A QVARTRON OF Reason's, composed by Doctor HILL, unquartered, and proved a quartron of follies: by Francis Dillingham, Bachelor of Divinity.  August. in Senten. 
Inimici Ecclesiae si tantummodo adversantur male sentienda exercent eius sapientiam.  
The Church's enemies if they be only her adversaries by false opinions, do exercise her wisdom.  
HINC · LUCEM · ET · POCULA · SACRA  
Printed by JOHN LEGAT, Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1603.  
And are to be sold at the sign of the Crown in Paul's Churchyard by Simon Waterson.   

TO THE RIGHT HOnourable and my very good Lord, OLIVER, Lord S. john, Baron of Blettenshoe, Grace and peace.  
THe pains of Papists (Right Honourable) in propagating the Romish religion, should move sincere Protestants to be painful in defending the truth of the eternal God, who in hi● rich mercy amongst other innumerable benefits bestowed upon this land, hath given us the benefit of his holy word, not in a strange tongue as it was in the days of Popery, but in our mother tongue, that it may be a lantern to our feet, and a light unto our paths. This light the Papists have laboured to extinguish by treasons, by writings, and all means that they could use, but (blessed be God) frustra illis est, they are deceived. Now lest it should seem strange to any that heretics should be so laborious in avouching heresy, may it please him to consider that Idolaters have been studious in maintaining their idolatry. jeroboam made two calves, 
1 King. 12.  the one of them he placed at Bethel, and so made it Bethaven, the other at Dan, and so made it a den of Idolaters. The Israelites offered their children to Moloc: behold the rage of idolatry! If men could be content that their children should be sacrificed unto idols, shall we think it strange that some should write books to subvert the truth of religion? Wherefore to leave this point and to return to that which I said in the beginning, that the labours of Papi●ts should be a spur to Protestants to defend the Gospel now publicly authorized in England. Why should not we be as careful for God's glory as they are for the glory of their purple whore? But I fear some are like the beet, which is good both in winter and summer: others have bought farms, or it may be have married wives, that is, they are so addicted to the world, and to their pleasures that they have no leisure to write: I would these men would consider of Christ his commandment, Negotiamini donec venero, use traffic until I come. But to leave these loiterers in the Lord's vineyard upon the forenamed consideration, I have endeavoured myself to answer a book, called a Quartron of Reasons for the Catholic religion: which book as I dedicate to your Honour, so I humbly desire you to accept the same as a token of my dutiful mind towards you. The author of this pestilent pamphlet commendeth the Romish religion for peace, 
d● privil. & 〈◊〉.  yet Theodoricus de Niem saith, that unum patet, one thing is manifest, after the suppression of the Imperial power nothing but factions did spring up in the Catholic Church, especially in Italy. And as he is not ashamed to lie in this point so doth he also in saying that in England all were Papists, without exception, from the first christening thereof until this age of king Henry the eight: yet Ministers were married many hundred years in England, as M. Camden showeth in his Britannia in many places. In the 129. page of the third edition he proveth that ante annum 1102. sacerdotibus uxores in Anglia non fuerunt interdictae, Ministers were not restrained from marriage before the year of our Lord a 1102. And as Ministers were married, so Transubstantiation was not acknowledged likewise a long time, as may be seen by Aelfricus his epistle against the bodily presence. Moreover, the author as he laboureth to disgrace all Protestants in general, so especially he inveigheth against Luther, wherefore to stop the mouths of Papists, I will set down the testimony of Langius a Papist concerning Luther. First he saith, that he was vir venerandus & profundissimus Theologus, a reverend man and most profound Divine. Afterward he writeth thus, Martinus ille theologorum nostrae tempestatis omnium facile princeps doctrinam suam Evangelicis testimoniis & divi Apostoli Pauli necnon priscorum orthodoxorum patrum originalibus dictis roborans & comprobans perstitit invictus. The same Martin the most wise ringleader of the divines of our age, confirming and strengthening his doctrine with testimonies, out of the Gospel and out of S. Paul the Apostle, and also with the original sayings of the ancient orthodoxal fathers, perfisted invincible. This testimony may suffice to clear Luther from the frivolous quarrels that this slanderer hath written against him. Bellarmine maketh the confession of the adverse part to be a note of the Church. Hence then are we proved the Church by this confession of Langius. The same author exceedingly commendeth Hierome of prague, saying that he was orator eloquentissimus atque acerrimus dialecticus adeo quod nullus doctissimorum virorum in Concilio disputando eum superare poterat. He was the most eloquent Orator, and fine Logician that the learnedest man in the Council could not overcome him in disputation. Mutius his testimony of the same man is worthy to be heard, Erat, saith he, Hieronymus vir eloquentissimus & insignis cum in omni philosophiae genere tum praecipue in sacris literis. Hierome was a most eloquent and famous man in all philosophy, but especially in the holy Scriptures. Now what cause this proud Papist hath to vaunt of their own learning, and to disgrace the Protestants, let every man judge; seeing Protestants by the Papists own confession have been such famous men. Lastly, not to be long, the author of this book extolleth the holiness of their religion: touching which point let that ancient writer Aronobius speak, who in his seventh book hath this sentence, Crescit multitudo peccantium cum redimendi peccati spes datur & facile itur ad culpas ubi est vaenalis ignoscentium gratia. Sinners do much increase when there is hope given to redeem their sins, and men easily commit faults where pardons are sold. Then is the Romish religion dissolute which selleth pardons. Not to proceed any further, the Lord multiply his graces upon you and your virtuous Lady, to your souls good and the benefit of his Church.  
Your Honours ever to command, Francis Dillingham.   

THE FIRST REASON: Of Prophecies.  
IF M. Doctor had contended, pondere argumentorum, and not multitudine, with sound arguments, and not with a multitude; he might happily have persuaded some to his religion: whereas now by reason of the weakness of his reasons, he hath rather hindered many from the same, than moooved any unto it. That which is commonly said of pictures, hath a fit place in this work of doctor Hill, Picturae eminus, non comminus videndae, pictures are fair a far off, but if the eye draw near them, there is no show of them.  
Before I come to the matter, I will examine the title of his book, in which he hath placed a piece of holy Scripture, taken out of S. Peter, 
1. Pe●. 3.  who willeth all men to be ready to give an answer of that hope which is in them: what then is become of the unfolden faith of Papists, who will have simple men to answer, that they believe as the Church believeth? S. Peter speaketh of the hope that is in them, not out of them, in themselves, not in another. In a word, to say they believe as the Church believeth, is an answer fit for all heretics. Furthermore, out of this place of S. Peter, we gather that Christian men have a hope in them, yet Pope john the 23. denied the immortality of the soul. Bellarmine had rather discredit the Council of Constance, in which this is reported, then confess an error. There is one thing yet to be touched in his answer unto the copy of a letter, in which he protesteth his loyalty to our late gracious Queen Elizabeth. May we trust him? If I should demand of him, whether he alloweth the Bull of Pius Quintus or no, it may be I should pose him. The Papists teach that the Pope may depose Princes, and yet they will be good subjects. If he answereth that he is not a Papist in this point: where is his Unity, of which he vaunteth in one of his reasons? Parrie confessed that every word in Doctor Allens book was a warrant to a prepared mind. 
Do●t. Bill. 704.  It taught that Kings may be excommunicated, deprived, and violently handled: it proveth that all war undertaken for Religion is honourable. Thus M. Doctor you see we have cause to doubt of your loyalty, but I leave that to God Almighty who searcheth the hearts of all men, and come to your Reasons.  
In answering your arguments I purpose to draw them to syllogisms, your first argument hath in it this syllogism.  

They which make the prophecies of Christ to be false, hold a false religion:  
But the Protestants make the prophecies of Christ to be false:  
Ergo they hold a false religion.   
I deny the assumption, which you prove out of the 12. of john, where Christ foretelleth that he will draw all men unto him; but by the Protestants doctrine Christ hath not done so. Ergo.  
I deny the assumption again, for exposition of which place of holy writ, 
in hunc locum.  I produce Augustine, who writeth thus. Quae omnia? nisi ex quibus Ille eijcitur foras. non autem dixit omnes, sed omnia, non enim omnium est sides. What all but those out of which Satan is cast? he said not all men, but all things, for all men have not faith. Again Augustine writeth thus. Aut si omnia, ipsi homines intelligendi sunt, omnia praedestinata ad salutem possumus dicere. If by all things all men are meant, we may understand all the predestinate unto salvation.  
Your other Scriptures foretell the calling of the Gentiles, which we confess. To proceed in this argument, was not Christ true in his promise, when as Act. 1.15. the Church was but about a hundred and twenty souls? here is no great number, and yet this small number was in a chamber. In the 13. of the Revel. v. 3. the whole earth wondered at the beast, yet is Christ true in his promise. In your Apology of English fugitives, thus you shall find it written. The whole world did run from Christ after julian to plain Paganism, after Valens to Arrianisme. The Rhemists upon the second of the Thessalonians, acknowledge a revolt from the Church. Nazianzen in his oration of Cyprian saith, that Cyprianus in temporibus Decij solus è Christianis est relictus. S. Cyprian in Decius his time was the only Christian. 
Th●oph. lib. 1. cap. 16. Read Aug. in 128 psal. and Te●tul ephor. ad Ca●i & Paci●nus in part. ad po●ni.  The Arrian Emperor speaketh thus unto Liberius, Quota pars tu es orbis terrarum; qui solus facis cum homine scelerato, & orbis terrarum, & mundi ●otius pacem dissoluis? What part of the world art thou that only takest part with the wicked man, and dissolvest the peace of the whole earth? Liberius answereth, Non diminuitur solitudine mea verbum sidei, nam & olim tres soli fuere qui edicto resisterent. In that I am left alone, the word of faith is not diminished, for in times past, there were three only which resisted the king's edict. Thus every man may see Christ true in his promise, though the church be not always glorious in outward appearance. I will now retort the argument upon the Papists themselves; 

They which hold that the faith of Christ may be wholly extinguished, make the promises of Christ untrue:  
But the Papist holdeth that the faith of Christ may be wholly extinguished. Ergo.   The assumption is avouched by Dominicus Asote, who saith, 
Lib. 3. d● Pap●. cap. 17.  as testifieth Bellarmine himself, that extinct a fide per discessionem ab Apostolica sede, totus mundus vanus erit, the faith being extinguished by a departure from the Apostolical See, the whole world shall be vain. I may speak therefore of this Doctor, as Tully doth to one, Ea in alterum ne dicas, quae cum tibi responsa sunt, erubescas: utter not these things against another, which when they are answered, will make thee ashamed. Now I come to untruths which are avouched in this chapter. First, he chargeth us that we affirm, that almost all nations have been in Lucifer his thraldom until this our age in which Luther came to expel Lucifer. Secondly he affirmeth that in our country of England, it is most manifest, that all were Papists without exception, from the first christening thereof until this age of king Henry the eight. M. Doctor, have you lost your forehead? was john Wickliff a Papist? I persuade myself you dare not affirm it. Again, this land received the faith in the Apostles time, as witnesseth Tertullian in his book against the jews. But the Apostles preached not Popery. Did the Apostles teach the half communion? who but blind would affirm it? Again, in Pope Gregory's time, this land differed in ceremonies, & in celebration of the Mass from Rome, as 
b 2. 2. 93 quaest, art. 1. arg. 3.  Aquinas teacheth: who list to read more of this point, may be referred unto D. Fulks overthrow of Stapletons' fortress. Thus I have answered this first cavil of the Doctor against our religion, for I pass by the title that he giveth to Lucifer calling him the master devil. The difference of devils I leave to Papists to set forth, who are sometimes too familiar with them, 
Tasc. temp.  as Silvester, who was made Pope by the help of the devil.  
Luther his speech concerning the restoring of the Gospel, must be understood comparatively: the Gospel was before his time, but it was not, in tanta luce, in such brightness, as it hath been since, and I trust it shall more and more increase ingratijs Papistarum, whether the Papists will or no. They may press the truth, but they shall never oppress it: they may vaunt of verity, but they must win the cause by force of arguments.   

The second reason: the name of Catholics.  
A man may marvel that any who would persuade to religion, should make so simple an argument as this.  

They which are called Catholics are the true Church:  
But the Papists are called Catholics:  
Ergo they are the true Church.   
The proposition is false. Salvianus in the beginning of his 4. book of providence, speaketh excellently of this point. Nomen sine officio nihil est. nam sicut ait quidam in scriptis suis, quid est principatus, sine meritorum sublimitate, nisi honoris titulus sine nomine. A name without the duty is nothing, for as one faith in his writings, what is principality without sublimity of good works, but a bare title of honour. For the further handling of this matter, we will consider what Catholic is. Vincentius Lyrinensis thus describeth this word Catholic. Quod ab omnibus creditum est, Catholicum est: that which is believed of all men is Catholic. Is Popery then Catholic, which is not believed of all men? I will name some opinions and prove them not to be credited of all, and I will begin with the worshipping of Images, which I will prove not to be Catholic. Minutius Foelix in his Octavius speaketh thus, Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus, we neither worship, nor wish for Crosses Again in the same treatise, it is demanded of Christians, Curio nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulachra? why they have no altars, no temples, no images? The Council of Eliberis in Spain, have in plain words banished them out of Churches. Placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur. We have decreed that pictures ought not to be in the Churches, lest that which is worshipped or adored, be painted on walls. Sigebert in the year of our Lord 755. writeth, that Constantinus Jmperator Constantinopoli synodum trecentorum triginta Episcoporum congregat; in qua edicto promulgato, de Imaginibus Dei & sanctorum eius deponendis, Ecclesiam Dei nimis scandalizat. Constantine the Emperor gathered a Council at Constantinople of 330. Bishops in which, publishing an edict against the Images of God and the Saints, he doth too much scandalise the Church. Thus it appeareth that worshipping of Images is not Catholic.  
Secondly the Papists teach, that the Church is built upon upon Peter's person. Is this Catholic doctrine? jonas in his second book of Images speaketh thus of this point, Multi & penè omnes, Petram, super quam aedificatur Ecclesia fidem intelligunt beati Petri, quae communis est totius sanctae Ecclesiae, videlicet eam quae paulò ante promissionem hanc praecesserat, id est, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Many and almost all understand by the Rock, on which the Church is built, the faith of blessed Peter, which is common to all the holy Church, namely that which a little before was precedent to this promise, that is to say, Thou art Christ the son of the living God.  
Thirdly the Papists teach, that the virgin Marie was no sinner: is this catholic doctrine? Read Aquinas in his third part, the 27. quaest. the 4. art. and his answer to the third argument, where rejecting Chrysostom's authority, he saith, that excessit in illis verbis, his words are too broad, yet many years after chrysostom was this doctrine held. 
in 22. Math.  Theophilact writeth that Marie was ambitiosula, tanto sibi filio subdito, somewhat ambitious, having such a son under her.  
Fourthly the Papists teach, that Ministers may not have wives: is this catholic? many hundred years after Christ, Priests were married. In the year of our Lord 1074. Hildebrand (as Lambertus Schafuaburgensis reporteth) decreed that, Habentes aut dimittant, aut deponantur, they which had wives must either dismiss them or be deposed: therefore, saith the forenamed writer, Aduersus hoc decretum infremunt tota factio Clericorum, the whole company of the Clergy stormed against this decree. The same is also reported by Sigebert, saying that Gregory uxorates Sacerdotes à divino officio removit novo exemplo, removed from divine service the married Priests by a new example. What should I speak of prayer in a strange tongue, of concealing the Scriptures from the people, of summoning of councils by the Pope? These with many other opinions, might I show to be against divinity taught in the ancient Church. Pacianus thus describeth Catholic, that it is Obedientia omnium mandatorum, scilicet Dei: an obedience unto all God's commandments. Now let us see whether you teach obedience unto God's commandments or no? to let pass Idolatry and other sins, 
M. Perk. ex Molano. See more of this point in the Reason of doctrine.  I come to swearing. The Papists teach that they may swear that they have not been at Mass, when they have been there. This is nothing but to profane an oath as Aquinas testifieth, in his 2. 2. 89. quaest. art. 7. and answer to the 4. argument, saying, Quacunque arte verborum quis iuret, Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui iuratur intelligit: with what cunning soever a man doth swear, God who is the witness of conscience, doth take it as he meaneth, to whom a man sweareth.  
Let us now hear the reason why the name Catholic proveth a Church; because they that are so named, have on their side Scriptures, Fathers, councils, and Martyrs: (for of miracles we shall speak hereafter.) This proud brag I utterly deny: & concerning Scriptures, I say with Salvianus in his 5. book of providence, that Nos tantùm Scripturas plenas habemus, qui eas vel in font suo bibimus, vel certè de purissimo font haustas: we only have the Scriptures fully perfect, which either drink them in their fountain, or translated out of a most pure fountain. Touching Fathers, by that which hath been said afore, it appeareth that they are not all on their side. What should I speak of the famous Martyrs in Queen Mary's days, which died in the religion now taught in England? Thus therefore I return the argument:  

They which are falsely called Catholics, are not the true church:  
But the Papists are falsely called Catholics:  
Ergo they are not the true church.   
Concerning the name of Protestants, we do not hold ourselves content with it, although it be not so bad as the name of Papists: and touching the names of Calvinists, and Zwinglians, they are names invented, as Athanasians and Omousians were, by the old heretics. But whereas he giveth some allowance to the name of Papists, it may not be tolerated, for why may they not as well be called Petrians? and therefore I say with Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
In dic. Christ's.  I will not be named of men, being borne of God: 
In Psal. 44.  and with Augustine, Sumus Christiani, non Petriani, we are Christians, not Petrians. I cannot let pass his ignorance in saying, that all heretics have always taken their names of some one, who began that heresy. For (not to take exception against his speech) by the first authors of heresy, as Nestorius, Pelagius, every mean divine knoweth that many heretics have their names of their heresy, not of their author, as Apostolici, Cathari, and others. If the Lutherans have changed the word Catholic in the Creed, draw your pen against them, and not against the church of England. But it is a perilous matter for some of our translations to say, for an heretic, a man that is the author of sects. 
His own men so translate the word heresy, Act. 24. chap. & 28. chap.  A great matter to english a greek word. Thanks be to God, that you have no other cavils against our translations. I hope such pelting will drive men from Popery. Your saying out of Hierome galleth yourselves, and proveth you to be sectaries, as being named Dominicans, Franciscans, jesuits, and with divers other names. Therefore please not yourselves any longer with a bare name, without the subject matter: for that is like a pearl in the snout of a swine.   

The 3. reason: unity and consent.  
Having answered two of the Doctor's reasons, I come to handle the third, in which he vaunteth of unity after this manner. The Catholic religion hath variety of doctrine, with diversity of manners, yet ever kept unity in such a peaceable manner, as never any disagreed in any point of doctrine.  
Blush M. Doctor at this notorious untruth, I have in my dissuasive from Popery gathered 20. contradictions betwixt Papists in matters of faith: and to give you a taste of your unity, I will set down your harmony about Antichrist. Some Papists hold Mahomet to be Antichrist, Bellarmine in his 3. book de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. This is denied by other, because, say they, Antichrist shall be one singular man.  
Secondly some Papists teach, that Antichrist shall arise of the tribe of Dan: 
cap. 11.  yet Bellarmine confesseth that this opinion is not certain, because no scripture convinceth it.  
Thirdly the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall reign but three years and an half, yet Hentenius confuteth this opinion.  
Fourthly some Papists teach, that Antichrist shall utterly extinguish the faith, as I proved before. Bellarmine denieth this not without cause.  
Fifthly the Rhemists say, that it may well be that Antichrist shall sit at Rome. Bellarmine will have him to sit at jerusalem. I will not follow any more contradictions about this opinion, but come to their unity in Idolatry.  
Catharine affirmeth the commandment which concerneth Images to be temporal and positive: is not this goodly divinity? others deny it. Caietan confoundeth an Idol and an Image, Bellarmine cannot bear this doctrine. Aquinas will have the cross of Christ to be worshipped with divine honour, others renounce Aquinas in this point. Alphonsus de Castro counteth Serenus and Epiphanius enemies to Images, Bellarmine confuteth Alphonsus his opinion. Abulensis and Peresius teach, that Images of God are not to be made: Bellarmine like an Idolater alloweth Images of God himself. Augustine speaketh plainly against this devilish divinity. Nulla Imago Dei coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est, quod ipse, nec ipsa pro illo, 
Epist. 1●9.  sed cum illo: No image of God must be worshipped, but that which is God, and that not for God, but with God. By these contrarieties every man may see the popish harmony. Now I reduce the Argument into a syllogism.  

Where unity is, there is the Church:  
But the Papists have unity. Ergo.   
The proposition and assumption are both false: and whereas he would prove the proposition out of the 4. of the Acts, and 17. of S. john, we must know that an unity in true doctrine is there commended, and prayed for. Si vultis, saith Augustine, vivere de spiritu sancto, 
c ●6. serm. de temp.  tenete charitatem, amate veritatem, desiderate unitatem, ut perveniatis ad aeternitatem. If you will live according to the holy spirit, then embrace love, make much of truth, and desire unity, that you may come to eternity. Unity therefore in verity must bring us to eternity. But in sadness is there no Church where there are dissensions? 
● book tripar. hist. 12. chap.  Themistius wrote to Valens that he should not be cruel to Christians for difference in Ecclesiastical opinions, for amongst the Pagans there were more than three hundred sects. Will you M. Doctor, cut off the Church of Corinth from the body of the Church, because of dissensions? What shall become of Paul and Barnabas, Cyprian and Cornelius, Epiphanius and chrysostom, with divers others? And to stay thy mind, Christian Reader, touching this point of dissensions, I desire thee first to consider, that all men have not the same measure of the spirit, and therefore there must needs be contentions. God his gifts are divers, to one man he giveth greater knowledge then to another: therefore Paul saith, when perfection of knowledge cometh, there shall be an unity in opinions, which is not to be looked for in this vale of misery. Secondly, vainglory, the mother of mischievous contentions, is not wholly driven out of men that live in the Church: I would to God it were, for then many broils would have an end. Marvel not then, gentle Reader, though there be variety of opinions. I might enlarge these reasons and annex more, but I desire brevity. The Doctor here to amplify our divisions without all conscience, chargeth us with the heresies of Anabaptists, Adamites, Striblerians, and many other, which we condemn to the pit of hell. But for a testimony of our unity let our heavenly harmony of Confessions be read, in which a man may see our consent to be greater than the Papists would wish. The scornful name of Parlimentarie religion, I leave to God to revenge: (if Queen Marie might receive the Pope by Parliament, why might not Queen Elizabeth do as much for Christ?)  
And thus I retort the argument:  

Where there are divisions, there is no Church:  
But amongst Papists are divisions. Ergo.   
In the end of this reason he concludeth with a manifest untruth, saying, that all decrees of lawful councils and of Popes do agree in points of doctrine one with another. Good God what dare not this man affirm? I pass by councils, and come to Popes. Pope Nicholas avoucheth that Baptism may be given and ministered only in the name of Christ: which is a false opinion, as Bellarmine himself confesseth. Pope Pelagius contrariwise decreed that it ought to be ministered in the name of the blessed Trinity. Aquinas 3. par. quaest. 66. art. 6. 
In epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 7.  But let Erasmus speak concerning this matter: Qui sit, how cometh it to pass, saith he, that the decrees of this Pope fight with the decrees of that Pope. That I say nothing of Formosus, do not the decrees of john the 22. and Nicholas fight one against another? what should I speak of Innocentius, and Coelestinus, Pelagius, and Gregory's decrees, one contrary to another? By these examples appeareth the Doctor's vanity.   

The fourth reason: conversion of countries.  
In this fourth reason the framer of it according to his custom, beginneth with an untruth, saying, that all countries which ever believed in Christ, were first converted to his faith, by such as either were precisely sent, or at least wise had their authority from the Pope. The Apostles which received authority from Christ himself, not from Peter, converted many countries. That the Apostles received authority from Christ himself, the scriptures are plain: in the 20. of john our Saviour saith, As the father hath sent me, so send I you: what can be more plain? Paul saith of himself, that he was an Apostle neither of men, nor by men, but by jesus Christ. How many countries did Paul convert? Concerning this land I spoke something before. Read Theodoret his 4. book and 3. chap. where he reckoneth England amongst the Christian lands. chrysostom as the same writer testifieth, comparavit viros aemulatores Apostolicorum laborum, eosque ad Scythias misit, provided men followers of the Apostles labours, and sent them to the Scythians. The Indians were converted by Frumentinus, whom Athanasius ordained Bishop, as the same author testifieth in his 1. book and 12. chap. The people of Iberia were converted per captivam mulierem, by a woman that was a captive, Ruff. lib. 1. cap. 10. by all which clear and pregnant proofs every man may see the boldness of the author's assertion. But now I come to reduce his reason into a syllogism:  

They which take pains in conversion of countries, hold the true religion:  
But the Papists take pains in conversion of countries: ergo.   
I deny the proposition, and say to the Papists, as our blessed Saviour spoke to the pharisees: 
Math. 23.  woe be to you Papists, for ye compass sea and land to make one of your profession, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell. Heretics have laboured to convert, or rather to pervert men. Paul in the 2. Tim. 3.13. affirmeth, that evil men shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. The Arrians perverted many kingdoms, 
Read Sigebert in his chap. de regno Gothorum.  as witness Theodoret, and others writers. As touching the conversion of the west Indians, if things be true that are reported; 
Sadeel. con. are. pos.  in novo illo orb amplius decies centena millia barbarorum aut fame aut gladio perierunt: in the new found world above ten hundred thousand have perished either by famine or by sword. If our Saviour Christ had said, Go kill all nations, when he said, Go teach all nations, he had fitted the Papists humour. What Gregory spent in founding Seminaries to restore Catholic religion, I know not, but this I am sure of, that Papists have taken pains in contriving of treasons here in England. But to return to the Indies: The people there lived not only without all manner of knowledge of God, but also wild and naked without any civil government: 
jewel. 42. pag.  being in this miserable estate, some worshipped the sun, some familiar devils: what marvel then if they were easily led into any religion, especially carrying such a show of apparel and other ceremonies? But do not the Protestants take pains in winning of souls unto God? Calvine, not to speak of others, read almost two hundred lectures every year, and preached above two hundred sermons. Who converted England, Scotland, Ireland, and other countries from Antichrist to Christ, from the Mass to the Messias, from Images to the service of the living God? did not poor Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, and other Protestants the ministers of England, labour in their own charges preaching in season, and out of season? God is as well glorified in the conversion of a soul here as in other countries. But do the Papists now labour in converting of souls? in times past it was not so; hody proh dolour, saith Aeneas Silvius, 
Lib. 1. de ge●●. con. Basil.  now alas he is a rare Prelate which doth not prefer temporal things before spiritual things. Again, Nos ignavia nostra nimia vitae cupiditate, Christianam religionem ex toto orb in angulum redegimus: we by our laziness and great desire of life have drawn religion out of the world into a corner of the same. Clemangis in his book which he wrote of the corrupt state of the Church, speaketh thus: Multò aequanimiùs ferunt decem millium animarum iacturam, quàm decem solidorum. Pontifices suas traditiones divinis longè mandatis anteponunt: they had rather lose ten thousand souls then ten shillings: the Popes prefer their traditions far before God's commandments. Thus than I return the argument:  

They which esteem money, more than the souls of men, are not the true Church:  
But the Papists esteem money more than the souls of men. Ergo.   
Whether M. Calvin sent ministers or no into new found lands I know not, neither am I privy to the success they had. Ezekiel was sent to the jews, that they might know that there had been a Prophet amongst them; the fault is not in the doctrine, but in the men who resist the same. I will not dispute whether a wicked man may be a means to win souls, as a good master bestoweth a good alms by the ministery of an evil servant: so also the merciful Lord may call one to repentance, by the means of another, though he be an unpenitent person. The Doctors railing upon Luther, Calvin, and Peter Martyr, calling his wife fustilugges, fitteth the spirit of a Papist. If Peter Martyrs lawful wife deserveth the name of fustilugges, what name do the popish priests concubines deserve? In that our Ministers travel not without their wives, 
1. Cor. ●.  I answer with Paul, Have we not power to lead about a sister a wife? Beza his epistles and pistols are but words to fill up pages, and to waste paper. But have not the Protestants for-gone any worldly wealth, to spread abroad religion, why are they then exiles, and have witnessed their religion with their blood. In a word, Popery gaineth more by wealth and arms, then by conscience, and if it gaineth any sound it is by some relics of truth which remaineth with them.   

