; that a man cannot tell, at what he should wonder most, his ignorance, or his impudence. As for example, first 
l Pag. 67.  bringing that which we alleged last of all concerning Dispensations, and avouching them to have come from the Romans, he saith, Over these Benefices the high Pontife had usurped a power to give dispensation to whom he would, for the holding of two together, as in I itus Livius it is related of Fabius Maximus, who by a dispensation held two Benefices, when he was created Pontife, more than 200. before the Incarnation of ●esus Christ. These things to be spoken by a Pagan after the manner of our own times, who would not marvel at? But in Livy there is no such matter. He speaks not one word of a Dispensation. That Fab. Maximus of whom Livy here writes, was never any Pontife neither, but died when he was young. Indeed his Father, Q. Fab. the elder was said to have had two Priesthoods, as they called them, of two kinds nothing like one another's but not two places, or two preferments in the same kind of Priesthood. Forsooth, the same man was Augur and Pontife too. And not to tell you what Plutarch saith, that the name Augur was no title of Magistracy or dignity, but of Art and knowledge only, Liui's words are; Eodem anno Quin. Fabius moritur, etc. Augur in eius locum inauguratus est Quin. Fabius Max filius; in eiusdem locum P●ntifex● (nam duo Sacerdotia habuit,) Ser. Sulpitius Galba: that is, Quin. Fab. died the same year, etc. Into his room of Augurship, was Q. Fab. Max. his son consecrated, and Ser. Sulp. Galba (for he had two diverse Priesthoods) into his place of Pontife.  
But this is nothing to the rest of his absurdities: whereof that we may give some taste, let us see a little how he deriveth the Mass from Numa Pompilius.  

Pag. 48. 49.  For the name of the Mass, he likes not of them, that derive it from Daniel's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maozim, and thinks it may be much better deduced from the Hebrew Messa, which word, he saith, we have in 4. King. cap. 11. signifying Conculcation. Indeed in the 11. Chap. ver. 6. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Massah, which the Septuagint took for a proper name, and interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the French Translation also following, hath retained the word Mese in the Text; and yet noted the divers interpretation of Irruption and vastation in the Margin: from whence this Ass took his Conculcation. But if the word be taken in that sense of Irruption or Conculcation, as he speaks, the Root will not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masah, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nasah: neither will the word Massah signify irruption, but, from irruption, the preposition being joined with the Noun, as the manner of the Hebrues is.  
With the like frenzy doth he derive us Missel from Misseol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not signify Hell, but, out of Hell.  
Yet these Etymologies of the Mass, otherwise good enough, he thinks not therefore fit to be admitted, because the Author of the Mass, Numa Pompilius, understood no Hebrew at all: and thereupon he concludeth, that it is a Latin word made by Numa himself, who first of all, forsooth, appointed, those words, 
Pag. 49. & 72.  Ite Missa est, to be proclaimed unto the people, when their Sacrifices were at an end. Reader, canst thou imagine, that this fellow had either any shame or conscience in him to write such things as these? He should have produced one of the Ancient Heathen Authors, at least, that had ever used the word Missa for a Substantive, a name usual in their Sacrifices.  
And with as little shame is that written of him, when to prove that the Turks do so much esteem of the Mass, he deduceth the Arabic words of Mecca, which is a Town's name, and Mesulmanos, which is, Peacemakers, or faithful and Orthodox, and Mesgid, which is as much to say as the place of adoration, that is, a Temple, being all corruptly called Messa, Meselman, and Messites, all these from the word Mass.  
Such kind of stuff it is that he saith, the old Christians borrowed their Title of Pop● from the Heathen Idolaters, who were wont to call jupiter their Pope jupiter. A marvel S. Cyprian and S. Augustine were not Idols with him too, whom by S. Jerome that so styled the latter, and by the Clergy of Rom● that so called the first, we find entitled, most holy Fathers and Popes.  
In his next page he learns us from whence the name of Curat● and Curio came, forsooth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from cutting the hair, which we ever thought yet had come from Curiae, (certain distributions of the people, answerable to our Wards) which had every one their several Curiones or Curates, to perform their religious paynim solemnities. In the same place he dreams how the Priests were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● from the round shaving or crowning of their heads, whom Dionysius Halicar. interprets to be the Flamines, and saith they were so called from the fashion of their Bonnets, or the Crowns themselves that they used to wear.  

