A LETTER To a Friend, touching Dr. Jeremy tailor's Dissuasive from Popery. Discovering above an Hundred and fifty False, or Wrested Quotations, in it.  
Psal. 26. 12.  
Mentita est iniquitas sibi.  
Printed in the Year, 1665.   

The Publisher to the Reader.  
MEeting with this Letter, I thought it worth the publishing, as a means (in the interim till the Book itself be Answered) to give the Admirers of Dr. Taylor, and of that Book, some cause to lessen their great Opinion of him, and it, and the Cause it maintains. For indeed after that, Juel, Mornay, Morton, Potter, and other of the prime Protestant Controvertists, had been found so guilty of this Fault of False Quotations, and been so cried out upon by our (Catholic) Writers for it, and the Protestant Cause had suffered so much shame and prejudice by it, who could have expected it in Dr. Jeremy Taylor, a man so Eminent among them for Place, Learning, and Abilities in Controversy, and who therefore it might be presumed would not discredit himself, or his Cause, by Quoting any thing upon Trust, or Varying from his Author's either Words, or Sense? Or though he might be incurious in this kind, when he wrote only as a Private Divine, or in a book of Devotion, (as ex. gr. when in his Book Of the Life of Christ, he tells a story out of S. Gregory, and citys the very Book and Chapter, How S. Herminigilda chose to die rather than she would receive the B. Sacrament from the hand of an Arrian Bishop: when many Punies of our Clergy, nay, many of our ordinary Women could have told him, that the person there mentioned by S. Gregory, was not Herminigilda, a Woman, but Herminigildus, a Man, and Prince of Spain:) Yet in such a Work as this, to which (as himself saith) he was appointed by a Synod of the Protestant Irish Bishops, 
In Preface.  and published with design to Convert all the Catholics of that Nation; and entertained with that applause here in England, as it hath been already in a short time twice or thrice reprinted; who could think but he would have been most exact in his Quotations? which therefore since he hath not, but sometimes quoted Books that never were, or that, in the places quoted, have not any least syllable to the purpose they are quoted for; and frequently quoted them in a Sense they never dreamt of; yea, and divers times by adding, curtailing, or otherwise altering them, misquoted the very words themselves, (of all which the ensuing Letter will give sufficient instances:) What can be said, or thought of it, but that had it been possible for him to have upheld his Cause otherways, he would never have used such sinister practices?  
If it be said, that divers of the Exceptions are little material; be it so: but then the least that is, will be a false or wrested Quotation, and help to show the insincerity of the Author.  
If it be said, that divers of them are perhaps but Errors of his Pen, or of the Press only; it may be so: but till they appear to be so, they are justly charged.  
In fine, if it be said, that many of them are not so much as pretended to be False, but Wrested only; 'tis true: but then, 1. These also will be of avail to my end as well, though not as much as those that are false. 2. Of False Quotations, and where cannot be supposed any Error of his Pen, or the Press, there are enough (though all the other had been omitted in the Letter) to my end; namely, for instance in some of the chief only, these six and forty, viz. 8. 12. 14. 16. 17. 26 
a Pol. Virg.  27. 
b Id.  28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 36. 46. 47. 50. 53. 56. 57 58. 61. 71. 76 
c Eginard.  77 
d Hinemarus.  78 
e Blondus.  79 
f Amonius.  93. 114. 115. 116. 118. 130 
g Driedo, . 136. 137. 139. 140. 143. 144. 147. 149. 150. 152. 153. 155. 156. If any one therefore shall take upon him to justify Dr. Tailor's Quotations; to save labour and time, let him in the first place justify these, or which six of them he thinks the most justifiable, and try it first in them, and by their success, let judgement be made of all the rest. Vale.   

Errata.  

Page 6. line 21. in the break, insert 16.  
Page 21. line 15, in the break, deal 48.    

A Note of above an Hundred and fifty False or Wrested Quotations in Dr. Jeremy tailor's late Dissuasive from Popery, sent by a Catholic to his Friend.  

SIR,  
WHen I told you Dr. Tailors Dissuasive, beside other faults in it, was full of false or wrested Quotations, you wondering at it, desired of me a Note of them; which I here send you, of some which I have observed, by examining those Authors which I could come by here: And I doubt not but most of his other also would be found ejusdem farinae, if the Authors were examined.   

In the Preface.  
1. AGainst unwritten Traditions taught by the Church, he quotes Tertullian, as speaking against all Traditions absolutely, 
Cont. Hermog.  [I adore the fullness of Scripture; if it be not written, let Hermogenes fear the woe that is destined to them that detract from, or add to it:] when had he set down the words sincerely, it would have appeared, he spoke only of one point taught by that Heretic painter, not without, but against express Scripture: viz. that God made the World of some preexisting matter. [Igitur in principio fecit Deus coelum & terram. 
Gen. 1. 1.  Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, quae mihi & factorem manifestat & facta. 
John 1. 1.  In Evangelio verò, & ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Sermonem. An autem de aliquâ subjacenti materiâ facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud, etc.] Therefore (saith he) in the beginning God made Heaven and Earth. I adore the fullness of Scripture, (meaning, of this Text, as to this point) which manifests to me both the maker, and the things made. And in the Gospel, I find the Word, both the minister and arbiter of God. But whether all things were made of some subjacent matter, I never have yet read. Let Hermogenes' shop show that it is written: (viz. his Doctrine, that the World was made of some matter) If not written, let him fear that woe, etc.  
2. Against the same, 
De verâ fide, & in Mo●al. reg. 72 c. 1. & 80 c. 22.  he quotes three places of Basil, as saying thus, [Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride, to introduce any thing that is not written, etc.] Whereas in two of the places quoted 
De verâ fide.  S. Basil hath no such words; and in the third, he spoke only of certain particular Heresies devised by Heretics, not without, but against express Scripture, and which S. Basil there confuted, not by Scripture alone, but by Tradition also. [Whilst I was to fight against divers factions of Heretics, etc. I thought it consequent to repress the blasphemies introduced, by opposite sayings, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (or sentences) and those sometimes unwritten, etc. But if our Lord be faithful in all his words, etc. without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity, either to detract from the things that are written, or to introduce any thing that is not written, seeing our Lord hath said, My sheep, etc. wherefore we also, as heretofore we have ever had that determined in our minds, to avoid all voice or speech contrary to the Doctrine of our Lord, 
A Dominicâ doctrinâ ali3nam.  so at this time, etc.] But in all his discourse, he hath no such words, as the Dr. quotes for his, [to add any thing to the Faith that is not there found.]  
3. To the same purpose, he quotes Theophilus Alexandrinus, 
Ep. Pasch. 2.  [It is the part of a devilish spirit, to think any thing to be Divine, that is not in Scripture;] when he spoke likewise only of a particular Heresy that Origen had devised of his own proud head, against express Scripture, viz. that Christ was at one time or other to lose his Kingdom. [I cannot know with what temerity, Origen feigning such things, and following, not the authority of Scriptures, but his own error, etc. But being ignorant, that it is an instinct of a devilish spirit, to follow the sophisms of humane minds, (which words the Dr. craftily left out) and to think any thing Divine, extra Scripturarum authoritatem, without the Scriptures authority.  
4. To the same purpose, he quotes S. Athanasius, 
De incarn. Christi.  [The Catholics will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion, that is a stranger to Scripture, it being, immodestiae vecordia, to speak those things which are not written:] when he spoke it likewise only of a particular Heresy, contrary to Scripture; viz. That Christ's flesh was consubstantial to the Godhead. [If therefore ye be Disciples of the Gospels, speak not against God iniquity, but walk by the Scriptures. But if ye will prate things dissonant from the Scripture, why do ye contend with us, who endure not either to speak or hear any thing beside what is written. What is therefore the madness of your immodesty, that ye speak things which are not written, and think things that are dissonant from piety, (which words likewise the Dr. craftily left out) as who presume to say, that the flesh (of Christ) is consubstantial to the Deity?]  
5. Against our veneration of the Images of Christ, and his B. Mother, and Heavenly Saints, he quotes Lactantius, [Without all peradventure, 
L. 2. cap. de orig. error.  wherever an Image is (meaning for worship) there is no Religion:] when he knew Lactantius spoke only of worshipping with Divine honour, the Idols of the Heathen Gods: as his whole discourse afore and after manifests; which it would be too long to set down.  
6. To the same purpose, and in the same fraudulent manner, he quotes Origen, 
L. 7. con. Ce●.  [We ought rather to die then pollute our Faith with such impieties:] when Origen spoke only of the worshipping of Idols of the Heathen Gods;] But the Christians, not only shun the Temples, Altars, and Idols of the Gods, but go more readily to death, lest with any excess or impiety they should altogether pollute that which they most rightly believe of God the Creator of all things.]  
7. Against our giving the Communion in one kind, he saith, [The Primitive Church did Excommunicate them that did not receive the Sacrament in both kinds,] and quotes for it the Canon, Comperimus: when the Canon spoke not of receiving the Sacrament by the Communicants, but of the consummating of the Sacrifice by the Priest; as appears by the reason given, [Because the division of one and the same Mystery (or Sacrifice) cannot be without great Sacrilege:] and by the title of the Canon, [The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without his Blood.]  
8. To the same purpose he quotes S. Ambrose, [He who receives the Mystery otherways then Christ appointed, (that is, saith the Doctor, in one kind, when he hath appointed it in two) is unworthy of the Lord, etc.] where to wrest it to his purpose, he first corrupts the words, for S. Ambrose saith not, who Receives, but who Celebrates it, plainly meaning the Priest alone: nor doth he say, otherways than Christ appointed, but otherways then it was given by him. 2. He corrupts the sense, with his ridiculous gloss devised out of his own brain, without any least colour of ground for it in the place; nay, S. Ambrose gives another reason for it: [Quia sine disciplinâ traditionis, & conversationis, qui accedunt, rei sunt, etc. They who come, without the discipline of tradition, and conversation, are guilty, etc.   