The fifth reason: largeness of dominion through multitude of believers.  
That the Church which the Messias was to plant, must be dispersed throughout all nations, and kingdoms, as the holy Prophets most plainly foreshowed, we acknowledge: neither needed the Doctor to have produced so many testimonies. I may well say of the Doctor, as did Aristippus of Dyonisius his liberality: Tutò Dyonisius, inquit, liberalis est his enim qui multis indigent, pauca mittit, Platoni verò qui nihil accipit, plurima. Dyonisius, saith Aristippus, maintaineth all his liberality well enough, for to the needy he sendeth few things, but to Plato which lacketh nothing, many gifts. Even so the Doctor in needless matters heapeth up many testimonies: but in matters of question, he hath no proof, but bold assertions. If he had proved that these prophecies are verified in no religion, but only in the religion, which now the Papists hold, he had done well; but hic labour, hoc opus, this is such pains as would make the Doctor sweat. As the Prophets foretold the largeness of Christ's religion, 
2. These. ●.  so Paul prophesied of an Apostasy from the same: as the Rhemists confess, and as the same men writ upon the 12. of the Rev. where S. john foreshoweth that the Church shall fly into the wilderness, that now in England, 
The Church Catholic.  (because it hath no public state or regiment, nor open free exercise of functions) may be said to be fled into the desert. so say I of our Church in the reign of Antichrist. And thus I conclude:  

As the Papists Church is now in England, though not visible, so was the Protestants in Antichrists reign:  
But the Papists Church is now in England. Ergo.   
The proposition is manifest by S. john, who foretelleth the flight of the Church into the wilderness. Let Reinerus speak, 
Catal. test. ●ec.  who was a popish inquisitor, he saith that the poor men of Lions were more pernicious to the Romish Church, than all other sects, for three causes: first because it hath been of longer continuance: for some say that it hath endured since the time of Sylvester, others say it hath endured since the Apostles time. The second cause is, because it is more general: for there is almost no land in which this sect doth not creep. The third cause is, for that all other sects do bring in an horror with their heinousness of their blasphemies against God. This sect of the Leonists hath a great show of godliness, because they live justly before men, and believe all things well concerning God, and all the articles which are contained in the Creed, they blaspheme and hate only the Church of Rome. This is the testimony of a cruel enemy and persecutor of them: whereby every man may see the Church to have continued maugre Antichrist. These men are known to have continued in Bohemia, Calabria, Piedmont, and other places. Their faith is printed in the book called Fasciculus rerum expetendarum, where who listeth may read the same. But now I reduce his argument into a syllogism:  

They which have the largest scope are the true Church:  
But the Papists have the largest scope. Ergo.   
The proposition beseemeth an Ethnic better than a Christian: might not the heathen have made the same against Christ? The pharisees argue indeed after the same manner, joh. 7. Doth any of the Rulers believe in Christ? so the Papists say, Do any Popes, Cardinals, embrace Luther's doctrine? In the 1. King. 22. there are four hundred Prophets against Michaiah, yet Michaiah had the truth. In the third of Daniel three only resisted the King's edict. 
Esa. 1.9.  The Prophet Esai affirmeth, that except the Lord had reserved a remnant, they had been as Sodom and Gomorrah. Elias complaineth that he was left alone. In the days of Achab, the altar of God was removed and an idolatrous altar by the high Priests consent was set up. 1. king. 16. and chap. 17.19. it is said that judah did not keep the Lords commandments, but walked in the errors of Israel. Likewise Manasses and Amon built an idolatrous altar, 2. king. 21.4, 5. and 22. v. might not they have made the same argument? 
Lib. de bre. vitae.  Well saith Seneca, Non tam benè cum rebus humanis agitur, ut meliora pluribus placeant, argumentum pessimi turba est: It is not so well with human affairs, that most men like the best things; the multitude is an argument of the worst. Bellarmine hath this ingenious confession, Si sola una provincia retineret veram fidem, adhuc verè & propriè, diceretur Ecclesia Catholica. If only one Province should retain the faith, yet that Province should be the true Church. Therefore largeness of dominion is not a note of the true Church. But it is worthy to be noted, first that this Doctor reckoneth the largeness of the Roman religion but for a thousand years: for space then of six hundred years our Church had large dominion: antiquity then is with us. Verily, if our Church was ample for six hundred years, I make no doubt of our religion: and indeed the largeness which the Prophets foretold was verified of the Apostolical Church, and by consequent of ours. Let the Scriptures judge whether we teach the same doctrnie, that the Apostles did or no. I would not have the Doctor to think that for a thousand years we had no church: for that we always had a Church, I proved before out of their own writers. Images were rejected by many Bishops seven hundred years after Christ: Ministers were likewise married, as I showed before, for a thousand years. And not to name many other points of doctrine, Bellarmine proveth the seven Sacraments out of Peter Lombard: is not this goodly doctrine which can bring no better authors for it then the master of sentences? Barnard denieth merits, Bellarmine answereth that he did it of humility: at sancti, humiles esse debent, non mendaces; Saints must be humble, not liars. In the year of our Lord, one thousand, one hundred and seven, the poor men of Leodium proved Pope Paschal to be Antichrist: 
In epist. ad Pas.  Hactenus interpretabar (say they) ideo veluisse Petrum per Babilonem, significare Romam, quia tunc temporis Roma confusa erat Idololatria & omni spurcitie, at nunc dolor meus interpretatur, quod Petrus prophetico spiritu dicens, ecclesiam in Babilone collectam praedicit confusionem dissentionis, qua hody scinditur ecclesia. I was wont to interpret that Peter by Babylon, would signify Rome, because Rome at that time was confused with idolatry and filthiness, but now my sorrow doth interpret unto me, that Peter calling the Church gathered together in Babylon, foresaw by the spirit of prophesy the confusion of dissension wherewith the Church at this day is rend in pieces. And in the year of our Lord 1240. 
Cran●. lib. ●. Met. 18.  many preachers in high Germany did freely preach against the Pope. Crantzius a man who greatly favoured the Pope, saith thus of them: Quidam pulsatis campanis & convocatis baronibus terrarum, certain ringing the bells and calling the Barons of the countries, are affirmed to preach publicly, that the Pope was an heretic, his Bishops and Prelates Symonists and heretics. Bertrame eight hundred years after Christ was an enemy unto Transubstantiation: but you have purged him to your perpetual shame, as testifieth your Index expurgatorius: the title is, ut liber Bertrami, how the book of Bertrame being amended may be tolerated. But let it be granted that the truth of doctrine was not public for many years, yet might there be a Church. For at the coming of our Saviour Christ the pharisees had the government and were blind guides, yet was there a Church, and a number of chosen people, as joseph, Marie, Simon, and Anna. In Elias time when religion was corrupt, the Lord had thousands which never bowed their knees to Baal.  
But I return the argument:  

Largeness of dominion is a note of the Church:  
But for many hundred years after Christ, our Church had largeness of dominion.  
Ergo.   
Secondly the Doctor fearing lest our Church should flourish and dilate itself, affirmeth that the Church is now old, & to make her flourish in her old age is to make her a monster. Verily we acknowledge that she flourished in her young age, (if these titles of young and old may be attributed to her:) but shall not the Church flourish in her old age, as you speak, M. Doctor? what then is become of largeness of dominion? If largeness of dominion be a note of the true Church, than it shall be always ample and large. Indeed thanks be to God, our Church now is ample, as testify England, Scotland, Denmark, Suetia, Saxony, Helvetia, and other countries, and therefore the Doctor varieth in this point. But that Antichrist shall be revealed, and the Church increase, it is plain out of the 2. Thess. 2. where Paul prophesieth, that the Lord shall consume him with the spirit of his mouth. This to be done we see it daily with our eyes, for by the preaching of the Gospel Antichrist is continually lessened. Moreover in this reason the Doctor affirmeth, that persecution of any moment is not against Papists, but only in England. The persecution of Papists in England is for treason, as their own writings testify. The title of the book is this, Important considerations which ought to move all true Catholics to acknowledge that the proceed of her Majesty since the beginning of her highness reign, have been both mild and merciful. The Rhemists are contrary to this Doctor, for they writing upon the 20. of the Rev. affirm Catholics to be persecuted not only in England, but also in Scotland, Flaunders, and other places: thus well heretics agree amongst themselves. To be brief: the Papists are so persecuted, that they are benè habiti, well liking as all men know, and have affluentiam honorum, store of goods. But the Doctor desireth to be told whether against all learned Physicians, and against all Lawyers, one or two of later years are to be credited. I answer, if they have the truth on their sides, they are. Might not Michaiah have been posed with this question, who was but one against four hundred prophets? Did not Paphnutius stand up in the Council of Nice, and teach that a heavy yoke should not be laid on those which were dedicated to the ministery. Here was one against that famous Council. This question might well have been demanded of Eugenius, who would not obey the Council of Basill. 
1000. de gest. conc. Ba.  Aeneas Silvius writeth thus, Neque in Concilio dignitas patrum, sed ratio spectanda est, in a Council the dignity of men is not to be regarded, but reasons. And again, Non ergo cuiusvis Episcopi mendacium quamvis ditissimi, veritati praeponam pauperis praesbyteri. I will not prefer Bishops untruths, before an Elders truth, though one be rich and the other very poor. What should I speak of Athanasius condemned in the Council of Milan? Panormitane is plain, 
Whi●ak. 34. p. cont. Dur.  Plus credendum est vel simplici Laico scripturam proferenti, quàm toti simul Concilio. A lay-man is more to be believed, alleging scripture, than a whole Council. Hierome translated the scriptures according to the Hebrew, whereas before the authority of the 70. 
Ann. 39●.  interpreters was currant: yet saith Sigebert, praevaluit authoritas Hebraica veritatis: the authority of the Hebrew truth prevailed. Hieroms act was against inveteratum usum Ecclesiae, the ancient custom of the Church. Whereas he calleth Luther a lose Apostata, and M. Calvin a soar backed priest for Sodomy, I doubt not, but that for such slanders of these men, good men shall more and more abhor popery. And for thy satisfying, Christian Reader, I desire thee to read that which Erasmus hath written concerning Luther: and that which is printed by Beza concerning calvin's life. Sodomy is too common among Papists, as witnesseth Picus Mirandula in his oration to Leo the tenth, in these words, Sacrae aedes ac templa lenonibus ac calamytis commissa: Churches and temples are committed to bawds, and boys abused contrary to nature. With Picus agreeth Mantuan, 
Sanctus ager scurris, venerabilis ara cynaedis.  
seruit honorandae divum Ganymedibus aedes.  The Church lands are given to common lesters, the sacred altars allotted to wantoness, the temples of Saints to boys provided for filthy lusts. Lastly whereas he faith, that if he should refuse the Catholic Roman religion, his Ancetours would use such speeches as these; dost thou condemn all our doings? dost thou send us all to hell? etc. I answer that God hath not referred us from his word to our fathers: Walk not in the precepts of your fathers, 
Ezek. 20.  neither observe their manners, nor defile yourselves with their Idols, saith the Lord. We condemn not our fathers, except they condemned themselves. Dei judicia occulia, sed semper justa, God's judgements are secret, but always just. If our fathers held the foundation, (as I hope many did) they might be saved. Ignosci potest simpliciter erranti: he that erreth of ignorance, sinneth less than he to whom knowledge is revealed. I conclude with Cyprian, Si solus Christus audiendus, if only Christ must be heard, we must not regard what any before us hath thought meet, but what Christ himself hath done: for a man must not follow custom, but God's truth. And with Prudentius, who answereth Symmachus his objection, Nobis sequendi sunt parents, we must follow our fathers. frustrà igitur solitis prava observatio inhaeres, in vain dost thou cleave to custom o wicked obedience.   

The sixth reason: Miracles.  
M. Doctor, Noli illud tàm confidenter affirmare, quod socij tui falsum esse docuerunt: avouch not that so boldly which your fellows have taught to be false. True miracles say you, were never wrought but by them, which were of the true religion: for that they are done only by the power of God. The Rhemists upon the 9 of Mark are of another mind: for thus they writ; Miracles are wrought sometimes by the name of jesus, whatsoever the man be, when it is for the proof of truth, or for the glory of God: insomuch that julian the Apostata himself did drive away devils with the sign of the cross, as Gregory Nazianzen writeth, orat. in julian. Theodo. lib. 3. cap. 3. hist. and so heretics may do miracles among the heathen. If miracles may be done by heretics, they are then not always done by those which are of the true religion, except heretics be of the true religion. Thus your own men, M. Doctor, drive you to the wall. Socrates in his 7. book and 17. chap. reporteth a miracle done by Paulus a Novatian Bishop: judaeus quidam veteratus Christianam fidem simulans, saepius baptizatus fuit, per quam fallaciam multas pecunias corrasit: a certain jew being an old deceiver and counterfeiting Christian religion, was divers times baptised, by which deceit he gathered much money: in the end when he should be baptised by Paulus, universa aqua divina quadam virtute quae oculis cerni non poterat subitò exhausta est. all the water by God's power which could not be seen, suddenly vanished away. Here you see a Novatian bishop did a miracle. And so men if they should credit miracles without true doctrine might be drawn to heresy. Thomas your Angelical doctor in his first part and 114. quest. art. 4. teacheth, that daemons possunt vera miracula facere ad seducendum: the devils may do true miracles to seduce: and he proveth it out of Augustine, who writeth that Magicis artibus sunt plerunque miracula similia illis miraculis quae sunt per dei servos: miracles are done by Magic, even such as God's servants do. In the same place he answereth the vulgar argument which is this, than they are not effectual to confirm faith. Read his answer yourself M. Doctor, at your own leisure. Where you say miracles are done only by the power of God: if you speak exactly of miracles, I join with you: for as the same Aquinas teacheth in his 110. quest. that is properly a miracle which is done praetor ordinem totius naturae creatae, above all power that is created. When God worketh such miracles by false prophets and heretics, he doth it to try men, as Moses speaketh in the 13. of Deut. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign come to pass, thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the prophet: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart or no. Out of this place it is plain that God will try his servants, sometimes by wonders, and therefore they are not always done to confirm true religion. In the Questions that go under justin's name, the author thus propoundeth the question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if heretics work wonders, as curing of diseases, casting out of devils, how cometh it to pass that they should not be confirmed in their errors? he answereth: as God causeth the sun to shine upon the good and bad, not to confirm them in their wickedness, but to make a way to his righteous judgements: so he doth in heretics that work wonders. Hence I gather that the Lord doth prepare a way for his will, when false prophets work any wonders. But I reduce his reason into a syllogism:  

That religion which hath miracles is the true religion:  
But the Roman religion hath miracles: Ergo.   
I deny the proposition, for I have proved it false by sundry testimonies. I will now annex Tertullian his speech, who writeth thus; Adijcient praetereà multa de authoritate cuiusque haeretici, illos maximè doctrinae suae fidem confirmasse, mortuos suscitasse, 
De prae.  debiles reformasse, futura significasse, quasi nec hoc scriptum sit, venturos multos qui virtutes maximas aederent, ad fallaciam muniendam corruptae praedicationis. Furthermore they will allege for the authority of Heretics, that they have especially confirmed their doctrine by raising of the dead, by restoring the weak, by foretelling future things: as if it were not written that many should come working wonders to confirm their corrupt preaching. In Gratian I find this sentence, 
2. part causa. 1.  Non melius debet credi propter miracula, nam communia sunt & bonis & malis: men are not the better to be credited for miracles, because they are common to good and bad: many of the ancient miracles we acknowledge. This Doctor numbereth some in Tertullia's time and in others: but let him show the Roman faith to be wholly the same as then it was. Miracles might then be needful to convert Pagans, and jews, amongst whom Christians were dispersed, but the popish miracles are feigned things, 
Lib. 5.  as testifieth Pabrugenius, Heu quas non nugas quae non miracula fingunt, ut vulgus fallant optataque praemia carpant! what miracles do they not feign for reward? Lyra writeth thus upon the 14. of Dan. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à sacerdotibus, vel eis adhaerentibus, propter lucrum temporale, & talia sunt extirpanda à bonis praelatis, sicut ista miracula extirpata sunt à Daniel. Sometime even in the Church the people is shamefully deceived with feigned miracles, wrought either by their priests, or by their companions for lucre's sake, and good Prelates are to abandon such as Daniel did. These testimonies may suffice any man not being uttered by a Calvinist, as they call them, but by some of their own coat. 
jewel. ex Cop.  What should I speak of making barren women bear by holy water, and driving mice out of the country by the same. 
Eras. pere ergo.  The milk of the Virgin Marie, and the blood of hearts are not yet forgotten: the transportation of the virgin Maries house, 
Gomarus' 16 p.  is monstrous to remember. The author reporteth that venienti domicilio arbores obvias velut venerabundas inclinasse: trees did meet it, and bowing down did worship it. Gregorius Turonensis reporteth, 
Lib. 9 cap. 6.  that one in stead of Saints relics, had sacculum magnum plenum de radicibus diversarum herbarum, & dentes talpae, & ossa muruum, & ungues ursinos: a great sack full of roots, of divers herbs, and there were also teeth of moules, and the bones of mice and bears claws. But I take no pleasure in heaping together this trash, and therefore I come to Augustine's authorities alleged by this Doctor. The first is not in the 17. cap. but in the 16. 
de util. creden.  where he saith, that miracula nos movent, miracles move us: but he speaketh of Christ miracles, as it is manifest towards the end of the chap. homines illius temporis aquam in vinum conversam viderunt, the men of these times did see water turned into wine. In the second place he saith, that ista vincula rectè hominem credentem tenent in ecclesia catholica, 
Con. epist. f●n, cap. 5.  these bands do by right hold a believer in the Church, speaking of miracles and other things. I answer first that Augustine speaketh of ancient miracles, for he saith, tenet me authoritas miraculis inchoata, authority begun by miracles doth hold me in. Secondly I answer, that Augustine doth prefer truth before miracles: in the same place he confesseth that veritas est illis omnibus praeponenda, truth is to be preferred before all those things. Now I return the argument:  

They which have true miracles, are the true Church:  
But the Protestants have true miracles. Ergo.   
For the proof of the assumption, we produce the Apostles miracles, by which that doctrine which we maintain, was confirmed many hundred years ago. If our doctrine be not contained in the scriptures, let it be disproved by the same. But because the Doctor saith out of Augustine that he is bound in the Church by the bond of miracles, I would it might please him a little to listen unto S. Augustine writing thus; 
de uni eccle. cap. 16.  Non dicat ideò verum esse quia illa & illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius, etc. Let no man say it is true because Donatus or Pontius hath done these or these miracles, or because men at the memory of the dead do pray and are heard, or because these or these things do happen there: or because this our brother or that our sister saw such a vision waking, or dreamt such or such a vision sleeping. In in the same cap. Augustine speaketh thus, quaecunque talia, such things whatsoever are to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, yet it is not made known by them. Belsee his reports of Luther and Calvin we reject: and touching our Gospel it is not altogether without miracles in these days. your Idols are fallen. quisquis adhuc prodigia, ut credat, inquirit, 
The world believing.  whosoever seeketh for wonders, that he might believe, is himself a wonder. Take heed therefore M. Doctor, lest you make yourself a miracle, that will not believe without miracles.   

The 7. reason, visions and the gift of prophesy.  
Cytharaedus ridiculus chorda qui semper oberrat eadem. This Doctor harpeth always upon one string: he is not contented with Miracles, but now he cometh to Visions, and confidently affirmeth that visions and the gift of prophesy were never found to be but in the true Church: yet Aquinas in his 2. 2. 172. quest. art 6. teacheth, that prophetae daemonum aliquando verum praedicant, the devils prophets sometimes foretell the truth: yea he avoucheth, that propheta daemonum non semper loquuntur ex revelatione daemonum, sed interdum ex inspiratione divina: that the devils prophets did not always speak by revelation from the devil, but sometime by inspiration from God: and this he proveth by Balaam his example, unto whom the Lord spoke, as it is in the 22. of Numb. The Sybils as the Doctor himself confesseth, prophesied for the confirmation of right religion, yet were they Ethnics, and lived amongst them. Who dare say, that the Church were with the heathen, because of the Sybils? But I draw this argument into a syllogism:  

They which have visions, and the gift of prophesy, are the Church:  
But the Papists have visions and the gift of prophesy. Ergo.   
Aquinas as you have heard, M. Doctor, denieth your proposition, and whereas you would prove the same, because S. Paul, S. Peter, and S. john stand upon Revelations, behold now your double folly. First you thus conclude: the Church had visions, therefore it only hath visions: which is as good as if a man should conclude; the Church teacheth the Trinity, ergo no heretics teach the same. Secondly the Church had visions, therefore it shall always have visions: who will grant you this consequence? S. Augustine saith, 
3. book, de bap. cap. 10.  that miracles were ad ecclesiae primordia dilatanda, to enlarge the beginnings of the Church: so were visions to last for a time. I return the argument:  

They which have visions, and the gift of prophesy, are the true Church:  
But the Protestants have visions:  
Ergo they are the true Church.   
The Assumption is proved by S. Paul's, Saint Peter, and Saint john's visions: our doctrine is the same with theirs. Saint john heard a voice from heaven, saying, Blessed are the dead, for they rest from their labours: so say we, therefore there is no purgatory pains for them after this life. The Scriptures teach that the sufferings of Christ are a perfect and full satisfaction for our sins: so say we, and therefore there remaineth not any part of God's justice to be satisfied by us. But let us see what visions the Papists have, and what a dangerous thing it is to stand upon visions. Bellarmine in his 2. book of purgatory and 7. chap. allegeth a vision out of Beda, to prove besides hell, purgatory, and heaven, a fourth place, namely, pratum florentissimum dilucidissimum, as it were a most goodly meadow. And in the same book and 4. chap. he showeth that Dyonisius the Carthusian, and Michael Baius by visions would prove, that the souls in purgatory were not certain of their salvation, which opinion he confuteth. Thus you see out of your own writers what credit is to be given to visions: by such counterfeiting means we may prove any thing. I say therefore with Augustine, Removeantur ista vel figmenta, mendacium hominum, vel portenta fallacium spirituum: Away with these feigned things of lying men, or monsters of lying spirits. And now M. Doctor, to argue upon your own grants both of miracles and visions. You say, that the heathen had prophecies to confirm right religion: grant you then that you have some few which works both true miracles and see true visions, it is not to confirm your erroneous doctrine, but to confirm that truth of doctrine which is held in your Church: for all them you are a corrupt Church: yet there are some relics of true doctrine remaining, and so by sequel of your own speech these things may come to pass to confirm that true doctrine which is amongst you. Heretics have held some true opinions that there heresies might be the better bolstered out. You hold the Trinity, and some other points of religion: it may be then that if there be any miracles or visions amongst you, it is to confirm the relics of that truth which remaineth with you. Thus I have argued upon your own words and grant. But for my part I hold with chrysostom, 
49. hom. in op●. imper.  that nunc nulla probatio esse potest vorae ecclesiae, there can be now no proof of the true Church but only by the Scriptures. He giveth a reason of his speech, quia, saith he, qua propria sunt in veritate, ca harese habent in schismate, habent ecclesias, habent scripturas divinas, habent Episcopos, caeterosque ordines clericorum, habent baptismum, habent Eucharistiam, caeteraque omnia: because those things which are peculiar to truth, heresies have in their schism, they have Churches, they have Scriptures, they have Bishops, and other clergy orders, they have baptism, the Eucharist, and all other things. He proceedeth affirming that the church was in times past known by miracles, but now they are either ended or else in greater number with false Christians, yea he averreth that a man might know by the lives of men, which was the true Church: but now Christians were worse than either heretics or Ethnics. If this work were written by an Arrian, as some say, yet there is no cause to condemn this excellent sentence, proved by so weighty reasons.   