ibid.  With the like liberty of lying he affirms, that the Romans were wont to call that white garment, which they used in their Pagan solemnities an Albe; and this most absurd and shameful fancy of his own he ascribes to that learned Author Alexander ab Alexandro, in whose work there is no such matter to be found. And among other Ritual 
Pag. 52.  writers, he brings us in Philo the jew to speak of this Albe of the Papists. For after he hath done with the mystical interpretations, that Titleman, and Gabr. Biel give of it, he addeth, That Philo in his book of Dreams, subtly deviseth, how the Albe signifies the most resplendent light of the Deity, which he calls Ens. Philo allegorising, as his use is, upon those words of Genesis, Chap. 31. ver. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lift up thine eyes, and behold the he Goats, and the Rams leaping upon the shee-goats, and the Ewes, white, and particoloured, and spread here and there with ash-coloured spots, (as the Septuagint translated it;) after he had already treated of the two kinds, particoloured, and ash-coloured, he addeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● that is, as the interpreter renders it, We will now explain the third and most perfect colour that is called Alba, or white; which he doth allegorically expound of the Linen Garment, that was made of the purest fine thread, and used to be put upon the Highpriest. Now because all this seemed to agree somewhat with the Papists Albe, the man, being not well in his wits, took those words of the Interpreter, Quae Alba nominatur; which is called the white colour, as if Philo had spoken it of the Priest's garment. But that you might not marvel how Philo should come to talk of a Popish vestment, you shall presently hear, how he was acquainted with the Missalia●s themselves. For having reckoned us up most of the vestments which the Papists use in their solemn performance of divine Rites, 
Pag. 54.  To these (says he) Philo the jew adds a Mitre to declare the Missalians Royal Diadem. In the place which is cited, Philo treateth of the High Priests mitre among the jews: so that with this fellow the Priests of the jews & the Missalists are all one: and then, inasmuch as he doth el● where ever confound the Missalians & the Pagan Priests together, & brings them both from the same origen, it must necessarily follow according to him, that there is no difference between the Priests of Pagans, and the Priests of the jews whom God himself ordained.  

Pag. 59  Labarum, the name of a Banner, made famous by Constantine, but before Christ's time (as far as we can find by the books of ancient Authors yet extant) never heard of, he tells us, was known by that name to the old Romans, yea, and as it were older than Rome itself, he fetcheth it from Antenor of Troy.  
I am ashamed of these follies, whereof the Author himself is not ashamed: who though he were some unlearned Sot, which is as clear as the light at noon day, yet he could never have grown to that height of insolent madness, but that he came so minded to write, as if he intended not to seek out the Truth, but to oppress his Adversaries with criminatio●s, true or false, no matter what. For who was ever so mad to say, that Numa Pompilius celebrated Mass 700. years before Christ was borne? and yet this Scribbler affirms it almost in every page. And therefore when he speaks of the Priests which Numa constituted, he calls them Masspriests; 
Pag. 55.  and in his 13. Chap. alleging the place of Blondus, concerning the manner of the Pagan Rites in their Sacrifices, that which Blondus speaks of the Gentiles, Dijs superis sacra facturi, about to sacrifice unto the Gods, this man turns, who were about to say Mass.  
