Truth Will out: OR, A Discovery of some Untruths Smoothly told by Dr. JEREMY TAYLOR In his DISSUASIVE From POPERY: With an Answer to such Arguments as deserve ANSWER.  
By his Friendly Adversary Ed▪ Worsley  Ergo inimicus vobis factus sum verum dicens vobis? Gal. 4. 16. 
Printed, in the Year, 1665.   

THE EPISTLE To the READER.  
WE say, all is not Gold that Glisters, and that Most worth lies not ever hid under a fair Outside. A Comet seems sometimes as glorious as a Star; a Parelion like the Sun; and Falshood got under a handsome Wizard well trimmed up, may take with many and pass Disguised for current Truth: But such slight Beauty beguiles not long. True Worth undoes it. The Sun's lasting Glory, the Stars constant Brightness, enough Dislustres both Parelion and Comet: And Truth, though perhaps it may not here quite vanquish Falsehood (for Some will Defend it to the World's end) is able at least to pull of its Gaudy Wizard, and put it out of Countenance.  
A World of this Counterfeit Lustre, we have now a days in Books, set forth (as is pretended) to Beautify the Heaven of Christianity, and Englighten a People that sit in Darkness. One I have met with ('tis the Dissuasive from Popery) that Parelion▪ like in a Triple Cloud is (as I am told) Gloriously out in three Editions; and lately appeared in the two Kingdoms of England and Ireland. More I believe have been Gazing on it then well discovered the faulty Lustre: Real Worth I cannot mention; for what find we I beseech you considerable in this Book, but a useless Repetition of old defeated Objections? which have now for a whole Age run through a few Vulgar worn-out Controversies, and in Rigour require only a Return of the Old Answers given a hundred times by Catholic Writers: new Arguments, which one might have expected from so Great a Doctor, seldom appear. You have moreover, more than a few Mistakes relating to Catholic Doctrine: Want enough of Divinity: A seeming Zeal, ('tis true) but ill seasoned with Jeers and harsher Language: Calumnies vented: Talk and no Proof. Here is, what I think, the Doctor must own, the Inside and best substance of his Dissuasive.  
The Flash therefore and fair Lustre of his Book lies neither in the choice of Matter, nor manner of handling it; but in specious Quotations that flourish in the Margins. These set down in the ensuing Treatise, I have carefully examined; Read with my own Eyes in the Original Authors; (not one have I taken on trust) and after a diligent search must profess with all Candour; not one (worth notice) have I found, but 'tis either wholly impertinent to what he would Prove; or strangely wrested to a sinister Sense; or not found at all in the Original (nor a Word like it:) Or finally, (which is most usual and to be pitied in a Doctor) unpardonably corrupted. To insist on every less valuable Authority, or on such as show themselves Profless even Read in the Dissuasive, would be Time misspent, and weary a Reader. These I offer to your View, are of the grosser Sort; and Numerous enough to Evidence that the Doctors pretended Faultless Book is Proved Faulty; and no more powerful to Dissuade from Popery, than Error is to draw men from Truth.  
Far am I off from the Doctor's Humour, in Judging this small Treatise Faultless. I willingly acknowledge many Faults, but know not how to mend Them. One is, no little want of English; but this I hope dear Reader you will easily Pardon; I am sure you would, did you but know how long I have been a Stranger to my Country. An other is, too tedious a length sometimes in Latin Sentences: The Fault (if any) is unavoidable: For while the Charge is laid on ill Quotations, the Right ones must appear, and in their proper Terms. To give an Authors Meaning only, and Wave his Words seems Forceless: And in stead of laying Difficulties may Raise up more. Where it most Imports I have done my best to English the Latin faithfully, Ad pedem literae: the Translation therefore cannot but look Rugged; yet that is better, then to have the Genuine Sense miscarry in smother Language. Lastly, a harsher Word may perhaps, through haste or unawares, have casually fallen from me; if so, I here unsay it, and Humbly crave Pardon: And were my Papers (now out of my reach) in my Hands again, I would in this Correct whatever might justly seem offensive.  
If Doctor Taylor shall please to warn me of greater Faults, I'll thank him for his Charity: And if he thinks it worth his Pains to take notice of my Exceptions against his Book, my earnest Request is, that he misspend not Time in Trifles, nor weigh only lesser Matters, while he hath greater charged on him that justly require Satisfaction. For Example: I have plainly taxed him of wrong done to Sixtus Senensis, to the Expurgatory Index, to Petrus Lombardus, Otho Erisingensis, and others in the beginning of my Treatise; let him as plainly Purge himself in these Particulars, and show me my Error: for most certainly I have either wronged him, or he these Authors. I press him afterward with undeniable Authorities of most Ancient Fathers, both for the Use and Worship of Holy Images. His express Answer is herein required also, chief to St. Basil, and St. john Damascen. I have told him of his Forging strange Doctrines, and Fathering them on Tolet, Suarez, Bellarmin, Emanuel Sa, and others: If he be injured he can Right himself, and show where Sa affirms, That if a man lies with his intended Wife before Marriage it is no sin, or a light one. Whether the true Sense of Bellarmin in his Quotation, pag. 167. be not wholly perverted, If the Pope should Err by Commanding, etc. These for an Essay only; more you will have, and of greater Concernment hereafter. May it please the Doctor to clear himself by a solid Answer, he'll hearten me to Reply: Or if he can produce against me but one Quotation so foully amiss as that one Charged on Emanuel Sa (to say nothing of many worse) I do here profess a Readiness, and will comply with it, to publish my Fault to the Whole World. O, would he Encourage himself to proceed with like Candour! and unsay only what his own Conscience knows Faulty in his Dissuasive, he might be Eternally Glorious. And why should I forbid myself to hope for so Laudable a Retractation? Justice requires it: Conscience forcibly presses: Truth, that suffers, strongly Pleads for it: Christian Humility easily submits: And Gods Victorious Grace is now no less Powerful to do this Work on him, than once it was to Reclaim a Blessed St. Austin. Quare Arripe obsecro te (they are the Pious and well meant Words of this Saint, Tom. 2. Epist. 9 to a Great Doctor, and my Submissive Petition to Doctor Taylor.) Arripe obsecro te; ingenuan, & vere Christianam cum charitate severitatem ad illud (tuum) opus corrigendum, atque emandandum & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut dicitur, cane: Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est Veritas Christianorum quam Helena Graecorum, etc. Such I say is my Petition presented to our Doctor: and if the Love of Truth bears sway in his Breast, yield he needs must to a speedy retractation. Nothing can Retard him from so generous a Resolution, but either Motives of interest drawn from a naughty World; or his own once vented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So, (forsooth) he hath said in his Dissuasive, and so it must stand: though all run to Ruin, and Christianity suffers.  
The Doctor I confess hath been most Unluckily in broaching Heresies, and wanting Grace to retract them. Some years are now past since he was so Unfortunate as to become a Patron of the Pelagian Heresy; when ex professo he Writ a Book against Original sin, and stoutly defended it: and being Friendly told by his own Brethren, that what he said was not only opposite to Catholic Faith, but also to the very Doctrine of the Church of England expressly delivered in her Liturgy, in 39 Articles, in the Office of Baptism, etc. He had yet the boldness to deny all, and assert that the Church of England held not Original Sin, though both Prince and Prelate knew then and believed the contrary. I know not that he ever yet Recanted this Heresy; if not, 'tis now high Time to do it: and with it, to Weep for the Errors in his Dissuasive: if he fails in both Duties, the World will say (and say truly) that Dr. Taylor is Notior peccans quam paenitens; more known for his Sin then for his Repentance; and may Prudently Judge that he of all others was the unfittest Man to Write against Popery that disowns the Doctrine of his own Church: unless this makes him fit; that being a Pelagian, his Words (though he multiplies Volumes) will want weight against Catholics: For this is my reflection (and I think a true one) that this man who dared to say that the Church of England holds not Original Sin, so plainly taught and believed by all; will not Boggle to miscite the Fathers, remote from our knowledge, Read by few, and Understood by fewer.  
Farewell Gentle Reader, with a thousand well-wishes for thy profiting by this Treatise; I bestow as many on Dr. Taylor, whose Enemy (God knows) I am not: Nor can he think me one, for laying out his Errors, and telling Truth: Upon this very Account he ought (and I hope will) to return me Thanks. If now I Merit none, I may hereafter have better Luck and deserve them. If plain dealing may do it, he shall have Reason to account me, as indeed I am, his Faithful True SERVANT, and Friendly ADVERSARY.  
E. W.   

QUOTATIONS Faulty in DOCTOR TAILOR'S PREFACE To the READER.  
TO destroy Tradition not contained in Scripture, the Doctor citys Tertullian thus, I adore the fullness of Scripture, and if it be not written, let Hermogenes fear the Woe that is destined to them that detract from, or add to it. I answer, the Dr. turns the true genuine sense out of this whole sentence, chief by these guileful particles of his own making: And if it be not written, which seem exclusive of all unwritten tradition; yet this Authority no more relates to Catholic Doctrine concerning Tradition, than a Fable in Aesop. Briefly therefore; Tertullian, disputing against Hermogenes that held these visible things were created of I know not what prejacent matter; speaks thus: Lib. adversus Hermog. Antwerp Print cap. 22. page 495. In principio, etc. In the beginning God made heaven and Earth: then adds; Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, I adore the fullness of Scripture: Wherein? in what doth he adore this fullness? He answers, Qua mihi & factorem manifestat & facta, I adore the fullness of Scripture, that doth manifest to me both the Maker, and things made; As who should say, in this particular the Scripture is complete, and I adore its fullness, etc. Now these last words, Qua mihi & factorem, etc. which explain the Father's sense, our Dr. wholly omits, and beguiles his Reader with these perverted particles, if it be not written: Tertullian, after those words [In Evangelio vero amplius] goes on, An autem de aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi: Whether all these things be made of a subjacent matter, I never yet read: Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina; Let Hermogenes his Workhouse show us that this particular is written. Si non est Scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, aut detrahentibus destinatum; If this thing now in controversy concerning the prejacent matter Hermogenes asserts, be not written; let him justly fear that Woe destined to them that detract from Scripture, or add to it. Here is exactly the whole context of Tertullian; and it renders this sense; Hermogenes holds the world made of a strange unknown matter: The Scripture directly tells us how it was made and Created of nothing. I adore the fullness of Scripture in this particular; let therefore Hermogenes (when the Scripture hath clearly said all that belongs to the first Creation of things) prove by Scripture that unknown matter he defends; if he cannot, he may well fear that Woe threatened to such as detract from Scripture, or add to it a prejacent matter never mentioned in it. Judge good Reader whether this Quotation have so much as a likelihood of gainsaying any constant received Tradition in the Church. The Dr. may reply, as Hermogenes added to Scripture his unknown matter, so we add our unknown Traditions: I answer first, what Hermogenes defended was not only an addition, but expressly contrary to Holy Scripture, declaring that God made the World of Nothing: No Catholic Tradition is expressly or positively opposite to Gods written Word (unknown tradition we own not) 2. Hermogenes had no such approved consent for his foolery, as we have for our Catholic, and ever received Tradition; justly therefore did Tertullian oppugn him by the Authority of Scripture only; for destitute he was of all warranted Tradition: 3. The Doctrine of our Tradition (not a pretended one, or any superaddition of new Articles, as the Dr. imputes to us) is expressly allowed of by Scripture itself; the place is known 2 Thessa. 2. 14. and enervates what ever hath the colour of an objection against us.  
He citys next St. Basil de vera fide, whose words are these Paris Print 1618. Tom. 2. page 251. Haud dubie manifestissimum hoc infidelitatis argumentum fuerit, & signum superbiae certissimum, si quis eorum quae Scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere, aut eorum quae non Scripta introducere: Without doubt this is a most manifest Argument of infidelity, if one will reject any one of those things which are written (these words our Dr. omits, to make the Quotation sound to his sense) or, of those things which are not written, introduce; to wit, into Scripture; and so the St. explicates himself clearly in these following words— Vehementissime interdicat ne quid corum quae in Divinis literis habeantur, dematur, aut quod absit, addatur: Which is in plain English to say, Add we must not, nor diminish any thing in Scripture. No Catholic pretends to make that Scripture, which is not Scripture: Nor to diminish so much as one jot in that sacred Book: You see therefore, so forceless this Authority is to gainsay received Tradition, that it doth not so much as touch upon the very Question: As proofless also are those other two Quotations in the Doctor's Margin out of St. Basil's Morals; for regula 72. C. 1. in the same Edition, page 372. He only speaks as the Apostle doth; Though an Angel Preach another Gospel then what is Preached, let him be Anathematised, and reg. 80. cap. 22. pag. 386. he saith no more, but that we must believe the true force of those things that are in Scripture; reject nothing, or make any thing new, extra divinam Scripturam; that is, as I interpret, without the warranty of Scripture: but the Scripture indubitably warrants the declarations of Councils (witness the Nicen definitions) and constant received Tradition of the Church. Therefore this Authority also is wholly impertinent to the Doctor's purpose.  
Who next, to oppose Tradition, citys Theoph. Alexandrinus in English, thus; It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine, that is not in the Authority of Holy Scripture. I Answer, here are three faults in this one Quotation: First, The words are not faithfully cited; Secondly, They are weighed outof their circumstances, and wrested contrary to the Author's meaning; Thirdly, Were they as the Doctor would have them, they prove nothing against Tradition. Briefly, all know how sharp an Adversary Theop. Alex. was to Origen and his followers; He writ expressly against his errors, but that work is not extant; and in his 2. Epist. paschali cited by the Doctor (you have it Tom. 4. Biblioth. Patrum, Cullen Print 1618. pag. 716.) after he had checked Origen for his rashness, for broaching Fopperies of his own head, and arrogantly making himself his own Master, contrary to St. Paul's Humility who conferred the Gospel with other Apostles: He speaks thus of Origen solely; Sed ignorans quod Daemoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi, & aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum: But not knowing that it is an instinct of a Devilish spirit to follow the sophistry or deceit of man's Wit (these words which fully express the Author's sense our Doctor totally omit's) or to think any thing divine, not authorized, or without the Authority of Holy Scripture: So Theophilus; who, as you see, wholly here relates to Origen's private errors, condemns his Pride, opposeth his sophistry and boldness, in making himself a master of new Fancies, but toucheth not the least on Catholic Doctrine, concerning unwritten Tradition: and though the Doctor draws him to such a sense; it is soon answered, that Catholic Tradition, so expressly approved by Scripture, cannot be thought a Doctrine extra Scripturae authoritatem, without warrant of God's Word. Now if he tells us that he opposeth not any ancient Tradition, but our pretended one only that found's New Articles, New Propositions, etc. I Answer, He merely combats with shadows; we neither own such a Tradition, nor can the Doctor prove it: He should have first named one or two of these New Articles, and then assaulted us with the Authority of Fathers directly opposite to our Doctrine, and not wink and fight, as he doth against no man knows what. If he says again, that he impugns all Tradition in general, all Doctrine not expressly contained in Scripture; forced he is, not only to throw away Scripture itself, and the Nicen definitions: not only to disclaim a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence, Baptising Children, etc. but every tenet of Protestant Religion (as Protestanism) E. G. the belief of two Sacraments only, which is not at all contained in Scripture, nor can it be drawn from Scripture by any probable discourse or gloss of Protestant testants, though these are worse, and less able to derive unto us a true belief, than the poorest tradition (were any such) that the Doctor can except against in the Catholic Church. When the Doctor pleaseth, I am ready to discuss this sole point with him of proving Protestant Tenets by Scripture only: I believe he will not accept the Challenge.  
Against the worshipping of Images, he citys Lactantius, lib. 2 cap. de Orig. Error: observe, I beseech you. Lactantius hath seven Books de Divin. Instit. adversus gentes, the Title to his second Book is de Origine erroris, which contains ninty Chapters; and our Doctor unskilfully throws the Title of the whole Book into a Chapter not found at all in the Author, either in my Copy, ann. 1465. or in that extent Biblioth. Patrum saeculo 3. pag. 224. However Chap. 18. these words are found, Quare non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubicunque simulacrum est, which the Doctor unworthily translates thus, Without all peradventure wherever an Image is (meaning for Worship) there is no Religion; I say unworthily (and it pities me to see so much want of candour) for here a sense is rendered, as if Lactantius declaimed against the use and worship of Images among Christians; whereas it is more than evident, that he only speaks against Simulacra, (not Images) against the Idols, and Gods of the Gentiles: Non sub pedibus quaerat Deum, saith he, in the beginning of this eighteenth Chapter; None is to seek for his God under his feet: Nec a vestigijs suis eruat quod adoret, Nor pull from under his footsteps what he is to adore: Sed quaerat in sublimi, quaerat in summo, Let him look for God above in Heaven, etc. The Worship therefore of one Supreme God, Lactantius chief presseth in this whole second book: In his first Chapter he tells us, that he had above demonstrated the false Religion of many Gods; and that in this second Book, he declares against the Gentiles, the cause or Origen of their multiplying many gods. In his second Chapter he saith, That though the Image of a man absent be necessary, yet to circumscribe God, diffused every where, in any form, is both needless and superfluous; afterward he shows that no deceased men, nor any thing in this world ought to be adored as God. In his fourth Chapter he gives this reason, Unde apparet istos deos nihil in se habere amplius quam materiam de quâ sunt fabricati: These gods have nothing but only the matter they are made of. In his eighth Chapter he proposeth the question how these false Gods of the Gentiles did work strange wonders, and prosecutes the same subject in his ninth Chapter. In a word, Lactantius through this whole Treatise, speaks no more against the Catholic use of Images, than I do now while I defend them; yet hear we must the Doctor talk, and without all peradventure, as if he had read where an Image is, there is no Religion; without all peradventure the good man is deceived. I say no more: To what he next citys out of Origen, we shall answer hereafter. Now to the Doctor's Chapters and Sections.   

CHAP. I.  
Of the Doctor's ungrounded discourse, to the wrongful charge on Catholics, for making new Articles in Faith.  
TOugh my task be chief to follow the Doctor in his Quotations, and note, (as he goes along) some few of his many Errors: Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with, Chapter the first: It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith, and weaken the Authority of the most Ancient Councils.  
Page then the fourth and first Section, he holds the two Testaments, the words of Christ and of the Apostles, the Fountains of Faith; (which none denies) but next he adds; Whatsoever caeme in after these, foris est, is to be cast out, it belongs not unto Christ. This latter assertion (to say no more) hath too much of the harshness in it: for the difinitions of the Nicen Council, and of the other three general Councils, with St. Athanasius his Creed, came in after the words of Christ, and Holy Scripture; are these, Think ye, like old Garments to be laid a side, or cast out, as not at all belonging to Christ? belong they do most certainly, as Rivers to their Fountains, though not owned as Original Springs, and the first Foundations of our Faith. Observe therefore, I beseech you, how the Doctor deals with us, how he leads us on in darkness, whilst he sets men a seeking after the Fountains of Faith, but with it, turns by the Stream, cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them; that is in a word, he makes null all Authority that can assert with certainty, Such were the Words of Christ, such the Doctrine of the Apostles, etc.  
Judge whether I say not aright, and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely, or indubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred? If he answers Scripture; the Question returns again, and he is asked a new, who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture? If the Fathers, they are, with him, Fallible, yes, and full of ambiguous senses. If the Church, that (saith he) is changeable, hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith; if Councils, not one is found but liable to Error. Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Fountains of Faith, destroy the certainty of such Witnesses, say that no man, or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath, (without a possibility of erring) assured us that Christ spoke, that the Evangelists writ as they did; the whole Scripture, God knows, will be cast aside also; yes, and become a comfortless, an unwarranted Book. Whence follow's a total ruin of Christian Religion. This is not my assertion, but the great St. Augustine's (the Quotation is known) Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei, cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, etc. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it.  
Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines, pag. 4. where he saith; To these (that is to Scripture) we add, not as Authors, but as helpers of our Faith, and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the sentiments and Catholic Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles; not that we think, etc. I Answer: Here is, no man knows what, confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous Words; Heirs and Helpers: to get out of darkness, I might first demand; how knows the Doctor now exactly, what the Sentiments, or Catholic Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles? The Proposal of our present Church (overgrown, as he saith, with a thousand Errors) is an infufficient warranty: Both Fathers, and Councils were even then Fallible; and had they been Infallible, their writings since that, may perhaps have fallen into ill hands, and lost their purity. But I wave this discourse; and propose to our present purpose this Question only. Are we Christians now being, obliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church, as undoubted Helpers, as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth, or no? if not: They cast us wholly upon uncertainties, and may as well help us on to Err, as hit right: if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth; Scripture must assure it, (for saith the Doctor, To believe any thing Divine, that is not Scripture, is a divillish spirit) and undoubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ, there was a society of men, not liable to Error, that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish, faithfully transmitted it to Posterity, etc. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is, to produce that Scripture, which purifies the Ancient Church only, and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spurious in Doctrine, fearfully despicable, and liable to Error. Thus much I am confident he shall never show: for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church, promised he would be with it to the end of the World. God's all-seeing providence drives not on his work by halfs, nor leaves his Church when the Doctor's fancy listeth: Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages: He shed his Sacred Blood for All; if then he secured his Church from Error, and directed Souls into Truth; he doth the like favour now, and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falsehood.  
All therefore the Doctor saith here, is a deceitful Paralogism, yes, and Paradoxes, not to be tolerated. A Paradox it is, to talk of Heirs, and Helpers of Apostolical Doctrine, and rob them of their Infallibility. A Paradox it is to say, that these Heirs, and Helpers sent Million of Souls into the Bosom of Christ, and cast more Million in after Ages out of his Bosom, for want of true Faith. A Paradox it is, that Christ only remained with his Church for a time, and then left it destitute of Divine Assistance; yes, and in points most Fundamental. But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one, is; That now towards an end of the World, a new sort of unknown men (the Doctor is one) will become our Teachers, and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church, and when he leaped out of it. He was with it, say they, for some three or four hundred years, and then left it, fluctuating, tossed, and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a deluge of Errors. And credit this we must upon their bare word, because they say it; without Sctipture, without Reason, yes, expressly contrary to both, and all Ancient Authority.  
The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only, quotes St. Austin in his Margin, pag. 4. de unit. ecclesiae cap. 3, & 4. 5. but both mangles his words, and conceals the force of his Argument. Sunt certe (saith the Saint) libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus, utrique credimus, etc. There are certain books of our Lord (He means Scripture) to whose Authority we both yield, we both believe: Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam, Let us look for the Church there etc. That is, seeing we both, who now dispute, admit of Scripture, and believe it, let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture: which is an excellent way of Arguing; but if any question the Authority of Scripture itself, take it we must (when we make a right Analysis) upon the Church's Authority solely, and say with St. Austin: I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church.  
I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more than indubitably Conquerors (mere empty words) and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble, pag. 7th. where he saith; Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it. I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion, (no more in Scripture then Arianism) as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith: But briefly, I argue thus; A Church secured from Error, and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture, or cannot: If the first, there was, is, and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable, and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith, nor (by intromitting Novelties) destroy Apostolical Doctrine; for the Scripture, (as we now suppose) saith so, and what it saith is true. One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians; and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians, that are not of this Moral body; my demand is reasonable, and require's no long discourse, nor any definition of a Church, but to have this unerring company designed, and candidly.  
If the Scripture Warrant's not such an Infallible company of Christians; the Doctor (though he pretend to it) can never believe with a true, and infallible Act of Supernatural faith, that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholic Doctrine; that it sent Million of Souls to Heaven: That what we now read, is the Apostles Creed; that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions; No, nor that there ever was, or is now, Pure, and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians: I say, he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith, but at most with a mere opinative Judgement, which may as well be wrong, as right; false, as true: staggering assuredly it is, and not steady (if a mere Opinion) yes, and wholly destitute of that strength, which God requires to Supernatural Faith.  
In his 10th. page he is fierce against the Church of Rome, for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith, but of making new Symbols, and Creeds, and imposing them as necessary to Salvation. To this purpose he citys the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther; whose twenty seventh Proposition is this, and condemned; Certum est, in manu Ecclesiae, aut Papae, non esse statuere Articulos fidei, imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum. It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church, or Pope, to appoint, or determine Articles of Faith, nor Laws of manners, or good Works.  
First, here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds; and the word statuere may as well signify to determine a Question not yet decided, as to make any thing a new; but to pass these niceties, and show clearly the Doctor's Error: I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians? whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like? who was no Pope. What the Doctor's Answer is here, is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages.  
And I would have him to reflect, that as he now cavil's at both Pope, and Church, for constituting new Articles; so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council, and Athanasius his Creed; yes, and cried out, Novelties, novelties, as loud as the Doctor. In a word then, I answer, with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit. XVI post. med. pag. 1164. 6. edit. Antwerp. 1615. that, per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum: With time Faith increased, hut how? not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure, or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture, or ancient Tradition; No, but the Power given them is to dispense the Mysteries of the Word of God, to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture, (so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council, when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father, which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture) Finally, to declare more explicitly what the Ancient Tradition of the Church, and sense of the Fathers hath been; within such a compass the Church holds itself, when after mature deliberation it defines in Council.  
Hence both Divines, and Canonists teach; that rigorously speaking, the Church hath no new Articles of Faith; but only a more full, and explicit knowledge of that belief, which anciently was among Primitive Christians; yet none there is, that reads our Doctor, both in the page now cited, and elsewhere after; but must have this persuasion wrought in him, that the Church and Pope, may define as it were at Random; make new Articles, new Creeds as they list; and impose them as necessary to Salvation. All is false, and fraudulent dealing.   

CHAP. II.  
The Doctor's Quotations not true. His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius. His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis.  
THe Doctor in his tenth page, to prove our making new Articles, citys Augustinus Triumphus de Ancon●a quaest. 59 Art. 1 & 2. and pitifully abuseth that Catholic Author, who in his resolution Art. 1. ●▪ concludes thus; Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo, ubi vult, quod omnis symboli condendi, & ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas. I Answer, St Austin resolves this Question, lib. 1. de symbolo, Where he saith, That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church. (Mark first St. Augustine's words; Omnis authoritas condendi & ordinandi, etc.) Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution, (wrongfully interpreted, and unhandsomely mangled by the Doctor) Ex his patere potest, quod novum symbolum condere, solum ad Papam spectat; nam in symbolo ponuntur illa, quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem: By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope; for those things are set down in a Symbol, which Universally concern Christian Faith. These last words which explicate both St. Augustine's, and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out by the Doctor: Briefly then, condere Symbolum are St. Augustine's words; and both in his sense, and this Authors, stand consignificant with Ordinare; which is not to make a Novelty in Faith, but to reduce to a Method, or short form those Points which Christians both now do believe, and have anciently believed in the general; most evidently this is Anconitanus his sense: First, by the words now cited (Nam in symbolo ponuntur illa, quae Universaliter, etc.) 2. By the express Doctrine in his resolution, where he saith; Una fuit fides antiquorum, & modernorum, one Faith there was anciently; And now; 3. by his answer to the 2d. Argument Art. 2d. Ad secundum est dicendum; quod ad illa quae in sacra Scriptura ponuntur, non debet fieri aliqua additio erroris, vel falsitatis, vel diminutio veritatis; sed addere veritatem, quam continet (Scriptura) explicare & semper licuit Ecclesiae, & semper licet. To the second Argument we say, That to those things which are in Holy Scripture, no addition of error, or falsehood is to be made, nor diminution of Truth. But to add a verity, which the Scripture contains, was, and is ever lawful in the Church.  
As he deals with Anconitanus, so he abuseth Panormitanus cap. cum Christus; the Doctor citys him thus; Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei, and leaves of there: But Panormitan's words are, Papa potest inducere novum Articulum fidei, declarando istud jus Divinum & ex hoc infertur quod ista Constitutio respicit praeterita. The The Pope can introduce a new Article of Faith by declaring it to be Divine; whence we have, that this constitution relates to things past. Mark; a declarative Sentence, and of things anciently believed.  
Lastly, he citys Ostiensis, and Ferdinandus de Inciso apud Petrum Ciezam, an Author I never heard of; but assuredly most false it is, that any Catholic Writer says; The Souls of men are in the hands of the Pope, and that in his Arbritration Religion doth consist.  
Page 12. he tells us of a story of the King of Spain giving Commission to purge all Catholic Authors, with such secrecy that the Expurgatory Index might not be imparted to any. Howsoever, saith he, by Divine providence Joannes Pappus, and Franciscus Junius 13 years after met with it, made it public; and since it came abroad against the Inquisitors wills; they own it, and have printed it themselves: Yet more: in their Index, some words in St. Chrisostom, others in St. Austin are commanded to be blotted out; yes, and Sixtus Senensis in his Epistle Dedicatory highly commends the Pope, Pius Quintus, for purging all Catholic Authors, and chief the writings of the Ancient Fathers. Thus the Doctor: and he lays a foul aspersion on us for corrupting of Witnesses, and razing out the Records of Antiquity.  
I answer that he is both false, and faulty through this whole Paragraph; faulty, in telling us of a clancular commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors, etc. without directing us to either Book, or Index where to find it: Faulty he is, in asserting (without nameing his Author) that the Inquisitors were forced to own the Expurgatory Index, because Pappus, and junius had first printed it against their wills; faulty, finally he is, for citing words razed out of St. Chrisostom by an Index expurgatorius, and leaving his Reader in darkness where to find the Quotations.  
Now to his falsities which are evident: In St. Chrisostoms works (saith he) Printed at Basil these words [The Church is not Built upon the Man, but upon the Faith] are commanded to be blotted out: yet they are read in his first Homily, upon that of St. john, Ye are my Friends. Here are two falsities: The first is, that these words are commanded to be blotted out of St. Chrisostom's works; whereas, most certainly the Prohibition falls only on St Chrisostom's Index made by Froben, Printer at Basil, or some of his Friends: And is it not gross to mistake the Index of a Book (drawn out by God knows whom) for the Author's Doctrine? If the Reader please to see, that I wrong not the Doctor, let him turn to this Index published by Cardinal Sandonal's order, and Printed at Madrid, anno 1612. pag 556. he shall read Ex D. johannis Chrisostomis Indice Basileae ex officina Frobeniana, deal sequentia: and, in the very next page (1. columna) soon after the middle these words of Frobens Index. Ecclesia non super hominem, sed supra fidem aedificata.  
The second Error is, that these words are found in the Homily now cited upon St. john; believe it, there is not a syllable like them in that Homily. Again, saith the Doctor, these words of St. Chrisostom [There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ] are commanded to be blotted out; yet, they are found in his Sermon upon Pentecost. Here are three Errors at once: First, the Index is taken for the Text: Secondly, Frobens words are not as the Doctor gives them, but thus: Salus nostra non ex merito nostro: Our Salvation is not by our merit, see the Index, pag. 558. 1. columna. 3. These words. There is no merit, etc. are not in the Homily of Pentecost, but in the other upon St. john; Ye are my Friends: and as they stand in St. Chrisostom's Text, are thus (Frobens Edition) Nullum in nobis meritum nisi quod contalit Christus. There is no Merit but what Christ gave us, which is most Catholic Doctrine. Again, those words: The Church is not built upon the man, etc. Are not in that Homily on St. john, Ye are my Friends: but in St. Chrisostom's Homily on Pentecost. In a word, to speak plain English, our Doctor cited Kim Kam, one Homily for an other, which may pass for a fault or falsity, make of it what you please. However, he may yet reply, though he miscited the places, at least grant we must, that those words, The Church is not built upon the man, etc. are extant in the Pentecost Homily; and the Index Expurgatory commands them to be razed out. I answer, that it commands them to be razed out of Frobens Index, is granted; out of St. Chrisostom's works, is denied; which yet our Doctor affirms: And herein john Pappus is the more honest man of the two, for he ingeniously confesseth in the 3d. page of his Preface, (anno 1599) that we never yet had the boldness to change or cancelate a word in the writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, read his 11th. line: Eo audaciae nondum proruperunt, etc. The Doctor may yet demand why then purge we Frobens Index, of words found in St. Chrisostom's Works? I answer, because, as they stand nudely in that Index devested of their precedent and subsequent words, they may render a harsher sense to a Captious Reader, and not sound well to any ear, though pondered with a further explication of the Author, they soon lose the harshness and clear themselves. And so really is this very sentence, if you'll compare it with those following words of St. Chrisostom in Frobens Edition: Hoc est, super confessionem, super sermones pietatis, etc. That is, Christ built his Church not upon the man, as man, but upon Peter, confessing and piously acknowledging his Saviour's Divinity, which Flesh and Blood taught him not, etc. You see therefore a sentence weighed out of its circumstances changes often most blameless Doctrine, and speaks well with them, less well without them. One only instance in Doctor Tailors 167. page shall serve for our purpose, where he citys Bellarmine thus: If the Pope should Err by commanding sin and forbidding Virtue, the whole Church were bound to believe that Vices were good, and Virtue evil; unless she would sin against her Conscience. These words are Bellarmin's, and as they stand in the Doctor, sound harshly, (and therefore he Quotes them) but read in Bellarmine they have an excellent sense, and directly prove that neither Church nor Pope can Err: whereof see more in the 28. Chapter of this Treatise: So true it is, that words as they run on in the Context of an Author, are often harmless, though stripped of their adjuncta, they may prove hurtful to a less diligent Reader. Our Doctor in his Dissuasive is almost endless, with these maimed and half-quoted Authorities.  
Observe lastly, good Reader, how unworthily the Doctor (pag. 13.) deals with Sixtus Senensis by turning the Genuine sense of his words into another, highly injurious: Mark I beseech you. Sixtus Praiseth Pope Pius the 5th. for purging the Ancient Fathers, vitiated by modern Heretics, etc. But our Doctor (for sooth) will not allow him this sense, but makes him speak as if he extolled the Pope for razing out the Fathers own Doctrine. To know the truth, read Sixtus his Epistle Dedicatory, (it is before his Bibliotheca) where he speaks thus to Pius Quintus: Deinde expurgari, & emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum, ac praecipuè Veterum Patrum Scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata, & venenis infecta. You have caused (saith he) all the writings of Catholic Authors, and chief the Ancient Fathers stained with the dregs of Heretics in this our Age, and poisoned with their Venom, to be purged, and made clear from blemish. What is here more offensive then to take Poison out of a sound body? Yet our Doctor to persuade the world, that Popes are ever busy in cancelating the Records of Antiquity, gives you only Sixtus his first words: You have purged the Ancient Fathers, etc. and there fraudulently leaves of, utterly concealing what follows, and clears all: Hereticorum, faecibus contaminata, etc. that is, You have purged the Ancient Fathers, contaminated with Heresy in these our days.  
Briefly then our Doctor by this Quotation would either have his Reader judge that Sixtus praised the Pope for blotting out the Authentic writings of the Fathers, or only for purging them from later Heresy: If the second, its worthy praise; if the first, viz. that the Pope is here commended for blotting out the writings of the Ancient Fathers (which is the only thing aimed at) I do affirm this a flat corruption, a wrong (as you see) to Sixtus. A gin to catch the unwary Reader; and therefore deplorable in a Doctor of Divinity. What is further opposed in that 13. page of places razed out of St. Austin is an Error; read the above mentioned Expurgatory Index, pag. 37. and you shall find the correction to be made upon Erasmus and Ludovicus his Notes, not on St. Augustine's words; and page the 39, you have Cluadius Chevalonius his Index upon St. Austin amended, not any syllable of the Saints corrected. And this is the first, which our Doctor storms at: Solus Deus est adorandus: God only is to be adored. Frobens Indices mentioned in the same page of our Doctor, deserved correction, wholly contrary to the Originals.   