The eight reason: Scriptures.  
We have finished by God's assistance seven Reasons, some of which as the Doctor seemeth to grant are nothing worth without Scripture, and therefore he saith that they teach not any doctrine but such as is derived out of the holy Bible. If you would abide by this confession, you would not hold so many unwritten opinions as you do. For adoration of Images, for the half communion, for the Popes not erring, for the lent fast, with other points of Popery, what scripture is there? It is one of your principles, 
Cens. Colon.  that traditiones ecclesiae non scriptae credendae ac seruandae sunt, unwritten traditions are to be believed and kept. Hence I conclude after this manner:  

They which hold opinions by unwritten traditions, derive not all their opinions out of the scriptures:  
But the Papists hold some opinions by unwritten traditions. Ergo.   
But good M. Doctor, are we driven to deny certain parts of God's holy Bible, for the maintaining of our opinions, and are the Manichees our predecessors? take heed least by avouching untruths, you do vastare conscientiam, make shipwreck of conscience. If Luther rejected the epist. of S. james, what is that to us? Caietane will have it to be minoris authoritatis quam caeteras, 
Bell. lib. 1. cap. 17. 2. book. 23.  of less authority than the other epistles. Eusebius saith, sciendum est eam esse adulterinam, we must know that it is a bastard epistle. Euseb. 3.22. cap. Now I reduce your argument into a syllogism:  

They which refuse books of Scripture, frame that bible to their opinions:  
But the Protestants refuse books of Scripture. Ergo.   
I deny the assumption, which is set down without any proof: and for the disproof of the same, I will not content myself with a few fathers, but will produce a cloud of witnesses, that the Papists may see their proud brag of fathers. Origen at Eusebius speaketh thus, 
Euseb. hist. 6. book 24.  Hand ignorandum fieret esse veteris testamenti libros sicut Hebraei tradunt viginti duos, qui etiam numerus apudeos est literarum. We must understand that there are 22. books of the old Testament, as the Hebrews do teach, which also is the number of letters. Hence I gather, that if the Canonical books answer the hebrew letters, then there are but 22. otherwise there should be more than the letters are. Melito numbereth the same books which we do, excepting the book of Wisdom, as witnesseth Eusebius. 
4. book 25.  Cyril of jerusalem in his 4. catechism exhorteth the Catechumenes to read 22. books, but that he reckoneth Baruck with jeremy he reckoneth the same which we do, and directly warneth us ut cum Apocryphis nihil habeamus negotij, that we have nothing to do with Apocryphal books, for saith he, multò prudentiores te; & religiosiores fuerint Apostoli, & primi Episcopi veritatis duces, qui nobis eas tradiderunt: the Apostles and first Bishops were wiser and more religious than thyself, they delivered these scriptures to us. Leontius in his 2. action of sects, agreeth with these authors saying, that veteris scripturae libri sunt viginti duo, there are 22. books of the old testament. Innilius rejecteth the Maccabees from divine scripture, quoniam apud Hebraeos super hac differentia recipiebantur libri Canonici, sicut Hieronymus alijque testantur; because with the jews the canonical books were received with this difference, as Jerome and other writer's witness. He rejecteth job and some other books which are Canonical by his own reason, namely because they were of that authority with the jews. Amphilochius differeth not from the above named writer, after that he hath set down the same number which we do, excepting the book of Wisdom, which yet it may be but put in for verse, because he reckoneth but three of Solomon; after I say he concludeth thus, hic verissimus divinitus datarum est scripturarum Canon, this is the most true Canon of the divine scriptures. Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Creed, saith that he will describe the Canonical books of the old testament, which he doth after our order in England, and acknowledgeth that non Canonicos libros legi volverunt in ecclesiis, sed non proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam: they will have the books that are not Canonical to be read in Churches, but not to be alleged to confirm a matter of faith. I will not produce the testimonies of Hierome, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Athanasius, and others, because they are obvious to every one: neither will I convince the Doctor by his own writers, as Caietan, Hugo, and Arias Montanus. josephus is worthy to be heard, who plainly teacheth, that duo solum & viginti libri fide digni esse creduntur, 
Euseb. 3. lib. hist. ●0.  only 22. books are to be credited. By this cloud of witnesses I hope, Christian Reader, thou mayst see the vanity of Papists, who do nothing but crepare patres, patres, cry the fathers they are on their side. I return the Argument:  

They which add books to divine scriptures, draw the holy Bible to their fancies:  
But the Papists add whole books to divine scriptures: Ergo:   
Where he saith that the Catholics follow the bible, I will not stand upon that famous corruption of the Hebrew psalter by an English Papist, to justify their vulgar latin text, but come to one place out of which they would gather purgatory. Where it is said, that a certain sin shall not be forgiven neither in this world, 
Math. 11.  nor in the world to come: we expound it by Mark, who saith it shall never be forgiven: the Papist saith, Matthew must not be expounded by Mark, because he is shorter: but is he not plainer? How absurd is it to expound these words, 
●ell. lib. 1. de into. cap. 4.  [he hath never forgiveness] to this sense? whereas to expound the words of Matthew by Mark, hath an excellent construction. Thus every man may see who draw the scriptures to their fancies, whether Papists or Protestants.   

The 9 reason: councils.  
Whether the Church of God hath ever been accustomed when any heresy did spring up therein to gather a Council of Bishops, Prelates, and other learned men, I will not stand to dispute: If your meaning be, M. Doctor, that nothing is heresy but that which is condemned by a Council, 
Lib. 4. cont. d●●s epist. Pelag. in fine.  I utterly renounce your vain conceit. Let Augustine speak, Aut verò congregatione synodi opus erat ut aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit, cum potius rarissimae inveniantur propter quas damnandas necessitas talis extiterit, multoque sint atque incomparabiliter plures, quae ubi extiterunt illic improbari damnarique meruerunt, atque indè per caeteras terras devitandae innotescere potuerunt. Was it necessary a Council should be gathered to condemn open mischiefs, as if no heresy had been condemned without a Council, whereas very few are found for the condemning of which, there hath been such necessity, and there are without comparison more which deserved to be condemned, where they did spring up, that being so condemned they might be made known unto other countries. Out of this testimony I gather these two things, first that it may be an heresy, though not condemned by a Council: secondly I gather, that in Augustine's time there were few heresies for the condemning of which councils were gathered together. To proceed. You say whosoever were condemned by councils confirmed by the See Apostolical, were ever deemed and indeed were heretics. What say you to Cyprian, 
De unico lap. cap. 14.  whom as Augustine reporteth, Stephanus Bishop of Rome, censuit excommunicandum esse, deemed to be excommunicated? 
8. book. 4 chap. Bellar. lib. 2. de con. cap. 5.  Eusebius saith, that scripsit universis conterminis gentibus, he wrote to all countries that were near, that he would not communicate with them, because they did rebaptize heretics. Was Cyprian either an heretic, or of that mind that whatsoever the Pope did condemn, was heresy? why did he not then yield to Stephanus who was Pope? For I think you mean by the See Apostolic, the Pope; otherwise you condemn Eugenius, who said, as Aeneas Silvius reporteth, that tantum aebest ut generalibus Concilijs debeat obedire, ut se dicat tunc maximè mereri cum concilij decreta contemnit; It is so far from him that he should obey general councils, that he doth then best deserve, when he doth contemn the decrees of the same. But I reduce your Argument into a syllogism:  

They which are condemned by the Council of Trent are heretics:  
But the Protestants are condemned by the Council of Trent:  
Ergo they are heretics.   
I deny the proposition: for it is against all reason, that they which are parties, that are partial, that are accused should be the only judges. Augustine saith, Solis Canonicis scriptis debeo sine ulla recusatione consensum; I ought to consent only to the Canonical scriptures without any refusal. 
De n●t. & great. ●.  Nicolaus de Clemangijs writeth, that Ecclesia quandoque contraria determinat, the Church doth sometimes determine contraries. 
in Fas. v●ta ex.  Again, Trita regula est ecclesia militans & fallit & fallitur; it is an old rule the Church militant doth deceive and is deceived. Gregory his speech who saith, that he doth reverence the four first councils as the four Gospels, de alijs suspitionem in animis hominum relinquit, leaveth a suspicion in the minds of men of other Counsels. Saith the same man, the council of Neocaesaria condemned second marriages: this is not confessed by Bellarmine in his tractate of councils, lest he should grant that councils may err. But in his first book of marriage and 17. chap. he writeth, that Concilium tractat de secundis nuptijs, qua contrabuntur mortua priore uxore: the Council doth entreat of second marriages, which are made the former wife being dead. Hence I thus conclude: That Council which condemneth second marriages, erreth: but this Council condemneth second marriages: ergo. And touching your Tridentine conventicle, why do not your men stand to the decrees of the same? Arias Montanus rejecteth the books from the body of the holy bible, which we do. Catharin teacheth, that a man may be certain of grace: yet these opinions are condemned in your chapter of Trent, if we believe Bellarmine. Again, if your chapter of Trent teacheth rightly of original sin, why doth the same Catharin teach, that it is nothing else but Adam's actual transgression, and disobedience. Noli esse tam iniustus: be not so unequal M. Doctor, to bind us with your council of Trent, when your own men descent from the same. Where you say, that we shall utterly vanish away, because we have no head to gather a general Council, I acknowledge you to be a false and no true prophet. We see the fall of Babylon daily more and more, and the madness of them that seek to uphold her daily more and more manifest. You say also that we receive fix councils: 
●hem. Act. 15.  yet your fellows marvel that we attribute much to the four first and nothing to the rest: it were good for you to agree amongst yourselves before you charge us with error. Lastly, the liberty of our Gospel is such as God's word doth teach, 
1●. epist.  ego, saith Augustine, solis eis scripturarum libris; I have learned to give this reverence and honour only to the canonical Scriptures, that no author of them can err.   

The 10. reason: Fathers.  
The Doctor in the beginning of this chap. proijcit ampullos. casteth out lofty and arrogant words, after this manner. The Catholic Roman religion is most plainly taught by all the ancient Fathers of the first, second, third, fourth, fift, and sixth hundred years, and hath been ever without controversy taught of the fathers of every age since until this day. This proud brag I have disproved before by many testimonies, and now by God's help, I will make it manifest to boys. Theophilus Alexandrinus is plain against traditions: in his 2. paschal sermon he writeth thus; Daemoniaci est spiritus instinctus aeliquid extra scripturarum authoritatem putare divinum: it is the instinct of a devilish spirit to think any thing divine without authority of scriptures: what spirits then have Papists but devilish spirits, who fight for their trash of traditions. Caesarius is as plain, for reading of the Scriptures in his 20. homily he taketh away the excuse commonly used for not reading the same. Nemo dicat non mihi vacat legere; Let no man say I am not at leisure to read the Scriptures. Inanis & inutilis est excusatio ista; this excuse is vain and unprofitable. Mark the Eremite hath written a book against those which think to be justified by works: in which book this notable sentence is extant; Regnum coelorum non est merces operum sed gratia domini fidelibus servis praeparata; the kingdom of heaven is not the wages of works, but the grace of God prepared for faithful servants. In his book de baptism, of baptism, he teacheth the same. Mandata ipsa non tellunt peccatum hoc enim per solam crucem factum est, sed donata nobis libertatis limites custodiunt; The commandments take not away fin, for that is done only by the cross, but they keep the lists of the liberty that is given us. 
G●l. de 〈◊〉 n●t in Christ. advers. Eutych. & Nest. fol. 2●●  Gelasius is direct against Transubstantiation: Sacramenta quae suminus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod & per cadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non definit substantia vel panis vel vini. The sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, therefore by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet for all that ceaseth not the substance of bread and wine to be. Gelasius writeth against Eutyches, who affirmed that Christ● human nature was turned into his Godhead: this opinion is thus refuted. As the bread and wine after consecration are changed into the body and blood of Christ, so is his human nature turned into his divine after ascension. But the bread and wine are not changed in substance. Ergo. Thus by your doctrine of Transubstantiation you make the ancient Church's argument worth nothing. I will adjoin the testimony of Cyril of jerusalem, because saith Bellarmine (testimonium huius vel solum sufficere debet) his testimony alone ought to suffice. Mista in his 4. Catechism, thus he speaketh; Ne ergo consideres panem nudum, & vinum nudum; corpus enim est & sanguis Christi: consider not bare bread and wine, for it is the body and blood of Christ. ergo it is still bread, but not bare bread. Again in his 3. Catechism, he is as plain: Quemadmodum panis Eucharistiae post Spiritus sancti invocationem non amplius est communis panis, sed est corpus Christi: sic & sanctum hoc unguentum, non amplius est unguentum nudum atque common, postquam iam consecratum est, sed est charisma Christi: As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost, is no more common bread, but it is the body of Christ, so is this holy ointment no more bare ointment, nor common ointment after it is consecrated, but it is the gracious gift of Christ. Here is no more Transubstantiation in the one then in the other. Likewise in his first Catechism, he writeth after the same manner; Quemadmodum enim panis & vinum eucharistia antè sacram invocationem adorandae trinitatis, panis erat, & vinum merum, sic & cibi ciusmodi pompae Sathanae suapte natura puri sunt sed invocatione daemonum impuri efficiuntur: even as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the adored Trinity was bare bread and wine: so such meats Satan's pomps were pure of their own nature, but by invocation of the devils they are become impure. Lo what is become of your Transubstantiation! Augustine condemneth worshippers of pictures, Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores; I know, saith he, there are many that adore sepulchres and pictures. Bellarmine in his first answers to this place, cometh in with his fortasses, peradventure: in his last answer he confesseth that he wrote this book when he was first converted. Here than it is manifest that Augustine condemneth worshippers of pictures. Lactantius in his 6. book, 3. chap. acknowledgeth but two ways, duae sunt viae, una, quae in coelem ferat, altera qua ad inferes deprimat; there are two ways, one which goeth to heaven, and the other which tendeth to hell. The testimony which Bellarmine allegeth out of him for purgatory, speaketh of a fire to purge the righteous after the last judgement, when Popish purgatory shall have an end, as Bellarmine proveth in his 2. book and 19 chap. Theophilact condemneth your half communion, saying, that tremendus hic calix cunctis pari conditione est traditus; this fearful cup is equally given to all. The testimonies of fathers in this point are many and pregnant. Paschasius thus expoundeth the words of Christ, bibite ex hoc omnes, id est tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes, Drink ye all of this as well ministers as others. Bellarmine confesseth, 
Lib. 2. de miss. cap. 9  that nusquam expressè legimus à veteribus oblatum sacrificium sine communione alicuius, vel aliquorum, praeter ipsum, sacerdotem; we never read expressly, that the sacrifice was offered of ancient men, without the communion of some besides the priest. Lo what friends the fathers are to your private Mass! 
28. cap.  Walfridus Strabo writeth thus; Fatendum est illam esse legitimam Missam cui intersunt sacerdos, respondens, offerens atque communicans, sicut ipsa conceptio precum evidenti ratione demonstrat; we must confess that to be a lawful Mass at which the priest, the answerer, and the communicant are present; even as the conceiving of prayers doth prove by evident reason. Therefore your private Mass is unlawful. Vealrichus Bishop of Augusta, 
anno 978.  wrote in the defence of the marriage of Ministers: Bellarmine proveth this epistle to be feigned: be it so, yet did no Lutheran coin it. And whereas he will have but one of this name, it is false. For Complicatio Chronologica confesseth there are two, and that anib● were sancti, both were holy. I will not contend about this matter, it sufficieth that some taught this doctrine. But why do I labour to show that the fathers do not teach all points of Popery? let their own Index expurgatorius speak, Quanquam librum istum uz. Bertrami non magni aestimemus momenti, 
saith the Papist.  itaque non magnopere laboraturi sumus si vel nusquam sit vel intercidat, attamen cum in alijs ca●bolicis veteribus plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepè negemus & commodamijs sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus & conflictionibus cum adversarijs, non videmus cur non candem aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertr●●s: Although we make no great account of this book, namely bertram's, and therefore we would not greatly care if either it were extant or utterly lost; and seeing that in other ancient Catholic writers we bear very many errors, and extenuate them, excuse them, and very oftentimes by devising some privy shift we deny them and do feign some commodious sense unto them when they are opposed against us in disputations or in conflicts with the adversaries, we do not see why Bertrame doth not deserve the same equity and diligent recognition. This their own testimony may suffice to prove that the fathers are not theirs, and that the Papists are void of all truth and honesty. What Causaeus a French Protestant and Luther have written touching Dyonisius, I know not, but this I am assured of that this Demus was not S. Paul's scholar. Bellarmine in his 2. book de confess. cap. 7. writeth to this effect, that his book est dubius vel supposititius, is either doubtful or feigned. The same thing is not denied by the Catechism of Colon. 
pag. 119.  Gregorius & Dyonisius, saith Picus Mirandula, discordant circa ordines angelorum; Gregory and Dyonisius disagree about the order of angels. If Gregory dissenteth from him, why may not Luther do so? Who so desireth to read more of this Dyonisius may be referred to Erasmus and Valla. That the Protestants rail at the fathers it must be numbered amongst the Doctors untruths: but by Protestants this man meaneth the Puritan forsooth; although this odious name of Puritans agreeth better to Papists, 
August. haeres. 38.  who do so stand upon their purity, because they can keep all God's commandments. Yet know not I any so called, that rail at all the fathers. But here it is to be noted even by his own confession, that the Protestant defend the fathers against the Puritans: therefore they rail not at them. Thus M. Doctor you hardly know what you writ, you are so eagerly carried against the Protestants: somewhat ye would say, but yet know not well how to utter your mind. We acknowledge the fathers to have had excellent wits, to have studied and prayed continually; yet do we not deify them, neither do we account their writings canonical scripture, as Augustine speaketh of Cyprian, lib. 2. cont. Cres. cap. 32. Where you call the Protestants foolish, unstudied, unlearned, profane, and arrogant fellows, you bewray your vain spirit: Vascula inania maximè tinniunt, the emptiest vessels make the greatest sound. Of your learning we shall speak more hereafter; in the mean time I would have you to know, that constat plures Papa● adeò illiteratos fuisse, ut Grammaticam penitus ignorarent; 
Alphon. l. 1. c. 4.  it is certainly known that sundry Popes have been so unlearned, that they never understood their Grammar. You say further that Protestants are given to lust, ambition, gluttony, and covetousness. If for Protestants you had named Papists it had been a true saying. For as your own man Coster confesseth, Plarique Catholici feris ac bellumis moribus blasphemiae causam prabent infidelibus; many Catholics or Papists being of savage and beastly manners and behaviour do cause Infidels to blaspheme. But more also of this in another place. If the Centuriators and Calvine have noted some errors in some of the fathers, it is no more than Papists have done. The Rhemists renounceth Augustine's exposition upon the 16. of Matthew. Bellarmine in his first book de sancto beat. and 6. chap. saith that justinus, Epiphanius, Ireneus, and Oecumenius, cannot be defended. Again Ambrose, Hilary, and Nissen, are rejected of him, cap. 4. lib. 2. de rel. To proceed, he holdeth that Adam was not deceived, 
Lib. 3. de Amiss. great. cap. 7.  yet communis patrum sententia id videtur habere, ut Adam fuerit seductus; the father's common opinion seemeth to be that Adam was seduced. Hierome agreeth not with the father's concerning the burial of Adam. Bell. lib. 3. de amiss. great. cap. 12. Theodoret expoundeth some places of scripture as the Pelagians-doe. Bellar. lib. 4. de amiss. great. cap. 9 The fathers before Pelaguis did not accurately handle the doctrine of predestination. Bellar. lib. 2. de great. & lib. arb. c. 11. Lastly, not to be too tedious, cap. 14. eiusdem lib. he saith, that patres cum ad populum verba facerent, ea dicebant quae utiliora videbantur ad excitandos homines ad bona opera. The fathers when they did speak to the people uttered those things which were most profitable to stir up the people to good works. For thy further satisfaction, Christian Reader, I desire thee but to read Bellarmine's exposition of the Lords prayer, and tell me how the fathers do agree even in expounding that one prayer. Their diversity also in expounding this article, He sitteth on the right hand of God, is worthy to be considered. Bellar. lib. 3. de Incar. cap. 15. M. Doctor Humphrey his speech of that famous and reverend Bishop jewel being injurious to himself, is uttered in respect of his great pains, and not to detract from the truth of his challenge, if you can confute his book set upon it; if you cannot, never hereafter brag of the fathers. For indeed it is no small means to confirm the Protestants in their cause, that his books have not been answered in so long a time: you cry the fathers, the fathers are on your sides, and yet have not satisfied M. jewel his challenge in many years. I reduce your argument into a syllogism:  

They which condemn the fathers of errors, hold a false religion:  
But the Protestants condemn the fathers of errors. Ergo.   
To this argument let Augustine answer; Si divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet quae in Ecclesiae canonicae nominantur perspicua aliquid firmatur authoritate sine ulla dubitatione credendum est, 
●pist. 112.  alijs verò testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat; if any thing be confirmed by evident authority of those Scriptures which are called Canonical in the Church, we must believe it without any doubting, but other witnesses or testimonies by which some thing to be believed is persuaded, thou mayst believe or not believe. I might abound with his testimonies, I will adjoin one other. Neque quorumlibet disputationes quamvis catholicorum & laudatorum hominum velut scripturas habere debemus, 
epist. 1●1.  ut nobis non liceat, salva honorificentia, quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in corum scriptis improbare aut respondere. We ought not to account any men's disputations (although catholic and laudable men) as the scriptures, as if it were not lawful for us the honour which is due unto them reserved, to disallow and reject something in their writings. Picus Mirandula in his Apology proveth that, in dictis sanctorum extra canonem bibliae, non est infallibilis veritas; in the sayings of Saints without the canon of the bible, there is not infallible truth. The Papists themselves refuse the fathers. Pucichius saith, Mihi non placet Augustini ea de re definitio, 
I●●l. 548.  I like not S. Augustine's determination of that point, namely original sin. Epiphanius is rejected for breaking images by D. Harding. Cyprian is condemned by Duraeus, because he teacheth that only Christ is to be heard. But that we may see all the fathers to be on your side, M. Doctor, produce I pray if you can their testimonies, to prove that the Pope cannot err; that he may depose Princes, that he must summon councils, and that he is above the same, or that the virgin Marie was not conceived in original sin. I have desired to see these points proved by all the fathers, if you can do it you shall do more than your own men have done. By these new opinions we may gather, that Popery did begin by degrees, and hath increased to this height. These doctrines although they concern the head of your church are so weakly proved by the fathers, that a man would imagine you do not hold these things but in scoffing manner: if you do seriously hold them, prove them seriously, and not with ridiculous authorities.   

The 11. reason: Trial of truth.  
That it appertaineth to the Church to try and to discern Spirits, as also to determine and to decide doubts, we confess, M. D. Try all things, saith Paul: 
1 Thess 5. 1. joh. 4.  and S. john commandeth us to prove the Spirits. But the question is, whether you are the Church or no? Quid ergo facturi sumus? what shall we do? I answer with Augustine propounding this question, 
cap. 2. de unitat.  that we must seek the Church of Christ in his word, qui veritas est, & optimè novit corpus suum, who is truth, & best knoweth his body. Where you say that we cannot otherwise but receive the scriptures upon the catholic Roman churches credit, and also three Creeds and some articles of belief, as the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son, and many terms, as person, Trinity, consubstantial, Sacraments; I will answer these points severally. And first I desire to know what reason you have to make a particular church, (as the Roman church) Catholic. The Roman church, if it were a true church, is but a part of the catholic church. It is Catholic saith Augustine, because it is per totum, through the whole world. 
de unit. cap. 5.  Cyril in his 18. chap. among many reasons of the name, giveth this, Quia per universum sit orbem terrarum diffusa; because it is diffused through the whole world. Is it all one to say, I believe the Catholic Church, and to say, I believe the Roman church? To leave this matter, and to come to your speech, that it is not possible to know the Bible which is used amongst Christians, to be the true word of God indeed, but upon the Roman churches credit. First, such idle questions the old heretics the Manichees demanded of S. Augustine, to whom S. Augustine answered, 
Lib. 32. cap 21. cont. Faust. man..  Si quaeratis à nobis unde nos sciamus Apostolorum esse istas literas, breviter vobis respondemus, inde nos scire, unde & vos scitis, illas literas esse Manichaei: If you demand of us how we know that these be the Apostles writings, we shape you this short answer; as you know that your writings are of the heretic Manichee. Secondly, I would know how you can prove any church to be the church but by the Scriptures; if you cannot prove the church but by the Scriptures, than the Authority of the church dependeth upon them, and not è contra. Thirdly, we receive not the Scriptures upon the Roman churches credit, for than we should have received also the books which are Apocrypha, as well as the true Canon of the bible: for the Roman church doth receive them. Fourthly, we receive the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves. Many men by the heavenly majesty of the Scriptures are moved to receive them before they know which is the true church. 
Gonarus con. Cost. justin Martyr saith, that Christ's words have in th●● fear to persuade. in dialogo cum Try.  Mantuan de pat. l. 3. c. 2. saith thus, Firmiter scripturas ideo credimus, quòd divinam inspirationem intra accipimus; we steadfastly believe the scriptures, because we have received an inward inspiration from God. He that will despise the Scriptures, will despise the Church. He that will not believe there is a God because the Scriptures teach it, will not believe it because the Church teacheth the same. The Scriptures were credited before the Roman church was ens or in rerum natura. The Apostles believed the Gospel of our Saviour Christ, before he wrought any miracle, because it was testified by the scriptures. joh. 1.46. Adam and others believed without the church. Our Saviour Christ preached, Repent and believe the Gospel, which some did without the Church. Eusebius in his third book and 21. chap. writeth that the Gospels of Thomas and others were rejected, because that phraseos character à consuetudine Apostolica variat, & ipsa sententia & propositum eorum, quae in illis adferuntur, plurimum à veritate rectae doctrinae discrepant; the style doth vary from the Apostolical manner, and the matter and the intent of those things which are alleged in them do much differ from the truth of right doctrine. The consent of Scriptures, the miracles and prophecies, with many other arguments, draw a man to credit the same; yea the deadly hatred which the world beareth unto them, persuadeth not a little. Sacris Scriptures (saith Bellarmine) nihil est notius, 
Lib. 1. cap. 2. de v●●. D●i.  nihil certius; there is nothing more known and certain then the Scriptures. Read Bellarmine yourself, M. Doctor, that he may satisfy you in this point. But if we believe the Scriptures by the Church, doth not the church teach us to believe by the scriptures? how can the church rightly persuade us to believe, but by preaching and producing of scriptures? Ergo the scriptures are of much more force, than the bare name of a church. For propter quod unumquodque tale est illud magis tale; if the church induceth us to believe, than the scriptures do much more, because the church doth it by the scriptures. The church is an excellent means ordained of God to bring men to belief, neither do we contemn the authority thereof. The Samaritans believed by the testimony of a woman, 
Io●. 4.  but afterward they believed because of Christ himself: so the Church may bring one to believe, but afterward to believe for the word itself. The testimony of Augustine is fraudulently alleged by you: his word is commoveret, for he saith; As there were many things which held him in the faith, so if he were an infidel, he would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the church with other things did move him. ergo not only the church: and he speaketh, if he were an infidel, as the words going before do plainly manifest; Si invenies aliquem, if thou shouldest find any which yet doth not believe the Gospel: what wouldst thou do, saying to thee I do not believe? then immediately followeth your sentence, I would not believe unless, etc. Nicholaus Clenangis is worthy to be heard concerning this testimony of Augustine, 
Disp. super G●●. con.  Mirum sane prima specie satis videtur, at the first fight it is marvel that he should prefer the authority of the church, being a stranger in the earth, before the authority of the Gospel, seeing the Church may be deceived in many things, and the Gospel cannot. Afterward he giveth the reason of Augustine's speech; because the Manichees did reject Scriptures at their pleasures. To stand yet somewhat longer in this testimony: 
Con. lib. 5 c. 1●.  Augustine was moved to believe by Ambrose: is Ambrose his authority therefore equal to the scriptures? God forbidden: whosoever listeth to read the 5. chap of the 6. book of his Confessions, shall find that he did believe the Scriptures for themselves. In his 14. chap. of the book cited by the Doctor, he writeth thus; Quid putas faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, & postea imperant ut incerta credamus, & eos sequamur qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa side valentiore facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non iam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante, atque illuminante? what have we to do but to forsake them, that invite us to know certain things, and afterwards command us to believe uncertain things, and to follow them which invite us, first to believe that which yet we are not able to behold, that being made stronger through faith, we may attain to understand that we believe now, not men, but God himself, confirming and lightning our mind inwardly. The spirit of God therefore must cause us to believe, otherwise we shall waver and stagger. To conclude this point, many borne in heresy and schism have been moved by heretics to believe the Scriptures, is heresy therefore equal to the scriptures? nothing less. The three Creeds we receive, because the doctrine is contained in the scriptures: but you do not receive Athanasius his Creed, for he maketh but two places, vitam aeternam, & ignem aeternum. Omnes homines resurgent cum corporibus suis, & reddituri sunt de factis preprijs rationem, & qui benè egerunt ibunt in vitam aeternam, qui verò malè in ignem aeternum. All men shall rise with their own bodies, and shall give an account of their deeds, and they which have done well, shall go into life everlasting, & they which have done evil, into everlasting fire. You teach that Infants unbaptized shall be in a brim of hell, and not in the fire of hell. Thus if you had been wise, M. Doctor, you would have been silent concerning these Creeds. If I should show your contrarieties to the Apostles creed, I should be overlong. That the holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father and the Son, 
Lib. 2. de Christ. cap. 22.  Bellarmine proveth plentifully out of the Scriptures. What an ignorant Doctor is this, that cannot see this mystery proved in holy Scripture? Touching the terms, as person, Trinity, consubstantial, Sacraments, what if they be not in Scriptures? the heavenly doctrine signified by the words is contained in scriptures. If these words were necessary to salvation, than men were damned before they were invented, which I think the Doctor will not grant: for many believed the things, although the names were not extant. Augustine calleth the books of Toby, and other, Canonical, because they were read to edification: for I hope you will not oppose his authority to so many Fathers, as I have before produced. In the place by you cited; he will have those books which are received of all Churches, preferred before those which some Churches receive not: hence it is manifest, that he maketh not all of equal authority. 
Lib. 2 con. gaud. cap. 23.  Elsewhere he will have the books of Maccabees read, so it be non inutiliter & sobriè, not unprofitably and soberly. Why doth he give this caution to these books, if they were of like authority? And in his book de praed. Sanct. c. 14. he confesseth when he did produce a testimony out of the book of Wisdom, that the brethren did reject it, & there he contendeth not much for it. If it had been Canonical, he should not have so remissly pleaded for it. Thus it appeareth why he calleth these books canonical. Where you say that no heretic can charge the Church with adding or diminishing one jot from the Scriptures; we must admire God's providence and his love towards his church: he preserveth the Scriptures though men would take them out of the world. But if you mean that the church of Rome hath not altered the holy Scriptures, you must know that the Papists hold the Hebrew and the Greek text to be corrupt, and have established a Latin translation, differing far from the Hebrew and Greek: and is not this to alter the scriptures? If I should show the corruptions of that translation, I should be very tedious. I will name one: in the 1. of the Hebr. it is said, Christ hath purged our sins by himself: these words [by himself] are clean stricken out of their Rhemists' translation; what an intolerable corruption is this? But I will conclude the matter in a syllogism:  