In his 15. Chapter he saith, that Priests 
Pag. 62.  learnt to say their Con●iteor before Mass● of Numa the Magician; for that it was the custom of the heathen Idolaters also, to look heavily, and confess themselves before their offering of Sacrifice. In the custom of Confessing, which otherwise no body, that is in his right mind, can find fault withal, if the Papists have admitted any thing worthy of blame, I am not he that will excuse it. But if that be their fault only, that the Heathens used some such matter, what shall be free from reprehension, even in the most pure and uncorrupt Religion? For it is well known also, that the Priests under the old Law did first offer Sacrifice for their own sins; which I think no body will say the Israelites took from the heathen Idolaters. And let but a man now deny this fellow, that whatsoever matters in Religion are common to us with the Gentiles, be in all haste to be cast away, the whole frame of his book will presently fall asunder: for this is the only foundation whereon so many unsavoury disputes, so many foolish, unjust, and false accusations do rest. What the mind of the Fathers in this behalf was, may be shown by many of their own testimonies. Quoniam idol● colebamus, nun● Deum colere non debemus, ne ●imili eum videamur cum Idolis honor● venerari? Because we once worshipped Idols, shall we not now worship God, lest we should seem to give him the same honour that Idols bad? saith S. Jerome, crying out against Vigilantius. And S. Augustine against Faustus the Maniche; Sicut, non ideò contemnenda vel detestanda virginitas Sanctimonialium, quia & vestales uirgines fuerunt, etc. As we are not (saith he) to despise or detest the virginity of holy Nuns because there have been vestal virgins also, etc. To that purpose Tertullian de praescr. adverse. haeret. doth abundantly demonstrate, that the Gentiles had some things of near affinity with the Ceremonies that we use in the chief mysteries of our Religion. And so far were the old Christians from refusing all the Rites and customs of the heathen, that as far as piety would suffer them, they did prudently condescend and apply themselves thereunto, the more easily to win them in matters of greater moment; as by learned men it hath been observed, and may be by many examples made good. But this man's own words are sufficient to confound him, and to convince him also of manifest impiety.  
For he that elsewhere so bitterly condemneth whatsoever seems among the Papists to have any agreement with the customs of the heathen, and for no other reason, but because they be answerable one to the other; yet he tells us 
●g. 25, 25.  more than once, that Christ himself did choose these Symbols to institute the Sacraments of the new Testament withal, which as well the jews as the Gentiles were accustomed to use in their Sacrifices and Ceremonious worship, that so all nations might the more facilely admit of these Rites, which were already familiar unto them. As for the Gentiles, whether Christ had any reference to their Ceremonies, or no, I will not rashly say: but that he did so accommodate himself to the jews, as to institute nothing in Rites and Ceremonies, which was not common and usual with them before, many learned men have made it good by most certain Testimonies of the Talmud, and other writings of the jews. They therefore that without breach of piety have followed Christ's example in things indifferent, are they to be esteemed as impious and profane? or are not they much rather to be so accounted, who the more freely to deride their Adversaries, spare not Gods own sacred word, nor abstain from horrible blasphemies? wherein how notorious this Hell-bound hath been, it will be enough to declare by this one example.  
Psal. 43. v. 4. David breaks forth with joy into these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Septuagint render after this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the vulgar Latin following them, hath translated, Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iwentutem meam. I will go unto the Altar of God, even unto the God that is the joy of my youth. Upon which speech of the Prophet, thus doth this 
Pag. 63.  wicked Idiot make his descant. Numa the Magician held opinion, that there was great sanctity in these wheelings, wreathe and turnings about of the Sacrificer; which, as may be conjectured, was an occasion of adding this pleasant Song to the Missal Introduction, I will go up (saith he) to the Altar of God, which rejoiceth my youth. Hath he not just cause to rejoice, when h●● sees the cloth laid, the table set, the banquet prepared, the music of Organs and other Instruments to sound, odours and Incenses, the Chalice full of wine, the Collation prepared, and chink offertories ready to fill his purse? Are not all these means to exhilerate the Sacrificers youth, when he goes up to the Altar to say Mass, to dance and turn about, in form to him prescribed by the Magician Numa Pompilius? A godly Father long since complaining of a certain City, said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which 
Greg. Naz. orat. 3. de pace.  sets herself to jest and play with things Divine, as well as with any other common matter; and rather will she laugh at such things as be good and honest, then pass over without laughter such things as be ridiculous. This is the fault of many now adays, that make themselves sport with jesting upon sacred Actions, and affect the name of Witty men in things that are so serious.  
I should here have made an end, but that I cannot with a good conscience silently pass over that most heinous injury which is done here to the holy Emperors, and ancient Bishops of Rome. For thus this furious man writes. The 
Pag. 40. 41.  Bishops of Rome, who termed themselves Christians, for three or four hundred years after the Incarnation of Christ, did nothing else, but labour to corrupt the use of the holy Sacraments, to restore the jewish Ceremonies, and the Idolatries of the ancient heathen Romans. And of S. Gregory he 
Pag. 73. 74.  saith expressly, that, being instructed in Pythagorical Magic, and having studied the Laws of King Tull. Hostilius, successor to Numa, he enriched the Mass with new Magical additions. With what countenance, may it be thought, with what eyes will those blessed souls (if there be any sense in them) look down from heaven upon this base mushrum, that calls their faith in question, which many of them, as glorious martyrs, have sealed with their blood, and accuseth them of the same impiety, which their most cruel persecutors professed?  