CHAP. III.  
The Doctor's Quotations not right: Prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory.  
TO what the Doctor hath in his 2d. Section, page the 14th. concerning the power of making new Articles, we have answered already, and say that the Church coins no Novelty; yet may explicitly declare what anciently was believed implicitly. The Declaration is new, the substance of the Article as old as Christianity: In the next page after, he had a fling at a new Article ready for stamp concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, (which is more than he knows) He passeth to his third Section of Indulgences, page 16. where he citys St. Antoninus' Archbishop of Florence part 1. summae cap. 3. saying, We have nothing expressly for Indulgences in Scripture etc. The Doctor omits what follows immediately; quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2. cor. 2. si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi. Although saith Antoninus, that of the Apostle is alleged, si quid, etc. He citys again our Bishop Fisher in Art. 18. Lutheri to this sense; At the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences. Answer, he saith it not so absolutely, but with this interrogation; Quis jam de Indulgentjis mirari potest? and expressly in the beginning of that Article hath these words: Fuit tamen non nullus earum usus, ut aiunt, apud Romanos vetustissimus, quod vel ex stationibus in urbe frequentissimis intelligi datur. There was, as they say, a most ancient Use and Practise of these Indulgences at Rome, which thing the most frequented Stations of that City gives us to understand.  
In the rest of that Section, he hath only Vulgar Objections answered over and over, and a number of calumnies a rising from the misunderstanding of Catholic Doctrine: I therefore leave him, for it is not my task to repeat what hath been most largely writ concerning Indulgences by others.  
What I find more material in the Doctor's fourth Section is, page 27. Where he tells us our Writers vainly suppose, that when the H. Father's speak of Prayer for the dead, they conclude for Purgatory; For it is true, saith he, the Fathers did Pray for the dead; But how? that God would show them Mercy, and hasten their Resurrection, etc. Mark well, that God would show them Mercy: whence I argue, if the Souls prayed for, be in Heaven, they have Mercy, the sentence is given for their Eternal happiness; if in Hell, they are wholly destitute of Mercy▪ vain therefore were the Prayers of the Fathers for Mercy, unless there be a third place where mercy can be showed them. I would willingly know of the Doctor (if he would deal candidly) what St. Augustine's ingenious meaning was when he prayed thus for his Mother Monica lib. 9 confess. cap. 13. Dimitte illi & tu, debita sua, si qua etiam contraxerit post tot annos post aquam salutis: Forgive my Mother her debts, if she hath, after so many years contracted any, since Baptism: What are these debts? Again, Non se interponat, nec vi, nec insidiis Leo, vel Draco; neque enim respondebit illa, nihil se debere, ne convincatur, etc. Sed respondebit dimissa debita sua ab eo, etc. Let not that Infernal Enemy, intermeddle by his force, or treachery; she will not answer that she owes nothing, lest she be convicted, but will say her debts are remitted by him, etc. Afterwards he begs of his Brethren to Pray for his deceased Mother, at the Altar; and above in the same Chapter speaking to Almighty God, he gives this reason why he Prays: Quia vero non requiris delicta vehementer, fiducialiter speramus aliquem apud te locum inveniri Indulgentiae: Because you deal not severely with offences; confident we are that a place for Mercy may be found, for Pardon and Remission; that is in plain language for Remission of Pains: But in Heaven all is remitted, in Hell there is nothing forgiven. Let the Doctor make here the inference, and conclude for Purgatory: There is no avoiding it.  
Yet he goes on: It is to be remembered that they (the Fathers) made prayers, and offered for those, who by the confession of all sides, never were in Purgatory; for the Patriarches, Apostles, etc. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary: So we find in Epiphanius, and Saint Cyril.  
The Doctor here is both out, and unlucky in his citations: first, there is not one word (in either place cited) of the Blessed Virgin. Secondly, Not a syllable of Pardon, or Remission of Debts, when a memory is made of Patriarches, Apostles, etc. (which is only to the purpose) but expressly the contrary. Be pleased to hear St. Epiphanius Heresy 75. where he speaks thus: Pro justis, & peccatoribus memoriam facimus, pro peccatoribus quidem, misericordiam Dei implorantes, pro justis vero, & Patribus, & Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis, Evangelistis, etc. ut dominum jesum ab hominum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus, & adorationem ipsi praestemus; that is, We remember both just men, and sinners; for sinners we implore Mercy; for the just, and for the Ancient Fathers, and Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, etc. that we may separate our Lord Jesus from the Order of men (living) by the honour we exhibit, and adoration we give him. Here is no praying for Patriarches, and Apostles, to have Pardon, or Remissio (as St. Austin did for his Mother) but a memory of them to honour Christ Jesus. St. Cyril also cited Catech. Mystagog. 5.  more plain against the Doctor: (Cum hoc sacrificium offerimus (saith he) postea facimus memoriam etiam eorum omnium qui ante nobis obdormierunt, primùm Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, Martyrum, ut Deus 
Observe praying to Saints.  orationibus illorum, & deprecationibus suscipiat nostras preces. When we offer up this Sacrifice, we afterward make a memory of all those who are departed this life; and first of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, that God by their Prayers and intercessions, would accept of our prayers: Deinde pro defunctis Patribus, & Episcopis, denique pro omnibus oramus qui inter nos vita functi sunt, maximum esse credentes animarum juvamen 
Observe the Sacrifice of the Altar is offered for the deceased.  pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi, quod in altari positum est, sacrificji. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers, and Bishops who died amongst us, believing it a mighty help of Souls, for whom that holy, and dreadful Sacrifice, laid on the Altar, is offered up. And eight lines after: Ad eundem modum & nos pro defunctis peccatoribus precationes adhibemus, non quidem coronam plectimus, sed Christum pro nostris peccatis mactatum offerimus, ut & nobis, & illis eum qui benignissimus est, propitium reddamus. In like manner we pray for departed sinners, not making them a Crown, but we offer up Christ slain for our sins, to make him who is most benign, propitious, and favourable both to ourselves, and departed sinners: Unluckily, I say; did the Doctor make use of this place in his Dissuasive from Popery, which is all over old Popish Doctrine. First, a memory is made of Patriarches, Apostles, etc. not to have Pardon, or Remission; but that God by their Prayers accept of ours: Plain Popery. 2. We pray for all the deceased, believing those Souls are mightily benefitted, for whom that holy and dreadful Sacrifice of the Altar is offered: Two points of Popery more. 3. We offer Christ Jesus Sacrificed, mactatum, slain on the Altar; to the end that we may make Almighty God, who is most benign, merciful and propitious, both to ourselves, and to the dead. Still nothing but Popery.  
By what is here said, you may see the fraud of the Doctor, who unlearnedly argues thus: The Fathers prayed as well for Saints, as sinners, Ergo, from prayer for the dead no conclusion for Purgatory. Answer: These Fathers made a memory of B. Saints, as the Church still doth, but never prayed that they might be released from punishment, or have their debts forgiven, as St. Austin did for his Mother. Here then is the true Argument, and a most efficatious one: The Fathers prayed for deceased Souls, that they might have Mercy, Pardon, and Remission of Debts contracted in this life: They prayed that God would be propitious, and favourable to them; and for this end offered up Christ Jesus Sacrificed on the Altar: therefore the Fathers supposed a place, where Mercy, Pardon, and Remission might be had, where God can show himself propitious to them, and the unbloody Sacrifice may be offered on the Altar, for the cancelling their debts, and abating their torments. But this place is neither Heaven nor Hell, in the one, all debts are pardoned; in the other is no Remission: Ergo, a third place or Purgatory is hence rightly concluded.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Doctor's Quotations still amiss. St. Austin, and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him.  
THe Doctor, page 30. citys St. Austin, and Otho Frisingensis against the Doctrine of Purgatory, but plainly corrupts both. St. Austin is quoted in his Enchiridion, cap. 69. and lib. 21. de civitate cap. 26. as one that doubts of Purgatory: By the way our Adversary, and the Church of England go higher, and expressly condemn the Doctrine of Purgatory. So the Doctor, page 28. which is more than St. Austin dared to venture on: But let that pass: He gives you St. Augustine's words in English thus: Whether Purgatory be to be found or not, may be inquired, and possibly it may be found, and possibly it may never. Answ. There are no such words; and possibly it may never: in either place of St. Austin; but here is the least of Errors, for the whole drift of the Saints discourse is mistaken, who first lays this Principle in his precedent Chapter 68 that some are Purged by the Fire of Tribulation, or Grief for the loss of Temporal Goods in this Life, yet keep to the True Foundation which is Christ; and such a man is saved (saith St. Austin) as it were by the Fire of Tribulation. Next he gives the reason of this assertion, as follows: Quia urit eum rerum dolour, quas dilexerat, amissarum, etc. Because the grief he has for things he loved, torments him, yet shakes not the Foundation he is fortified withal; As who would say, he hath a sense for the loss of Temporals, yet the Foundation is not subverted.  
Upon this reason: Quia urit eum rerum dolour, etc. these words immediately follow, cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est. Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest; & aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusuè bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardiùs citiùsque saluari: That such a like thing be also after this life, is not incredible: What is not incredible? [Mark well the connection between urit eum dolor rerum amissarum, and the ensuing words: Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri non est incredibile.] This is not incredible, that as some are punished in this life, for their too much affection to worldly commodities, by grief for the loss of them; so likewise it is not incredible, that they suffer a torment in those purging flames upon that account: Of this particular pain, saith the Saint, we may inquire, whether it be a part of Purgatory, or no? whether faithful Souls find it there, or it be yet latent? Find what I beseech you? Quanto magis, minùsue, etc. that by How much more, or less they loved their perishing goods, so much sooner, or later they are saved, and come to Heaven: Which last words plainly gives us St. Augustine's meaning, and show that he doubted not of a Purgatory (which he here supposeth) but calls into question such a particular pain, as is expiatory of lesser transgressions. The ground of all is taken out of St. Augustine's Doctrine, who much inclined to this Opinion, that lesser offences are usually purged by the fire of Tribulation in this Life. So Suarez observes, Tom. 4. in 3. part. disp. 45. nu. 23. Fine. Et ideo dixit Augustinus, haec peccata leviora in hoc saeculo purgari per Tribulationem. And therefore St. Austin said that these lesser sins are purged by Tribulation in this life. See his 41. Sermon de sanctis Tom. 10. where he first distinguisheth between great sins, and little ones; then shows the penalty due to both: Finally, concludes thus of lesser sins (and he specifies the too much love of worldly substance) Ita peccata ipsa in hoc saeculo purgantur, ut in futuro ille ignis purgatorius, aut non inveniat, aut certe parum inveniat quod exurat. So these lesser sins are purged in this Life, that in the next the fire of Purgatory will not either find at all, or truly very little to punish. The Saint goes on: Si autem nec in tribulatione Deo gratias egimus, nec bonis operibus peccata redimimus, ipsi tamdiu in illo igne purgatorio moras habebimus quamdiu supradicta peccata minuta tanquam ligna, faenum, stipula, consumantur. But if in our Tribulation we neither give thanks to God, nor redeem our sins by good works; we shall stay in Purgatory until those above mentioned little sins, like Wood, Hay, and Stubble be consumed. Thus the Saint, who may rationally inquire, as he doth; yes, and affirm, that those lesser transgressions are usually canceled by the fire of Tribulation in this Life. The Doctor perhaps will say: These Sermons de sanctis are not St. Augustine's, forsooth, because they please not his Lordship: Let him prove this Sermon now cited is not. The same certitude, saith Bellar. de seript. Ecclesias. cannot be had of those Sermons; yet credible it is, that for the most part they are St. Augustine's. Be it how you will, they are of greater Authority than any the Doctor can give us against Purgatory. I hope the 2. Books de genesi contra Manichaeos', are undoubtedly St. Augustine's: Let the Doctor read the 20th Chapter of his 2d. Book: Fine; he shall find these words, qui forte agrum suum non coluerit, & spinis eum opprimi permiserit, habet in hac vita maledictionem terrae suae in omnibus operibus suis, & post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis, vel paenam aeternam. He that cultivates not his Field, but suffers it to be over grown with Thorns, hath a curse on him in all he doth; and after this life, shall either have a Purgatory, or suffer pains for ever. St. Augustine's Books, de civitate were never doubted of: Read the 16. Chapter of his 21. Book, where he saith: If one be regenerated by the Sacraments of Christ our Lord (as by Baptism) and so pass from the power of darkness, etc. Non solum in paenis non praeparetur aeternis, sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur. Hath not only any Eternal punishment prepared for him, but not so much, as any purging torments after death. Again, in Psal. 37. he distinguisheth a double Fire, the one Eternal, the other he calls a Fire, Qui emundabit eos qui per ignem salui erunt, which is more grievous than any torment in this world: It would be endless to produce other Authorities for Purgatory.  
Now to Otho Frisingensis whom the Doctor citys lib. 8. Croni. cap. 26. and saith, Purgatory in his time was got no farther than to a quidam asserunt: Some say there is one. Answ. The Doctor saith, He knows not what, and strangely abuseth this Author; Famous both for Virtue, and Nobility. In a word; The Title of that 26. Chapter is this: Si post judicium extra infernum inferiorem, etc. Whether after the day of Judgement any place for lesser pain remains out of Hell, and what is to be thought of little ones who have Original sin only. Thus the Title, which meddles not with Purgatory: The Chapter than gins; His dictis indagandum puto si transacto judicio extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores paenas locus remaneat; esse quippe apud inferos locum purgatorium, in quo salvandi, vel tenebris tantum afficiantur, vel expiationis igne decoquantur etc. We are to inquire, saith Otho, whether, when Judgement is past, there remains a place for lighter punishment out of Hell, for there is place of Purgatory [apud inferos] amongst those that are under ground, wherein saved Souls are in darkness, and tormented with Fire. Then follows the quidam asserunt of the Doctor which relates not to Purgatory, but to that other place after Judgement, whereof Otho makes inquiry, and he answers negatively, viz. That such a place, when all causes are heard in the General Judgement, remains not; though some Fathers inclined to think the contrary: See Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 21. and Origen Homil. 14. in Lucam, and these perhaps Otho impugned: Next he discourseth how Infants, that die with Original sin only, are to be punished, whether with a milder pain or no? Here is the substance of that Chapter. I could wish the Doctor would read those words of Otho, towards the end of this 26. Chapter [Quod si locus etiam ille superior, non ut prius ad purgationem] which manifestly declare the Author's meaning, nothing God knows contrary to Purgatory.  
Pag. the 33. he citys Maldonat, alleging divers Greek Fathers denying that the Souls of the dead ever do appear: what is that to our purpose of Purgatory? Maldonat gives you St. A 〈…〉 in's severe censure against them, and a proof is evident. Moses, and Elias appeared to our Saviour in Mount Tabor: Ergo, Souls do appear.  
The Authorities he brings against Purgatory, pag. 34. are both so weak, and vulgar, that they deserve no answer. There is no place of Penance, saith, he out of St. Cyprian, There is no Effect of Satisfaction. Answ. Most true doubtless; for this life is the place allotted for wholesome penance. In Purgatory there is no meritorious satisfaction. I see not where the least shadow of a difficulty lies in his next Quotation out of St. Denis, Ecclesias. Hierarch. cap. 7. whose words faithfully rendered are these. Those that have lived holily, looking on the true promises of God, as if they saw the verity of them in his Resurrection, with firm and true hope, full of Divine joy, go to the extremity of death, as to an end of their holy conflicts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (to wit in this life) and therefore the Saint adds: Because they certainly know that all their conflicts for their future and entire Resurrection, will be safe in a perfect and Eternal Life. He goes on. For holy Souls while they are in this life, can be changed to worse; but in the second Resurrection by a likeness they have with God, they cannot be changed. Thus St. Denis. Now let the Doctor make his Argument: Holy men relying on God's promises full of Hope and Joy, consider death as an end of their conflicts in this World, knowing a happy Resurrection will recompense their grievances: Ergo, there is no purgatory or penal suffering hereafter. A most powerful Argument. Had the Doctor only reflected on what Bellarmine citys lib. 1. de Purgatorio cap. 10. initio. out of this very 7th. Chapter of St. Denis, he would never have troubled the Reader with so unweighty an Objection. Bellarmine relates St. Denis his words thus: Accedens deinde Venerandus Antistes, etc. The Venerable Prelate, then coming, makes his Prayer over the dead, and that Prayer is to beg for God's Clemency, that he remit all sins done by the deceased party, through humane infirmity, and set him in a place of Light, and the Region of the Living. The substance hereof you have, Bibliotheca Patrum saeculo 1. Colen Print Page 135. 1. Columna.  
Next the Doctor citys St. justin Martyr questi. & Respons ad Orthodoxos questi. 75. saying, That when the Soul is parted from the body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is made a separation of the lust and Unjust: the Unjust are carried by Angels into places they deserved, but the Souls of the Just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where they have the Conversation of Angels, etc. Answ. Take notice first, how the Doctor varies from himself; page 29. Where we heard him speak thus: Sixtus Senensis says, and says very true, That Justin Martyr did affirm, that before the day of judgement the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved to the sentence of the great Day; and that before then, no man receives according to his works done in this Life: Here, presently, the Souls are carried into Paradise, that is into Heaven, If justins' Authority be for the Doctor's purpose, otherwise there is a third place. These Souls therefore make a long demur, after their separation from their body in secret Receptacles even to the Day of Judgement, and yet are carried presently into Heaven; Let him that can, accord these two Assertions; and learn moreover, that justin only says, the separation of the Just and Unjust is made presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but affirms not, that all Just Souls are forthwith carried into Heaven; if yet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in justins' sense signifies Heaven, and not rather another place, whereof see Bellarmine, l. 2. de Purgat. cap. 7. § videtur mihi dicendum. Be it how you will, at most this Ancient Father only points out the two Final places of Woe and Happiness, for two sorts of men, which is no way inconsistent with an intermedial place of Purgatory, or atrium Caeli. Thus much is said to comply with the Doctor, who cannot but know, that these Quest. and Respon. ad Orthodox. are not justin Martyrs. See Bellar. de Script. Eccl. The Authority of St. Ambrose next following, asserting That death is a Haven of Rest, and makes not our condition worse, etc. is an excellent saying; for worse he is not, but infinitely better, that quit of the occasions of living here, is acertained of future Bliss hereafter; which is the whole drift of the Saint in that fourth Chap. de bono mort is cited by the Doctor. Read it, and say afterwards, whether I say not true.  
The Doctor quotes again St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his 5th. Oration in Plagam grandinis; by his good leave 'tis the 15th. not the 5th. as I have seen in three Editions, that which I follow is Paris Print, anno 1609. pag. 249. his words, after he had mentioned the calamities of this World, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I omit to speak of those great Tribunals in the next life, to which pardon and impunity in this delivers them; so that it is much better to be chastised and purged now, then to be sent to punishment (to wit, those Tribunals.) Now is a time of penalty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Purgation: Therefore says the Doctor, there is no Purgatory: I say contrary, that the Saint speaks not a word of Purgatory, but only denies a purgation of Life and Manners after those Tribunals: The following particles (fraudulently omitted by the Doctor) make my assertion evident; for says St. Gregory: As he that is mindful of God, is superior to death, so to the departed, (as holy David affirms) Non est in Inferno confessio nec morum correctio, So in Hell there is no confession, nor correction of Manners: and he gives this Reason, because God here shuts up both Life and Action with a final sentence of things done, etc. St. Hilary, and St. Macarius speak only of the two Final States of Souls, and make no third place Eternal. Conformable to this, Olimpiodorus cited by the Doctor, speaks in Eccles. cap. 11. his words are Biblioth. patrum Com. 2. Paris Print 1624. pag. 670. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. In what place soever of Light or Darkness; that is, whether in a filthy station of Wickedness, or a good state of Virtue, a man is taken when he dies, in that degree and order he remains for ever; which is to say, great sins will abide with the damned for Eternity, and so Virtue shall ever remain with the Blessed; for says Olympiodorus, He shall either rest in the Light of everlasting Felicity with the Just, and Christ, King of All; or be tormented in Darkness with the Wicked, and Prince of this World, the Devil. Most true Doctrine; for there is no third place Eternal. The Doctor lastly citys St. Leo Epist. 59 for words not found at all in that Epistle: he writes to Martianus, and gives thanks for peace restored to the Church, by the Great Council of Chalcedon. See this Epistle Colen Print 1561. Pitiful it is to see such strengthless Authorities produced, not only against the express Testimony of other Fathers asserting Purgatory, but more, against the sentiment of the Universal Church.  
But I know not by what chance we have miss a former Argument of our Doctor against Purgatory: He hath it pag. 29. and speaks thus: Sixtus Senensis says, and says very true, That many Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Bernard, and others did affirm, that the Souls of men before the Day of judgement are kept in secret Receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great Day, etc. Then he Argues: if this Opinion be true; the Doctrine of Purgatory is false; or if not true, it is inconsistent with an Opinion of Fathers so generally received. Answ. The Doctor hath not one true word in this Objection; false it is, that Sixtus so peremptorily ascribs this Opinion to the Fathers, he rather makes it his work to interpret them favourably; and to do it, distinguisheth a double beatitude, the one imperfect of Soul only, the other consummate and perfect of Soul and Body; the first, the Fathers called by several names of sinus Abrahae, Atrium Dei, sub altar, etc. the other, perfect joy, the Glory of the Resurrection, and entire reward of merits, a time of Coronation, etc. And this later they held was not till the day of Judgement. Read Sixtus lib. 6. Bibliot. Annot. 345. in his two last Paragraphs Hactenus & Demum, where after a friendly check given to Ockam, he also takes off the charge laid on Pope john 22. for any Decree made by him against the present beatitude of Souls. Again:  
False it is that the Doctor exactly set's down in his Marginal Quotation Sixtus his words; more than half of them are not the Authors, who ends with St. Bernard at the particle Praebuisse; and our Doctor runs on, in one continued uniform Character, with a praeter citatos enumerat, etc. yet there is not a syllable like them in Sixtus, and as they stand in the Doctor's Margin are strangely incoherent: False, finally, it is, that though the Fathers held Souls as it were immured in secret Receptacles, therefore their Tenet destroys Purgatory. Why? they may have a Purgatory before they enter those Receptacles: They may have it in origen's Opinion afterwards; yes, and if need were to assert it, punished they may be for a time in those very secret Cabinets. Devil's are tortured, whether in the material place of Hell, or out of it; and so may souls be also, though we supposed (against Faith) our Purgatory were not, or no other than those Receptacles. What I say here, is not in the least to favour a condemned Opinion by the Church, but only to show the Doctor's weak way of Arguing.   