They which establish a corrupt translation, altar the scriptures, or at least a jot of the same:  
But the Papist establish a corrupt translation: Ergo.   
And indeed I cannot sufficiently wonder at them who establish their Latin translation eo nomine, because it is Hieroms, and yet will not allow, his translations of the Psalms: what dealing with the Scriptures is this? he hath corrected that translation of the Psalms which they use, and yet they have defied it. You further demand, why we should trust the Church of Rome rather in this then in other things? I answer, first that (as I have proved) we trust not the Church of Rome but the scriptures themselves: secondly it is a ridiculous consequent, We believe the church of Rome in this point, ergo we must do so in all other. To make your folly manifest unto you self, M. D. you believe the church of England in some points, will you do so in all? I would it were so. That we have had nothing to do with the Bible for a thousand years, and that we have rob the Church of many books, are detestable untruths. But I pray you, Sir, were not the scriptures preserved in the Greek church as well as in the Romish church? did not the jews keep the scriptures? and yet (to use your phrase) our Saviour wrested them out of their hands, not as just, but as unjust possessors of them. The pharisees might have used the same speech to our Saviour Christ, that the Doctor doth to us. He hath three other questions in this chapter. The first is, how we relying only upon scripture can show certainly which books be scripture, and which not? This question I have at large answered in this chapter, and therefore I will not repeat my answer. Secondly he would know of the unlearned Protestant, how he knoweth the translations to be true? I answer, that it is not necessary to know every thing to be truly translated. The spirit of God speaking in the scriptures, certifieth the conscience of the unlearned, that the scriptures in the English tongue are the scriptures. The third question it, why we believe our own judgements rather the Luther's or calvin's? I answer, we believe their judgements that bring best proofs out of Scriptures. But M. Doctor, because you have posed us with so many questions, now I will pose you with one likewise. Why do you receive your latin translation, rather upon this Pope's authority, then upon that Pope's authority? Pope Sixtus saith, 
●ead M. james.  before the Vatican edition their vulgar latin translation was schismatis occasio, the occasion of heresy. Now Pope Clement's edition is approved, far differing from Sixtus edition. What certainty then have Papists, who will take the scriptures now upon this, now upon that Pope's warrant? But I reduce your argument into a syllogism:  

They which have no certain trial of truth, are not the Church:  
But the Protestants have no certain trial. Ergo.   
I deny the assumption, for we have the scriptures which are the infallible rule of truth. Our Saviour Christ vanquished the devil by the scriptures. The Bereans tried the Apostles doctrine by the scriptures: 
Lib. 2. denupt. cap. ●●.  and may not we so do? S. Augustine writeth thus: Ista controversia judicem riquirit, this controversy requireth a judge: who shall be judge? he answereth, Christ; judicet Christus, let Christ be judge. He doth name neither Pope, nor Romish church. For, as he saith in another place, Scriptura est eminentissima authoritatis, 
〈◊〉 Civit. l. 11. c. 3.  the scriptures are of a most sovereign and peerless authority. 
Lib. 5.  Optatus disputing whether the baptised are to be rebaptized, is worthy to be heard; Quarendi sunt (saith he) aliqui huius controversiae indices; si Christiani de viraque part dari non possunt. quia stuaijs veritas impeditur, de foris quarendus est index: si l'aga●●●, non potest nosse Christiana secreta, si judans, inimiens est Christiani baptismatis, ergo in terris haec de re nullum poterit reperiri judicium, de coelo quaerendus, sed ut quid pu●samus ad coelum cum habemus hîc in evangelio testamentum? inquam, quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena coelestibus comparari. Some judges for this controversy are to be fought for: if Christians, they cannot be had on both sides, because by partaking the truth is hindered: we must seek abroad for a judge; if he be a Pagan, he knoweth not Christian secrets; if a jew, he is an enemy to Christian baptism: in earth there can be found no judgement: a judge from heaven must be required. But why do we knock at heaven, when we have in the Gospel a testament? because in this place, earthly things may be fitly compared to heavenly things. I marvel, M. Doctor, that your vaunting upon all the Fathers, light not upon this Father, who is, as you call them, a plain Calvinist. But I return your argument:  

They which have no certain trial of the truth, are not the Church:  
But the Papist have no certain trial of the truth. Ergo.   
The assumption is manifest, because they rely upon Popes that may err. Marellinus sacrificed to idols, Liberius was an Arrian. And more than this, some judas might creep into the office, as your Rhemists confess. Some Popes they will not appeal to councils, as it it manifest by the Council of Basil. And M. Doctor, in a word, what certainty have you, or can you have, if there happen to be a schism amongst the Popes? The 22. schism continued 40. years, as it is recorded in Fascic. Temp. and until Martin the 5. it was not manifest who was Pope. You blaspheme the Scriptures; Turrian calleth them a Delphian sword made for want. The Censure of Colen saith, that it is veluti nasus caereus, a nose of wax. O Antichristian Prelates, the Lord rebuke you for these your blasphemies against his holy Bible! What trial of truth you have, I hope I have made plain to your own conscience, M. Doctor. In the end of this chapter you call us boat-swanes, admitting no judge, and say we have no means to rest until we end in Atheism. That this name of boat-swanes may return upon your head, I pray you consider how M. Harding pleadeth for your Pope to be head of the church, because the Prophet Hose prophesieth that the children of Israel and judah shall have one head. Out upon you, Antichristian heretics, that ever you should thus abuse the holy Bible touching Atheism, whence did Machiavelli spring? Caius constantly avoucheth Italy to be the very fountain of Atheists. I conclude this reason with the saying of Picus Mirandula, Magna profecto insania est evangelio non credere, cuius veritatem sanguis martyrum clamat, Apostolicae resonant voces, prodigia probant, ratio confirmat, mundus testatur, elementa loquuntur, Daemons confitentur: sed long maior insania, si de evangelii veritate non dubitas, vivere tamen, quasi de eius falsitate non dubitares. It is exceeding madness not to credit the Gospel, the truth whereof the blood of Martyrs doth cry, the Apostolical words do sound, miracles do prove, reason doth confirm, the world doth witness, the elements do utter, the devils confess: but it is far greater folly if thou doubtest not of the truth of the Gospel, so to live as if thou madest no question but it were false.   

The twelfth reason: the use and custom of the Church.  
De faece hauris, you draw of your dregs M. Doctor, when you will beat us down with the bare club of custom. Custom in civil affairs may prevail much, but in divinity it is not worth a rush, except it be joined with truth. Prudentius answereth Symmachus making this defence, Suus cuique mos, suus cuique ritus est. Every one hath his manner and rite.  
Quid mihi tu ritus solitos, Roman senator,  
obiectas? cum scita patrum, populique frequenter  
in tabulis placiti sententia flexa novarit:  
Nunc etiam quoties solitis decedere prodest,  
praeteritosque habitus cultu damnare recenti?  
Why dost thou object unto me Custom? when a divers opinion hath changed the decrees of Father and people: now also how often doth it avail to departed from custom, and by a new manner to condemn the old habits? Morosa moris retentio res est aequè turbulenta ac novitas, A wayward retaining of a Custom, is as turbulent a thing as novelty Balsamon upon Photius saith that aequitate exigente mutamus consuctudinem, 
Tom. 6.  when equity requireth it, we change custom. And again, Vidi non scriptam consuetudinem fuisse infirmatam, I have seen an unwritten custom to have been infringed. But saith the Doctor, the use and custom of the church hath been always an infallible rule to direct and order things by. First the Doctor beggeth that which is a question, taking the Romish Church to be the true Church. We deny it: prove it before you plead custom. Secondly the Church in times past did give the Eucharist unto Infants; was this an infallible rule, M. Doctor, to give the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ unto children? if you deny that the Church did so, you may be confounded with infinite testimonies of authors. Augustine in his first book de peccato mort. cap. 20. is plain, upon which place Erasmus hath made this marginal note, 
Lib. 1. cap. 2. cont. julian.  Nunc parvulis non datur Eucharistia, now the Eucharist is not given to little ones. Innocentius Pope of Rome, as the same father testifieth, Definivit parvulos nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse; that Infants cannot have eternal life except they eat the flesh of the son of man. I could produce your own men, who acknowledge that the Church did use to give the Sacrament to Infants. By which I conclude, that the Church is not an infallible rule to direct unto truth. The Apostle Paul doth not only fight with custom, but useth many other arguments and that in indifferent matters, as your Rhemists write, therefore you abuse the place to establish a custom, to confirm matters of moment, when the Apostle entreateth of indifferency. Secondly I would you could truly say that you are the Church, as Paul did: you are departed from the Apostolical Church. But hear what Theophylact writeth upon tnat place; Ad verecundiam Auditores haec dicta compellunt, ne quid praeter Apostolorum consuetudinem factitent; these sayings drive the auditors to shame, that they should not do any thing besides the Apostles custom. Bring us therefore the Apostles practise, and you shall cause us to yield to it. But that which he cannot obtain by Paul, he would prove by Augustine, who avoucheth that it is strange madness to dispute of that which the universal Church practiseth. Secondly he proveth that Infants are borne in sin, because the Church doth baptise them. To the first testimony I answer, that Aug. speaketh of ceremonies, as whether a man must fast before the communion or no: & such like. Secondly I answer, that Papists must prove their ceremonies to be used of the whole Church, as also that they be the Church. The original of their ceremony is set down in their writers, as in Bucch. & others. To the second argument I answer that we have infallible testimonies out of scripture to prove that infant are borne in sin, besides the custom of the church which baptizeth them. And now because you have objected a place out of the 5. part of the 18. Epistle, hear what he the same S. Augustine writeth in the first part. I would have you (saith he) to know that the Lord hath made us subject to a light yoke, and that he hath joined together the society of the new people with Sacraments, in number the fewest, in observation the easiest in signification most excellent, such as is Baptism consecrated in the name of the trinity, and the Communication of his body and blood, and if any other be contained in the Canonical Scriptures. If S. Augustine had known your seven Sacraments, he would never have come in with Si quid aliud, if any other. Immediately after he will have such ceremonies in the Universal Church, as are instituted by the Apostles, or by general Counsels: are all yours such? The ceremonies of particular Churches are variable, as Augustine himself confesseth. In his hundredth and nineteenth epistle and 19 part, he would have these particular burdens cut off, complaining that the estate of the jews is more tolerable, being subject to ceremonies of God, then of Christians subject to human praesumptions. If it was thus in Augustine's time, what is it now? To reduce your argument into a syllogism, thus you dispute:  

They which may plead Custom have the truth,  
But the Papists may plead custom.  
Ergo: They have the truth.   
I deny the proposition, and say with Hildebarte, that it is Pertinacia, 
●. Epist.  consuetudinem praeferre veritati, Obstinacy it is to prefer custom before the truth. This he proveth by many testimonies out of Augustine and Cyprian, which for brevity I will omit. That we have taken away the sacrifice of the Church it is senseless untruth, for that sacrifice which Gods word approveth we embrace from our hearts. But we are charged with great malapertness for altering the mass, placing in stead thereof chapters psalms ill translated, and ballads called Geneva psalms, with railing sermons. If we had placed their golden legend of lies, it may be we should have heard nothing, the Psalms are David's psalms, and if there be any imperfections in our translations, there are more in theirs, our sermons are not railing, except that be railing which disgraceth error. Erasmus complaineth of Papists, that Quorumlibet somnia, imo mulier cularum deliramenta leguntur inter divinas Scripturas, Every fools dreams, yea very mad women's doting fancies are read with holy Scriptures. Yet we are malapert, because we read and sing David's Psalms. Their Popes may add to the mass what they will, and we may not alter any thing without sausines. Your mass hath been by little and little increased, as Walfridus Strabo evidently showeth, and yet you boldly say it hath continued through all generations. The Apostles did consecrate only adjoining prayer to the same. Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 13. de Eucharist. which he proveth out of Gregory. But in his second book de Missa and 19 
Read Fulbertus of variety of orders, in his epist. to. 3. lib.  chap. it is wonderful to see how he would elude this testimony, and saith plainly that some deny it, yet afterwards he recalleth himself. It sufficeth to have showed, that their service hath not, as this Doctor dreameth, continued through all generations. 
Can. 12.  In the Miletan Council there is a decree that no prayers be made in the Church, but such as are approved in a Synod, Ne fortè aliquid sid compositum contra fidem, lest there be any thing composed against the faith. Ergo, there was not one uniform order in prayer, the diversity of Liturgies, as Basil, chrysostom, and others do show likewise, what variety hath been in the Church concerning the service thereof? Nay the very Church of Rome at this day doth not compel all to observe the Canon of the Roman mass as necessary, as I can prove by their own writers. Micrologus saith, 
cap. 12.  that one Scholasticus did compose the Canon of the mass, in his 13. chapter he reciteth superfluities in the Canon thereof, and findeth fault with the mention of the birth of Christ in it, seing we should Anunciare illius mortem, show his death. Now M. Doctor, go and accuse Micrologus of malapertness. To conclude this point of custom, what say you M. Doctor to the feast of the conception of the virgin Marie which is celebrated in you● Church, as though she was not concerned in sin, is this infallibly to direct unto truth? your own conscience telleth you the contrary: how many testimonies might I produce to prove her conception in sin? and yet a feast is kept to the contrary.   

