MISCELLANIA OR A TREATISE Containing Two Hundred Controversiall Animadversions, conducing to the study of English Controversies in Faith, and Religion.  
Written by N. N. P.  
And dedicated to the younger sort of Catholic Priests, and other students in the English Seminaries beyond the Seas. With a Pareneticall Conclusion unto the said Men.  Praedica Verbum: insta opportunè, importunè: argue, obsecra, increpa, in omni patientia & doctrina 2. Tim. 4. 
Printed Anno M.DC.XL.   

To the younger sort of Reverend and Virtuous Cath. Priests, and Students in the English Seminaries.  
REVEREND and Virtuous men, though I hope, that this ensuing Treatise will become profitable to divers of the Catholic Laity; yet ingenuously I confess, that it was chief and principally undertaken for the advancement of your Studies in Controversies of Faith: I mean, on●● such of you, who have spent your last years in human learning, and points of School-divinity, ●nd are therefore in regard of such your want of ri●●rage, as yet little conversant in Controversies of faith, ventilated at this day between the Catholic and the Protestant. To those others of your own function, which are of full, and great years, this Discourse (I confess) is less serviceable; since themselves through their own reading are (no doubt) well acquainted with most of the Animaduersions ●ere set down; and therefore I would not have any such grave and learned men think, that I address this Work unto them for their further benefit: for I willingly grant, that though myself be of their own course of life, I shall be ever ready rather to be instructed by them, then undertake to instruct any of them.  
Touching the Subject of this Treatise, it containeth certain Controversiall Animadversions (for so I here call them about Matte●s of Religion. These Animadversions are of most different a●d several points and in regard of such their diuersi●y they can hardly be reduced to any certain Heads 〈◊〉 can be set down in any praecise Method, with mutual dependency one to the other. And therefore i● regard of the want of such Method, I have entitled the whole Work Miscellania, as being a mixture of things in themselves heterogeneous, and of different natures. And although some of them might (as touching the same point) be ranged and set down together (and this chief in those which do concern the Real Presence;) yet I have purposely, for the most part, marshaled them in different places, the better to observe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, required in the t●a● Method of Miscellania; that so no one part of 〈◊〉 Book shall differ in fo●me from the rest, or fr●● the whole: imitating herein the usual Order of E●grams, whose Method in setting them down co●sists in not observing of Method. There except centaine Animadversions in defence and proof of 〈◊〉 Deity, and of the Immortality of the Soul, i● the end of the Book, which I have thought expedient to amass together, against such Men, w●● m●●ke their Infidelity under the ●ecture of Protestancy. And as these Animadversions (being promiscuously delivered, without any punctual order) do in part resemble a great plot of ground (not divided into any certain beds or quarters) wherein confusedly and scatteringly grow many flowers of different kinds & odours: So here you shall find sparsedly Observations of so many points in number, and of such different Natures, as that I hold it more convenient to refer the Reader immediately to the perusing of them, then to particularise but any few ●eads, in this Dedicatory Epistle.  
Let no man muse at this unexpected Method: We see, the world in most things is extravagant; the Method here used is also (through a kind of necessity) extravagant; and thus I am forced at this present to humour the World. And I add hereto that ●●e uncertanity contained in this Method, may beget 〈◊〉 the Reader (as often it doth in Books of this na●●re and form) an inquisitive desire to see what ●lloweth in each ensuing Animadversion; as presuming them to be of different Subjects; and so may ●ore easily draw on the Reader, to the perusal of the whole Treatise.  
This Rhapsody of Obseruaions (if it be lawful so far to impropriate the word) is taken partly out of that most Eminent Cardinal Bellarmine, of ●orthy memory; partly out of the most painful and learned work of the Protestants Apology; and ●●t of other of the said Authors writings, (out of ●hich, many choice Observations are now fully published, which (before, and till now) did ly● much hidden & concealed in Marginal references; partly also out of all the chief Books written by th● Catholics, during these last thirty, or forty years and partly out of the diligent perusal of the chief Protestant Writers.  
And as we observe, that a man coming into 〈◊〉 curious Garden, layeth not hold of every flower, which first presenteth itself to his sight, but will gather here and there such, as are most pleasing to th● eye, & smell; So I hope, I may here boldly say, I have forborn all vulgar and obvious Observations (as presuming them to be known to you already) resting only (and this with the judgement of other grave me● of my Coat, already acquainted with this Work) in such, as are choice, selected, and full of matter; the which (Virtuous Men) you may use, as so many sho●● Prolegomena, or brief instructions, conducing to your future more full, and exact study of Controversies. Here now you have in these fe● sheets, a full Synopsis, or view of the most weighty Observations; which being made familiar an● known to you aforehand, may much facilitate a●● make easy your otherwise more painful search an● study hereafter in those matters, and may furni●● you with extemporal and present discourse touchi●● most Controversies: all which several Observations being (as it were) a formless materia prim● of Controversies, or to speak in the Poet's Dialect— rudis, indigestaue moles, would require no small labour, toil, and disquisition in any of you to collect out of the Authors themselves.  
The Animadversions in this Treatise set down, are in number, only two hundred. Many ●ore (I grant) might be added for the increase of ●he Number: But these I hold to be most forcing; & 〈◊〉 am loath, that this work through any affected pro●●xity, should become fastidious, or wearisome unto you. And whereas you shall find some acknowledgements of Protestants, to be oftener set down, than ●●nce, you may conceive the reason thereof to be, in regard of the several or different Illations, or Inferences, drawn from the said acknowledgements, in several Animadversions.  
If any of you reap profit by this my Labour (as ● hope divers of you may, and will) my humble request then in recompense of my pains taken herein, 〈◊〉 that you w●ld vouchsafe your remembrance of me in ●●ur prayers, at the chiefest times of your Devotions. 〈◊〉 know many, of Custom and Use, in Dedicating ●●eir Books to Catholics, do entreat of them this ●●nd of favour; But as for myself, my desire and spiritual need of your good prayers is so vehem●●●●●d unaffected, as that I earnestly beseech you, even 〈◊〉 the most precious Passion of our Lord and ●auiour, suffered for the cancelling of our sins, by ●ur own charitable Disposition towards others, for presume those words of the Apostle to be imprinted 〈◊〉 your souls 
(a) Rom. 5. : Charitas Dei diffusa est in ●●ordibus vestris.  
Finally by what is most sacred and holy, that yo● would vouchsafe (now and then) your particular remembrance of me (either yet alive, or hereafter dead in that your most retired and Religious Memento (used in the celebration of the most Blessed and Reverend Sacrifice of the Mass) for the expiating of my manifold sins. This I humbly beseech; this in all prostration of soul I implore, and beg a● your hands; and in such your performance, each of yo● justly may comfort yourselves in those words of ou● Saviour: Beati 
(b) Matt. 5.  misericordes, quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur. And thus in th● good hope thereof I cease, referring you to the perusal of the Treatise itself.  
Yours in our Lord jesus, N. N. P.   

MISCELLANIA. Containing certain Controversiall Animadversions.  

Animadversion I.  
I WILL begin with the approval, or rejecting what is, or hath been accounted the Scripture, or the written Word of God, which point concerns the Books of Ecclesiasticus, Toby, Judith, Hester, Maccabees etc. Where we are to understand, that the Canonical Scriptures are to us at this day discerned and made known, not by that which either the jews for a time, or certain Fathers do omit, deny, or doubt of, in their Canon of Scripture; but by that, which many Fathers do constantly affirm. Since otherwise, and upon the contrary ground, we might deny with the Lutherans the Epistle of james, jude, the second of Peter, the 2. and 3. of john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse; seeing all these books 
(a) Ofiand in Epic. Cent. 4. p. 299.  are denied by the Lutherans. Now the reason of this Thesis, or Proposition is, because in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally all at once received; but in so great a variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and search was requisite, whereby to determine which Scriptures were Canonical, & which not: whereby it came to pass, that sundry books were for the time misdoubted, o● by some Fathers or Counsels omitted, o● not received, which yet afterwards were upon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged. And according herto D. Bilson Bishop 
(b) In his survey of christs suffering printed 1604. pag. 664.  of Winchester thus truly saith: The Scriptures were not received in all places (at once) no not in Eusebius his ●yme.   

Animadversion II.  
D. Whitakers, 
(c) In his answ. to M. Reynolds refut. p. 2● & 23.  and other of our Adversaries do reject the former books of the Old Testament) to wit Ecclesiasticus, Toby &c.) because they were not first written in Hebrew, and in that they had not for their known Authors, those whom God had declared to be his Prophets.  
This Argument is weak. For it is a rash assertion, so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written, as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only language. The ●anity of which said assertion is sufficiently disproved by Example of Daniel; a great part whereof (to wit, from cap. 2. vers. 4. v●que ad ●●em cap. 7.) though not written in Hebrew, is yet by our Adversaries acknowledged for Canonical. And touching the second point of this Argument; it cannot be proved, that God would direct by his holy Spirit, no Authors in their Writings, but such as were known, and also further declared by certain testimonies, to be Prophets. For our Adversaries cannot yet tell, who writ the several books of Judges, the third, and fourth of the Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of Ruth, and job, all which books nevertheless they admit for true and Canonical Scripture: And hereupon it is, that D. Whitakers (though crossing his former assertion) thus writeth 
(d) L. de sacra Script. ●ag. 603. : Multorum librorum authores ignorantur etc. The authors of many books of Scripture are unknown; as of joshua, Ruth, Paralipomenon, Hester etc. Thus he. To whose judgement D. Willet subscribeth, saying: We 
(e) In his Synops p. 4.  receive many books in the Old Testament, the Authors whereof are not perfectly known.   