In his 1. Chap. 1. Sect.  
9 To prove, 
Pag. 1.  that all who believe the unity of substance and Trinity of persons in the Godhead, are Catholics, he quotes the Imperial Law, 
Cod. l. 1. 4. 4. ●●x 1.  [All who believe this Doctrine, that is, in the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, etc. are Christians and Catholics:] when he could not but know that that Law meant not that they were Catholics absolutely, but only as to those points: for after that Law, the Novatians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. were proceeded against as Heretics, and Schismatics, notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity, and Unity of the Godhead.  
10. To prove that in the Church of Rome there is a pretence made to a Power, 
Pag 10.  not only to Declare, but to Make new Articles of faith, and new Creeds, he quotes the Bull of Pope Leo X. condemning this Article of Luther, [It is not in the power of the Pope to constitute Articles of faith:] when Luther's word was not constituere, but statuere, i.e. to decide, declare, determine, or settle Articles of Faith: which may be, without making them such.  
11. To the same purpose, he quotes Turrecremata, l. 2. c. 203. 
Pag. 10.  where he hath no such words as he is quoted for; but cap. 107. he hath; but then the words say not that the Pope hath power to make Articles of Faith, nor do they mean any more but (as the title of the Chapter proposeth to prove) that to him belongs to declare or determine matters of Faith; nor do they say absolutely, as the quotes them, [The Pope is the measure, and rule, etc.] but only that because the Pope is primus & maximus Praelatorum, ad eum maximè pertinebit, etc. To him most, or above any other, it will pertain, to be the measure, etc.  
12. To the same purpose, he quotes Augustinus Triumphus, 
Pag. ●●d.  who saith no such thing as he quotes him for: viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith, or new Creeds; nor did he mean, that he could multiply any new Articles, or put them into the Creed, that were not always of Faith, and implicitly at least contained in holy Scripture: as is manifest, 1. from the reason given by him, [For in the Creed are put those things which universally pertain to Christian Faith:] which words are fradulently left out by the Doctor. 2. From his express Doctrine, in his Resolvendum: [There hath been one Faith of the Ancients and Moderns.] 3. From what he saith Art. 2. in resp. ad 2. [To add a truth, which is contained in holy Scripture, to explicate, or declare, hath always been lawful for the Church.]  
13. To the same purpose, he quotes Petrus de Ancorano, who spoke not of making new Articles of Faith, as making opposeth declaring, which was the sense for which he quoted him, (for this was his charge, The Church of Rome pretends to a power, not only of declaring, but of making new, etc.) but only of making them such, quoad nos, by declaring them to be of Faith, as appears by his own explication; [The Pope may make new Articles of Faith; that is, that a thing ought now to be believed, when afore it ought not so, etc.]  
14. To the same purpose, he quotes Panormitan, when he saith no such thing neither, but rather the contrary: viz. that the Pope cannot make, but only declare; as would have appeared had the Dr. set down his words at length, which he fraudulently curtailed, for these are his words; [The Pope can induce a new Article of Faith, declaring this Divine right, (of which he had afore spoken) and of this is inferred that this Constitution (or Canon, cum Christus) looks back upon things past.]  
15. To prove our corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers, he saith, That when not long since we printed Origen, we left out that whole 6. Chap. of S. John, and origen's Commentary upon it, and so maimed the Author, for the same cause, that is, because Origen argued there against Transubstantiation. A mere slander; as is manifest by the very Protestant Editions; for in the Edition of Basil by Froben, Anno 1545 there was no Commentary at all upon John: And in a later Edition of Basil, 1620. his Comment upon John is set out in the same manner as it is in our Catholic Editions, and no other; viz. without any Comment either upon the 5, 6, or 7. Chap. of that Gospel.  
To the same purpose, he quotes our Index Expurgatorius, in which in S. Chrysostoms' Works printed at Basil, these words, [The Church is not built upon the Man, but upon the Faith,] are commanded to be blotted out; and these, [There is no Merit, but what is given us by Christ] And the like, he saith, we have done to S. Ambrose, and to S. Austin, and to them all: insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press of Lions, complained of it to Junius, that he was forced to blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lions, 1559. so that we think it not sufficient, to feign some convenient sense, when they are opposed in Disputation, but the words which make against us we wholly leave out of our Editions: Nay (saith he) we correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors, etc. A notorious slander, as appears, 1. Because the Index Expurgatorius was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent, which was in Anno 1563. and therefore that could put no force upon Saurius for maiming S. Ambrose in Anno 1559. 2. Because the Index Expurgatorius extended not to any Writings or Works of the Fathers, but only to the Indices, or marginal Notes, or other corruptions made by Protestants: as is confessed by his own Author Junius, that published the Index; for in his Preface to that Book, he makes this Objection, [But hear the Fathers are not purged:] and answers it, 1. That yet by the purging of later Authors, the truth of Doctrine and History, is in many places expurged. 2. That what they dare not with the Fathers, they practise upon us, (Protestant Printers and Writers) and with their little forks they thrust out our Annotations in the Margin, and Sayings in the Indices, although consonant to the Father's mind. For example (saith Junius) In the Index of S. Chrysostom printed at Basil, this is commanded to be blotted out, [The Church is not built upon the Man, but his Faith.] And likewise this, [There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ]  
17. To the same purpose, he quotes Sixtus Senensis, 
Pag. 13.  as saying to Pope Pius V. [Expurgari, & emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum, ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta. Thou hast taken care for the purging of the Writings of all Catholic Writers, and especially of the ancient Fathers: most shamefully corrupting the sense of the Quotation, by leaving out the words that follow; [Haereticorum aetatis nostrae fae●ibus contaminata, & venenis infecta: Contaminated with the dregs, and infected with the poisons of the Heretics of our age.  
18. Against the power of the Church to add any Articles to the Creed, 
Pag. 14. Part. 2. act. 6. c. 7.  he quotes the Ephesine Canon, [That it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed, then that which was defined by the Nicene Council, etc.] when that Canon did not mean, adding Articles to the Faith defined by that Council (for how could the supreme power bind its own hands, or make that unlawful for another General Council, which the Council of Constantinople had already done, in adding divers Articles to the Nicene Creed?) but publishing any Creed repugnant, by adding, or detracting, to the Nicene.  
19 To prove that the Council of Constance declared not for the Pope's Supremacy, 
Pag. 15.  he quotes John Gerson, as saying, 
De pot. Eccl. Consil. 22.  [That the Council of Constance did abate those heights to which slattery had advanced the Pope: and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope, which afterwards moderate men durst not speak:] whereas he saith no such words, nor had any meaning against the Pope's Supremacy; for this is all he saith, [Fallor, si non ante celebrationem hujus S. Constantiensis Synodi, etc. I am deceived, if afore the celebrating of this holy Council of Constance, this Tradition (which slattery suggested; viz. that the Pope was supreme Monarch even in Temporals, that he was above the Law, could take away men's rights from them, etc.) had not so possessed the minds of the most, that he that should have taught the contrary, would have been noted or condemned of Heretical pravity. Take a sign of this, that after the determination and practice of the same Council, there are found who fear not to assert openly such things.]  
20. He puts down these for the words of the Council of Trent, 
Sess. 21. c 4.  [Although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants, yet they did not believe it necessary, etc.] whereas the words of the Council are not with any such Antithesis, but thus only: [Nor therefore is antiquity to be condemned, if sometime they used that custom in some places. For as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause of their so doing, according to the condition of that time; so truly, it is without question to be believed, that they did it with no necessity of salvation.]   

1. Chap. 3. Sect.  
21. He quotes Bishop Fisher, 
Pag. 16. In art. 18. Luth.  as saying [That in the beginning of the Church, there was no use of Indulgences; and that they began, after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory.] When he hath no such words, for this is all he saith, [That it was not without the very great dispensation of the holy Ghost, that after so many curricula of years, the faith of Purgatory, and the use of Indulgences was generally received by the Orthodox. So long as there was no care of Purgatory, none sought Indulgences.]  
22. To prove that the Fathers do expressly teach, 
Pag. 22.  that Pilgrimages to holy places, and such like inventions, which are now the earnings of Indulgences, are not the way of salvation, etc. he quotes S. Gregory Nyssen, in an Oration made wholly against Pilgrimages to Jerusalem: when he made it not wholly against Pilgrimages, but only to show Religious people tending to perfection of piety; and counting it a part of piety to visit the holy places at Jerusalem, that it was no necessary part of piety, and that it was liable to some inconveniences misbecoming Religious people. [Cum itaque sint aliqui ex iis, etc. Seeing there are some of those who have chosen to themselves a solitary and private life, who count it a part of piety to have seen the places at Jerusalem, etc.] 
Hom. 1. in ep● ad Philem.   
23. To the same purpose he quotes S chrysostom, who in the place quoted never dreamt of Pilgrimages, for he only saith this; That to obtain pardon for our sins, it is not necessary to lay out moneys, to travel into foreign countries, to undergo dangers and labours, etc. but only to have a good will.  
24. To the same purpose he quotes S. Bernard, 
Pag. 22. Serm. 1. de Adu.  when he might as well have quoted Moses, Deut. 13. 14. for S. Bernard only alludes to that Text: [It is not necessary for thee to pass over sea, to penetrate the clouds, to go beyond the Alps, there is (I say) no great journey proposed to you, meet God within yourself; for the word is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, etc.]  
25. To the same purpose, 
Pag. ●â●. Serm. de mare●  he quotes these as S. Augustine's words; [God said not, Go to the East, etc.] in his Sermon De Martyribus; whereof there is but one, in S. Augustins' Works, with that title, to wit, his 117. Sermon De Diversis; and in that, there is not the least word to any such purpose.   