The 13. reason: Doctrine.  
The Doctor in this chapter giveth the Papist no small blow, who teach that the sincere preaching of the word of God is no note of the Church. Here he will needs have that Church whose doctrine tendeth to mortification and holiness of life to be the true Church, and contrariwise that congregation which teacheth the contrary to be a false Church. Hence I gather that true doctrine is a note to discern the Church: for if that be the true Church which teacheth holy doctrine; then holy doctrine is only in the church, for if it be not inseparable from the same it cannot mark and chalk the Church. Now by holy doctrine, Christian reader, I mean not that which may have a show of holiness in the opinion of men, but that which gods word alloweth. The Pharisee may fast and make great show of piety. The Montanists had three lents in the year: the false Apostles did teach doctrine which had a show of wisdom, 
Coloss. 2.15.  in voluntary worship and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body: out of which we gather that pretended piety and holiness must not be made a note to discern a Church, but such holiness of doctrine as God's word doth allow, for indeed that only is holy, and all other doctrine is profane, whatsoever show it may have with men. The Doctor to prove his opinion saith, that the church is called holy, because it professeth and teacheth nothing but that which is holy. Who would think that a Doctor could be ignorant in his creed? The church is called holy because it is washed in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by his spirit. The Apostle showeth that the Church hath no wrinkle, Eph. 5.27. which is as much as if he had called it holy. That this is so, it is plain, because the triumphant church is holy, & yet teacheth no doctrine: & this triumphant church is understood in the creed as well as the militant; witness the Papists themselves who teach also that it is called holy because it is consecrate to God. But grant him that the Church is therefore called holy, because it teacheth holy doctrine; doth the Church of Rome teach such doctrine? let us see whether it be so or no: here he will not compare lives, and yet he saith that Catholics live like Saints. What Saints Catholics are I have showed before; to omit this then, & to come to his grounds. He proveth their holiness of doctrine, because Priests may not marry. This is so far from being holy doctrine, that it is devilish doctrine, as I will make plain to your conscience M. Doctor. The Apostles were married, 
Euseb. l. 3. 27.  for Petrus & Philippus liheris procreandis operam dederunt: Peter and Philip did beget children. Philemon, if we believe Bellarmine was a Bishop, and he had his wife Apphia, as chrysostom witnesseth. The Council of Ancyra, 
Lib. 1. de. Chr. c 27.  can. 10, decreeth after this manner: Diaconi quicunque cum ordinantur, etc. Deacons whatsoever they be, if in their ordination they protest that they cannot contain, if they marry after, let them remain in the ministery: ergo marriage is not a profaning of orders. If this Council will not suffice; Irenaeus I hope will, who avoucheth that a Deacon had speciosam uxorem, a beautiful wife. 
Lib. 1. cap. 9 Lib. 2. de gest. con. Basil.  Aeneas Silvius writeth thus. Id quod de uxore dicitur nihil pendo, cùm non solum qui uxorem habuit, sed uxorem adhuc habens queat assumi. That which is objected concerning a wife I regard not, seeing not only he which had, but also he which hath one may be Pope, I let pass the history of Paphnutius, 
Tempore cap. 14. l. 6.  mentioned by Socrates and others.  
Basilius was Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyter, & Eupsychius Cappadociae: Basil was priest of Ancyra and Eupsychius of Cappadocia, they ended their lives in Martyrdom, and yet Eupsychius had lately taken a wife, & was but even as a Bridegroom, Chaeraemon a Bishop fled in persecution with his wife. 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 41. l. 5. 21.  Socrates writeth that many bishops, Dum Episcopatum gerunt etiam liberos ex uxore legitima procreant, whiles they are Bishops do beget children of their lawful wives. Spiridion was a Bishop, and had a daughter Irene. But hear what Bellarmine writeth: he proveth that single life is not annexed unto orders by divine right, and therefore saith that Si liceat Sacerdotibus iure divino habere uxores, quas ante ordinationem duxerant, cur quaeso etiam non licuisset, 
Decaeli sacer,  etiam post ordinationem ducere. If Priests by God's word might retain their wives, which they had before ordination, why I pray you was it not lawful to marry after ordination also. Now I have proved that Priests did retain their wives which they had before ordination: ergo.  
But M. Doctor if it be so holy doctrine to deny Priests lawful marriage, then what shall we say of Popes who give dispensation in this point? you know what your men write, the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle, is not this good divinity, to teach that the Pope may dispense against holy doctrine? but you like the Donatists, as it seemeth; hold that Quod volumus sanctum est, that which we will is holy. Your Inkchorne terms in which you flourish after this manner, that the Protestants wiving & rewiving, trick and trim up themselves to please the eyes of their sweet hearts with their starched ruffs, fine monsaches, trim tuscabonians, may be doubled upon yourselves, who use all these with many more vanities, as curling the hair, to please your Concubines and harlots. Ind est (saith Bernard) quem quotidie vides meretricius nitor, 
Serm. 33 in Cant.  histrionicus habitus, regius apparatus, inde aurum in franis, in sellis, in calcaribus: Thence is it as thou mayest daily see, that they be trimmed like whores, attired like players, served like Princes: thence is it that they were gold in their bridles, saddles, & spurs. This hath no Lutheran uttered but devote Bernard himself concerning the Romish manners, and that you may know the fruits of this your doctrine, hear what Aeneas Silvius saith, in the place before quoted, Plures saluarentur in sacerdotio coniugato, qui nunc in sterili Presbiterio damnantur: Many might be saved in married Priesthood. which now are condemned in barren Priesthood. Panormitan also saith, that ex lege continentiae, by the law of continency Priests are defiled with unlawful copulation; but because I desire brevity, I refer you to Gildas, the title of his book i● Acris invectio in Ecclesiasticum ordinem: a sharp invective against the Ecclesiastical order.  
Thus M. Doctor, it had been good for you to have concealed this profane doctrine of your impure priesthood. You say further, that the Roman religion teacheth restitution of goods wrongfully gotten; so do we teach and say with Augustine, Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum; the sin is not forgiven without restitution: and therefore you slander us most detestably, saying that we leave all at large to our followers. To proceed, the cathohke Roman religion teacheth observation of vows and promises; so do we, of lawful vows and promises, but otherwise we say, in turpi voto muta decretum, in malis promissis rescind fidem, in a filthy vow change thy purpose, in wicked promises disannul thy faith. So doth Aquinas teach in his 2. 2. 88 quest. art. 10. in these words: Potest contigere, It may happen, that a vow be simply evil, or unprofitable, or a hindrance of a greater good, and then it may be changed. But you like filthy heretics hold, that it is a greater evil to marry after a vow, then to commit fornication. Bellar. lib. 2. de Mo. cap. 34. and your Rhemists hold that it is the worst fornication. 
1. Cor. 7.  Turpis, saith Hosuis, Philippo videtur hac oratio, 
p●. 412.  Catholicis autem honestissima, these words unto Philip Melancthon seem shameful, but unto the Catholics they seem most honest: what words will some say? namely these, that it is better for vowed persons to commit fornication, or to have a concubine, then to marry. For your credit sake hereafter M. Doctor, never come in with your doctrine of vows: I hope men by considering it will abhor Popery. But we are not yet come to an end of this their doctrine. The catholic Roman religion teacheth abstinence and fasting, which mortifieth our bodies and enricheth our country: so do we, and do abstain not only from flesh but from fish when we fast, and from wine with all other delicates: and for the enriching of our country, there are laws made to prohibit the eating of flesh on certain days and at certain times. But we differ from the Papists in these points: first they teach, that religious fasting consisteth in choice of meats, as abstinence from flesh, cheese, eggs; but we teach, that it consisteth in abstinence from all kind of meats. It is well known that Popish fasting is feasting, and many had rather be fed with wine, and spices, and delicates, then with flesh. Secondly we teach, that we must fast to humble ourselves, to tame the flesh, and for other respects; but they teach that they fast to merit and to deserve at God's hands: now Christian Reader judge which side holdeth most truly and sound concerning fasting. Some Papists writ that we must abstain from flesh and eat fish, because God cursed not the waters: is not this to make flesh an unclean thing? and so by consequent they resemble the old heretics which condemned the creatures as unclean. The ancient Christians when they fasted, had but one meal a day, and that at night: our Papists have two, a dinner and a supper: 
Bell. de I●iu.  but M. Doctor whether is this to fast or no? to gorge yourselves with eating fish and drinking wine in bowls. Wine inflameth concupiscence as well as flesh. The ancient Church did not restrain fasting to certain meats, as you may see in Tertullian his book, adversus Psychichos, Take heed, therefore lest you take part with Montanus in restraining to certain meats & times. Spiridion did sell flesh in lent to be eaten, ●●cause to the clean all things are clean. Out of this history mark these things. First, that to fast is sine omni cibo permanere, to be without all meat. Secondly the guest did refuse flesh because he was a Christian. Spiridion faith therefore he ought to eat. What can be more direct against Popish fasting? The Papists say men are no Christians if they eat flesh in lent: Spiridion saith, because they are Christians, therefore they ought to eat flesh. Alcibiades living sparingly was admonished by God that he should use all creatures. 
Euseb. l. 5. c. 3.  
Possid. in vita August. cap. 22.  Augustine had always wine, because every creature is sanctified by the word and prayer. By the same reason flesh is sanctified as well as wine. A Christian may say with Augustine, Non ego immunditiam obsonij timeo, sed immunditiam cupiditatis; I fear not the impurity of the creature, but the impurity of my appetite. Take heed also lest you take part with Eustathius in this point, as you do in marriage. 
So lib. 2. cap. 31.  For he did eschew the company of a Priest that had a wife, and taught that men must abstain from meats. I will not speak of your doctrine of meriting by fasting, only this I say, that if Popish fasting be right fasting, many can be content to enjoy no other feasting. To have most dainty cates, fish and wine, pleaseth the mouths of many men as well as flesh, To leave this and to come to other points. The Catholic Roman religion, 
Who raise rents in England like unto Papists? yea it may be proved by examples that there be Rom●ne catholics as hard dealers as any other.  saith the Doctor, forbiddeth Landlords to raise their rents, except urgent occasion drive them so to do. And we teach, that oppression is peccatum clamans, non amans, a crying and not a loving sin: and therefore it is false which you say, that we teach the Landlord to do what he list with his own: the landlord must do as he would men should do unto him; he must deal with his tenants as considering himself to be a tenant. The same Catholic Roman religion teacheth marriage to be indissoluble; so do we, excepting the case of adultery: and your doctrine causeth many to fall into that foul sin; for the offending person knowing that the innocent person may not marry again, careth not to commit that sin if liberty were granted the occasion is taken away. Secondly, you make no difference betwixt the innocent person, and the person offending; is not this good divinity? The Grecians also teach as we teach in this point; so doth Erasmus and your own men Caietane and Catherine. Thus M. Doctor, you care not to accuse your own champions of profane doctrine. I pass by other testimonies, because I will answer briefly. 
libr. de Ma. c. 14.  Bellarmine writeth thus; Sola fornicatio directè oppenitur fidei coniugali, & sustantiae ipsius matrimonij: Only fornication is directly opposite to the marriage covenant and to the substance of matrimony. Great reason then is there surely that this sin should dissolve marriage. Doth not that dissolve a thing which overthroweth the substance of it? And how they provided for the innocent party, let his word judge, which punisheth the adulterer with death: if the adulterer ought to be so punished, there can be no question but marriage may be dissolved.  
Hitherto the Doctor hath had but bad success for his holy doctrine, let us see if his success be better hereafter. The Catholic Roman religion, saith he, teacheth that all laws of magistrates which be not expressly against the word of God, do bind the subjects in conscience: the greater therefore is your sin, because you care not to murder Princes. But what if the Pope giveth a dispensation? then you may do what you list. O holy and heavenvly doctrine. Our doctrine concerning magistrates laws is this, that the authority in general is to be regarded for conscience, because it is God's ordinance. But every law doth not bind Conscience, but those which are divine, being immutable. And this doctrine is taught by your man Gerson, as witnesseth Bellarmine. There are no men that have given greater obedience to magistrates, than Protestant's, as the world can testify. The Papists bring the Magistrates into contempt. The Emperor must lead the Pope's horse. Coster glorieth that Pippin king of France, 
43. p.  doing reverence to the Pope did lead the Pope's horse: if Emperors must lead the Pope's horse and kiss his toe, who bring Magistrates to contempt, the Pope or the protestants? Henry the fourth barefooted, fasting from morning to night, waited for the Pope's sentence three days. If this be not to contemn Magistrates, I know not what is. In the book of ceremonies the Emperor is appointed wonderful servility but I leave this contempt of Magistrates and come to venial sins, and concupiscence. A man may wonder that we should be charged with unholy doctrine because we teach every sin to deserve damnation. The greater the sin is, the more men should abstain from it: therefore on the contrary, the lesser it is, the less regard is had of it. By our doctrine then men regard sin more than by the Papists doctrine; because we teach no sin to be small: judge therefore indifferent reader, which is most holy doctrine. Hierom saith, Nescio an leave aliquod peccatum. 
ad Co.  I know not whether we may term any sin small which is committed against God or no. But the Papists care not to call sins venial and small, though committed against an infinite God. To enlarge this doctrine a little, their own men, namely Gerson, and the bishop of Rochester teach as we teach. Bellarmine useth strong reasons against this wicked doctrine. 
Bellar. l. 1. de amist. gra. c. 1.  No punishment is so evil as any sin can be. Ergo no sin is venial. A man must rather be annihilated than he must commit any sin, how then can sin be venial of it own nature. Thus your own school resolveth against your doctrine. The scripture is plain, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. 
3. Gala.  If man be accursed for every sin, than every sin deserves death: but man is accursed for every sin. Ergo, Augustine writeth excellent well of this point, Levia multa faciunt unum grave, 
Tract. 1. in epist. joh.  multae guttae implent flumen, multa grana faciunt massam: Many small sins make one great, and many drops make a flood, many corns make a heap. Take head therefore M. Doctor of your small sins, least admitting them, you have a mass of corruption. Theodorus Abucara speaketh as plainly as any Protestant, 
In lib. Pa.  Peccati nullus expers est, nisi Christus Dominus. I am vero omne peccatum vel tantillum mortem infert. No man excepting Christ our Lord is without sin: Now the least sin deserveth death. Touching concupiscence, we teach with the Apostle that it is sin, and by this doctrine men must of necessity be moved to strive more against it then if it were no sin. How say you M. Doctor, will you not strive more against that thing which is sin, then against that which is no sin? if you will not, the greater is your shame, and your conscience is the more dissolute. Concerning the reward of good and bad life in the world to come, we teach it with you, but yet we deny the merit of eternal life. Opera sunt via regni non causa regnandi, saith Bernard, Good works are the way to the kingdom of heaven, 
de lib. arb.  they are not the cause of it. Tota spes mea, saith Augustine, est in morte Domini mei, mors eius meritum meum, 
in anual. 22.  refugium meum. My whole hope is only in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit and refuge. And again, Meritum meum miseratio Domini, My desert is the Lords mercy, Besides these authorities M. Doctor, if reasons will satisfy you why we deny merits, take these.  
Whosoever meriteth must perfectly fulfil the law: but no man in this life can perfectly fulfil the law, ergo no man can merit. Secondly, where there is merit, there is no mercy, for gratia non est ullo modo gratia, nisi sit omni modo gratuita. Grace is not grace except it be every way free: but the reward is of mercy. Ergo.  
Thirdly, where there is merit there may be confidence in merits, but no man must put his confidence but in God. Ergo. To this syllogism I will annex Augustine's speech. 
Lib. de pec. mo● 14 cap.  Quisquis ergo ausus fuerit dicere iustifico te, consequens est, ut dicat etiam crede in me, quod nemo sanctorum recte dicere potest. Whosoever can say I justify thee, may by consequent say believe in me, which none of the Saints can rightly say. If then we justify ourselves, we may believe in ourselves, which speech all Christians do abhor.  
Fourthly, where there is merit, there the reward is due by justice to the work, but by justice it is not due, save only in respect of God's promise; ergo, If you will see the assumption proved, read Aquinas, 1. 2. 114. quaest. where he saith, that Deus est debitor sibi non nobis. God is debtor to himself and not to us. Read also Bernard de lib. arb. and hear Augustine writing thus, Debtor factus est, he is made a debtor by promising. Now to produce your own men, as Scotus and divers others, I hold it needless, yet let the Catechism of Colon speak. Quis tam stupidus est, etc. Who is so sottish as to think our good works to be worthy of eternal life? Thus merits are rejected by reason and by sundry authorities: therefore he slandereth us in saying, that we give the people occasion to be negligent in doing of good, and little or nothing fearful to evil. Now we are come to auricular confession. The Catholic Roman religion teacheth confession to a priest, of all deadly sins which we can remember, under pain of damnation, which restraineth the people from sin, and causeth them particularly to be well instructed and counseled. But the Protestant taking that away setteth open a door to all wickedness and looseness of life, as also to ignorance. To answer this latter speech: first, no man can be ignorant, that shutteth not his eyes, how we condemn looseness of life, and how we cry for knowledge. We desire and beseech the people to read the bible; we catechize and instruct them, we examine them also before the communion, do we then open a door to ignorance? Some Papists have said that ignorance is the mother of devotion, and I am sure that knowledge aboundeth now more than ever it did in Popery. As for auricular confession, 
jewel. 27. ait.  we say it is neither commanded by Christ, nor necessary to salvation. The Papists to maintain their doctrine, make their priest is judges, and yet the master of sentences witnesseth, 
Lib. 4.  that omnes Sacerdotes non habent scientiam discernendi; all Priests have not knowledge to discern. What wretched judges than are Popish priests which have not knowledge? But suppose them to have knowledge, can they discern the heart? Augustine demandeth, 
●●n. 3.  unde sciunt an verum dicam? how do they know whether I speak truth or no? seeing no man knoweth what is in man, but the spirit of man. But if confession be so necessary, why did Nectarius take away confession, and leave it to every man's conscience, how he would come to the communion? A certain noble woman confessed particularly her sins to the Priest, 
Socrat. l. 5. cap. 18.  and because a Deacon had slept with her this confession of sins was taken away. Is confession of sins for this one fact was taken away, what just cause was there to alter Popish auricular confession, let the world judge. Not to be long in this point, set apart abuses in confession, and we do not deny it. If any be troubled in his mind for his sins, let him seek a skilful physician. Otherwise we say with chrysostom, 
Homil. 31. add Hebr.  Non dico tibi ut te prodas in publicum, neque ut te accuses apud alios, sed obedire te volo prophetae dicenti, revela domino vian tuam. I will not advise thee to betray thyself openly, nor to accuse thyself before others, but I counsel thee to obey the Prophet, saying, Open thy way unto the Lord. And again, Si confunderis dicere alicui quia peccasti dicito ea quotidie in anima; if thou art ashamed to tell thy sins to any, speak them in thy soul. Satisfaction depending upon confession, is in the next place to be handled. The Catholic Roman religion, saith the Doctor, teacheth satisfaction to be done either in this life or in Purgatory, and upon consideration of this they builded so many goodly Churches, hospitals, etc. In few words the doctor hath condemned, all their glorious works, as being done for wrong ends. We acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ to be our only satisfaction for sin: and say with S. john, If any man sin, he hath an Advocate with the Father jesus Christ, and he is the propitiation for our sins. Maxius saith, that Christi passio nobis sufficit ad salutem, 
Serm. 3.  Christ's passion is sufficient to salvation. And Bellarm. in his 2. book de justificat. and 5. chap. writeth thus; Nihil frequentius omnis scriptura testatur, quam Christi passionem & mortem, plenam atque perfectam satisfactionem fuisse pro peccatis; The whole Scripture doth witness nothing more often then that the suffering and death of Christ are a full and perfect satisfaction for our sins. If man might satisfy for sin, he might be called a redeemer and a Saviour, which is horrible to hear of. Neither doth this our doctrine rob the poor of their alms, children of their education, and the sick of their relief, and maketh men unwilling to do any good at all. The Doctor except he be blind may see, that men build Colleges and hospitals, and relieve the poor, though they do it not to satisfy for their sins: but his confession is to be accepted that faith, their building and giving of alms is to satisfy: by which he disgraceth all their works. From satisfaction he cometh to free-will, saying, that their doctrine causeth the people to endeavour to do good, and flee from all evil, the Protestant taking it away discourageth men utterly from doing good works: for who will go about a thing which is not in his power? What could Pelagius have said more? M. Doctor, is it in our power to do good unto salvation or no without grace? answer directly. Our Saviour Christ saith, Without me ye can do nothing. Augustine writeth, 
lib. 1. Retract. c. 15.  that voluntas in tantum est libera, in quantum est liberata; our will is so far free, as it is freed. To set down our doctrine briefly. We say with the same father 3. Hyp. esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus hominibus non per quod sit idoneum, qua ad Deum pertinent sine Deo, aut inchoare aut certe peragere: we confess that all men have free-will, not that it is able either to begin or to perfect those things which belong unto God, without God, but only in the works of this life whether they be good or evil. To shut up the matter: doth Cyprian withdraw men from doing good, when he saith, Dei est omne quod possumus, all is of God that we do? Now we must speak of the Mass: the Catholic Roman religion teacheth the holy Mass to be a sacrifice in which the true body and blood of Christ is offered up, which maketh the people so devout and reverent. I answer, first what if the Priest have no intent to consecrate, what then is become of your sacrifice? secondly we knowledge no bodily sacrifice for sin, but only Christ on the cross. And that I make plain by the Apostles reasons. Where there is no remission of sin, there is no more offering for sin: 
Heb. 10.  but by Christ's passion there is perfect remission of sins: ergo. Again, Christ died but once, ergo he offered himself but once. Ireneus writeth thus; Oportet not oblationem Deo facere, we must offer to God, 
Lib. 4. cap. 34.  and in all things yield thanks to the maker, with a pure mind, unfeigned faith, steadfast hope, and fervent love, offering the first fruits of his creatures. And this oblation the Church only sacrificeth in purity, offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiving. Where is your sacrifice of the very body and blood of Christ, if the Church sacrificed only the sacrifice of thanksgiving? Not to heap other testimonies, I pray you tell me, M. Doctor, resolutely and with infallible arguments in which part of the Mass this sacrifice consisteth? Bellarmine is his 1. book de Missa, and 27. chap. maketh many propositions, and faith; some think thus, and some thus: it were therefore good for you to be certain yourselves, before you obtrude this sacrifice upon the people to stir them to devotion. Now let every man judge of this your syllogism:  

They which teach holy doctrine are the true Church:  
But the Papists teach holy doctrine: ergo.   
To make a brief of that which hath been handled, he chargeth us with unholy doctrine, because we approve ministers marriage; yet his own man Panormitan doth the same. Bell. lib. 1. de. cler. cap. 19  
Again, he chargeth us with unholy doctrine, because we allow marriage to the innocent party after a just divorce: yet his own men teach at we teach. Caietan and Catharin.  
Thirdly, he chargeth us with the same crime, because we teach that all magistrates laws bind not the conscience, yet his own fellow Gerson holdeth as we hold.  
Fourthly, he chargeth us with the same crime, because we teach every sin to deserve eternal damnation, which doctrine his own men have taught as I have proved. These doctrines might have served to have returned this untruth upon his head, but let us further see into their doctrine.  
It is not lawful for the faithful to marry with infidels, for Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 6.  be not yoked with infidels: yet the Pope may dispense in this point. Bellar. lib. 1. de Mat. cap. 23. who gave the Pope leave thus to play with God's word?  
Secondly, God forbiddeth diverse degrees of kindred, yet the Pope despenseth with them, if God's word be holy the Pope's doctrine is profane and showeth him to be Antichrist sitting in the Temple as God.  
Thirdly, subdeacons may not marry, yet the Pope dispensed with them Greg. lib. 1. Epist. Cap. 42.  
Fourthly, God commandeth the children to honour Parents, but the papists teach that they may enter into the state of Monks and Nuns without the parents consent. Bellar. lib. 2. de. me. 36 cap.  
Fiftly, the Pope should honour the magistrate as being his father, but the Emperor kisseth is toe.  
Sixtly, the Papists allow stews, and one calleth them a nenessarie evil. God saith, Deut. 23.27. There shall be not whore of the daughters of Israel.  
seven, the Papists teach, that the scriptures are not to be read of all men, a doctrine tending to ignorance and profane life.  
Eightly, the Papists say, that the passions of Saints are joined to Christ's passion to make up the treasure of the Church: a most blasphemous doctrine against Christ's sufferings which are of infinite valour. Bell. lib. de Indulg..  
Ninthly, the Papists teach, that Saints may be called our redeemers after a certain respect, though not simply. Bellarm. eodem lib. if there were nothing but this one thing in Popery, a man should ever detest the same.  
Tenthly, the Papists teach, that it is better to commit fornication then to marry after a vow, as I proved, which is most filthy and odious doctrine.  
11. The Papists teach, that in this life and after death the Pope may give pardons: which is a most dissolute doctrine, as is the doctrine of purgatory. Give good store of gold and silver, and thou shalt have pardon: alas, what will not a man give for the redemption of his soul?  
12. The Papists teach, that some sins deserve not death of their own nature, which maketh men to commit these small sins, whereas the greatness of sin terrifieth men from it. Thus M. Doctor, behold your holy doctrine: and now I return your speech: if the Papists doctrine open the right way to heaven, than is the way to heaven most pleasant and delightful to flesh and blood, and consequently most easy to be walked.   

The 14. reason: Negative Doctrine.  
Although this reason, with the rest following, hath no substance, but many vain words, yet I will examine it with the others that follow. 
Pope Boniface rob the Church and ●●ed to jerusalem Fas. Tmp. pag. 70. Albertus' rob the Church by Papal authority. ●●n. 90●. . Whether Tarlton's father spoiled the Church, as the Doctor reporteth. I am ignorant: but if you thus dispute M. Doctor, Tarlton's father sold the lead off the parish Church. Ergo the religion in England is a false religion. Tarleton himself I am sure had more wit than you: you are beholding to his father for this fact, for otherwise as it seemeth you had wanted matter to fill up your chapter: as for the destroying of Abbeys, Monasteries, Nunneries, chantries, Altars, you might admire the just judgement of God upon such places, which being abused to Idolatry, and to filthy lust, whoredom, and Sodomy, are changed to other uses: your own prelate's also in king Henry his days, committed Abbey lands to the Prince's disposition. And if you think it carnal liberty to possess any such Church goods, you may do well to persuade a number of your favourites, to renounce the possession of their Abbey lands, and to restore them to the Church. If you refuse so to do, (I will say no more,) you are libertines yourselves by your own verdict. Who first annexed parsonages to abbeys but Papists? and this thing hath not a little maimed Gods Church. Who first exacted first fruits but the covetous Pope? read M. Doctor Fasciculum rerum expetendarum, what orations are there against them. If your Abbeys be spoiled blame yourselves, for julian the Cardinal writing to Eugenius saith, justo Dei judicio fiet, quòd quia nolumus dimittere Concilium fieri, perdemus temporalitatem nostram, & utinaus non corpora & animas. By the just judgement of God it shall come to pass, because we will not suffer a Council, that we shall lose our temporalities, and I would to god we might not lose our bodies and souls. Touching first fruits saith the Author of the oration against them, that exorbitanter factum fuerat & contra ius & justitiam, in oppressionem praelaturarum, ecclesiarumque, manasteriorum, & beneficiorum, & etiam personarum quibus contigerat. It was exorbitantly done against right and equity, to the oppression of Praelacies, Churches, Monasteries, Benefices, and also the persons to whom it happened. If some Lutheran (as you call them) had thus written, you might have discredited it, but now you have no cause so to do. No marvel then if others followed the Pope's example. If these testimonies will not suffice, call to mind the pope's confession, namely Adrian's, that Omne malum à Curia Romana processit. All wickedness proceeded from the Roman Court. Thus you have gained little by this your preface to negative doctrine. I might answer this reason only with the like, namely that the Papists standeth upon mere negatives, as these, I deny Christ to be the only king, Priest, and Prophet of his Church; I deny that only God is to be called upon; I deny the Scriptures to contain sufficient doctrine unto salvation; I deny we are saved only by Christ: thus I might proceed and show that your religion standeth upon destructives. But I will give you arguments for the opinions which we hold. And to begin with Baptism, with which you likewise begin: you hold it to be simply necessary unto salvation, we deny it, affirming that God's grace is not tied to the Sacraments, but that he may dispense it as it pleaseth him. The thief upon the cross was saved without baptism: ergo it is not simply necessary. Valentinian died without baptism, as Ambrose reporteth, and yet he doubted not of his salvation. And if it be necessary simply unto salvation, it is by this place in the 3. of john, No man can enter into the kingdom of heaven, except he be borne of water and of the spirit: but this place doth not prove a simple necessity, for Bellarmine teacheth, that baptism was not necessary simply before the passion of Christ: therefore this place proveth it not. We say therefore with Bernard, Non career baptism, seà contemnere, capitale est, 
epist. 77.  not the want, but the contempt of baptism is damnable. In the Church of Thessaly, as Socrates writeth, they did baptise only at Easter, ob quam causam, saith he, 
Lib. 5. cap 20.  omnes paucis admodum exceptis absque baptismate moriebantur: for which cause all excepting a few died without baptism. Would the Church of Thessaly have done thus, if it had thought baptism simply necessary unto salvation? If you object Augustine's authority, I answer first that he thought the Eucharist necessary also, as I proved before: and if he erred in one, why might he not err in the other? secondly the same man saith, tunc invisibiliter impletur, cum misterium baptismi, 
Lib. 4. cap. 2●.  non contemptus religionis, sed articulus necessitatis excludit; then it is invisibly fulfilled, when the point of necessity doth exclude baptism, and not contempt of religion. S. Augustine therefore did urge baptism to be necessary against the Pelagians, who thought it superfluous, and not against those that were prevented with inevitable necessity. The contempt therefore is damnable, and not the want of baptism. I might also oppose Vincentius judgement to that of Augustine, if he be of another mind, but I let it alone. Catharin the Papist assigneth neither heaven nor hell to infants, but a third place; and so showeth himself a flat Pelagian, as I might show: but I refer the reader to August. serm. 14. de ver. Apost. lib. 1. de poena mor. cap. 28. To be brief, it is admirable to consider the variety of popish opinions about this point. Bellar. lib. 6. de amiss. great. cap. 1. Agree amongst yourselves you that teach so severally concerning Infants, before you come to charge the Protestants doctrine with bare negatives. Next to baptism, we must speak of inherent justice, which we do not deny to be in men: for this inherent righteousness is sanctification: but we teach this inherent righteousness to be imperfect, and cleave only to the righteousness of Christ: whose righteousness is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God, and to be accepted to life everlasting. This doctrine I marvel you dare once bark against, being so holy and so comfortable as it is. I will give you reasons of it. In the 3. to the Rom. we are said to be justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. By grace here, Bellarmine will have inherent grace understood, because the favour of God is sufficiently set forth by the word freely, as though to fortify and amplify a matter one thing may not be uttered in divers words? which I might plentifully prove. Secondly, saith he, the word [by] cannot be applied to the favour of God, but to the formal cause, or meritorious cause, or instrumental cause: this is likewise false as I might show by some examples: but let this be granted, that by grace is not meant the favour of God in this place, Paul expoundeth himself, saying, through the redemption which is in jesus Christ. And to retort Bellarmine his reason: if by the favour of God we must understand inherent righteousness, than the Apostle needed not to have added, through faith: because faith is a part of inherent righteousness. Hence I thus conclude: if we are justified formally and meritoriously by the redemption which is in jesus Christ, then are we not justified by inherent justice: but we are justified formally and meritoriously by the redemption that is in Christ: ergo.  
In the same chapter we are said to be justified without works, some answer works ceremonial are to be understood; this answer Bellarmine refuteth because the Apostle speaketh simply without the works of the law. What works doth Bellarmine understand? works that go before faith? But by his own reason we must understand all works, for the Apostle speaketh simply not restraining his speech to Moses his law or to works going before faith. Again, such works are excluded as we may boast in, but we may boast in the works which follow faith especially, seeing they proceed partly of ourselves, and not only of grace, as the Papists teach. Augustine is worthy to be heard, speaking against Pelagius, upon the like place of scripture; Non ait ex praeteritis operibus, 
De praedest & gra. cap. 7.  sed cum generaliter dixerit non ex operibus, ibi & praeterita intelligi voluit & futura; he saith not of works which are past, but seeing he speaketh generally of works, he will have both works that are past and to come understood. So say I to the Papist, the Apostle speaketh generally, why shouldest thou then restrain his speech to works that are past? I let pass the arguments taken out of the 4. chap. which are many, and come to the place in the 2. of the Cor. the 5. chap. where Paul writeth that Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. As Christ was made a sinner, so are we made righteous: but Christ was made a sinner by imputation: ergo we are made righteous by imputation. To this text semblably suiteth Augustine. Ipse ergo peccatum, 
cap. 41.  ut nos justitia, he was made sin, that we might be made justice: not our justice but God's justice, neither in us, but in him. Again, 
3. tract. in joh.  omnes qui per Christum justificati, justi non in se sed in illo, all that are justified in Christ, are righteous in him, not in themselves. Lastly for brevity sake, I thus dispute. That righteousness which must answer God's justice must be pure and perfect: but ours is impure: ergo. Augustine saith, 
19 lib. de civ. c. 17.  our righteousnesis such that it consisteth rather of remission of sins, then of perfection of virtues: ergo it is not perfect. Optatus speaketh thus, Only Christ is perfect, 
lib. 2.  caeteri omnes semiperfecti sumus; all other of us are but half perfect. The testimonies of Fathers are many in this case, I conclude with Bernard: 
61 in Cant.  The righteousness of Christ is not a short cloak which cannot cover two. Thus I have given you a few reasons why we cleave only to the righteousness of our blessed Saviour Christ. I desire you, M. Doctor, as you love the salvation of your soul, that you cleave only to it, and leave your stained righteousness: for your conscience t●lleth you that your inherent righteousness is imperfect. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquos praedices iustor, non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris. What virtues soever you preach that the ancient just men had, nothing saved them but faith in the Mediator, 
Lib. 1. cont. Pelag. cap. 21.  saith Augustine. Except therefore you be better than the righteous men, Abraham, No, & others, only faith in Christ must bring you to salvation. Concerning works of preparation, if by them you understand works by which God bringeth us to repentance, as hearing God's word, afflictions, with other things, we do not deny them: but if you understand works, which deserve favour of congruity, we reject them, as some of your own men do give us leave to do that which is done by yourselves; and indeed who can think that he to whom damnation is due should merit and deserve God's grace? this is mad divinity. Augustine saith, 
●●. Psal.  Nihil boni fecisti & datur tibi remissio peccatorum, attenduntur opera tua, & inveniuntur omnia mala. Thou hast done no good and remission of sin is given thee, thy works are considered, they are found all evil. To be short, saith the same father, Miseretur Deus. God of his great goodness hath mercy, and he bardeneth without any iniquity, 
〈…〉  that neither he which is delivered might boast of his own merits, neither he which is condemned might complain but of his own deserts, for only grace discerneth those that are saved from those that are damned. Now M. Doctor plead you merits and deserts, I for my part will cleave only to grace. From works of preparation we are to descend to good works and free will, but of these I have spoken before, and therefore I will not repeat the matters handled, but come to the keeping of God's commandments, which we deny can be done in that perfection as the law requireth, for there is no man that sinneth not, and to say as the Papists say, is plain Pelagianism, facilia dicis (saith Hierom) thou sayest God's commandment are easy, 
Ad C●●.  and yet thou canst allege none that hath fulfilled them all. Augustine's testimonies are pregnant in this point, wherefore to leave it, as also human laws, and to speak of the seven Sacraments. The Papists make not only 7. Sacraments, but many more. For as they make orders one of the seven, so do they make divers Sacraments in orders: as namely the order of Bishops one sacrament, the order of Priesthood another, and the order of Deaconship another, as Bellarmine showeth. Hence it is plain that they make about seven sacraments, yea they make inferior orders also a Sacrament, and so they have exceedingly multiplied the number of sacraments: but we make but two, and this number I proved before out of Augustine; besides the Sacraments did flow out of Christ's side, but only blood and water did issue out of Christ's side, ergo, there are but two. Water signifieth Baptism, and blood the Eucharist: touching the proof of this, that the sacraments did flow out of Christ's fide, read Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacr. cap. 15. To proceed: 
August. in 8. tract. in job.  in a Sacrament there must be a word of institution and an outward element: Accedat verbum ad clementum & fiat Sacramentum, Let the word come to the element and so it shall be a Sacrament. But only Baptism and the supper of the Lord, hath an outward element, and the word of institution: ergo. I will not adjoin the testimonies of Fathers, neither show that Durand denieth matrimony to be a Sacrament after the Sacraments. The Doctor nameth Priesthood of which I have spoken, as also of the single life of the Clergy. But concerning Priesthood I would know whether his Priests are after Aaron's order, or after Melchizedeches. Aaron's order is ceased, Melchizedeches order is peculiar to Christ, what Priesthood then would you have M. Doctor? And whereas you say that we deny penance, contrition, and the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Marie, with trimming up of Churches, ceremonies, and singing, it is false; for we teach godly sorrow to be necessary unto salvation, and do not deny the perpetual virginity of the virgin Marie, neither do we condemn moderate trimming up of churches & ceremonies: as for satisfaction and the real presence, I have handled them before: as also worshipping of Images, and the visibility of the Church. I will speak of prayer unto Saints, which as yet I have not spoken of. If we must pray unto Saints, we must believe in them, for to whomsoever we pray we must believe in him; but we must not believe in Saints: ergo. If you answer that we may believe in Saints, hear what the Fathers write. Vemantius saith, Vbi prepostio (In) ponitur, 
To. 2.  ibi divinitas approbatur: wheresoever the preposition [in] is, there the Divinity is approved. To Vemantius agreeth Paschasius, 
T●. 9  Credimus Ecclesiam quasi regenerationis matrem, non in Ecclesiam credimus, quasi salutis uxorem. We believe the holy Church as the mother of regeneration, but we believe not in the Church, as the author of salvation. Bellarm. proveth the Deity of Christ, because we must believe in him: to believe then in Saints is to make them Gods. Nazianzene also proveth the Deity of the holy Ghost, because we believe in the holy Ghost. Furthermore to whomsoever we must pray, we must call him Father, but we must not call any Saint Father: ergo. The proposition is manifest out of the Lords prayer, which is a perfect pattern of prayer: 
Ep. 121.  for as saith Augustine, Quamlibet alia verba dicamus, nihil aliud dicimus quàm in ista oratione dominica positum est, si rectè & congruentur oramus. Although we utter other words, yet we say no other thing than is contained in the Lord's prayer: if we pray conveniently and aright. Thirdly, to whomsoever we must pray, he must know the heart, but only God knoweth the heart, ergo. Theophylact upon the 19 of Math. writeth, that ex hoc quòd cogitationes rescivit, ostendit se Deum Christus, Christ by this thing did show himself God, because he knew their thoughts. Now M. Doctor judge whether you have not uttered a most wretched speech, that a horse if he could speak, might be as good a Protestant as the best of them all. We come not in with bare negatives, but with sound arguments, which if you can answer, I reduce your argument into a syllogism:  

They which stand upon bare negatives, are of a false religion:  
But the Protestants stand upon bare negatives. ergo.   
The assumption as I have showed is utterly false. And M. Doctor I would know whether you own men stand upon bare negatives or no. We teach many points as I have proved, which the Papists hold themselves: if we stand upon hare destructives; then do they also. Charge not us then M. Doctor with bare negatives, except you will disgrace your own men.   