CHAP. V.  
The Doctor's cavils against Transubstantiation. His false Quotations. His impertiment Questions and weak Arguments.  
THe Doctor in his 5th. Section, pag. 36. falls upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, where he brushes up a few old dusty Arguments answered every where by our Writers. We know, saith he, the very time it began to be publicly owned, the very Council, etc. Answ. Arius might have said thus much against the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father, and made it a Novelty, first owned by the Council of Nice. The vulgar, solid, and true answer is; that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church, though more fully, and explicitly declared in the Lateran Council. I say, Was ever believed, for if the most eminent Fathers that lived before the Lateran Council, told us that Bread is changed out of his Nature into the Body of Christ: That by Holy Invocation, it is no more common Bread: That as Water in Cana of Galilee was changed into Wine; so in the Evangelist Wine is changed into Blood: That Bread is only Bread before the Sacramental Words, but after Consecration, is made the Body of Christ. If Ancient Fathers speak thus, (as most certainly they do, every Polemical Writer furnisheth you with these Testimonies) conclude we must that they either cheated the World into a false belief, or held as we do, the real Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But my task is not so much to prove Catholic Doctrine (already done by innumerable Authors) as to show you our Doctors failings in his Quotations; page therefore the 37. he citys Scotus, saying, that before the Lateran Council, Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith, as Bellarm. confesses. Most willingly would I have the Doctor to point me out the distinction and question where Scotus affirms this; some cite him in 4. distin. 11. q. 3. where he only saith (in all Editions I have seen,) that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was more explicitly defined there, but not first made an Article of Faith.  
But the Famous (or rather infamous Quotation) is out of Petrus Lombardus (usually called Magister Sententiarum) the Doctor hath it (to his disgrace) page 38. after he had said, that Transubstantiation was so far then from being an Article of Faith, that they knew not whether it where true, or no; yes, and that Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no.  
I beseech you mark an unexcusable Error, Petrus Lombardus, lib. 4. distinct. 11. lit. A. gins thus: Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, definire non sufficio, etc. If it be asked what kind of conversion this is, whether formal, or substantial, I am not sufficient to define: observe the word (define.) Then he sets down several Opinions much in those words the Doctor hath. To these Opinions, or Objections, where the Doctor leaves off fraudulently, Lombardus answers lit. B. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest, quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti, quod ipsum corpus in conceptu virginis deinceps formetur: sed quia substantia panis, vel vini quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi, vel sanguis, verbo caelesti fit corpus, & sanguis, & ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi, & sanguinem, quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro, & substantia vini fit sanguis Christi, nec tamen aliquid additur corpori, vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi, vel sanguis: To which we answer thus: Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner, made by a Heavenly word, that 'tis framed a new in the Virgin, but because the substance of Bread and Wine, which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ; by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body, and Blood; and therefore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood, because by their work, or Ministry, the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood, yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood, neither are made more, or increased. Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down; and therefore in plain English he deals with his Reader, as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron; he gives you the Objections for Lombard's own doctrine: that this is most evidently Lombard's Doctrine, lit. D. clears all; chief towards the end: Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi, sed unum corpus, & unus sanguis, ideoque sive plus, sive minus quis inde percipiat, omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt; post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis, vel vini, licet species remaneant, est enim species panis & vini, sicut & sapor, unde aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Yet there are not many bodies of Christ, but one only Body and Blood; and therefore though any take more or less, all equally, and wholly take the Body of Christ. After the Consecration then, there is no substance of Bread and Wine, although the species of Bread and Wine remain, as also the taste, wherefore one thing is seen, and another is understood. Never did Lateran Council, or any Catholic Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation: To be sure of what I here affirm, I have read two Editions of Petrus Lombard, that which was Printed at Loven, anno 1546. and the other, most usual, with Albertus Magnus his Commentaries.  
The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent. distinc. 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium, who, says he, Publicly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remained, although he says by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held. I Answer, That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts; read him Art. 3. he plainly maintains the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and absolutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christ's Body. All he hath, Sectio propter tertium is, that the Words of Christ might be verified, although the Body were present with Bread, which is a Theological disputation, and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand, nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantiation.  
Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine, and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen; cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha: The Oration is long, and the Doctor well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place; but thus he deals with you often, and far worse afterwards. Well, St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu. 5. saith, jam vero Paschalis participes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typice, tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem pascha (nec enim dicere verebor) figurae figura erat obscurior. These words the Doctor gives you in English, and what conclude they against Transubstantiation? nothing; for were the Sacred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eucharist, with the substance of Bread, were it (as it now is) really present without the substance of Bread; In St. Gregori's sense, Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self, more clearly hereafter to be showed us in Heaven: For as the legal Pascha was a Figure, because it more obscurely pointed out this true one in the New Law: So this also, where Christ Jesus is concealed from our senses, may be rightly called a Figure, because it exhibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven. This sense is gathered out of St. Gregory's next ensuing words (which the Doctor wholly omits) Figurae erat figura obscurior (saith the Saint) aliquam post autem perfectius, & purius, tum videlicet, cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet, pate faciens & docens, quae nunc plane demonstravit. The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly, and with greater clarity; to wit, when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Father's Kingdom, laying open himself, and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated. Mark these last words, very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention is made of a Sign, a Type, and Figure in this matter; but they are neither for, or against Transubstantiation, unless the Doctor shows (which he shall never) that Christ's Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha, that it is not also really present. Theodoret and Gelasius cited, pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Writers. The nature of the Symbols, or Signs are not changed; that is, the Species, or accidents of Bread and Wine remain; these reside not from their nature: Grace is added. What is here against Transubstantiation?  
I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves, pag. 45. What if a Priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, over all the Bread in a Baker's shop? doth he turn it into Christ's Body? the like question is, And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread, doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread? may the People kneel down, and take this as Christ's Body? Again, Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker? And what if a Mouse, or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable, had they bitten their Maker? Away with these Trifles, they become not a Doctor of Divinity. And be pleased,  
To reflect on one doughty Argument he hath, page 46. which is indeed pressing, but how? to show that he knows not our Catholic Doctrine. Since secondly (saith he) they say that every consecrated wafer is Christ's whole Body, and yet this wafer is not that Wafer, therefore either this or that is not Christ's Body, or else Christ hath two Bodies, for there are two Wafers. My God what is here? out of two Wafers he infers two Bodies, as if one from the two parts in man, his Head, and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls, or conclude there are two Gods, one in Heaven and the other in Earth, because Heaven and Earth are more distinct than two Wafers. That known passage of St. Austin, Ferebatur in manibus suis in Psal. 33. When Christ sitting at the Table with his Disciples, gave them his Sacred Body, (Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis, saith the Saint) might well have learned the Doctor, that then there were not two Christ's at the Table. Had he read what I cited above out of Petrus Lombard: Non sunt tamen multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus, etc. He might well have spared the labour of this Argument.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Doctor's weak Arguments against Communion under one kind. Of his sleight impugning Prayer in an unknown Language. Of his ill Quotations.  
THe Doctor in his 6 Section, pag. 47. treats (as he calls it) of half Communion, that is of receiving the Holy Sacrament in one kind only; and besides a few vulgar Objections solved by every Catholic Writer he has nothing. That which he allegeth out of Paschasius Rathbertus supposeth a Law or practice in the Church for Communicating in both kinds: Would to God our Doctor had reflected on what this good Abbot hath in the beginning of his 19 Chapter, where he plainly acknowledgeth that the Blood which is in the Chalice is the very same that flowed out of the Sacred Side of our Saviour; so far at least Rathbertus was a Papist, and never said that Communion in both kinds is, or was commanded by Christ our Lord. Pope Gelasius his Authority is so often answered by others, that I need say little. Briefly, to discern Catholics from the Manich'es occasioned that Law. Christ his institution in both kinds, (figured in Melchisedeck's Oblation of Bread, and Wine, and not a perfect Sacrifice unless Priests do it in both) is a most weak Argument to infer: Therefore the Laity is commanded to receive the Sacrament as Priests do in both. S. C. In his late excellent book against Doctor Pierce Chap. 12. demonstrat's by the Testimonies of ancient Fathers, that Communion in one kind hath been in the most primitive ages a practice among Christians. Thus much only I'll say, and end; if Infants once received the Holy Eucharist in one kind only: if men of riper Age did the like in time of persecution: if what the Fathers assure us of Domestical Communion, and the like of Ermits keeping the Blessed Sacrament in their solitude, (whereas the Cup was not given but in the Church) be true: (and most true all is.) Finally, if our Blessed Lord after his Resurrection gave his own Body (going to Emaus) to his Disciples, as divers Fathers testify without the Cup, and they had their eyes opened: let the Doctor once open his also, and confess ingeniously that the Sacrament was in these cases reputed effective, lawful, and laudable in one kind only. More I need not say, for it's from my intent to handle this Controversy at large: might I go on, I could tell him that seeing the Fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up Faith in the receiver; I can find no reason why their bit of Bread only, may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their Wine with it. But enough of this Section.  
The Doctor in his 7th. Section, pag. 50. citys against public Prayer in in an unknown Language that so often discussed passage of the Apostle 1. ad corint. 14. It would be lost labour to repeat here what our Learned Writers have with all clarity answered; I. S. in his short Treatise against Doctor Pierce his Sermon, pag. 89. and 90. solidly ponders that text, and shows it makes nothing for Protestants. Next,  
He citys Origen lib. 8. contra Celsum without either page, or number, whereas that 8th. book with me, Printed at Basil 1571. (and in a closely letter) hath ten whole leaves in Folio. However, the proof is nothing: The Grecians were to pray in Greek, the Romans in their Language; (both Sacred Tongues) what is this to the Doctor's purpose?  
Page the 52. he citys St. Basil lib. qu. ex ver. Scrip. locis q. 278. we have three Editions of St. Basil, and the last both in Greek and Latin Printed at Paris in two Tomes, and in no one Catalogue of his works do I find that Treatise the Doctor points at lib. qu. ex. etc. He would oblige me to direct me better to the Book. Next he citys St. Chrisostom in a long Homily without giving his words, and St. Austin in Ps. 18. come 2. (with me) it is Expos. 2. All I can find here to any purpose, are these words: Nos autem (saith the Saint) qui in Ecclesia divina eloquia cantare didicimus, simul etiam instare debemus quod Scriptum est; Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem, proinde charissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse, & videre debemus. We who have Learned to sing the Divine Words (or Psalms) in Church, must also be earnest to follow what is written. Blessed are they who understand jubilation. Therefore, my dearest, what we sing out with one voice, endeavour we must to know and see with a serene heart.  
First, who are these We? Priests, and the Clergy that understood Latin, yet perhaps penetrated not the deep and latent sense of those Sacred Canticles. This saith St. Austin, We are to be instant in, and not only to sing the words, but to know with a serene heart, etc. I believe most of the Ministers, though they say, and sing these Psalms in English, are yet to seek for the very literal sense of them: good Counsel 'tis that all according to their capacity learn by an Interpreter, or otherwise somewhat of it; yes, and of the Mystery also. But to infer from hence: Ergo, these sacred words must be read in a vulgar Tongue in time of Church Service, is no consequence at all: though let me tell you, things well considered, the Greek respectively to the East, and Latin to the West, may be better called a known Tongue, (though not vulgar) then particular Languages of several Nations. Spain, France, England, Germany, Poland, etc. in the generality know Latin. But doth the Spaniard know French, or other People Dutch, or Dutch the Poland Language? not one among many.  
The Doctor, pag. 54. rightly citys (which is a wonder) the words of the great Council of Lateran, sub Innocentio 3. cap. 9 but proves nothing with them. First, because the Several Rights and Languages there mentioned, cannot be showed to be different from Greek and Latin, and in use among those who have one and the same Faith. 2. Admit they were different, the Church can upon weighty reasons dispense in her Law with Children of one and the same belief; at most then, here was a dispensation, which both supposeth, and confirms the received Law. I say at most; for I read in Binius his Notes upon this Council, pag. 699. prim â columnâ, Fine; that the Patriarch of the Maronites, who had abjured his Heresy of the Monothelits, came to this great Council, submitted himself, embraced the Catholic Faith, and believed as those Fathers assembled did, etc. to him and his might well be granted the use of their Rights, and Lithurgy while their belief was one, and Catholic. Now let the Doctor tell me what Language the Maronits' then used in their Lithurgy; if Syriack? it was Sacred, and spoken by our Saviour. What the Doctor hath out of Quint. pag. 55. is only to talk of Gipsy Language; we use no such Barbarous Tongue in our Lithurgies.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Doctor's cavils against Images. Of Antiquity approving their Veneration. Of the Doctor's ill Quotations.  
PAge 56. Section 8. our good Opponent spits a little Venom against the veneration of Images; The Poison he vents is cast upon the most Ancient Fathers that have lived in the Church. Let him read Eusebius Caesariensis (who lived in the third age) lib. 3. de vita Constantini cap. 48. Paris Print, where speaking of the pious Emperor, he saith: Tantus item, & divinus amor animum Imperatoris complexus est, ut in ipso palatji introitu in medio tecti laqueari inaurato, in tabulâ maximâ explicatâ salutaris passionis insigne ex lapillis pretiosis polite elaboratis figendum curaverit. Istud Imperatori sanctissimo regni firmum videbatur esse propugnaculum. So Great, and Divine a Love possessed this Pious Emperor, that he caused the Ensign of our Saviour's Passion to be fixed in the very entrance of his Palace, in the middle of his guilded Roof; and this, in a large displayed Table, curiously wrought with precious Stones. And this very thing seemed to the most Holy Emperor a strong Fortress and defence for his Kingdom. Read St. Basil in his Sermon of Barlaam: Assurgite nunc mihi (saith the Saint) O clarissimi Athleticarum virtutum pictores, & militis abbreviatam imaginem vestris magnificate artibus, etc. (and a few words after) & pingatur in tabula similiter & ipse Agnotheta luctaminum, Christus. Rise up now ye Famous Painters of Championlike Virtues; show your skill in abreviating a Soldier's Picture: place also in your Table the Master, or judge of such Warlike conflicts, Christ our Lord. If you desire to know how Churches were adorned with Noble Pictures, you may read St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 19 in laudem defuncti Patris. The like you have in St Gregory Nyssen oratione de laudibus Sti. Theodori before those words: Solet enim etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui, maximeque prodesse. A silent Picture speaks to us on the Wall, and profits exceedingly. See St. Austin de consensu Evangelji lib. 1. cap. 10. St. Gregory the Great, lib. 9 Epistola 9 adserenum Massilensem, our venerable Bede de templo Salamonis cap. 19 and innumerable others: A Volume would not suffice for all: But you'll say, here is nothing for the Venaration of Holy Images. Answ. I have often wondered why our good Protestants when they hear the name of Jesus, bow in their Churches, and when they see his Picture scruple to do the like reverence. Well, for the Veneration of Images, besides the definition of a General Council: (the Second at Nice) we have endless Authorities. I'll produce a few manifest ones which the Doctor shall never answer. St. Basil the Great in his Epistle 205. ad julianum (read it in the second Tome of his works, Printed anno 1618. at Paris, pag. 993.) hath these unanswerable words: Suscipio autem, & sanctos Apostolos, Prophetas, & Martyrs, & ad supplicationem, quae est ad Deum, hos invoco, ut per eos, id est, per interventionem eorum propitius mihi sit misericors Deus, etc. I willingly admit of the Holy Prophets, oft he Apostles, and Martyrs, and in my Prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession, God may be propitious and merciful to me, etc. He goes on thus: Unde & Figuras imaginum eorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honoro, & adoro, praecipue cum hoc traditum a sanctis Apostolis, & non prohibitum sit, quin & in omnibus Ecclesiis nostris ostendatur. Whereupon I honour, and adore the Portraiture or Figure of their Images; chief when this adoration is delivered to us by the Apostles, and no where forbidden; but is manifestly showed us in all our Churches. What can be clearer? Now if you'll know how this Great Saint adored those Images, none can tell you better than St. john Damascen, lib. 4. Orthod. fidei cap. 17. soon after the beginning of that Chapter: Nam ut ille magna rerum divinarum eruditione praeditus Basilius ait, imaginis honor exemplum transit, etc. For as that Great Master St. Basil, highly endued with the knowledge of Divine mysteries, tell's us, The honour given to Images passeth to the Prototype. Bellar. in his Appendix de cultu imaginum, cap. 4. § paulo post, hath this Authority of St. Basil; but, as you may see, of another Edition, which makes it irrefragable. To avoyed all exceptions of the Doctor, I here give you St. Basil in his own Language: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
My second Authority is taken out of Athanasius in his interrog. & respons. ad Antiochum cap. 38. Nos Christiani non alia ratione imagines colimus nisi 
I do not say this is the great Athanius, valeat tamen quantum valere potest.  quem admodum cum filios nostros, & patres osculamur, animi nostri desiderium indicamus, sicut & judaeus olim legis tabulas, & duo cherubim aurea, & sculptilia quondam adorabant, non lapidis, aurive naturam colens, sed dominum, qui ea ut fierent praeceperat. We Christians, saith he, worship Pictures not otherwise then as we do when we show great kindness, and affection to our Children and Parents; or as the jews once worshipped the Tables of the Law, and the two gilt or graven Cherubs. They Worshipped not the material Stone or Gold, but God; who commanded them to be made.  
The third is out of St. Chrisostom in Liturgia, interpret: Erasmo. Sacerdos egrediens e parvo ostio portans evangelium, praecedente Ministro cum lucerna, & conversus ad Christi Imaginem inter duo ostia inflexo capite dicit hanc orationem, etc. The Priest going out of a little door carrying the Gospel, and his Minister before him with a Light, turns himself to our Saviour's Picture; and between two Portals bows his head (before the Picture) and saith this Prayer, etc. The fourth is out of St. Gregory, lib. 7. Epist. 54. ad secundinum. Nos quidem, non quasi ante divinitatem, ante imaginem salvatoris nostri prosternimur, sed illum adoramus, quem per imaginem, aut natum, aut passum recordamur. We fall not down before the Image of our Saviour, as before a Divinity, but we adore him, whom we remember by his Image as he was born, or crucified.  
The last is St. john Damascens, lib. 4. Orthodoxae fidei cap. 17. Quoniam nonnulli (saith the Saint) eo nomine nos reprehendunt, quod salvatoris, ac Dominae nostrae reliquorumque sanctorum, ac Christi servorum imagines adoramus, atque honore afficimus; audiant velim quod Deus, etc. Because some upon this account reprehend us that we adore, and honour the Images of Christ, of our Lady, of other Saints, and servants of Christ. I would have them know that God from the beginning made man to his own likeness; from whence is it then that we worship one another, but that we are made to God's likeness? Next the Saint discourseth about the use of Images amongst Christians; and finally concludes thus: Siquidem persaepe usu venit, ut domini passionem animo minimè versantes, conspectâ Christi crucifixi imagine in salutiferae passionis memoriam redeamus, ac prostrati, non materiam, sed eum, cujus imago effingitur, adoramus. For it often comes to pass, that when we are least thinking of our Lord's passion, by seeing the Image of him crucified we remember his Sacred Passion, and prostrate adore, (not the matter of the Image, but) him whose Picture is there drawn out. Thus St. Damascen, who with the other Ancient Fathers now cited delivers most Catholic Doctrine. I could wish the Doctor would teach his people to answer this one only Authority, and that of St. Basil. In the interim let us see what our Doctor hath against Images, and their Veneration. We find, saith he, page 57 Images brought into Christian Religion by Simon Magus; where I beseech you? the Doctor citys Theod. lib. 1. Haereticarum fabularum. St. Austin de haeresibus, resibus, and St. Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 23. Answ. Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the Title de Simone, Or Carpocrate. St. Austin relates at large Simon Magus his Heresy in that book de haeres: ad quod vult Deus, but not a syllable is there that Simon Magus first brought Images into Christian Religion. St. Irenaeus in that book and Chapter now cited under this Title: Quae est saturnini argumentatio: Relating how Basilides held the first begotten Nun to be Christ, hath these words: Qua propter neque passum eum sed Simonem quendam Cyrenaeum angariatum portasse crucem ejus pro e●. Wherefore, he said, that Christ suffered not, but Simon Cyrenaeus for him who was forced to carry his Cross: But not a word of Simon Magus his being Author of Images in that whole Chapter. Simon Cyrenaeus was a different man from Simon Magus. Well, saith the Doctor, pag. 58. these Fathers tell us that the Gnostics, or Carpocratians did make Images, and said that the form of Christ as he was made in the flesh, was made by Pilate; and these Images they worshipped as did the Gentiles. My God what stuff is here? Carpocrates, saith St. Austin, who held that Christ was man only, worshipped the Images of jesus, Paul, of Homer, and Pythagoras (these the Doctor omits.) The Gnostics, saith St. Irenaeus, (not in his 23. but 24. Chapter) had some Pictures Painted, others of other matter, Dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato illo in tempore quo fuit Iesus cum hominibus, & has coronant, & proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Phylosophorum, viz. cum imagine Pythagorae, & Platonis, & Aristotelis, & reliquorum, & reliquam observationem circa eas similiter, ut gentes faciunt. Saying the form of Christ was made by Pilate when jesus conversed with men; these they crowned, and set out to show with the Pictures of worldly Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest, and honoured them just as the Gentiles did, etc.  
The Fathers here are exactly cited by me. And what is it that the Doctor concludes? Observe well: These Heretics Worshipped the Picture of Christ with such an Homage as the Gentiles did their Idols; Ergo, Catholics may not honour the Image of Christ, and his Saints with Relation to the Prototypes, and not after that manner the Gentiles did their Idols, leaving out the Pictures of Pythagoras, and Aristole. Is this a good Conclusion? Had he given you faithfully the Father's Words expressly mentioning the Images of the Ancient Philosophers, the Reader would have seen the weakness of his Argument: But what will you? to make Images odious, Juggle he must, and conceal what is against him. Epiphanius cited relates the Heresy of the Carpocratites as Irenaeus doth, only he adds: Habent eas imagines occultè, insuperque Phylosophorum, Pythagorae, Platonis, etc. cum quibus Phylosophis, etiam alias imagines jesu collocant, collocatasque adorant, & gentium misteria perficiunt. They have these Images privately; and moreover, the Philosophers Pictures, these with other Images of jesus they place before them, and adore, and do the Gentiles Ceremonies.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Doctor's confused Quotations. Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross. Of Picturing the Sacred Trinity.  
THe Doctor goes on, and tells us That Christians and Clemens Alexandrinus declare against these things. Answ. And well they might, for I know no one will Patronise the placing our Savious Picture with the Philosophers, and worshipping all alike as the Gentiles did their Idols. Yea, but Clemens Alexandrinus saith, We have no Image in the World, it is apparently forbidden to exercise that deceitful Art, for it is written, Thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above. Strange it is that Clemens speaks so; certainly there are Pictures in the World, and as I have heard, a Crucifix in many Protestant Churches. Certainly the Art of Painting is not forbidden in England as a deceitful Art; for if one should Paint the Sun, or Stars above in Heaven, is this prohibited? where then doth Clemens Alexand. deliver this Doctrine? lib. 6. Stromatum (saith the Doctor) and in his Pareneticon. Answ. A strange manner of citing. That 6. book storm. Leydon Print 1616 hath 58. pages in Folio (and a closely letter it is) the Greek on the one Column, and the Latin on the other, and his paranaete is within apage or two of the same length. Must I read such Treatises over to find a Quotation thus set down at random? What ingenious dealing is here? I have, though not very exactly perused that whole 6th. Book, and cannot find this passage. Clement, page the 470. tells us that God is not to be worshipped as the Grecian Idolaters did, ●y any Wood, Stones, etc. More I have not: Let the Doctor direct me to these words. We have no Image in the World, etc. though if found, the Latin I am confident (by what I read in Clement) will be Simulacrum, and the whole sense relate to that of Scripture, Non facies tibi sculptile or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol.  
He citys next Origen lib. 7. & 8. contra Celsum without either page, or number, or his words; yet these two Books Basil Print 1571. contain 40. pages in Folio. In a word, Origen hath nothing against the use of Images, but wholly impugns the gods of the Gentiles, their counterfeit semblances, their Idols; and declares our Christian Doctrine thus: lib. 7. contra Celsum num. 18. page (with me) 789. Nos vero ideo quoque non honoramus simulacra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. We therefore honour no feigned Figures, because we warily hold ourselves from a credulity of ascribing to them any Divinity.  
A few lines after Origen, he citys St. Cyril denying That in the time of Julian the Emperor, the Christians did give veneration to the Images, even of the Cross itself. The Doctor here runs more at random then ever: which St. Cyril▪ Alexand. or Hieros. where? in what Treatise is this denied? I think he means St. Cyril Hieros. who lived near the time of julian, and hath in the end of his Catechesis, printed at Paris 1609. a letter to Constantius Augustus, wherein he declares a strange apparition of the Cross seen in the Heavens by innumerable at jerusalem, but not one word in it that denies Veneration to that Holy Ensign, but rather the contrary. Beata, inquam, crux (they are his words) splendoribus luminis coruscans Hierosolimis apparuit, etc. The Blessed Cross all luminous and glorious, appeared at Jerusalem, etc. Until the Doctor therefore directs me better to the place in St. Cyril, I'll tell him that Athanasius, de passione Domini Edit. ex officina Comeliniana, anno 1600. pag. 808. highly honoured the Cross. Nunquid dignius est, & potius crucem adorare, quàm judaeorum, & mundi gratiam lucrifacere. Is it not more worthy, and better to adore the Cross, then to gain the favour of jews, and of the whole World. Again, the other Athanasius quaest. 39 ad Antioch. eâdem edit. pag. 286. Crucem nobis fidelibus adorari, & osculando honorari propter Christum qui in ea pependit, manifestum. 'Tis manifest that the Cross is to be adored and honoured by us Christians for Christ our Lord, who died on it.  
St. Ambross agrees also, oratione de obitu Theodosii thus, Colen Print anno 1616. Tom. 5. page 60. Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit, ut Christi crux in Regibus adoretur; non insolentia ista, sed Pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. Helena did wisely, that placed the Cross on the head of Kings, to the end it might be adored by them. Insolency it was not, but Piety done to our Sacred Redemption. St. Hierom also is consonant, Epist. 17. ad Marcellam Paris Print anno 1609. Tom. 1. pag. 156. Ergone erit illa dies, quando nobis liceat speluncam salvatoris intrare, & crucis lambere lignum? Will that day once be, when we may enter the Sepulchre of our Saviour, and kiss the Wood of his Cross? Again, Epist. 27. ad Eustochium, pag. 221. Prostrata ante crucem, quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret, adorabat. Postrat before the Cross she adored, as if she had seen our Lord hanging on it.  
See St. Chrisostom in a Sermon he hath the veneratione crucis, Tomo 1. Paris Print 1588. pag. 1331. none speaks more significantly: Venit anniversarius Dies omni religione colendus, etc. The anniversary day of the Cross is come, worthy of all Religious Veneration: And a little after: Quia igitur pretiosae crucis venerationi constitutus est, huc adeste omnes, cum metu atque desiderio eam amplectamur. Because therefore this day is appointed for the worship of the precious Cross; come ye all, let us embrace it with fear, with love, with affection. Again, Ejus pretiosam atque vitalem crucem adoramus, & pro thesauro magni pretji tenemus. We adore his precious, and lifegiving Cross, and hold it as a Treasure of mighty value. Read St. Austin also tractatu 36. in johannem, ante medium, & in Psal. 36. ante medium; you will see what veneration was given to the Cross in his days. I cite not others in after ages, they are innumerable.  
The Doctor, pag. 59 brings that often answered objection out of the Council Elibery, that pictures might not be in Churches. Ne quod colitur, aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Lest What is worshipped and adored be Painted on the Walls. Mark; first the Council supposeth worship, and adoration due to Pictures. Ne quod colitur, & adoratur. Next it will not, that what is thus Adored and Worshipped be Painted on the Walls; either because, as Bellar. observes, the Humidity of the place spoiled them, or because they could not be so readily took away when the Gentiles persecuted Christians; in Frames or Tables they might most easily. Baronius suspects this Cannon to be supposititious, but there is no need of his answer.  
The Doctor in the same page hath three places out of St. Austin to no purpose. The first is de moribus Ecclesiae lib. 1. cap. 34. where he speaking to the Manichees, saith, Novi multos esse & Sepulchorum, & Picturarum adoratores, etc. I know many honouring Sepulchers and Pictures; yet in life reprehensible. The second decide, & symbolo, cap. 7. where he saith, and truly, that God cannot be circumscribed in any humane form; and then adds Tale enim Simulacrum Dei, nesas Christiano in templo collocare. 'Tis wickedness in a Christian to place such a vain Figure (of God circumscribed) in a Church. The third is contra Adimantum cap. 13. where he forbids cultum simulacrorum, which God prohibited in the old Law. What is here for the Doctor? who next hath a fling at the seventh Synod, or second Council of Nice; Whose Acts about the worshipping of Images were reproved by the Council of Francfurt. An old, old story answered a hundred times over. Let it pass: yet I must not omit to say a word of what he hath, pag. 58. out of St. Epiphanius his Epistle to john of Jerusalem, because Protestants urge it much. The story, which you may read in the very end of that Epistle is briefly thus: Praeterea quod audivi, quosdam murmurare contra me, etc. Besides, that I heard some murmur against me; because when we passed to the holy place which is called Bethel [the Doctor calls it the Village of Bethel, for fear [I think] of naming a holy place] that there I might make a collect, according to the custom of the Church, Et venissem ad villam, quae vocatur, and came to the Village called Anablatha: and passing by, had seen a Lamp burning, ask what the place was, and understanding it was a Church, and entering to Pray. Inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus Ecclesiae, tinctum, atque depictum, & habens imaginem quasi Christi, aut sancti cujusdam. I found there in the entry of the Church, (no decent place, but the Doctor conceals this) a Veil hanging, died and painted, having an Image as it were of Christ, or some Saint, for saith St. Epiphanius, I do not remember whose Picture it was: when I had seen this, viz. the Picture of a man hanging in the Church contrary to the Authority of Scripture I cut it in pieces, and gave Counsel to those who kept the place, that some poor man should be buried in that Veil. Here is the story; that which follows adds no new light to it for the Doctor. Now if all this were true, what makes it for the Doctor's purpose? St Epiphanius cut in pieces a cloth Picture, the Image was unknown to him, whether of Christ or no, perhaps it was of some profane man who was there honoured for Christ, or a Saint; therefore, St. Epiphanius judged that the undoubted Picture of Christ, and his Saints cannot be in Churches: No consequence at all. But in a word, the story is supposititious, and added to the Letter, as Bellar. Learnedly shows, lib. 2. de Imag. 9 §. ad quintum. First, because Epiphanius his Epistles clearly ends with these words: Deus autem pacis praestet nobis juxta suam clementiam ut conteratur satanas, etc. Then follows Praeterea audivi so harshly and 
Either this story is true, or false: If true, it condemns the Practice in England, for they have Crucisixes in their Churches; if false it is not to the purpose.  disjoynedly that one with half an eye might see the want of order in it. 2. Because those Heretics, who withstood so industriously the use of Images in the seventh Synod, or 2d. Nicen Council, and objected all that could be said against Pictures out of any Fathers, never so much as alleged this Testimony of Epiphanius, which argues, they either thought it not to the purpose, or which is true, judged it supposititious. 3. Because Epiphanius Diaconus demonstrated in that 7th, Synod, that two other Testimonies were falsely shuffled into St. Epiphanius his Works by Heretics: Add 4. that St. Basil, and others who lived with Epiphanius had Images in their Churches, and reverenced them. Thus Bellarmine; and he hath yet more on this subject. The Doctor in his 9th. Section, page 61. fiercely reproves the Picturing of God the Father, and the undevided Trinity: And liberal he is with the Fathers. He gives you a whole list of them in his Margin, but not their words, and he does wisely; for their words would have taught the Reader how little they make for him: though I must tell you, that it is not so certain that Images may be made of God and the Sacred Trinity, as of Christ, and his Saints; some Catholic Doctors dislike the first, saying it is only tolerated by the Church, not approved: None the second.  
Well, one Principle of St. john Damascen lib. 4. Orthodox. fidei. cap. 17. (and St. Austin points at the same de fide & symbolo cap. 7.) solves all the Doctor hath, or can allege in this matter. Quisnam est (saith St. Damascen) qui invisibilis, & corpore vacantis, ac circumscriptionis, & Figurae expertis, Dei Simulacrum effingere queat? extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit, divinum numen fingere, & figurare. Who is there that can make an Effigies of, or Paint out the likeness of God, invisible, without any body, without Circumscription (that is immense) and Figure at all? Madness it is thus to figure a Detty, or a Divine Power. As who should say: He that goes about to express by any Image the perfect Similitude of Gods  Perfections, or his Nature which (is Immense) without body or figure, would be both impious, and act the part of a mad man; Yes, and as Bellar. observes lib. 2. de imag. cap. 8. § prosolutione, would make a very Idol. Such picturing of God, the Fathers now cited reprove; but if God, or an Angel appear in the form of a man, as he did walking in Paradise: why may not those visible, and circumscribed Lineaments, be exhibited to our eyes? He was no Idol walking in Paradise, neither is he one Painted in Paper. The Doctor pag. 62. after the Fathers, citys Macrobius lib. 1. de somno Scipionis cap. 2. The exact words of Macrobius are these: (after he had declared, what a powerful Being God is: Quod sciri quale sit ab homine non possit: that it cannot be known by man of what Nature he is.) Ideo, & nullum ejus simulacrum quod cum Dis aliis constitueretur finxit antiquitas. And therefore Antiquity never made any semblance of him that might be placed with other of their Gods: Exactly the same that St. Damascen, and other Fathers say. Next he citys Nicephorus Calixtus lib. 18. cap. 53. where delating the Heresy of the jacobits, and Armenians, the Doctor saith, They made Images of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is absurd. Hold there good Doctor, you name one person more than Nicephorus doth: Imagines (saith he) Patris, & spiritus Sancti effigiant, quod perquam est absurdum. They made Pictures of the Father and the Holy Ghost, which is very absurd. And pray you, is it not absurd to Picture the Father, and the Holy Ghost without the Son? Well, I answer: To Paint their incomprehensible Divinity is most ; but not to Picture their visible apparitions: neither doth Nicephorus affirm it, nay he saith four lines after: Imagines sacras honorant illi quidam, sed non osculantur. These Heretics worshipped holy Images, etc. Ergo, he held some Pictures Holy and Sacred, but this the Doctor mentioneth not; yet shuts up his Sect. pag. 63. with a weighty sentence of Polidor Virgil, lib. 2. de inventione rerum, cap. 23. His words are these in the beginning of the Chapter, Quo fit, ut cum Deus ubique praesens sit, nihil a principio post homines natos stultius visum sit quam ejus simulacrum fiagere. When God is every where present (that is immense) a foolery it is to make his Picture: For immensity cannot be circumscribed. If Polidor means more I care as little for his Authority as the Doctors.  
Thus you see how one Principle out of St. Damascen (a most exact truth) silenceth the Doctor every where, though he citys so new an Author, as Polidor Virgil.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Pope's Supremacy: Of the Doctor's cavils against it. Of his deceitful and false Quotations.  
THe Doctor pag. 63. Sect. 10. enters upon a large debated controversy, the Pope's Authority, and thinks with his four leaves, and a few old defeated objections to undo both Pope and Popery. He tells us first, When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any Prerogative given to one above the rest, save only of Priority, and orderly precedency, which of itself was natural, necessary and incident. I would gladly know of our Doctor in plain English, what these minced words of Priority, and orderly Precedency signify? or what could that one Apostle, (let it be St. Peter, if he please) do more by force of this Priority, and orderly Precedency then St. Paul, or any of the Apostles? St. Peter writ Canonical Scripture, so did St. Paul; St. Peter governed the whole Church, and had jurisdiction over it, so (saith the Doctor) had St. Paul; St. Peter could make Laws for the Universal Church, and was St. Paul limited in this Power? what then signifies this Priority, and orderly Precedency in one above the other Apostles? Let him declare this ingeniously, bring it to a reality, and prove it (as it behoveth him) by Scripture, and that very Place he citys shall prove also that Primacy, which Catholics give to St. Peter.  
In the interim be pleased to hear how pag. 64. he quotes St. Cyprian deunit: Eccle. for equality of Power among the Apostles, and deceives his Reader by concealing part, and depraving the whole sense of St. Cyprians words: They are long and thus. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum. Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, & super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae, etc. & tibi dabo claves, etc. & iterum eidem, post resurrectionem suam dicit, pasce oves meas. Super illum unum aedificat Aecclesiam suam, & illi, pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, & dicat, sicut misit me Pater, & ego mitto vos, etc. Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdam originem ab uno incipientem sua Authoritate disposuit. Our Lord spoke unto Peter: I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc. And again, after his Resurrection, he said unto him, Feed my Sheep: Upon him one alone, or only, he builds his Church, to him he committed his Flock to be fed. And although he gave after his Resurrection equal power to all the Apostles, and said, As my Father sent me, I send you; yet to manifest Unity, he appointed or settled one Chair, and the Origen of this Unity he ordered by his own Authority to proceed from one. (Now follows the Doctor's words) Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pariconsortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra una monstretur. What Peter was the other Apostles were, endowed with like fellowship of Honour and Power, but the beginning comes from Unity. The Primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ and one Apostolical Chair might be manifest. These last words, sed exordium, etc. Primatus Petro datur, and super illum unum, as also the precedent, unam Cathedram constituit, which clear all, the Doctor conceals. Is not here plain juggling?  
This Primacy, and true Head-ship of St. Peter all Antiquity so amply confirms, that Volumes might be made of their Writings. See that Learned and ancient Author Optatus milevitanus, lib. 2. adversus Parmenianum, page (with me in his works printed at Paris 1631) 48. Igitur negare non potes, scire te in urbe Roma Petro primam Cathedram Episcopalem esse collocatam, in qua sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus: unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedrâ unit as ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas, sibi quisque defenderet: ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram, alteram collocaret: Ergo, Cathedra una est, quae est prima de dotibus. sedit prior Petrus, cui successit Linus, Lino successit Clemens, Clementi, Anacletus, etc. The sense is. Deny you can not, that you know, that the first Bishop's Seat was placed at Rome, where Peter the head of all the Apostles did sit, and therefore was called Cephas. This was done to prevent, lest any should erect another Chair against it. The Seat therefore is one, the first of Gifts and Graces: first sat Peter, Linus succeeded, etc. And he gives you a List of the other ensuing Popes to Siricius, who sat in this Chair when Optatus lived. See also that known passage of St. Hierom lib. 1. adversus jovinianum, cap. 14. circa medium, in his works printed at Colen, anno 1616. where after those words which Protestants usually allege: Ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. He adds, Tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet therefore among twelve one is chosen, that a Head being appointed, occasion of schism might be taken away. See also Tertullian de pudicitia, with me, page 743. printed at Paris anno 1641.) Qualis es evertens, & commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem: super te aedificabo Ecclesiam mean, & dabo tibi claves. What a man are you overturning and changing the manifest intention of our Lord, who gave to Peter personally this privilege? Upon thee will I build my Church, to thee will I give the keys, etc.  
See lastly St. Cyprian, (to omit St. Austin de Baptismo, lib. 3. cap. 17.) Paris Print 1648. (it is pag. 139.) and 71. Epistle ad Quintum, where spkeaking of St. Peter's humility reprehended by St. Paul, he saith, Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione post modum disputaret, vindicavit aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere. For Peter whom our Saviour first made choice of, and upon whom he built his Church; did not insolently vindicate himself when Paul disputed with him concerning Circumcision, or proudly said? that he was superior or held the Primacy, etc. Endless should I be, if I held on with such manifest Authorities for St. Peter's Primacy, and Superiority even over the Apostles. If you would have more? Ballarm. largely furnisheth you; but none me thinks goes beyond a book Printed at Paris, anno 1553. the Author is a Lawyer Remundus Rufus a most Eloquent, Solid, and Learned man that writ against Molinaeus, and so pithily defends the Pope's Authority, and solves all Arguments against it; that I verily persuade myself, had the Doctor read him, he would never have troubled the World with his four forceless leaves against either Pope, or Peter.  
My task is now to solve those words of St. Cyprian, which the Doctor hath, pag. 64. The other Apostles were the same that St. Peter was, etc. add to them St. Hieroms: Ex aequo, etc.  
One obvious and known distinction clears all; distinguish then, inter Apostolatum, & Primatum, between Apostles-ship and Primacy, and whatever the Doctor hath, or can allege falls to nothing. The Apostles therefore were all equal in the Dignity, and Office of their Apostles-ship, or to speak with some Divines, quoad clavem Doctrinae: this is most true, and granted: But that they were all equal in Government, in Superiority, and Primacy shall never be proved, so long as those words stand in the Gospel. Tu es Petrus, etc.  
You will ask, where I have this distinction of Apostles-ship and Primacy. I Answ. First out of St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited: Hoc erant utique (saith the first) caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti, That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles: Sed Primatus Petro datur: But the Primacy is given to Peter. Where you see, that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole College of Apostles, and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only; either the words of this Saint are senseless, or the distinction of equality in many, and Supremacy in one must stand. And  
In this sense St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant, without gloss, or wresting one syllable: Ex aequo super eos, etc. The strength of the Church was equally built upon the Apostles, viz. as Masters, as Doctors, and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost; yet therefore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Governer being constituted, all occasion of schism might be prevented. Here is certainly more than that Dimunitive orderly Precedency, our Doctor allows good St. Peter: Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words, and point at what is most essential to the Church: The Unity of it. See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and remember well what I was to show, that St. Hierom acknowledgeth an equality amongst many, and a Supremacy in One. Once more I repeat it: equality relates to their Apostolical dignity, Supremacy to the Head and Governor.  
2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All, and Head-ship in One, from St. Gregory the Great, lib. 2. Epist. 38. indictione 13. (so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572.) though others cite lib. 4.  (saith the Saint) Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & Universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, joannes, Andreas, quid aliud quam singularium sant capita? & tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church, the other Apostles not so, nor in like manner Universal. Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship.  
I will add one word more, and tell you though the Doctor should allege out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly styled the Head of Nations, and be said to have had a Principality over the Church, yet the difference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable. St. Paul and the other Apostles, had this Principality as Legates by extraordinary concession. St. Peter had it over the whole Church in solidum, yes, over the Apostles themselves, as Pastor Ordinary. I say Over the Apostles themselves: so Anacletus Scholar to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos (saith he) fuit quaedam discretio, & licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum, & ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum, ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis, & Cephas, id est; caput & principium teneret Apostolatus. There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apostles, and although all were Apostles, yet our Lord gave to Peter, and the other Apostles among themselves willed the same thing that Peter should be Superior to the rest, and Cephas, that is Head and chief of Apostleship.  
See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law, Decreti prima par: distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leave● of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor: pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superior to another: Christ gave the Power to all alike, he made no Head of the Bishops, he gave to none a Supremacy of Power, etc. So the Doctor,  
In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margin with a cluster of Authors, but to what purpose God only knows; if they be to prove that Apostolical power is, and shall be ever in the Church: We grant it to the Pope of Rome. If to prove that Bishops succeed the Apostles in all privileges, and ample power they had in the Church; not one Father in the Doctor's Margin asserts it; though in a real sense, Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors, by reason of their duty which is, to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles, by reason of their spiritual power, and Princely, and Priestly Dignity; and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor, lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet, his, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis. Wherefore we ought to obey those, who are Priests in the Church, those, who have succession from the Apostles.  
Thus St. Irenaeus, and the other Fathers say no more.  
I see not to what purpose the Doctor citys those words of St. Paul: We are Ambassadors or Legates for Christ, unless it be to prove what I asserted above, that the other Apostles, though Princes of the Church, were not Pastors Ordinary, as St. Peter was? Less do I know, why the Preface of the Mass (Quos operis tui vicarios, etc. is brought in: Pastors they were, but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have showed.  
In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits, Monks and Cajetane, for defending the Pope's Authority over Bishops. But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments, yet the best the Doctor hath at hand. Next he citys Pope Elutherius, saying, That Christ committed the Universal Church to Bishops. How good Doctor? That every Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church? 'tis very strange! the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power. Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts, or portions, whereof the whole Church is made, yet ever with subordination to one head, which prevents schism, and conserveses Unity.  
Page 67. he citys the famous words of St. Cyprian. The Church of Christ is one through the whole world, divided by him, into many members, and the Bishopric is but one, etc. No hurt in this, which makes against the Doctor; for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bishopric, there must be certainly one Head over so Vast a Bishopric; no other can be but the Pope, who Governs in Ecclesiastical affairs. Other Bishops have only a portion in the Flock.  
He next citys you Pope Symmachus his words apud Baronium. Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num. 36. but falsely, for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus: Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar, cujus una est atque individua potestas, unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium. As in the Blessed Trinity, whose Power is one and individual, so their is one Priesthood, (our Doctor reads one Bishopric) amongst divers Bishops; and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head, not in Symmachus his Letter. But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words: They being spoken (saith he) against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles, by Anastasius, do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop, etc. A most weak discourse! For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles, in changing the Ancient Custom, admit a confusion ensued upon this change; doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Catholic Church? Both Prince and Prelate may, out of less foresight, make a Law damnable to their people; Ergo, they have no Superiority over them, is but a wretched conclusion, made by a Doctor of Divinity; who, if he had read Symmachus his Letter (and long it is not) he might have found the Pope's Superiority asserted thus: Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum, etc. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus, ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes, cana, ac reverenda servetur antiquitas, nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat. Reading what was anciently done, etc. We warn you, that in your Ordination through every City, Venerable Antiquity be exactly observed, and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances. Here are words of Power and Authority.  
Page 68 he citys St. Ignatius, and before him St. Denis, two Blessed Saints, who in the very words the Doctor gives, speaks not a syllable for him.  
Next he citys Origen: God knows where, for he points to no place: Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority, and St. Hierom: The first saith he is, distinct. 97. cap duo sunt. He mistakes the place, it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus: Decreti prima pars. distinct. 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt: the words are these: Honour, fratres, & sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati longe erit inferius. Episcopal Honour and high Dignity, cannot be matched, though compared with Kings and Princes. What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees, between Christ, and the poorest Bishop in Europe? True it is, that the meanest Bishop in the Church, for his Character, or Dignity of a Bishop (precisely considered) is equal to the highest; (so all Priests are, in respect of their Characters in Priesthood) yet this shows not, but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction than an other. I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not equalise himself with the Primative of England every way, though if he were a true Bishop (as he is none) Gelasius his words would be verified: Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison, etc.  
Now to St. Hierom cited in jeremiam Homil. I answ. Doctor▪ jeremy surely mistakes St. Hierom: I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom, whose Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books, the Chapters handled, are the Prophets; but there is not one Word or Title, of any Homily upon jeremy. I entreat him to direct me to that 7th. Homily; and because he citys also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos, which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio, and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter. I know what he aims at, but because the objection is old, it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citations. His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth, deserves no answer; nor that of St. Cyprian, which he citys in Con. Carth. for, who among those he speaks of, could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bishops? Or, by Tyrannical power drive his Colleagues to an necessity of Obedience? No Pope pretends to this Tyranny.   