But for Casaubon, how much he is abused, to have such abominable dottrellismes of a frantic fellow put upon him, though I hope there be few but conceive it, yet it will not be amiss for their behoof that know it not, to let it be seen in his own words. Thus therefore he writes in his Exercitations: 
Pag. 434.  Nemo peritus rerum Ecclesiae ignorat operâ Romanorum Ponti●icum per multa saecul● Deum esse usum in conseruandâ sartâ tectâ rectae fidei doctrinâ, etc. No man that is seen in Church story can be ignorant, how that many ages together God used the help of the Rom●ne Bishops in preserving whole and sound the doctrine of true Religion, etc. In the same place. Uentum est ad Leonem Magnum, de quo Pontifice quam honori●icè sentiamus, ipsi iam ostendimus: Non enim ignoramus, quantus hic fuerit syncerae fidei defensor, ● pro rectâ fide quantos labores sustinuerit, quam ●cclesiae Dei utiles, etc. We are come to Leo the Great; of which Pope how honourably we co●ceiu●, we showed even now; for I am not ignorant, how great a defender he was of the right faith, and how many labours he underwent for the true Religion, how profitable to the Church of God, etc. And in another place of S. Gregory. Fuit Gregorius, non solùm cognomine, sed rebus ipsis Magnus & Sanctus, ac verè sui saeculi propè iam ferrei, Phoenix. Nos quidem ita censemus, & cur ita censeamus, causas parati sumus reddere, etc. Gregory was not only Great in name, but a Saint, and Great indeed, the true Phoenix of his almost yron-growen age. Truly so we think, and why we think so, we are ready to give account, etc. Without doubt many more passages might be brought to the same purpose, if any man will take the pains to turn his books. But I hope, these which did now accurre, will be enough to satisfy the Reader.  
Now for the Emperors of Rom●, we are to say a little of them; because this Author do●th so confidently aver them to have ever been all most deadly enemies unto Christian Religion, and most stiff persisters in the superstitions of their Ancestors. For so in his tenth Chapter he doth expressly, and in so many words affirm, that for the space of 
Pag. 43.  400. years, the Roman Church of Emperors and Senators, were always Opposites and Enemies unto the Law of jesus Christ. But in the next page, that, for the space of 700. years, or thereabouts, after the Incarnation of Christ, there was no Emperor, King nor Prince at Rome, that would embrace the Law of jesus Christ. Perhaps (saith he) there may be some that will ob●ect against us one Philip, which some vaunt was converted to holy Baptism, whose depraved manners gave occasion to the most ancient Historiographers to esteems him unworthy of the name of a Christian. Whereunto they add Constantine the Great, that assembled the Council of Nice, but his Residence was in Gre●ce, called the Empire of the East, and yet he would never embrace the Character of Baptism, to be regenerated by the blood of Christ, till he was threescore and five years old, when he was baptised by an Arrian Bishop of Nicomedia, named Eusebius, when the same Constantine was at the point of death. Wherefore Sylvester Bishop of Rome need not vaunt of converting the Emperor to the Faith.  
Good God what a prodigious liberty of lying is here? What fountains of waters, what seas shall be able to wash away the black poison of this most impure Calumniator? What, was not Constantine therefore, nor jovinian, nor Valentinian, Gratian, not he, whom so many actions, so many glorious praises of the Christians made famous, Theodosius the Great, was not He a Christian? But whereas he denieth Constantine to have been a Christian, because he deferred his baptism, it is well known that the most godly Emperor did that after the manner of his time then in use. For we find that many in those ages, who had sincerely taken upon them the name of Christ, deferred and put off their baptism a long while; who believing all their former sins to be washed away in this sacred Laver, did suppose that time to be the fittest for it, (as Eusebius writes in the life of Constantine lib. 4. c. 61.) when their life drew nearest to an end; that by this means they might go out of the world with a clean and pure conscience: against which custom notwithstanding, as being too full of danger and hazard, the F●thers both Greek and Latin that then flourished, did mainly oppose themselves. But there was a peculiar reason for Constantine beside; because (as he professeth himself in Euseb.) if God had given him a longer life, his desire and purpose was to have been baptised in jordan, which Christ himself had sanctified with his own baptism.  