Animadversion III.  
AGainst the writings of the Ancient Fathers, the Protestants pretend several difficultyes. For example D. 
(f) Contra Duraeum. l. 5. p. 300. & K●mpu. in his Exam. part. 1. p. ●4.  Whitakers and others, object against the Epistles of Ignatius, that 
(g) Dial. ●  Theodore●, and 
(h) Dial. 3. contra P●lag.  Jerome do allege certain testimonies (from Ignatius his Epistle ad Smirnenses,) which are not found in that, or any other of Ignatius his Epistles. Whereto I answer: First, that the Ancient 
(i) By Austin in Psalm. 95. by Tertull. lib. adu. judaeos versus finem. By justin in Triphon. circa medium.  Fathers have in like manner cited this sentence: reguavit a ligno Deus, as the saying of David in his Psalms; which yet is at this day wanting in them. And in like manner some Sentences are alleged from Tully and Plato; and the same are not to be found in their write now extant. Therefore this former Objection only argueth, that certain parts of Ignatius his Epistles may be lost; but maketh nothing against those now remaining. In like sort our Adversaries do reject (as counterfeit) the writings of Dionysius Arcopagita, (as confessed to make for our Catholic Doctrine) their chief argument is, in that these his writings are never mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. To this may be answered, that 
(k) Euseb. hist l. 5. c. 29. jerom. in Catal. prope init.  Eusebius & Jerome do confess, that there are many books and Authors, which never came to their knowledge. A thing not unlike, if we but remember, as incident to those precedent times, the known want of printing, and great difficulty of Manuscripts, through the violent persecutions, which then reigned. Finally touching the Liturgies of chrysostom, they urge (it making altogether for several points of our Catholic and Roman faith) that, as M. Jewel objecteth 
(l) jewel in his rep●y, pag. 10.  Chrysostom's Mass prayeth for Pope Nicolas, who was Pope several hundred years after chrysostom: that also it prayeth for the Emperor Alexius, who lived in like manner many ages after chrysostom. These are but frivolous Cavils. For in all old Liturgies, or Books of Common prayer, prayer is specially appointed to be made for Princes and Bishops for the names of whom are certain places reserved, which are subject to alteration, according to the change of succeeding times and persons. The like course whereof, for Princes we may discern in the English Communion Book, composed in K. Edward's time, where according to the change of succeeding government, are inserted the names of Queen Elizabeth in some Copies, and of King James in other Copies; and yet both of them reigned long after K. Edward.   

Animadversion IU.  
WE ought not to reject the Authority of ancient & approved Authors, because there appear some seeming repugnances in their write. For upon this ground an unbelieved Atheist might bring the Holy Scriptures into question. For example, in Matth. 27. words are alleged under the name of Jeremy, which are not found in jeremy, but in Zachary c. 11. In like sort in Mark our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour; whereas in john 19 we read that Pilate sat in judgement vpon him about the sixth hour. Therefore, whereas our Adversaries upon the former ground of incertainty of men's writings, do in like sort seek to impugn S. Peter's being at Rome, because divers Historiographers do not agree of the time of his coming to Rome, & his stay there; we must content ourselves in sobriety with acknowledging that received Axiom among the learned: That is: Saep● constat de re, quando non constat de modo rei▪ Since otherwise we should not acknowledge that Hester had any husband, or that at any time judith did live; For the opinions of the jews are various, both touching the persons, and the time herein; & yet we all acknowledge that Hester had a husband, & that there was such a woman as judith. The like uncertainty of the times, wherein actions were performed (though the thing itself be most certain) is made evident even from our own Chronicles: for example, touching King john his death, whereof see the several opinions in Holinshead in his last Edition, 3. volume, pag. 1●4.   

Animadversion V.  
IT is worthy consideration to observe: First, how the Protestants in several points make the same Arguments against some articles of our Religion, which the jews were accustomed to make against the same. Secondly, how the Protestants sometimes use the same answers to our Arguments, which the Jews did. For example, touching the Real Presence, and our receiving of Christ's body in the Sacrament, the Protestants chief Argument is taken from the impossibility thereof; to wit, that God cannot perform all those points above nature, which are found therein. And is not this objection borrowed from the Jews, against Christ, giving his body to eat, in these words: Quomodo 
(m) john 6.  potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum? Again: The Puritans (especially) condemn the confession of Sins to Man, upon this ground, that only God can remit sin. And do they not compart with the jews herein, demanding: Quis 
(n) Marc. 1.  potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus? And where it is vulgarly objected by the ignorant, that man cannot remember all his sins to man; therefore his Confession of them is imperfect, and maimed: I say by this reason, we should not confesse them to God, since we cannot number them to God; no more than to man. Now to show, how our Adversaries in like manner borrow from the jews their Answers to our Catholic Arguments, one instance in place of many shall serve. We Catholics in proof of our Religion do urge one chief Argument, drawn from Miracles, exhibited by God in warrant of the same. All which testimonies taken from the patration of infinite Miracles, recorded by both Ancient and Modern Authors, our Adversaries do evade, by styling them: Antichristian 
(o) Ofiand cens. 10.11 1●. & Cent. 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5. col. 1486.  wonders, and lying signs, and as wrought by the assistance of the Devil: how conspiring is this answer w●● the Answer of the jews, against the Mi●cles of Christ: High 
(p) Mat. 11.  non eijcit Daemonia, 〈◊〉 in Beelzebub Principe Daemoniorum.   

Animadversion VI.  
AS here above we have showed, how o● Adversaries conspire with the Iewe● both in objecting and answering; so I ho● it will not be impertinent to discover in line or two, how that the Protestants 〈◊〉 agree with the Ancient and condemns Heretics in objecting the arguments again us, objected long since by the said Heretics, in impugning our said Catholic points; as also how our Adversaries do consociate with the very Gentills, or Heathen● ●gainst the Catholics, yea against our belie●● in Christ. For touching the first, we 〈◊〉 find, that place to be objected by Fau●●● the old Heretic, against Abstinence a●● single life, and so recorded by Austin: In 
(q) Austin. l. 30. c. 4. contra Faust. Manich.  the later days, 
(r) 1. Ti. c. 4.  there shall come some forbidding to Marry, and to abstain from certain Meats. A passage of Scripture, wherein t● Protestants chief insist against single l●● and Abstinence. Again (to omit many ●ther such like instances) justinus 
(s) Iust. Dial. cum Triphon. & Euseb. l. hist. 5. c. 1.  Mar●● recordeth, that the Heretics of his day did (as in respect of the Sacrament) char●● the true Christians, with the gross and c●●nall eating of human: flesh; with which ve●● point the Protestants do at this present 〈◊〉 ●●aid us Catholics. Now concerning the Heathens; it is clear, that the Heathens and ●ur Adversaries do mutually agree in denying many points, maintained and affirmed by the Catholic Roman Church. For both the Heathens and the Protestants do promiscuously deny Freewill, Purgatory, Jnuocation of Saints, universality of Grace, Evangelicall Counsels, Merit of works, Sacrifice of the Mass, and many other Catholic and affirmative articles, taught by the present Church of Rome. But to come to the Se●ond point, to wit the denial of the necessity of Christian Religion, do we not find Swinglius himself thus to gentilize with the Heathens: Ethnicus 
(t) Zuin. in Epist. Zuingli●. & Oecolamp l. 1. pag. 30.  si piam mentem domi foveat, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret; and hereupon Zwinglius particularly averreth, that 
(u) Zuin gl●tom. 1. in exposit. fide● Christ. fol. 150.  Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, (all Heathens) are now in Heaven: which said Blasphemy is in like sort taught by 
(x) Gualther. in Apol pro Zuing.  Gualther, 
(y) ●ullinger, as is recorded by Simlerus a Protestant, in vita Bullingeri.  Bullinger, and other Protestants. Thus fare for this present of the strict association and commerce of the Protestants with the jews, the ancient stigmatised Heretics, and the Heathens or Pagans, touching matter of Religion.   

Animadversion VII.  
THe doctrine of the Real Presence to the mouth of Faith, is maintained against ●he Puritan, by Doctor Whitaker, 
(z) D. Whi●ak. contra Duraum pag. 168. Bucer in Script. Angl. p. 548. etc.  and di●ers other learned Protestants; all which men do hold our Catholic Doctrine far more probable, than the doctrine of the others, who only acknowledge a typical presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Again many moderate and learned Protestants 
(a) In his book of Eccles. policy. pag. 188. D. Cou●● in his defence of ●●●er p. 77.  do teach the Church of Rome to be the true Church of God and that men dying in it may be sau●d: Put against the Puritans they thus writ● The 
(b) M. ●ow●● in his considerate.  Puritans are notorious, and manifest Schismatiks cut of from the Church of God. And again: The Puritans 
(c) M. F●●ks in his Epist. dedi● p. 3.  seek to undermine th● foundation of faith. Now in requital of this ●roceeding, the Puritans prefer the Roman Religion, before the Religion of the moderate Protestant; for thus with a joint consent divers of them do affirm in a 
(d) Entitled, A Christian and modest off r etc. p. 11.  book by them written: If we be in Error, and the Prelation the contrary side have the truth, we protest to a●l the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ jesus) have great wrong and indignity offered unto them, in that they are rejected. Thus they. Now what other deduction from these their several censures can be drawn, then that the Catholic Religion, is the only true Religion, & the Relgi●on both of the Moderate Protestants, and the Puritans is false. For in that each of them prefers his own Religion before any other, this may be presumed to proceed from partiality, and prejudice of judgement in their own behalf; But where they hold the Catholic faith and Church, rather to be embraced, than their Adversary's faith and Church, this riseth from a clear and impartial judgement and from the force of all probable credibility. And thus in this business that most warrantable and received sentence takes place: Cui caeterae partes vel Sectae secundas unanimiter deferunt cùm singulae sibi principatum vendicent) melior reliquis videtur.   

Animadversion VIII.  
IT is a point of great judgement to urge a passage of Scripture by way of illation in that sort in which the illation is of force & not in any other only seeming inference. I will exemplity my meaning in texts urged both by Protestants, and us Catholics. And first the Protestants do insist in those words of our Saviour, against the real Presence: Palpate 
(e) Luc. 14.  & videte, quia spiritus carnem & ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere; Handle and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. To argue thus: It is felt and seen, Ergo, it is a body, is a good consequence, and this is the force of our Saviour's words: But ●t is no good sequel to argue thus Negatively (as our Adversaries from this text do) it is not felt, nor scene; Ergo, it is no body. For it may be, that a true body may be present, & yet neither seen, nor felt; because God may hinder, that it shall not transmit any Species sensibiles to the sense of sight. Besides, it may be effected by divine power, that a body may exist indivisibly after the manner of a Spirit (as we Catholics do hold in a sober construction, that the body of Christ doth in the blessed Eucharist) and yet we teach, that it is impossible, that a Spirit should exist after the manner of a true and natural body; or be extended in place. And the r●as●n hereof is this; To wit, because a Spirit hath no extension of parts at all, and therefore it is indivisible. For seeing, to be extended in place, ●s a formal effect, proceeding from its formal Cause of extension in itself; if therefore a Spirit should be extended in place, we should admit the formal effect without the formal cause, which cannot be; since the formal effect is later in Nature, than the formal Cause, and cannot be without the Cause.  
To instance in our urging of some passages of Scripture: In proof of temporal punishment after this life, we produce that passage: 
(f) Math. ●. Luc. 1●.  Non exies inde, donec reddas vltitaū quadrantem; Thou sha●t not go from thence, till thou repay the last farthing. From which words we do not thus immediately infer (as our Adversaries would seem to have us) donec etc. until thou paint the last farthing; Therefore ●fter thou shalt go from thence: which inference we grant is not necessary; seeing by so arguing we might endeavour to prove, that Christ should sit at the right hand of his Father, only until (and no longer) he make his enemies his footstool, according to that text: 
(*) Psal. 109.  ●ede a dext ris meis, donec ponam inimicos scabellum pedum tuorum; which words only prove, that a● the length the Enemies of Christ shallbe under his feet: So here we only thus immediately infer: Thou shalt not go from thence, till thou payest the last farthing; Therefore the last farthing may be paid; and consequently, that then thou shall go from thence. This kind of vicious arguing might be instanced in divers other passages of Scripture, impertinently urged by our Adversaries, and falsely obtruded upon Catholics.   