CHAP. X.  
Of St. Gregory's refusing the Title of Universal Bishop. Of Father's asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor. Of the Doctor's faulty Quotations.  
NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objection, out of St. Gregory, who because john Patriarch of Constantinople, called himself Universal Bishop, said it was a proud, profane, Sacrilegious, Antichristian Title. And it was so indeed in this Patriarch, who had no right to the Title, or thing either.  
To clear the difficulty, be pleased to know, that this word Universalis may have a triple sense: First, it may signify Unum Solum singular, one sole singular, so we speak usually, Universalis Ecclesia, id est, una tantum, extra quam non est salus. One Church only Universal, out of which is no Salvation.  
Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sense, importing that he is the sole, only, and singular Patriarch, and that other Bishops are no more but suffragans, or delegates, is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian: Sacrilegious because (engrossing to himself the sole power) he robs his Brethren of their true dignity. Antichristian, because he opposeth Christ, who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction, to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church.  
Now, that the Patriarch of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power, may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius. Nullus (saith the Saint) eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit. No one ever assumed, or consented to use that word of Singularity: (and mark the reason) Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur, honore debito privarentur universi. Lest whilst something is given to one privately, the General or Universal are deprived of their due honour. And a little before: Si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit, Universa Ecclesia, quod absit, a statu suo corruit, quando, qui appellabatur Universalis, cadit. If therefore any one takes to himself that name in the Church, the Universal Church (which God forbidden) must fall, when he that was called Universal, falls. More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer than in his 4th. Book of his Epistles writing to John. Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses, ad hoc quandoque perdactus es, ut dispectis fra●ribus, Episcopus appetas solus vocari. Thou who didst confess thyself unworthy to be called a Bishop, art now come to this, that despising the Brethren, than covetest to be called the only Bishop. Evident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambitious Patriarch, with contempt of his Brethren, would be the sole and only Bishop, which is Sacrilegious, and Antichristian, and neither due to Pope nor Patriarch.  
2. The Title of Universal may render you a sense that savours of Pride, Hautiness and Profaneness, and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes, it was often used by the Roman Emperors, and sounds high in the Greek Language. Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words: pag. 26. circa medium: Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset, utebatur graeca voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae non aliud significat, quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim orbis terrarum est, & Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Universalis dicitur ut Pelagius & Gregorius interpretabantur. And John being a Grecian, used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies no other but Patriarch of the whole World, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Universal World, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin imports Universal, as Pelagius and Gregory did interpret the word. This Title also, as Secular and Profane, St. Gregory rejected.  
3. The word Universal, or Universalis Episcopus without any ill sense at all, may signify that ample Power, and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church: and under this notion, the Fathers assembled in the Council of Chalcedon offered it to Pope Leo in these words: Sancto, & amantissimo Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae, etc. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome, etc. Certainly, those Grave and Learned Fathers cannot be supposed, either to have flattered the Pope, or given him a profane Title, or the Title of sole and only Bishop, assumed by john of Constantinople. Well, Leo refused the Title, and why? either because it seemed new to him, or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and public Rite in former ages; or finally, because the blessed man waved it out of Humility. Admit that St. Gregory did so likewise upon the like Motives, doth it follow that he yields up his Supremacy? No, he asserts this Supremacy over and over writing to Mauritius: Petro Apostolorum principi, cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur, & tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur; & vir sanctissimus, consacerdoes meus joannes, vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur. When the Principality of the Church was committed to Peter, chief of the Apostles, he was not called Universal Apostle, and John my fellow Priest, endeavours to be called universal Bishop. Now the Saint saith, That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolic. Now, That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him. Now, That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat. Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium. Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject. The Authorities are known and vulgar.  
This truth supposed: let us see the force of the Doctor's Argument, which must be this, or nothing. St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop: Ergo, he denied his Supremacy over the Church. In answer, I plainly deny the consequence, and say, that the Saint, by refusing a Title which might seem new to him, and which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite, or finally, out of the motive of Humility, doth not therefore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church, whereunto positively he lays claim so often. A Principality stands good, entire, and unshaken, Though an innocent Title, harmlessly expresing that Principality, be for some reason refused by him, who justly possesses the Principality. His Majesty, King Charles the Second, is now absolute Monarch and Sovereign over his Kingdoms, and is rightly styled King of England, etc. Put case that either Parliament or People, should go about to invest him, with a New Title, and call him Emperor of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, might not his Majesty refuse this Title, (which neither adds to, nor deminishes his regal Power) without denying his Sovereignty? This is our case in St. Gregory; who, as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World, nor to any profane Title, so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church.  
Thus much is said, in case it can be showed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sense, above mentioned: For by what I have yet read, he rejects it only in opposition to john, or in that sense, in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it.  
The Doctor pag. 70. citys St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost. Hom. 3. Answer, St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of judas, and hath these words. Illud considera quàm Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia, nihil Authoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. (Nothing by his own Authority) which the Doctor more carefully, then sincerely translates (nothing by special Authority) intimating, (as I conceive) no special Authority given to St. Peter, whereas those words Nothing by his own Original Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidently suppose, both Power and Authority in St. Peter: for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only, (but with the advice of his Counsel) unless he be supposed to have Authority: which is here evidenced in St. Peter, by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom. Neque simpliciter dixit, hunc in locum judae sufficimus, sed consolans illos, etc. As who should say, St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election, but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples, who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas. Here, by the way, observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor. St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles, nothing by his own Power, or Command, Ergo, he had not the Power: why? because he used it not. Is this a tolerable discourse? A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair, 
See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirmed by St. Chrisostom upon the Acts, even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. chiefly at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 22. Again n. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Afterwards pag. 625. at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  by, and with the advice of his counsel, not by his own Authority: Ergo, he hath not this Power; Doth the not actual using of Power and Authority either imply, or argue the not having of it? Toys. Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine, delivered a few lines above the place now quoted, he would have found St. Peter's Authority made good in these words: Quàm est fervidus? Quàm agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem? Quàm in hoc choro princeps est? & ubique primus omnium incipit loqui. How fervent is St. Peter? How doth he acknowledge, or own the Flock committed to him by Christ▪ In this assembly he was Prince, and chief, and everywhere, first of all gins to speak. Here is enough to silence the Doctor.  
Who citys next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is (saith he) no Scripture, no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it. Answer, Here is an Emphasis too much: (no Scripture, no Revelation) and that left out of Canus which moderates all. Canus his words are these. Illud quoque magnopere advertendum est, Romanum Pontificem Petro succedere, non esse (per se quidem) in sacris literis revelatum, sed aliunde constare, exeo scilicet, quod gravissimae historiae prodidere, Petrum Apostolum suam Cathedram Romae demum collocasse, ibique cum esset, Episcopum fuisse defunctum. 'Tis much to be reflected on: That the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, is not indeed (by its self) revealed in Scripture, but is manifested by other means; to wit, by most grave History, that hath left on Record, that Blessed St. Peter placed his Chair at Rome, and when he was there, died Bishop of that place; For this, Canus citys you eighteen or nineteen of the most Ancient Fathers that lived in the Church, as St. Denis, Clemens, Anacletus, Tertullian, St. Hierom, St. Austin, etc. and finally concludes: 
Will the Doctor stand to this Bishop's Judgement? what thinks he of this determination of the Question?  Tam vero multis, & incorruptis testibus qui non credit, is aut stultum, aut haereticumse esse demonstrat. He who gives not credit to so many, and sincere witnesses, either shows himself a Fool, or an Heretic. Now mark the disingenuous dealing of our Doctor with Canus who to make his words sound loud for the Protestants purpose, fraudulently omits these particulars, (non esse per se quidem) which abates much, and turns them out of that furious sense the Doctor gives. [There is no Scripture (saith he) no Revelation, that the Bishop of Rome should succeed Peter.] Canus speaks thus, and moderately: That the Bishop of Rome does succeed Peter, is not by itself precisely, or in express terms revealed in Scripture; which hath Truth in it, for the Bishop of Rome per se, or in formal express terms is not named in Scripture: Yet, neither Canus, nor any can doubt but that this succession of the Roman Bishop is evidently deduced out of Scripture, though not per se revelatum.  
Were the Doctor versed in School Divinity, or knew how precisely Schoolmen speak, when they inquire what is per se, by itself immediately, or in formal terms revealed: I could tell him that Canus his words deserved more, then totally to be omitted by him. Put case it were revealed per se, that a man is animal rationale, a reasonable creature; it follows by evident discourse, he is also risibilis, risib●le: Yet, I know many Divines, (and Canus may be one) who say, that the man is risiblle; is not per se revealed; why? because this is not per se, or in express terms affirmed by the Revelation, though drawn from thence by good consequence. But enough of these subtleties, they are not for the Doctor.  
After Canus he citys Cardinal Cusanus and Soto affirming, as he says, that This succession was not addicted to any particular Church, etc. Answ. First, Nicolaus de Cusa, or Cardinal Cusanus writ that Treatise de Concordantiâ Catholicâ when he was a young man, about the beginning of the Council of Basil, and as Bellar. observes, to exalt the Authority of the Council, too much depressed the See Apostolic; but afterwards seeing his error, and how the Schisms grew on, he opposed it, and stood earnestly for the See Apostolic, as you may see in that Epistle writ to Rodericus Trevinus; you have it in Cusanus his works printed at Basil page 825. anno 1442. [20. May the Letter was dated.]  
2. Cusanus speaks not so absolutely as the Doctor makes him, for although he said, Siper possibile, Trevirensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiam congregatam, etc. If possible the Archbishop of Trevers were by the Church assembled, chosen for Head and Governor, he would be more the successor of Peter then the Roman Bishop: Yet he adds this mitigation: Licet credendum sit Romanum Pontificem, sicut locum Petri, ita & principatum nunquam perditurum. Although it is to be believed, that the Roman Bishop, as he will never lose the place of Peter, so he will never lose his Principality. This the Doctor thought fit to conceal.  
Dominicus Soto, in the place cited by the Doctor, §. Sed forsan, stiffly defends the Succession of the Roman Bishop to St. Peter: Verba ipsa (saith he) tu es Petrus, & super hunc, etc. & pasce oves meas, palam demonstrant illa ratione Ecclesiam, usque ad postremum diem orbis duraturam, fundasse, ut Petri successores, perinde ac Petrus ipse, vice Christi fungerentur: atque adeo unusquisque eorum summum in Ecclesia fastigium teneret. Those words, Thou art Peter; and feed my Sheep; evidently demonstrate the Church founded in such a manner to the end of the World, that the Successors of Peter as well as Peter himself be in the place of Christ, and every one of them hold Supreme Authority in the Church of Christ. It is true §. Duo ergo (he saith) rem esse impendio decentissimam ut Romana sedes Petri sanguine decorata sit sedes successorum Petri. It is most decent that the Roman See honoured with the blood of Peter, be the place of all the Successors of Peter: And then adds: Hac non obstante veritate, nulla profecto ex Evangelio prohibitio plane colligitur, quo minus posset Ecclesiae constitutione fieri ut Episcopus sedem suam ab urbe demutaret: Imo ut nullam sibi particularem applicaret, cujus diceretur Antistes, sed esset Universalis mundi Episcopus cui omnes particulares subjicerentur. Notwithstanding this Truth, there is no clear Prohibition in the Gospel, forbidding (if the Church appoint so) that the Bishop of Rome change his Seat, yes, and apply no other particular one to himself, of which he may be called Bishop and yet he would be the Universal Bishop of the World: to whom all particulars ought to be subject.  
See now how little the Doctor hath got out of these two Authors: Cusanus saith, that if by any possibility the Bishop of Trevers were by the Votes of the Church, Head of it; he would have Universal jurisdiction over the Church, as the Pope hath now; (for Cusanus ever defended this ample Authority of the Pope.) Soto saith, that it is not plane, fully, clearly, forbidden in the Gospel, that the Bishop of Rome change his See, yet if he did so, he would be still the Universal Bishop of the World; to whom all were subject, even the Bishop of Down and Connor. Now here is that which vexeth our Doctor, viz. that one man have such an ample command, and Authority over all: Put case, Per impossibile, (say I) that the Bishop of Trevers were elected Pope, (qua Trevirensis) with the same ample Power and jurisdiction that the Pope ever had, and that the Roman Bishop were laid aside: our good Doctor would even then, storm as much against Trevers Pope, as he now doth against the Roman. It is not, God knows, the place or person that he so furiously opposeth, but the Power and Dignity annexed, to what See soever. This gives him regret.  
Next he saith, It cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome. is Prince of the Church; And I think by his Marginal citation he directs me to joannes Driedo de dogm. lib. 4. cap. 3. This Chapter hath 13. or 14. Leaves in Folio, and three parts in it. The Doctor might well have quoted the part, had he ever read Driedo: But let that pass. I answer, Driedo hath nothing for the Doctor's purpose, but expressly the contrary: thus: part. 2. cap. 3. Folio with me, 227. Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus, Mat. 10— Hoc autem non potest intelligi, quod Petrus fuerit primus tempore, aut vocationis ordine, quoniam Andreas prius secutus est Christum, quam Petrus, etc. dicitur ergo Petrus esse primus Apostolorum, dignitate, & praelationis potestate. St. Matthew reckons of St. Peter as first, But this cannot (saith Driedo) be understood that Peter was first called, for Andrew Was before him and first followed Christ: Peter therefore is styled the first of the Apostles, because of his Dignity and Power of Superiority. And this Principality Driedo earnestly maintains, not only in St. Peter, but in every lawful elected Bishop of Rome. Vide folium 229. Part 2. Omnes (saith he) ab initio Ecclesiastici Pontifices, Patres, Martyrs, & Universalis Ecclesiae concilia, honoraverunt Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificem, tanquam supremum & Universalis Ecclesiae Episcopum. All Bishops from the beginning, The Fathers, Martyrs, and Councils of the Universal Church, have ever honoured the Pope of Rome as the Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church. And here is enough of the Doctors 10th. Section, for what he saith of the African Fathers opposing the Pope is handled so often, that 'tis time lost to repeat it: So also is that which he hints at, out of the Council of Chalcedon giving equal Rights, and Preeminency with Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople. I answer briefly, This is most untrue, the very Decree, were it Authentical, gives him only the second place, as is manifest by these words: Secundam post illam existere: that is, next after Rome: I say, if the Decree were Authentical, for it was both clancular, and surreptitious, procured by Anatolius and his Confederates while the Pope's Legates were absent. This manifestly appears both by Pope Leo his Letters to Anatolius, and the attestation of the whole Council, which I have read more than once, and am ready to maintain what I say against Dr. Taylor, or any body else.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Doctor's harsh Doctrine concerning speedy repentance after sin. Of his mistakes, and wronging Authors.  
IN his 11th. Section, pag. 71. he hath little worth notice a crowd of Controversies you have, superficially run over E. G. Invocation of Saints, in sufficiency of Scripture: Nine penny Masses: and I know not what, lightly are they touched on by him without proof, and let them on God's name as lightly pass without answer.  
Page 72. he citys the Cannon Law de consecrat. distinct. c. peracta. where it is said, that Consecration finished, all are to Communicate, etc. for so the Apostles appointed, and the Church of Rome holds. Had the Doctor the Marginal gloss upon this Chapter, he might have seen, that this Ancient Law is now no more in force, and this by the permission of the Church, obliging only to Communicate once a year. O, but the Apostles appointed it: So they also appointed, Act. 15. v. 20. To abstain a suffocatis, & sanguine, from strangled meat and blood; Doth the Doctor comply with this precept? Every positive Law, even of the Apostles, had not always force in after ages. I wonder he citys this Law against us, while Protestants themselves do not observe it: doth every one, that is present at service, Communicate when the Minister makes his Caena? but what will you? there is neither Consecration nor Communion. The rest that follows in this Section is most empty stuff.  
Page 75. cap. 2. Sect. 1. he much reprehends Catholic Doctors, who teach that a sinner is not bound presently to repent of his sin, as soon as he hath committed it. He adds, pag. 76. Though the Church calls on sinners to repent on Holy days, or at Easter; yet that by the Law of God, they are not tied to so much, but only to repent in the danger or article of Death. (Mark the word only.) And for this Doctrine he citys the Famous Navarre, in his Enchir, or Manual, cap. 1. num. 31. Answ. I see he never read Navarre, for he neither gives you the Right number, nor his Doctrine exactly; the number, with me in his Manual printed at Antwerp 1601. is, num. 27. The Doctrine thus, after Navarre had declared that the other two affirmative precepts of Baptism and confession do not oblige under pain of a new sin but in time of necessity: Ita, saith he, per consecutionem, praeceptum affirmativum de se convertendo, non obligat sub paena novi peccati Lethalis nisi in articulo necessitatis; in illo vero sic: quamobrem ad praedictam paenitudinem concipiendam tenebimur imminente articulo mortis naturalis, vel violentae, vel administrandi, suscipiendique aliquod sacramentum, imo etiam instante populi necessitate aliqua grandi, cui absque orationis fervore provideri non posset. So by consequence, the affirmative precept of converting one self, doth not oblige under pain of a new mortal sin but in time of necessity, and in that Article thus: wherefore bond we are to repent in the imminent Article of death natural or violent, or when we receive any Sacrament, or any danger, or great necessity presses on us, not to be prevented but by ardent Prayer, etc. Perhaps the Doctor will say, that these two last cases of the Sacrament, or great necessity, Per accident, accidently oblige a sinner to contrition. Be it so, yet Navarre saith not so much, at least he doth not say, that a sinner is obliged only to repent in the hour of his death. It is one thing to oblige a sinner to repent, when he is ready to die, and another to say, he is only then obliged. All sinners are certainly bound to repent then, yet many great Divines add to this a further obligation, and affirm that, aliquoties in vita, for some time in their life, this Obligation lies on them.  
I cannot but smile reading our Doctor, pag. 76. (whose whole aim is to show out of our Authors, that repentance is never necessary but in the hour of death only) to see how unwarily he speaks from his own purpose, while he makes Renaldus to say, that a sinner is obliged to repent (which is undoubtedly true.) He citys him, Prax. Fori. Paen. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sect. 4. n. 23. In English thus: It is true, and the Opinion of all men, that the time in which a sinner is bound by the commandment of God to be contrite for his sins, is the imminent Article of natural or violent death. Let every ingenious Reader ponder these English words till Doomsday, and say afterwards whether he can force any other sense out of them, but this ascertained Truth only, that a sinner at death is obliged to repent, but that he is then only obliged (which is to the purpose) shall never be proved.  
I'll deal ingeniously, and help the Doctor: Reginald seems to say more than what this Empty English Quotation sets down. His words are: Omnium communis, sententia est, tempus in quo peccator conteri tenetur, (intellige per se, seu vi specialis Praecepti de contritione a deo dati) esse imminentem articulum mortis naturalis, vel violentae. The common Opinion of all is, that the time wherein a sinner is bound to repent, (understand Per se, or by force of a special command given by Almighty God of contrition) is the imminent Article of a natural or violent death. This Parenthesis (intellige Per se) which 
* I say it seems for I cannot assert that Reginald plainly says so much.  seems exclusive of other special precepts save only at death, and would most have been for advantage, the Doctor wisely leaves out. However with it he shall never make his assertion good, viz. that Reginald holds, a sinner is not obliged to repent but only in the hour of death, and I speak of an Obligation per se, not of accidental cases, as if one makes a vow to have contrition, or to come to the Sacraments, etc. My reason is: that although there be no special command, given by Almighty God for contrition, but only in that Article; yet, the very Law of Nature, and the Charity, that a long inveterate sinner, owes to his own Soul, both may, and doth oblige him sometimes in life to convert himself to his Maker by hearty repentance; whereof more hereafter. Reginaldus further observes, out of St. Austin, That he who lives thus impenitent, incurs not only the danger of transgressing anew, but deeply hazards his Salvation, which hazard, intrincical to the state of such an inveterate Criminal; calls loud upon him; yes, and obliges him sometimes in life to repentance, or the Love of God. Had the Doctor considered the counsel given us in Scripture, Eccles. 5. Ne tardes converti ad Dominum, & ne differas de die in diem: Do not delay this conversion, etc. And how Zealously both Divines in Schools, and Preachers in their Pulpits inculcate this wholesome Doctrine, and lay open the danger of delaying sinners, He would never have blamed Reginald, who only rigoriously examines what men are obliged to, under mortal sin; Ex vi specialis praecepti de contritione a deo dati: where every particle is restrictive, and little warrants the Doctors charge on him, in the general: No repentance but in the Article of death only. The Doctor citys other words of Reginald mangled, and weighed out of their circumstances. Let that pass among lesser faults.  
Now one word of his new Learning: He saith then pag. 76. that a sinner ought to repent presently after his sin. I ask him whether he hath any precept for this assertion in Scripture, and mind him of his own Quotation: 'Tis the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine, that is not Scripture. Here we may have plain dealing, if he please; Either he can give Scripture for a sinners present repentance after sin, or no; if he cannot, he hath a devilish spirit, imposing on poor Souls a Divine command, not proved by Scripture; if he warrants this precept by Scripture, without gloss, and interpretation of his own, I will proclaim to the whole World, that Dr. Taylor is one of the most profound Divines we have now in Europe: But this he shall never do: Therefore I am afraid the other Lot will fall on him.  
I will be plain. Most harsh and an intolerable Doctrine it is to say, that a sinner under new mortal sin, is obliged to repent presently, especially in the Doctor's Opinion, who makes no distinction between sins mortal, and venial in their own Nature. Observe I beseech you: Put case that one commits a Murder this day, and continues in the sin for Months and Years, it followeth evidently, that for every Moment of these Months and Years, (if he reflects on his Homicide) be sins a new unless he reputes: Why? The command of God is that he repent presently after his Fact: This command he Transgresses, and therefore sins a new; the next Moment, Hour, or day, the same severe Command of God (obliging to repentance) leaves him not, he sins still on, and consequently, for as many Moment's as he lives (let it be for Years) he heaps sin upon sin, and multiplies them without number: for the command of God obliging all this while to repentance, is grieviously transgressed, and to transgress that Law, makes so often, with our Doctor, so many sins. Is not here a sad and deplorable story, to use the Phrase of our Doctor? Is it not much better to say with Reginald that it is a lesser evil for a man to continue under one sin for a time, (though such a condition is deplorable) then to have sins multiplied hourly and daily, almost numberless? Now if the Negative precept, as Reginald holds, forbids not the perseverance in sin, (at least for some time) these whole Troops of transgressions, which (according to the Doctor) intervene between the first sin committed, and final repentance are avoided. Here is mercy to a poor sinner. The Doctor mercilessly without Scripture, without Authority at all, saith what God never spoke, and drives him to desperation.  
Page 77. he shows himself more than strangely ignorant: And first, I do not touch upon what he saith, That the Church hath been more severe than God, tying a sinner by collateral positive Laws to repent at Easter; nor secondly, of the seeming contradiction, which follows, that the Church Ordains but the means, the exterior solemnity of it (that is confession, etc.) These I wave, and wish the Reader to reflect on the last words in that Paragraph: So that sinners, saith he, are still left to their liberties, etc. even to satisfy ourselves with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for a little while, even during our short mortal Life: only we must be sure to repent at last. Mark well, Even to satisfy ourselves, with all the remaining pleasures of that sin for our mortal life. What! a Doctor of Divinity and speak thus? why there is none but knows, that the taking of content, or satisfaction in the pleasure of a sin past, is another hideous sin, forbidden by Almighty God, and execrated by all Doctors. A sin once committed remains habitually, (misery enough) until it be retracted by penance; but to take pleasure in it afterwards, is another guilt distinct from the former, unto which it seems our Doctor's Divinity reaches not.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Doctor's cavils against Contrition and Confession. Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholic Authors.  
THe Doctor in his 78. pag. has nothing but talk without substance: In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition, and saith we allow it not valuable, unless it includes a desire, or will to confess our sins to a Priest. Answ. We do so, and give this reason: True contrition, which reconciles to God, votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands: But one Command is, that we confess our sins to a Priest; therefore true Contrition submits to it. This proof is evident, if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest, which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose, until the Doctor shows the contrary.  
Add to this what our Doctor hath, page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England. If so, give me leave to ask him, who Ordained this Confession? God, or the Church? or whether there is Scripture for it, or no? if neither God, Scripture, nor Church warrant it, it is an invention of man, and may participate, (according to our Doctor) of a devilish spirit, consequently cannot be of excellent use among any, etc. Now, if Scripture be for Confession, if God, or the Church have Ordained it, the Doctor must say, (if he knows what true Contrition is) that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God, doth of necessity imply (Actually or Votively) a serious will of doing what ever God, Scripture, or Church Commands us: for to say, I am sorry for my sin, out of the Motive of God's infinite Love, I purpose amendment, I'll do his Will hereafter; and not to say, I'll do what God, Scripture, or Church commandeth, implies a contradiction; in a word, it is to say and unsay, purpose and not purpose, etc.  
To confirm this discourse, I have enough from the Doctor, pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God, etc.— Ending in a dereliction of all sin, and a walking in all Righteousness. I wish no more; for this very walking in all Righteousness, implies the obedience we give to Contrition, and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also, if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners: perhaps he may say, that Confession is only of Counsel, not of Command, when I have his Scripture for such an assertion, he shall have his answer fully.  
In the interim, know, that it is but vain to talk (as our Doctor doth) of a repentance towards God, (as it were in abstracto) without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it, which as now I said includes a serious will of doing God's Command. This truth supposed, with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men, before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God? It is a flat Calumny, and as ill intended, as expressed improperly; for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man, but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition, which resting in God, prefers him and his Commands, before all things in the World?  
A few lines after he saith, pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God; so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner: Contrition without it will not: Attrition with it will reconcile us. And this Doctrine (saith he) is expressly Decreed at Trent.  
I stand here astonished at this ignorance: Do I read in a Doctor, that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner, and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expressly? I say first, that the Council expressly declares the contrary. Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione: Docet praeterea [Sancta Synodus] & Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat, hominem Deo reconciliare, prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur, etc. The Holy Synod teaches, Although it sometimes falls out, that this Contrition when perfect with Charity, reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament, etc. The words are contrary to the Doctor's assertion, and need no explication.  
I say, 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines, that Contrition (proceeding from the Love of God, or true motive of Charity) in the very Moment a Soul hath it, gain's pardon, reconciles to God, disposes immediately to supernatural Grace, whereby a sinner is justified, and made an adopted Child of God; and this I say, In the very Moment a Soul hath it, though Sacramental Confession follows not, for weeks, or months, or by accident never; for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell, who lies at death's door, or is mortally wounded, & doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins, though neither Priest is present, nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for? This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor, and to satisfy him that we Catholics are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession, when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it.  
I know not how the Doctor will come off, and satisfy for the enormous injustice done, both to the Council of Trent and all Catholics, but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him.  
Perhaps he may tell us, that when he says, Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us, he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition, and not of Actual. No, I thought Ritual, as he terms it, and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas, or of the same signification with Actual Confession. However, if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession, read his words thus: Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire, reconciles not a sinner to God, and this you must suppose to be his meaning. Then know, we Catholics hold constantly, that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition, consequently all he proves is, that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God. How then doth he advance any new proof against us? Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying, that an Act, which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to God's Command, doth not reconcile us to God? yet more.  
If he speaks not of Actual, but Votive Confession included in Contrition, his whole discourse is lame, hobbling, and renders you this Nonsense: As Contrition without Sacramental Confession (in Vote or desire) doth not reconcile us to God, so attrition with actual, Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us, which inference without life and vigour, shows nothing to the Doctor's purpose; for what doth it avail him to say in this place, as no Contrition doth reconcile us, so Attrition with the Sacrament doth? Had he said, as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God, so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth; the sense had been good and Catholic: But never shall he make sense out of these words: As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us to God, so, etc. unless he speaks (as really he doth) of Actual Confession as well requisite for reconciliation when a sinner is contrite, as when he is attrite only, which is injurious to Catholics. If you ponder well what I have said, you'll find the Doctor in a Labarinth, pull him out who will.  
He goes on in his ignorance, and saith first, that with us there is no necessity of Contrition at all. Answ. Most Untrue: It is necessary in a thousand cases of death and danger, when Attrition only will not avail without the Sacrament. He saith, 2. A little repentance will prevail as well as the greatest; and citys Gulielmus de Rubeo; (he means de Rubeone.) I answ. Two things may be considered in repentance: for Example in an Act of Contrition: The first is, the substance of that Act which implies a sorrow for having sinned against God, and offended his infinite goodness, with purpose of amendment, and this appretiative esteem of God is the same, and  to every Act of Contrition, so much perfection it hath, or 'tis not Contrition. The second, is the gradual remiseness or intenseness of it, which may be various in a sinner; if remiss, it gains less Grace, if intenss, more; and therefore upon this account benefits the sinner accordingly. But know, that the Doctor can never show, either by Scripture or any received Authority, that Contrition, which is a remorse for sin upon the motive now specified aught to have such a gradual intention for the remission of it; and this is all that Gulielmus de Rubione, Tolet, and others say in our present controversy. If the Doctor will have more concerning this subject, he may read Suarez tract. de charitate. Sect. 2. n. 2. (and well Learn of him) that the gradual intention in acts of love towards God, is not necessary to comply with the precept of Loving him above all: Suarez his words are: Illa perfectio dilectionis dei pertinet ad speciem, & naturam talis actus qui saluatur in quavis intensione. The perfection of Charity belongs to the species or nature of the Act, which is had whether the Act be more or less intens. If Suarez his Authority like not the Doctor, I expect his Scripture to the contrary, and with all desire he would plainly say, how strong an intention in Contrition is necessary to reconcile a sinner, and this by Scripture, or some approved Authority.  
Page 81. he shows himself little versed in our Divines, where he tells you, that we say, if a man live a wicked life for 60 or 80 years, yet, if when he dies (sooner than which God hath not commanded him to repent) he be a little sorrowful for his sins, and though this sorrow have no Love of God in it, if the Priest absolve, he is safe, the Priest with two Fingers and a Thumb doth the work for him, etc.  
First, I slight this jeer of two Fingers and a Thumb, God hath his Judgement for it, and may in time stupefy those two Fingers and Thumb that writ it, as once he did Valens his whole hand for an intended injury against a Priest. Next to clear this doubt, our Divines hold, that a man is commanded to convert himself sooner to God then in the Article of death; some whom Suarez Supar citys, Sect. 3. nu. 1. as Capreol and Scot, (too scrupulously) say, That as often as other precepts oblige us, (for example) to give an Alms, so often Charity must accompany the work done: others say not much less: Suarez teacheth and truly, n. 4. That this precept of loving God some time in man's life obligeth per se by its self, and adds, that it is not to be deferred for a long time after the use of reason. Finally concludes, Qui per multos annos non exercet hunc actum amoris delinquit contra hoc praeceptum. He that for many years exerciseth not this Act of Love, offends against the precept of Loving God. Now if the precept obliges all, much more a sinner, who is an enemy to God. And here by the way, you may see the Doctor's Argument above, pag. 76. further answered, and that Reginaldus and Navarre there cited, have nothing contrary to this known and received Doctrine.  
But what if one sins lustily on for 60. or 80. years, and omits these acts of loving God and his duty every way, can he, if he comes in the Article of death, with Attrition only to a Priest, pass into a state of Salvation, though then he neither loves God, nor has true Contrition? I answer, That many both Learned and Grave Divines say No; not only, because the precept transgressed so long then if ever obligeth him, but upon this account chief, that such an obdurate sinner is bound in that dangerous hour to seek reconciliation with God, by the best and securest means; but an Act of Love and perfect Contrition are the securest; therefore to the one or other he is obliged. See Suarez now cited, num. 3. Con. disp. 24. de charitate. dub. 5. conclus. 3. and others: Withal be pleased to reflect, that the Doctor spoke without book, when he so roundly told us, (as if none gainsaid it) that a little sorrow and the fear of Hell only (which is false) though it has no Love of God with it, passeth a sinner in the Article of death to a state of Salvation. All this is said at random: But what will ye? his head was so taken up with his pretty conceit of the Priests two Fingers and a Thumb, that he forgot his Divinity.  
In his 2 Sect. pag. 82. He comes full charged against the use of Confession among Catholics, Though with the pious Children of the Church in England, it is of excellent use. Answ. Besides calumnies, and slanders in this Section he hath nothing worth notice. Princes, says he, and Prelates do often confess, and are never the better. How proves he this slander? or let him say, what is done better with his excellent use of Confession among the Pious Prelates in the Church of England. 2. He saith, That men look on this Cure like pulling off their Clothes. Answ. A slander: But tell me, is it better in the Church of England among those Pious Children he mentioneth? 3. That they confess to day (pag. 83.) and sin to morrow. Answ. And do none sin to morrow, who confess to day in the Church of England? Confession makes not men impeccable, yet is an excellent remedy to prevent sin, and so our Doctor will suppose it is among the Pious Children of the Church of England. 4. He saith, Confession is made a Minister of State, a Pick-lock of Secrets, a Spy upon Families, etc. Answ. A Calumny: The whole Christian World knows the contrary, and I tell you the Doctor is more obliged to make restitution for the wrong done to Catholic Priests in this particular than any Thief is, who picks his pocket: But tell me, is Confession a picklock with Catholics only (in case all were true that he saith without conscience) is there no Pick-lock of secrets, or spy upon Families among those Pious Ministers in the Church of England? I have heard the contrary, that whole Confessions have been revealed by them; whether true or no, I say not; yet I know well, that for the space of forty years that I have lived in Catholic Countries, I never heard the least complaint against Confessor for being a Pick-lock. The Doctor therefore may well expect Gods just Judgement on him for this injustice, unpardonably done, (unless he reputes and makes restitution) to Catholic Priests. But enough of this Section.  
Pag. 86. Sect. 3. he hath a bout with our Penance and satisfaction, and makes a long list of their abuses. They are (saith he) reduced from the ancient Canonical Penances to private and arbitrary; from years to hours; from great severity to gentleness and flattery; from public shame, to the saying over their beads; from Cordial to Ritual, from smart to money, from heartiness and earnest, to pageantry and theatrical Images of Penance. Answ. Though 'tis true that the Church hath upon weighty reasons much lessened the rigour of ancient Penances, and therefore so frequently grant's Indulgences, yet what follows in this pretended Catalogue of abuses, is nothing but a long List of Calumnies, false and injurious. False it is, that if the sin confessed deserves a years Penance, we reduce it to an hours: False, that we turn the severity of Penance into flattery, (unless the Doctor calls the charitable comforting a poor penitent flattery.) No, so far are we from flattery in this Tribunal of Penance, that we lay open the enormity of sin, threatening God's Judgement upon it, and spare no pains to beget a horror of sinning in a penitents heart. False it is, that if the sin be enormous or scandalous, the saying one's beads is enough. False it is, that we exact only Ritual and not Cordial satisfaction. False likewise, that when the penitent aught to smart for his sin, the smart is turned into money; though I think the Doctor will not deny, but that in circumstances of age or infirmity, when the penitent cannot bear austerity, the charitable giving of Alms is laudable and satisfactory; at least holy Daniel liked well of it: Cap. 4. 24. Peccata tua elemosynis redime, & iniquitates tuas misericordiis pauperum. Redeem, make amends for thy sins with Alms-deeds, and thy iniquities with mercies of the Poor. False, finally it is, that we require not heartinesses and earnest in the performance of Penance. Now what the Doctor means by his Pageantry and Theatrical Images of Penance, God I think only knows: Perhaps he blames some public Penances now and then done in the Church; If so; first, all public Penances are not laid aside. 2. You see the Peevishness of our Doctor, nothing escapes his censure; if Penances be private, the Ancient Canons suffer; if public, they are pageantry and theatrical Images: What will content the man? When one stands there among you at a Pillar for Perjury, or in a white Sheet for Fornication; is this pageantry, or any threatrical Images? and what further use have you I beseech ye, of these ancient Canonical Penances among the Pious Penitents of the Church of England?  
Well, to conclude; the Doctor I am sure deserves justly a severe Penance for this heap of Calumnies, and if ever God (as I wish) make him a Catholic, and choose me for Confessor, he shall have it home without flattery; an hours Penance, or saying his Beads will be too little; in a word, his Penance shall be proportionate to his sin, and if he thinks it not enough, let him go on God's name to Sancta Maria de populo, for the gaining of those thousand Indulgences he mentioneth. He holds on this 3d. Section, and tells you of strange Indulgences granted to several places, whether truly or no, it imports little: Admit he speaks truth, all he gets is that the Church is liberally good to such great sinners as he is, who as Holy job saith, Drink iniquity like water; and if after their repentance, it grants them Mercy, what offence is there in doing so? In the rest of that weightless Section, while he explicates what Divines say of Indulgences; sometimes he hits right, sometimes misses, but is ordinarily very plentiful in jeers, all slight stuff: I leave him; only be pleased to reflect, how, though without pointing to any place, he citys Gerson and Soto against himself, for if it be true, that Soto saith in 4 Sent. distinct. 21 q. 2. a. 1. That the Pope never grants these Indulgences for a 100 or 1000 years, The Doctor hath no more to say, but that such pardons are not at all (the Questuaries only procured them) and consequently impugns what never was.   

CHAP. XIII.  
The sum of our Doctor's discourse concerning Indulgences. His two mistakes are discovered. His Objections answered.  
THe Doctor pag. 91. Sect. 4. pretends much chacharity to our Souls, and to unbeguile us, will needs add one consideration more: And what is this think you? Marry, There is no Foundation of truth in these new Divices; and this to boot, that when our Doctors are pinched with an objection, they let their hold go, etc. Good man! Are these his considerations? A young Student in Divinity, would make good sport with such considerations. But, ad rem.  
I constantly affirm, that all he has said in this Section, hath not so much as a shadow of an objection in it against the received Doctrine of Indulgences, much less any that pinches. To prove my assertion, be pleased to have in mind what this received Doctrine is, which the Council of Trent sess. 25. decret. de Indulg. declares thus: Sacrosancta Synodus Indulgentiarum usum, Christiano populo maxime salutarem, & sacrorum conciliorum authoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet, & praecipit. The holy Synod teaches, that the use of Indulgences is most wholesome and profitable to Christians; and commands this use approved by the Authority of holy Councils, to be held still in the Church. Next, it requires a moderation in granting Indulgences, according to the Ancient Custom of the Church, and that all abuses crept in, be amended, etc.  
This Catholic truth supposed: you'll find the Doctor strangely beguiled, and his whole discourse (chief founded on two mistakes) weaker then a Bulrush. His first mistake is, that because Catholics cannot arrive to a certain knowledge of gaining an Indulgence, or the full fruit of it, he thinks no trust is to be had in it, no endeavour used to purchase this Grace. An error: For Divines say, and truly, no one can know with certainty, that he hath an act of true supernatural Faith, or of true Charity in that Degree, Purity and Measure which God exacts; is therefore Faith and Charity (without trust) to be laid aside? is our endeavour to have them carelessly to be left off? is it wholly useless and unprofitable? God forbidden.  
His second error is, that he builds too much upon those many difficulties which our Divines raise in this matter of Indulgences, while they speculatively discuss several cases relating to them; and because this is done with variety of Opinions, the Doctor thinks all undone, and that both the sustance and fruit of Indulgences fails in the Catholic Church.  
A great mistake: For are there not innumerable difficulties speculatively examined almost in every Article of Christian belief, concerning Baptism and other Sacraments? yes, concerning the profession of our Faith in certain exigences: yet these speculative considerations terrify none from professing the necessity and benefit both of faith and Sacraments. The like with a due proportion we say of Indulgences (not so necessary to Salvation, as Faith or Baptism;) though difficulties in such and such particular cases are moved concerning them, yet all agree in the general with the Council of Trent, that they are useful, profitable and beneficial to Christian penitents.  
Having thus discovered the two transcendent mistakes of our Doctor, you shall see how unskilfully he combats against Indulgences.  
Page 92. he saith, Suppose the Indulgence be for forty years, a hundred, a thousand; yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate, you have deserved the Penance of forty thousand years, etc. Answ. A long time indeed! but peradventure this peradventure of the Doctors is a mistake; at lest something is gained besides the merit of the work, though we know not how much; and better it is to have forty years of Penance taken off, then to suffer torment for forty years, though not yet quitted of all pain. (If the damned in Hell could but have forty years of their pain released, thsy would deem it a favour) Therefore the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is true: Usus indulgentiarum est salutaris.  
Again he saith, No man can tell the difference, when what remains shall be so great as to surmount all the evils of this life. Answ. Neither is it necessary: The duty of a good Christian is to take off what pain he can, though he knows not in what measure; and if he diminishes but some little, the use of Indulgences is both good and profitable. I leave that jeer of the Daemoniack with the Doctor; and tell him that if one poor soul were possessed with a legion of Deviles, and had moral assurance that he is freed of some (though he knows not of how many) that little releasement would be of comfort.  
Page 93. He goes on doubting. It may be your Quadragenes, are not carenes, etc. It may be you have purehased but some lighter thing; and then, if your demerit arise to so many Carenes, and you have purchased but mere Quadragenes, you may stay longer in Purgatory than you expected. Answ. It may be the Doctor is deceived in all he saith here: It may be a penitent gets all he expected. But admit he doth not, something is got, (he hath at least the merit of his work) though he knows not how much. The not knowing of his gain doth not lessen it. Though the Doctor knows not precisely how pure his Act of Charity is, the value of it is so much in the sight of God, neither more nor less, upon the account of his own not knowing it.  
He saith again: It is not agreed among Doctors, whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended beyond the taking off those Penances, which were enjoined by the Confessor. Answ. Though it be most true that a plenary Indulgence proceeding from lawful Authority, granted upon a Just and Pious Cause, extends itself to the taking away of all pain, if the penitent complies with his duty; yet here we will not enter on this Question, nor say, how sincerely Turrecremata with the others are cited. Content we are with that which the Doctor does not deny, viz. That Indulgences take off those Penances enjoined by the Confessor: And with this small Pittance of Pardon we conclude that the Council of Trent saith true: Usus Indulgentiarum est salutaris. The use of Indulgences is wholesome.  
He further tells us, page 94. That if a person be not capable of an Indulgence, because he is not in the state of Grace, he gains nothing. Answ. No one doubts of this. The only wonder is that our Doctor spends his Ink and Paper to no better purpose. Soon after he saith, that Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again, and for it he citys Petrus Suavis Polanus in his History of the Council of Trent to prove just nothing: Polanus his words are (though his Authority is little with me) Pontifex, qui ut Theologus, etc. The Pope, who as a Divine had writ of Indulgences (before Luther ever handled the matter) thought to establish by an Apostolical Decree, what he had formerly taught as a private Doctor. And what is this Doctrine of Adrian a private Doctor? Quando Indulgentia conceditur alicui, etc. When an Indulgence is granted to any body, it may be he doth not the work required to be done so perfectly, as to gain the whole Indulgence: Now if any thing be wanting to the perfection of the work, he gains not the whole Indulgence, but a part of it, corresponding to the Work, less well performed. What is here for the Doctor's advantage? What is here against the Council of Trent? Usus Indulgentiarum est salutaris. Something is got by Indulgences according to Adrian, who only spoke as a private Doctor Were any thing amiss, as in reason there is not. But here I must tire you with a piece of the Doctor's subtlety, who saith, That if the Indulgence be only given according to the worthiness of the work done, then that (viz. the work) will avail of it , without any grant from the Church. A strong Objection! I answer, The work will avail of itself to merit, and if penal, to some satisfaction, but not to the releasing of so much temporal pain as the Indulgence takes off, in case it be worthily complied with.  
The Doctors greater heap of dangers, which he sets down from his 6. number of pag. 94. to 98. hath so little danger of an Objection, that to read them is to answer them. For what sense is there to tell us, That we must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence? We have all Moral assurance for it, and incomparably greater than any one hath in England, that his Minister Preaches with Authority to Preach, or delivers true Doctrine. What sense is there to ask. If one has an Indulgence for the Article of death, and dies not then; whether a new one is to be got for the next sickness? As doughty an objection it is, that he hath concerning the Gregorian Calendar: as likewise, his doubt whether a Pope can recall an Indulgence granted by his Predecessor. This and a great deal more which the Doctor has concerning this matter is (he himself knows it) most empty stuff.  
But you'll ask what I say to the great objection he toucheth on here: pag. 96. and proposeth more largely in the beginning of this Section, concerning the emptying of Purgatory? Certainly the Millions of Indulgences, and innumerable other helps in the Church should ere this have a hundred times over evacuated that place of its sad Inhabitants. I answer, this Objection is like the rest, feeble and forceless; and would the Doctor ponder well these words of the Royal Prophet Psal. 100 Misericordiam & judicium cantabo tibi, Domine, He would see the weakness of it: God is Merciful, but withal just. His Mercy empowers the Church to free many: But that prodigal use of the Keys in freeing all, would be against Justice, and would make sinners little to value or fear those torments, which St. Austin says, Surpass all the pains in this World.   