Sect. 4.  
26. He saith, Roffensis and Polydore Virgil affirm, 
Pag. 27. Artic. 18 cont. Luth. De Inv rer. l. 8. c. 1.  That who so searcheth the writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find, that none, or very rarely any one of them, ever makes mention of Purgatory. Whereas Polydore Virgil affirms no such thing; nor doth Roffensis say, That very rarely any one of them mentions it, but only, that in those ancient Writers, he shall find none, or but very rare mention of it.  
27. He saith, they (Roffensis and Polydore) affirm, that the Latin Fathers did not all believe it, but by degrees came to entertain opinions of 〈◊〉: but for the Catholic Church, it was but lately known to her. When Polydore affirms no such thing: nor doth Roffensis say, The Latin Fathers did not all believe it, but they did not believe it all (simul) together, or at once; (meaning but by parts) nor doth he say, That by degrees they came to entertain opinions of it; but, they conceived the truth of it.  
28, 29, 30. 
Pag. cad.  To prove that the Prayers and Oblations vesd in the Primitive Church for the Dead, that God would show them mercy, etc. do not infer their belief of Purgatory, he saith, That they also made Prayers and offered for those, who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory; as for the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and even for the B. Virgin Mary; and quotes for it Epiphanius 
a Haer. 75. , S. Cyril. 
b Cat. myst. 5.  and the Canon of the Greeks: which if he meant not, that they prayed for them in the same sense, as for the rest of the Dead in general, (viz. that God would show them mercy, remit their sins, etc. which is that alone from whence we infer their belief of Purgatory,) it is an abusing of his Reader, and infers nothing to his purpose: and if he meant it, they are three false Quotations; for the Authors quoted, precisely and expressly, distinguish the Prayers for the one and the other: viz. For the Dead in general, or the other persons prayed for particularly, for mercy and pardon for them. But for the Patriarches, Apostles, and the B. Virgin Mary, etc. they begged nothing for them, but only prayed, and offered, in their honour, and for the honour of Christ; and that they might be holpen by their intercession.  
So Epiphanius; We make mention both of Just and Sinners. Of Sinners, imploring the mercy of God (for them.) Of the Just, the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, etc. that prosecuting our Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour, we may separate him from the rank of other men, etc.  
So S. Cyril. When we offer this Sacrifice, we afterward make remembrance of all those that before us have slept. First, of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our prayers. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops: and finally, all who among us who have departed this life, believing it to be a very great help of the Souls for which is offered the obsecration of that holy and dreadful Sacrifice.  
So the Mass of S. James. Let us make commemoration of the B. Virgin, and of all the Saints and Just, that by their prayers and intercessions, we may all obtain mercy. ... Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day, make them to rest in the land of the living, in thy kingdom, and the delights of Paradise, etc.  
So the Mass of S. Basil. For rest and pardon for the Soul of thy servant N.  
So the Mass of S. Chrysostom. In memory and honour of the B. Virgin Mary, by whose intercessions receive, O Lord, our Sacrifice to thy heavenly Altar: Of the B. John Baptist, Apostles, etc. by whose prayers, O Lord, protect us. ... And remember, O Lord, all those who have afore slept in hope of resurrection of life eternal. ... For rest and pardon for the Soul of thy servant N.  
So the Greek Mass of S. Peter. Afore Consecration: Worshipping the memory first of the B. Virgin, mother of our Lord, etc. Of the holy Apostles, Martyrs, etc. by whose merits and prayers, grant that in all things we may be guarded by the help of thy protection. After Consecration: Remember, O Lord, thy servants N. and N. who have gone afore us in the sign of faith, etc. To them, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing, light, and peace.  
31. To the same purpose, he saith, 
Pag. 28. De Ritib. Eccl. l 2. c. 35.  So it is acknowledged by our own Durantus, (viz. That the Fathers of the Primitive Church made Prayers also, and offered for the Patriarches, Apostles, Martyrs, B. Virgin, &c, who never were in Purgatory:) where if he mean likewise (as he must, or it was impertinently urged) that Durantus acknowledges that they prayed for them as for the rest of the dead; and namely, that God would show them mercy, or pardon them: Durantus saith no such thing, but the direct contrary. [Truly in Epiphanius, and Cyril, and the Canon of the Greeks, is read, that they offered Sacrifice to God, for the Patriarches, Apostles, Martyrs, etc. which signifies the same as in our Canon, [Communicantes, & memoriam venerantes, gloriosae semper Virgins, etc.] For when the Greeks say, [We offer for the Martyrs, etc.] it is not understood that we commend them to God, but we commemorate them for their glory, and to give God thanks for the glory he hath bestowed on them. ... The Priest prays nothing for them, but rather prays them, that he may be helped by their prayers, etc.]  
32. He quotes Sixtus Senensis, as saying, 
Pag. 29. in marg. I. 6. annot 345.  That Pope John 22. not only taught and declared the Doctrine, (that before the day of Judgement, the Souls of men are kept in certain receptacles, etc.) but commanded it to be held by all, as saith Adrian P. in 4. Sent. When Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John, but only reports the opinion of others; nor doth he quote Pope Adrian as saying so, but only as reporting also what others said: for these are Sixtus Senensis his words. [It is said, that Pope John 22. subscribed to their opinion, and decreed that it ought so to be believed. Witnesses of this Decree, are Occam and Adrian VI whose words are these: [Finally, it is reported of John 22. that he publicly taught, etc.] And afterward Sixtus Senensis shows the uncertainty of that report: [Know that it is not altogether certain with approved Authors, that which Occam, being offended with him, and in this, condemned by the Council of Trent, wrote of him; yea, there want not Authors of highest authority and credit, that relate the contrary; and among them Benedict. XI. etc.]  
33. To prove that S. Augustin doubted of Purgatory, 
Pag. 30.  he quotes these words of his, 
Enchir. c. 69. l. 21. de Civ. Dei, c 26.  [Whether it be so, or not, it may be enquired, and possibly it may be found so, and possibly it may be never.] And he quotes two places for it. In neither of which S. Augustin speaks of Purgatory directly, but of grief for the loss of temporal good things too much loved, burning some just men here, and perhaps hereafter too. In Enchiridion, [For, this wood, hay, and straw, 
C. 68  may not absurdly be interpreted, such affections to secular things, although lawfully had, as they cannot be lost without grief of mind. But when this grief burns, if Christ have in the heart place of the foundation, (that is, that he who is so burnt, had rather want those things which he so loves, than want Christ) he is saved through fire. ... For the grief of the lost things which he loved, burns him, but consumes him not, being guarded by the stability of the foundation. 
C. 69.  That some such thing (such a burning grief for loss of temporal things) is done, even after this life, is not incredible; and whether it be so or not, may be enquired, and either be found, or lie hid, that some faithful men, are later or sooner saved by a certain Purgatory fire, by how much they more or less loved perishing goods.] And much to the same sense, is the other place quoted; 
De Civ. Dei, l. 21. c. 26.  [If in this interval of time (betwixt Death and the Resurrection) the spirits of the dead may be said to suffer this kind of fire, which they feel not who had no such manners and loves in the life of this body, but others feel which carried these kind of buildings with them, (of wood, hay, and stubble, upon Christ the foundation) either there alone, or both here and there, or therefore here, that not there, they find a fire of transitory tribulation, burning saecularia (worldly affections, delights, offences, etc.) although venial from damnation, I oppose (or censure) it not, because perhaps it is true, etc.]  
34. To prove, that in the time of Otho frisingen's. 
Pag. 30.  in Anno 1146 the Doctrine of Purgatory was uncertain, and gotten no further then to a Quidam asserunt; he quotes these words of Otho, [Some do affirm, 
L. 8. Chron. 2. 26.  that there is a place of Purgatory after death:] shamefully corrupting both the sense and words of this Author; for neither doth Otho say [after death] nor mean it; but, after the day of general judgement: as the Doctor himself could not but see, if he read the place. For the title of that Chap. is, [An post judicium, extra infernum inferiorem, ad leviores poenas locus remaneat? Et quid de parvulis, qui solo originali tenentur? Whether after judgement, (i.e. the day of doom) there remain any place without the nether most hell, for lighter pains? And what will become of Infants, that die in only original sin?] And in the Chapter he treats of it thus: 
It is to be enquired, if after the judgement is finished, there remains, etc. For some do ●●●●●m, that there is in hell, a place of Purgatory (meaning after the day of judgement) in which, they who are to be saved, etc.  [His dictis, indagandum puto, si transacto Judicio, extra inferum inferiorem ad leviores poenas locus remaneat: Esse quippe apud inferos (seil. after the day of judgement) locum Purgatorium, in quo salvandi, vel tenebris tantùm assiciantur, (that is, for some time) vel expiationis igne decoquantur, quidam asserunt, juxt a illud Apostoli, Ipse autem salvus erit, sed quasi per ignem. At si terminatis in judicio causis singulorum, pro qualitate meritorum, aeternis poenis deputatis, nullus ultra purgabitur, quomodo locus ille superior Purgatorius residuus erit? si verò non remanebit, ut de aliis taceam, quid de parvalis, qui solo originali renentur delicto, fiet? nunquid in puteum inferni inferioris & ipsi trudentur?]  
35. He saith, that in the Speculum Exemplorum, 
Pag. 31. Dist. 3. Exem. 3.  it is said, that a certain Priest in an ecstasy saw the Soul of Constantinus Turritanus, in the eves of his house, etc. when in the place quoted, is not a word to any such purpose.  
36. He saith, 
Pag. 33.  that the Greek Church did always descent from the Latins in this particular, (touching Purgatory) and in the Council of Basil, published an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory. And that, how afterwards they were pressed in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius, and by their necessity, how unwillingly they consented, how ambiguously they answered, how they protested against having that half consent put into the Instrument of Union; how they were yet constrained to it by their Chiefs, being obnoxious to the Pope; how a while after they dissolved that Union, and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine, are things so notoriously known, that they need no further declaration.] All which things are so notoriously false, as there needs no further declaration of the falsifying spirit of this Doctor. But for the other falsities I must wave them, my business at present being only to note his false Quotations: and such are these, out of the Councils of Basil and Florence. For as to the Council of Basil I have examined it over, and can find no such Apology as he speaks of, published by the Greeks in that Council. And for what he saith of the Council of Florence, there is not only not one word of it true, but the direct contrary passed in that Council. In the very first meeting at Ferrara, the Latins proposed the Catholic Doctrine in writing thus: [There is a Purgatory, 
Act. Conc. Flor.  that is, the Souls of such as die in Venial sin are purged in the world present (meaning temporally, after death, and afore the future world after the day of judgement) by fire, the Church also helping by the Priest's prayers; and moreover those Souls are delivered from pains by Sacrifices, and Alms. ...] To which the Greeks, by their Prolocutor, the Bishop of Ephesus, instantly answered thus; [Whatsoever you have said, and the testimonies of holy men that you have recited, the Greek Church receives and reads, and there is little difficulty betwixt us in this point, (meaning, only about those words, by fire:) but we shall give our answer in writing, etc.] And ten days after, they gave it, in these words: [The Italians (or Romans) confess (or believe) a fire, both in the present world, and Purgatory by it, and in the world to come, but not Purgatory, but eternal. ... But the Greeks, hold a fire in the world to come only, and a temporary punishment of Souls, that is, that they go into a place dark, and of grief; but that they are purged, that is, delivered from that dark place and affliction, by Priest's Prayers, and Sacrifices, and by Alms, but not by fire.] About a fortnight after, the Italians brought their Proofs for their Doctrine, (touching the purgation by fire) to which the Greeks delayed to answer. After, the Council was removed to Florence, and the point of the procession of the Holy Ghost had been there long debated and brought to an issue, the Pope called to the Greeks to debate the other points which remained, touching Consecrating the unleavened Bread, Purgatory, the Supremacy of the Pope, the Addition of Filioque to the Nicene Creed, and the Consecrating of the Eucharist by words deprecative. The Greeks answered, [For leavened or unleavened Bread, let them be indifferent. Touching Purgatory (meaning the fire) we neither divided for that, nor is it necessary; let there therefore be an Union, and we will treat of that afterward.] Afterward the Greeks proposed to treat, about Consecrating in unleavened Bread, the Pope's Supremacy, and the additament of Filioque: But for Purgatory, and Consecration by Prayer, nothing should be said. The Latins answered, there could be no Union, unless those two controversies were added. The Greek Emperor not yielding to it, the Latins proposed, that in the definition should be only mention of Purgatory; touching the Consecration it might be transacted viva voce. The Pope said, [we are united in that for which the division was made, (meaning the procession of the Holy Ghost) and is this which hath no harm in it, an impediment to us? Was not the point of Purgatory often examined at Ferrara? aught it not to be put in the definition, as a Doctrine of our Church.] But because the Greek Emperor said he was willing to hear touching the Primacy of the Roman Church, and consecrating in unleavened Bread, those points were debated.  
Afterward, (say the Greek Bishops) we met at the Emperors, and examined the Proposals of the Latins, and found them five, all equal and right: 1. Of the Procession. 2. Of unleavened Bread. 3. Of the Pope's Primacy. 4. Of the Additament. 5. Of Purgatory. And we urged mightily the Emperor, saying, we receive all, let an end be determined to the business. What controversy have we touching Purgatory? We doubted of this, because they said the Saints see God without any medium, and that the Souls of penitent sinners are purged by prayers. This thing therefore delayed us; but we embracing these things also piously, pressed the Emperor, to bring the work (of Union) to an end. But he would not. Afterward, the Emperor calling together all the Greek Bishops, the rest of the Bishops endeavoured to draw the Bishop of Ephesus (who was the only stickler against the Union) to agree with them. The Bishop of Ephesus argued against the procession from the Son, and that the Creed needed neither addition, nor application, and many other things, until it was evening: But I find not that he argued against Purgatory. Afterward there was a Congregation appointed, of the Greek and Latin Prelates, to draw up the Instrument of the Definition; which being shown to the Emperor, he objected against the Title of it, (because in the name of the Pope alone) and the form of the Article touching the Pope's Supremacy, Secundum dicta Sanctorum. These being amended, the Instrument was agreed on. Thus far the Records of the Council. By all which appears how notoriously false was all that as the Doctor here alleged touching the Greek Church denying Purgatory.  
37. As a clear testimony of Antiquity, 
Pag. 34. Ad Demetrian. sect. 16.  expressly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory, he quotes S. Cyprian; [When we are gone from hence, there is no place left for repentance, and no effect of satisfaction:] where he fraudulently translates S. Cyprian, [When we are gone from hence,] as if he had spoken it absolutely, or of Christians and Catholics in general; when he spoke it of impenitent Pagans only: and so the words relate not at all to Purgatory, or Souls dying in Venial sin, but only to the Hell of the damned, and Souls dying out of Christ's faith; such as Demetrian was, to whom he then wrote. [Hortamur, etc. We exhort (you) whilst the opportunity is present, to satisfy God, and come out of the deep and dark night of Superstition into the bright light of true Religion. 
quando isthinc excessum suerie  When you shall be departed this life, there is no place more for repentance.  
38. To the same purpose, and in the same fraudulent manner, he quotes Greg. Nazianzen; for he affirms not, 
Orat. 15. in Plag. grand.  that after this life there is no purgation, (meaning for any one, as he quotes him) but only that there is none for those that die in mortal sin, or that are in the Hell of the damned, as would have appeared by the words afore and after, had he set them down. [I know the concussion, and excussion, the ebullition and confraction of heart, and dissolution of the knees, and such like punishments with which the sins of wicked men are plagued. I omit to speak of the tribunals of the future life, to which the indulgence and impunity of this life delivers them over; so that it is better now to be chastised and purged, then to be transmitted to that torment, when it will be now the time of punishment, not of purgation.]  
39 To the same purpose, 
Orat. 42. in Pasch.  he quotes another Oration of the same Saint; but there is nothing in it to that purpose.  
40. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 35. Ep. 59  he quotes an Epistle of S. Leo: but there is not a word in it of those he quotes.   