The 15. reason: Divinity.  
Solomon giveth counsel that an other should commend us not we ourselves yet this Doctor thirsteth so after praise that he commendeth the papists for learning, and condemneth the protestants for idiots I do not willingly diminish the papists learning virtus in host laudanda virtue is to be commended in our enemies, yet now I am enforced to show the Papists ignorance, and to defend the protestants knowledge; many Popes as I have proved have been so ignorant that they did not know their grammar. Pope Benedictus, saith Waltheramus Symonaicè Papatu Romano invaso, cum esset rudit literarum, alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas see● Papam consecrari fecit. Bennet getting the Popedom by simony, seeing he was unlearned, caused another Pope to be consecrated with him to do ecclesiastical duties. If I should repeat Pope's arguments I might waste paper; touching monks, they were so unlearned, that it was grown a proverb, monacho indoctior, more unlearned than a monk, 
Doctor Fulke in Smith.  & of Bishops Erasmus said that only England had learned Bishops. Bellarmine defendeth their latin translation, because in a council it may come to pass that few understand Greek or Hebrew; thus ignorance must serve their turns when it pleaseth them, the Papists plead for learning; and yet ignorance, must be an argument to defend their translation of the bible. The Rhemists also defend their unlearned papists, as it is to be seen in their annotation upon the 1. Epist. of Tim. 5. v. Who would now think that these men should vaunt of learning▪ the papists were so learned that they derive the word articles of actans, many such strange notations might I show, 
Aquin. 2.2.  if I delighted in this trash Ludovicus Vives faith, that they which were of the Dominican order, nec latine sciunt, neither know latin, 
Praefat in come. d● Civit. dei.  neither have attained to any good author, being nourished and drowned up to the ears in the sermons of Dormi secure, yea he saith that saeculum iam est literis excultissimum, now the world is exceeding learned, judge then what it was heretofore, but that Christian reader, thou mayst see, that this doctor eareth not how he extolleth the papists, and disgraceth the protestants, attend unto his words. I pray you saith he what a learned clergy was their in Queen Mary's time, in respect of these poor creatures that occupy now their prebends and sit in the sunshine of their new pretended Gospel with their wives and children round about them. Were not one Tonstal, one Watson, one Christopherson for learning, one Fecknam, one Gardener, one White for wisdom and learning together, able to set to school all your ruffled Clergy at this day? I lived not in Queen Mary's time, to see the learned Clergy that then was, neither will I detract any thing from the men here named, but this I say that one Peter Martyr hath abundantly answered Gardener: yea I dare say reverend jewel, Grindal, Pilkington, Whitgift, Hutton, Cooper, Pears, Matthew, Bilson, M. Humphrey, M. Fulke, M. Whitakers, with divers others, were able ora Papistarum obthurare, to stop the Papists mouths. And concerning the Clergy that now is, for learning, let those that were alive in Queen Mary's time judge, thanks be to God it is known that knowledge aboundeth now far more than ever it did in those times. The Priest in the days of popery is not forgotten that read Rundit for respondit, and bunpzas for baptizas. Concerning our pelting objections taken out of Caluin and Beza, I say that if we should dispute so peltingly as the papists, we were worthy to be hissed at. I will set down some popish arguments. There are seven deadly sins: 
Bellar. lib. 2. de Lap. cap. 26.  ergo, saith the papist, there are seven Sacraments. Again the number of seven is mystical: ergo there are seven Sacraments I will not say what learned men ever broached such conclusions: but I come to other arguments, the wise men came to adore Christ, ergo we may adore holy persons, places and things; such shameless collections are fit for Papists, Dureus proveth that the jews did invocate Saints, because they thought that our Saviour Christ called upon Elias when he cried Heli, Heli; what admirable learned men are the Papists? I might fill many sheets with such popish arguments, but I leave them and come to school divinity, the Catholic divines saith the Doctor teach in their schools more exactly all things which a man may know in this life, of God almighty, of his perfection, goodness, infinity. etc. which the protestants never beat their branes about, being so much occupied about woeing, wenching, and wiving, taking upon them to be Doctors of divinity and husbands also. The marriage of ministers troubleth the Doctor very much, for he harpeth ever upon this string; but he cannot disgrace married men, except he doth disgrace the Apostles, who as I proved were married. And if the Doctor had read that same famous learned protestant Zanchy, he would never have written as he hath, for Zanchie hath written of God's attributes, of the Trinity, and of the Creation, so as I fear few papists can do the like. But as for the schoolmen, they have defiled Divinity with idle questions. Erasmus hath set down many of them: as whether God can prohibit every good thing; whether he can make the world better than he did, whether he can make of a harlot a virging: whether the Ideas of all things are in God's mind or no: whether the Pope may abrogate the Apostles decrees: whether he can establish any thing that fighteth with the Gospel: whether he can command Angels, or take away purgatory. These questions with many more hath Erasmus witnessed to be disputed amongst papists, where you say, M. Doctor, that if any Protestant should appear in Catholic schools, he durst not once open his mouth in matters of learning: you still continue your railing spirit, and, as I hope, disgrace yourself, more than you are able to do the Protestants learning. I will name you some that durst show their faces in any popish school, both for knowledge in tongues, and arts. junius and Tremellius for learning in divinity may be matched with any Papist: and for arts, what say you, M. Doctor, to Ramus? whose learning the world can witness. But, say you, this gross ignorance of these new Gospelers is the cause that people do remain utterly void of the knowledge of mysteries, which they are bound to believe upon pain of damnation. If you mean popish mysteries, I answer, the people are not bound to know them. And what ignorance you keep the people in, your practice showeth: who take from them the Scriptures, which are the key of knowledge. They must not read the Scriptures, because holy things must not be given to dogs, they must have their service in latin, and be taught by Images which you call Lay men's books. Yea your doctrine of unfolden faith, that a simple man must believe as the Church believeth, may testify what knowledge the Papists require in the people. I will not speak of your dumb ministers which cannot bark: it is well known that your priests have been idols, and therefore the people in popery could be little better. And indeed to me it is no small confirmation of the truth, that the Protestants require such knowledge in the people, whereas Papists rather hold them in ignorance. Not to be tedious, Hierom of prague his learning is commended by Papists themselves, and school divinity is condemned by Langius a Papist. The Doctor further to amplify our unlearnedness speaketh thus: Take the most learned Doctor of them all, and set him to reason with an heathen or with an Atheist, and you shall see what goodly arguments he will make. Are you not once abashed thus to proceed in untruths? Philip Morney lord of Plessis hath written so learnedly against Atheists, that I think few Papists can do the like. Yet I would not have you to think that it is necessary to prove the faith of the blessed Trinity, and other points of divinity with natural reasons. Read Aquinas in his first part and 32. quest. where you shall find that, Sufficit defendere non esse impossibile quod praedicat fides; it sufficeth to defend that that is not impossible which faith teacheth. I admire with you the providence and goodness of God towards his Church, in furnishing it with all kinds of learning and sciences, whereby it may maintain itself against all sorts of enemies, be they jews, Turks, or heretics whatsoever: and I also do not deny your disputations and resolutions of cases of conscience; but I deny that the Protestant doth not meddle with these things, but fraughteth his ship only with faith, and never beateth his brain about sins. These odious untruths the world can control: and for your school divinity, might not the heathen Philosophers have made the same argument against Christ's Apostles, they might have cried, lo a few rude ignorant men deceive the world? so the Papists not unlike the heathen, cry a few ignorant Lutherans seduce the people. The Apostles wanted your school terms, M. Doctor, yet it was the truth which they taught. But now I draw your reason into a syllogism:  

Where there is greatest learning, there is truth:  
But with the Papists, not with the Protestants, there is greatest learning: Ergo.   
I answer, both propositions are false. Heretics may be well learned, 
Erasm.  and yet the truth resteth not in their breasts. Valentius was vir pollens doctrina, i●xta & eloquentia; Valentius was both excellently learned, and wonderful eloquent. Laicus simplex, a simple lay-man overcame a Logician, and an unlearned man openeth Christian religion unto a Philosopher, 
Lib. 2. hist.  saith the Tripartite history. But that you may see, M. Doctor, how in this objection you resemble the old heretics, hear Ireneus: Qui relinquunt praeconium Ecclesiae, 
Lib. 5.  (saith he) imperitiam sanctorum praesbyterorum arguunt, non contemplantes, quanti pluris sit idiota religiosus, à blasphemo & impudenti Sophista: Such as forsake the preaching of the Church, argue the unskilfulness of holy Elders, not considering how far more worth a religious idiot is, than a blasphemous and impudent sophister. Thus, Christian Reader, I have made comparison of learning being thereunto forced. 
De lau. sui ipsius.  The heathen man Plutarch alloweth this: for, saith, he laudare seipsum potest criminis depellendi causa, a man may praise himself to drive away crimes. Paul maintained his dignity against false Apostles, so I have maintained the Protestants learning against this slanderous and venomous mouthed Doctor. My purpose is not to disgrace the learned Papists, I know some of them to be skilful men in tongues and arts, and I fear many are so learned that they offend against their consciences. Howsoever it be, let the Protestants be counted ignorant, and the Papists learned, the Protestants maugre the Pope himself will by God's assistance maintain their cause. And seeing M. Doctor you are so learned, I pray you answer M. Doctor Whitakers, and other men's works, which have been written against popery. Never brag of learning until our men's works against your religion be answered. And if you do this, yet I would wish you to mark Augustine's speech; Melior est in malis factis humilis confessio, quàm in bonis superba gloriatio, better is an humble confession in doing evil, than a proud vaunt in doing well: and take heed least as Seneca speaketh, you teach men disputare non vivere, to dispute and not to live. Learning and religion meet not always in one subject, they lodge not always in one breast. To end this point: a man may be learned and yet an heretic.   

The 16. reason: Holiness of life.  
As in the former reason I have been compelled to make comparison of learning, so here I am enforced to confer lives. Although I would not have religion measured by the life of any, yet to answer this man's vanity, lest he should be too proud of popish holiness, I will out of good records set down the lives of Papists. Before I do this Christian reader, I must give thee to understand, that thou mayest not measure religion by external holiness, as the Doctor himself confesseth; and therefore in the beginning of the chapter, he overthroweth the residue of the same, for to grant him his external holiness which he saith to be in the Catholics, and not to deny their fastings and their prayers: all these things may be in hypocrites, as it is plain Math. 6. The pharisees fasted and prayed, and did other works, yet was their doctrine erroneous, and so is the Papists. The Doctor confessed before that they did undertake fasting to satisfy, which overthroweth the fasting: for Christ hath perfectly answered God's justice for us. Tertullian writeth excellently to this purpose. 
De pr●.  Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? do we prove the faith by men, or men by the faith? The Rhemists upon the 7. of Math confess that there may be extraordinary zeal and holiness in some heretics, which saying is sufficient to overthrow this whole chapter of the Doctor. By these proofs it is manifest that we must not measure true religion by external holiness: and not to stay any longer in this point; judas betrayed our Saviour Christ, yet he was a Preacher of the Gospel. But that the Papists may see their holiness I will begin with their Popes, Fasciculus temporum saith of eight Popes together, Non nisi scandolosa de his repperi. I find nothing but scandalous matter of them. Stephanus the 6. cut off two of Formosus his fingers, and cast his hands into Tiberis. Boniface the 8. entered into the Popedom as a Fox, reigned like a lion, & died like a dog. Of Boniface the 9 his time saith Largius, Italiam totam, maxim autem Romam, vitiorum vorago, etc. A gulf of sin had almost swallowed up all Italy, especially Rome. Now M. Doctor you have an universality of your holiness, all Italy, and specially Rome drowned in sin. And because you speak of Simony: Simonaica pestis, lethaliter omnia insererat, Simony had inserted all things most deadly, saith the same Langius. Your Cardinals were so proud that Celestine the 5. decreed, Quòd nec Papa, nec Cardinales cum tanta pompa equis uterentur, sed asinis veherentur tantùm. That neither the Pope nor Cardinals should use horse with such a pomp, but they should be carried upon asses. I doubt not but his law is now overthrown. Palingenius describeth at large the notorious corruption of the Roman Clergy. Sed tua precipuè non intrent limina quisquam, Frater vel Monachus vel quavis leg● sacerdos.  

Hos fuge, pestis enìm nulla hac ìmmanìor, hì sunt  
Fax hemiwm, fons stultitiae, sentina malorum,  
Agnorum sub pelle lupi, mercede colentes,  
Non pietate Deum, falsa sub imagine recti  
Decipiunt stolidos, ac relligionis in umbra,  
mill actus vetitos, ac mill piacula condunt,  
Raptores, maechi, puerorum corruptores, luxuriae atque gulae famuli, caelestia vendunt.  
Hos impostores igitur vulpesque dolosas,  
Pelle procul.   
Let no Friar, Monk, or Priest come within thy doors, take heed of them, no greater mischief can be, these are the dregs of men, the fountains of folly, the sinks of sin, wolves under lamb skins, serving god for reward not for devotion, deceiving the simple with a false show of honesty, and under the shadow of religion hiding a thousand unlawful acts, a thousand heinous offences, committers of rapes, fornicators, abusers of boys, slaves of gluttony and luxury, they sell heavenly things: these impostors and crafty foxes, chase far from thee. It grieveth me to rake the dunghill of these loathsome Papists lives, yet if these testimonies will not suffice, hear Bernard. Quià tam notum saeculis, 
Lib. 4. ad Euge.  quàm proteruia & fastus Romanorum gens insueta paci, tumultui assueta. What hath been so famous as the frowardness and the haughtiness of the Romans, a nation not acquainted with peace, accustomed to tumults. I am sparing in his testimonies, because I produced one of them before. Pope Adrian confessed as I have showed, that all mischief came from Rome. I let pass the reformation of the Clergy by Petrus de Alliac●. Picus Mirandula thus writeth. 
Inorat. ad Leo.  Apud plerosque religionis nostrae primores, aut nullus, aut certe exiguus Dei cultus, nulla bene vinendi ratio, atque institutio, nullus pudor, nulla modestia, nulla justitia. Amongst the chief of our religion, there is no service of God at all, or very small, no course of living well, no modesty, no justice. Read his oration unto Leo the 10. Christian reader, if thou wilt see the monstrous lives of Papists. Antonius Cornelius saith to the Clergy of Colon, that non decet tot scorta alere, it is an unseemly thing to nourish so many whores. What should I speak of Nicholaus Clemanges his book written of the corrupt state of the Church. It would make a man wonder to see the woeful estate of those times. Gildas his complaint of the nobility and laity of England is lamentable, 
Tom. 5.  he saith that there was not only fornication, but omnia vitia quae humanae naturae accidere solent, All vices which could happen unto man: and concerning the Clergy he testifieth, that it had sacerdotes multos impudentes, Many impudent priests, wolves ready to devour the souls of men. The reading of his invectives hath not a little affected me, for to behold what things he hath written would draw tears out of a hard heart. Master Harding calleth stews a necessary evil. 
In 41●.  O notorious wickedness! I am loath to show how some Papists have written, that no man is to be deposed for fornication except he continue in it. I only say with Mantuan, Vivere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Roma, omnia cum liceant, non licet esse bonum: you that wish to live godly, depart from Rome, all things are there suffered save godliness. Now I reduce your reason into a syllogism.  

They which have holiness of life are the true Church.  
But the Papists have holiness of life. ergo.   
I answer to the proposition, that there may be external holiness in a false religion, and so by consequent it is false, for the truth of the assumption, let the authors before cited determine the same. Augustine opposeth to the continency of th● Manichees, the continency of Monks, upon which Erasmus hath this note, utinam mundus nunc haberet tales, I would the world had such now, by which speech he showeth what popish monks were concerning the lives of protestants, I would that all which are professors were expressers. My purpose is not to defend the looseness of their actions, for my part I think that these lose livers, are tanquam materia prima, as fit to receive popery as any other religion. I say therefore with Augustine, 
Lib. 2. de mo. man.. cap. 34.  Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsa religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidivibus dediti, ut obliti sunt, quicquid promiserunt Do. Seek not after the rude multitude, which are either superstitious in religion, or so given to lusts, that they have forgotten their promise to God, but touching the true professors of the Gospel, they shall be found in trial always as honest as papists, where you say that looseness issueth out of the bowels of our doctrine, and that our ministers are all nought, I doubt not but that God will reward you accordingly for these your slanderous words, 
2. Cor. 10.18.  Paul saith, not he which commendeth himself is approved, but he which God commendeth. We care not for your commendations Master Doctor, we desire to approve ourselves unto God; it is your Doctrine that admitteth looseness of life as I have showed, and now I will make it more plain. The Pope's pardons are a most licentious doctrine, johannes Papa tertius & vicesimus plenariam peccatorum remissionem indulsit his, qui ad tuendam ecclesiam arma induerant pope john the 23. gave a full pardon of sins to those that took arms to defend the Church. Who would not commit adultery and other sins, if the pope can give him a pardon of all his sins for taking so small pains as to defend the Church? Pope Boniface as it is to be seen in his Bull, gives plenissima veniam peccatorum, a most full pardon of all sins, surely if the pope for money will give such pardon, he may have catholics good store. The doctrine of vows is also a sinful doctrine, as the wolrd can testify: and to what end tendeth the pope's forbidding of more degrees in marriage than God hath, and dispensing with those which God hath forbidden, but to maintain covetousness? concerning the bloody tragedies raised in France although I love not to meddle with such matters, yet know Christian reader that those of the reformed religion, in taking arms to defend the laws and liberties of their country against private persons, have done nothing but in the King's service. The bloody acts of Papists are notorious to the world. The rest of the Doctors railing in this chapter is not worthy any answer. They pray forsooth whilst our ministers play, they fast whilst we feast. Again (saith he) are not some of them hanged for robberies, for rapes, imprisoned for sorcery, and for other knaveries. Verily, M. Doctor, I doubt not but that you know many of your men to have been hanged for treasons, and that your own conscience can tell you, that our godly ministers pray whilst your Cardinals are in bed with their harlots. If the Vicar of Waram had his trull from coleman hedge, let him answer such a filthy fact himself, charge not our religion with his actions. I lament, M. Doctor, from my heart, the usury & simony that is practised with many, as also the excessive pride in apparel, the trains, verdingalls, borders, periwingles, coronets, wires and ruffs, which are spoken against by the sincere preachers of the Gospel, and I know none practise these more than Atheists or Papists: and it is utterly false that it came in with our Gospel. The holy prophet Esai hath sharply rebuked this intolerable pride, as you may see in his 3. chap. will you therefore, M. Doctor say, that the doctrine of the holy prophet was nought, because pride did so abound in his time? I hope you will remember yourself. But Erasmus, say you, 
Epistles.  condemneth sins in evangelical people; and so do we in whom soever they are: as he condemneth sins in the evangelical people, so doth he commend Luther whom you say to have led a brutish life. Hominis vita (saith he) magno omnium consensu probatur, iam id non leve praeiudicium est, tantam esse morum integritatem, ut nec hoste● reperiant, quid calumnientur. Luther's life is approved by the consent of all men, and that is no small prejudice, that his integrity is so great, that the enemies cannot slander it. Touching his marriage, he married not to please you, but to please God in holy matrimony. Augustine writeth of virgins which are sorry for their vow, 
Cap. 39 de sanct. virg.  ut melius nuberent, quam urerentur. That they should do better to marry, then to burn. and in his book de bono vid 8. & 9 chap. he teacheth that they which marry after a vow do contract true matrimony, though therefore he married a Nun, yet was his marriage true whatsoever you bring from jovinian his laws, the Doctor (which I had almost forgotten) demandeth what woman is married without touch of her honesty, yea saith he it is well if she had not a barn before. These questions Master Doctor touch your honest nearly, for the world can control these vanities, as like wise other in the end of your chapter, where you say that if a Seminary Priest turn to us, he drinketh up sin, as the dog lappeth up water, but on the other side if any do leave the protestants, and become a Catholic, he doth leave all his vices. These untruths deserve not any answer, but grant them to be true, yet is religion truth, whatsoever wickedness the men that profess it are given unto. And whereas you have spoken of pride; Laurentius Valla de Constat. donat. saith thus: Existimo, etc. I think the devils would express the pride of the Clergy, if they acted any plays in the air.   

The 17. reason: Constancy in Doctrine.  
That the doctrine of the Roman Church hath ever remained without change, it is as false as it is true that in the Apostles time the Romans faith was reported through the world. To show that the Romish Church hath swerved from that faith which the Apostles spoke of, the Epistle itself is sufficient; who listeth to compare the doctrine which now the papists hold, with the holy doctrine taught in that Epistle, shall see differences enough, to show the time of the change and alteration is needles, for we see it with our eyes, but because the Doctor saith that no man can prove that ever any pope or bishop in any See, did at any time change in any point of religion of his predecessor, I will name unto him one point changed. Gregory would not be called universal bishop, yet his successor Boniface was so called, hear you have a pope which altereth a point in religion, 
August. 157. ep. Greg. l. 1. epist. 4●.  to give you another point, pope Zozimus held that Nemo redemptus dici potest, nisi qui verè per peccatum fuerit captivus. more man can be called redeemed, except he hath been in truth a captive in sin: yet Pope Sixtus taught the Virgin Marie not to be conceived in sin, ergo she cannot be called redeemed. To touch some other charges. Gregory saith, it was heard that the subdeacons of Sicily should not be married, he gave them leave to marry, although his predecessors had forbidden it. Yet is this thing again changed, for now subdeacons have no wives. Pope Vrban the 4. instituted the feast of the Lords body and the solemn Precession. What should I speak of Images and the people's consent in election of ministers, that the people did give voices, it is plain by Bellarmine's confession, lib. de Cleric. cap. 17. and that in Gregory's time. By these few examples every man may see a change, I will not produce any more, because the Doctor named but one point. And why should we not think of a change in points of religion, seeing one Pope would change the acts of another? Stephanus did most cruelly persecute Formosus, and made all his ordinations void: and saith Sigebert, 
Sigebert.  Alia in eum horribilia dictu fecit. He did other horrible things to be named against him. Pope john afterward confirmed Formosus his acts, then cometh Sergius and maketh all void again, this saith Sigebert is dictu nefas, a most horrible thing to be spoken of. Thus M. Doctor you may see alterations in Popes, if you will but read your own men. I could allege confessions out of Bellarmine himself, but I have handled them in other places, and desire brevity, I reduce your reasons into a syllogism.  

They which altar some opinions are of a false religion.  
But some Protestants have altered some opinions.  
Ergo:   
I deny the proposition, for who can discommend this thing, that a man should upon good grounds change his opinions. Nunquam, saith the Orator, praestantibus viris laudata est in una sententia perpetua permansio. Excellent men never commend perpetuity in one opinion. As constancy is good, so pertinacy is bad. You will give the Poets leave, malè tornatos incudi reddere versus: to renew bad verses, and will you not give divines leave to change their opinions? praestat recurrere, quàm male currere, it is better to run back, then to run a wrong way. Augustine an excellent Father, hath written books of Retractions, yet Protestant's may not alter any opinions, but they are by and by heretics. 
Whitak. co●●. Du.  Luther desireth that his books may be read cum multa miseratione, with much compassion because he was once a Monk, no marvel though he changed his opinions, seeing he was trained up in blindness. And yet as the Doctor here himself showeth, he came from condemning one error in Popery, until he condemned many. If Luther had changed his mind at his death, it had been something, but seeing he continued constant against the Popish doctrine, it is a sure argument of his settled mind against that religion, although he could not see all errors at the first. Marvel not then M. Doctor, though by little and little he taught against your erroneous doctrines. Augustine saith that nemo nisi imprudens, quia mea errata reprehendo, 
Lib. 1. Retract.  me audebit reprehendere. No man that is wise will find fault with me, because I find fault with myself. Touching the alteration of the Communion book, we have made no great alteration these forty years of it. And yet know we M. Doctor that ceremonies and matters of indifferency may be changed so oft as the Church shall see cause. But say you, who so doth observe daily the order thereof is a cold Protestant, or an Atheist for his labour. This savoureth of your accustomed railing, and therefore deserveth no answer. As for the communion in leavened or unleavened bread, hear your angelical Doctor Thomas, non est de necessitate Sacraments, 
Tertia. P●. 74. art. 4.  quod sit azimus, vel fermentatus panis, quia in utroque confici potest, conveniens autem est ut unusquisque servet ritum suae Ecclesia. It is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, that it should be either unleavened or leavened bread, but it is convenient that every man observe the rite of his church in the celebration of the Sacrament. That some in stead of wine, take in the communion nappy ale, it may be true in Papists, but I know no protesants that do it: and as for placing the Communion table, and praying with a man's face either towards the south or north, be matters of indifferency. Walfridus Strabo writeth of this point thus, unusquisque su● sensu abundet, Let every man abound in his own sense. Yea he showeth that the altars did not look all one way: but there followeth a great matter concerning reverend jewel, who first gloried that Christ's flock was little, but afterwards vaunted much that our doctrine must needs be true, because it was spread so largely. As though this reverend man might not avouch Christ's flock to be sometimes little, 
See S●c●. in his 5. book.  and sometimes to be large. But if this be such inconstancy, I pray you learn M. Doctor, that yourselves were wont to prove you to be the Church, because of universality. But now your Rhemists seeing Antichrists kingdom lessended, will needs prove yourselves the Church, 
upon the 20. of the ●eue●.  because of the small number. Thus is unconstancy turned upon your own heads, for indeed it seemeth that you care not what you writ, to discharge the Pope from being Antichrist. The same Rhemists will one while have the revolt, of which Paul speaketh, 2. Thessal. 2. chap. to be understood from the Roman Empire, immediately they say it is very like to be from the Roman Church. O admirable constancy! What should I examplifie your inconstancy, how Saints hear our prayer; one whiles they hear them this way, another whiles that way. These you may read in Bellarmine himself the constancy of worshipping of your Images is unconstant as I can prove unto you. Luther his change of opinions I have answered before: the old proverb may hear fitly be used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no one man seethe all things: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the second cogitations are best.  
I will requite the Duke of Saxony his speech, with another: it is reported (saith Gryneus) that he should say, Although I am not ignorant that there have both errors and abuses crept into the Church, yet I will not embrace that Gospel which Luther preacheth. Thus the man as I think, with whose saying you end your chapter M. Doctor, hath done you more harm then good.   