CHAP. XIV.  
A word more of Indulgences. Of the Doctors Mistakes in quoting Authors. Whether the Prayer of a sinner avails him. Of the Doctor's harsh Doctrine.  
THe Doctor after his High heap of dangers and great number of little doubts, pag. 97. tells us that there is one thing necessary, viz. To work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. Answ. First, a poor penitent that apprehends most deeply the pain of Purgatory, and doth so much Penance as we see daily done among good Christians for the releasement of that pain, cannot be supposed in any Christians Charity to be without fear and trembling. 2. We might (if it were worth the while) move as many doubts concerning this fear and trembling, as he doth against Indulgences. We might ask him to work out our Salvation: how often must we fear? How often must we tremble? From what motive-must this fear proceed? How strong and intens must this trembling be? when all is done: How know we that we have trembled enough? and whether we are not to tremble, till we all turn Quakers? Let the Doctor resolve these doubts upon good certainty; and I'll warrant you, his scruples about Indulgences will cease. What he adds of Venial sins hindering the fruit of Indulgences, is not worth taking notice of. But,  
Saith he, pag. 99 Pope Adrian taught a worse matter, viz. He that will obtain an Indulgence for another, etc. And where find we this worse matter? Mark, I beseech you, his Marginal Quotation, Apud Petrum de Soto. lect. de institut. Sacerd. de necessariis ad effectum Indulg. Truly our Doctor all along hath been unfortunate in his citations, and here he shows himself so very unskilful, that I believe he never saw Soto. Know then that Petrus de Soto; besides other works, hath a book in a large Decimo sexto, which he Entitles: Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum, (with me it is printed at Brixia, anno 1586.) under that Title in general he handles many Questions, De scientia sacerdotum, de Baptismo, and other Sacraments; etc. Every Treatise he divides into Lectiones: And after the middle of the Book hath a Title, de Indulgentiis, pag. 263. This Treatise he divides into three Lectiones. Now the Doctor gives you not the Right Lectio of that Treatise (which is the third in number) but unskilfully directs you to his Lectio de Institutione sacerdotum: There is no general Lectio, but Tractatus de institutione sacerdotum, the Lections are subdivisions to several Treatises.  
Well, though without much help from the Doctor we have found the place in Soto: Lectio 3. now cited page (with me) 275. his words are: Notat Hadrianus circahoc, & movet quaestionem, etc. Adrian (who by the way speaks not as Pope, but as a Divine or private Doctor) proposeth this Question, whether one in mortal sin can avail to obtain an Indulgence for another, as if an Indulgence (for Example) be granted to him who gives an Alms, or to him for whom it is given by another. Adrian holds the Affirmative, So that he who doth the work, and wisheth the Indulgence to another, doth an action Morally good: Nam pro▪ peccato non conceditur Indulgentia: For an Indulgence is never granted for a sinful work. This I say, was Adrian's private Opinion not so harshly related by Soto, as it is by our Doctor, who talks as if it were a definition of a Pope. Pope Adrian taught a worse matter.  
I censure not Adrian's Opinion (he was a great Divine) nor approve it; yet this I'll say, that the Doctor doth not so much as probably impugn it. Mark how weakly he argues: As if, saith he, a man could do more for another, than he can do for himself. Answ. Most certainly he may: Cannot one uncapable of a dignity, or a favour in a Commonwealth, beg of his Prince a Grace for another who is capable? A mere secular man, unlearned and Married, may petition his Majesty (and perhaps prevail) that Doctor Taylor be the next Bishop of Canterbury (who they say lives ever unmarried.) Here is our very Case: This secular man is uncapable of such a Grace: So a sinner is of an Indulgence. This secular man prevails to get the Grace for another who is capable: so a sinner may prevail to obtain an Indulgence for another just man capable of the favour. (The parity holds exactly) Therefore it is evident, that one may do more for another than he can for himself in some cases. The Doctor goes on, and speaks not like a Christian: As if (saith he) God would regard the Prayers of a wicked person when he intercedes for another, and at the same time, if he Prays for himself, his Prayer is an abomination. Answ. This last is certainly impious Doctrine, for the consequence of it must needs be this; That no sinner ought in conscience ever to Pray for himself. I'll prove what I say thus: No sinner can in conscience commit an abomination in the sight of God, or sin mortally: But to pray for himself is an abomination, and a mortal sin: therefore no sinner can in conscience pray for himself. Consequently that poor Publican, (9 joan) that prayed for himself Deus propitius mihi esto peccatori. God be merciful to me a sinner: Was an abominable man upon the account of his Prayer: which place of Scripture, no less a Doctor then St. Austin made use of, to prove that a sinner may pray for himself.  
Were the Doctor a Divine, I could tell him that prayer in a wicked man may be a supernatural Act, and proceed from God's Grace (not sanctifying Grace) as Faith is supernatural, which precedes justification in a sinner. What he adds of a work done ungratiously, is a wrong to Adrian; who requires Opus Moraliter bonum: A work morally good, though not meritorious.  
Finally, the Doctor saith, that because Divines require the state of Grace necessary in a man at that time he gains an Indulgence, (though before a sinner) they turn Divinity into Mathematics and Clockwork. A conceit not worthy a Doctor; say, I beseech you, if this good man ascends a Pulpit, and a larems his hearers thus. Good people, you have hitherto profited little by my Sermons: Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis: To day, this very moment, this minute, if you'll hear God speak by me, you are happy, etc. Doth he turn his Sermon into a Clockwork? Or, did the Apostle Clock it when he told the Corinthians Ecce nunc tempus acceptabile. Now is the time acceptable. Ecce nunc dies salutis. Now is the day of Salvation. 2 Cor. 6. Again. Hora est jam nos de somno surgere, nunc enim proprior est nostra salus. 'Tis the hour now, etc. Here is more of the Clock, of Minutes, and hours, than any Divine mentioneth in our present matter.  
Yet more. Pray see how artificially he winds about to bring in his Clockwork. Though saith he, it be not necessary, that when the Indulgence● is granted, the man be in the state of Grace; yet it is necessary that at some time or other, within the term prescribed of the Indulgence, if he will gain it. And to make his conceit of his Clock to run on: he adds: At any time (it seems) it will serve, which sounds falsely, and is so; but here is enough of this Clock.  
Next he blames some Divines who say, That if a man sin in hope of jubilee, or Indulgence to be granted afterward, he may yet gain the pardon. Answ. He may so, unless the Indulgence positively excludes such a man from the favour: Why? the guilt of that sin is remissible by Contrition and Penance; and so likewise is the temporal pain due to it pardonable, by virtue of an Indulgence.  
Page 100 He is upon his old mistakes again concerning Contrition, and thinks it may be sufficient without either act or desire of Confession. This is answered above.  
Page 101. After the praise he gives to that excellent use of Confession among the Pious Children of the Church of England: He finds fault with our satisfaction and Penance, much taken away by the new Doctrine of Indulgences. Answ. Most evident it is, notwithstanding so many Indulgences granted, that the Ancient use of Penance is in a manner only found among Catholics: These are they who fast, these Pray, these curb their passions, these often practise great Austerity; yes, and live sometimes in a mean condition, to relieve the Poor. A Volume would not suffice to express the fruit of their hearty Repentance and eminent Charity, manifest to our eyes in every Town and City. Now for Gods-sake, what have we like this among Protestants? The hearing of a Sermon on Sunday is the most they do; and yet there is no Declension of primitive Discipline among them. Would to God our Doctor were shut up in a Carthusians Cell, and lived as they live but for one year only: he would both practice and see more Penance done, than he hath either practised, or seen in England for his whole life; and yet forsooth, we must hear his Lordship talk of a Declension in Primitive Discipline, and think all fine, when he words it, with living Godly in Christ jesus.  
I never saw that book of Taxa Camerae, which the Doctor mentions, pag. 102. and therefore cannot say what is in it, likely it is a Libel; sure I am that Claudius Espencaeus wishes it suppressed, and if as he saith, Plurimis quidem licentia, omnibus autem absolutio empturientibus proposita. That licence is given to many, and absolution proposed to all that buy it. I cannot but judge ill of the book; and as ill of the Doctor who Englishes Espencaeus, thus— And yet to them who will pay for it, there is to many given a Licence, and to all an absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins. Pray you what may these words, 
* Mark how the Doctor equivocates in those words. To them that will pay for it.  yet to them who will pay for it signify? do they relate to the Book, or to the Licence and absolution for sin? if the second, the whole sense is: They who will lay down money, have Licence, (many at least) to sin, and all have absolution from the most horrid sius. If the Doctor works this sense out of Espencaeus his words, he is more than uncharitable, to think that ever Pope or Prelate favoured that book; it is an infamous Libel that pretends Licence given to sin. The best solution therefore is, that Espencaeus is blamable as appears by the Index Expurgatorius of Cardinal Zapata printed, Hispali. 1631. where this very second digression of Espencaeus is prohibited. Vide verbum Claudius Espencaeus, page Indicis 219.  
The Doctor soon after citys you Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona teaching, That the Pope ought not to grant Indulgences to them who have a desire of giving money, but cannot; as to them who actually give: and he adds immediately: That in such a case, it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition than the Poor. In my whole life did I never meet with such a Doctor, who neither citys right nor says right. Mark I beseech you, how he citys Augustinus de Ancona in his Margin: De potestate Papae quaest▪ 3. ad 3. The Quotation is ridiculous, and no more directs you to find any thing concerning Indulgences then if he sent you to the first Chapter of Genesis. Know therefore briefly, that August. de Ancona writ a sum of Divinity De potestate Ecclesiastica printed anno 1320. under which general Title he handles many Difficulties, and proceeds Methodically; first by Questions, next by Articles; then gives his resolution; and finally solves the objections. At the beginning of his Book, his first question is, De potestate Papae, and hath nine Articles under it: in the third Article not a word of our present matter, nor in any solution ad 3. In his third Question he treats De eligentium jurisdictione, and hath ten Articles under it, and so many Resolutions and Answers, not a word of Indulgences. In the mean while you see that our Doctor's direction; De potestate Papae quaest. 3. ad 3. Helps you nothing. He should (had he lighted on the right question) have pointed out the Article, and then his add 3. might have guided the Reader.  
Well, I find in the 31. question of Augustinus (far off from any 3. question De potestate Papae) Articulo 4. where he treats of Indulgences) these words, ad 3. Si dives ita parum dat ut pauper, puto, quod non tantum habeat de Indulgentia dives sicut pauper, quia tunc oportet recurrere ad justam aestimationem facientis Indulgentiam, quae pensanda est valere secundum facultatem dantis. Sed si sic dicatur: quicunque dabit unum denarium & dives illud daret, sicut pauper; puto, quod tantum haberet dives sicut pauper: quamvis tamen in hoc essent pares, in multis aliis melioris conditionis esset pauper, quam dives. The sense is: If the Rich man gives as little as the Poor man, I think the Rich man will not gain so much of the Pardon as the other. Recourse here must be had to his will that grants the Pardon. But if it be said: whoever gives a penny (or such a small pittance) and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also. These two will be equal, and the one have as much as the other; yet upon other accounts the Poor man's condition will be better. Here is all I can find in this Author, and it is most blameless Doctrine, nothing to the Doctor's sense, viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money, but cannot. And that in such a case, it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition than the Poor. If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author, he shall have his answer. But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals, and therefore abuseth a simple Reader; who when he sees such a cluster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun, thinks our Doctor more Learned than Rabbi Kimki.   

CHAP. XV.  
Of the Doctor's weak Argument against one satisfying for another. Of his new Divinity, that the habit of sin, is sin. Of his worse Doctrine that all sins are mortal. Of his mistaks, and charging on Catholics what they hold not.  
THe Doctor, pag. 103. and 6 Section (I think his 5th. Section hath suffered shipwreck in the fourth, no great loss of it) assaults us many ways. First, he likes not our Doctrine, That one man may satisfy for another; and citys Suarez for it by halfs: Part. 4. (we say) Tomo 4. in 3. partem disp. 38. Sect. 9 I say by halfs, for Suarez holds expressly one cannot satisfy for another, unless the Confessor Licenses that way of satisfying: for Example; if the Confessor enjoins his penitent to fast: Certum est (saith Suarez) It is certain, that another man's fasting will not be satisfactory. He saith: 2. That a Confessor is not to do this without a just and necessary cause (perhaps of weakness and infirmity) because it is not usual in the Church. These limitations our Doctor leaves out, and runs on with a jest. The Rich man is whipped upon another man's back, and his purse only is the Penitent. I answer, If the Rich man's back deserves stripes (as well as some body does) no Confessor causelessly lays them on another, nor makes his purse the penitent; No, it is a slander to say that enjoined satisfaction is thus bought off with money.  
Next comes the Doctor's weighty Argument: For by this Doctrine (saith he) viz. that one man may satisfy for another: it is not to be said of Christ alone, that he was wounded for our transgressions, that he only satisfied for our sins. I answer, If this Argument have force, it proves as much against a man's own satisfaction, as against satisfaction done by another; for if Christ satisfied for all, (in the Doctor's sense) the Penitents own satisfaction (who is one amongst all) is vain and fruitless, which is not here in question. Again, our good Doctor gainsays all the severity of those ancient Canonical Penances practised in the Church, and praised by him; for if Christ only hath satisfied for all; what need was there of such rigid Penances among the primitive Christians? it was done to their hands by Christ, their Penances therefore were superfluous.  
2. He blames us for saying, The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was contracted. So the Doctor, page 104. Answ. Here is the most strange Doctrine I ever read. Know therefore, that Divines distinguish between actual sin; habitual sin, which is sin past, not yet pardoned; and the habit of sinning generated by frequent acts of vice, which makes a man unhappy, prone, ready, and facile to sin again, just as the often repeating of a Verse gives facility to say it anew with ease.  
Now to affirm that this habit contracted by former multiplied acts of sin, is a sin; seems a piece of new coined Divinity: and proves that no sinner habituated in Vice if he dies immediately after his first act of Contrition, or ardent Love of God (which justifies him) can be saved. Why? This fervent act of Contrition Roots not quite out the contracted habit of sin; no saith our Doctor, (and truly) There is required a longer time, and a procedure in the Method of a holy life to do this: But this contracted habit of sin, is a sin, which the most fervent act of Contrition takes not away in a Moment; therefore if a sinner dies suddenly after his first Contrition, he cannot be saved; consequently, had St. Mary Magdalen departed this life, the next instant after her ardent Charity, she had been a lost Soul; and so the Doctor must say the good Thief on the Cross is who had little time granted to Root out his bad habits.  
What the Doctor adds, that in our Doctrine a man is not bound to interrupt the procedure of his impiety, is most unjust dealing; for such an one is bound by the Law of God, and reason, not to sin, yes and by Repentance too, in case Repentance be the only means to help him.  
The Doctor speaks not well while he insinuates that we are obliged to repent of our habits, if Repentance be taken properly: Repent we must of our sins, and Root out ill habits by contrary acts of Virtue; this is our duty. Finally, he is strangely out in saying, As for those (sins) that come after, they are excused, if they be produced by a strong habit. Answ. A strong habit of erring brought forth this assertion; it is highly injurious to Catholics, and as far from truth, as the Doctor is from honest dealing with us.  
Page 106. he teacheth that every venial sin in its own Nature, and the rigour of Divine justice is damnable; and that in the unregenerate these venial sins are so accounted. Answ. Most merciless and execrable Doctrine against the very light of Nature: For who can say, (if a spark of Reason lives in him) that in case one by special favour pass his whole life without all other sin then once speaking an idle word, and dies immediately, who I say dare affirm that this man in rigour of God's Divine Justice is a damned Soul, and must for that one little transgression suffer the torments of Hell for eternity? Where is your Scripture, good Doctor, for this desperate Doctrine? produce it, let us read the place with you; but never shall you do it, till you prove it by Scripture, that a Gnat is as big as a Camel, and a Mote in the Sun as great as a House-beam: He may say the case now set down is somewhat extraordinary; be it so, it implies no impossibility, and therefore lays open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious impiety of this Doctrine.  
The Doctor goes on, and tells us; That though venial sins of their own Nature are damnable, yet by the Divine Mercy, the smaller committed by invincible ignorance, inadvertency or unavoidable infirmity, shall not be imputed to those who love God. Answ. First, if these sins be damnable in the Unregenerate, as Infidels and those who want Faith; I see not why they are not Damnable also in the Regenerate; for these by reason of the great knowledge they have of Christian Profession, seem more obliged upon that very account to avoid venial sins, than Infidels or the Unregenerate. 2. I Argue thus: Doctor Taylor is (we'll suppose it) a man who loves God; we'll suppose also, what he saith, page 95. is true; That no man lives without the intromission of venial sins daily; from whence it follows that Doctor Taylor hath such a heap of evils in his Soul, which (though he loves God) of their own Nature, and the rigour of God's Justice may damn him for ever. If so, I ask why God's Justice (overcome as it were by Mercy) is less severe to these sins, then to others which we call great and Mortal? No Reason can be given, but that those lesser sins are venial, pardonable in their own Nature; these greater deserve the severity of his Justice. Pardonable I say they are, and little, antecedently to God's Justice and Mercy, and therefore mercy makes them not so, but finds them pardonable, because little.  
Hence it follows, that no heap of venial sins considered as venial, can equalise the gravity of one Mortal offence; for though the growth and numerous augmentation of them add more misery to a Soul; yet their increase is (as Divines speak) in inferiori ordine in a lower Degree of Malice, and reach no more to the enormity of a mortal sin, (which make us enemies to God) than a thousand idle words reach the indignity of high Treason against a Prince or Sovereign. I say considered as venial, for if the careless multiplying of venial sins drive us on to the next step or danger of offending mortally; the case is altered; Qui amat periculum peribit in eo. He that loves danger shall perish in it.  
The Doctor adds pag. 107 (That this Doctrine of sins venial gives rest to men's consciences: and that concerning such sins we are bidden to be quiet) I answer, His mistake is notorious. We inculcate, God knows, the danger of those lesser evils, we lay open their Malice, and say, That for every idle word an account must be given before a severe Judge. O but says he, 'Tis impossible to tell in a thousand cases which are, and which are not venial sins: And pag. (108) If a Confessor says that's venial which is mortal, your Soul is betrayed. Why so good Doctor? I answer then: The penitents duty is not perfectly to know what is, and what is not venial; but to have hearty sorrow for his sins committed, whether great or little. For no man saith I grieve for my sins as little or only venial; but most securely thus: I am sorry for them all, as God knows them offensive to his Divine Majesty: And answerable to this sorrow the Confessor gives absolution; therefore though his knowledge may in some cases fail, and not rightly distinguish between sins mortal and venial; yet his absolution is good, for he absolves from all, whereof the Penitent humbly contrite, accuseth himself guilty.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion. Of the Doctor's exceptions against it. Of his mistakes.  
THe Doctor pag. 110. Sect. 7. lays about him to undo our Leading men concerning the Doctrine they hold of a probable Opinion. Briefly, The Judgement of Divines is this: That if an Opinion well examined by learned men, be not contrary to known received Doctrine, or any decision of the Church, it may be safely followed in practice; and this, though one grave Doctor says it; Provided, I say, that his Judgement be not opposite to the general received Doctrine of others.  
The ground of this assertion is: Innumerable difficulties daily occur in a Moral life relating to the practice of Virtue, to the shunning of sin, to the doing of Justice; In fine, to a Christian man's Obligation in a thousand cases; which difficulties can with no evidence be decided either by Scripture, or definition of the Church. Divines therefore, who are supposed both rational and best versed in the Principles of Christian Religion avoidable must, when evidence cannot be had, opinatively Judge and give a probable decision to the doubts proposed: and this I think neither our Doctor, nor any Protestant living can deny. For,  
If a Judge comes to Doctor Taylor and tells him, Sir, this very day I am to pronounce Sentence against a supposed Delinquent, or must free him. To give sentence against him I have Accusers enough, and plenty of Witnesses: None can except against them, their proofs will make him guilty; yet I know most certainly by my private knowledge that the man is innocent; my difficulty now is, whether as a public person and Judge, I may condemn him as guilty upon the attestation of these public Witnesses, or quit him (though to my prejudice) on the certain knowledge I have of his innocency. What will the Doctor say to this case? will he plead ignorance? He cannot; for both in his Books and Sermons he takes upon him to decide the greatest Controversies in Faith; and therefore of necessary must here answer a difficulty in practice: let him say what he pleaseth, he can do no more, but follow a probable Opinion; for if he counsels the Judge to free this supposed delinquent, he hath a whole Army of Schoolmen against him, if to condemn him, he hath as many contrary; none of these Doctors can be supposed to speak against the evidence of truth; therefore they only deliver their probable Opinions, and so must our Doctor do likewise if he speaks with either one side or other.  
A thousand such cases are almost endlessly proposed, where the Wit of man must rest upon probability, without reaching to evidence in every particular case; only this reflex evidence we have, that none can sin who follows the dictamen of Prudence. But he that adheres to a probable Opinion follows Prudence, (when evidence cannot be had) therefore he is blameless and sins not. yet,  
One word more with our Doctor, who (pag. 79.) talks of something, Their Writers have often proved in their Sermons and Books of Conscience. I ask him therefore, seeing they have such books; whether there Writers resolve every particular case of conscience upon certain undoubted Principles of Faith: if he says no; then they have probable Opinions among them also. If, yes; This very saying is at most no more than probable; and will be (upon solid Reasons) contradicted by a hundred as Learned Scholars as the Doctor is; therefore he must decide the case upon a prudent Opinion, and probability only. Yet more.  
Can the Doctor persuade himself that all he saith in his Book runs on with such evidence, that a judicious Reader must hold it demonstrative? No. The most he can think, is that he discourseth probably; and yet, by this mere probability he hopes to dissuade the World from Popery. I say the most he can think; for I profess (and I have thousands will Judge with me) there is not so much as one Section in it that comes near a probability. Conclude then from hence; that if as the Doctor saith, page 111. It be not safe to follow Caius and Sempronious in a probable Opinion, because they are but private Doctors; Much less is it safe to follow Doctor Taylor in his Dissuasive from Popery, (who at most speaks but probably) and is no more but a private Doctor. What he adds at the end of this page, viz. That we suffer casuists to determine cases severely, and gently: Entertain all spirits: Please all dispositions, and Govern them by their own inclinations, as they lift to be governed; etc. Is in a word, a long list of mistakes; and the Doctor is obliged in conscience (by more than a probable Opinion) to unsay the slander.  
Now to some famous Quotations of our Doctor; who though he could show that those particular Opinions which he cavils at in the ensuing part of his Section, were as false as that impious Doctrine is of kill Kings, or Durands' Opinion of Fornication; yet he gains nothing: for all at most he proves, is that such and such particular Opinions are to be cast aside; which God knows, makes little to decry the Doctrine of a probable Opinion in general. Five or six Ministers in England, (and perhaps more) are worth little; is therefore their whole Ministry in general not to be valued.   

CHAP. XVII.  
How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholic Authors. Of his Quotations unworthily corrupted.  
OUr Doctor citys page 112. Emanuel Sa in his Aphorisms verbo. dubium. for this Doctrine; viz. If one Doctor say it is safe to swear a thing as of our knowledge which we do not know, but believe it is so, it is therefore probable that it is lawful to swear it. Answ. Eman. Sa in this word Dubium, (with me printed at Antwerp 1599) hath not one word of swearing (in which is particular difficulty) but numero 3. speaks thus: Potest quis facere quod probabili ratione, vel authoritate putet licere, etiamsi oppositum sit tutius. One may do what he thinks probable by Reason or Authority, though the contrary be more safe. What is here of safety to swear a thing as of our knowledge, which we do not know?  
Antonius de Escobar, Whom the Doctor should have cited thus: Lib. 2. Theol. Moralis cap. 2. De conscientia probabili, hath not a syllable of Swearing by any Warrant of a probable Opinion; but rather the contrary. Moneo, says he, n. 15. haud licere uti probabili Opinion, quando ex eâ magnum periculum sequeretur, vel proximi damni, etc. I put you in mind, that it is not lawful to use a probable Opinion, when either great danger or hurt of our Neighbour may follow on it; which may easily fall out, if we swear a thing as of our knowledge, which we know not.  
He tells you soon after a story of Pope Constantine the 4th. Who being accused in the Lateran Council for holding the See Apostolic when he was not in Orders, justified himself by the Example of two Bishops: And he citys Nauclerus for the story Generatione 21. & 26. Answer. First, Nauclerus Generate 21. hath not one word of Pope Constantine, much less this story: Generate. 26. (with me, page 9) he speaks thus: Perstitit autem per annum in Petri Cathedra Constantinus, & Episcopos Praesbiterosque more Pontificum ordinavit, quousque clero Populoque Romano in tribus foris— Constantinus est ejectus, & in ejus locum omnium fuffragiis Stephanus 3. extitit suffectus, etc. Constantine continued in the Chair of Peter for a year, and ordained Bishops and Priests, as Popes were accustomed; until the Clergy and People of Rome assembled in there several places, etc.— Constantine was cast out, and by the Votes of all, Stephen was set in his place. Here is nothing of the Lateran Council, or the pretended Example of two Bishops. You may see therefore how unlucky our Doctor is in his citations. 2. I answer, Admit that Constantine alleged the Example of two Bishops, were either he or they on that account good or laudable? no certainly: such precedents make no probable Opinion.  
Next he citys you Cardinal Campegius and Alber. Pighius teaching, That a Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine, than he that hath Married a Wife. Answ. Observe, first, I beseech you, how our Doctor citys you these Authors without their places. Observe, 2. How he juggles in that word, He, which must relate either to a Secular man that may Marry; or to a Grecian Priest that is Married before his Priesthood; or finally, to a Latin Priest that cannot Marry, either Liciteacute;, or Valide without dispensation. Hence I infer: whoever affirms that a Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine, than a secular man that may Marry, or a Grecian Priest that was Married before Orders, delivers most impious Doctrine (Pighius never said it.) Again, whoever affirms, that a Priest that keeps a Concubine lives more holily than a Priest that Marrieth; talks De subjecto non supponendo; for a Latin Priest cannot Marry. If he therefore be so damnably wicked as to Marry a hundred times, his supposed Wife is no more but a Concubine; and then the Doctor's Wise allegation must make this sense: That Priest lives more holily that keeps a Concubine, than he that hath a Concubine. Perhaps Pighius may say, that if a Priest endeavours to Marry a Wife, as Luther did, and owns that Sacrilegious contract as a Marriage; To his impure living with a Harlot, he adds a new sin: And this Doctrine is true.  
The Doctor goes on in the next lines: Seeing we find in the Pope's Laws that a Priest is not to be removed for Fornication; who will not, or may not practically conclude, that since by the Law of God Marriage is Holy, and yet to some men Fornication is more Lawful; that therefore to keep a Concubine is very Lawful. Answ. Let the Doctor speak out plainly, and tell us to what men Fornication is more Lawful than Marriage: It is absolutely unlawful in all; and therefore if we speak properly, Fornication admits no Degree of being more or less Lawful. Had the Doctor said, the sacrilegious Fornication of a Priest is a lesser evil then sacrilegiously to use and own a Woman as his Wife, he had spoken sense: But hence it follows not, that to keep a Concubine is very Lawful. Nay if (per impossible) Fornication were in some cases Lawful, it doth not yet follow, that to keep a Concubine is very lawful: In a word, the Doctor says he knows not what.  
Now to the Pope's Laws, which he citys so confusedly, that no man understands him: He Writes in his Margin thus: 3. quaest. 7. which Canonists would take for Causa 3. q. 7. (but then the Chapter should be added) not one word of this Subject in that quaest. 7. Then he adds, lata, which should signify the beginning of a Chapter: Where to find it no man knows, nor whether it relates to quaest. 7. or the Extravag. Next follows, Extravag. de Bigamis. There is nothing de bigamis in the Extravag. in decret. tit. 21. There is de bigamis non ordinandis, cap. 5. yet nothing to this purpose; and I dare boldly affirm that in all the Canon Law, he shall not find either that Doctrine he attributes to Albertus Pighius, or That Fornication is more Lawful than Marriage in any. I wonder why the Doctor when he citys Campegius and Pighius for that filthy Doctrine of a Priests living more holily with a Concubine, than he that's Married; places directly against it, in his Margin the Canon Law; distinct. 82. can. Praesbiter in glossa, as if the Doctrine were allowed of. In a word, there is no such thing, but expressly the contrary. The words are thus: Cap. 5. Presbyter. Si Fornicationem feceret, quanquam secundum canones Apostolorum debeat deponi: tamen, juxta Authoritatem Beati Papae silvestri, si in vitio non perduraverit, sed sua sponte confessus adjecit, ut resurgat, decem annis in hunc modum paeniteat tribus quidem mensibus privato loco a caeteris remotus, pane, & aqua, a vespera in vesperam utatur. A Priest, if he commits Fornication, although by the Canon of the Apostles he is to be deposed, yet according to St. Sylvesters appointment, if he persever not in that state of sinning, but having confessed willingly, amends his life, he is to do Penance for ten years in this manner. For the first three Months he is to live a part from others, and from Evening to Evening have only Bread and Water, etc. And still that Chapter goes on prescribing further and most severe Penances to such a Delinquent. Read I beseech you the whole Chapter, and never leave off to admire our mistaken Doctor.  
Page 113. he citys Durandus: Sent. lib. 4. distinct. 33. (but gives you not the Question under the Distinction.) Well, he means quaest. 2. towards the end. Durandus his words are: Quod autem quidam dicant, quod est peccatum mortale de se, (nempe Fornicatio) exclusâ omni lege positiuâ, Divinâ & humanâ, non bene intelligo. But for what some say, that Fornication by itself is a mortal sin excluding all positive Law Divine and humane: I well understand not. Thus Durandus: And though his, non bene intelligo, be not assertive; yet he saith too much; and is therefore contradicted by the generality of most Learned Doctors. His Opinion then (according to the Rule given above) is not probable. One Swallow makes no Summer, nor one Divine against the general received Doctrine of others, makes no probable Opinion.  
Next he citys Martinus de Magistris asserting, that it is not Heretical, to believe simple Fornication to be no sin. Answ. I have not now that Author by me; but yet believe, that the Doctor wrongs him. If he held such a Tenet; I say it is Heretical, and consequently no probable Opinion. Perhaps he may favour Durands' Error too much, and that's all: I little regard what Daniel Tilenus says, he was an Heretic, and Writ a Book that the Pope of Rome is magnus ille & proprie dictus Antichristus. I think the Doctor will not say so.  
Next the Doctor citys Cardinal Tolet. Instruct. sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 15. Saying, That 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. Answ. The Doctor mangles Tolets' Doctrine, and wrongs him exceedingly; whose words are: Ex quo fit, ut si nobilis invasus possit vitam salvare fugiendo; non tenetur, (si inde infamian contrahit) fugere, sed occidere hostem potest, si aliter vitam cum honore tutari non potest. Whence it follows that if a Noble man set on, might save his life by running away, he is not obliged to it, if he gets infamy by his running away; but may kill the aggressor, if otherwise, he cannot defend his life with Honour. Now comes the stick: Similiter si non potest fugere injuriam notabilem inferendam, ut ligni percussionem paratam, potest etiam tunc occidere inimicum. In like manner if this Noble man cannot avoid a notable injury, ready for him, as is a Bastinado, or a stroke with a Cudgel he may then kill his Enemy. Compare these words of Tolet with those of the Doctor, and you'll see a difference.  
Tolet saith again, lib. 4. cap. 13. (saith the Doctor) That if a man without advertency speaks a blasphemy in a strong passion, not considering what he says, sins not. Answ. Yet he adds: Nisi cum homo esset assuetus Blasphemare, nec vult emendationem: talis enim peccaret mortaliter tunc, quia est in culpâ praecedenti quia non abstulit occasionem peccati. Unless such a man were accustomed to Blaspheme and will not amend; for than he would sin mortally in the precedent fault, and because he took not away the occasion of sin. These words the Doctor omits, to make Tolets' Doctrine odious, which yet is grounded in this certain Principle; that as sin is a free act; so it must arise from a knowledge or advertency of that evil, the will voluntary embraceth. Hence you may solve that other Quotation out of Tolet, lib. 5. cap. 10. viz. If a man be beastly drunk and then commits Fornication, Fornication is no sin; solve it I say; for the use of Reason is requisite to every sin; here is no use of Reason, Ergo, no sin. And pray you, will the Doctor say that Lot sinned mortally, when so drunk as he was; he committed Incest with his Daughters: Or will he hang a mere natural Sot in England, (who hath not Reason to know good from evil) for stealing thirteen pence halfpenny? I would have this case plainly resolved by the Doctor, if he holds that Lot sinned mortally, and his resolution brought to a clear and certain Principle; for if he gives not evidence in the decision of the case against Tolet, he can not by his own Rule make use of a probable Opinion.  
Once more Tolet is cited, page 114. for saying lib. 5. cap. 13. If a man desires Carnal pollution that he may be eased of his Carnal temptations, or for his health, it were no sin. Answ. He highly abuseth Tolet; who speaks of no Lascivious or Carnal desire; so far is he from this, that he saith; if one takes complacency in it, Ob delectationem, for the delight had, he sinneth mortally; and then adds: Dico ob delectationem, quia complacere ob sanitatem, vel, ut carnales tentationes non sint ita vehementes, non esset peccatum. I say for delight, for to be glad of it for health, or that carnal tentations be not so violent, it is no sin. The end or motive is here far different; but to desire or delight in that filthy act, is ever a sin and mortal.  
Yet one citation more remains of Eman. Sa which will make the Doctor famous; he refers us to Sa, Tit. debitum conjugale n. 6. who (saith he) affirms, that if a man lies with his intended wife before Marriage, it is no sin, or a light one only. Answ. Hear, I beseech you, Sa his own words in my Edition printed at Antwerp anno 1599 (and never cease to wonder at what the Doctor saith) n. 6. Copulariante benedictionem aut nullum, aut lene peccatum est, (& si quidam mortale esse putant) quin etiam expedit, si multum illa (Benedictio) differatur. That is, For a man and Wife to lie together now married, before the Solemn Benediction of the Sacrament (not before Marriage as our Doctor unworthily tells ye) although some think it a mortal sin, is not so, but at most venial. Yes, it's sometimes expedient, if Benediction be put off for a long time, that they live together as Man and Wife; Did you ever hear of a Doctor that doth not distinguish betwixt the Sacrament of Marriage, and the Benediction of the Married couple? Thus much of the seventh Section.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of Attention necessary in prayer. One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer. The Doctor quotes amiss, and abuseth Suarez.  
THe Doctor in his 8, and 9th. Section hath much sleight work, and his 10th. Section is a story of Exorcisms. Of these a word. In passing I must not omit to make him memorable for his quotations, you know this is my chiefest task.  
Pag. 117. Sect. 8. he saith. They teach, (we Catholics,) that prayers themselves ex opere operato, or by natural work itself, do prevail, for it is not essential to prayer, for a man to think particularly of what he says; or, of the things signified by the words: So, (saith he) Suarez teaches. And where think you? lib. 3. de Oraratione cap. 4. says the Doctor. Briefly. He should first have cited the Tome, and the general Title of it thus; Tomo 2. de Statu Religionis before he came to the Book and chapter, but we will pardon this Lesser Fault, and complain of a greater, and it is, that he wrongs Suarez unpardonably. Suarez says no no where in that whole chapter, (nor any Author I ever read) that prayers prevail ex opere operato, or by the work itself done, as the Sacraments prevail. He excludes no where attention, but requires it in prayer. Hear this Learned Author num. 3. (in the chapter now cited.) Imprimis necessariam esse attentionem ut oratio honeste fiat, communis est sententia doctorum. First that attention is necessary, that prayer be well done, is the common opinion of Doctors, and this not only in prayers we have of obligation, but in others also not obligatory; for, although (saith he) we are not obliged to pray (in such, and such circumstances,) yet if we do it, we are bound to pray debito modo in a dutiful way and manner. He adds more to this purpose, Num. 4. and Num. 5. concludes, that that vocal prayer, or speaking to Almighty God which is made without mental attention is no prayer at all. Whence it follows that who prays, must either attend to what he says, or have his mind so devoutly elevated to Almighty God that his prayers prove acceptable: for if that known Maxim be true, Divisum cor non impetrat quod petit: a heart divided in prayer (that is, partly in Heaven, partly in earth) gets little, much more a heart which attends to no good thing when we pray, doth the work without fruit. Attention therefore is even necessary, actual, or virtual, whereof see Suarez Num. 7.  
To what the Doctor opposeth next after, thus: Nay, it is not necessary to the essence of prayer that he who preys should think de ipsa locutione, of the speaking itself. Suarez answers from his Number 15. to the end of the chapter. His discourse is long, I'll therefore give you the substance of his resolution by proposing to our Doctor one or two questions. Suppose, Dr. Taylor hath made to himself a set form of prayer which he knows most perfectly, and says it before his Sermon, yet now and then surprised by an unvoluntary distraction thinks not the ipsa locutione. I ask whither the fruit of such prayer is lost, and the essence of it perish? if he says yes, he speaks a paradox, and must either conclude that few Ministers pray to the purpose; or tell us a strange story, that they are never distracted in prayer.  
Yet more, suppose Dr. Taylor while he saith his prayer, hath his mind so deeply fixed on Almighty God that (though his tongue speaks) he thinks not of the speaking, but of God only, and his immense goodness: Will he also say that his prayer is worth nothing? 'tis impious to think it. Now hear Suarez at the end of his 17. number, and observe how he is abused. Non est, (saith he) de ratione orationis, ut cogitet orans de ipsa locutione, sed, satis est si cogitet de Deo cum quo loquitur. 'Tis, not of the essence of prayer to think of the speaking, but it is enough that he who prays think of Almighty God with whom he speaks; for here is ascensio mentis ad Deum the lifting up of our heart to God, therefore true prayer. This of prayer in general, for those who have a set form of prayer prescribed, (as Priests have) Suarez num. 19 requires a decent attention to the words, according to that of the Wise man. Ne temerè quid loquaris etc.  
I must not quite omit that other cavil of our Doctor; It is not necessary (saith he) out of Suarez to think of the things signified by the words. Answ. God forbidden it should be necessary; for if our Doctor should pray for Vrim and Thummim, and to have 
Such is the dark Language of D. Taylor and D. Pierce.  his tongue touched with a coal from the Altar, and that God would bless him, and his, from that Empuse that met Apollonius Tyanaeus, and all remnants of embroidery from the Theopneust Aholiah, and finally from the pride of Popes stigmatised by a prolepsis: Few I believe, and very few who pray with him, would think (because they understand not) of the things signified by these words, Yet, they pray, or do not pray: Angustiae undique. If the first: poor people may pray though they know not the thing signified by words. If they do not pray, all is vanity when they kneel down at such a prayer, and say Amen to it. The Doctor may say, they use no such language in prayer. Ans. They use worse in preaching, witness Dr. Pierce's late Sermon, whereof, part at least might by some industry be turned into a long prayer, with all its pedantry and vain affectation. If so; I seriously ask whether a hundred old women, who heard such a prayer, said at Paul's Cross, and pray according to the sense of it; pray, or no? if they do, old women may pray when they understand not things signified by words: if they do not, they pray not, yet say Amen to all.  
I dare a vouch it with certainty, that there is not a Cobbler, or Tailor in our Catholic Town here, who do not better understand the whole substance of Mass, (though in Latin,) then the generality of English men understand Dr. Pierce's Sermon. Yet 'tis printed for the profit of all. Be it so or not, I justify by the example now given, and good reason against the Doctor, that prayer in an unknown Language though the thing signified by the words be not perfectly understood, is allowable, and loses nothing of the essence of prayer: I prove it thus.  
Such a prayer known by the authority of the Church, and consent of virtuous men to be good and pious, (though in an unknown Language,) may be offered up by an ignorant man, both to praise Almighty God, and to petition his Divine Majesty for a grace and favour; just as one not knowing Latin, may prefer a Petition to the Pope in that Language, which contains both praise due to so great a Prelate, and withal begg's a boon or favour of him. Hereis our very Case. The unlearned man knows not perfectly the Latin Service; no more doth this ignorant Suppliant know his Latin Petition. The first is assured by the greatest authority imaginable, that the Latin Service ascribes praise and  to God, and beggs a favour of him; The second is assured, ('tis true by a lesser authority,) that his Petition runs on in the like nature; if therefore this man who knows not Latin, may petition (and with hope of grace) a Pope, or Prince in Latin; never shall the Doctor show why an ignorant man may not also petition Almighty God in the same Language; let the Doctor here give me but a shadow of any disparity, and he shall be an Apollo.  
Were it not over tedious, I might give you (with the learned Suarez) the true reason of this doctrine; briefly in words or writings, you may distinguish a twofold signification. The first is more general, the second may be called specifical, or if you please individual. The general signification is had, when we know that such a prayer is good, pious, and laudable: But to have perfectly the specifical, we must know the sense and meaning of the words. To pray therefore well, this knowledge is required, that the prayer is a good and pious petition, and as such, (uniting myself with all faithful Christians) I offer it up to Almighty God, though I comprehend not the ultimate specifical or individual signification of it. May not I beseech you our Doctor say those words of the Royal Prophet Psal. 68 and praise Almighty God by them; Si dormiatis inter medios cleros pennae columbae deargentatae etc. Though perhaps he knows not perfectly the specifical signification of them? Yes, and so may an old woman do, when she hears her Minister pray for Vrim and Thummim, or to have his tongue touched with a coal, etc.  
Add to this, (and 'tis worth reflection,) that beside the general knowledge poor Idiots have of the piety in Latin Service, innumerable by continual use come to a specifical knowledge of most things said in holy Mass: and more your poor Idiots in England know not, either of those wordy extemporal prayers made by Ministers, or of their affected and fruitless Sermons. No chrysostom, no Ambros, no Austin ever preached or prayed like them. But what will you? Novelty in doctrine brings with it these new nothings in morality.   