And if he must therefore be thought to be averse from Christianity, because he was baptised so late, what shall we say of Valentinian, who having deferred his baptism far longer, was overtaken by sudden death? whom nevertheless S. Ambrose undoubtedly believed to have been received into heaven when he was dead, much less made any question of his living or dying a Christian. Let us hear S. Ambrose himself, 
S. Ambros. de obitu Valent.  how he comforts the Sisters of this deceased Emperor. Sed audio vos dolere, quod non acceperit Sacramentum Baptismatis. Dicite mihi, quid aliud in nobis est, nisi voluntas? nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudùm hoc votum habuit, ut cum in Italiam venisset, initiaretur, & proximè baptizari se à me velle significavit; & ideò prae caeteris causis me accersendun pu●auit. Non habet ergò gratiam, quam desideravit? non habet, quam poposcit? Certe quia poposcit, accepit. But I hear how it grieveth you, that ●e received not the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what have we in us else, but our will? what, but our desire? But this desire he had even a long while since; that after his coming into Italy he might be initiated; and he signified his mind, that he would presently upon it be baptised by me; For which cause more than any other, he thought good to have me sent for. Hath he not therefore that grace which he desired? not that which he ●o earnestly prayed for? Certainly because he did desire it, he did receive it. And a little after: Qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? Aut ●i quia solenniter non su●t celebrata mysteria, hoc movet; ergo neque Martyrs, si Catechumeni fuerint, coronentur. Non enim coronatur, si non initiatur. Quod si suo abluuntu● sanguine, & hunc sua pietas abluit & voluntas. He that had thy Spirit, how had he not thy grace also? Or if that be a hindrance, because the Sacrament was not solemnly celebrated, why, then th● Martyrs themselves if they were still in the number of the ●at● humeni, (Christians instructed, but n●● yet baptised) shall receive no crown of their Martyrdoms for he that is not initiated, is not r●●●iu●d neither. But if their own blood did baptise them, than did his piety and desire also baptise him.  
Now that Constantine was baptised by an Arrian Bishop, howsoever this opinion be favoured by S. Jerome, yet the contrary is maintained by others. The Emperors that succeeded next after Theodosius the Great, whether they were Roman, or Barbarous, though they were many of them infected with the Arrian heresy, yet Christians they were all, and, which is most to the purpose, they were every one far from any suspicion of Paganism.  
For Symmachus his Relation (which this frantic Zealot falsely calls his Answer, because he would not be brought to confess, that even the chiefest men in authority and office were fain to beg for their Religion) the matter must be a little more fully thought on, inasmuch as he makes it against strengthening of his cause, to prove that the Senate and Senators of Rome (for so he writes) could not any of them be ever brought to embrace the faith of Christ. The case was this. Symmachus was sent Ambassador by the Heathens to Valentinian, to get them their Altar of Victory restored, etc. but could not obtain it. Therefore the Emperor was a Christian at least. But who were they that desired this? Absit (saith 
Idem lib. 1. cont. Relation●m Symmachi.  S. Ambrose, in his first book against the Relation of Symmachus) ut hoc Senatus petijsse dicatur; pauci Gentiles communi utuntur nomine. Name & ante biennium ferme, c●m hoc petere tentarent, misit ad me S. Damasus Romanae Ecclesiae Sacerdos, iudicio Dei electus, Libellum, quem Christiani Senatores dederunt, & quidem innumeri, expostulantes nihil se tale mandâsse, non congruere Gentilium huiusmodi petitionibus vos praebere consensum. Questi etiam publicè, priuatim● se non conuentur●s ad Curiam, si tale aliquid d●●●rn●r●tur. Dignum est temporibu● vestris, hoc est, Christianis temporibus, ut dignitas Christianis Senatoribus abrogetur, quò Gentilibus Senatoribus prophanae deferatur voluntatis effectus? Hunc libellum ego fratri Clementiae vestrae direxi. Vnde c●nstitit non Senatum aliquid de superstitionis impensis mandasse Legatis, etc. God defend that the Senate should be said to have desired it; a few heathen men usurps the name of all the rest. For well nigh two years since, when they attempted it, S. Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, elect of God, sent me a book, that the Christian Senators, a very great number of them, had given vp● expostulating the matter, how that they had given no such thing in charge, and that it was not meet You should give way to any such petition of the Heathen. And further they complained both in public and private, that they would not come at the Senate-house, if any such thing were granted, or decreed. Is it fit for Your times, that is, for Christian times, to have the Christian Senators put by their honour, that the profane Heathen Senators may have their will? This Book I directed to Your Brother, by which it appeareth that the Senate gave no order to those Ambassadors for the upholding of Superstitious Paganism. Let the Reader now judge, whom we should believe of the two, this most holy Prelate, that was an eyewitness of those things in his own time; or this impudent knave, that hath no knowledge at all in Ecclesiastical Antiquity.  