Animadversion IX.  
WHen we Catholics complain of the great Persecutions against the Catholics only for their Religion in Q. Elizab●ths reign; our Adversaries seek to choke us herein by way of recrimination, in averring that as great, or greater was practised in Queen Mary●s time against the Protestants of those days. But admit for the time so much; yet there is great disparity herein, and there are divers reasons more warranting the ●rocedings of Q. Mary in that kind, then of Q. Elizabeth. Among which reasons these following may seem to be the chief. First, touching Q mary's time, the Laws, whereby Sectaryes were punished for their Religion, were instituted some Eleven or Twelve hundred years since; those times not having any foreknowledge, that Protestancy should sway rather in these days, than any other erroneous Faith. In Q. Elizabeth's time the statutes against Catholics were made at the beginning of her coming to the Crown, which is fresh yet in the memory of m●ny hundreds of Men in England yet living. Those Laws, whereby Q. Mary punished the Protestants, were enacted by Popes, and General 
(g) Concil. Laodicens. can. 31. & 32. Council Carthag. Can. 16.  Counsels (to whos● charge and incumbency the burden of Religion is peculiarly by God committed) seconded otherwise by the secular authority of Emperors, and particularly of Valentinian and Marcian; of which their seconding herein peru●e the Council of Chalcedon 
(h) Act. 7. . Th●se other Laws, were first invented by a Woman, and a Parliament of Lay Persons, the incompetent judges of Faith and Religion. Lastly by the former Decrees, a Religion confessed by the chief Professors of it, to be never heard of, at least for fourteen hundred years together (and therefore to be an annihilation of faith, which is held by Catholics to be a destruction of faith necessary to Salvation) is interdicted & prohibited. And according hereto D. Fulke thus confesseth: 
(i) Fulke in his answ. to a counterfeit Cath. p. 35  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times, By these later Decrees a Religion confessed by its greatest Enemies and particularly 
(k) M. Napper thus confesseth, in his Treatise upon the Revelation p. 68 Between the years of Christ three hundred and 316. the Antichristian & Papistical reign began, reigning universally without any debatable contradiction, one thovand two hundred and sixty years.  M. Napper) practised universally throughout all Christendom, almost the space of the foresaid fourteen hundred years, & by the learneder sort of Protestants, granted to be sufficient 
(l) That the Catholic saith is sufficient to salvation, is confessed by Cartwright in his reply to D. whitgift's defence. pa. 82. by D. Feild, of the Church. l. 36. 46. by D. Covell in his defence of M. Hooker p. 77. and by many others  to Salvation, was punished with loss of goods, inprisonment, and often loss of life. And thus fare in an even libration of the Laws, by which Sectaryes were punished in Q mary's days, and of the Statutes, by which the Catholics were persecuted in Q. Elizabeth her reign. Only ●ad hereto, that it according to M. Nappers confession, our Catholic Religion did reign universally, from the years of Christ, 316. years, than it evidently followeth, that it did not first than begin, but was undoubtedly in being long before it could possibly become so confessedly universal which said ti●e (so long before) co●d not be short of the Apostle times.   

Animadversion X.  
divers of our Adversaries being pressed to show, when any change of the Roman Religion came in, as an innovation, & not being able to instance in any one dogmatic Point so introduced, the more easily to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant, do 
(m) Thus answereth D Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 7. saying; Pilinon subito omnes canescunt. And again. In E●clesia Romana accidit, quem●dmodum magno aedificio videmus enenire, quod ●●mes al●quo loco incipit agere etc. Ita Romana E●clesia temporum successione etc.  answer, that the changes of Faith in the Church of Rome, unespiedly did com● in; even as hairs of a Man's head insensibly do grow grey, and as houses and edifices 〈◊〉 without any observation of the time become ruinous and decaying; & yet certain it is, that the hairs change their former colour to grey, an● that Houses become ruinous. To examine these resemblances, as mere impostures, and desperate Evasions, I first say, that the first decay in building, & the first show of whiteness in hair is imperceptible, & not to be discerned; whereas every change in faith (though but in one point or Article) is most markable, and subject to observation. Secondly, the whiteness of the hairs of the head, and the ruins of a house do not happen, but by degrees, and therefore at the first cannot be discerned; Whereas every Opinion in Doctrine is at the first either true or false; and therefore is for such at the First to be apprehended by the understanding. Thirdly, not any have the charge or care imposed upon them, to observe the changes in these petty Matters, But in the Church of Christ, there are ever apppointed Pastors and Doctors, whose office is to mark the first beginning of any innovation in Doctrine, and accordingly to labour to suppress the same. Lastly these deceitful resemblances (being truly weighed) do recoil back with disadvantage to the Protestants; For although we cannot show, when the first hair began to be white, or the first slifter in a house began to be a slifter; yet any notable degrees of the said whiteness in the hairs, or of the slifters in a house are easily discerned: And therefore the Protestants are obliged even from the nature of these their own similitudes, to tell us at what time some sensible degrees & increase of this supposed change did happen. And the manifestation of the degrees is to be made by naming the time, & the Persons, when, and by whom, such or such a particular point of the Roman Religion was first sensibly introduced into the Church of Rome; The which not any Protestant hitherto hath been able to show.   

Animadversion XI.  
IT is Evident, that in the ancient times divers Innovatours did rise, denying this or that Catholic Article; as for example: The Doctrine of the real presence was first denied by certain Heretics in 
(n) As witnesseth Theod. Dial. 3.  Ignatius his days, which Ignatius was scholar to the Apostles: The denial of freewill taught by the Manichees, as 
(o) Auctin l. de Haeres. cap. 46.  Austin witnesseth, and therein condemneth them; The like may be said of more than twenty articles of our Catholic Religion, denied by the ancient Heretics, as else where in this Treatise is showed. Now from hence I demonstratively conclude, that this denial of the said Catholic points in those ancient times doth necessarily imply, that the said Catholic points were affirmatively believed generally taught, both in, and before the times. And thus through the old Heret● denying and impugning of our said poi●● of faith, is necessarily presupposed a pre●stency of those said affirmative doctrine the Real presence, Freewill, and of the r●● whereof those ancient Heretics Tenets are m●rely Negatives: I mean they preadmit a former more ancient belief of our said Catholic doctrines. For why should any Sectaries in those days rise up to deny (a● this by writing) any of the said doctrines if those doctrines had not been then, a●● before believed?   

Animadversion XII.  
Such frontless Protestants, as will maintain the Visibility of their Church for a ages, undertaking to give Examples of several Protestants in such ages, do commonly use this Height and imposture; That is they begin to instance in Luther, and so upwards to Waldo, who lived about 400. years since. And then they arriving to that time (though all those Examples be merely false, and impertinent) shift off the instancing from that 400. years to the Apostles days (which contains above twelve hundred years) by saying: We shall 
(p) So answereth the Author of a Treatise entitled: of the perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages. pa. 89. printed anno 1614  not need to ascend any higher than to Waldo, which otherwise is easy to make plain: thus leaving a thousand and one hundred years, without giving any one Example of Protestants, during all that long period of Ages. Now ●ere I say, the Protestants imposture is this; To begin with Luther upward (and not downward towards Luther thereby the better to conceal from a vulgar eye the small number of those ages or Centuries, for which they endeavour to prove the imaginary Visibility of the Protestant Church: For if they had begun in instancing with Waldo, who (as is said) lived but some 400. years since; then every simple man might have discerned at the first, that they had passed over eleven or twelve hundred years at the least (to wit from the Apostles days to waldo) without pretending so much as one Example of Protestancy, during all that large circuit of time; and so might have justly challenged them, for their pretermitting of so many Ages. In some sort answerably hereto, Card. Bellarmine chargeth Caluin with an accustomed in this manner. When Caluin undertaketh to answer many texts of Scripture urged in proof of some Catholic Article or point; Caluin gins to answer two or three of such texts, as may seem in an ignorant eye to be best capable of some show of answer; and for the other passages of Scripture, which are most convincing for the point urged, & in which we Catholics chief insist, and whereunto Caluin cannot pretend any answer, he passeth them over commonly in these words; The chiefest passages I have ●wered, as for the other texts of Scripture wr●● by the Papists to the same end, they are so im●●tinently alleged, as that it were but time lo●● answer them, therefore I pass them over as 〈◊〉 worthy of answer. Here is Serpentine craft 〈◊〉 the Card. calls it.) For Caluin thought it b●●ter policy not to conceal the chief 〈◊〉 by us urged (for that might argue a guynes in Caluin) but to take particular no● of them, and so by slighting the force all such passages to make the ignorant ●●der believe, that they nothing conduce the Catholic point, for which they pretended: Dolus, an virtus, quis in host quirat?   

Animadversion XIII.  
THe Protestants do set down the 〈◊〉 preaching of the Word, and the true Administration of the Sacraments to be the Ma●● of the Church. The reason of this th● proceeding, is double; First hereby to re●● the Catholics Notes of the Church 〈◊〉 mean Antiquity, Visibility, Succession, V● etc.) seeing they are not able to iust● these Notes in their own Church. S●cōdly because by erecting their own Not● of preaching the Word, and administering 〈◊〉 Sacraments, they reduce to their own Ce●sure only (rejecting all other Authorities which is the true Church; For they will acknowledge the word to be truly preached at the Sacraments rightly administered, on● such places and after such manner, and ●els where, or otherwise) as themselves 〈◊〉 to think and determine: And yet by their proceeding they are mightily ●●nded; And here I will briefly recur to ●t D. Whitaker saith of these Notes. These 
(q) Whitak. contia Camp. rat. 3.  Notes being present, do constitute a Church; ●eing absent, do subvert it. Now the Prote●ants during many Centuries have wanted ●hese Notes, therefore during all that time, 〈◊〉 Church hath been wholly extinct, and annihilated. That the Protestant Church ●uring many ages hath been deprived of ●hese Notes (I mean, of preaching the word, ●nd administering the Sacraments) is evicted ●ut of the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church for many Ages; for thus accordingly Sebastianus 
(r) E●. de abrogand. in universum omnibus statut. Ecclesiast.  Francus (a great protestant) writeth: For certain, through the ●●orke of Antichrist, the external Church together with the faith and Sacrament vanished a●ay presently after the Apostles. With whom agreeth Caluin, thus acknowledging: Factum 
(s) Inst. 4. c. 1. sect. 11.  est, ut per aliquot secula etc. It was brought ●o pass, that the true preaching of the word of ●od did vanish away, for the space of certain age's.   