CHAP. XIX.  
The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authors amiss. His Errors are discovered.  
THe Doctor next citys you Salmeron saying, that prayers prevail when they are not understood like the words of a charmer. Answ. Where saith Salmeron this? The Doctor points to no place, nor can he I believe; if he cannot, he both charms and cheats his Reader. He citys next S. Antoninus summae, part. 3. tit. 23. Answ. That 23. title hath five long Chapters under it, and every Chapter is yet further subdivided into several members, sections, or paragraphs, and our Doctor neither gives you Chapter, nor paragraph, where we may find that prayer is like a precious stone in the hand of an unskilful man: Nor can he I think, for that 23. title treats de conciliis universalibus, de differentia Papae, & concilii, a matter remote enough from handling what prayer is. Well, but admit S. Antoninus say so, there is nothing reprehensible: The similitude is good, if the unskilful man knows as well in general, that he hath a precious stone in his hand, as the unlearned man that his prayer is pious.  
The Doctor pag. 118 remits us to Jacobus de Graffiis de orat. Answ. I have 3. Tomes in a large 4 to. of this Author, and perusing the Index of the Title he hath in each Tome, I find none the oratione. Yet, part. 1. decisio: Aurearum lib. 2. cap. 52. he proposeth this question: Qualiter dicendae horae canonicae? how our Canonical hours are to be said, and he resolves the question thus; num. 3.  animus sit in divino officio attentus, hoc est, ut mentem habeat praefentem ad id, quod dicitur, nempe ut quod lingua foris personat, mens simul intus concipiendo loquatur, unde Augustinus: Hoc versetur in cord, quod proferatur ore. That is, that the mind be attentive in the Divine Office, and it be present to what is said, that what the tongue speaks the heart conceives, according to S. Austin; Let the heart speak, what we say in words. Thus much I cite out of Graffies to prove that the Doctor's illation is far from truth, in the beginning of his 118. pag. Therefore attention or devotion in our prayers is not necessary.  
Immediately after he quotes Cardinal Tolet lib. 2. de instruct. Sacerd. cap. 13. whose words are these, Circa modum etc. concerning the manner (how we are to say our Canonical hours,) it is to be observed, that every one say them attentively, reverently, and devoutly. Next he shows particularly what attention is requisite, and saith in the second place that advertency to the sense of the words is not necessary, and he affirms this most truly, for few old women in England can attend to the sense of every word said by their Minister, because they know it not.  
Mark now a most strange illation of our Doctor, so that, saith he, by this doctrine no attention is necessary. Tolet says, We are to say our Canonical hours attentively, devoutly, and reverently, and the Doctor infers; that no attention is necessary. Whether such an unworthy dealing, with so learned a man as Tolet was, be tolerable, let the world judge.  
The Doctor pag. 120. would even tyre a patiented man with his tattle. They in England, saith he, pray with the heart, We (the Church of Rome) with our lips, They pray, We say prayers, etc. And what good Doctor do we say them without a heart? who made you judge of this forum? The secrets of hearts are only known to God, (not to Angles) much less to any poor spirit in England. What follows in that 8th. Section is only talk without substance. And,  
Truly his. 9th. Section is like it; though worse, for blasphemies against the Mother of God, and the blessed Saints in Heaven. The Doctor about pag. 33. tells us, that Scripture expressly forbids us to inquire of the dead, but here he is more than inquisitive, for he takes upon him to judge, to degrade, and cast out of Heaven many a happy soul; witness his pag. 133. I pass by his jeers, and blasphemies, (they are all numbered by one that errs not,) and take notice only of two or three quotations.  
Pag. 124. he citys you S. Antoninus Sum. part. 4. tit. 15. without either chapter, number, or further direction. Whereas that 15th. title, in an old close abreviated character, contains about 60. whole leaves in folio, which if printed in such a letter as the Doctor's Dissuasive is, would well make two, or more of it. I chief doubt whether S. Antoninus be fairly dealt with, cited for these words. How shall a sinner go to Christ as to an advocate? but cannot now run over so large a Treatise to find the truth. In the interim the Doctor may blush to paint his margin with such confused quotations. A child may see, he either read not Antoninus, or, minded not his Reader should meet with the place.  
Soon after he citys F. Salazar in cap. 8. Proverb. in ver. 19 Saying, that the Virgin Mary by offering up Christ was worthy to have, (after a certain manner) that the whole salvation and redemption of mankind should be ascribed to her, and that this was common to Christ and the Virgin. Answ. The Doctor deals most disingeniously with Salazar, who numb. 206. num. 19 lays this Principle, Exploratum est illud apud Catholicos Virginem nostrae salutis principalem causam minime fuisse, (solus enim Christus rem totam peregit) pro peccatorum debito integre satis dando,) sed tantum, sua impetratione eandem salutem quodammodo, promovisse, & juvasse. It is known to all Catholics that the Virgin no way was the principal Cause of our Salvation. (Christ alone did that work and paid our ransom fully) but only by her impetration she promoted, in some sort, and set forward that salvation.  
S. Hierom cited by Salazar, numb. 204. says more, and calls the Virgin, salutis auctricem. S. Anselm reparatricem. S. Ireneus, universo generi humano causa salutis, etc. Salazar therefore, grounding himself upon these, and other authorities of Fathers, and pondering the great oblation the Virgin made of her only Son, concludes num. 222. Haec cum ita sint ob tantam tamque insignem, tantique valoris, ac meriti actionem. Virgo Dei-para digna fuit ut illi communis totius generis humani salus, & redemptio, aliquo modo ad scriberetur: that is, For that worthy and noble action she did, in offering up her Son to his eternal Father, she may be styled (with S. Hierom) the Actress of our salvation, and accounted so worthy, that the common safety and redemption of all mankind might, in some manner, be ascribed to her. Which is not, (God knows) to say as our Doctor strangely interprets, that this redemption was common to Christ and the Virgin. Christ was the sole and principal cause of our redemption, he alone did the work, saith Salazar, and under this notion the Virgin had nothing common with him. You see how constant the Doctor is, in wronging Authors.  
I should have told you how our Doctor before he citys Salazar talks of strange blasphemies, delivered by Bernardinus de Bustis, and Valentia, but gives you no particular; an answer is ready when he produceth them: in the interim let him know that fraudulenti versantur in universalibus, cheats like well to se●lk in generalities, and that all is not blasphemy the Do▪ 〈…〉 at.   

CHAP. XX.  
Of recourse had by the Living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities. S. Austin warrants this Practice. S. Gregory Nissen approves it. Of Miracles done in our age.  
MUch patience I confess is necessary to read our Doctor, and more to lose time in weighing his unweighty arguments. Yet go on we must. In his 9th Section therefore, page chief 123. He tires you with a few old trivial objections against invocation of Saints, made long since by others, &, God knows, answered by Bellarmine before the Doctor was born, though he talks, as if they were the new Lights of his own learning, never thought on by any body else. He argues first, We have no command, no testimony, no promise in Scripture for the invocation of Saints. Bellarmin answers Tom. 2. de Sanctorum Beatit. lib. 1. cap 20. §. argumentum sextum; and saith well, the argument proves too much, viz. That Saints cannot pray in general for the good of the Church, which yet Protestants grant. He argues. 2. prayer to Saints lessens our honour to Christ, destroys our confidence in God. Answ. If so, we cannot pray for one another here on earth, without lessening Christ's honour, and weakening our confidence towards God. See Bellar. lib. Citato cap. 20. §. argumentum secundum & cap. 19 §. preterea in utroque testamento. He objects 3. We cannot know how our prayers come to the knowledge of Saints in Heaven. Bellarmine answers codem cap. 20. §. argumentum tertium, and §. de mode aut: Shows you by four opinions of Doctors, how Saints may hear our prayers. I think the Doctor will not deny, that the blessed soul of our Saviour in Heaven hears our prayers (I speak of his sanctified created soul, not of his Divinity every where present,) if this can be explicated, all difficulty ceaseth; well may both Saints & Angels in heaven hear our prayers. He saith 4. We give Saints too high titles. Bellarmine answers lib, Citato cap. 17. § Est tamen Notandum, and saith, we call not on● them as gods, nor honour any above their merits He argues 4. afterward, Every Nation hath a particular guardian Saint. Answ. And is this such a trespass? I say no more; But S. George for England. Yet see, if you please Bellarmine, cap. 20. Citato. §. argumentum octavum. he lastly argues out of Scripture (in the end of this Section.) Rom. 10. 14. Bellarmine directly answers the place, cap. 22. Citato initio. §. primum argumentum. And is it not pitiful to hear such stolen arguments as these, thought doughty enough, by a Doctor, to defeat Popery. God help him. Now to some other Cavils he hath in this 9th Section.  
Page 126 he sleights the practice of common people, who have recourse to Saints for their temporal goods; make their addresses to them for health, seek their Patronage, etc. Answ. It was doubtless some good congruous thought that withheld our Doctor from slighting also that poor Tailor of Hippo, by name Florentius, who having lost his Cloak, had not wherewithal to buy an other: What did he? Ad viginti Martyrs, etc. he prayed before the twenty Martyrs, and begged with a loud voice that he might be clothed, some young men heard him, and scorned the good Tailor, (as our Doctor doth here vulgar people) yet his prayer proved successful, heard he was, and his want miraculously supplied. This you may read in S. Austin lib. 22. de civet. Dei. cap. 8. circa medium.  
Whence I argue, if this poor man, by addressing himself to deceased Martyrs for a cloak prayed well, and laudably, yes, and by such prayers got what he asked; most blameless certainly are the common people, while they petition any Saint in Heaven for their temporal goods, (whether sheep, or oxen it imports not) or, if the Doctor jeered at these men's devotion, he may, if he like it also play the boy, and laugh at the Tailor, S. Austin did not so. And,  
Here, without much digressing, reflect I beseech you on that witty margin note Mr. Whitby hath in his book against S C. pag. 292. where, to discredit this known miracle, he speaks thus. Further let it be considered that here we have no better precedent than a Tailor, and he so simple, as to bargain with the Martyrs, how many halfpences he would have to buy his cloak. Subtilely observed, for first there is not a word in S. Austin of the poor man's bargaining with the Martyrs, unless his earnest prayer be called a bargain. Secondly Mr. Whitby saith in his context that the Tailor prayed not to the Martyrs, but to God at the tomb of the Martyrs, if therefore he bargained with any, it was with God for so many halfpences. Thirdly he sleights this miracle upon the account of the Tailor's simplicity, as if, (forsooth) God could do wonders on none but the Learned, or Doctors of Divinity. Fourthly and chief, he is pitifully out every way, for no one takes this miracle upon the Tailor's credit, but upon S. Augustine's, who recounts it as a wonder done in behalf of this poor man, and so we credit what he adds of the Cook that opening the fish, found a gold ring in it, and pitying the distressed Suppliant gave it him with, ecce quomodo viginti Martyres te vestiverunt: See how the twenty Martyrs have clothed thee. And thus much of good people's devotion to Saints for temporals. Now if you further inquire, not only after the recourse made by devout Christians to the blessed 
See Bellar. cap. 20. Supra. § Argumentum nonum.  in Heaven for health, and cure of Infirmities, but also after the happy success they have had by their prayer, volumes would not suffice to recount particulars. The most I'll do here is to remit any that doubts, (if judicious and prudent) to S. Austin in the place now cited, where he tells us, next after those words ad Aquas Fibilitanas, not of one, but many miraculously cured at the relics of S. Stephen. There a blind woman received her sight. There Eucharius a Priest of Spain tormented with the stone, we freed of his misery, and the self same man cast do 〈…〉 by an other infirmity, lay so dead, ut ei jam pollices ligarentur, but was raised up miraculously; and ●his saith S. Austin was done ●pitulatione memorati Martyris by the help and assistance of S. Stephen.  
Learn therefore, (and 'tis the main drift of S. Austin,) that Saints hear ou● prayers, pray for us, yes, and obtain by 〈…〉 it in 〈…〉 ssion many a large blessing. So the Sain● in th●●suing ninth Chaprer which relates to the miracles mentioned in the precedent; pro ista fide mortui sunt qui 〈◊〉 à Demino impetrare possunt, for this Faith the Martyrs died, who can get such favours of our Lord. Again, a few lines after, quare Martyres tanta possunt qui pro ea fide, etc. wherefore Martyrs can do these great matters, who were slain for that Faith which preaches Christ's holy resurrection. Finally, he ends thus, sive enim Deus ipse per se ipsum, etc. whether God by himself work after a strange manner, or do these wonders by his Ministers, or some of them by the Spirits of Martyrs, eyes orantibus tantum & impetrantibus, non etiam operantibus, they only praying for us, and impetrating, but not effecting, or working these wonders immediately, cannot be comprehended of mortals. Thus S. Austin, who undoubtedly here affirms that these blessed Spirits pray, and obtained by their prayers, orantibus, & impetrantibus (mark the words) both health of body and greater benefits.  
Mr. Whitby page 292. cited above, seems to make little account of S. Augustine's eighth Chapter now mentioned, because of some corruptions (so he speaks) noted by Ludovieus Vives. And what are these? I Answer; two or three differences in words only, variously read in other copies, as for, Episcopo projecto, other copies have, Episcopo afferente projecto, etc. greater exceptions Ludovicus Vives hath not against this eighth Chapter, nor questions at all the substance of one miracle there related by S. Austin. No, these stand as they are told (and so doth the ninth Chapter entirely) unexcepted against by Ludovicus, or any body else & do so powerfully prove, that the Saints in Heaven pray for us, and afford us assistance that none shall ever answer them with probability; It were but lost time (because they are vulgarly known) to add to these ancient miracles, others of undoubted credit, wrought by the intercession of Saints in later ages, and very universally. There is not a Kingdom or Country where Catholic Religion flourishes, which will not evidence these wonders. And England also anciently hath had this glory, but now a new Faith hath outed all old miracles. Blessed be Almighty God, not only our age we live in, is renowned for miraculous cures done upon the infirm and diseased, by earnest prayer made to the ever immaculate Virgin, mother of God; but, this very year also (and the last now over) affords us most undoubted ones wrought in Antwerp and Mecklin by the intercession of the ever glorious Saint Xaverius a Saint our Doctor pag, 133. would cast out of Heaven. (For the first, see Justus Lipsius (an erudite, and learned writer) in his third Tome towards the end printed at Antwerp anno 1637. page 687. entitled thus, Diva Virgo Hallensis; and page 721. with this title. Diva Sichemiensis, sive Aspricollis.  
For the Second, to wit, for strange cures done on the diseased by the great Apostle of the Indies S. Xa●●rius, they are here most manifestly laid open to the eyes of all, sick patients own them, sworn witnesses testify them, expert Doctors of Physic, (after long trial to cure them) acknowledge the cures to be miraculous; Bishops after a most rigid examination, have approved them, none can doubt of them, but such as either incline to a spirit of Atheism, or vainly endeavour to make null the best proof of our Faith, to extinguish the clearest light of Christianity, which Age after Age hath beautified the Church, and gained millions to it, I mean the glory of miracles: And this is done by a Doctor to maintain his wordy Religion made up of a few abused Scripture phrases and I know not what other canting language without fruits of Religion, without efficacy of doctrine, without miracles, or finally any one mark of credibility, that may prudently evidence it to be Christian.  
Now concerning our Doctors other exception against pious good people, who seek the patronage of Saints in time of danger or otherwise, I'll briefly give you one instance taken out of S. Gregory Nyssen a worthy Bishop, who was present at the first Council of Constantinople, and writ the Symbolum Fidei there; read him I beseech you in the Oration he hath the St● Theodoro Martyr, with me, it is in his second Tome Printed at Paris 1615. pag. 1011. and pag. 1017. Because the impious Scythians threatened a war to the Country, Timemus afflictiones (saith S. Gregory) expectamus pericula, non longe absunt scelestes Scythae bellum adversus nos parturientes: We fear afflictions, we expect danger; the wicked Scythians, are as it were, in labour for a war against us. What doth the Saint? he betakes himself thus by earnest prayer to S. Theodore a Soldier; Intercede, ac deprecare pro patria apud communem Regem, & Dominum: Make intercession, and pray for our country to him who is our common King and Lord. Again;  miles propugna (pro nobis) ut Martyr pro conservis utere libertate loquendi: As you are a soldier, fight for us and defend us, as a martyr, speak freely for your f●llow servants here. Finally, a few lines after, Quod si majori etiam opus fuerit advocatione, etc. And if more prayer be needful, assemble together the whole choir of your brethren martyrs and jointly pray for us. Admone Petrum, excita Paulum Joannem item, etc. Put S. Peter in mind, stir up S. Paul, and that beloved disciple of our Lord, S. John, that these be solicitous for the Churches; they once wore chains, passed dangers, and finally died. Thus S. Gregory. If therefore this worthy Bishop sought protection and patronage of a Soldier Martyr, in danger of war, well may a frail woman in danger of sinning become a suppliant to S. Mary Magdalen, which our Doctor likes not of. And for God's sake tell me, what mischief is it to Christianity, (if Saints hear our prayers,) that a Painter have a special devotion to S. Luke skilful in that Art, though our Doctor (no man knows why) holds it superstition. I say if Saints hear our Prayers, and that they do so, this very Petition made by S. Gregory to S. Theodore is my warrant, neither Doctor Andrews, nor Chamier, nor Whitby, who vainly endeavour to make the Oration spurious, (because they know not what else to say) shall utter so much as a probability against it.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Of Saints Canonised excepted against by the Doctor. Of his untrue quotations. Of his Mistake concerning the Multitude of Holidays.  
AFter this long digression I return to my task imposed on me, and needs must say a word of our Doctor's quotations. I find in his pag. 132. S. Austin cited for this excellent truth; Tutius, & incundius loquar ad meum Jesum quam ad aliquem Sanctorum Spirituum Dei: I'll speak more safely and more cheerfully to my Lord Jesus, then to any of the Saints or Spirits of God. And 'tis worthily spoken, but where find we this? The Doctor points us to S. Austin, Visitatione Minorum Sept. S. Aug. what this Sept. S. Aug. signifies no man knows, and less know I where to find Visitat Minorum. Perhaps it is an error of the Printer. However these words are in S. Austin's 9th Tome lib 2. de Visitatione Infirmorum, (not Minorum) cap. 2. which no way exclude praying to Saints, but manifestly suppose it. Tutius, & jucundius clear all, and render this Sense, 'Tis good and safe to pray to Saints, but our Lord Jesus is eminently above them, and therefore more safely and cheerfully we pray to Jesus.  
Page 133. he citys Cardinal Bessarion apud Bodin, undervaluing certain Saints; and our Doctor gives you a list of them thus, S. Fingar, S. Anthony of Milan, S. Christopher, Charles Borromeus, Ignatius Loyola, Xaverius, then deceitfully adds, and many others, of whom, saith the Doctor, Bessarion complained, that many of them were such persons whose life he could not approve, etc. observe here first, the Context of our Doctor, and how he cheats his Reader, whom he would have believe, that beside many others, Bessarion reproved the life of S. Fingar, S. Anthony of Milan, S. Charles Borromeus, S. Ignatius Loyola, and S. Xaverius, yet these three last blessed men were not in the world when Bessarion lived; for he quitted this mortal life Anno Domini 1472. 2. I affirm that our Doctor shall never show out of Bessarion, that he unsaints any approved for Sanctity by the Roman Catholic Church. S. Fingar (though some say) S. Anselm accounted him a blessed man was never yet canonised; and I wonder what our Doctor hath against S. Christopher of whom little is known. Certainly, (for I have run slightly over some works of Bessarion) this Grecian Bishop and Cardinal, employed in so many Embassies as we read of, troubled not himself to cavil either with S. Christopher, or S. Anthony of Milan. 3. Our Doctor deals not well with his Reader, for he should for Bessarions assertion have remitted him to the Cardinals own book, and not to Bodinus. or john Pudding, a man of Atheistical Principles, whose authority with the judicious is altogether as little as the Doctor's. Bodinus his Republic I have, but yet cannot get a sight of his Method. Historica to which the Doctor remits me.  
Next he citys Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona affirming, that all, who are canonised by the Pope, cannot be said to be in Heaven. And where find we this assertion of Triumphus? in two places, answers our Doctor, viz. quaest. 14. ad quartum, and quaest. 17. ad quartum. Observe here the Doctor's ignorance; For, (to say nothing of his unskilful omitting the Article) these two quotations ad quartum are the Authors Objections, not his resolution. The resolution follows, no way asserting what the Doctor saith, but contrary thus: That the Pope, in canonising a Saint by the exterior evidence he hath of his Sanctity, cannot err; Although, saith this Author, neither Pope, nor Church can know certainly, per certitudinem causae, by the certainty of the cause, that all canonised possess beatitude. He saith, per certitudinem causae, because God, who only endues a Soul with Charity causaliter, is only conscious, that it is enriched with this gift. The Pope and Church know not this causaliter, but by the effects of Charity showed to the world: Therefore saith Anconitanus quaest. 14. cit. art. 4. Ad prim. dicendum, quod licet Papa non possit scire, per certitudinem causae, etc. we say although the Pope cannot know, by the certitude of the cause, that a Saint whom he canonizeth had Charity, yet he knows it by effects, to wit, by works famous and spoken of him; quia probatio charitatis, exhibitio est operis; the proofs of Charity, are good works, and this is enough whereby he may judge, etc. Thus Anconitanus.  
To what the Doctor adds of some reputed Saints for a time, and afterwards burnt for Heretics. I Answer. The Objection is frivolous, for no one canonised, or, universally honoured as a Saint by the Catholic Church was ever thus dealt with. Though no wonder it is, that a mere cheat gain for a time an opinion of Sanctity with men over credulous, and afterward have his vizard pulled off, and Hypocrisy disclosed.  
The Doctor ends his ninth Section pag. 134. with a pitiful complaint against the multitude of Holidays in the Church of Rome, and saith out of Gavantus, that there are about two hundred Holy days in the whole year, which is an intolerable burden to the poor labourer, that on the rest he can scarce earn his bread, besides much superstition and licentiousness that fellows such disorderly festivities. Answ. The ignorance of our Doctor is more than intolerable, who neither understands Gavantus, nor the practice of our Church. Strange it is, that he also complained not of two hundred fasting days answerable to these holidays, much weakening the labouring man, and consequently, that the year hath more fasts and feasts in it, than days: This later is as true, as what the Doctor tells us of two hundred holidays. Let him therefore know, that all these holidays which Gavantus calls feasts, or are placed in the Calendar in red letters, are not days of precept, obliging poor labourers to desist from servile work, but are styled feasts upon this account, that the Church keeps a memory of so many blessed Saints in order with Office, and Mass. More than the most of them hinder no manual work, nor lay any obligation on the labouring man. Hence his argument of ease and licentiousness accompanying these festivities is made null. Only thus much it proves, that one may innocently smile at the Doctor's skill in what he writes against.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Adjuration of Devils approved by the ancient Church and authority of Fathers. The Doctor cannot except against our Catholic Exorcisms.  
NOw to the Doctors 10. Section, pag. 135. where (God bless us) he is resolved to be Tragical, and passionately to act against all Exorcisms, and conjuring of Devils. For answer; I'll give him these few Considerations, which perhaps may conjure him to silence hereafter, on this Subject.  
And first, it is an eternal shame for a Doctor of Divinity to rail with open mouth against all Exorcism's, seeing we are ascertained, that not only Christ our Lord impowered his own Disciples to cast out Devils, but the Ancient Church likewise positively prescribed a Form of Exorcism. This we have in the 4th. Council of Carthage, celebrated in the year, 398. (and approved by Leo the third) cap. 7. Exorcista (saith the Council) cum ordinatur, accipiat de manu Episcopi libellum in quo Scripti sunt Exorcismi, dicente sibi Episcopo: Accipe, & commenda memoriae, & habeto potestatem imponendi manus super energumenum, sive baptizatum, sive Catechumenum. Let the Exorcist when he is ordained, take a book from the hand of the Bishop, wherein the Exorcisms are writ; the Bishop saying, take this Book, and commit it to memory, and receive power to lay thy hands upon the possessed person, whether Baptised, or Catechumen. Thus said the Ancient Church, even when our Protestants say it was without error; yet now up starts a new fashioned Doctor in a corner of the world brim full of anger, and must needs vent it against these sacred rites: Exorcisms, (forsooth) with him, are horrible impiety, a Conjugation of evils, Incantations, Diabolical charms, and what not? Well, for adjuring of Devils, and casting them out of possessed persons, we have both the Practice, and Authority of the most Ancient Fathers that ever lived in the Church. I'll give you a few, and, for others, remit you to Pamelius his notes upon Tertullian de Baptismo, pag. (with me) 468. printed at Antwerp, Anno 1584. daemons (saith Tertullian in his Apologet, adv. Gent. cap. 31. pag. 74.) id est, genios adjurare consuevimus ut illos ab hominibus exigamus. Devils or Genii we have a custom to adjure that we may drive them from men. Again, cap. 37. pag. 78. Quis autem vos ab illis, etc. who is there that will free you from the incursions of Devils, which we without reward drive away. And, in his Book de Praeseip. cap. 41. p. 400. He blames certain women for using Exorcisms. Add to Tertullian a Father yet more ancient, Justinus Martyr, in his works printed at Paris, an. 1615. Apologia prima pro Christianîs, pag. 45. Complures, saith the Saint, daemonum intemperijs correptos per orbem omnem, & hanc vestram urbem, etc. You have many seized on by Devils the whole world over, yes, and in this your City, which your Conjurers and Witches could not help; and not a few of our men, Per nomen Jesu Christi su● Pontio Pilato Crucifixi adiurantes sanarunt, etc. Have by adjuring them in the Name of Christ Jesus Crucified, cured them, have disarmed these Devils, and cast them out of those possessed men. The like we read in S. Justins' Dialogue cum Tryphone Judaeo, (with me in the same edition pag. 147. (& hodie quoque illi per nomen Jesu Christi adjurati nobis parent, etc. and at this day, those infernal Spirits, adjured by the name of Jesus Christ, with fear and trembling obey us. Read also S. Cyprian printed at Paris ann. 1648. ad Demetrianum pag. 236. O, si audire eos velles (saith the St.) & videre quando à nobis adjurantur, & torquentur spiritualibus flagris, & verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes, & gementes voce humana, & potestate divina, flagella, & verbera sentientes, venturum judicium confitentur. O Demetrian, if thou wouldst hear, and see when those evil Spirits are conjured by us, and vexed by our spiritual scourges, and the torment of those words we speak, being cast out of possessed bodies, if thou didst but hear and see, when howling, and sighing like men, they feel our stripes and lashes, and confess a day of judgement to come etc. Veni, & cognosce, come and know these wonders to be true, which we here relate. Thus S. Cyprian. Here are adjurations, here are spiritual scourges, here are sacred words, here are Devils cast out of possessed bodies (howling and crying) by the power of God at these adjurations, and speaking of words. Let the Doctor speak out, and tell us plainly if he dares with any conscience say that all this is nothing but Diabolical charming, and horrible impiety.  
Would he please to credit me, I might tell him a true story of a certain man who had his house miserably haunted with evil Spirits; much affliction they gave both to his Servants and Cattle. To be short he called for a Priest, and begged him to pray in his house, who did so; he said Mass, offered up the Sacrifice of Christ's sacred body, and prayed very earnestly that that trouble might cease. His prayer prevailed, cease it did. Yet more; This good man had from a friend some of that holy earth which was brought from Jerusalem, where our Lord Jesus was buried, and this he hung up in his chamber to secure himself from danger of these evil Spirits. This is the story; and will the Doctor believe it on my word? No, he laughs at it; it smells saith he, of Superstition; that offering up of Christ's body sacrificed, and keeping that earth should free the man's chamber from Devils, is plain Popery savouring too much of an unbloody Sacrifice, and the doctrine of relics, etc. I grant all (except the Superstition) and tell the Doctor, he must either credit the story, or discredit S. Austin who relates it in his 22. book de civitate (Antwerp print anno 1676. cap 8. page 297. The man's name was Hesperius (vir tribunitius) a chief commander. More particulars you have in the place now cited worth reading: if any yet desire more of the force of prayer, and Exorcisms against Devils, let him read that ancient author Optatus Milevit. lib. 4 adversus Parmenianum pag. 79. Paris print, with Albaspins' notes 1631 Hoc exorcismus operatur per quem spiritus immundus depellitur, & in loca deserta fugatur. Exorcisms drive away Devils, and banish● them into desert places. Thus Optatus. And S. Gregory the great tells you of strange wonders done upon possessed persons by B. Fortunatus' Bishop, in his first book of Dialog. cap. 9 pag. 952. Paris print 1571.  
These truths supposed (which no Protestant can answer) I will with licence inquire of our Doctor what it is he finds fault with in our Catholic Exorcisins against Devils? Is it the power we have from Christ Jesus to cast them out of persons possessed, or places haunted by them? The very authority of Fathers already alleged, and the continued favour of Almighty God to this our age, in assisting many (within the bounds of the Catholic Church) to dispossess innumerable possessed, proves the power, and evidenceth most undeniably the effects of it. Known History for those wonders done in later ages, and yet living eye-witnesses in our days, gain credit with prudent men, and justly may conquer a greater increduty than the Doctor harbours in his breast. All cannot be fiction nor the Authors proved liars that writ such stories, yet more.  
Doth our Doctor reprehend the words we use in Exorcisms? Yes. And why? Is it because they are adjurative? If so, the Fathers now cited are our warrant, and will silence the Doctor. Is it because they are words unusual, and not easily understood by all? If this offend him, I answer first; that there are more unusual pedantic words in one Dr Pierces Sermon then in all the approved Exorcisms of the Catholic Church; yet that Sermon is for the people, these Exorcisms are against the Devil, who better understands the hardest term in them, than the generality of men that Sermon. I answer 2. that in the Roman ritual, (which we chief defend) not one word can be thought unusual; it is plain Latin all a long, intelligible to the poorest Scholar. The like I say of that Manual of Exorcisms printed at Antwerp anno 1626. which our Doctor causelessly cavils at pag. 136. the like of the Exorcisms for the Diocese of Iper, printed at S. Omers anno 1606.  
Besides these I have by me two other Exorcisms, the one printed at Venice 1579. the other anno 1585. in an old Character. The book is called Sacerdotale Romanum; towards the end of these Editions you have the Exorcism, and both Hebrew and Greek thus in Latin Letters. Adjuro vos per nomina omnipotentis Dei, Messiah, Sother, Emanuel, Sabaoth, Adonias, I adjure you by the names, etc. And this perhaps made our Doctor pag. 138. exclaim against some Exorcisms for their false Hebrew and base Greek. Sure the good man thought that Messiah and Sother should have been a genitive case because of Omnipotentis Dei, whereas they relate to the precedent words per nomina; as if one should say per nomen Jeremias adjuro, by your name Jeremy, I adjure you, never to cavil without cause. Like cavils about Letters,, and writing Messiah without the Hebrew twang, Sother less correctedly, etc. I omit; and tell the Doctor that a poor Parish Priest shall do more against the Devil with this he calls false Hebrew, and base Greek, than twenty Ministers in England with the most acquaint extemporal prayers they can make.  
What else remains reprehensible in these exorcisms? The Doctor answers pag. 141. Superstition (a monstrous evil doubtless; Wel. I'll deal plainly and licence the Doctor to make use of any definition, which, either ancient Father, or new approved writers give us of Superstition (we will stand to his choice) yet I'll assure him he shall never so much as touch Catholics with the least likelihood of Superstition in their exorcisms. What Lactantius saith of Superstition lib. 4. de inst. cap. 28. initio: qui Deos precabantur, & immolabant ut sui sibi filij superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati, concerns not exorcisms at all, and less doth that known one of Cicero lib. 2. de natura Deorum, qui pro superstiti prole nimij erant in Dijs precandis, etc. touch them; if the Doctor therefore please, we will say, that Superstition is, Cultus indebitus, seu vana religio. A wrong, vain, and incongruous worship, which looks like religion, but is not. And next let us read any approved exorcism. The prayers made there to Almighty God are Acts of Religion, and neither wrong, nor incongruous worship. The calling on God by several names we find in Scripture, cannot be judged by a Christian, vain or incongruous. The reading of David's Psalms, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ is not in vain. The adjuring of Devils is warranted by Fathers, and the power of casting them out is given by Jesus Christ. Where then lies the danger of vain worship, or so much as the least sign of any Superstition? If the word exorcism displease our Doctor, we have it, (to say nothing of others) in S. Austin lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis, & remissione cap. 34. initio and lib. 6. contra Julianum cap 5. with an exsufflation added in Baptism. Filios fidelium (saith the S.) nec exorcizaret, nec exsufflaret, etc. The Church would neither exorcise, nor breath on little Children, were it not to free them from the power of darkness, and Prince of death. Let the Doctor say what he thinks of this exsufflation; if such a Ceremony be not Superstition, none in our exorcisms can be; if the sign of the Cross frights him, he may know, 'tis allowed by all Antiquity, and Blessed S. Austin thus Tom. 4. lib. uno de catech. rudibus cap. 20. a little after the beginning. Crucis signo infronte hodie tanquam in post signandus es, omnesque Christiani signatur, Little ones and all Christians are signed with the sign of the Cross. And what, besides the things now mentioned, can be blamable in our approved exorcisms? I say approved; for, if any other, either is, or hath been extant, justly reprehensible, we defend it not. The anathematising the Devil by the name of Beelzebub, Satan, (or any other we have in Scripture) is no more Superstition then to call an open Rebel, Traitor: neither can the casting of his picture into the fire, (if any exorcist does it) be thought an action more superstitious then to hang a Traitor up in effigy, when his person is out of reach; hanging is for the one, burning is for the other. I say, if any exorcism allows this, for the Roman Ritual, we chief stand to, mentioneth no such burning.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Objections against Exorcisms solved. Of the Doctors mistaken quotations.  
NOw a word to two Objections of our Doctor, if these things (saith he p. 142. (meaning Exorcisms) come from God, let them show their warrants. Answ. We have showed already. The power given by Christ our Lord to his Church for the casting out of Devils is our warrant. The definitions of Councils, prescribing a form of Exorcism, how to cast them out, are our warrant. The Authority of the Gravest Fathers that ever lived, approving the conjuration of Devils, is our warrant. Their distinguishing between the enchantments of Heathens, Incantations, Witchery, and these pious Exorcisms, is our warrant. The practice of the Church, and use of these conjurations in all Ages, is our warrant. The wonders God hath done by Exorcisms, (both ancient and modern Authors relate them) are our warrant. Most assured, and certain experience in these our days, that Devils are cast out of possessed persons, is our warrant. What then remains but that we retort the Argument, and tell our Doctor, if after so many convincing, manifest, and undeniable proofs, (that these Exorcisms come from God) He unworthily decries them, let him show his warrant, and answer my arguments. But this he shall never do while by opening only one Cyprian, or a Justin Martyr (to say nothing of others) I can conjure him to silence.  
In the interim, I would know of our Doctor whether he thinks there are, or have been in this our age, persons possessed of Devils? If he says no, most manifest experience (of Devils speaking in an unknown tongue, of their violent torturing a body, and moving it above all force of nature, &c,) prove the contrary. Again, Anciently there were these Energumeni, and very numerous. And why not now? are any Devils dead since that time? or less malicious now then anciently? are men in these days better secured from them then the primitive Christians? Toys. Nothing is probable. Therefore the Doctor must confess, if, he'll deal ingeniously, that there are sometimes these Energumeni. All cannot be fiction that authors writ of possessed persons, and if some only be true, most deplorable is the condition of such as are truly possessed; who, destitute of comfort (if old Papists help not) may sigh, and groan under their misery: relief they can have none from Dr. Taylor (who opposes all Exorcisms) and as little from his fellow Ministers in England, for few among them that ever yet I heard of who either dare encounter a Devil in a possessed body, or if they do it, they show themselves unlucky Exorcists, for they never give poor sufferers any ease.  
The other Objection that our Doctor hath (pag. 141.) is taken out of Origen. Tract. 35. in Matth. and 'tis the only thing in substance I find in this tenth Section, though I will assure the Reader (having perused three Editions of Origen.) that the Doctor both omits in the words he gives you, what Origen hath; and afterward, conceals what may serve for an Explication, if Origen, deserve it, for some say he erred in this place; so Baronius ad annum Christi, 56. n. 4. in the Antwerp print 1612. others with Bellarmin incline to think that these Treatises on S. Matth. (as the 5 th'. is not) are not origen's, viz. Bellar. de Scriptorib. Ecclesias. However I'll give you origen's own words (in the Basil print, anno 1571.) pag. 187. uttered on this occasion, that the Prince of the Jews adjured our Saviour, whereupon he makes a Digression thus. Quaeret aliquis si convenit vel daemones adjurare? Some (saith he) may ask whether it be meet to adjure Devils? Then adds, Et qui respicit ad multos qui talia facere ausi sint, dicet, non sine ratione fieri. And he who looks on the practice of many that dare to do so, will say, 'tis done not without reason (these words our Doctor omits totally) Origen. goes on (and here is the only difficulty) qui autem aspicit Jesum imperantem doemonibus, etc. But he that beholds Jesus commanding Devils, and giving power to his Disciples over them, and to heal diseases, will say; that to adjure Devils, is not according to the power given by our Saviour. Judaicum est enim. For its Judaical. Thus Origen; And here ends our Doctor, concealing what follows immediately thus. Hoc, & si aliquando a nostris tale aliquid fiat, simile fit ei, quod a Solomone Scriptis adjurationibus, solent daemones adjurari, etc. This (Judaical adjuration) if sometime any such thing be done by our men, is like that, which Devils are wont to be adjured with, out of certain written adjurations of Solomon. Sed & ipsi qui utuntur adjurationibus illis aliquoties nec idoneis constitutis libris utuntur. But even they who use these adjurations at some time use not right Books. Quibusdam autem & de Hebraeo acceptis adjurant daemonia: Taking certain things out of the Hebrew they adjure Devils. Hitherto you have faithfully origen's words, and his whole Context in order; which in rigour (all circumstances well weighed) only condemn Judaical conjurations, or such Books (not allowable) vitiated perhaps with Jewish Exorcisms. For most certain it is that the Jews had their Exorcists; and that their power of casting out Devils ceased at the beginning of Christian Religion, or soon after: read Acts the 19 v. 13. Certain it is also, if we believe Josephus the Jew, lib. 8. de antiquitate, cap. 2. (with me, folio 68 versus finem) that Solomon had his Exorcisms composed, as some most Learned are of Opinion, after his fall into Idolatry. These and such like adjurations Origen reproves, and not any Christian Catholic Exorcism.  
My reason is, first, that Origen contradicted not Fathers more ancient than himself; such were Justinus Martyr, and Tertullian above cited; these adjured Devils, therefore Origen might do so. 2. Lib. 1. contra Celsum with me (in the Edition above named) pag. 637. He professedly acknowledgeth the power of casting out Devils given to Christians; yes, and after he had taxed Celsus of injustice, and open calumny, for ascribing their ejection done by Christians, to Incantations and Sorcery. He answers thus; n. 6. Non enim incantationibus pollere videntur, sed nomine Jesus, cum commemoratione ejus factorum; nam, his verbis saepenumero profligati sunt daemones ex hominibus. That is, Christians do nothing in this matter by any Charms, or Enchantments, but prevail against Devils by naming Christ Jesus, and commemorating his glorious works. Thus these wicked spirits are driven out of possessed persons; And truly the like we do yet in our Catholic adjurations. 3. It is madness to think, that one so well versed in Scripture, as Origen was, had such a horror of this word Adjuro, that he judged it unseemly in the mouth of a Christian; for the Apostle himself useth it, writing to the Thess. Epist. 1. cap. 5. v. 27. Adjuro vos per dominum ut legatur Epistola haec. I adjure ye by our Lord, etc. And mark, it is a word of command, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yes, and the same that the Devil used against our Saviour, Mar. 5. v. 7. Adjuro te per Deum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I adjure thee by Almighty God. Briefly therefore distinguish a double adjuration, the one of no Efficacy, because either vain or Judaical; and this Origen rejecteth; The other is Christian used in our Catholic Exorcisms, with the sacred Name of Jesus; and this he approves. The Doctor may object that Origen, speaking of the High Priest adjuring our Saviour, makes this Argument; Si enim jurare non licet, quia nec alterum adjurare licet. If it be not lawful to swear, neither lawful is it to adjure another. I answer; This confirms all we have said hitherto in origen's defence. For, as none can judge that so great a Doctor as Origen, condemned all swearing, which God allows in Scripture: [Vivit Dominus. Jurabit Dominus. Per nomen ejus jurabis, etc.] but only such as is irreligious and profane. So none can infer upon this proof, that he thought all adjuration illicit; though he professedly opposed irreligious and Judaical Exorcisms. Thus much in behalf of Origen, if these Treatises on S. Mat. be his; for Erasmus in the preface to them, saith, Neque enim Hieronimus agnoscit hoc opus. S. Hierom acknowledgeth them not.  
The Doctor, pag. 142. having done with Origen, quotes S. Chrisostom for this sober saying, we poor wretches cannot drive away flies, much less Devils. And remits you to the Saint, in illa verba qui credit in me major a faciet. I answer, that S. Chrisostom may perhaps have these words, qui credit in me, etc. 40. times over in his Large and Voluminous writings; Must I therefore run over all these Tomes, to meet with this sober saying; for most certainly it is not where any Reader would expect to have it, I mean in S. Chrisostoms 73. hom. in cap. 14. Joan. there are the words of Scripture, qui credit in me, etc. And S. Chrisostoms large Explication on them; but not so much as one syllable of either Fly or Devil, or any poor wretch unable to cast out Devils, but much to the contrary. Hoc vestrum jam est, saith the Saint, miracula operari, ego abeo. It belongs to you (my Disciples) to work miracles, I am now on my departure. The Chrisostom I cite is the Paris print, anno 1588. his Comments on the words qui credit, etc. are page 293. and other Editions accord also with it, even the Greek by Sir Henry Savil.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
The blessing of Water proved by Irrefragable Authority. Of Miracles done by Holy Water. No proof against it.  
THe Doctor, pag. 143. and 11 Section thinks with a few empty words, and a like number of insipid jeers to unhollow such Creatures, as the most ancient Fathers of God's Church have reputed holy, because made so with a sacred benediction. Such are Holy Water, the Paschal Candle, Oil, and Holy Bread, slighted by him, without proof at all. Truly I am astonished at our Doctor (having at least) read Bellarmin de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7. and perused the Arguments of this Learned Author, for the blessing of Water, Oil, etc. That he neither affords us so much as a word of answer to the Arguments, nor yet endeavours to gainsay them by one Syllable of Scripture, by any Authority of Councils, of Fathers, or the Ancient practice of the Primitive Church.  
Bellarmin first proves out of Scripture, that creatures are capable of benediction; Every Creature is good, saith the Apostle. 1. ad Tim. 4. Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei, & orationem: And is sanctified by the Word of God, and Prayer. He shows you also out of S. Dennis, Alexander the first, Optatus, S. Cyprian, S. Basil, and others, that Water anciently was blessed in the Church. The like of Oil, by the Authority of S. Clement, Dennis, and Basil. The benediction of Bread (besides the Eucharist) is taught by S. Austin, Tom. 7. lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis & remissione, cap. 26. speaking of the Catechumen. Et quod accipiunt, (saith the Saint) quamvis non sit Corpus Christi, Sanctum est tamen, & sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur. And what these Catechumen take, although it be not Christ's Body, yet it is holy, yes, and more holy than the meat wherewith we are nourished. Hence I argue, if Bread can be hallowed, Water may; And this I prove by three irrefragable Arguments.  
The first is taken out of the Ancient Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemaijs, or Cyrene, in his book printed at Paris, anno 1633. (we have it also in Bibliotheca Patrum) read these words in that Treatise he entitles Catastasis, 
* De called pentapolitanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  with me pag. 304. Ego in loco meo in ecclesia permanebo. Lustralis ante me aquae sanctissima vasa collocabo, etc. Illic ego & sedebo vivus, & mortuus jacebo. I'll remain in my place, that is the Church. I'll place before me the hallowed Vessels of Water, there I'll sit alive, and lie when I am dead.  
Yet more, read his 121. Epistle to Anastasius, pag. 258. If, saith Sinesius, the Administration of the Commonwealth resides in Bishops; these are the men that must do justice on wickedness. Quandoquidem publicus gladius, non minus quam lustralis aqua quae in templorum vestibulis collocatur, civitatis est piaculum. Seeing that the public Sword no less purgeth a City, then Holy Water doth, that is placed in the entry of our Churches. And thus it is kept in Churches to this day.  
The second Testimony we have, is, in the more ancient Epiphanius, Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra haereses, haeresi 30. with me pag. 61. in the Basil print; where the Saint tells us; that, Josephus the Jew (seeing fire, contrary to its own nature, made unactive by Enchantment, and hindered from burning by Witchcraft) called for water (a world of Jews being present) made the sign of the Cross upon it, put his finger into the Vessel of the blessed Water, saying, in the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom my Fathers crucified, Fiat virtus in hac aquâ ad reprobationem omnis incantationis & Magiae quam hi fecerunt. Let there be virtue in this water, for the disolving the charms done by these men. Then, saith Epiphanius, he took some of the water in his hand, sprinkled the several enchanted Furnaces with it. Et dissoluta sunt incantamenta, the Witchcraft ceased, the fire burned, the people who saw the wonder, cried aloud, one God there is, who helps the Christians, and so departed. Add hereunto, if you please, a like Miracle done by Josephus, upon a possessed man, and with Holy Water also. Epiphanius relates it in the precedent pag. 60. Joseph, saith he, having shut the doors, took water into his hands, blessed it with the sign of the Cross, besprinkled the raging man with it, commanded the Devil in the Name of Jesus to be gone, and the possessed party was cured. This Miracle saith Epiphanius the Jews knew, and great talk there was of it; some said, Josephus had opened the Gazophilacium, and finding there the Name of God writ, did the wonder by force of this Name. It was true he did the Miracle, but not as the Jews imagined. Thus Epiphanius.  
In the last place, I'll give you Theodoret's Testimony lib. 5. Ecclesiast. histor. cap. 21. in the Colen print anno 1577. pag. 312. where he tells you also, how the Devil hindered fire from burning, though wood, of its own nature combustible, was applied to it. The Charm (to be brief) was told the Pastor, who forthwith ran to the Church, and commanded a little vessel of water to be given him; this he put under the holy Altar, falling prostrate on the ground, earnestly begged of Almighty God not longer to suffer this Tyranny of the Devil, etc. prayer ended, he made the sign of the Cross upon the water, gave it to Equitius a Deacon, commanding him withal speed, to sprinkle the enchanted fire with it, which done, saith Theodoret, daemon aufugit, the Devil ran away, the water burned like Oil, and the fire consumed the wood in a moment. If any desire more for the blessing of water, let him read Tertull. lib. de baptismo cap. 4. S. Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacram. cap. 5. and S. Austin Tract. 118. in Joannem. For the blessing of Oil, and the Paschal Candle, see Bellarmin above cited.  
Let us now return to our Doctor and make my assertion good, viz. That he hath not so much as a syllable of either Scripture, Council, or Father, against the blessing of Water. He citys pag. 143. S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 4. Saying, that in the Holy and Divine Mysteries of our Faith, necessary it is to do nothing by chance or of our own heads, nor without Scripture; From whence our Doctor must argue thus (if he proves any thing) but to bless water is one of the Divine Mysteries of Faith, and done by chance or of our own heads, without holy Scripture: Therefore 'tis unwarrantable, and an Invention of man only. To this discourse, I answer. That it is neither one of the Mysteries of Faith, which S. Cyril handles in the place now cited; (for he speaks there only of the equality of the Holy Ghost with Father and Son) neither is it done by chance or of our own heads (witness the Fathers already cited) nor without Authority of Holy Scripture, (Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei & orationem, saith the Apostle) nor finally is it against S. Cyril, who positively to the Doctor's confusion, saith that water may be blessed, but two leaves only before his own quotation; Catech. 3. with me pag. 401. (Bibliot Patrum. Colen. print, Tom. 4.) his words are. Nam ut illa quae in Aris offeruntur, cum natura sint pura, invocatione daemonum impura efficiuntur: Sic contra, aqua simplex per Spiritus Sancti, Christi, & Patris invocationem accepta virtute, sanctitatem consequitur. As those things which are offered on Altars, (he means to Idols) when pure in their own nature, are made impure by the invocation of Devils: So on the contrary, simple Water is made holy, gets a sanctity by invocating the Holy Ghost, Christ our Lord, and his Eternal Father. Had the Doctor seen this Testimony of S. Cyril, he would never have troubled his Reader with the other Quotation, more remote from the purpose, than York is distant from London.  
Again, our Doctor excepts against S. Gregory's Dialogues, and unworthily styles them Romantic stories, pag. 143. I answer; Had a frantic brain brought forth such an expression, none would have wondered; but that a grave Divine sleights these books, highly reverenced, both by the Greek and Latin Church, cannot be tolerated. In a word, the Doctor shall never be able with any shadow of proof, to infringe their authority. What therefore that Learned Saint saith of Blessed Fortunatus curing a lame man, etc. is as certainly true, as that the Doctor errs in discrediting those Dialogues.  
Next the good man is upon us with a jeer: They throw (saith he pag. 143.) this Water on sick Cow's horns, on children's cradles, etc. Answ. And did not the Christian Italicus take water also from blessed Hilario, and cast it on his Enchanted stable, on his bewitched Horses, on his Chariot, on the place or Barriers from whence he used to run? Did not the Charm or Witchery cease upon this sprinkling of water? In so much that all cried out. Marnas victus a Christo est. Christ hath conquered Marnas. Most true it is; no less a Doctor then S. Hierom relates the story, in vita Hilarionis (Paris print) pag. 323. Our Doctor may turn to the page, and if he reuerences S. Hierom, leave of his jeering.   