The 18. reason: False Prophets and teachers.  
As the Prophets and Apostles and Christ himself foretold, that in the later days there should come false Prophets, so we find it by experience. Now let us see whether the notes of false Prophets agree to yourselves, or unto us. To prove that they agree unto us, you frame this reason.  

They which come unsent, are false prophets.  
But the Protestants come unsent. ergo.   
The assumption is proved because we have neither ordinary, or extraordinary callings. Extraordinar●e calling we have none, because we work no miracles, that we have no ordinary calling it is plain.  
I answer, that Luther, Zuinglius, and some others were ordained Elders by yourselves. And therefore they were called ordinarily. According to your calling if they were Elders they might preach true doctrine, for I hope you ordained not them to preach false doctrine. If they lost their ordination because they renounced popery, then have you lost yours much more, because you have renounced Christ's doctrine. But I think you will not say that they lost their ordination, because of your indelible character, the Sacraments which imprint this cannot be repealed, one of which you make Orders. But I would not have you to think that we esteem so much of your calling, as that we regard it being corrupt. The wicked asked Christ for his authority, Mat. 21. He that preacheth the Apostles doctrine hath authority enough: the estate of this church being corrupted so, that he cannot have that calling which he would. He that is sent to preach may not hold his tongue, and tarry till your Lord the Pope and his mitred fathers can intent to consent. But you require miracles. I answer, that john Bapt. did no miracle. Thom. 3. 3●. quaest. art. 2. resp. ad. 2. giveth this reason. Si johannes signa fecisset, homines ex aequ● johanni & Christo attendissent. If john had done any miracles, men would have equally attended to him and to Christ. It is sufficient that our doctrine is confirmed by Christ's miracles. Further M. Doctor our preachers were called by the Christian Magistrates whose allowance they had, which to be warrantable yourselves cannot deny. But why do I follow this point any further? Coster a papist confesseth that, Quanquam plerique haereticorum Episcopi, presbyteri, & doctores ex ordine munus & officium docendi acceperunt, nulli tamen facultas data est nova decreta fabricandi, sed hoc tantùm candidè & sincerè tradendi, quod ei qui misit probatur. Although many Bishops, Elders, and Doctors of heretics, have received orderly the duty to teach, yet to no man is power given to make new opinions, but sincerely to deliver that which is approved unto him that sent him. Wherefore you reject our calling, prove that we coined new opinions. 
Eus●b. l. 6. 1●. cap.  Origen taught before he was ordained Elder, when the Church was sound; Demetrius reprehended Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theodistus of Caesarea for suffering him so to do; but they defend themselves and show that it may be done, ad commodandum fratribus, to profit the brethren. If this might be done in Constituta Ecclesia, in an established Church: bow much more might it be suffered when as Ecclesia sit constituenda, the church is to be constituted. Thus having defended the calling of protestants, let us see what notes of heretics and false prophets the scriptures give. Paul in the first of Tim. and 4. chap. giveth these notes of false Prophets, to forbid marriages, and to command abstinence from meats. Where are these to be found at this day? in papists or protestants? in protestāns no man will affirm. The Manichees did not simply forbid marriage, neither condemned they simply meats. For Auditores qui appellantur apud Manichaeos', & carnibus vescuntur, & si volverint uxores habent. Their hearers did eat flesh, and if they would had wives. It remaineth then that these notes be found in Papists. Another note of false prophets is to draw men to the service of idols, Deut. 13.2. Doth this agree any way to Protestants, who abandon all monuments of Idolatry? to the Papists it agreeth, because they teach that the very wood of the Cross is to be worshipped with divine honour. Polidor Virgil. lib. 6. cap. 13. speaking of worshipping Saints images, saith, Haec pars pietatis parum differt ab impietate, this piety differeth little from impiety. The third note of false teachers is to despise Dominion as Jude speaketh, vers. 8. doth not the Pope so, who will not be subject to the Emperor, no not to a general Council? as Witnesseth Eugenius who would not yield to the Council of Basil. Yea the papists suborn traitors to murder their lawful Prince, as their own writings prove. The book I have named before.  
The fourth note of false Apostles is to teach justification by the works of the law, as it is manifest by the Epistle of Paul to the Galat. Do we so, or the papists? neither can the papists answer that Paul excludeth the works of nature only, and not of grace. For Paul excludeth not only the works of nature, but the works of the ceremonial and moral law, as it is plain. For who can imagine that the Galathians being instructed in Christ, would wholly exclude him from justification, and seek for justification either by the works of nature, or by the ceremonial law without Christ.  
Fiftly, the false Prophets speak visions of their own hearts. jerem. 23.16. so do the papists deceive people with lying visions & doctrines of men, as I have proved. They teach that the Pope cannot err, that he is above Counsels; where hath the Lord ever taught these things in his word? Not to stand upon any more notes of false Apostles & Prophets, I desire thee Christian Reader to judge even thine own self, whether the scripture hath not set down these notes, and whether they can any way agree to the Protestants or no.   

The 19 reason: Liars, slanderers, and revilers.  
The Protestants are here charged either to have no conscience at all, or else if they have any, it is seared with an hot iron, because they are liars, slanderers and revilers. Yea they make lying their help. These M. Doctor are grievous accusations: but before I have done with you, I will turn them upon your own head, & it shall be manifest who are liars, and who have no conscience, whether Papists, or Protestants. I will first answer your lies which you heap upon the Protestants. The first lie is, that Luther saith before his coming the Gospel lay in the dust, and was hidden under the bench. M. Doctor, satin sanus es, Are you sound: to charge all Protestants with Luther's sayings, shall one man's speech be the speech of all men? apage istas nugas, out upon these follies. Luther had this meaning, that the Gospel lay in the dust from the time that Antichrist did sit in the temple of God until his time: and yet it did not so lie in the dust, but that many in those times renounced the Pope: his speech is comparative, in regard of the clear knowledge that now is, it lay in the dust. Behold now what a liar Luther is. The second lie is this, Protestants charge the Papists with Idolatry, yea they inculcate and dull the cares of the people, with often telling them of the Idolatry of their elders. And why should we not do so? for proof of this, I will deal syllogistically.  

They which offer sacrifices unto Images are Idolaters.  
But the papists offer sacrifices unto Images, ergo.   
The proposition is plain, because Sacrifice is due only to God. Exod. 22.20.  
The assumption is testified by Bellarmine. lib. 1, de sanct. Be●. cap. 13.  

We offer saith he sweet odours in the Church unto Images.  
Secondly, they which put their hope in wood, are Idolaters.  
But the Papists put their hope in wood, ergo.   
The assumption is proved by Aquinas. 3. par. quaest. 15. art who saith that the Church prayed to the very wood of the cross thus. O Cross our only hope create justice in the Godly, & give pardon to the guilty.  

Thirdly they which dedicated Churches unto Saints are Idolaters.  
But Papists dedicate Churches to Saints, ergo.   
The proposition is plain out of Augustine lib 1. 
Read Lud. Vi●. i● 9 lib. de civit. cap. vlt.  count Maxim Arrian. Episc. cap. 11. where he proveth that the holy Ghost is God, becave he hath a temple, the assumption is plain by Erasmus annotations, who hath noted in the margin. Hoc nunc fit quibuslibet Divis. This is now done to some Saints. The Doctor himself in his 20. chapter confesseth that parish churches are dedicated unto Saints. When you have answered these syllogisms M. Doctor, you shall have more proofs of your Idolatry. Bellarmine ingeniously confesseth, that pictures of God are not delivered to the people without danger, except they be instructed of their prelate's, but the world knoweth that in divers places of Popery, like Priest like People to have been, and Priests have been very Idols themselves.  
The third lie is, that some protestants say that the Catholics hold that Christ satisfied only for original sins, and that he ordained the Mass for other sins which to be a manifest lie all the books written of this matter by Catholic divines, do plainly testify. M. Doctor, for trial of this lie these are Canus his words concerning Catharine. Amborsij Chatharini deliratio patet, peccata ante Baptismum adonissa per crucis sacrificium remitti, 
433.  post baptismum vero, per sacrificium altaris. The dotage of Ambrose Catharine is manifest, that sins before baptism are remitted by the sacrifice of the cross; but sins after baptism, by the sacrifice of the altar. Mark M. Doctor that your own man Canus chargeth Catharine with dotage, in that he held, that sins only committed before baptism were remitted by the sacrifice of the cross, thus the lie is turned upon yourself. Remember also that your schoolmen teach that Christ came principally to take away original sin, and so doth Bellarmine also lib. 4. de Rom. pont. cap. 10. in fine.  
The fourth lie is, the protestants assime that the Catholics do teach that by choice of meats; and other human constitutions, remission of sins is obtained, I doubt not but they which have thus written could prove their saying; but M. Doctor do you not make fasting to consist in choice of meats? this you can not deny, 
Aquin 2. 2.4●. art.  and yet you teach that fasting doth satisfy for sins, jeiunium saith Aquinas, assumitur ad satisfaciendum pro peccatis. Fasting is taken up, to satisfy for sins. If men by fasting do satisfy for sins, than they obtain remission of sins by it; but the first is true, ergo. Bellarmine hath proved that fasting satisfieth for sin and deserveth at God's hands, and I think not but that many simple people in popery, did think by abstaining from meat, and by observing of human constitutions they could deserve at God's hands, and satisfy for their sins. This some can testify at this day.  
The fift lie toucheth the Sinalchadicall articles which I have not seen, therefore I cannot say any thing to it, but I think that they could prove there assertion; if they could not, let them answer for themselves, yet thus much M. Doctor I say, that if the Sacrament give grace ex opere operate, of the works done without any thing in the party receiving them, so be it he put no hindrance, how can it be but that contrition, confession and satisfaction must give grace, and so by consequent make a man just, though he had not faith, the censure of Colon proveth that baptism giveth grace to children by the work done without any motion of the heart, and say they why should it not do so in men of years. If Baptism do so, then doth penance & so by consequent giveth grace without faith.  
The sixth lie toucheth not any one Protestant, but all we affirm forsooth that Papists do worship Saints in stead of Christ, and do honour them as Gods, which is a gross impudent lie as every man knoweth, is this a lie M. Doctor? do you not pray to the virgin Mary thus? Maria matter gratiae, matter misericordiae, tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe. O Marry the mother of grace, the mother of Mercy defend us from our enemies, and receive us at the hour of death. What is this but to make her God? do you not build Church's i● Saints? which is to make them Gods as I have proved, yea you pray to this Saint against the plague, to that Saint against the tooth ache, and so in other diseases, is not this mere heathenism? did not the heathen so? we should pray to God against all diseases. Furthermore you pray thus unto Thomas, by the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend, make us O Christ to climb whither Thomas did ascend. Many such blasphemous prayers might I recite: and I answer that simple people have made such Gods. I cannot let pass an intolerable prayer of some papists to the Virgin Marie. Roga patrem, iube natum. Entreat the father, command the son. And again jure matris impera filio. By the right of a mother, command thy son, compel God to be merciful to sinners. Thus M. Doctor by consequent you make Saints Gods.  
The seventh lie concerneth M. Haddon, for answer of which I refer thee Christian Reader to M. Fox a man of famous memory, who hath answered Osorius. That the Abbot of S. Albon's covenanted for a concubine, ad purgandum renes, to purge the reins, a thing so notorious, that common lawyers can show it in record. 
Vide juellum, 559. The Bishop of Arentine hath a Florence ever of the Priest that keepeth a Concubine.  And the reverend Bishop jewel allegeth out of your Rubric this sentence. Qui non habet uxorem, loco illius concubinam habere licet. It is lawful for him that hath not a wise, in stead of her to have a Concubine. What should I allege the common saying, as M. Harding calleth it. Si non castè, cautè. If not chastened, yet warily. Stews in Rome are notorious to all the world: and one calleth them a necessary evil. If the Pope for money suffereth Stews, why should we not think that he will suffer Priests to have Concubines for money, especially seeing that you hold that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle; yet he forbiddeth as you say Priests marriage. By these things every man may see, what a lie it is to say that the Pope for money giveth Priests leave to have concubines, and thus have I ended your lies, which as you say, the Protestants charge the Catholics with. Mark Christian reader, first that some of them are but particular men's sayings, and therefore the whole church is not to be charged with them. Secondly, mark the number in so many writings of Protestants. Thirdly, mark the answer unto them, and thou shalt find many of them, if not all, no lies but truths.  
Before I set down lies of Papists, I will answer the lies which some Protestants lay upon the Fathers. Melancthon said of Augustine, that he taught original sin to be taken away in Baptism, not that it was not any more, but that it was not imputed. Whereas Saint Augustine spoke not there of original sin but of Concupiscence. M. Doctor are you so ignorant that you know not original sin to be concupiscence? Aquinas in his 1. 2. quaest. 82. art. 3. defendeth this point, that original sin is concupiscence. If original sin be concupiscence, I hope by right conversion in Logycke, concupiscence is original sin. If a man be a reasonable creature, than a reasonable creature is a man. And if concupiscence be taken away, then is original sin taken away, so as it is not imputed. Now M. Doctor upon your own doctrine, mark how I conclude. If concupiscence be remitted in Baptism, so as it is not imputed, than it was sin before it was remitted; but it remaineth the same in the regenerate according to the substance of the thing. ergo: it is sin in the regenerate. This argument is plain by Aquinas, who in 1. 2. quaest. 99 art. 5. teacheth that the first motions of sensuality are not deadly sins in infidels, because the person doth aggravate the sin: if the person doth make the sin greater, than is concupiscence sin in the godly, because it was so in the ungodly. Neither can you answer that that saying is understood of voluntary sins, for the first motions are not so by your own doctrine.  
The second lie is, some Protestants say S. Bernard recanted monachism at his latter end, and why should not some think so, seeing he writeth thus? Fateor non sum dignus, nec proprijs possum meritis, regnum obtinere caelorum, caeterùm Dominus meus duplici iure illud possidens, haereditate patris, & merito passionis, altero ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat. I confess I am not worthy, neither can I obtain the kingdom of heaven by mine own merits, by my Lord possessing it by a double right, by his father's inheritance, and the merit of his passion, being content with one of them himself, giveth the other to me. I wish all Papists and Monks for their salvation sake, were of Bernard's mind, and I think this is to recant monachism, for Monks look for salvation by their merits and works. 
Lib. 2. de great. c. 15.  I will set down that excellent place of Luke, with Bellarmine's gloss upon it. Fear not little flock, it is your father's pleasure to give you a kingdom. Verbum complacuit, & nomen pater, & vocubula illa, pusillus grex, indicant gratiam, non Justitiam. The word it pleaseth, the noun father, and these words little flock, show grace, not justice. Thus the kingdom of heaven is an inheritance given us of our Father, not deserved by us.  
The last lie is, some Protestants affirm the Fathers to have thought otherwise then they wrote: this is true of Papists. For the Rhemists being pressed with Chrysostom's authority, for the reading of Scriptures by lay-men, say, that he spoke as e pulpit man, and not as a teacher: belike pulpit men speak not that which they think. Let the Reader then judge whether you say the Fathers spoke as they thought or no. For further trial of this, I refer the Reader to that which I have alleged out of Bellarmine concerning the Fathers in the Reason of Fathers. Hierom in his apology to Paumichius saith, that some things are spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for exercise sake, and other things for opinions sake: ergo, the fathers spoke not all things dogmatically, but some things rhetorically. Nazianzen also biddeth his chair farewell. The rest of the chapter concerneth Luther, whose speeches have been somewhat vehement; but not knowing the reason which he might have to use such, I can neither absolve him, nor condemn him for them. I will now set down popish lies. I begin with the Doctors, in the first chapter he saith, that in England it is manifest that all were Papists without exception, from the first christening thereof, until this age of King Henry the eight. This as I have proved, is a famous lie; witness Wickliff who lived in England, and yet was he no papist.  
The second lie is, that heretics have ever taken their names of some one who began that heresy: this is a lie, for some heretics, as the Catharists, are called of their sect, and not of the author.  
The third lie is in the third chapter, the Catholics have ever kept unity and concord in such a peaceable manner, as never any one in England, or Ireland dissented or disagreed in any point of doctrine, from him which lived in the utmost parts of the East. This is such a lie as needeth no manifestation of it. Yet I will name one point more than I have before. 
Hart.  Some papists in England held that the Pope may depose Princes: others deny it.  
The fourth lie is in the same chapter, where he saith that all decrees of lawful Counsels, and Popes do agree in all points of doctrine, one with another. This I have proved a lie.  
Fiftly, in the 5. chapter he saith that all countries which ever believed in Christ, were first converted to his faith by such as were either precisely sent, or at the least wise had their authority from the Pope, who lived in the time in which they were converted. This I have proved a lie.  
Sixtly, in the same chapter he saith, that jesuits are executed in England only in regard of their sacred function, which to be a lie, their own books can testify, besides the confession of Papists.  
seven, in the fift reason he belieth M. Caluin, calling him a Sear backed priest for Sodomy. For I will omit the lie of persecution only in England in the same chapter.  
Eightly, in the tenth chapter, he saith that Catholic Roman religion is taught by all the ancient Fathers, of the first, second, third, fourth, fift, and six hundred years.  
Ninthly, in the 13. chap. he saith, that we meddle little with restitution of goods, but leave all at large to our followers, without restraint of any such crime.  
10. In the same chapter, he saith, the Protestant teacheth the landlord to do what he listeth with his own.  
11 In the same place he saith, that we teach not reward of good and bad life in the world to come: which all men can testify to be a lie; although we disclaim the merit of good works, yet we teach the merit of sin.  
12 In the 14. Reason he saith, that we deny the perpetual virginity of Marie, which is an untruth.  
In the 15. Reason he hath many lies, first that we have nothing but a number of pelting objections taken out of Caluins' Institutions, or out of the Magdebursens, or some heretical pamphlet. Secondly he saith, that we trouble ourselves with nothing, but with the controversies of this time. Thirdly, that Protestants do scarce understand the terms of learned sciences, which others do fully possess. Fourthly he saith, that the Clergy in Queen Mary's time, was more learned than now it is.  
Fiftly he saith, that the most learned Doctor of them all is utterly ignorant of school divinity.  
Sixtly he saith, that the Protestant never meddleth with cases of conscience, but fraighteth his ship only with faith, and never beateth his brain about sins.  
In the sixteenth Reason he saith, that all the ministers now are nought, yea he asketh in the same chap. what woman is now married without touch of her honesty?  
I will gather no more lies, out of this Doctor, I will set down some out of other Papists. The Rhemists upon the sixth of Luke write, that Protestants are wont to say, All is very easy, which is a lie.  
Again say they, the Protestants think that to burn, is to be tempted only, which is a lie. 1. Cor. 7.  
Thirdly upon the 9 chap. of the first epist. of Paul to the Cor. they say, that protestants will not have men work well in respect of reward at God's hands: which is a lie.  
I desire thee Christian reader to read the Rhemists' annotations, where thou shalt find many slanders, but I delight not in these things.  
Bellarmine affirmeth that Caluin maketh God the author of fin: again he saith, that Caluin holdeth that the saints departed are not blessed: he saith also, that he died calling upon the devil, which are monstrous lies.  
Genebrard accuseth Caluin of error, in saying that the son of God is God of himself. Bellarmine defendeth calvin against Genebrard: now let every man judge of this syllogism.  

They which are liars are of a false religion;  
But the Papists are liars: ergo.   
Christian reader, I would not have used this term of lying so often, but that I have been urged by the Doctor. For railing I refer thee to M. Hardings works, as also to Doctor Stapletons' writings against M. Doctor Whitakers, in which thou mayst see the spirit of papists.   

The 20. reason: Keeping in memory God's benefits.  
That the memory of God's benefits is carefully to be regarded, we deny not M. Doctor. The heathen have condemned ingratitude for a heinous sin. Beneficii memoriam qui recipit, habere debet; he that receiveth a benefit, aught to remember it. The Athenians made a law, that the unthankful person might be sued as well as a debtor: this is so clear as that no man can deny it: and I would it were as easy to persuade unto thankfulness, as it is to speak of it. But I fear me it happeneth to the papist as it doth to the usurer, who speaketh against usury, that he may practise it without suspicion: for the papist inveigheth against ingratitude and unthankfulness, lest he should be argued of it. For this is to forget God, to break his laws. The jews in the 32. of Deut. are charged to have forgotten God, and David in the 106. psalm saith they made a calf in Horeb, & worshipped the golden image, they forgot God their Saviour which had done great things in Egypt. Yet did the jews make an image unto God, Exod. 32. and worshipped God in the Image, for Aaron proclaimed an holy day unto the Lord, and can any man imagine that Aaron should think an idol to be that God, which brought the people out of Egypt? He that was to be high Priest, would he think the work of his hands to be God? Thus you with the jews in the very things which you say put you in remembrance of God, forget God. Now I reduce your argument into a syllogism.  

They that keep feasts and Images to put them in remembrance of God, are most mindful of him;  
But so do the Papists, and not Protestant's. ergo.   
I deny the proposition, and say, that this outward pomp is fit for the Whore of Babylon. We can remember god without these external rites. The preaching of the Gospel crucifieth Christ before our eyes, the Sacraments ordained of God himself do lively set forth Christ, and the blessings of God within and without us, and of every side of us are so many, that men can hardly forget him unless they forget the earth that beareth them, the heavens that cover them, the day that guideth them, and the night that giveth them rest. But that M. Doctor you may see how well in this objection you agree with the heathen, remember that Celsus objecting to the Church the want of feasts, is answered by Origen, Festum est facere officium, a feast is to do a duty. Origen numbereth the feasts of Christians to be the Lords day, Easter and Pentecost. Hereby men may see what cause we have to renounce popery, which taketh part with the heathens in their objections. Socrates in his 5. book and 22. chapter, dischargeth festival days of the Apostles institution. Apostolis propositum fuit, non ut leges de festis diebus sancirent, sed ut rectè vivendi rationis & pietatis nobis authores essent. The Apostles purpose was not to make laws of feasts but to be authors of piety and of godly life. Erasmus upon the 10. of Math. writeth thus, Aetas Hieronimi praeter diem dominicum, paucissima noverat festa, nunc feriarum neque finis, neque modus, quae cum primitus ad pietatis vacationem pauca essent institutae, nunc ad scelerum exclusionem tolli debebant, nisi sacerdotum avaritia suis rebus consuleret potius, quam verae religioni. Hieromes age besides the Lord's day knew few feasts, now there is no end, nor measure of holidays, which were first instituted but few for piety, but now to exclude vice they ought to be taken away, but that the covetous priests, do rather provide for themselves, then for true religion. The original of your feasts may be read in Fascicul. Temp. and others. But I have spoken of these feasts in another book, and therefore I will not make any longer discourse of them. By these testimonies every one may see what moment the objection of feasts hath. Touching Organs they were instituted 600. 
Lib. 1. de  years after Christ as Bellarmine confesseth, shall we think that God's Church forgot him so long a time because it had no Organs? But if we will see whence this outward pomp had her beginning, let Bellarmine speak, lib. 4. de Eu. cap. 4. Crevit honor sanctissimi sacramenti, devotione interna decrescente, The honour of the Sacrament grew, when inward devotion ceased. If people then have inward piety and godliness, these outward ornaments are needless. Thus Bellarmine dischargeth us of unthankfulness to God; and in few words giveth the reason of popish pomp. As for breaking of popish images in Churches, and Crosses in high ways, we hold it lawful to destroy Idolatry. Epiphannius, when he saw a picture in the Church, broke it, and saith it is an horrible wickedness, and a sin not to be suffered, 
It is pretty that the Doctor compares temples without images to ●arnes without ha●: as hay is fit for beasts, so are Images fit for beastly men by his comparison.  for any man to set up any picture in the Church of Christians, yet the Papists store all their temples, & each corner of them with painted and carved images, as though without them religion were nothing worth. But M. D. I desire to know how the christians remembered Christ, when they had no temples at all? you say that our Churches are like barns, which men know to be a untruth, yet the ancient christians had no temple at all, as Bellarmine confesseth. lib 3. de. Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Did they forget Christ when they prayed in private families? take heed lest you disgrace not the ancient christians as well as the Protestants. Acams when he was accused for selling of holy vessels to the use of the poor, answered that Deus noster nec disscis nec calicibus eget, quia non comedit nec bibit, our God needeth not cups, because he neither eateth nor drinketh, so say I, our God needeth not your golden Images and ornaments which indeed distract men's minds praying, & do not increase devotion. Lactantius in his 2. book and 4. chap. speaketh against the heathen after this manner. In vain do men adorn Gods with gold and pearls, as if they could take any pleasure in these things: after he showeth out of Persius that God delighteth in justice, and in holy souls; so say I to the Papists, God requireth not Images and festival days at your hands, but he desireth inward holiness. Now Christian reader mark the Doctor's follies in this chapter. The first is this, God commanded the jews many feasts, all which were observed to himself, ergo. Christian's may have feasts dedicate unto Saints. What a pitiful conclusion is this? as though the Church might do whatsoever God doth. Yea what a consequent is this, God ordained feasts unto himself, therefore the Roman Church may ordain feasts unto Saints. These arguments hang together like ropes of sand. Secondly he confesseth that parish churches were dedicated to saints, which is flat Idolatry, for only God must have a temple and a church as I have proved. Thirdly he saith that by means of Images, pictures, & crosses, the most unlearned amongst the people know more of the mysteries of christian religion, than some of our ministers know. If this be so it is a horrible shame for ministers, for this I know, that some unlearned people have worshipped Images, as gods, but indeed what is this, but to contemn gods wisome and ordinance, who hath not ordained Images to teach the people, but his word to instruct them. Take heed M. Doctor of this horrible sin, to make yourselves wiser then God. Fourthly the Doctor saith that we have no more warrant for solemnizing of the sunday, than we have for S. Laurence his day, for other reason or warrant we have none but the authority of the Roman church, fie, fie M. Doctor that you should thus bewray your ignorance. Bellarmine in his third book de cull, Sanct. and 11. chap. proveth the observation of the lords day, by the scriptures, if you can prove the observation of S. Lawrance his day by the same warrant, you may do well to show us some of your arguments. Other things of less moment I let pass, because I labour for brevity.   