Animadversion XIV.  
A Weak and confused judgement may suggest or conceive difficulties; but it is a clear judgment, that must resolve them. The reason of the disparity herein is this. To 〈◊〉 one thing for another, or to err in the p●●per nature & essence of things, is the so● of doubts, and questions; but to be able range and marshal together things of 〈◊〉 nature, and to divide and sever things sunder, which carry a great likeness one● another (for such resemblance of particulars ever begets mistaking) as also to kn● what essentially is agreeing to the na●● of any thing, and what but accidentally: companieth the same, is a work of the l●dicious. This I writ, that unlearned 〈◊〉 may learn Humility in belief, and 〈◊〉 seek to apprehend with their weak iu●ments the high Mysteries of Christian Region, especially the Articles of the B. ●r●●● the Jncarnation, and of the Real presence: Christ's body in the holy Eucharist.   

Animadversion XV.  
IT sometimes may fall out, that the 〈◊〉 Inuentour of a false Opinion may be 〈◊〉 Heretic, as maintaining it before it be c●demned by the Church; whereas the Professors of it after its condemnation, become Heretics, according to that senten● of Vincentius 
(t) L. de Haeresib.  Lyrinensis: O admiral change of things! The Authors of one and 〈◊〉 same Opinion are esteemed Catholics, & the followers Heretics. Thus we see, that it is contumacy against the Definitions and Decree of the Church of Christ, which consummate an Heresy.   

Animadversion XVI.  
WE are to call to mind, that the Ceremonies in the celebration of the Mass, were successively, and at several times added, and first brought in by several Popes; And accordingly we find, that the 
(u) The Relics of Rome, or, the Anatomy of the Mass by antony de Ada●o. prin●ed 1●56. Hospin●●n Histor Sacrament. ●. ●. c. 4. 5. 6. 7.  Adversaries of the Church of Rome, as willing to discover our Innovations (though in the smallest Matters and but in points of Indifferency,) have most diligently, and painfully recorded them in their several books, written of this very subject, with all due circumstances both of the Pope's introducing them, and the times, wherein they were introduced.  
Here now I urge: if the Enemies of the present Church of Rome, we●e thus diligent and solicitous in noting the beginning of each Ceremony of the Mass, all such Ceremonies being merely accidental to the Mass, and without which it may as truly and effectually be celebrated, as with them: If they (I say) could have discovered any Innovation in the main doctrine of the Mass (as the doctrine of the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of Christ's Body there offered up &c.) would they have been silent therein? Or rather would they not have loaded their Books with relation of all such Innovations, they consisting not in small Ceremonies, but in most sublime and high points of Christian Religion?   

Animadversion XVII.  
THe Protestants are so various, or rath● contrary in their Positions & writings as that a man may borrow from their ●●uerall Confessions, both the propositions 〈◊〉 premises, out of which the Conclusion sh● rise, wholly making against their Religion For example: D. Humphrey thus writeth: 
(x) D. Humf●. I● s●●s. in part. 2. c. 3.  Oportet Ecclesiam esse Conspicuam, Conclude est Clarissima: It is an evident Conclusion th● the Church of God ought to be conspicuous, 〈◊〉 visible. And M. Hooker; God hath, and ca● shall have some visible Church upon the earth But of the confessed visibility of the Church of God, more fully I will show hereafter Now touching the Inuisibility of the Protestants Church, we read M. Napper th● to confess 
(y) V p●● the Reversed. in c 11 & 12. : God hath with drawn his visible Church from op●n assemblies to the hart●● particular godly men. And D. Fulke confesses thus 
(z) D. Fu●ke in his answer to a counterfeit Cach. p. 16. : The Church in the time of Boniface th● third (which was anno 607.) was invisible & fled into wilderness, there to remain a long season. Now to reduce all these Confession● into an Argument: Thus than I dispute.  
D. Humphrey, M. Hooker, and divers others here omitted, do generally teach, that the Church of Christ must necessarily ever be visible.  
But D. Fulke, M. Napper, and many other Protestants (for brevity here passed one) r●● ingenuously confess, that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been wholly Invisible; Therefore even in the judgement of the Protestants themselves, the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ. This kind of arguing in many other Questions may become familiar to him, who is conversant in the Protestant's books, or in that Catholic Book, called The Protestants Apology; wherein a man may see even thousands of Protestants Confessions against themselves. Now to this I annex this following; that whereas the Scripture teacheth the necessary visibility of the true Church of God, as also whereas divers learned Protestants do truly acknowledge, that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been wholly invisible; Therefore divers other learned Protestants through their inveterate malice to our Catholic Religion, and as confessing the predictions in Scripture of the ever visibility and enlargement of the true Church of God, not to have been accomplished in the Protestants Church, have flatly renounced their Christianity, charging Christ our Saviour, as a seducer, themselves so becoming jews and Turks. I will exemplify this point (to omit some others) in these men following, all before their Apostasy, most eminent Protestants. First then David 
(1) See the hi● ory of David George printed at Antwerp. 1568. published by the Divines of Basill.  George (once Professor at Basill) became a blasphemous Apostata: Ochinus, 
(2) Of Ochinus his Apostasy, Zanchius witnesseth in his book de Tribus Elohim.  who with Peter Martyr; first planced Protestancy in England, in like sort denied Christ, and taught circumcision, as Zanchius the Protestant confesseth. 
(3) Of Neuserus his Denial of Christ, Osiander the Protestant witnesseth, Cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 8●8.  Neuserus (once Superintendent of Heidelberg) turned Turk, an● was circumcised at Constantinople, as Osiander the Protestant affirmeth. 
(4) Touching Alamannus, see Beza in E●ist. 65. pag. 308.  Alama●nus (a Swinglian, and once dear to Beza became a Jew, as Beza himself saith. Laeli● 
(5) The Books of Laelius Socinus against the Trinity are yet extant.  Socinus (a scholar in the school of Geneva) did write whole Books against the B. Trinity. Finally, (to omit many other eminent Protestants) Georgius 
(6) That Georgius Paulus denied the Trinity with the Turks is witnessed by Stancarus the Protest. lib. de Mediate. fol. 38.  Paul (minister of Cracovia) denied the Trinity with the Turks. Thus of Instances for th● point.   

Animadversion XVIII.  
A Man cannot avoid the force of the former kind of Dispute, consisting 〈◊〉 the Confessions of the Protestants) by replying, that other learned Protestants d● maintain the contrary in the same poin● to the Protestant's, above by me alleged. This answer is most weak; th● reason thereof being, in that there is grea● disparity between learned Protestant confessing some points, which do advantage the Catholic faith, and others (though as learned Protestants) maintaining th● contrary; seeing the first sort of men speak against themselves and their cause; who being judicious and learned men, would never do, but as being convinced with the Euidency of the truth therein; Whereas the●● second kind of men do not admit the confessions of their brethren, but speak only in behalf of their own Religion; and so such their denials are to be reputed more partial. And this Animadversion is to be remembered in many other points, confessed by some Protestants, and denied by other Protestants. Now of what force the Argument from the authority, or confession of ●n Adversary is, appeareth both from the testimony of the ancient Fathers, and the Protestants themselves. First then Irenaeus thus writeth hereof: It is 
(a) L. 4. c. 14.  an unanswerable proof, which bringeth attestation from the Adversaries themselves: with whom conspireth Nazianzene, saying: It 
(b) Orat. de S. Basil.  is the greatest cunning and wisdom of speech, to bind the Adversary, with his own words. Now touching the Protestants acknowledging the same, we find Osiander the Protestant, thus to write: The 
(c) In Ep. Eucharist.  confession & testimony of an Adversary is of greatest authority. And Peter Martyr: Among 
(d) Loc. tit. ce Iudaeis fol. 300.  other testimonies, that is of the greatest weight, which is given by the Enemy's. Finally D. Whitaker; The 
(e) Contra Bellar. l. de Eccles. controu. 2. q 5.  Argument ●ust needs be strong and effications, which is ●●ken from the Confession of the Adversaries; And I do freely acknowledge, that truth itself is able to extort testimonies even from its enemies. Thus much hereof; Therefore I here only conclude, that as a testimony of a friend against a friend, so of an Adversary in behalf of an Adversary is of great force, and most convincing: So certain are those words of Tertullian: 
(f) In Apolog.  Magis fides prona est in adversus semetipsos confitentes, quam pro semetips● negantes.   

Animadversion XIX.  
THere is great difference to be made between Protestants speaking against themselves (and yet believing the Protestant doctrine, and Conclusion) touching some circumstances whereof the Confessions are & between some others, who afore were catholics, and after do defend some one or other point of Protestancy; Since their later men do not speak against themselves but in defence of some such Protestant doctrine, then newly entertained by them; and consequently in defence of their own● opinions: And therefore such their authorities are not to balance equally with the Confessions of the former Protestants. Th●● Animadversion is given, with reference to Erasmus, Cassander, Cornelius Agrippa, Polide●Virgill, Nilus, and some others, every on● of which embraced some one Protestant Tenet or other; though divers of them after reconciled themselves before their deat● to the Catholic Church, by abandoning their former received Innovations.   

Animadversion XX.  
CHoose rather to dispute with a Protestant touching matter of Fact (in whic● may be proved the falsehood of the Protestant Religion) then touching any Dogmatic point of faith or Doctrine, as receiving its proof from the Scripture. This I speak not, but that the Scripture maketh most clearly for the Catholics, & against the Protestants; but because your Adversary in dispute will ever cavil at your exposition of Scripture, reducing it in the end (against all Antiquity of the Fathers, and tradition of the Church) to the interpretation of his own private and revealing Spirit. Now, in matter of fact your Adversary is forced to stand to the Authorities deduced from Ecclesiastical History, and other humane proofs; And therefore he must either shape a probable (if not a sufficient) answer to them, which he cannot do, they wholly making against him even by his own learned brethren's Confessions, or else he must rest silent. And this is the reason, why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church; Since this Question comprehendeth in itself, divers points of fact: as of its continual Visibility, Antiquity, Succession, Ordination, and Mission of Pastors etc. All which Questions receive their proofs from particular Instances (warranted from History,) by showing the particular Time's, Persons, and other circumstances, concerning matter of Fact.   