CHAP. XXV.  
Of the Doctor's dark Divinity. Of his want of Charity towards his Ancestors, and all Catholics.  
THe Doctor ends this 11. Section, pag. 144. with a piece of scarce intelligible Divinity. Upon the Sacraments (saith he) they are taught to rely with so little of Moral, and virtuous Dispositions, that the Efficacy of the one is made to lessen the necessity of the other. I answer, That every Sacrament (except Infant Baptism) requires a virtuous disposition: Penance is of no Efficacy without Contrition, or at least Attrition: The other Sacraments styled Vivorum, require per se, Supernatural inherent Grace, previous to their worthy receiving. How therefore the Efficacy of one, is made to lessen the necessity of the other, is Divinity, too dark to be understood.  
The Doctor goes on. The Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent Virtue, that they are not so much made the Instruments of Virtue, as the Suppletory. Answ. Still we are in a cloud. To get out on't, our Doctor must unriddle this word Suppletory. We say thus, and speak plain Language. God, in the operation of Sacraments, is the prime efficient cause of Grace; Christ, the Meritorious; Sacraments the Instrumental. Now, whether they work by an  Virtue imprinted (as it were) on them, or are otherwise effectual, concerns nothing Catholic Religion. Supernatural inherent Grace we receive by them, when a soul is fitly disposed: This is our Doctrine. Yet we have more obscure Divinity; For he tells us, we teach, that Sacraments are not so much to increase Grace, as to make amends for the want of Grace. God only knows what he means by this making amends for the want of Grace: I do not. Qui potest capere capiat: We say (without this making amends) that Grace is effectually given in every Sacrament to that soul, that comes worthily disposed.  
The Doctor in his 12. Section, page 144. talks of Idolatry, but not understanding what Idolatry is, nor our Divines Tenets concerning the Worship he speaks of, fights against shadows: I'll only leave him to Mr. Thorndike (a great Divine of his own) to learn of him what Idolatry is, and how far the Church of Rome is to be charged with it; and what the consequences of such a charge will be. Mr. Thorndike in his just Weights and Measures, chap. 1. discourseth it at large: He says pag. 2. If the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, we need not seek farther for the reason of the distance, we are to own the separation for our own act, and glory in it. He says again, pag. 7. If it be true, viz. That the Papists be guilty of Idolatry; we cannot without renouncing our Christianity, hold communion with those whom we charge with it. So that if this Section of our Doctor which charges us with Idolatry, be true: Mr. Thorndike tells him there is no need of seeking farther for the reason of the distance; This must be it, viz. That they could not hold communion with Idolaters without renouncing their Christianity, and therefore they parted; which separation they own for their own act and glory in it: Yet Mr. Thorndike says, that if this be the best reason they can give for their separation, they must acknowledge themselves to be the Schismatics: His own words are, Cap. 1. pag. 7. line 14. For in plain Terms we make ourselves Schismatics, by grounding our Reformation upon this pretence; and again in the same page line 29. So that, says he, should this Church declare, that the charge which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition, I must then acknowledge that we are the Schismatics. Now that this Pretence, and this Supposition, are the same which our Doctor in his Section pretends and supposes us to be guilty of, viz. Idolatry, is evident by the whole Chapter now quoted; and by the Contents of it printed before the Chapter, which end thus; They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby Schismatics before God: How the Doctor will answer this to his own brother, I neither know, nor care; nor can I see how he can possibly avoid the Imputation of Schism in Mr. Thorndik's judgement: for he believes, or else he cheats his Charge, that we are Idolaters; if he does, he must in Mr. Thorndikes Opinion, and in all reason make that the ground of his Separation; And if he does do so, he is a Schismatic before God, says Mr. Thorndike. This may serve for answer to his charge in general; His particular Instances in what we are Idolaters, are; Worshipping of Images, says he, is a direct breach of the Second Commandment, an act of Idolatry, as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of, etc. Mr. Thorndike shall answer for us again in the Book before cited, Cap. 19 in the Contents whereof, you may read this Proposition. Reverencing of Images in Churches is not Idolatry; In this Chapter, page 126. towards the bottom he has these words; Whether or no having Images in Churches be a breach of the Second Commandment, can be no more question, then whether or not to have any Images be a breach of it; for it must forbid Images in Churches, because it forbids all Images: etc. This and what follows in that chap. clears the having of Images in Churches, from being a breach of the Second Commandment; Now to clear the Reverencing or Worshipping of them from being Idolatry, read the same Chapter on, and page 127. line 31. you shall find these words; But to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as men take them  Saints; That is God's creatures. Much less to the Images of our Lord; For it is the honour of our Lord, and not of his Image. And again, line the last of this page, and page 128. Nay the Council itself (meaning the 2. of Nice) though it acknowledge that the Image itself is honoured, by the honour given to that which it signifieth, before the Image; yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images; though it acknowledge that the Image itself is honoured, when it need not. This is quite contrary to our Doctor's Divinity; The pious Children of the Church of England, may believe which they please of these two great Divines; the one is a Bishop, but the other seems the more wary man; For he makes a cautious proposal in the 1 Chap. of his Book quoted before, page 2. line 14. It were good, says he, that we did understand one another. And line 30. Yet it is necessary to provide that we contradict not ourselves. But our Doctor never caring whom he understands, or who understands him, thinks it not necessary to provide that they contradict not one another, But rashly says what comes next, right or wrong. What he hath more, pag. 145, 146, 147. relate chief, ad modum colendi, or to the way of Worship; which toucheth nothing on Catholic Religion, or the due reverence given to Images. Divines I know, dispute this point largely, their different Opinions make no Article of Faith. Let us agree that Images are to be worshipped in the Sense of those Fathers we cited above, and in Mr. Thorndikes Sense; And afterward, if the Doctor please, we'll discuss the Theological Difficulty, how they are to be worshipped. To what our Doctor has page 148. concerning the Idolatry of worshipping Consecrated Bread and Wine, Mr. Thorndike shall once more answer for us, who by good luck has the very Instance of the Pagans worshipping the Sun, which our Doctor says is all one with our worshipping the Consecrated Bread and Wine. But Mr. Thorndike I dare say will not believe him, until he answers the beginning of his 19 Chap. quoted before, page 125. the Contents of which at the very beginning have this Proposition: The worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry: If our Doctor will undertake to satisfy Mr. Thorndike, that he is mistaken in what he here professes to teach, I presume he will oblige him highly; For he asks, pag. 5. line 22. of his Weights and Measures: Who will take upon him to show us, that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry? When these two great Doctors are agreed which of them teaches the truest Divinity concerning this Point, this Section may, and it may not too, require a farther Answer. Till than we'll leave them to dispute it: 'Tis pity they should be parted: Cadmus his Brood that came into the world an unnatural and extraordinary way, are a proper Emblem of all Heretics; Their births are monstrous, and their ends as odd. Angry men that they are, they cannot agree, but without any other help will always (if let alone) destroy one another.  
Pag. 150. Sect. 13. He takes on, to tell those under his Charge, how matters stand in point of Religion, and saith; that we Catholics dangerously err, yes, and injure Faith, spoil Hope, sin against Charity: In a word we are men, that bring Ruin to all Religion. Faith we injure, by creating new Articles; To this we have answered in the first Chapter, that not one new Article is created by us; though the Church, as occasion is, may more clearly explicate some old ones, and hath ever done so. We spoil, saith he, our Hope, by placing it on Creatures. Answ. Hope, good Doctor, is a Theological Virtue, and hath God, as he is our final good, for its formal Object. The finis qui is no Creature; the possession of this infinite goodness, by a clear Vision, is; Both these, which will make us happy in Heaven, we hope for, and I think, without offence. Which way, the Doctor's Hope tends I know not. We sin, saith he again, against Charity by damning all that are not of our Opinion. Answ. First the Doctor sins most grievously against Charity by damning all his Ancestors, (his great great Grandfather, and so upward for a thousand years) why? they were all old Papists, and as he tells us, had naughty Faith, spoiled Hope, great want of Charity, the Salutary doctrine of Repentance torn in pieces, etc. But none can be saved with a Faith, Hope, Charity and Repentance spoilt, and worth nothing; Therefore his Ancestors, (with thousand thousands of others) are in a sad condition, and all damned by his doctrine. I Answ. 'tis a Calumny to say we damn any for differences in Opinion. Now, if the Doctor will needs tell us what Faith, and what Opinion is exactly in every Tenet, he goes beyond his skill, and takes on him to teach his betters. Here is enough of his 13. Section where little is said, and less proved.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
The Doctor's wrongful Charge on Catholic Doctors. His weak Exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech. His causeless Cavils. His Faults and Mistakes.  
PAg. 152. the Doctor gins his first Section thus. That in the Church of Rome, it is publicly taught by their greatest Doctors, that it is lawful to lie, or deceive the question of the Magistrate, to conceal their name, and tell a false one, to elude all examinations, and to make them insignificant, and toothless, cannot be doubted, etc. I Answ. This Charge, as it is laid out, is most injurious. Not one amongst us says, that a lie ever is, or can be lawful in any circumstance; it is always naught, and prohibited by the Law of God, and nature. None say, that we may elude all examinations of the Magistrate. The Proposition is of so vast extent (all examinations) that it loses credit with sober men. True it is, most grave Divines hold; that in certain cases of danger, and other concernments, the ambiguous use of words, yes, and of mental restriction also, is allowable; but ever without a lie, never without just cause and Reason. Impious therefore were it, to make use of this Restriction, in Contracts, Leagues, Promises, Vows, or Oaths, yes, and most  in ordinary Conversation. But,  
If a Confessor be asked by a Judge, or any body else whether a penitent confessed such a Sin, (though confessed) doth not the light of nature tell us, the question is, if possibly, to be eluded; or, if pressed on, utterly denied with a No, he did not hear it? What will the Doctor answer here? will he say, yes? He betrays the Penitent, and Sacrilegiously breaks the Seal of Confession. If he stands dumb, and says nothing, S. Austin lib▪ uno de mendacio ad Consent. cap. 13, post medium, rightly observes in a like case of danger, Tacendo eum prodimus: per nostram vel taciturnitatem homo proditur; that by saying nothing we do as good as disclose the Secret, and tell where the concealed man lies hid, and if so; much more doth the speechless Confessor in our case, (though he shakes his head twenty times) speaks out too plainly the Penitents Sin.  
The Doctor therefore, with his excellent use of Confession in England, and we with ours, must of necessity find a way, not on the one Side to lie, (for this is never Lawful) and on the other, to keep the Seal of Confession safe and inviolable. How shall we do this? I can argue; if holy Jacob, when he positively affirmed Gen. 27. 19 that he was his Father's first begotten Son Esau, (yet was not) told no lie, as many Father's hold; well may a Priest also, now in the case now proposed, though he positively affirms that he heard no such Sin in Confession, when he heard it, say no: He heard it not. Jacob said yes, that he was Isack's first begotten, yet was not, (and as we now suppose) said it without a lie; the Priest says, No: he heard not such a Sin (when he heard it) and this in like manner without a lie: The Parity is right every way, if Jacob was not a liar. Be it how you will, Christ our Lord certainly spoke Truth, when he told his Disciples Joan. 7. 8. non ascendo, that he did not ascend to the Feast of the Jews, yet, when they went he, blessed Lord, ascended also. Here is some ambiguity of Speech; In the vulgar translation, which I follow, (though the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nondum ascendo, and the Arabic nunc non ascendo) and because uttered by our Saviour is wholly irreprehensible.  
To clear all, I ask of our Doctor what did this non ascendo, spoken by eternal Truth signify? He will answer, that though the particle, Non, usually makes an absolute denial (and therefore the Apostles might well think that our Lord would not go at all to the Solemnity) yet, here it was restrained, and only denied his visible, or manifest ascending, as may be gathered out of the ensuing words. Non manifestè, sed quasi in occulto; He went, but not openly. If this answer may pass: I argue. The words of our Saviour, non ascendo, I ascend not when he did ascend, were true, though they had a restrained sense, and only denied the public manner of his ascending, not known to others: Ergo, these words of a Priest, Non andivi, I heard not such a Sin, when he heard it in Confession, are likewise true, though they have a restrained sense and only deny the public manner of his hearing it (in that forum) not known to others. A Disparity here good Doctor: perhaps, He will answer, that the Judge or Tyrant positively demands whether the Priest heard that Sin in Confession; and his saying, No to it, is a flat lie. By the way, had the Apostles asked our Saviour whether he would ascend to the Solemnity, and he had answered, as he did, non ascendo. No, would he have told a Lie? I am sure No. Neither did he say an untruth, when, Mark 13. some asked him of the day of judgement, & he returned this answer; De die illo, etc. of that day and hour none knows, not the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Yet, most certain it is that the Son of God knew of that day: which Truth the Fathers asserted against the Arians endeavouring to prove, out of this very Scripture, that Christ was not God. He knew therefore of the day of judgement, yet said, he did not know, both are true; Let the Doctor unfold this double Sense, and we have enough for our present purpose. Hence learn, that though a Tyrant positively ask of a Priest a thousand times whether he heard such a Sin in Confession, the question is not of his demand, (for 'tis most unjust) but whether a Priest may answer as truly, No, I did not hear it, as Christ our Lord said, No; I ascend not, I know not of the day; Here is the question. Most willingly would I have the Doctor's answer, if he finds a flaw in the Parity.  
Were our Doctor better versed in Speculation, I might here set down the Essential difference between a , and mental Restriction. In a lie men ever speak against their mind, for, mentiri est contra mentem ire, that is, they judge so, and speak contrary. In mental Restriction a part only of our interior Judgement (or as we speak in School Inadaequate) is only expressed by Exterior words, or signs. For example, if the Doctor preaching to his people, hath this great truth in his mind: God is not in Heaven after a Corporeal manner, and should by accident Exteriorly say no more but thus much only. God is not in Heaven: He doth not by that half Expression thwart his Judgement, or speak contrary to his thoughts, but only, saith not fully out what he thinks. And thus it is in mental Restriction, what is said is true, though not fully spoken to the capacity of the Hearer. In the Ambiguous use of words, usually called Equivocation, there is far less difficulty. Hence I infer (and it is an Objection of our Doctor, pag. 153.) that if an Adultress asked whether she be one, answers, No; she speaks no untruth, unless she will, but only says she is none publicly proved; Or in some such like Sense. Next saith our Doctor, if a man compelled to swear to take such a one for Wife, he may secretly mean, if hereafter she please me; And the same is of one compelled by a Thief to give him twenty Crowns; I answer, No forced Oath extorted by compulsion, is an Oath for want of Freedom and Liberty; and consequently not Obligatory. The case is plain, if one should take the Doctor's hand per force, and make him write thus much. All I have said in my Dissuasive from Popery is against my Conscience; Would he hold himself obliged to stand to his Writing?  
After this he citys Vasquez, bragging I know not of what Doctrine, and where? In 3. Tom. 4. Quest. 93. Art. 5. Dub. 13. Answ. Vasquez with me, Antwerp print, 1621. hath only 4. Articles in his 93. Question, and not a syllable in his 13. Dubium, of any bragging. In his 12. Dub. Art. 4. he treats of our present matter; but nothing do I find there to the Doctor's purpose. If he hath another Edition, let him friendly tell me. Page 154. (saith he) Diana holds, That to save a man's credit, an honest man who is ashamed to beg, may steal what is necessary. I answer, He deals not well with Diana that speaks more moderately thus. Vir honestus, & cui pro ratione sui status gravissimum, & maximum dedecus esset mendicare, nec posset alia via victum sibi acquirere, videtur posse clanculum necessaria surripere, etc. It seems that a man of credit, and to whom it would be most heavy, and a mighty disgrace to beg, nor can by any other means get sustenance to live (these words the Doctor conceals) it seems, I say, that such a man may secretly take what is necessary for his sustenance. Secus si esset infimae sortis, etc. But this holds not in case he be of a low condition, and might without a notable loss of his honour beg, or otherwise find necessaries. etc. Thus Diana, far of from that high Sense the Doctor sets down. Read him in his Compendium, Rhoan print, 1644. verbo furtum. pag. 335. n. 18.  
Page 155. the Doctor saith, That it is affirmed, and was practised by a whole Council of Bishops at Constance, that Faith is not to be kept with Heretics: And John Hus, and Hierom of Prague felt the mischief of violation of public Faith, etc. Answ. An old story, and as false as old: For, first, the Council never determined, that Faith given by Ecclesiastical power to an Heretic, is not to be kept. Nay, it holds itself obliged to stand to such a promise; Faithfully also complied with it in the after Councils of Basil, and Trent. Yet more; This Council holds, that a Secular Prince or Magistrate after security promised to an Heretic, is bound to keep it, although neither the one or other can force the Church ('tis a distinct Tribunal) to do so. True it is that King Sigismond who had given a safe conduct to Hus, seemed at first to feel his Condemnation; but when he perceived the obstinacy of the man, neither relenting after his own Princely Counsel, nor yielding to the advice of others, he did not only condescend to punish Hus, but exhorted the Fathers Assembled at Constance, to proceed severely against him: And why? John Hus violated the Laws of his safe conduct shamefully, and ran away from the Council; Yet catched he was, and committed to Prison, and had his condign punishment; His running away made him a guilty person on a new score, and by it lost the privilege of his safe conduct. Here you have in brief the true Story. Spondanus relates it, Tom. 2. Paris print, anno 1641. ad annum Christi, 1415. n. 45. pag. 216. and for more, sends you to Joannes Coclaeus, lib. 2. & 3. Concerning Faith to be kept with Heretics. Spondanus now cited, remits you farther to Molanus a Doctor of Loven, to Martinus Becanus, and Hesibertus Rosweidus, all Learned men, and no ways opposite to public fidelity given to any.  
What the Doctor hath, page 156. of the Pope dispensing in Oaths, when they hinder a greater good, seems to me a childish Objection: For, do not secular Princes daily, though a man by Law deserves death, graciously reprieve him, when they prudently judge it better to free such a Delinquent then to have him die? Oaths dispensable, are not of higher concernment, than life and death.  
Page 158. our Doctor quotes Panormitanus, capite proposuit, de concess. praev. n. 20. Saying, that the Pope hath power to dispense in all the Laws of God except Articles of Faith, etc. I answer. If any thing be amiss here, 'tis rather Vincen: Assertion then Panormitanus, and three Limitations follow it. The first, Intellige, de dispensatione proprie Sumptâ. Understand the Doctrine (saith Panor.) of a Dispensation properly taken; which hath more in it then the Doctor is ware of. 2. Nisi interveniat, etc. Unless a mortal sin intervene, or arise out of Gods Law. 3. In his quae, etc. In those things that are evil of their own nature, the Pope cannot dispense. These and more the Doctor omits, though he ought to know, we are not obliged to defend every saying of a Canonist.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
The Doctor's strange way of Arguing against the Exemption of Clergymen. His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa. His unworthy slaighting the Seal of Confession.  
PAge 160. Sect. 2. He tells us of a notorious impiety owned by us in Exempting the Clergy from the Jurisdiction of Secular Princes, both in their Estates and persons, etc. And for this our Tenet, he citys the Canon Law (after his manner unintelligibly) Bellarm. Suarez, and others. And what, out of this good Doctor, is the mere relating of a Doctrine, a Confutation of it? If so, I have here set down yours, and therefore confuted it; A weak way of Arguing. Bellarmin brings his proofs for his Exemption of Clergymen: Where are yours to the contrary? Suarez, defence. fidei Cathol. lib. 4. cap. 15. per totum, learnedly shows out of Ancient Councils, the Canon and Civil Law this Exemption ratified, even in Causes criminal. And not one Canon, or Council, have you in your Margin (often charged with superfluous Quotations) to gainsay him. page 162. you allege that Text of the Apostle, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Power; And so say we also good Doctor, and tell you that Clergymen have their higher Powers, and Seculars theirs; both respectively owe and own obedience to their Governors. Here is all you prove. O, but S. Chrysostom saith, upon this Text: Etiamsi Apostolus sis, etc. Although you be an Apostle, an Evangelist, a Prophet, or whosoever; you are to be subject to Supereminent Powers. I answer. Every word is exactly true, but the Saint mentioneth nothing of Clergymen liable to the Judicature of a Secular Magistrate; but rather the contrary: For saith he, Neque enim de hoc aut illo Principe sermo mihi nunc est, sed de ipsa re. I speak not of this or that Prince, but of Subjection itself; and I say, that every Soul is to have it; The Servant to his Master, the Wife to her Husband, Seculars to their Prince. Yes, and I add, Clergymen also in civil Affairs, for there is not one among us who doth not profess with all candour, a dutiful obedience to his Prince, to his Magistrate, to the Laws of the Country he lives in; If he proves criminal in these, the Church doth not patronise him, but, when the guilt goes high, quits him, and turns him over to the secular Power for punishment. Good civil Laws therefore and Ecclesiastical, run ever, as it were hand in hand together; both, like two eyes of the same body look one way, have the same end which is the peace and welfare of a kingdom: obedience to the one yields obedience to the other, an offence against the civil Law jointly implies an offence against the Ecclesiastical; when either Prince or Magistrate are wrongfuly dealt with, the Pope looks not on and laughs, but condoles with them, yes and holds himself, and his Laws injured also. Can more be desired, if men would set passion aside, and suffer reason to say down right what is reasonable?  
Hence you may solve that weak objection of our Doctor page 161. Princes (saith he) have many times felt the evil, when so many thousand persons are in their Kingdoms, and yet subject to a foreign power. Solve it I say, for the Subjection they own is in point of Spiritual jurisdiction only, whereunto secular Princes hitherto never laid claim; and with this Subjection the Civil Laws in Kingdoms stand still in vigour obliging every Soul to a dutiful Obedience. I have said it now, and 'tis most true; that Ecclesiastical, and civil Laws, (rightly, as we here suppose, constituted) never clash with one another. No; Peace, Tranquillity, and perfect Union among all, is the final aim of both; if men devoid of passion, would but rationally understand it.  
The Doctors repining at the Ecclesiastical men's Estates, exempted from the jurisdiction of Secular Princes, looks (as it is) like a vain cavil; for what have these as Clericks, but their Tithes, (Tithes I think the Doctor will hold of Divine Right) and the ancient liberal Benevolence of pious Christians to enrich them? (The Doctor if a Bishop, eats yet their bread) and these blessed Men gave their goods solely to the Church: Emperors and Princes liked well of the Charity, and approved it; therefore we need not now dispute here, quo jure, by what right Clergymen are exempted; it is sufficient to say, that the Donors and Princes freed them; Yet, this Obligation follows them, as all Divines hold, that at least they are bound in Charity to give what is superfluous to the poor; which Charity also moves them to supply their Prince when necessity requires it. Thus they have anciently done, and yet comply with the like duty the whole world over. Such men, good Doctor are supposed virtuous; and believe it, virtue doth more than force. Needless therefore it is to wrong their privileges, and wrest from them with severity what may be had in a sweeter way. Truly I think, if the Clergy in England or Universities either, were forced against their Privileges, and paid taxes as Secular men do every where, they would feel it a little.  
However if the Doctor likes it, let him on God's name pay his quota, and list himself among Seculars, for, in real Truth he is no better, his Clerkship will not free him.  
Page 162. he citys Emanuel Sa, for this abominable assertion, Aphoris. verbo Clericus. The rebellion of a Clergyman against his Prince is not Treason, because he is not his Prince's Subject: And says, though these words were left out of the Paris Edition, because the French men endured not the Doctrine, yet they still remain in the Editions of Antwerp, and Collen. Answ. I have now before me the Antwerp Edition, 1599 and have read exactly every Number or Section under that word Clericus, (53 in all) and therefore will boldly say it, that Sa is unworthily wronged, for he hath not through these 53. Numbers, a syllable like this Quotation of the Doctor, but rather the contrary. A Clergy man, saith he, n. 6. carrying Arms forbidden by Secular Laws, may have his Armour taken from him by the Ministers of secular Justice. Again n. 7. A Clergy man taken in a crime, may be laid hold of by a secular Judge, and given up to the Ecclesiastical, etc. And surely, much more may he be roughly dealt with, if catched in the highest crime, or found guilty of rebellion against his lawful Sovereign. I therefore tell the Doctor, such a Clergy man deserves hanging: and that not so much as one Aphorism in Sa, will save his life.  
In the last Paragraph of this Section, page 162. and 163. our Doctor is pleased to speak of another Iniquity (so he terms it) whereof our men are guilty. And what is it? They hold, saith he, the seal of Confession so highly of Divine right, and Sacred, that it cannot be broken to save the lives of Princes, or the whole world. I answer they say also, that to save the lives of Popes, of Bishops, of Prelates or the Church from ruin the seal of Confession (made secret by God and nature) cannot be violated. What mischief then have we more by this Doctrine against Princes and worldly Interest, than against Popes, and the Spiritual welfare of the Church? All, God knows, are a like concerned in the danger (if any were) though the kindness of our Doctor is for the security of secular Princes only. More flattery believe it here, then good Divinity.  
To treat in this place of the great secrecy whereunto the seal of Confession indispensably binds us, is neither my task, nor any way requisite. Divines have amply done it to our hand. It is enough to tell you, how unworthily the Doctor flights both Seal and Secrecy in the last lines of his Section, where he calls it a trifling Fancy of our own. A strange word in the mouth of a Doctor, which may both justly work a distrust in the heart of any penitent, and make confession ridiculous, even among the pious Children of the Church of England.   