The 21. reason: The Protestants beginning and proceeding against their consciences.  
This chapter hath many words to little purpose, first Luther is charged to say that he could see into another man's heart or conscience: who will believe Luther should speak thus, except he meant he could do it by plain words and manifest deeds: & this M. Doctor you confess yourself may be done. I hope, if Luther say that he could see into another man's conscience, he had no other meaning but by plain words and manifest deeds. Luther was not so sottish as you would bear men in hand, to make himself a God. But M. Doctor, if your reason be good, to prove that some Protestants speak and write against their consciences, because they suspect others to do so (for commonly a man thinketh others to be as himself is) than you speak and write against your conscience, because you are suspicious, yea upon ridiculous reasons and untruths, you charge men to write against their consciences. This is your own reason and argument, and therefore cannot be denied. For proof that you charge men to write against their consciences, only upon ridiculous reasons, let the reader judge, I will set down your arguments. Luther confessed that he began against his conscience; ergo, he proceeded so. M. Doctor to admit your antecedent, who will grant your consequent? for, here you say that he proceeded so far, as he thought that by desperate necessity he must go on, and so compare him to julius Caesar. The truth is, he ended his life most heavenly, as M. Doctor Whitakers showeth out of Melancthon and Sleidon. We will not credit your slanderous writings of him, but the writings of the forenamed men. From Luther, the Doctor cometh to Zwinglius, who is said to have denied secretly the real presence, for many years before he broke off from the Roman Church, but yet inwardly he dissembled his mind. What then if Zwinglius did thus, did he therefore proceed against his conscience, because he remained sometime in the Roman church, after he had seen the truth of the Sacrament? What honest man would shape such conclusions? If this be to proceed against conscience, Papists in England proceed against their consciences, for they continue in our Church, though they secretly dissemble their opinions: many examples hereof might be given. Touching Nemo the Anabaptiste, what have we to do with him? The Protestants have most sound confuted the sect of Anabaptists, when Papists have taken their ease. And Christian Reader, I desire thee to behold how the Doctor dealeth, (whether against his own conscience or no, I leave to God) in charging us with Anabaptists speeches, whereas we renounce such lewd sectaries, as he himself can testify. Thomas Bell is (as I think) alive, and therefore can answer for himself. Wherefore I leave him, who hath learnedly written against Popery: and come to Melancthon, who is charged to proceed against his conscience, because he was sad and gave himself to weeping. O M. Doctor. how do you forget yourself? is every one a sinner against his conscience that weary and sorroweth, and that cannot by and by be comforted? David was many times heavy, and his soul had not always comfort, yet was David a man after Gods own heart. Concerning Carolastadius, I will not say any thing, neither do I regard what any Lutheran hath written of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius. As for Bucer, it is a lewd slander that he had no religion at all God will be revenged of you M. Doctor, for blaspheming his servants after this manner. Bishop jewel is charged to show himself without God and conscience: he doth rend in pieces the text of Doctors, and inverteth the sense of the same. If this reverend Bishop had done thus, his enemies would have found it, & no doubt M. Doctor you would have noted some places, but seeing you have noted no such corruptions, we account it a detestable lie. No no, your own men change the words of Fathers. I will refer you to places, Bellarm. lib. 1. de great. & lib. arbit. cap. 11. doth shamefully corrupt Augustine, as I have showed in another work, and in his 4. book de amiss. gra. and 9 chap. he rendeth in pieces Hieroms saying. Again in his 3. book de cult. Sanct. cap. 9 he doth horribly cite Eusebius. So doth he also in his 1. book, de Sanct. beat. cap. 13. Thus he dealeth not only with Fathers, but with Caluin in his preface, de libero arbit. and his first book de Sanct. beat, cap. 1. & 2. de justif. 8. Read these places yourself M. Doctor, and compare them with the authors, and see who corrupt fathers. Many other testimonies I could produce, but I desire not to be tedious. If you could allege so many corruptions out of reverend jewel, I think we should have seen them. Thus I pray you consider your own argument.  

They which corrupt Fathers, sin against their conscience.  
But the Papists corrupt Fathers: ergo.   

Pag. 10.  The assumption is proved by the testimonies alleged, and to give you one or two more; Duraeus citing Augustine leaveth out these words, Opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. Works follow him that is justified, they go not before justification. The Rhemists upon the 19 of Matthew, pervert Augustine his words clean contrary to his meaning, affirming no man to be excluded from the gift of continency: whereas Augustine his meaning is, that both the will to be chaste, and the power to fulfil that will is the gift of God Now I might follow your example of bitterness, seeing I have given you so many corruptions, but I leave this course, and desire you to remember your own argument. I come to Papists who seem to have proceeded against their own consciences. One Papist in England, as testifieth Arrias Montanus, added to the 14. psalm, whole sentences, but this corruption was soon espied: this was done to prove the Hebrew text corrupt, and to justify the latin translation approved of Papists. Who almost but bold Papists durst have coined scripture? I think this is to proceed against conscience. Latomus a Papist blasphemed out of a pulpit, and was suddenly mad, and died in despair. What should I speak of Franciscus Spira and others? Hasinmullerus giveth many examples of papists who have proceeded against their consciences. The blessed deaths of Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluin, Melancthon, Bullinger, Cranmer, Ridely, Bradford, Philpot, jewel, Pilkington, Grindall, Dearing, and divers other do manifest that Protestants proceeded not against their knowledge. To return to Papists, out of the forenamed author, namely Hasinmullerus, every one may behold the strange ends of these men. Stephanus Agricola being an Apostata, drowned himself in the sea. One Gaspare Frank confessed that he did, and wrote many things against his conscience. Turrian wished that he had never read the Augustan confession, etc. saddle his works; when I found these things to be true, to use your words, I thought it better to adventure myself with Christians who have quiet consciences, then with desperate Papists who proceed against their consciences.   

The 22. reason: unreverent dealing.  
The Papists reverence unto God, and Christ is such, as was that of the jews, who plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on Christ's head, to make him a king: even so the Papists make Christ a Saviour, but they give not the whole work of salvation unto him, which indeed is to dishonour Christ. But forsooth they pretend to honour his Saints; if they do so, let them not make them saviours, for this in truth is to dishonour them. The Saint's honour consisteth not in false worship, but in giving all glory to God. That which Lactantius writeth of Angels is true of Saints. Nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt, quorum honour in Deo est. They will have no honour given to them, whose honour is in God. We honour Saints, by praising God for their virtues, and by imitating them, but we make not their merits the treasure of the Church, neither do we call upon them. As for reverence unto holy water, pictures, crosses, images, I say with Esay, who required these things at your hands? The Doctor in truth having nothing to say against us, raileth spitefully, saying, that we enter into Churches with no greater reverence, than men enter into Taverns: not contenting himself with this unchristian lie, he proceedeth avouching, if any kneel, it is but upon thorns, for full soon are they up again, and then with their hats upon their heads they either jangle, or talk, or walk, as if they waited to see when the players would come forth upon a stage: or else these good fellows go to the alehouse, (where now and then they find their minister drinking his morning draft before he go to his service) to drink a pot or two of nappy ale, that thereby they may the better hold out service time. Christian Reader, to recite these reviling speeches is to refute them, and they which frequent the alehouse with us are Papists and Atheists, if any Protestants do so, I wish them to amend, whether they be ministers or laymen. Besides he hath many more railing words against the reverend Bishops, as that Barons and noble men disdain their company: surely M. Doctor I bless God that you have no sound matter to object against the Protestants, but such vanities as the world can control. Our Bishops and ministers are as highly esteemed with true Christians, as Popish Prelates with their favourites. Virtue and learning maketh a man reverend, which, in many Popish bishops to be wanting, we see with our eyes. But let us now see how the Papists reverence holy things, speaking of such, they usually say, the holy bread, the holy Scriptures, the holy Gospel, and the holy Angels: it is well that you do not so always, why then do you blame the Protestants, who do say the holy bible, and use this word holy, when it is to be applied unto things that are so? if they do not always so, you can not blame them, more than yourselves, seeing this word is not always added by you. Mark your reasons M. Doctor, and you shall find them without this title holy. The Prophecies of the old Testament, Scriptures, Fathers; if this be such a heinous crime, not always to add this word holy, you are guilty of it yourself. As for the French men, I think they do not well to call the Saints after this manner, Mounsieor S. Peter, Master Saint Peter, or my Lord S. Peter: for it is no term of civil or temporal authority, but a religious and divine honour in religion. God is our only Lord and Master, and we will not give salvation and redemption but only unto him. The comparison which the Doctor maketh of a countryman calling her majesties Nobles, Treasurer, Keeper, Admiral and so forth, is not worth any answer, wherefore I leave it and say with Bernard, Maria falso non eget honore, honora vitae integritatem. Marie needeth no false honour, honour her entire life. So say I, honour the saints by imitating their virtues, the honour that I desire to give to saints is to follow their virtues.   

The 23. reason: Resembling in Doctrine and deeds old Heretics.  
This Chapter is duly to be considered, because we are said to differ little or nothing from old Heretics both in doctrine and deeds: if you could prove this, than were the Protestants case very hard: but it shall be (God willing) made evident, that you resemble old Heretics and not Protestant's.  
The first heresy is, that we hold with Simon Magus; what monstrous impudency is this M. Doctor to charge us will Simon Magus his opinions? he held that men were saved by his grace, if they did acknowledge him the Saviour of the world. Do we teach any such thing? we ascribe salvation to no other but only to Christ. If you had that conscience which you pretend, you would not thus abuse yourself.  
The second heresy is, we are novatians, because we renounce the Pope; I might cry out upon these lewd and loud lies. Novatius as Philastrius writeth, 
34. chap.  taught, Non esse fideli post Baptismum locum aliquem paenitentiae. After baptism there was no place of repentance for the faithful.  
The third heresy is, that we deny free-will, with the Manichees: but the Manichees taught that sin came not from free-will, but from a substance: which doctrine we renounce, and teach that we have free-will to sin. 
Lib. 1. c. 6.  But you deal with us as the Pelagians dealt with the ancient Church. For Faustus a Pelagian charged the Church with Manichisme, because it taught the will of man to be made sound by mere grace, and not of itself. Thus would you charge us with Manichisme as proud Pelagians.  
The fourth heresy is, that with Arrius we deny prayer for the dead. I answer, if Arrius took away thanksgiving for the dead, we hold not as he did; but if he denied prayer for those that were in feigned Purgatory, we hold no such place. Philastrius chargeth him with condemning of marriage, and Augustine with Arrianisme: these opinions we detest.  
The fift heresy is, that we make no difference of sins with jovinian, neither do we make virginity any better than marriage. I answer that we teach a difference of sins, some to be greater, some to be smaller, but we disclaim the opinion of venial sins. And if this be heresy, then as I have proved, both fathers, and some papists are heretics. Touching virginity we teach with Paul, 1. Cor. 7. that pure virginity is to be preferred before marriage; although we hold that marriage is better than single life, where virginity or chastity are not kept, but counterfeited.  
The sixth heresy is, that we despise all holy relics of Saints with Vigilantius. I answer first, that Augustine, Philastrius, and other, do not reckon him amongst heretics. It is not eftsoon heresy, if one man calleth it so. Hierom calleth Ruffinus an heretic, yet M. Harding saith it is strange so to do. Secondly I answer that if Vigilantius would have Saints relics cast upon the dunghill, we hold not with him; as for tending of tapers, and setting up of wax candles, Hierom imputeth it to the simplicity of some lay men and devout women, that had zeal, but not according to knowledge. Thus you approve that which Hierom excuseth. Lastly S. Hierom is so hot against Vigilantius, that Erasmus is fain to say, Conuicijs debacchatur Hieronimus. Hierom raileth without measure.  
The seventh heresy is, that we deny with Eutyches the oblation of the sacrifice, and the hallowing Chrism. But therefore are we not Eutychians who confounded Christ's natures, and turned his humanity into his Deity; as for Pelagianisme, and Donatism, we have nothing to do with them, for Pelagius denied original sin, which we teach to be in infants; and the Donatists held the Catholic church to be only in Aphrica, and to have perished out of the whole world: we hold no such thing. Now I have finished the doctrine of the old heretckes in which christian reader thou mayst behold the slanderous tongue of the Doctor, who without conscience, when he could not charge us truly with heresy, hath invented lies: for may part, these slanders drive me more and more from Popery, and I beseech thee by thy salvation that they way prevail so with thee. Hereafter I must speak of the deeds and manners of heretics; first we are like to Paulus Samosetanus, who desired great applause of his hearers; for proof that he did so, Eusebius is cited, but there is no such thing in Eusebius. If this be the manner of heretics, then are Papists heretics, who, as it is manifest by the Doctor, desire applause of men for learning, in so much that they break out into their own praises after a most insolent manner, as for the protestants they do no such thing, and therefore they resemble not this heretic, if he did so. Secondly we are like to the Donatists who overthrew altars; the truth is Christian Reader, the altars which the Donatists destroyed were not of stone as Popish altars are, but were tables of wood, such as we have. S. Augustine maketh this plain in his 50. epistle. Thus M. Doctor you see how your own quotations make against yourself. By this testimony we may learn what to think of the popish sacrifice; as for the Donatists refusing to come to Counsels, we do not so, but unfeignedly desire a free general Council, and have given sufficient reasons, why we came not to the Council of Trent. The cruelty of the Donatists towards the Catholics, fitly agreeth to papists, who after a most savage manner have murdered protestants, as the Lord will one day make manifest to the world. As for Claudius de sanctis his testimony we regard it not. The rest of the chapter concerneth the destroying of Idolatry, and Luther's arrogancy, with other vain matters, as disputing of women, and finding fault with priests lives, but I have answered sufficiently concerning Idolatry, and therefore it is a wicked slander, that we are like unto julian the Apostate, as for the disputing of women, let Theodoret answer, who plainly testifieth that women did dispute of divinity. That which the doctor counteth a fault, Theodoret approveth of, saying, thou mayst see our opinions to be held of women and handmaids: I wish that women were so cunning in religion that they could mildly and christianly dispute of the same. But there remaineth a perilous matter; old heretics were inquisitive and desirous to hear of the sins and faults of priests, and of other Ecclesiastical persons: I will not stand to examine the truth of this, whether heretics were so inquisitive or no, only know Christian Reader that this savoureth of Manichisme, for the Manichees said, 
Lib. 2. de Ma●.  as Augustine showeth, non oportet omnino quaeri, etc. we must not inquire at all what men they are that profess the Manichees sect, but what the profession is. The papists would feign have their wicked lives hidden from men, but they cannot, for as ignis tunica celari non potest, fire cannot be kept in the garment, so sin cannot be concealed: in vain therefore M. Doctor, you go about to have your faults concealed, the more you desire this, the more men will inquire into your actions, because you give just cause so to do. Thus having answered your accusation of heresy, I will set down no feign, dbut true heresies which you hold. Bellar. lib. 2. de purge. cap. 6. holdeth that it was true Samuel which appeared unto Saul, this Philastrius maketh an heresy as it is plain 26. haer. Where he proveth that the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God. Secondly the prodiants did use the book of Syrach, Philastrius haer. post Christ. 9 so did the papists as it is manifest, in so much that they make the book canonical scripture. Thirdly the heretics Angelici, did worship Angels. August. 38. haer. so do the papists, as it is evident. Fourthly the heretics called Apostolici, taught by practise a community of goods, so do the Monks, for they possess not any thing. Fiftly, the Euthits would not labour with their hands, no more will the idle Monks. Sixtly, the Pelagians taught that a man may fulfil the law of God, and so do the Papists, yea they use the Pelagians arguments and answers, as I have proved in other places. seven, the Pepulians permitted priesthood to women. August. 27. haeres. so do the papists permit women to baptise. Eightly Carpocrates did worship the Images of jesus and of Paul, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. so do the Papists. Ninthly, the heretics called Apocryphi would not have the Canonical Scriptures only to be read, but certain Apocryphal works. Philast. haeres. 40. So the Papists will have Apocryphal books to confirm their opinions, and to be read for proof of them as I have showed. Yea they fly to traditions, which the heretics before named might also have justified, if the Canonical scriptures had not been sufficient. Tenthly, the Manichees used but one part of the Communion, for they would not have wine, so do the Papists, as it is notorious to all men. I might mention many other heresies held by Papists, but I have handled them in another work, therefore I will not recite them here. Touching the manners of heretics, if cruelty be a badge of heretics, then are Papists rightly mustered amongst heretics, for they have most barbarously murdered many men, as I will show (God willing) in the next reason.   

The 24. reason: Peace and tranquillity.  
It is a heathen Principle, that Legem sibi ipsis indicunt innocentiae, continentiae, virtutumque omnium, qui ab altero rationem vitae reposcunt. They which require a reason of another man's life, make to themselves a law of innocency, continency, & of all virtues. To accuse men of tumults, when they are themselves tumultuous, is intolerable. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? who can bear it that Gracchus should complain of sedition? that Verres should speak against theft, and Milo against murder? who could think that Papists should speak against wars, cruelties, and outrageous tragedies, when they have spilled exceeding much innocent blood? The Spanish inquisitions, and French Massacres, have murdered men, women, and children by thousands. Phocas murdered Mauritius the Emperor, by whose means Boniface the Pope obtained that room, and should be called the head of all Churches, as Gotfridus testifieth. Here Christian Reader thou mayest see that the Pope came up by murder. Pope Vrban the fixed bound five Cardinals in a sack and drowned them in the sea. He took the kingdom of Sicily from the Queen, and gave it to others. Symachus and Laurentius did strive for the Popedom, which contention lasted; years, cum effusione sanguinis multorum tam clericorum, quàm laicorum. With the shedding of many men's blood, both of the clergy & laity. Alexander 2. & Codulus contended for the Popedom, which contention usque ad homicidia prorupit, broke forth into murder, as witnesseth Sigebert. The histories are full of such examples: yet saith the Doctor the Catholic Roman religion, began with meekness, mildness, and with all quiet and peaceable means. Whereas the Protestants both have begun and hold on their course with seditious tumults. That you may know your peaceable proceed, hear what Wicellensis writeth concerning Hildebrande, Miscuit se plurimorum mortibus Christianorum, succendent ubique incendia bellorum, per totum pene Romanum imperium. He thrust himself into the deaths of many Christians, kindling wars almost throughout the whole Roman Empire. john Hus was burned although he had safe conduct promised him. Certain men called cruciatores when they should have gone against the Turk, having the Pope's indulgences deflowered women, and murdered men to the number of three score and ten thousand. Yea saith Landgius, Scribi non potest quanta crudelitate usi sunt; It can not be uttered what cruelty they used. Concerning the troubles in Germany, my purpose is not to speak of them, neither will I meddle with the wars in France, or Scotland. divers countries have divers governments, the tumults of any subjects against their sovereigns, as we do not allow, so we may not condemn the poor afflicted Christians our neighbours, before we hear what they can say for themselves. I am a scholar & not a soldier, a divine not a lawyer. The circumstances of foreign wars few know beside themselves, as also we know not the laws of those lands, we will not therefore enter those acts which have so many parts, precedents, causes concurrents. From foreign common wars you come to England, and are very busy with king Henry the 8. & king Edward the 6. princes of famous memory. It were best for you M. Doctor, to leave kingdoms and study divinity, you are so drowned in policy, that you forget divinity, yet you can without tears recount summarily the troubles of this land. So you may do in regard of Queen Mary's times, when not only Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, Payne● Bishop of Winchester, Barloe of Bath, Tailor of Lincoln, with divers other both Archdeacon's and Deacons, were put from their livings, and wonderful store of blood shed; these are the times that you should lament. Yet it is to be lamented that any should be so obstinate on popery, as to die in the same. As for Queen Elizabeth's gracious government, you are not ashamed also to control it. Yet Papists themselves teach that it was both mild and merciful: and had not her Majesty cause to deal with Papists as she did, when the Pope excommunicated her, and stirred up the Northern rebels her own subjects to rebel against her: Doctor Saunders did thrust himself into the Irish wars against her Majesty. If the Pope had so dealt with the king of Spain, as he hath dealt with our late most renowned Queen, would the king of Spain have taken it? When I weighed and considered these things with myself, I could not but dislike the Romish religion, accompanied with tumults, insurrections, ruins, desolations, and with all manner of tragical miseries, and cleave unto this religion in England, which ever teacheth peace, as our writings show. But it may be M. Doctor your own men will bear some credit with you. Cardinal Poole in his imagined oration to Charles the Emperor, calling back his Majesty from the Turk, to leave all other affairs, and to bend his banners against England, and encouraging the subjects of this realm boldly to rebel against their Prince, speaketh after this manner. English men are a people that oftentimes have deposed their kings for lighter causes. This book as revered jewel testifieth was abroad, and might be seen; wherefore if peace will prevail with you, call to mind that you have been the firebrands foe sedition, the truth is, you would force to religion, but you would not be forced.   

The 25. reason: All kinds of witnesses.  
Every man knoweth, or may know M. Doctor, that your tongue overreacheth when you say we can bring nothing to witness our religion, but only the scriptures. We have produced the fathers of the primitive Church to confirm the same; but if we have the scriptures on our side, it is sufficient though all men were against us, that God's word is not contrary it is most true, but that your practices are consonant to the same it is most false, as likewise that we will admit no expositors of holy scriptures, but the scriptures themselves; that the scriptures expound themselves in matters necessary to salvation, I think you will not deny yourself Master Doctor, neither will you always take the father's expositions, Caietan confesseth that the sense of the scriptures is not tied to the Father's exposition as I can show, but you demand why Luther confesseth that he could not deny the real presence, because the words were so plain, and why hath the text been so tossed, that out of it alone there hath been wrong four score different opinions? I doubt you can hardly show so many opinions M. Doctor, but grant it, yet a plain text may not be understood of every one, and if the text be so plain as you would have it, how cometh it to pass that there are so many different opinions also among yourselves? for you know not how to expound the word (this) as I have proved in an other work. Scotus confesseth that before the Lateran council transubstantiation was no matter of faith, ergo the words, this is my body, prove it not. Lactantius crieth out after this manner, O quam difficilis est ignorantibus veritas, quam facilis scientibus? O how hard is truth to the ignorant, but how easy to the skilful? truth than may be easy in itself, though difficult to some men. Upon this vain question you have made a foolish inference, that we have no witnesses at all of our new invented doctrine, but every one his private fancy or conceit, whereas the catholic Roman religion hath all things in the world witnesses of it. This is a monstrous fable, are you able to prove that all which are in heaven were the children of your church, and all that are in hell were enemies unto it? to examine particulars: Ignatius you say was of your religion, because in Ecclesiastical affairs, he would not have the king equal to the Bishop, and because he wrote Ecclesiastical traditions. To the first I answer, that the true Ignatius would not correct salomon's speech, Prou. 24. My son, saith Solomon, honour God and the king: but I say, honour God and the Bishop as high Priest: the true Ignatius was a man of greater religion, then that he would have corrected the scripture, but any thing is good enough to patch up popery. To the second place I answer, that it being duly considered overthroweth the Papists opinion. For Ignatius thought it necessary that the Traditions of the Apostles, that is, their doctrine, should be written for fear of corruption, what then is become of unwritten traditions? For that this is the true meaning of Eusebius, Grynaeus showeth. 
Eus. l. 5. c. 23.  Next unto Ignatius is Irenaeus placed, who is so far from agnizing the Papal authority, that he did Acriter Victorem reprehendere, sharply reprove Victor the Roman Bishop, because he excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for keeping the feast of Easter in a divers manner from Rome. Would Irenaeus have done this, if the Pope's authority had been universal? As fo● Victor, if this be your argument, he excommunicated the Churches of Asia, ergo, he was a papist; you make a ridiculous reason. The next argument of Policarpus his going to Rome, is of the same moment; for who knoweth not that many men's advise is used, who yet have no authority over others? That Saint Cyprian, Syxtus, Laurence, with infinite others, do witness the Roman religion I deny. Saint Cyprian is so far from witnessing all points of popery, that as I have proved, he is rejected of Papists. From men, the Doctor cometh to women, affirming thousands to have defended their virginity against devils, and men. What then, were they Papists therefore? To come to speciallities, Helen you say found out the Cross. Although that history may be doubted of, yet Helen was no Papist, for she did not worship the cross, because that was an heathenish error; if she had been a Papist she would have adored the cross. But the Mother of Augustine, Saint Monica, was a papist, who after death requested that she might have Mass said for her: here if you mean popish Mass M. Doctor, you abuse yourself most shamefully, for she desired only a memory of her at the Communion. So had the Prophets and Apostles, which were not in your feigned Purgatory. By these few examples, you have proved protestancy, than popery; as for the rest which you name, Saint Paul the Eremit, and others, when you prove them Papists, we will believe it. To your question, demanding whether there were any Saints in heaven, before this our age, which were not papists? I answer that there were, & therefore you speak impiously, to say that heaven was empty, until Luther shook off his hood, or if there were any they were Papists, who revealed these things unto you M. Doctor. Take heed of the pride of Lucifer, who would ascend into heaven to know secrets, they belong not unto you. The Apostles and Martyrs with thousands, (I doubt not) were in heaven, which I am sure were no Papists: witnes●e their writings. From heaven the Doctor cometh to hell, I fear me without repentance, a fit place for him. This jolly fellow, knoweth not only matters in heaven, but also what is done in hell as it seemeth. The heathen persecutors are in hell for persecuting the Catholic Church I doubt not, but this Catholic Church is not the same with the Romish Church at this day, there is ample difference betwixt these. And that Constantine gave great peace to the Church, 
Theod. lib. 1. c. 7.  it is true also, but he was no Papist, for he saith that the holy Scriptures teach us plainly all things which concern divine matters. Lastly that all Bishops under the cope of heaven were members of this Romish Church, is a notorious untruth. The Doctor to fill up his reason numbereth many, but proveth not that which he saith. The rest of the chapter is but a vain flourish of words, in which I take no delight. To draw his reason into a syllogism is needless, because in deed it hath neither head nor foot. Amongst many vanities, in the end of the chapter the Doctor saith, that he is a Papist, because the Romish religion is the most beneficial of all the rest. Christian Reader, I fear me that this indeed is the true cause why many are papists, namely their commodities. But this is sufficient to drive men from popery, that in regard of preferment, by this Doctor's confession, he is a Papist. M. Doctor I have taken away your evidence for popery, for baptism bindeth no man to falsehood. Wherefore I beseech you by your salvation, choose rather, with Moses, to suffer affliction, then to be the Pope's white son, which, as it seemeth by your own confession you do, because the Romish Religion is most gainful. Out upon gain against conscience, the Lord open your eyes to see the truth.  
FINIS.   

An admonition to the Reader.  
I desire thee Christian Reader, if there be any faults of the Printer, to impute them to him, not to the author of this book, for he could not be present at the Press.