It remains now last of all, that as we promised at first, we should say a little of that book, which my Father undertook in the like Argument with this. We will dispatch it in his own words. 
Casa●bon to the Reader, in his Exercit. v●on Baronius.  Quaedam breviter attigi, quaedam paulò uberiùs tractavi; ut doctrinam de sacro sanctâ Eucharistiâ, de quâ dum uestigi● Baronij premo, Tres scripsi Disputationes; unam de varijs huius Sacramenti apud veteres Appellationibus; alteram de Transubstantia●ione; tertiam de gener● Sacrificij Christianorum; conatus primorum saeculorum doctrinam, non minus candid & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quam accurate exponere. That is, I have touched some things briefly, and other things I have handled more at large, as the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist; whereof, treading in Baronius his own steps, I have wrote Three Treatises; One, of the various appellations of this Sacrament, among the Ancient. Another of Transubstantiation. A third, concerning the nature & kind of the Christians Sacrifice. And I have done my endeavour in them to set forth the doctrine of th' primitive times, no less accurately then candid●ly, and without guile or fraud. The first of these you have in his Exercitations already published. Of the rest thus he writes himself. Atque 
Exercit. Pag. 587.  haec de Appellationibus huius divini Sacramenti impraesentiarum satis. Restabat ut ad secundam partem Baronianae digressionis de Eucharistia, quae est de Transubstantiatione, accederemus; & quae fuit veteris Ecclesiae ●ides super eo articulo accurate expenderemus. Sed cum nostra ad eam partem responsio, itemque ad tertiam de sacrificio Christianae Ecclesiae in molem multò maiorem quam initio putaremus excreverit: satius fore visum est, ut illae disputationes separatim ederentur, neque huius operis editionem morarentur. And this shall suffice for the present concerning the Appellations of this Holy Sacrament. It remained, that we should come to the second part of Baronius his digression about the Eucharist, which is of Transubstantiation; and that we should diligently examine what the faith of the Ancient Church was concerning that Article. But forasmuch as our answer both to that, and to the Third part about the Sacrifice of the Church, groweth to a far greater bigness, than we thought it would have done at first● I thought good to let those Tractats rather be published by themselves, then that they should let, or stay the Edition of this work. But what he here promiseth being prevented by an untimely death, he never published. And whether he began them only, or brought them to any perfection, and left them ready for the Press, I cannot tell, having never had any thing of them come into my hands; but sure I am, that in this Pamplet besides the very name of Casaubon, there is nothing of them at all. None of that candour which he used, none of that simplicity, none of that accurate diligence is here to be seen; nor any sign of that Method which he had proposed. Besides that which my Father promised, he had gathered it all out of the Fathers, and other old Writers; here is no mention of Fathers, no testimonies produced from them, except three or four at the most, which are brought in by the By at the latterend of the book. That which we cited even now from his exercitations, he wrote in the year of our Lord 1614 The French Edition of this Book, out of which this English Copy was translated an● reprinted, is pretended to ha●e been ●et forth (as I remember, for I could get the sight of it but once) in the year 1607, at what time Casaubon lived in Paris, being sent for thither by the most Christian King Henry FOUR of France, to be Professor of Humanity. Who then desiring leave of his Majesty, modestly to re●u●e Baronius his Annals, was denied it. And at that time, that is to say, in the year 1607. was his Book De Ecclesiasticâ Libertate upon publishing; howsoever his name was suppressed; and yet that would do no good, for when there was but a very little part of it printed, the Book was called in by the