Animadversion XXI.  
WE Catholics charge the Protestants with a vicious Circle of dispute between the Scripture, and the spirit; and in requital hereof the Protestants do reciprocally insimulate us catholics within the said vicious circular argumentation, between the Scripture, and the Church. Now let us see, whether of us stand truly chargeable herewith. That the Catholics are free from this kind of arguing, I thus prove: The Catholics, touching the Scripture, and the Church, do ever make their proofs in several kinds of Causes, and by a partial manner of proof; and thereby do still prove one thing by another, more known to those persons, to whom it is to be proved. The actual assent and belief itself is wrought, whereby we infallibly believe the Mysteries revealed; though we believe the verity of the Scriptures revelation by the authority of the Church propounding, & the Church's proposition, for the authority of the Scriptures revealing; whereby the Scripture revealing, doth give us testimony of the Church propounding; & again the Church propounding, of the Scriptures revealing. Nevertheless this reciprocal testimony and proof is not any proper vicious circle. First because, it is in diverso genere causae, in divers kinds of causes: for the testimonies of the Scriptures revelation to the infallibility of the Church's proposition, is causa formalis, the formal cause, by the which we assent to the Church's proposition; But the Church's proposition is only Causa conditionalis, or (as we use to speak) Conditio fine qua non; to know the Scriptures Revelation; and so they are reciprocal in a different manner of proof; the one (that is Scripture) à Priori, as including divine revelation; the other (that is the Church) à Posteriori, required only as a condition: The former, as a formal precedent Cause; the later, as a subsequent annexed condition. Secondly, this reciprocal proof is not adomnino idem (as Aristotle requires to a Circle) that is, the one is not the total, and sole cause of knowing the other, for the Church's proposition is not known only by the Scriptures revelation, and not otherwise; but also by other proofs, signs, and testimonies (to wit Miracles, Consent, Sanctity etc.) all which convince, that the Church's authority is necessary and infallible to distinguish the true sense of the Scripture from false, and to end Controversies about Scripture. But now to cast our eye upon the Protestants Circle, proving the Scripture by the private Spirit, and the private Spirit from the Scripture; it is evident, that they prove the Scripture by the Spirit, and Spirit by the Scripture, in one & the same kind of Cause, and by one sole & whole manner of proof: For demand of a Protestant, how, and by what means he understandeth the Scripture? He answers, by the Spirit (and so knows the Scripture by the Spirit.) And ask him, by what means, he knows, he hath the true spirit? he answers, the Scripture assures himself thereof, since he is one of the Elect. And thus this his proof is truly Circular and vicious, as being delivered in eodem genere Causae, and omnino ad idem.   

Animadversion XXII.  
IT is most certain, that Protestants deny all Authorities of all affirmative heads, making their last refuge to their own private Spirit and judgement. For example, if we insist in the affirmative Notes and Marks of the Church, to wit, universality, visibility, unity etc. ou● adversary's (as is above said) discard the testimonies of all these heads, by erecting for Notes, the preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments; so reducing to their own judgement only, when the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments rightly administered.  
If in matters of fact we recurre to History (I mean, concerning visibility, Succession, vocation etc.) they reject this authority by saying: Sufficit 
(g) Whitak. contra Duraeum l. 7 p. 478  nobis etc. To us it is sufficient, by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture, to discover the disparity of faith between them and us. And as for Historiographers, we give them liberty to write, what they will. If we produce the testimonies of particular Fathers of the Primitive Church, mark how Luther depresseth them: 
(h) Luth. de seruo arbis. 1551. pag. 434.  The Fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind, & most ignorant in the Scriptures; they have erred all their life time; & unless they were amended before their death, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. If we produce General Counsels, they answer saying: 
(i) Pet●● Martyr l. de votis. pa. 476.  As long as we insist in General Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Popish Errors. If we pass to Apostolical Traditions, Cartwright in depressing Traditions maintained by S. Austin, thus writeth: To 
(k) S●● Cartwright in whitgifts defence. p. 103.  allow S. Augustine's saying (touching Traditions) is to bring in popery.  
If we allege divers passages of Scripture (as out of Toby, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees,) the Protestants with full voice deny them to be Canonical, and style them only Apocryphal. If we take our authorityes out of such books of Scripture, as are acknoledged for Scripture on both sides; the Protestants deny the Translation of the Scripture to be true & sincere; which point appeareth, both from the Protestants mutual condemning one another's translation of Scripture, as also from the most bitter censure given by our English Puritans, against our English Translaiion; whereof several books written by them are yet extant.  
If we Catholics proceed further in insisting in the Original of both the Testaments; the Protestants deny, that the Originalis are at this present true. Thus for example in Math, c. 10. we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter; Beza 
(l) Beza in Annotat. novi Testam 1556  denyeth the Original herein, maintaining, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted into the text by some one favouring the Pope's Primacy: In like sort 
(m) Beza v●i supra  Beza denyeth that the Greek Original in Math. 22. is at this present the same, as it was penned by the Evangelist; maintaining that it is corrupted in favour of the Real● presence. If we yet ascending further, entrench ourself in such books of Scripture, whose Originals & Translations are accepted on each party, as true and incorrupted, and tell our Adversaries, that the whole Church of God in her primitive and purest times interpreted the passages of Scripture in that sense, in which they are at this present by the Catholics alleged; the Protestants 
(n) So doth D. Whit. l. de Eccles. Bellar. Contro. 2. q. 4. pag. ●23. jewel in his Apolog. of the Church of England. act. 4. cap. 4.  absolutely deny that infallible Authority of the Church of God in interpreting the holy Scripture; and disclaiming from it, appeal to their own Private Spirit for the true interpretation of the same. Finally, in the last place, if the Catholics confirm their Religion with the Authority of Miracles; the Protestants in answer thereto absolutely reject the force of Miracles, terming them 
(o) So the Conturists ●all them. Cent. 4. col. 1445. & Osi●●●●● Cent. 10. 11. 12.  but Antichristian wonders, and lying signs, as above is showed. Thus we see, how our Adversaries disclaiming from all heads of proofs, do finally reduce all to their own private judgement or Spirit. And is not this (I demand) the foresaid vicious Circulation, from the first to the last answer, which above is disallowed in the protestants impugning, or disputing.   

Animadversion XXIII.  
THat the words of Christ at his last Supper are to be taken literally and not Figurati●ly, is proved by these Reasons following; in that Christ saying, this is my Body; 
(p) Math. ●6. Marc. 14. etc.  This is my blood, did adjoin thereto: Quod pro nobis datur, qui pro nobis effundetur; which later words are conformable to the literal acceptance of the former words. The same verity is proved from the several circumstances of the foresaid place of the Scripture. The first circumstance may be taken from the matter or Object. Here the matter, or subject of the former words contains the Institution of a Sacrament, the foundation of a supreme point of Christian Religion, A will, or Compact, contracted with the Church. But it is most improbable to affirm, that a Sacrament, a supreme Article of belief, or a Compact, or last Will made by Christ with the Church, should be delivered in figurative words. The Second Circumstance we may take from the person of Christ speaking; with whose divine wisdom and Charity it is not agreeable to have given and ministered the Sacrament by speaking the former words of the Institution (in show, in a literal sense, but in meaning, a figurative only) an inevitable occasion of false judgement in the Hearers, and of perpetual Idolatry in the minds, and wills of the suc●●ding Christians, during the continuance 〈◊〉 the world.  
Another Citcumstance may be take● from the persons of the Evangelists, and th● Apostles, repeating and relating this speech of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum etc. A● which men, whereas they did write in seu●rall times, when some of them were present at the Institution; others received relation thereof from them that were present thereat; whereas also they had seen the practice of the Apostles about this Sacrament; whe●● as lastly they had the spirit of true understanding; notwithstanding all this, they a●● did unanimously conspire in delivering 〈◊〉 plain and literal construction of our Saviour's words. Which reason is more prevailing, by observing the contrary course, which they took in explicating other obscure sentences of our Saviour; for thos● words, Soluite templum hoc, & in tribus di●bus reaedificabo illud, the Evangelist did interpret of Christ's Body saying: ille 
(q) john cap. 1.  a●tem dicebat de templo corporis sui; to prevent that the jews should not think, that ou● Saviour spoke of the Temple of Salomo●. In like manner the said Evangelist is foun● to have expounded other of our Saviour's doubtful say, though in themselves of much less importance, as Christ's 
(r) Cap. 11.  exaltation from the earth, The sleeping of Lazarus ●●e 
(s) Cap. 11.  girding of Peter, and stretching forth his ●●ndes etc. And yet never expounded the ●o●ds of the Institution otherwise, then in ●heir plain, direct, & literal sense.  
Another from the Persons of the Apostles, ●earing Christ instituting the Sacrament! Now, ●f there were any figurative speech in ●he words of Christ (especially concerning ●o great a matter) the Apostles than pre●ent would never have omitted to have as●ed Christ, what had been the meaning of ●hose strange words, being uttered a little ●efore his death; As they did touching o●her dark speeches spoken by Christ; and ●hus we read them to have said: Edissere 
(t) Math. 13. & 15.5.  ●obis parabolam Zizaniorum. And again: Edis●ere nobis hanc Parabolam. Again from ●he persons of the Capharnaits, who did take our Saviour's words in that sense, as he did properly speak of his flesh to be truly and really eaten, and at such their construction they rested much scandalised: Nevertheless Christ did not therefore explain his former speech, nor excuse it by any Tropes or figurative phrase of words; but more vehemently affirmed his sentence in the same words, and with earnest asseveration repeated the same.  
Another Circumstance may be taken from the place of his last supper, which Christ did choose to be very secret, admitting thereto only his Apostles, to whom it was given to know, and to have the Intelligence of the divine Mysteries: Therefore in this most secret and reserved school 〈◊〉 the Apostles, wherein a supreme mystery 〈◊〉 faith was delivered, he did speak sincere simply, plainly, and not by figures.  
In this last place we may call to mind 〈◊〉 the circumstances of this business; as t● Pronouncing of the sacred words of the J●sti●●tion; the washing of the Apostles feet; Christ's ●●sire of performing this Mystery; his casting up 〈◊〉 his eyes towards Heaven; his application of t● words to the matter; his separated and disioyn● blessing of both the Elements; his fraction, 〈◊〉 giving, and inviting to a new supper; his ow● eating, and after commanding the eating of it t● others; and lastly his most holy speech deli●er● thereof, in john 14.15. etc. Here now I conclude, that all these reasons with the forme● observations, are most sufficient to persuade any man of judgement, that our Saviour did not speak Figuratively in so serious a matter.   