Sect. 5.  
41. He quotes Scotus, 
Pag. 36. In 4. Scnt. d 11. q. 3.  as declaring, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible: which he saith not.  
42. To the same purpose, 
Ibid q. 6.  he quotes Occam; but I can find no such thing in him.  
43. To the same purpose, 
Cap 1 cont. Capt. Babyl.  he quotes Roffensis; but he saith no such thing.  
44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one, he quotes Platina; 
Pag. 37.  [Many thing's indeed came then in consultation, yet nothing could be openly decreed:] leaving out the next words giving the reason of it, which showed, that he meant not of Decrees of Faith, but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land, against the Saracens, which was the cause of calling that Council. [The Pope, when he saw the power of the Saracens to increase in Asia, called a Council, etc. Many things came then in consultation, but nothing could be fitly decreed, because both the Pisans and Genoese by Sea, and the Cisalpins by Land, were at war among themselves, etc.]  
45. To prove, 
To. 3 ● sp. 46. sect. 3.  that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture, he quotes Suarez, That Cajetan affirmed, that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture: when Suarez saith no such thing, but only this; [But of Catholics, Cajetan alone, taught, that secluding the authority of the Church, those words, [This is my body] sufficed not to confirm this truth.]  
46. To the same purpose, 
Loc. Com. l. 3. ●. 3. fund. 2.  he quotes Canus; who saith not, that it is not expressed, but not so express, i.e. not plainly, or clearly; and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead; and in his next Chapter, passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith, which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture. [Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ. For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the equality of three Persons in one substance, and their distinction by relative proprieties, you shall not find so express in the Canonical Books: wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that, [I am the God of Abraham, etc.] which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent; so the Church, by the Spirit of truth, hath explicated some things, which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures.]  
47. He saith, Henriquez affirms, that Scotus saith, 
Sum. l. 8. c. 20.  Transubstantiation was not ancient; when Henriquez saith no such thing.  
48. To prove, 
Pag. 38.  that in Peter Lombard's time, Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith, or a Catholic Doctrine, that they did not know whether it were true or no; and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article, 
L. 4. Sent. dist. 11. lit. A.  he confessed, he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no; he quotes these words: [If it be enquired what kind of conversion it is; whether it be formal, or substantial, or of another kind, I am not able to define it. Only I know that it is not formal; because the same accidents remain, the same colour and taste. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, that so the substance is changed into the substance, that it is done essentially. To which the former authorities seem to consent. But to this Sentence, others oppose these things: If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted, etc.] And saith, they are a plain demonstration, that in his time, this Doctrine (of Transubstantiation) was new, not the Doctrine of the Church. Which is a notable falsifying of that Author, and the Doctor (if he read him) could not choose but know he quoted him directly against his meaning. For there were two Questions: one, whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood? and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation. And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore, and resolved positively, 
Dist. 9  1. That it is undoubtedly to be held, that under the visible species, the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin, and the Blood which he shed for us, is received by the wicked: and the contrary he counted a Heresy. The next Section, 
Dist. 10.  he entitles, De Haeresi aliorum, etc. Of the Heresy of others, who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar, but in sign. And thus he speaks of it: [There are other, transcending the madness of the former (Heretics,) who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things, do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth, affirming that in the Altar, is not the Body or Blood of Christ, nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood: who take occasion of erring, from the words of truth, whence began the first Heresy (against this truth) among Christ's Disciples; [It is the Spirit that quickens, etc.] And they cite those words of S. Augustin, [Non hoc corpus quod videtis, etc.] And there are other sayings also, ministering fomitem to their madness. [The poor ye have always with you, but me not.] These and other (sayings) the aforesaid Heretics use in maintenance of their Error.] Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary, which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article: which having set down, he concludes thus; [By these, and other more, it is manifest, that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body, and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood.] Having thus dispatched that first question, in the next Section (which is that which the Doctor quotes) he comes to a second, which is a mere School nicety, touching the manner of this substantial change; whether it be formal, or substantial, or of some other kind? And touching that, he useth the words quoted by the Doctor, [I am not able to define it, etc.] Nay, and even in that too, he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader. For these words which he sets down, as Peter Lombard's argument against the modus substantialis, were only set down as an Objection, to which he there gives an answer, which the Doctor conceals. [To which may be answered in this manner, that the Body of Christ is not said to be made, in that sense as if the Body which was formed in the Virgin's womb were formed again, but because the substance of Bread or Wine, which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ, is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood.] And a little after: [Therefore after Consecration, there is not the substance of Bread or wine, although the species of Bread and Wine remain.] And to one that should object against this, how this can be? he answers briefly, [A mystery of Faith, may salubriter be believed, but may not salubriter be searched into.]  
48. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 38. In 4. Sent dist. 11. q. 1. Sect. Propter tertium.  he quotes Durandus, as even after the Lateran Council, maintaining, That even after Consecration, the very matter of Bread remained: which Durandus maintains not, but the contrary; for his first conclusion there is, [The substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood.] And in the very next words, the Doctor himself saith, that Durandus saith, That by reason of the authority of the Church, it is not to be held. How then did he hold it? All that he there maintained was, the possibility of it, supposing it were true; which he saith it is not.  
49. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 39  he quotes Alphonsus de Castro fraudulently, as if he had meant, of the thing (or Doctrine) of Transubstantiation; Rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio: when he meant it only of the name. Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ, there is rare mention in ancient Writers: Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, much rarer, etc. yet who but an Heretic will dare to deny these, because in ancient Writers they are not mentioned under these names?  
50. Against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
Pag. 41. Dial cum Tryph.  he quotes Justin Martyr, [The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ commanded to do, etc.] when Justin Martyr saith no such thing, but only that the oblation of a Cake in the old Law was a figure of our Eucharist. [Truly the Oblation also of the Cake, was a figure of the Eucharistical Bread which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to do (or make) in remembrance of his Passion.]  
51. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 41.  he quotes Eusebius, Demonstrat. Evang. l. 1. c. 1. when the first three Chapters of that Book are not extant.  
52. To the same purpose, he quotes another saying of Eusebius; 
Daemon Evan. l. 1. c. ult.  [The Apostles received a command according of the constitution of the New Testament, to make a memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his body and healthful blood:] when he saith not so, but thus. [Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this Sacrifice, to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table, and the memory of that body and healthful blood, as is the institute of the New Testament.]  
53. To the same purpose, 
Homil 27.  he quotes S. Macarius; [In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood:] when Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary; [Bread and Wine, exhibiting the exemplar (or antitype) his Flesh and Blood.  
54. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 42. In Ps. q. 8.  he quotes S. Augustin, as denying a real eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist, but in figure only; when he denied not that, but only the eating it in that gross, carnal, or sensible manner, as the Capernaites conceived; as would have appeared, had the Doctor set down the words before, which he fraudulently suppressed: [Durum illis, etc. It seemed hard to them what he said, Except ye eat the flesh, etc. they took it foolishly, they understood it carnally, and thought that our Lord would cut off some gobbets of his body, and give them, etc. But he instructed the twelve, etc. understand spiritually what I speak. You are not to eat this body which you see, etc.]  
55. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 43.  he quotes S. Augustin, lib. 10. cont. Faustum, as saying, [That which by all men is called a Sacrifice, is the sign of the true Sacrifice, etc.] when S. Aug. hath no such words in that book.   