CHAP. XXVIII.  
Of the Doctor's injurious Calumnies. Of his unjust Quotations.  
THe Doctor, pag. 164. and last Section tells us, That the whole order of Jesuits is a great enemy to Monarchy, by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope, by making the Pope supreme Monarch of Christians, and this they teach, saith he, as Catholic Doctrine, etc. I answer. The calumny is so enormously great, that I wonder the Doctor trembled not to write as he hath done, and disgrace himself with it: For, if ever men immovably stood for Monarchy, both in Church and Kingdoms, they are Jesuits. To prove this Assertion, I need no more, but only to remit you to one Learned Bellarmin (and there is no Jesuit gainsays him) lib. 1. de Romano Pontifice, cap. 2. where he shows both by the Authority of Ancient Philosophers, and Christian Writers, that Monarchy, simply considered, is a better Government than Aristocracy or Democracy: Farr is he off from calvin's spirit, that thought it intolerable both in Ecclesiastical and Secular Government. O, but they destroy Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope, and making him the supreme Monarch of Christians. I answer. Had the Doctor made some Canonists (less considerable in their writings) asserters of this Papal power, even in Politics, he had been more moderate: But to ascribe the Doctrine to the whole Order of Jesuits runs beyond all bounds of Truth. Jesuits in this particular hold with the other Catholic Doctors, and say that the Pope is the Supreme visible Head of the Church in Spirituality, that is in Power, and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical: Consequently is neither Lord, nor Monarch of the whole World, nor finally hath directly by Divine right any Temporal jurisdiction over Princes. See for this Assertion, Bellar. lib. 5. de potest. pont. cap. 2, 3, 4.  
Whence it follows (and Jesuits assert it) that Princes are the sole supreme Lords, and Monarches in their respective Dominions subject to none, if we consider their Secular power, but to God only.  
Princely dignity therefore stands unshaken, no Pope lays claim to that Sovereignty, or meddles with it. My God had our Protestant Ministers (as it behooved dutiful Children) been as careful to preserve inviolably Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Church, as Popes have ever showed themselves tender Fathers to uphold the Monarchy of Princes, the World now had not seen what it sees, and deplores; I mean those woeful Rents and Schisms, which these wantonizing Children have made in Christendom, while the good old Father looks on with a heavy heart, and bemoans their folly. Know then for certain ('tis no dispute) Protestant Ministers are the men that destroy Monarchy of Spiritual jurisdiction, erected by Almighty God in the Church (this is their crying sin, unpardonable without Repentance) whereunto Secular Princes never made claim, nor can they in Justice. Let then the Pope have still the Prerogative of Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Church ('tis his due) he seeks not for more, our quarrels are ended. And tell me I beseech you, are not Princes better secured in their Dignities by owning this Spiritual Power, as due to a Supreme Pastor, who is Vigilant for their safety, and has no little sway in the world; then to have their Princely Prerogatives called into question, debated, yes, and judged also by a knot of fickle Puritans (as changeable as the Moon) who now stand up defendants of Regal Power, now turn stiff Opponents, and arm against it: Now they Crown their Monarch, now pull the Crown off his Head. Such do we have seen, and bewailed the Injury done to Princes. Thought, we say, is free; Every body may think safely: but I'll at present be a little bolder and speak out plainly. Had England in the last unfortunate Civil Wars been as it was anciently Catholic, or owned as once it did, a due Subjection to the Pope. None perhaps had seen so much as a Sword drawn against our Gracious Sovereign (who now Reigns) nor his Royal Father so barbarously murdered as he was by his own Subjects. No. For if Ecclesiastical censures had not stopped the raging fury of those Regicides; one spark of Catholic Religion would have mollified such hearts though made of Adamant; But what will ye? When both Religion is banished, and Church Discipline is held contemptible: Passion will sway corrupt Laws, make Scaffolds, draw Swords, kill Kings. and what not?  
In the next place our Doctor, pag. 165, and 166. enters upon this very odious subject of deposing and killing Kings, and says we Catholics are Defenders of both. Mariana and Santarel are produced by him for horrid things spoken. Answ. As I hate at my heart to do so much as mention this impious Doctrine of kill Kings, and abhor more to approve it; So, for no provocation of any, will I speak a word ('tis forbid me) of their deposing. Though were I minded to recriminate: that one Execrable and Tragical shedding of our late Sovereign's blood without pity poured out in his own Palace, in the sight of the Sun, and open view of the World (it yet draws sighs from many a heart) speaks loud enough of a Prince more horridly deposed and murdered, then ever yet came to the knowledge of Christians, or any Mariana once thought of. And who were the Actors in this Abominable Tragedy? Men of a reformed Faith (and did it not in a sudden passion, but deliberately, which aggravates the crime) while Catholics, ever loyal to their Sovereign, looked on with weeping eyes, and heavy hearts. Who approved, who applauded that days sinful work? Those of the same bran, John Milton was one: witness his wicked Book against Salmatius, whose only praise is to speak Treason in good Latin. What Doctors have we found among Catholics since the death of our Sovereign, that either side with Milton, or speak a syllable in defence of those Regicides? not one. All unanimously cry shame upon them, curse, and anathematise the Fact, and say 'twas damnable.  
Now after this so crying a Sin, to hear a Doctor harp upon the far lesser faults of Mariana & Santarel, what is it but a weak and too splenish a Recrimination? They said ill. Be it so (if yet Mariana said it) their Doctrine is therefore prohibited, and lies under censure) but have they either said or done like these now mentioned? What I say is not to touch in the least any Protestant loyal to his Sovereign. No; but only to tell the Doctor he did not well, to rub on old Soars in others abroad, while he hath more festered Ulcers to look on, and Launce in some of his own Brethren at home; I say in some, for innumerable were Loyal, and those I touch not; Charity therefore might well have told him, that the fault of a few is never to be cast on the greater part, who were innocent and harmless.  
Now concerning the Loyal fidelity both of English and foreign Catholics towards their Prince and Magistrate (could I licence this short Treatise to grow to a greater bulk) much might be said, though indeed there is already enough published by that learned Author of the Protestants Apology (the Book is had in England) printed anno 1608. where, Tract. 3. Sect. 3, 4, & 5. pag. 658, 663, 667. You shall find the Loyalty of Catholics (if Reason, Authority and Confession of Adversaries may have place) strongly asserted. Beside other undeniable proofs; he observs page 662. that when Queen Elizabeth enentred the Throne Royal, all received her with most dutiful submission. The then Catholic Lord Archbishop and chancellor of England, in a public oration persuaded the people to acknowledge her Majesty for their lawful Queen and Sovereign: And a like Loyal respect she had from other Catholic Lords and Bishops, etc. But was it so when queen Mary, that reigned before her, came to the Crown? No, saith my Author, open rebellion in open field (Stow recounts it in his Annals, the pages are there exactly cited) was her public welcome (and there was more of it in her 5. Years, then in 25. of Queen Elizabeth) and private turbulent Spirits, (witness that Dagger thrown at one Preachers head at Paul's Cross; and a Gun shot off at another) gave her no better entertainment. Parallel here the Receptions of these two Sovereigns, and say candidly, who were then forwardly submissive, who, untowardly rebellious. Nay, shall I say more, parallel the hideous, 
A little Book in English called jerusalem and Babel, or the Image of both Churches, printed at London, 1653. the 2d. Edition, will help you to make this parallel.  horrid and out-crying Rebellion of such as have deserted their Ancient Faith, the whole World over, with the faults of Catholics (for all are not faultless) you shall find as great a disparity, as is betwixt a little Skirmish and a fierce fought battle; the half drawing of a Sword, and sheathing it in the bowels of an Innocent man. See for this Assertion the Protestants Apology, Tract 3. Sect. 2. pag. 649. but chief in his Preface to the Reader, from pag. the 10. to the end. From this most Learned and Laborious Writer, I will borrow some few of those many Instances he hath in that Preface to answer a pithless cavil of our Doctor, p. 171. Where,  
He dares not deny, but that some Calvinists and warm spirited Puritans, may have been reprehensible (atleast Catholics recriminate them in this point) yet he gravely adds; That indeed they borrowed these Doctrines from Rome, using their Arguments, making use of their Expressions, and pursuing their Principles. Answ. And is it possible, can a Doctor talk thus? Can sober men give credit to his Obloquy? Pray you tell me, when the Waldenses in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Wicleffians in England (some make these men Protestants) ranted and vapoured as they did, contemned Magistrates, raised up Rebellion, and acted so Tragically against their lawful Governors, etc. Did Rome learn them their Lesson? did Rome teach them the Dotage, to contemn Roman Discipline? When that Hector-rampant Zisca (the Hussites General) after the Ravage and Violences done on his own Native Country, falling sick commanded his skin to be pulled of his dead Carcase, and a Drum to be made of it, which the Hussites should use afterward in Battle: Had he think yea Breve from Rome to do this more than Scythian cruelty on himself? When Martin Luther Dogmatically taught, That amongst Christians no man ought to be Magistrate, none Superior, and being told that he troubled the World with his new Gospel, etc. He returned this accursed Answer. Quereris quod per Evangelium nostrum, etc. Thou complainest that by our Gospel the World is become tumultuous. I answer: God be thanked for it, I would have it so, woe to me (He might have added and to my Kate also) if things were not as they are, all in tumults. When I say such Malice against Rome, boiled hot at his heart, and the filthy froth of his rage ran thus out of his mouth, did Rome add fuel to that flame, or make that Vessel of iniquity to boil as it did? Apage Nugas. 'Tis trifling to say so. Again, when sneveling Calvin (to say nothing of Zuinglius) seditiously vented. That Earthly Princes bereft themselves of Authority, if they were against God: and that they are unworthy to be reckoned amongst the number of men; that we may spit in their faces (so this holy faced man speaks) rather than obey them. Did Rome either instil such Poison into his Breast, or lay that Venom on his pernicious Tongue? No God knows: both Rome and the Rhemish Doctors assert; that Christians are obliged in Conscience to obey even Heathen Emperors. And worthy Doctor Kellison, doubts not to say: That Faith is not necessary to Jurisdiction Temporal, neither is Authority lost by the loss of Faith. See these Authorities quoted in the Protestants Apology, Tract. 3. Sect. 5. pag. 668. Once more, and I end. When bloody Beza preaching at Grenoble, with his Sword and Pistol, exhorted the people to show their Courage and Manhood rather in butchering Papists than breaking down their Images, was it Rome I beseech ye (than so opposite to Popery and Images) that armed that Gallant Combatant and gave him his Theme or Text to preach on? Was it Rome that deposed that suffering Lady the Queen of Scots, our Sovereign King James his virtuous Mother? That deposed Sygismond from his Kingdom in Swedland? The Temporal Lord of Geneva from his Sovereignty? The King of Spain from a considerable part in the Low Countries? the Emperor from many rights in Germany? Was it Rome that Licenced those Rebels in the Netherlands, by public Writings to renounce all Obedience to Philip their Lord and King? To ravage as they did at Gant and Antwerp, and other places? to break down Altars, overthrow Churches, murder Monks, banish Bishops, make havoc of all? What can the Doctor say to these unfortunate Tragedies? (though I have not told half of the doleful story related in the Preface now cited) he answers in part well. We reprove the men and condemn their Doctrine. So do we also good Sir, in case either Catholic or any offend, and Unanimously profess with S. Barnard, Paris print, anno 1602. Epist. 170. ad Ludovicum Regem. pag. 1565. Si totus orbis adversus me Conjuraret ut quippiam molirer, etc. If the whole World should conspire against me, or move me to attempt any thing against my Sovereign, I would fear God and not dare to offend the King, appointed by him. For I know it is written, that who resisteth Power resisteth the Ordinance of God, and purchaseth to himself damnation. Here is our Catholic profession: Rome both thinks and speaks with us; to take off the Doctor's injurious charge laid on us in this Paragraph, I have said thus much, never intending to cast the least aspersion on any Protestant that is Loyal to his Sovereign.  
Next the Doctor quotes Suarez lib. 6. defence. fidei cap. 6. Sect. 24. (Sa is also cited and Scribanius, but without their places) for this assertion. An excommunicate King may with impunity be deposed or killed by any one. Answ. He either never read Suarez, or is unpardonably guilty of falsity. For Suarez saith expressly n. 24. that this very proposition now uttered, simpliciter prolata falsissima est, simply spoken is most false, and gives this Reason: Excommunication alone, and nudely considered, impowres no body to kill the excommunicated party, nor to deprive him of his Dominions, but only debars him from communication with others. Rex ergo excommunicatus etc. A King therefore excommunicated only, if the Sentence say no more, cannot be deposed, and killed by his Subjects or any, saith Suarez. 'Tis true he adds a limitation, which, because I think the Doctor well understands not, I omit to say more of. A sufficient vindication it is to tell you, that the proposition here set down for Suarez his doctrine is none of his, and utterly false in itself.  
Page 167. after Suarez he hath a bout with Bellarmin for a strange proposition, and thus it is lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Secundo. Si autem Papa erraret etc. If the Pope should err by commanding vice, or forbidding virtue, the Church were obliged to believe, that vices were good, and virtues evil, unless it would sin against Conscience. They are the very words of Bellarmin, saith our Doctor. Answ. they are so, but most unworthily weighed out of their circumstances; and as they stand here alone seem to assert I know not what mischief or error; whereas most certainly in the context of Bellarmin, they have an excellent Sense, and prove that neither Pope nor Church can err. Observe I beseech you, Bell. in his §. above, Ac ut rem totam, saith, it cannot be that the Pope err by commanding any Vice; as Usury: or, forbidding any virtue, as restitution: etc. This he proves first § quod autem, because the Church would not be called holy, if he did so. 2. Because, if the Pope taught sueh a doctrine, the Church would err in Faith; for Catholic Faith assures us, that virtue is good, and Vice is evil. Now saith Bellarmin, (and here are the misconstrued words of our Doctor) if the Pope should err, by commanding Vice, and forbidding Virtue, the whole Church would be bound to believe amiss; which you see does not assert any error in Pope or Church, but plainly excludes both, and renders this Sense. Most impious it is, to think that the whole Church is bound to believe that Vice is good, and Virtue naught: therefore, impious it is to judge that the Pope can err in commanding Vice, and forbidding Virtue: As if one should say, wicked it is, to hold that the whole body of Christianity believes amiss; therefore it is impious to hold that God commands us to believe so. In a word; the whole discourse of Bellarmin is grounded on this Principle, that the Pope, as Pope, cannot err; and by destroying it (saith this learned Author) you may see what follows, an Universal Error or Misbelief in the Catholic Church. This is most exactly Beauties Sense: and for my Assertion, I appeal to the judgement of every Ingenuous Reader: And therefore cannot but pity the Doctor, and most of our Protestants too, who poor men (utterly destitute of all Antiquity) will rather play at small Game then sit out: piddle they must, and glean in our Authors: faults, if fancied, must be found: words wrested, Sense turned out of Sentences: The least hint serves them to misconstrue all. Thus they proceed, though it cost them dear, an Eternal loss of their credit.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
Of our Doctors failing in History. Of his blaming Popes that are blameless. A word of his Conclusion.  
OUr Doctor having now wronged Suarez, and Bellarm. sets fiercely against Popes, and speaks of their wickedness also; but handles the matter so confusedly that no Reader can be the wiser for any Story he tells us. He neither names Pope, nor quotes Author for what he says, but gins thus, pag. 167. All the World knows what the Pope did to King Childerick of France: He deposed him and put Pippin in his place. Answ. I think the Doctor knows not this Story very well (therefore all the World 'tis like knows it not) which he dispatches in a word, and runs slightly over. However you have it largely in Scipion Dupleix the King's Counsellor, Tom. 1. entitled. Memoires des Gauls, Paris print, 1627. pag. chief, 282. Les Francois ont recours au Pape Zacharie, etc. where you shall read that the French men themselves tous les Signior all the Nobles, saith Dupleix, page 283. finding the great inabilities of Childerick, and unfitness to govern a Kingdom, stood for Pippin, petitioned the Pope upon weighty Reasons to dispense in their Oath of Fidelity made to Childerick; the Pope condescended, but saith this Author page 286. si aucuns, etc. if any of the ancient Chronicles have attributed this great change to the Pope, they have writ both ignorantly and barbarously: In a word, the French men did it themselves; nor had they, (as Dupleix affirms in his title page 285.) any necessity at all to have had any recourse to the Pope for deposing Childerick. To take away all cavil, I rather cite a French Author, both Counsellor, and Historiographer to the King of France, than any other. Concerning the differences between Pope Boniface the 8. and Philip le Bell, you have a whole Book set forth by a French Author not named, nor too great a friend to the Pope: The Title is. Histoire du differend d'entre le Pape, etc. Paris print, 1655. Where you shall find no little Animosity in Philip, and a paternal Condescendency in Boniface, ever ready to comply with that Prince. Tedious it would be to tell the whole Story.  
The Doctor goes on. They were Popes of Rome that armed the Son against the Father the Emperor Henry the 4th; the Son fought against him, took him prisoner, etc. Answ. An infinite patience is necessary to hear a Doctor talk as this does. Most justly may we say here, the whole World knows, what a man Henry the 4th. was, an Heretic, a Sacrilegious wretch, one given to Sodomy, saith Stephanus Alberstatensis in his Letter to Walram Bishop, which Dodechinus relates in his Appendix to Marianus Scotus, anno 1090. page 460. A light headed Fellow, and rash, of no Counsel, mighty bold, and of a dissolute life, who set the Bishoprics of Germany to sale, etc. saith, Even good John Calvin, lib. 4. instit. cap. 11. §. 13. his own pious and worthy Kinsman; Otho Frisingensis, saith lib. 7. cap. 11. That he was promoted, potenter magis, quam just, more by Power then Justice, or honest Dealing. These truths supposed which no historian questions, (excpt one lying Benno, so Gretser calls him tomo 2. in his Apol. for Greg. the 7. p. 218. what is to be done with such a Prince? must he revel it out? run on in his lewdness? ruin the Church? destroy Kingdoms, injure Princes without restraint, or Ecclesiastical Censure? Let the Doctor say candidly, whether such an ungracious Son of the Church may be tolerated, without being curbed at all, to violate, or rather to tear out the very bowels of that Mother that begot him, and made him Christian? Nothing can be answered with probability, but that the Church has power to check such insolences. And,  
To silence the Doctor's groundless complaint, hear in a word how it was done: Marianus Scotus is my Author, lib. 3. Cron. Aetat. 6. ad annum, 1075. page: chief 454. Frank fort print, 1613. Where he first relates the King's wickedness, then adds. Haec & his similia nefanda & inandita Henrici Regis flagitia, videntes & audientes fieri Catholici viri, etc. Catholic men, constituted at that time in the Church, seeing, and hearing of such enormous Crimes committed by King Henry, were carried on with zeal (like another Helias) for the House of Israel, and therefore sent Messengers to Pope Alexander, and as well by Letter, as word of mouth with sighs and grief, made their grievances known, etc. Alexander dying, Gregory the 7th. succeeded him. Iste querimonijs, & clamoribus Catholicorum justis adversum Henricum, & scelerum immanitatem auditis, zelo Dei accensus, etc. This Pope Gregory having heard the just complaints, the loud clamours of Catholics against Henry and his outrageous proceed, moved with zeal of God, declared him Excommunicated, chief for his Simony. Thus Marianus. Where you see that the Pope deposed him not, but only declared him an Excommunicate person; and this at the importunate Instances, and just Complaints of the Germane Princes: He that desires to know more of this unfortunate King, let him read Baronius chief, ad annum, 1080. Tom. 11. where, pag. 532. Antwerp print, 1608. lit. D. He shall find how justly that heavy Censure of the Church fell upon him; how he was vilified by his own Children; forced by them out of his Kingdom, and died in misery. It was God, saith Baronius, that showed his Judgement on him; (though late) dum filios in patrem statuit esse carnifices acerbissimos suae sententiae executores, while he made his own Sons to be Torturers of their Father, and revengers of his just Sentence. Our Doctor therefore both cavils, and calumniats while he talks of Pope's arming Sons against the Father, etc. And to take off more cavils, most willingly would I have him to name that Pope (and quote his Author) that made Charles the 5. and Francis the first of France take Arms against other Princes. I love not, good Doctor, this running on in darkness: Produce your Authors. An answer is ready. Yet,  
Omit I cannot to say a word, of Francis Dandulus whom (saith our Doctor) being Duke of Venice, the Pope bound with Chains, and fed him as Dog's are fed with bones, and scraps under his Table. Answ. It would make one sick to hear this tattle. Where read we, for Gods fake, that the Pope chained Dandulus? where, that he fed him like a Dog, or cast him bones and scraps? where, that Dandulus was then Duke of Venice? All is coined by the Doctor, who, as he tells his tale, makes the Pope a Beast: Whereas, God knows, the story is quite contrary, and Briefly thus.  
The Venetians had by their wrongs and violences highly offended Pope Clement the 5. and for a long time slighted his censures. At last (more wise) they sought for pardon, as Spondanus recounts ad annum 1310. num. 5. Tom. 1. pag. 518.  
This good man therefore, Francis Dandulus (no Duke then, but of the Doctors making) yet, of note and nobility among the States, pressed them with might and main to a due Submission. And to gain pardon for their insolences, on his own free accord, (compelled by no Pope) he sacrificed his honour, and did as strange an Act of humility as perhaps is read in Story. Sabellicus, an exact writer of the Venetian affairs relates it (Tom. 2. Basil print. Ennead. 9 lib. 7 pag. 791. in this manner. Eranciscus Dandulus illustri exemplo privatae pietatis in patriam, publicae in religionem, catenâ ferreâ collo injectá, ad ejus mensam tam diu prostratus jacuit etc. Francis Dandulus by a rare example of special piety towards his Country, and public for Religion, having cast an iron Chain about his neck, went to the Pope's table, and lay there prostrate so long. Donec, expugnatâ Clementis irâ, etc. Till, by force of his virtue, he vanquished Clement's anger, and canceled the black ignominious note, which lay on his Country; whence it is, saith Sabellicus, that he was afterward called by the name of Dog; yet, (witness Spondanus) was welcomed home with the applause of all, and some years after made Prince in John's place that died. Here is a difference between the Doctor's story and mine; mine hath nothing of scraps or bones, or of the Pope's feeding, and chaining Dandulus, etc. Pray you tell me, if our Ministers in England, wearied out with their Schism, and Heresy (higher crimes than the Venetians were guilty of) became, at last, seriously penitent for both, and to satisfy how earnestly they seek for pardon, should send up the Doctor to follow the cause, and obtain pardon at Rome: Yet more, if the Doctor like a good Patriot, to effect what he comes for, should on his own free choice, humble himself as Dandulus did; throw a Chain about his neck, fall prostrate at the Pope's Table, etc. Will any man say in justice and conscience that the Pope chained him, or fed him like a Dog with scraps? Here is the right story, if good Authors wrong us not.  
What he next hints at, is indeed a known thing of our King Henry the 2. Briefly. This Prince both sinned and repent; his sin in shedding of that blessed Martyr's blood, S. Thomas of Canterbury was great; And, his sorrowful repentance for the fact, was admirable and praise worthy. As all deplore the sin, so they make the King renowned for his pious Repentance, which God afterward blessed with a happy death. A fault than he did, none can doubt of it; yet like a virtuous Prince submitted to any punishment, nay, sought for more than was inflicted. But, I know not how, our Doctor hath a rare gift to aggravate a punishment, if the Pope hath a hand in it, and to say nothing of the fault: No. That must be concealed. So it is; The child is corrected by an indulgent Father, and complains of his whipping, but never tells you why he felt the Rod, or what he did amiss. Had the Doctor dealt ingenuously; he should (where he ends with this scornful Ironia) Such was the piety of the Fathers in Christendom, first have said. Such were the sins of Princes, and laid out as well the faults, as the punishment. Besides, suppose (which yet is not proved) that a few, among many Popes, did amiss, or transgressed by too much severity; must therefore Popedom be decried, and all Popes made odious? An open injustice it is, good Doctor to revile all, whether Popes or Princes, because some only have offended.  
Page 168. He tells us of a strange paradox that Pope Clement the 5th. vented in the Council of Vienna, making the right of King's dependant on him (which is an untruth, their Temporal rights depend not on him) and the Doctor for this Assertion of Clement, citys not one Author. Page 169. He talks of Pope Boniface the 8th.; owning himself not only Lord of France, but of all the World. And who affirms this? Papirius Massonus, saith the Doctor: And citys in his Margin, Verb. Bonif. 8. Answ. This blind and unskilful way in quoting of Authors (held all along by our Doctor) is more than intolerable. Know, I beseech you, that Massonus writ 4. Books of Annals, wherein he describes the Exploits of Frenchmen; I have his 2. Edition, Paris print. 1578. Should not the Doctor think you (had he ever seen these Annals) have pointed to some one of these 4. Books? Without leaving us in darkness, with only the word Boniface 8. which is no Title, but only found in the Index. However to unbeguile the Reader, by help of the Index, I have perused what Massonus hath of Pope Boniface, lib 3. pag. 337. he describes his manners, and says, He was Learned, but withal crafty, etc. Not a syllable there of Boniface His owning himself Lord of France, or the World. lib. 3. pag. 351. He tells us, That after Philip le Bell had oppressed the Clergy, with heavy Taxes, to maintain a War against England, the Pope disliked it, and therefore forbade the abuse; Withal, willed Philip not to oppress Churchmen with such Exactions. The King obeyed not; Whereupon, saith Masson, Boniface sent him a sharp Letter, and said, that all Kings were subject to the Pope and Church, (understand in Ecclesiastical Affairs, for the whole Context bears no other Sense) and that he had offended against both Equity and Order of Law, by seizing on the Clergies Goods, conferring Ecclesiastical Dignities, etc. What is here, good Reader of Boniface owning himself Lord of France, and the whole World also? When neither France nor the World, are not so much as mentioned; Nor any word found relating to the Temporal Jurisdiction of Princes.  
The Doctor saith more: That all the Jesuits Order makes the Pope Lord of the World, and that the maintenance of it is the Subject matter of their new Vow of Obedience, to advance his Grandeur. Answ. Few Jesuits will read this vast lashing out of all Reason, without smiling a little at the Doctor, and may, most justly Vow, that he is yet to learn, what both their Doctrine, and Institution is. I say therefore, his Assertions are utterly untrue. The Order of Jesuits never made the Pope Lord of the World; never thought it; never taught it; (see Bellarmin cited above:) and their 4 th'. Vow of Obedience No more advances his temporal Grandeur, than the Doctor's talk hurts his Spiritual jurisdiction, that is, just nothing at all. What he next citys out of some Canonists, is neither the Doctrine of the Church, nor good Divinity.  
Page 170. he tells a fearful story of Sixtus Quintus, who in an Oration solemnly had before the Cardinal's 11. September Anno 1589. commended the Monk, James Clement, that killed Henry the 3. of France. I Answer, first. This very accusation, as the Doctor words it, proves nothing. For Sixtus might come mend Clement that killed the King, though he praised him not for that impious Fact. One may commend Doctor Taylor for some good parts, yet hold him most blamable for his other faults, of deceit and errors. Again, who can avouch with certainty, that Sixtus made such an Oration? Boucher, saith the Doctor and one or two more: And is this a handsome way of quoting Authors? John Boucher a Doctor of Sorbon, Canon, and Archdeacon of Tornay, wrote several treatises and books a part: the Ark of the Testament in folio; The Conversion of Henry the fourth; The mystical crown of Princes; Sermons &c, and must I wander among all these directed by one poor word Boucher, to find Sixtus his Oration asserted authentic? 3. Suppose, Boucher, or Ancelin a vouch it authentic, we are never the wiser, unless we have Sixtus his express words, which the Doctor cavils at: And were that done, it will be yet doubted whether all be not a forged business, because graver Authors, as Spondanus and Dupleix, who relate at large the story of Sixtus and Henry, mention nothing of this Oration. See Spond. Tom. 3. ad annum 1590. and Dupliex, Tom. 4. Histoire de Henri, 3. Lastly, Cardinal Bellarmin Apologia pro respons. Ad lib. cui titulus Triplici nedo, etc. Saith most positively. Nulla apud nos sixti Quinti extat oratio●● & quae ab Adversarij● etc. There is no such Oration of Sixtus extant here; and, that which is published by Enemies, although it deserves no credit, may yet have a commodious Explication, as is farther read in our answer pag. 70, 71, 72. What is this but to say in plain English that the Oration is Spurious, and though it were as bad as some Adversaries make it, yet it may be without difficulty Explicated.  
Our Doctor, page 171. having done with his Dissuasive, ends, with an Use of Exhortation to Persuade and Exhort all, as they desire to be saved, in the day of the Lord Jesus, to decline from these horrid Doctrines. (those he means which he charges on us) And so do I good Reader also, without half the stir the Doctor has made about them; for they are all Monsters, of his own making. Horrid it is, and Monstrous to Assert, as he doth; That we are Enemies to Monarchy, that we profess not a due Obedience to Princes, that the whole Order of Jesuits owns the Pope Lord of the World, etc. Ignorance begot these Doctrines; Fancy misshaped them in some body's Brain; Passion brought them forth; out they are as you see in print, ugly, and ill-favoured; We utterly dis-own them, and say they are false. The naked Truth I have declared, and therefore exhort all, that love Christ Jesus, ro decline from the Doctor's horrid mistakes. After the rest of his wordy paraenesis (not worth taking notice of) for a farewell, he closes up all with a Behold, we set before you Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing, Safety and Danger, etc. I answer. He hath done so indeed; but the danger (God knows) lies where he lest thinks, in his own unpardonable Errors, mis-leading simple Souls to Perdition: God prevent that he does not too late bewail his inconsiderate venting of them; I need not preach to the Doctor, he believes I hope already, that Death (and that Eternal) will be the miserable portion of all those Seducers who do not timely repent, and make themselves Members of the Catholic Church: God give the Doctor grace to consider of this seriously and suddenly; Into this House of God (as I have heard) he was once ready to enter; but neglecting the Grace that called him, he is now as you see, so unfortunate as to dissuade others from entering also; With what sting of Conscience he hath done this evil, God only knows; done it is, and I suspect the worst. But the great Day of our Lord Jesus, when both he and I must be heard to justify ourselves, without farther dispute, will lay open, Whether, he hath wronged his Conscience in writing this Dissuasive, or, I without cause have accused him of Errors. To this Impartial Judge, and most just Tribunal, I appeal for Sentence: And shall in the Interim, earnestly pray, as behoves a Christian, and friendly Adversary, for Doctor Taylor's Conversion.   
FINIS.  

THE CONTENTS.  

QVotations faulty in D. Tailor's Preface to the Reader.  
Chap. I. Of the Doctor's ungrounded Discourse, to the wrongful charge on Catholics for making new Articles of Faith. page 8  
II. The Doctors Quotations not true. His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius. His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis. page 15  
III. The Doctors Quotations not right: prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory. page 22  
IU. The Doctor's Quotations still amiss, S. Austin, and Otho Frisingensis are abused by him. page 27  
V The Doctor's Cavils against Transubstantiation. His false quotations. His Impertinent questions and weak Arguments. page 37  
VI Of the Doctor's weak Arguments against Communion under one kind; Of his slight impugning prayer in an unknown language. Of his ill quotations. page 43  
VII. Of the Doctor's Cavils against Images. Of Antiquity approving their Veneration. Of the Doctor's ill quotations. page 47  
VIII. Of the Drs confused quotations. Of Veneration due to the Holy Cross. Of picturing the sacred Trinity. p. 54  
IX. Of the Pope's Supremacy: Of the Doctor's Cavils against it. Of his false quotations. page 62  
X. Of S. Gregory ' s refusing the Title of Universal Bishop. Of Father's asserting the Pope to be Supreme Pastor. Of the Doctor's faulty quotations. page 72  
XI. Of the Doctor's harsh Doctrine concerning speedy Repentance after Sin. Of his mistakes, and wronging Authors. page 83  
XII. Of the Doctor's Cavils against Contrition and Confession. Of his wronging the Council of Trent and Catholic Authors. page 89  
XIII. The sum of our Doctor's discourse concerning Indulgences. His two mistakes are discovered. His Objections answered. page 100  
XIV. A word more of Indulgences. Of the Drs. mistakes in quoting Authors. Whether the prayer of a sinner avails him. Of the Doctor's harsh doctrine. page 106  
XV. Of the Doctor's weak argument against one satisfying for another. Of his new Divinity, that the habit of sin is sin. Of his worse doctrine that all sins are mortal. Of his mistakes, and charging on Catholics what they hold not. page 114  
XVI. Divines prudently follow in innumerable cases a probable Opinion. Of the Doctor's exceptions against it. Of his mistakes. page 119  
XVII. How the Doctor wrongs both the Canon Law and Catholic Authors. Of his quotations unworthily corrupted. page 123  
XVIII. Of attention necessary in prayer. One may pray that perfectly understands not the words of prayer. The Doctor quotes amiss, and abuseth Suarez. page 137  
XIX. The Doctor yet holds on in quoting Authors amiss. His errors are discovered. page 142  
XX. Of recourse had by the living to the Saints in Heaven for temporal Necessities. S. Austin warrants this practice. S. Gregory Nissen approves it. Of Miracles done in our Age. page 147  
XXI. Of Saints Canonised excepted against by the Doctor. Of his untrue quotations. Of his mistake concerning the multitude of Holy days. page 154  
XXII. Adjuration of Devils approved by the Ancient Church and Authority of Fathers. The Doctor cannot except against our Catholic Exorcisms. page 158  
XXIII. Objections against Exorcisms solved. Of the Doctors mistaken quotations. page 166  
XXIV. The blessing of Water proved by Irrefragable Authority. Of miracles done by holy Water. No proof against it. page 172  
XXV. Of the Doctor's dark Divinity. His doctrine concerning the charging of Catholics with Idolatry, weighed by Mr. Thorndikes just Weights. The Doctor is proved a Schismatic by the Measure Mr. Thorndike makes of one. Of the Doctors want of Charity towards his Ancestors, and all Catholics. page 177  
XXVI. The Doctor's wrongful charge on Catholic Drs His weak exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech. His causeless Cavils. His faults and mistakes. page 184  
XXVII. The Doctor's strange way of arguing against the Exemption of Clergymen. His unjust dealing with Emanuel Sa in charging him with this saying, the Rebellion of a Clergy man against his Prince is not Treason. His unworthy slighting the Seal of Confession. page 191  
XXVIII. Of the Doctor's injurious Calumnies against Catholics, charging them with Horrid doctrines against Kings and Monarchy which they disown and abominate. The known carriages of Catholics towards Princes, compared with the rebellious practices of Protestants. The Catholics have ever been found most Loyal and Obedient to their Kings. Of his unjust quotations. page 196  
XXIX. Of our Doctors failing in History. Of his blaming Popes that are blameless. A word of his Conclusion. page 207    

Advertisement.  
THe Edition of the Dissuasive made use of in this Treatise is that Reprinted at London for Thomas Johnson, at the Key in Paul's Churchyard, 1664. in Quarto. There may seem a defect in this Treatise by reason of a mistake of the Printer, who using two Presses, began with one in the later part of the Copy, and not computing right how many sheets the fore part of the Copy would make, the numbers affixed to the Pages follow not in due order, but after page 130. immediately follows page 137. However the Reader may please to take notice that the Treatise is in ●e.   

Faults Escaped. Thus Amended. In the Epistle. emandandum Read emendandum. unluckily read unlucky. PAge 8. Line 1. Tough REad Though. p. 9 l. 3. Authority r. antiquity. p. 11. l. 33. blot out 5. p. 17. l. 19 their r. this. p. 21. l. 33. Cluadius r. Claudius. p. 34. l. 10. living. l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. sinning. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 35. l. 7. Com. r. Tom. p. 42. l. 25. doughty r. Doughty. p. 45. l. 5. p. 46. l. 28. rights bl. in. r. rites. p. 47. l. 8. rights r. rites. p. 50. marg. Athanius. l. 15. adorabant r. Athanasius. r. adorabat. p. 61. l. 11. delating r. relating. p. 65. l. 26. said? l. 29. more? point. said, p. more; p. 67. l. 10. S. G. p. 68 l. 15. leaves r. S. C. r. leave p. 68 l. 10. was? p. 70. l. 9 their. l. 24. damnable p. was. r. there. r. damageable. p. 71. l. 27. primative. p. 74. l. 5. the. ibid. then r. primate. r. thy. r. thou. p. 88 l. 27. fin. p. 95. l. 7. supar r. sin. r. supra. p. 102. l. 17. thsy. p. 107. l. 29. another, r. they. po. Another? p. 127. l. 4. feceret. p. 138. l. 18. even. r. secerit. r. ever. p. 141. l. ult. 68 p. 162. l. 30. increduty. r. 67. r. incredulity p. 171. l. 15. saying. 〈◊〉. l. 3. unhollow. p. saying? r. unhallow p. 174. l. 24. raging. r. raging. p. 209. l. 19 inandita r. inaudita.