Animadversion XXIV.  
THe various interpretation of the words of the Jnstitution (made by Protestants) doth sufficiently discover their Error in the doctrine thereof. Carolostadius 
(u) Carolostad. in lib. ●di●o Basil. 1524.  teacheth, that by the pronoun, Hoc, the Adverb, Hic, is to be understood; so as the meaning of the words he saith is, Hic (that is, in this place) staet corpus meum. Bucer 
(x) In retract.  affirmeth, that by the pronoun, Hoc, is understood the whole action of the Supper; so 〈◊〉 the sense should be; Hoc etc. This action ●●th represent the body of Christ. Swinglius 
(y) Swingl. l de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Eucharist.  maintaineth, that the figure is not in, Hoc; ●ut in the verb, est, which here ought to be ●●ken figuratively, for significat. Boquinus 
(z) Boquinus in exam. lib Heshufij.  teacheth) that the bread is truly called ●he body of Christ, propter communicationem ●●omatum; as by the same we truly say of ●hrist, This man is God. Oecolampadius, 
(a) L. de genuina explicat. Verb.  ●cknowledgeth not any Trope either in the ●ronoune Hoc, or in the Verb Est, but in ●orpus, thus interpreting the words by the egure Metonymia; Hoc est corpus meum; id est, ●ic panis est figura corporis mei. Finally (to ●mit others) Caluin 
(b) C●l●. l 4. Inst. c 17. §. ●●.  admitteth with ●ecolampadius the figure to be in the word ●orpus, but withal he addeth, that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked sign of the body of Christ; but it is a sign or fi●ure, which doth truly exhibit the thing itself, to wit the body of Christ. Thus we see what divers interpretations (and all false) our Adversaries do give of the words of the Jnstitution: And thus, as they all reject our Catholic interpretation of them; so ●ot any one of the former Protestants doth 〈◊〉 holy embrace the exposition of another.   

Animadversion XXV.  
DO not admit this Inference as good: Some Fathers do interpret this, or that text of Scripture figuratively: Therefore, the said Fathers do teach, that such Texts are not to be expounded literally. This is a mere Sophis● for seeing divers texts of Scripture (beside the literal) are capable of allegorical sense (as all learned men both Catholics, an● Protestant's do teach) therefore the figurative sense doth not exclude, but rather often presuppose, and admit of the literal According hereto S. Austin passing over (a presumed and granted) the literal sense 〈◊〉 those words: Qui 
(c) john. ●.  bibit meum sanguined &c. allegorically expoundeth them in th● sort: Bibere sanguinem Christi, est credere 〈◊〉 Christum: to drink the blood of Christ, is to believe in Christ. In like sort also do not approve this kind of disputing (for it is a mere Schiomachia, or fight with a shadow:) The Scriptures speak honourably o● Marriage, (which all we Catholics do willingly acknowledge) therefore vowed virginity is not to be allowed; our Adversaries here labouring to disvalue the worth of Virginity, by the acknowledged dignity of Marriage its opposite. For the worth of both these may stand together, the one not crossing the other; and in things, that are good, we must acknowledge there are degrees of goodness; and accordingly we here say, Marriage is good, but yet vowed virginity is better. In like sort, our Adversaries use another fraudulent kind of reasoning called Logomachia; where leaving the sense, childishly contend with the naked word for example: find, say they) the word, Purgatory, or Mass 〈◊〉 the Scripture, if you can: But what ●lloweth from hence? for are the words, trinity, Person, Consubstantiality etc. in the scripture? they are not; must we therefore ●●iect the doctrine of them? To proceed; ●●other captious arguing of our aduersa●es, is taking hold of the very letter, con●●ary to the approved mind of the Church: ●r example: the word, Presbyter in Greek 〈◊〉 nothing but a Seniour, therefore in the church of the new Testament, there are no ●riests so truly called: But S. Thomas in 1. ●art. quaest. 13. shall salve this Argument, ●ying; we are to observe in words, non tam a ●o, quam ad quid, not so much from whence ●hey are derived, as to what, by a warranta●e custom they are applied.   

Animadversion XXVI.  
THe perversity of our Adversaries is such, who lighting upon some few straying passages in the Father's writings, where the eucharist is called bread, they mainly c●y ●ut, that in the Father's judgement, it is nothing but material bread; And yet when in ●uery leaf, or page of the Father's works ●pon this matter, they find it termed, The body and blood of Christ; all such places (or else we wrong them) must be interpreted figuratively: Thus they, insisting much in those ●phrazes, which are but rare in the Fathers, and passing over with a censuring neglect such form of speeches, as most frequently occur in their Books. Now the Eucharist may be called bread by the Fathers after consecration (without any prejudice to our Catholic doctrine) for several reasons; the Father's borrowing this kind o● phrase from the Scripture: Panis 
(e) 1. Cor. 10.  que● frangimus etc. First, because it is an accustomed Dialect of the Scripture to call a thing by that name, which afore it was. Thus it Genes. 3. Eva is called the bone of Adam, because she was made thereof; and the Serpents of Moses (in Exod. 7.) are termed wands, because the wands were turned into serpents: so for this very reason the Eucharist is sometimes termed bread by the Fathers. Another reason, why the Eucharist may be called bread by the Scriptures (and consequently by the Fathers) is in regard of the similitude, which it hath with bread; I mean in nourishing the soul, as bread doth nourish the body. A third reason in that the Scripture (and in like manner the Fathers) do often call things as they do externally appear to the Eye; so the Scripture calls Angels who appeared in humane shape, Men; and the Brazen serpent, a serpent, etc. Therefore the Eucharist may be termed bread and Wine, either by the Scripture, or the Fathers, in that to the eye it seemeth only Bread and Wine.   

Animadversion XXVII.  
IF it be not lawful to pray to Saints, the reason hereof must be, either because they will not hear us praying to them. But this cannot be, seeing they are now endued with more Charity, then when they here conversed upon earth; and being secure of their own felicity are more solicitous of our spiritual good and health: Or else, because the Saints cannot help us. But neither this: For if they could help us with their prayers while they were pilgrims in this world, much more are they now able, being arrived to their own Country: Or because they do not know what we pray. But not this; because from what ground the Angels do know the conversion of sinners, for which conversion they so much rejoice (as is said in Luke 15.) from the same ground the Saints do know our prayers: Or lastly (which is the most ordinary reason given by our Adversaries) because an Jniury is committed against God, if any other be prayed & invoked unto then he. But not this; for than it were unlawful to invocate and pray to the living; and consequently S. Paul sinned and offended God, when he writ thus to the (f) Romans: Brethren I beseech you, that you would help me in your prayers for me to God. Which kind of prayer the Apostle useth in his Epistle to the Ephesians, c. 6. in the first to the Thessalonians, c. 5. in his Epistle to the Colossians, c. 4. finally in his Epistle to the Hebrews, c. 13.   

Animadversion XXVIII.  
TOuching Communion under one kind, o● under both; the true state of this Question is not, whether Christ did institute th● Eucharist under both kinds; or whethe● himself and the Apostles at the first Institution of it, received ●t under both kind● or whether the Apostles and the Father afterwards at sundry times did minister 〈◊〉 unto the Laity under both kinds (for a●● this is confessed for true) but the touch o● the Question is, whether Christ our Saviour did give an absolute command, unto his Apostles and Successors, of administering the sai● Sacrament under both kinds (to wit of brea● and wine) so as the delivering of it to the Laity under one kind only, should be a breach of o●● Lords precept therein. The Protestants affirm it to be an absolute transgression The Catholics deny it, and maintain tha● their Adversaries do ignorantly confounded a Precept with an Jnstitution, between which two there is great difference: For example, God did institute and ordain Marriage, but gave no precept thereof; for if he had, than all men were bound under sin to marry: therefore those words, Crescite 
(g) Gen. 8.  & multiplicamius, though they be delivered i● the imper●●ine mood, nevertheless they contain not any Precept; neither by the same reason do those other words, Bibite 
(h) Mat. 26.  ex hoc omnes. In which sentence the word Omnes, is to be restrained (contrary to our Adversary's urging of it) only to all the Apostles, then present; for if it were to be extended to all men universally without restraint, then should the Sacrament of the Cup be given to the jews, Infidels, and Children; all which notwithstanding are exempted from it, even by the confession of the Protestants.   

Animadversion XXIX.  
TOuching the true doctrine of justification, and merit of works; we Catholics do ●each: That we are not to ascribe our first ●ustification to our works at all (though we be wrongfully traduced so to do) for we willingly acknowledge those words of the Apostle: It is 
(i) Rom. 9  not of the willer, or of the runner; but of God, who showeth Mercy. Now ●ouching Merit of works, we may deliver ●he Catholic doctrine in these Ensuing Propositions.  
That works may merit, it is required, that the party, who worketh, be in state of Grace, and out of mortal sin.  
That works do merit, a free and liberal pro●ise and Covenant of God is necessary; by which ●is promise of reward made unto good works. God ●n a manner obligeth himself to reward good corks, according to his promise.  
That works do merit, they must take their worth and dignity from our Saviour's passion; and from thence receive (as it were) a new tincture, and die.  
We are further to understand, that the passages & texts of Scripture proving merit of works, are of five sorts (so plentiful is the Scripture in proof thereof.) First, from those places, where eternal life is called Merces, a wage, or reward, as in Math. 5. & 20. etc. Secondly, from those place● wherein a heavenly reward is promised to Men, according to the measure and proportion of their works, as in Luke 6. Rom. 8. Cor. 3. etc. Thirdly, from those testimonies of Scripture, which express the reasons, that works are the cause, that eternal life is given, as in Math. 25. Apocalyp. 2. etc. in all which places the particles, Enim, quia, Ideo, are used, and are Causalls, that is, implying and showing the reason & cause of a thing. Fourthly, from those places, in which a reward is promised to good works, even by force of Justice, Hebrews 6.2. Thess. 1. etc. Lastly, from those passages, wherein mention is made of the Dignity of good works, as in Luc. 10.2. Thess. 1. Apocal. 3. And here we are to note, that touching Euangelical Counsels; true it is, that we are so obliged to God, that if we consider Gods benefits bestowed upon us, we willingly acknowledge, that man cannot do more good, than he ought to do; no not the thousand part thereof, he ought to do; in that man cannot render any thing of equal value and worth to God's benefits. Nevertheless, if we consider the Law and Command imposed by God upon us, than man may be said to do more, than indeed he is obliged by God's Law to do. For although man cannot exceed, or equal Gods benefits with his own works; yet he is not become guilty hereby, seeing man is not obliged to perform more, than God commandeth.   

Animadversion XXX.  
THe Catholics are charged by their Adversaries, that they do expunge out of ●he Decalogue those words: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image etc. But ●his is a mere Imposture of the Protestants. For the truth is, these words here recited, to make but one and the same commandment with those first words, Thou shalt have ●o other God before me; these later being but 〈◊〉 more full explication of the first words, & consequently may be omitted sometimes in ●hort numbering, or setting down of the Commandments. This is thus proved: Every Image is not prohibited in the Decalogue, or ten Commandments, but only ●hat, which may be truly called an Idol; that is, an Image, which is taken for God; or which representeth God, to be that thing, which God is not. Now that Images were not absolutely forbidden in the old Law, appeareth in that God commanded the Image● of the Cherubims, 
(k) 3. Reg. c. 6.  Lions, and Oxen to b● made, as also the brazen Serpent 
(l) Numbers c. 11. . Fro● hence then we may conclude, that the making of Images is not absolutely forbidden by God; as a distinct precept from the first but only so far forth, as Images be take● for God; and consequently that (as abou● is said) these words forbidding the making of Images do but make one and the same Commandment with the first words, Tho● shalt not have any other Gods before me.   