Sect. 6.  
56, 57, 58. In citing the Decree of the Council of Constance, 
Pag. 47.  against Communion in both kinds, to make it fit his purpose, and render it more odious to the Protestant Reader, he commits three gross Falsifications, and which unless he took not the words out of the Decree himself but upon trust, could not but be wilful. For, 

1. Whereas the Decree recites three Errors, and Innovations, as the causes of it; viz. 1. The maintaining it necessary to communicate the people under both kinds; and the practice of that innovation. 2. The maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be given, after supper. 3. Or otherwise to people that were not fasting: [Whereas in some Country's, 
partibus.  some temerariously presume to assert, that the Christian people, aught to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, 
passim.  and do ordinarily communicate the Lay people under the species of wine; also affirm, that the people ought to be communicated after supper, or otherwise not fasting, etc.] He recites it as made against the first only, concealing the other two fraudulently, under a line of pricks. [Whereas in certain parts of the world, some temerariously affirm, that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of Bread and Wine, and do every where communicate the Laity, not only in Bread but in Wine also. ... Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error, that although, etc.]  
2. That he sets down the Decree, as containing an express, and direct opposition to the institution of Christ, and practice of the Primitive Church, for communicating the people under both kinds. [The Council decrees and defines against this error, (of giving the Chalice to the Laity) that although Christ instituted after supper, and administered this venerable Sacrament under both kinds; yet this notwithstanding. ... And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds.] Here is the acknowledgement, both of Christ's Institution in both kinds, and Christ's ministering it in both kinds, and the practice of the Primitive Church to give it in both kinds; yet the conclusion from these premises is, [We command that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds.] The opposition is plain, etc. Thus far he. Whereas in the Decree, there is no such thing: for these are the words of it. [Although Christ instituted after supper, and administered this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kinds, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable authority of holy Canons, 
servat.  and the approved custom of the Church, observes, that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after supper, nor received of the faithful not fasting, (unless in case of the Article of death.) And as this custom, was reasonably introduced, to avoid some dangers and scandals; that although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kinds; afterward it came to be received under the species of Bread only by the Laity, it is to be had for a Law, which is not lawful to reject or alter without authority of the Church.]  
3. That he sets down these as the words of the Decree, [We command under the pain of Excommunication, that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds:] whereas in the Decree are no such words; for this is all it saith, [Wherefore to say, that it is sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this custom or Law, aught to be judged erroneous; and they that pertinaciously maintain the opposite of the Premises, are to be expelled as Heretics] 
arcendi.     
59 Against Communion in one kind, 
Pag. 49. De Corp. & Sang. Dom. c. 19  he saith, Paschasius resolves it dogmatically, that neither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated, because the Apostles did all of them drink of the Chalice. When he resolves it not dogmatically, but only argues it in way of discourse; nor doth he give any such reason, [Because the Apostles, &c] nor saith any thing there but what is verified in the Priest celebrating, or in a Communicant in either kind only. [The sense is manifest, that now (his) flesh is broken, because in the Chalice is the blood that flowed out of (his) side. And therefore very rightly is the flesh sociated with the blood, because neither the flesh without the blood, 
jure.  nor the blood without the flesh, is rightfully (or lawfully.) communicated: But the whole man who consists of two substances is redeemed, and therefore he is saginated with the flesh and blood of Christ together. And therefore they are well rendered together in the Chalice, because from one cup of Christ's Passion these two flowed to us unto life.]   

Sect. 7.  
60. Against our Latin Mass, 
Pag. 51.  he saith, S. chrysostom urging the Apostles precept for Prayers in a Language understood by the hearers, saith, That if a man speak in the Persian tongue, and understands not what himself saith, to himself he is a Barbarian; and therefore so he is to him that understands no more than he does. When S. chrysostom neither urged there any precept of the Apostle, nor spoke of Prayers, nor used altogether that form of words: for these are his words. [If one speak in only the Persian, or some other strange tongue, but knows not what he saith, certainly he will be now a Barbarian even to himself, and not to another only, because he knows not the force of the word.]  
61. To the same purpose, 
In 1 Cor. 14.  he quotes Lyra, That in the Primitive Church, Blessings, and all other things in the Church, were done in the vulgar tongue; when Lyra saith not, caetera omnia, but caetera communia; Blessings, and other common things.  
62, 63. He saith, we are told by S. chrysostom 
a Hom. 1. in. ● Joan.  and S. Augustine 
b De Doct. Chr. c. 5. Pag. 52. , That the Bible was translated into all Languages; when they tell us no such thing.  
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. To prove that the Fathers tell us, That a Service or Prayers in an unknown tongue do not edify, he quotes S. Basil 
a l. Quae ex vaeriis scrip locis. , S. chrysostom 
b in 1 Cor. Hom 35 , S. Ambrose 
c in 1 Cor. 14. , S. Augustine 
d Sup. Psal. 18. Com. 2. , Aquinas 
e in 1 Cor. 14. , and Lyra 
f in 1 Cor. 14. , when S. Basil hath no such Book as he quotes, and none of the other hath any such words.  
70. Against our Latin Mass, 
Pag. 54. Con. Lat. 3. c ●.  he quotes a Canon of the Lateran Council, as if that had ordained, that all people should have Mass in their vulgar tongue; when it only took care, that where those who used Mass in divers Languages, and with divers Rites, as Greeks, Latins, Maronites, etc. lived in one City or Diocese, the Bishop should provide, every of them might have Mass and other Rites, according to the manner of their own Church. [Because in most parts within the same City and Diocese, the people of divers Tongues are mixed together, having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites: We command that the Bishop provide men fit, who may celebrate according to the diversity of Ceremonies and Languages.]   

Sect. 8.  
71. He saith. 
Pag. 58.  S. Cyril denies that the Christians did give veneration to the Image even of the Cross itself: But he names not which Cyril he means, and if him of Alexandria, (as is most like) what Book of his he means; and if his 6th. Book against Julian, where Julian objects to the Christians their folly in worshipping the Cross; (as there is no other so probable to be meant) S. Cyril doth there not only not deny that the Christians worship it, but seems rather to avow and justify it. For this was the Apostates Objection, [O wretched people! whereas the Arms are preserved which great Jupiter sent down, 
〈◊〉.  ye refuse to adore and worship them, and in the mean time ye adore the wood of the Cross, painting Images of it in your foreheads, and afore your houses.] To which S. Cyrils answer is, [He saith, they are wretched, who have care always to sign their houses and foreheads with the sign of the precious Cross; we will show that these kind of speeches favour extreme ignorance. 
imperi●iam.  For the Saviour and Lord of all, etc. all these things (that he did and suffered for us) the health-giving wood makes us to remember. ... 
satutare.  We make a Cross of the precious wood in remembrance of all good and virtue.]  
72. He saith, the Epistle of Epiphanius, 
Pag. 59 Ep. ad Job. Hier●s.  in which is the story of his cutting in pieces a picture of Christ, or some Saint, which he found in a Church, was translated into Latin by S. Jerom, by which we may guests at his opinion in the question: when S. Jerom translated indeed that Epistle, but it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Jerom translated, which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Jeroms time.  
73, 74, 75. He saith, 
Pag. ead.  S. Augustin complaining that he knew of many in the Church, who were worshippers of Pictures, calls them Superstitious; and adds, that the Church condemns such customs, and strives to correct them: and quotes for this three places: 
De mor. Eccl. l. 1. c. 34. De Fid. & Symb. c. 7. Con. Adim. c. 13.  when in the two latter of them, he hath not a word to any such purpose; and in the first, he neither speaks of worshippers of Pictures, apart, or by itself alone, (as here he quotes him) nor doth he formally call them Superstitious, nor doth he add, that the Church condemns such customs; for these are his words. [Do not follow the routs of the ignorant, 
imperitorum.  who even in the true Religion itself are superstitious, or so given to lusts, etc. I know that some are adorers of Sepulchers and Pictures: I know some who most riotously drink over the dead, and exhibitting banquets to the Carcases, upon the buried bury themselves. I know there are many that have renounced the world, etc.]  
76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. He saith, 
Pag. 59  Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, Blondus, Adonis, Amonius, and Regino tell us, that the Bishops of Francfort condemned the second Synod of Nice, (or the seventh General, that established the worship of Images) and commanded it should not be called a General Council; and published a Book under the name of the Emperor, confuting that Antichristian Assembly: when one of his Authors (Eginard) mentions not any of this; and not one of them mentions that the Council of Francfort published any such Book under the name of the Emperor; and Amonius saith not, it condemned the second Nicene, but the Synod which had assembled at Constantinople: and Hincmarus saith only, it condemned the Synod which had assembled at Nice without the Pope's authority, (which could not mean the second Nicene:) and Blondus saith, it abrogated the seventh Synod, and the Felician Heresy for taking away of Images.  
83, 84, 85. 
Pag. 61.  He saith, it appears in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus 
a Strom l. 6. , Tertullian 
b Adu. marc. l. 2. c. 22. , and Origen 
c l. 4. co. Celf. , that in those times they would not allow the making of Images: when Tertullian saith no such thing, and neither of the other two speaks of the Images of Christ, or his Saints, but of Jupiter, and the other Heathen gods.   