King's authority, and so Casaubon forced to break off that which he had undertaken to write. Was it likely therefore that he durst venture to set forth such a virulent Book as this, and one that was so unjustly written against the Papists? Or if he had ventured it, could he have escaped unpunished? Where were his Adversaries at that time, who, after his coming into England, and his first beginning to write about matters of Religion, opposed themselves against him, in such number, and such bitterness as they did? I have a Catalogue by me of all the Books which my Father ever published, written with his own hand, which elsewhere I have set forth to the world. How came it to pass, that he should leave out this? But what need we any more, seeing the Imposture of these deceitful men is already detected? who had cunningly printed, and prefixed the name of Isaac Casaubon before a French Book, which was put forth without any name at all, (as in France many are, specially if they be Divinity Books;) and so by an artificial immutation of the Arithmetical figures for the year, put a new face upon an old moth-eaten Pamphlet; supposing themselves to be safe enough, if they could but any way transfer their imposture upon others. It concerned after ages, that at no time there should be want of such, as might both deprehend, and revenge the fraudulent dealings of these reckless and wicked men.  
FINIS.   

AN ADMONITION TO ABRAHAM d' ACIER, the Genevian, falsely surnaming himself DARCY.  
SIr Undertaker for a false work, it were not amiss, (if you be capable of good advice) that you gave some satisfaction to the world yourself for this foul injury, which you have so rashly done, not only to Mr. Casaubon, but to the whole Church of England, in republishing a Book under his name, that was fitter for a Turk then a Christian to write; and hereafter that you would take notice of your own insufficiency, to spend your Censure upon such matters, as you understand not. What had you to do to tell the world, what a Rare and Admirable piece of Divinity you had found out, a Book of such abstruse Learning in it, so Orthodox all, so 〈◊〉 a work? Is it for ● man ●hat never had his sight, to judge of colours? or for you to tell us, what is Orthodoxal, or what not? Go, I'll give you better counsel, home again, and meddle with your Fiddle-strings. Take not upon you beyond your reach. It is not for such as you are, to tell us wh●t Book●s are beneficial for this Church and Monarchy. And when you look upon your Book again, let it be through this, that you may perceive and acknowledge yourself to have been a more rash and ignorant, and M. Casaubon a more Religious and Learned man, than you thought on. But above all things, (because you are not capable of many) the next time you read over your Title with his Nam● of't at the beginning, and your Aliterate verses upon his Name at the end of your pretended precious work, Read on here withal, and read with shame enough, That this your admired Pamphlet, this your Allobrogicall Dormouse indeed, came stealing out in a corner by owl-light, (no good sign of a Sincere Book) and was Printed in French Three years before M. Isaac Casaubon was borne. I say no more than what I have seen, and can make good. But it is no marvel you counterfeit other men's names, seeing you have already falsified your own. So wishing you to be wiser, and more honest hereafter, lest a worse thing happen then you have endured hitherto, I leave you.  
C.   

Faults to be amended in the Print.  
Pag. 6. lin. 17. for, Inthe 〈◊〉 Reade, In the ●ean● 〈◊〉  
Pag. 33. lin. 21. for, th● last: Read, That.  
Ibid. lin. 23. for, 〈◊〉 to h●●e, etc. Read, as a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all.  
Pag. 34. lin. 7. for, They: Read, Them.  
Pag. 46. lin. 14. after the word P●n●ifex: blot out the Colon:  
Pag. 48. lin. 16. for, a name: Read. And a name.  
Pag. 52. lin. 24. for, as it: Read, as if it.  
Pag. 67. lin. 5. for, received: Read, crowned.  
Pag. 68 lin. 2. for, against: Read, a great.  
Pag. 73. lin. 19 add in the Margin, See the admonition to Dar●y.