Animadversion XXXI.  
WE are to observe, that a thing may be pictured to three several ends. One way to express the perfect similitude of the form and nature of the thing pictured: And after this manner only corporeal things ar● painted, which are endued with lineament and colours. And if one should attempt to picture or paint God after this manner, be should make the picture, a true Idol. The second end of picturing, is to exhibit some history to the eye: as if a man would paint the expulsion of Adam out of paradise, he ought to paint God in form of a Man walking, and Adam, and Eve naked, biding themselves among the trees; and lastly an Angel in man's shape holding a sword, and expelling Adam with his wife. Now, who should thus draw this History, doth not intent to represent the nature either of God, or the Angel; but only to exhibit by means of the picture, that to the eyes, which another by reciting the Scripture, doth exhibit to the ears .. And after this manner God may be painted.  
The third end to paint a thing (without reference to History) is to explicate the nature of a thing, not by any immediate and proper similitude, but by Metaphorical and mystical signification. After this manner we paint Angels, in form of young men, winged, fair, naked of feet etc. so to signify, that they excel in strength, are most swiftly moved from place to place, are endued with splendour of Grace and virtue etc. After this manner also Virtues are painted, as justice, fortitude &c And it is not prohibited to paint or picture God after this third manner (notwithstanding our Adversaries great dislike thereof.) For if 
(m) Dan. c. 7.  Daniel doth describe God sitting in a throne, and describeth there also his head, his grey hairs, his white garments, thereby to express his Majesty, power, and his Antiquity from all ages, his purity, and brightness etc. why may not then God be so pictured to the Eye, as the Holy Scripture by reciting of it, doth express him in words to the Ear?   

Animadversion XXXII.  
IT is a peculiar sleight of Caluin and other our more learned Adversaries, that whereas they deny a Conclusion or Proposition of faith, affirmatively maintained by the Catholics; after we have brought authority either out of Scripture, or from for● of Reason, proving the same denied point● then in answer thereto they grant the conclusion of that point, but then they render a cause or reason, why in such a Case, our Conclusion may be admitted: so they subtly obtruding a reason of the Conclusion granted in such, or such a case, for a sufficient answer in denial of the Conclusion. B●● this is most exorbitant, and in no sort satisfying the Catholics arguments. For the more clear explicating of myself herein 〈◊〉 will instance this their imposture in an example or two. We affirm, that the Angels, and consequently God (though all incorporeal) may be pictured. The Protestants absolutely deny this Proposition. We in proof, that the Angels may be pictured, produce our authorityes out of the book of Exodus, c. 25 & out of the third of Kings c. 6. in which places, we read that Angels were pictured. 
(o) L. 5. Instit. cap. 11. etc.  Caluin (n) answereth hereto saying, that that was done in favour of the Pedagogy, and more facile instruction of Men in the Old Law; which time is now past. Now here I say, this answer is merely impertinent; for the Question is not in this place, why, or to what end things incorporeal might be pictured (let the cause be what it will) but only whether it be lawful to picture things incorporeal, or not, ●hich conclusion this answer of Caluin ●mitteth for true.  
In like manner, to prove Freewill, we urge ●●ose words; Si 
(o) Math 19  vis ad vitam ingredi serua ●●ndata: if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; where we urge, that promise ●f Heaven is made under condition: & that God will not command any thing under an impossible condition; and that therefore ●e have Freewill to keep God's Commandments. Caluin answereth hereto, that it is not absurd to maintain, that God sometimes for some reasons known to himself, promises to men things under impossible ●onditions, to wit, to the wicked he maketh such promises, thereby to manifest how unworthy they are of his divine goodness. But ●ere we reply; We demand not why, or to what end, God doth make his promises either to the wicked, or to the pious; but we only maintain, that a thing cannot rightly be promised under condition, but only to him, who hath the use of Freewill. This imposture is most familiar with Caluin and his followers, and therefore I could wish the serious reader to be observant thereof.   

Animadversion XXXIII.  
IN my judgement the Question of Images in a point to be discussed chief by Philosophy, as taking its warrant and ground from thence; so far forth as there be no abuse of the Images. My reason is this; what thing soever man understandeth, the same he understandeth by the help of a Species or Ima●● thereof, first wrought in the fantasy, according to that Axiom in Philosophy Quicquid intelligitur, intelligitur per mo●●● Phantasmatis. And thus we cannot apprehend or worship God, but by the help & mediation of an Image of God, which w● frame in our Imagination and fantasy▪ Again, if a picture be capable of disgrace & injury, in regard of the person therein represented; then by the same reason a picture may be capable of honour, and reverence (I mean that kind of honour & reverence, which is due to inanimate things.) No● that a picture is capable of disgrace or contumely, is evident: For example, if a subject disloyally affected to his Prince, should deface, break, or otherwise indecently handle the picture of his Prince, by stabbing it with his dagger, or otherwise; or if some Athe●● (denying the Scripture) should be trample under his feet (through scorn and malice) the Bible itself; would not these Actions be severely punished? and might not the picture of the Prince, and the Bible be said to have suffered disgrace and indignity thereby, with reference to the wrong and indignity committed against the Prince, & the sacred Scriptures? Then by the same reason may the Picture of Christ, and the Saints be affected with due religious respect above other things, in regard of Christ, and his Saints represented in them, of ●hom they are pictures.   

Animadversion XXXIV.  
TO vindicate ourselves from the calumny of our Adversaries, touching the worship, which we exhibit to Saints & Images, ●hey are for their instruction to take no●●ze, that Adoration containeth three different 
(p) S. Thom. in 3. sent. dist. 9  Acts; the first is of the understanding, by the which we apprehend the excellency of any thing: The Act of the Will, by the which we are inwardly moved to manifest and protest our worship, by some exterior, or interior Act: The third is an Exterior Act, by the which we move our hat, or bow our leg, or show some other external sign, in manifestation of our inward worship given. Of which three Acts the second (which is of the will) is most essential; seeing the first may be without adoration, and the third with irrision and scorn, as the Jews worshipped our Saviour upon the Cross. Here further we are to note, that that worship, which is given to God is a chief and supreme prostration and inclination of the will, with the apprehension of God, as the beginning and last end of all things, and therefore as our chief good; and it is called by Divines, Latria, and cannot be communicated without Idolatry to any creature. Worship given to Creatures is distinguished according to the different degrees of excellencies in the Creatures; and so according to the different degrees of the worth of Creatures, the worship exhibited is severally called, as Du●●● hyperdulia, cultus religiosus, & cultus civilis. Lastly it is further to be observed, that by the exterior Act, it is not easy to distinguish the several kinds of worship: for almo●● all exterior Acts of worship (Sacrifice only excepted) are common to every kind o● worship. For according hereto we read, th●● Abraham with the same Act of bowing h●● body to the ground, did adore God, Genes 17. did worship Angels, Genes. 18. and di● worship Men, Genes. 23. In like sort all me● do use to kneel to God in their prayers, t● their Princes or kings, and to their own● Parents; yet with disparity of honour t● each of these. And here is the source o● fountain of the Protestants mistaking who hearing, that Catholics do sometime exhibit part of that external worship t● Creatures, which is given to God, do instantly exclaim forth, that Papists do commit Idolatry to Creatures. Poor men! 〈◊〉 commiserate their ignorance, who so much mistake the true meaning of Catholic practice herein.   

Animadversion XXXV.  
THe several, & different times of the fir●● coming of Antichrist, assigned by ou● Adversaries, do evidently prove that Ant●christ is not yet come, & consequently that ●he Pope is not Antichrist, as they in the come of their malice do teach. For 
(q) Upon the revel. in c. 20.  Iuni●● (the eminent Protestant) affirms, that hildebrand, who was Pope anno Domini ●●4. was the first Antichrist. With whom ●nspireth D. Downeham 
(r) In his Treatise concerning Antichrist. ca 110.  Bullinger 
(s) Upon the Apo. s●rm. 16. p. 198.  af●rmeth, that Antichrist came in the year: ●63. he therefore terming that year, The ●all year. D 
(t) In his answ. to a Counterfeit Cath. pa. 30.  Fulke, and D. 
(u) In his Synops. pag. 100  Willet do ●ace his coming in the year 607. and ●ake Boniface the third to be the first Anti●●rist. D. Whytaker thus writeth of this ●oynt, saying: 
(x) De Eccles. count. ●eilar●. contr. 9● qu. a. p. 〈◊〉 2.  Gregory the great was the ●●t true and holy Bishop of the Church; & ther●● because our Adversary's demand of us the ●me, when he first came in, we design, and set twne to them the very time of his coming. ●za 
(y) Confess. General. cap. 7. sect. 12.  teacheth, that he came in anno ●40 thus writing of Leo, who lived in that ●●e Leo did clearly breathe forth the arrogan●● of the Antichristian Sea. M. Napper 
(z) Upon the Revelat. ●g. 66.  ascending higher, iustifyes Antichrist his coming to have been in the year 313. so ma●ing Silvester the Pope, the first Antichrist. But Sebastianus Francus (a remarkable Protestant) not content therewith thus averreth: 
(a) In Epist. de abrogo● l. in univer. omnibus statut. ecclesiast.  For certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church together with the saith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure. Now, mere diametrically, and cross to all the former Protestants, teaching that the Pope is An●ichrist, Melancthon 
(b) So is Melancthon alleged by M. Harvey in his Theol. discourse. p. 102. , Bucer, and M. Fox 
(c) Act. Mon. of the year 1676. pa. 53●.  do teach that the Turk is Antichrist; and according hereto Buc●r styleth the Turk 
(d) Bucer in his lib. Psal. quinque. Psal. 22. fol. 146. 147.  ipfissimus Antichristus. Thus much touching the disagreement of our Adversaries in this point.   