Sect. 9  
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92. 
Pag. 62.  Against picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared, (which is all that some of ours do allow and practise) he quotes Tertullian 
a De Cor. Mil. ; Eusebius 
b De Praep. Evang●l. l. 1. c. 5. , Athanasius 
c Orat. Co. Gent , S. Hierom 
d In c. 40. Es. , Theodoret 
e in Deut. q. 1. , Damascen 
f L 4 de Fid. Onth. c. 17. , Nicephorus 
g L. 18 c. 53. , and others; when divers of these (as namely, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerom) have nothing to this purpose; and the rest spoke only against representing God, as in his own essence, shape, or form: as appears by their words, which it would be too long to set down. But to instance in one or two; Theodoret, 
Theodoret. in Deut q. 1.  [Ye saw no likeness, etc. He saith this, instructing them that they should not make any Idol, nor at any time attempt to counterfeit the Divine Image, when they never saw the species of the archetype, 
L. 18. c. 53.  etc.] Nicephorus, [They made Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is most absurd: for Images are of bodies that may be seen and circumscribed, not of those who are invisible and incomprehensible by our understanding.]   

Sect. 10.  
93. To prove, 
Pag. 64.  that Christ left his Apostles without any Eminency in one above the rest, he saith, S. Paul gave the Bishop's congregated at Miletum caution to take care of the whole flock of God: 
Acts 20. 28.  when the Text hath no such thing, but rather the contrary; [The flock over which the H. Ghost hath made you Bishops.]  
94. To the same purpose, 
De unit. Eccl.  he quotes S. Cyprian, [The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was, etc.] wresting them against that which S. Cyprian did in that very place expressly assert, to wit, an Eminency in S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles, though not in the species of the power, yet in the manner and degree of it, viz. that Christ gave it first to S. Peter's person, as the origin of unity; as would have appeared, had he set down the words immediately before and after; which most plainly and solidly maintain S. Peter's Primacy notwithstanding that parity. [Our Lord said to Peter, Upon this Rock I will build my Church; and again, Do thou feed my sheep. Upon him one (person,) he builds his Church, and to him he commends his Sheep to be fed. And although after his Resurrection, he gave to all his Apostles equal power, and say, As my Father sent me, so I send you; yet that he might manifest unity, (that the Church was to be one, by the unity of the Governor) he constituted one Chair (in S. Peter's person) and by his authority disposed the origin of unity beginning from one (person S. Peter:) Then follow the words quoted by the Doctor, [The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was, etc.] After which these. [But the beginning comes from unity; the Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ, and one Chair may be monstrated. That is, they were all equal in power and honour; but Peter had it with this Eminency above the rest, that it was settled first in his single person.  
95, 96, & usque 113. To prove that all Antiquity does consent and teach, that all the ordinary power of the Apostles descended to the Bishops as their successors, though it be a truth, and maintained by us, yet of his twenty Quotations brought for it, no less than eighteen are false or wrested: viz. 

1. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. saith only, [We aught to obey the Presbyters, that are in the Church, that have succession from the Apostles, who with succession of Episcopacy have received the certain Charisma of truth.  
2. Id. ib. c. 44. Hath not a word to this purpose.  
3. S. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 6. Hath not a word to this purpose.  
4. Id. l. 2. Ep. 10. He saith only this, [The unity delivered by our Lord, and through the Apostles to us successors.]  
5. Id. l. 4. Ep. 9 Saith nothing of Bishops, but what is as true of Presbyters; [Christ said to his Apostles, and by this to all that are praepositi, who by Vicarious Ordination succeed to the Apostles: He that despiseth you despiseth me.]  
6. S. Ambrose, de dign. Sacred. c. 1. Saith nothing but what rather makes against the Doctor: viz. That all Bishops received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in the B. Apostle Peter.  
7. S. Aug. de Bap. co. Donat. l. 7. c. 43. only sets down the Sentence of one of the African Bishops, Clarus a Muscula, for the rebaptising of Heretics.  
8. Id. de verb. Dom. Serm. 24. saith nothing but what pertains to Priests as much as Bishops. [He that despises you, despises me. If he had said this to the Apostles alone, despise us. But if his word have come unto us, and called us, and placed us in their room, see that ye despise not us.]  
9 Conc. Rom. sub Sylu. saith nothing, but that men should not detract from the Disciples of our Lord, that is, the successors of the Apostles.  
10. Anacletus P. Ep. 2. saith nothing, but that the Pillars of the Holy Church, which the Apostles and their successors are not unrightly called, should not be easily shaken or accused.  
11. S. Clem. P. Ep. 1. saith nothing, but that the Bishops supply the place of the Apostles, as Priests do, of the 72. Disciples: (whose successors properly they are not.)  
12. S. Hieron. Ep. 13. hath not a word to this sense.  
13. Id. Ep. 54. saith no more, but that Bishops with us (Catholics) hold the place of the Apostles, whereas the Montanists put them down to the third place.  
14. Euthym. in Ps. 44. hath nothing to this purpose.  
15. S. Greg. in Evang. Hom. 26. saith no more, but that Bishops hold now in the Church the place of them to whom Christ said, Whose sins ye forgive, etc.  
16. S. Jerom (whom I suppose the Doctor meant, for S. Gregory hath no such Epistle) Ep. 1. ad Heliodor. speaks not of Bishops properly, but of Priests: [God forbid I should speak any sinister thing of them, who succeeding to the Apostolic degree, with their sacred mouth make Christ's Body.]  
17. S. Damasc. de Imag. Or. 2. only useth the words of the Apostle, [God hath set in the Church, first Apostles, than Prophets, etc.]  
18. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athanas. (not as he quotes it, Basilii) hath not a word to this purpose.    
114, 115. 
Pag. 65.  He saith, Bishops are, in express terms, called by S. Ambrose, Vicars of Christ; and quotes two places for it: in neither of which S. Ambrose speaks of Bishops, but only of the Apostles. 
In 1 Cor. 3.  [We are the helpers of God. This pertains to the person of the Apostles, who it is manifest are God's helpers, because they are the Vicars of Christ. Therefore they (the Apostles) received from God the Father by Christ our Lord this power, 
In Roman. 1.  that in our Lord's stead, they should make the Doctrine of our Lord acceptable.] 
Vice Domini.   
116. He saith, 
Pag. 66.  The Pope calls himself the Universal Bishop, and the Vicarial Head of the Church, the Church's Monarch, he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is derived, to whose Sentence in things Divine, every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject.] And quotes for this, the Canon, Unam Sanctam; 
Extrav. Com. l. 1. tit. 9 de Major. & Obed.  when in that Canon there is not any one of these Sentences, but only that he is the Vicarial Head of the Church. [Of one only Church, there is one only Head, to wit, Christ, and his Vicar Peter, and his successors; we define it to be altogether necessary to every humane creature to salvation, to be subject to the Roman Bishop.]  
117. He saith, S. Ambrose saith, 
Pag. 67.  the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ, and is his substitute; and quotes for it, S. Ambrose, ubi supra: and we have seen afore, that S. Ambrose, in none of those places, saith any such thing.  
118. To prove, 
Pag. 67.  that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop, and that his Bishopric gave no more power to him, than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese, he quotes Pope Symmachus; 
Apud Baron. to. 6. Anno 499 n. 36.  [As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided, (or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed, none is before or after other, none is greater or less than another) so there is one Bishopric amongst divers Bishops, and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their successors.] When, 1. there is no such saying of Symmachus in the place quoted. 2. The Epistle which he meant, and is to be found in the Tomes of the Councils, is not a little altered and mangled by him in the very words. 1. Symmachus saith not, as he quotes him, [As it is in the Holy Trinity, etc. So there is one Bishopric, etc. And therefore why should, etc.] But thus. 
dum.  [For whilst, there is (like unto the Trinity, whose power is one and individual) one Bishopric, etc. 
convenit.  how agrees it, (or is it becoming) &c.] 2. Symmachus saith not, there is one Bishopric, inter multos, amongst many Bishops, as he renders it, as if equalling all Bishops then living one to another; but there is one, per multos, through many; that is, through the line of Bishops succeeding to one another in the same See: and so it only equals the successor to his predecessor. 3. Where Symmachus saith, priorum, of former Bishops, or predecessors, in that See, he translates it, of the ancient Bishops. 4. Finding, that these words, would make nothing to his purpose, he wrists them to it with a Gloss; [None is before or after other, none is greater or less than another,] and then infers, that these words do fully declare, that the Roman Bishopric gave no more power to the Pope, than Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocese: when he could but know that his gloss and inference, had not only no foundation in Symmachus' words, but were directly contrary to the whole substance and drift of the Epistle; it being an answer to a Letter of Complaint of the Archbishop of Arles to the Pope, against the Archbishop of Vienna, for invading the rights of the Church of Arles, for ordaining some neighbour Bishops, upon pretence of some Breve or Rescript of Pope Anastasius, (Symmachus his predecessor) wherein he had contraried the Grants of former Popes to the Church of Arles; and desiring from the Pope redress in it: and he promises to redress it, and gives for his reason the words quoted by the Doctor, because it was not well done of Anastasius, to contrary the Acts of his predecessors: all which proves, that the Roman Bishop was superior to those Archbishops of Arles and Vienna, and had jurisdiction over them, and that Symmachus himself thought so. [We have received your Letters, by which appears there is a controversy betwixt the Churches of Arles and Vienna, concerning ordaining of Bishops in neighbouring Cities: caused by this, that our predecessor of happy memory, Anastasius, had commanded some things to be observed contrary to the ancient custom; transgressing the Ordinance of his predecessors; which he ought not to have done for any necessity whatsoever. For seeing there is but one Bishopric through divers Bishops, (like the Trinity, whose power is one and individual) how is it becoming, the Statutes of former Popes to be violated by them that follow? etc.]  
119. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 67. Eccl. Hier. de Sacerd. perfect. cap. 5.  he quotes S. Dionysius, [As the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus, so does every particular one in its own Bishop:] As if he had meant that every Bishop was supreme Governor next under Christ in his own Diocese: when he meant only, that the order of Bishops was the supreme Hierarchical order, in compare to Priests, Deacons, etc. [The Divine order therefore of Bishops, is the first of those Orders which see God; and he is also the highest and the last. For in him is finished and completed all the distinction of our Hierarchy. For as we see all our Hierarchy to end in Jesus, etc.]  
120, 121, 122, 123. To the same purpose, 
Pag. 68  he quotes Origen, Gelasius, S. Jerom, and Fulgentius, as teaching, That the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church: But, 1. for Origen; he quotes no book, nor hath Origen any saying to that sense, to exclude the Primacy of the Roman See. 2 For Fulgentius, he quotes him in Concil. Paris. l. 1. c. 3. but tells not what Council of Paris he means, nor what Fulgentius, nor in what Collection the book is to be found; I can find no such, in Fulgentius his Works, nor in the Tomes of Councils, nor in the Councils of France set out by Syrmondus. 3. For Gelasius, he teaches no such thing: for all he saith is this, 
D. 97. C. Duo sunt.  [There are two things by which this World is principally governed, the sacred Authority of Bishops, and Regal power. Betwixt which, the burden of Bishops is so much the heavier, by how much they are in the divine examen to give an account even for Kings themselves, etc.] 4. For S. Jerom, he quotes two places; one is in Hom. 7. in Jerem. when he hath no such work of Homilies upon Jeremy: and if he meant his Commentary upon the seventh Chapter of Jeremy; there is not a tittle in it to any such purpose. The other is, in his Book, adversus Lucifer; in which likewise I can find nothing to this purpose.  
124. He saith, 
Pag. 68  that when Bellarmin is in this question (about the Pope's Supremacy) pressed out of the Book of Nilus, by the authority of the Father's standing against him, he answers, the Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church, for they are all his Sons. As if Bellarmin had answered this in contempt of the authority of the Fathers urged by Nilus, against the Pope's Supremacy; when there was no such thing. For the objection of Nilus there urged was not from Fathers, but from Reason; and it was only to prove that the Pope ought to be subject to the Canons of holy Fathers, because he had his Dignity from the Fathers, and Popes themselves had made divers Canons; and he were unworthy to be honoured as a Father, if he contemned the Fathers. To which reasons Bellarmin answered, That the Pope had not his Dignity from the Fathers, and that if he made Canons, he could not bind himself; and that if he be honoured as a Father by all, he hath no Fathers in the Church, but all Children; and therefore he cannot be subject to them; and that he contemns not the Fathers, etc.]  
125. He saith, 
Pag. 69.  this speech of S. Cyprian in the Council of Carthage, [None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyramical power drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obediance, etc.] was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen, to reprehend him for his Lording it over God's Heritage, and excommunicating his brethren; and this his chastising of Pope Stephen for this usurpation, was also approved in him by S. Augustin: 
De Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 3. c. 3.  when S. Augustin in the place quoted, saith no such thing, nor understood it as spoken against Pope Stephen, but as spoken modestly and humbly, to encourage the Bishops to deliver their Sentence without fear of excommunication; and he interprets the words not to mean, as if the Bishops were exempted absolutely from being judged by their Superiors, but only in such cases as that, which were undetermined by the Church. [None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, etc. What more meek? what more humble? Certes no authority should deter us from enquiring what is true. Since every Bishop, etc. I suppose he means, in those questions which have not yet been discussed by the most eliquate perspection. For he knew how great a profundity of Sacrament than the whole Church did by various disputation discuss; and he made free the choice of enquiring; that by examination the truth might be manifested. For he did not lie, or desire to catch his more simple Colleagues in their words, that when they had discovered themselves to hold contrary to him, he should censure them to be excommunicate.] This was it he approved in S. Cyprians speech; and this was all he approved.  
126. Against S. Peter's Primacy, 
Pag 70. In Act. Apost Hom. 3.  he quotes S. Chrysostom, [He did all things with the common consent, nothing by special authority or principality:] when in that very place he most strongly asserted S. Peter's Primacy, as would have appeared had the Doctor set down the words before and after. [Peter arising up in the midst of the Disciples, said, etc. How fervent is he? How doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ? How is he Prince in the Chair, and ever first begins to speak? Now consider that also, how he doth act all things by the common vote of the Disciples, nothing by his own authority; nor did he simply say, we set up this man in the place of Judas. And although he had a right equal to all, of constituting him, yet out of virtue or modesty congruently he did it not. But deservedly doth he first exercise authority in the business, as who had them all in his hand, for to him Christ said, Confirm thy Brethren.]  
127. He saith, 
Pag. 70. Loc. Com. l. ●. c. 8.  Canus confesses, That there is in Scripture no revelation, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his special authority. But Canus saith not all out so; but that it is not indeed per se there revealed. And in the next words he saith, That it is had out of the Gospel, that the Pastor substituted by Christ in the Church after Peter, hath all the ordinary power of Peter, and all other privileges granted to Peter for the Church's sake.  
128, 129, 130, 131. He saith, it is confessed by Cusanus, 
Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 34. Sent. 4. d. 24. q. 2. a. 5. De Eccles. Dogm. l. 4 c. 3.  Soto, Driedo, and Canus, that this succession (of Peter's Chair) was not addicted to any particular Church, nor can be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church: which last, is not confessed by any out of them; and for the first, Driedo saith to the contrary, in the very place quoted; [Not rashly therefore, but with pious faith, we believe with the Fathers our predecessors, that the Faith and Primacy of the Church, and the Chair of Peter are inseparable from the Roman Diocese.]   

Sect. 11.  
132, 133, 134, 135. 
Pag. 72. De Cons. d. 2. C. Peracta. Ib. C In Cae●a. C. Si quis. D 1. C. Omnes.  He quotes four Canons, as showing, that private Mass is against the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church of Rome, and the Tradition of the Apostles, and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication; when not one of them hath any such thing, nor forbids the Priest to celebrate without Communicants, but only enjoins the Deacons, or people at due times, to communicate with the Priest. So C. Peracta. [When Consecration is done, (that is, when the Priest hath consummated) let all Communicate that will not be excluded from the Church; for so the Apostles have appointed, and so holds the holy Roman Church.] Which Canon yet meant not of the Lay-people, 
De Cons d. 2. C. Et si non.  (who, as appears by another Canon made within twenty years after, were obliged to Communicate only three times a year, Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, when yet the Priests said Mass every day) but only of the Deacons who assisted at Mass. For so declares the Title of it; [Let the Minister, who after Consecration contemns to Communicate, be excluded from entering into the Church.] And so the Gloss, [Let all Communicate, that is, all who minister the body and blood.] So C. in coena. [Upon Maundy Thursday, the receiving of the Eucharist is by some neglected, which that it is to be received on that day by all the faithful, (except those to whom for great crimes it is prohibited) the use of the Church demonstrates, seeing even Penitents are on that day reconciled to receive the Sacraments of our Lord's body and blood.] So C. Si quis. [If any one come into the Church, and hears the sacred Scriptures, 
Pro luxuria sua.  and out of wantonness averts himself from receiving the Sacrament, and in observing the Mysteries declines from the constituted rule of Discipline, we decree such a one to be cast out of the Church.] So C. omnes fideles. [All the faithful who come to the Church in the sacred Solemnities (of Easter, Christmas, etc.) let them hear the Scriptures of the Apostles, and the Gospels; but they that persevere not in Prayer whilst Mass is finished, nor receive the holy Communion, it is fit they be deprived of Communion, as raising disturbances of the Church.]   

Chap. 2. Sect. 1.  
136. He saith, 
Pag 76. Euchir. c. 1. n. 31.  It is taught by Navarre, that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy-days, and at Easter, yet by the Law of God they are not tied to so much, but only to repent in the Article or danger of Death; and he saith that for this, Navarre quotes Pope Adrian, and Card. Cajetan, and affirms is to be the sense of all men: When Navarre hath not a word to any such purpose, in the number quoted. And n. 27. (where he purposely speaks of this matter, and was perhaps meant by the Doctor) Navarre neither affirms it to be the sense of all men, nor teaches it himself, nor quotes P. Adrian, or Card. Cajetan for it; but only teaches, That though a man ought all the while that he is in mortal sin to take care to repent of it; according to S. Thomas and the common opinion, and namely Card. Cajetan; yet he is not bound to it by a Precept obliging to new mortal sin, unless at that time when it occurs to his memory as to use, (that is, to desire or refuse it, to commit or omit it) according to the common opinion. Nay, nor at that time neither, for those reasons for which Adrian and Cajetan affirm it. And at length concludes, that according to all, we are bound to procure an act of contrition, in imminent danger of death, and whensoever we are to administer or receive any Sacrament, (which all are bound to, at Easter, or once a year) nay, and whensoever there is any great necessity of the people which requires servor of prayer to provide against it, according to Pope Adrian.  
137. To the same purpose he quotes Reginaldus, 
Pag. 76. Prax sori Poenit. l 5. c. 2. Sent. 4. n. 23.  as denying, that men are bound by the commandment of God, to an act of contrition, but only in the Article of death; when he only denies, that they are bound to it on Holidays, and affirms, that by the common opinion of all, the time in which a man is bound to it by any special commandment given by God touching contrition, (which word, special, the Doctor leaves out) is the imminent danger of death: but then adds, that besides the Article of death, there are other times in which we may be bound to an act of contrition, (meaning, when we are to administor or receive any Sacrament) all which the Doctor leaves out.  
138. He quotes Gultelmus de Rubeone, 
Pag. 80. & 81.  Tolet, Maldonat, etc. as teaching, that if a man he never so little sorrowful for his sins, it is sufficient with the Sacrament to obtain pardon for the greatest sins: whereas they spoke not of any little intention or degree of sorrow absolutely, but within the species of contrition; which contrition no sorrow can be, as they teach, unless it be a detestation of sin above all things detestable.   

Sect. 3.  
139. He saith, 
Pag 86. V. Satisf. n. 10.  the Penitent may get some body else to do his penance for him, and quotes for it Sa: whereas Sa saith no such thing absolutely, (as he quotes him) but with two conditions, which the Doctor conceals: viz. 1. That it be with the licence of his Confessarius. 2. Or when he cannot do it by himself.  
140. To the same purpose, 
L. 3. Instr. Sac. c. 11. n 6.  he quotes Tolet, who hath not a word to that purpose, in the place quoted; and where he doth speak of it, n. 13. he saith not, The Penitent may get some body else to do his Penance for him, as he quotes it, but directly denies it, unless in some case. [If the Confessarius do not impose Penance with a liberty to the Penitent to do it by himself, or another; the Penitent hath no faculty to fulfil it by another, unless there be a necessity, as by reason of infirmity, or some impossibility.  
141. He saith, 
Pag. 99 Qu. 37. de jud. Prop. 3.  Cordubensis expressly affirms, that he that sins in hope of an Indulgence gains it: when he doth not affirm it absolutely, but only saith, that standing in the rigour of such a grant, it seems to be probable.  
142. He saith, 
Pag 102.  Espenceus gives this account of our Taxa Camerae Apostolicae, that it is a Book in which a man may learn more wickedness, then in all the Summaries of Vices published in the world; and yet to them that will pay for it, there is to many given a Licence, to all an Absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins: setting down these later in such a manner, as the Reader may easily think them the words of Espenceus; when they are not; nor doth Espenceus say, in all the Summaries of Vices, but simply, in all the Summaries: nor doth that Book of Taxa Camerae, give any Absolution, and much less Licence for any sin, to such as will pay for it, but only to abridge the Court from unlimited and arbitrary impositions in that kind, taxes a mulct, to be paid for some pious use, by way of penance, afore Absolution shall be had.   

Sect. 7.  
143. He quotes these as Tolet's words, 
Pag. 113. L 5. c. 6 n. 15.  If a Noble man be set upon, and may escape by going away, he is not tied to it, but may kill him that intends to strike him with a stick;] But falsely: for Tolet's words are these, [If a Noble man being set upon, might save his life by flying, he is not bound (if thence he contract infamy) to fly, but may kill his enemy, if he cannot otherwise defend life with honour. Likewise, if he cannot avoid a notable injury to be put upon him (as if there be preparation to beat him with bills (or staves) for then he may kill his enemy. 
fustium percussionem paratam   
144. He quotes these as Tolet's words, 
Pag. 114. L. 5 c. 13. n. 10.  [If a man desires carnal pollution, that he may be eased of his carnal temptations, or for his health, it were no sin:] when his words in the place quoted were these; [Mollities (or voluntary carnal pollution) is not lawful, either for health, or life, or any end whatsoever.] And n. 4. (which perhaps the Doctor means) Tolet saith only this; [If a man should desire involuntary pollution in sleep, for a good end, as for health, or for easing the tentations of the flesh, with which in the day time he is afflicted, it would be no sin, so that the desire be not such as may be cause of the pollution, etc.]  
145. He quotes these as Tolet's words; It is lawful for a man to expose his Bastards to the Hospital, 
Pag. 114. L. 5. c 11. n. 5.  to conceal his own shame:] when, in the number quoted, Tolet hath nothing to that purpose; and n. 10. where he hath these words that the Doctor quotes, he clogs them with a condition, which the Doctor omits, and much altars the case, [So that the Father and Mother restore to the Hospital, all Charges, if they be able.]  
146. He quotes these as Tolet's words out of Soto, 
Pag. ead. L. 8. c. 39 n. 4.  and he from Tho. Aquinas; If the times be hard, or the Judge unequal, a man that cannot sell his Wine at a due price, may lawfully make his measures less than is appointed, or mingle water with his wine, etc.] when in the Chapter and number quoted, Tolet hath nothing to that purpose: and cap. 49. n. 5. where he speaks of this matter, he states not the case in that manner as the Doctor quotes him, but thus: [One cannot sell his wine, at the just (that is, the taxed price) either by reason of the iniquity of the Judge, or the malice of buyers, (who agree among themselves that few shall buy, to the end to bring down the price) or some other reasonable cause: then he may lessen his measure, or mix a little water, and sell it for pure wine, and complete measure, taking the just price, etc.]  
147. He saith, 
Pag. ead. Aphor. tit. Deb. Conjug 6.  Emanuel Sa affirms, That if a man lie with his intended Wife before marriage, it is no sin, or a light one; nay, it is good to do so, if the benediction, or publication of marriage, be much deferred: which is a gross falsification, for Sa spoke not of lying with her afore Marriage, but only afore the Benediction. [To come together afore the Benediction, is no sin, or a light one; yea, it is expedient, if it (that is, the Benediction) be much delayed.]  
149. He saith, 
Pag. ead. De Ador. l 3. Disp. 1. c. 2.  Vasquez saith, That not only an Image of God, but any creature, may without danger be worshipped with God, as his Image: which he saith not, but that any other creature, out of the nature of the thing, and danger seeluded, may be worshipped, etc.]  
150. He saith, 
Pag. ead. De Ador. l. 3. Disp 1. c. 5. sect. 33.  Vasquez saith, That it is no sin to worship a ray of light, in which the Devil is invested, if a man supposeth him to be Christ, and quotes for it, his Chap. 5. sect. 33. whereas that Chapter hath no Sections; nor doth Vasquez say any such thing in that Chapter, but only this; That in a ray of light which appears, a man may out of a right intention and affection toward God, worship that ray; and although the Devil should be there, yet no affection of servitude, or exterior note of submission, would be exhibited to him.   

Sect. 9  
151. He saith, 
Pag. 124. Com. in Prov. 8 17.  Quirinus de Salazar affirms, That the Virgin Mary by offering up Christ to God the Father, was worthy to have (after a certain manner) that the whole Salvation and Redemption of mankind should be ascribed to her, etc. whereas Quirinus affirms there the direct contrary. [Illud imprimis exploratum est apud Catholicos, etc. In the first place, that is most certain among Catholics, that the Virgin was not the principle, or cause of our Salvation, (for Christ alone finished the whole business by his Passion, entirely satisfying our debt) but only that by her impetration she in some manner promoted and helped it.] That therefore which he Rhetorically adds afterward, in confutation of one that compared her scornfully to a purse full of Gold, which when the Gold is out of it is little worth itself; [That because she had that in common with Christ, that she may be truly and properly said, to have given and offered the price of our Redemption, as he had afore cited out of S. Jerome, and other Fathers, therefore also with him she carries all those Titles and Names which are used to be given to Christ, etc.] meant no more, then as he explicated himself both afore and after out of the Fathers, that she contributed to our Salvation, by her prayers for it, and offering up her Son willingly to that end. Afore, thus. [That is to be premised, that the holy Fathers do attribute so much to the B. Virgin, that they will have her to be some cause of our Salvation: not by satisfying or satis-giving for sin, son that belongs to Christ alone, but by impetrating it for us. So Irenaeus; She was made the cause of Salvation to all mankind. So S. Chrysostom, etc.] And presently after these words, thus. [Therefore because the Virgin, by her Prayers, contributed somewhat to our Salvation, truly in my opinion that seems to be sufficient, that she may be called, a Cause, Auctress, or Mediatress of our Salvation, as others who also prayed, etc.]  
152. He saith, 
Pag. 133.  It is a famous saying of S. Gregory, that the Bodies of many persons are worshipped on Earth, whose Souls are tormented in Hell. But he quotes no place for it, nor hath S. Gregory any such words in any place.  
153. He quotes Augustinus Triumphus as affirming, 
Pag. 133. Q 14. ad 4.  that all who are Canonised by the Pope, cannot be said to be in Heaven; who there saith no such thing.  
154. He quotes Prateolus, 
Pag. ead. Verb. Hermanus.  how the body of one Herman, after he had been for twenty years honoured for a Saint, was taken up and burnt; as if he had been honoured for a Saint by authority of the Church: whereas Prateolus meant no such thing, but only that he had been so honoured, by the simple vulgar, or perhaps the Heretics his followers.   

Chap. 3. Sect. 2.  
155. He qoutes Sa, 
Pag. 162. Aphor. verb. Clericus.  as expressly teaching, That the rebellion of a Clergyman against his Prince is not treason, because he is not his Prince's Subject: when Sa hath not a word to any such purpose. And he saith, These words, though left out of the Edition of Paris, yet still remain in the Editions of Antwerp and Colen: which is false too; for my Edition is of Antwerp, and in that, they are not.   

Sect. 3.  
156. He saith, 
Pag. 170. Resp. ad Apol. pro Juram. fidel.  Bellarmin dares not deny, the Oration published under the name of Sixtus V. to be none of his; when, in the very place quoted for it, he doth expressly deny it. [I answer, that there is no Oration of Sixtus V. extant, but among the enemies of the Church, who set out Anti-Sixtus. But although no credit ought to be given to an enemy, nor although he were no enemy, credit could be given to him, etc.]  
FINIS.