Animadversion XXXVI.  
THe planting of the Christian Religion is England by joseph of Arimathia, doth afford an unanswerable demonstration of the truth of our Catholic and Roman Religion. Of this point we first find, that not only S. Bede, (who did write the History thereof.) but M. Cambden also rec●r●et●, that the Britain's of Wales, were first converted to Christianity by Joseph of Arimathia, M. Cambden thus speaking thereof: Certum 
(e) In his Brit. pa. 40. & 57  est Britannos in ipsa Ecclesiae infantia Christianam Religionem imbibisse; he thus further writing: High floruit Monasterium Glastenburtense etc. Here flourished the Monastery of Glastenbury, which taketh its ancient beginning of joseph of Arimathia. Thus M. Cambden. The same verity is acknowledged by D. jewel, 
(f) In his Pageant of Popes.  and D. Fulke 
(g) In his book against Hiskins, , pag. 561.  Secondly, we find, that D. Jewel confesseth thus; the Britan's 
(h) In his Pageant of Popes.  being converted by joseph of Arimathia, held that faith at Augustine's coming; he meaning that Austin, who was sent by Pope Gregory to plant his religion among us English. In like manner D. Fulke thus writeth hereof; The Catholic Britan's, 
(i) Against the Rhemish Testam. in 2. Cor. 12.  with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession from the Apostles times, would not receive Austin. From which several Testimonies we gather, that till Augustine's coming into England, the Religion planted by joseph of A●imathia among the Britain's, continued unchangeable & without alteration. Thirdly, we read, that the greatest differences of faith & Religion, which at that time were found between the Britain Bishops & Augustin, are recorded to be these following: for S. Bede 
(k) Beda, l. 2. ca 2.  relateth, how Austin and the Britain Bishops did meet at a place called in his time, Augustin●zat, for conferring of their Religions together: the mention of which meeting is in like manner averred by Holinshead 
(l) In his great Chronicle of the last E●ttou. l. 5. c. 22. , and M. Fox 
(m) Act Mon. printed. 1576. pag. 120. , who setteth down S. Augustine's Answer to the Britain Bishops in these words: Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebre●is; ut ministerium Baptizandi iuxta morem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis; ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini, caetera, quae agitis, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus; That is, if you (Britan Bishops) will obey me in these three things; to wit, in celebrating Easter day in due time; in conferring of Baptism according to the rites of the Roman & Apostolical Church; and in helping us to preach to the English; all other matters, which you 〈◊〉 contrary to our manners, we will tolerate ●●suster. Thus far S. Bede. Fourthly and lastly it is confessed by D. Humphrey what Religion Austin brought into England, in these words: In Ecclesiam 
(n) Humfred, in jesuit. part. 2. ras. 5. pa. 5. & 627.  vero quid invexerna Gregorius & Augustinu? Onus caeremoniar●● etc. intulerunt pattium Episcopale ad sola missarum solemnta, Purgatorium etc. Oblationer salutaris Hostiae, & preces pro demortuis etc. reliquias etc. ●ransubstantiationem etc. Nou● templorum conscerationes etc. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est, quam ut Indulgentiae Monachatus, Papatus, reliquumue Pontificiae Chaos extruatur? Haec Augustinus magnus Monachus a Gregorio Monacho edoct● importavit Anglis. Thus far D. Humphrey, with whom conspire herein the 
(o) In the Alphabetical table of the 6 Century in the fi●st Edition, at the word, Gregory  Centurists, and 
(p) Epit. hist. Ecclel. cent. 6 p. 289.  Osiander.  
Now from all these premises I thus collect; First, that the true Christian Religion was planted in Britain by Joseph of Arimathia, who lived in our Saviour's tyme. Secondly, that the same Religion remained pure and uncorrupted, at Augustine's conue●ting of England. Thirdly, that the differences between Austin and the Britan's were but about two or three small points, or Ceremonies. Lastly, that Austin did teach in England all the supreme points, which the Roman Church at this day teacheth. Now, from all this I infer, that the Church of Rome in Augustine's time teaching papistry (as our Adversaries style it) was holy agreeable (the two former points of ●●eping Easter day, and Baptising with the ●●tes of Rome, only excepted) with the faith and religion, which was planted among the Britan's by Joseph of Arimathia in the Apostles days. For it is certain, that if the Britan's had not yielded their full consent to those supreme points of our Catholic religion, mentioned above by D. Humphrey; S. Bede would have been most ready to record their stiffness and reluctation therein, seeing he doth not omit to relate their coldness only in the two former points of ceremonies: So certain it is, that S. Bede had just reason to conclude this passage with these words 
(q) Bed. l. 2. c. 2. : Brieones quidem confitentur intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus; and therefore not without evident cause D. Fulke affirmeth that 
(r) In his confuta●tion of Purgatory pa. 335.  Austin did obtain the aid of the Britain Bishops, to the Conversion of the Saxons. Thus fare of this argument, in vnfoulding whereof I have been more long, in that it is an unswerable and most convincing Demonstation, in proof of the truth of our Catholic Religion.   

Animadversion XXXVII.  
IT is a dissolute kind of arguing thus to conclude: In such, or such text of Scripture, it is certain that one parcel of the said text is to be taken figuratively: Ergo, all that text or sentence is to be taken figuratively; For example, we Catholics do urge those words, in our warrant to bow at the name of jesus: ut 
s) Phil. 2.  in nomine jesu omne genu flectatur, Caelestium, Terrestrium, & Jnfernorum; That in the name of jesus every knee bow, of things in Heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth. Now, to this our Adversaries reply, that seeing the Spirits infernal, or under the earth (meaning the damned Spirits in Hell) have no knees, wherewith they can bow, and that the word knee is ascribed to them figuratively; therefore this whole sentence is to be taken figuratively only, and not literally; and consequently that this text proves no● that we ought to bow at the name of jesus. To this we reply, that so farforth, as any text will bear a literal sense (it not bei●● impugned by any other text more literal, or by any article of faith) so fare it ought to be taken literally; and what follows in the same text, which necessarily is to be expounded figuratively, the same we are to expound figuratively. The weakness of our Adversary's former answer, is otherwise discovered, seeing  to our Adversary's former answer, we could not allege that Text in the Apocalypse, These 
(t) Apoc. c. 7.  are they who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, to prove, that Martyrs and other Saints of God are saved by the blood of Christ; because seeing in this Sentence there are two Metaphors, to wit, the word Robes, (whereby are signified the bodies of the Saints) and the word Lamb, (meaning thereby Christ,) that therefore it should follow upon the former ground of answer, that the word, Blood, should also be here Metaphorically taken; not signifying blood indeed (and so excluding the blood of Christ from our Salvation,) but some other thing shadowed thereby. Yea which is more, if this kind of answer were , we could scarce produce any one Sentence of the Psalms literally to be expounded of Christ or the Church, since that part of Scripture is most luxuriant of Tropes, Schemes, and other figurative speeches: And yet we see, it is most incongruous to maintain, that any whole Psalm is to be taken allegorically, because we find some figures in certain passages thereof. Now to conclude this point, I add this annotation, that it is the judgement of all chief Divines, that the Scripture touching matter of faith, is ever to be understood literally, except the literal construction do impugn some other received article of faith, or may be explicated figuratively by some other more express and evident passage of Scripture; or lastly, that words be so evident for a figurative Sense, as that in no sort they can be capable of a literal construction.   

Animadversion XXXVIII.  
Oftentimes the Decrees of the Pope, or a Council are fraudulently urged by the Protestants for the first Institution of a thing, when indeed the Decree or Council only teacheth the better execution of some Catholic point, afore partly neglected (as for example touching confession, the unmarried life 〈◊〉 the Clergy, or keeping set times of fasting;) th●● our Adversaries hereby suggesting a more reformed execution of the practice of the Doctrine for the first institution of it. According hereto, we find D. Whitaker 
(u) Whimbly taken. count. Duraeum l. 7. pag. 490.  to allege Innocentius the third Pope of tha● name, saying: Innocentius was the first, tha● instituted auricular Confession; whereas Innocentius only decreed, that Confession shoul● be more strictly observed. Now that Confession was generally taught & believed before Innocentius his time, is evident, sin● the Centurists do charge Tertullian & Cyp●● (both which lived eleven or twelve hu●dreds of years, before this Innocentius t●● third) with teaching the doctrine of A●●cular Confession.   

Animadversion XXXIX.  
When our Adversaries do produce either Pope's Decrees, or general Counsels, for th● impugning of some Catholic point, be ●●refull to observe: First, that particular Counsels, or Counsels Schismatical (th● is, such as are not confirmed by the Pope's authority) be not obtruded upon you, for true general Counsels. For thus they urge the Council of Constantinople, against Images, consisting indeed of many Prelates; but neither celebrated, or confirmed by the Pope's Authority. Secondly note, that the point urged, doth concern Doctrine of faith, and not matter of fact; touching which ●●ter point, it is granted that a Council may alter its Decrees, upon better & later Information. Thirdly, that the Canon produced out of the Council doth immediately concern the Doctrine itself of some Article of faith (then supposed to be brought in) and not the name only to be imposed upon the same doctrine afore believed, as it happened in the Council of Lateran touching the word, Transubstantiation: The doctrine thereof being confessedly believed many ages afore; for this Council of Lateran was ●n the year 1060. whereas (as is above said) D. Humphrey chargeth S. Gregory & S. Austin, who lived several ages before this Council) for bringing into England the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Yea 
(*) In the Treatise attributed to Visinus, entitled, Commone, factio 〈◊〉 asdam Theologi. de S. Caena. pag. 211. & 228.  Vrsinus the Protestant insimulates Theophilact & Damascene (more ancient than the former Fathers) within the same doctrine of Transubstantiation.   

Animadversion XL.  
WHen we produce the ancient Fathers ●gainst the Protestants, their accustomed thiffe is to make an Opposition between the Scripture and the Fathers; maintaining that to follow the judgement of the Father is to reject and abandon Scripture; & th●● themselves are to be pardoned for preferring the Scripture before the Fathers. B● to this you m●y answer, that seeing t● Fathers do urge, admit, and reverence t● Scripture in as high a degree, as the Protestant's do; the main question and dou●● here, is not whether the Scripture is to 〈◊〉 advanced above the Authority of the Father's (which we all Catholics do fu●● acknowledge should be) but only, Wheth●● the Fathers or the Protestants do more truly expound the Scripture?   

Animadversion XLI.  
THe Fathers have many advantages a●● privileges for interpreting of Scriptu●● and for true or perfect faith, of which t● Protestant's are altogether deprived. Fir●● the Fathers lived near to Christ, some co●uersing with his Apostles, others in succe●ding ages; and therefore more easy it w●● for them to know, what exposition w●● then delivered of the Scriptures, and wh●● faith was first preached. Add hereto, th●● the very practice of their Religion then 〈◊〉 ●●d (the Church then remaining, by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries, in her ●●rity of faith) served as a Comment to ●hem of the Scriptures.  
Secondly, divers of these Fathers even ●rom their Mother's breasts, did suck those ●ongues, wherein a great part of the Scripture was written; And therefore they were ●uch advantaged for picking out the true ●eaning thereof; whereas our Adversary's knowledge of the said tongues is gotten on●y by Art and Industry, which ever subscribes to Nature.  
Thirdly, the Fathers delivered their sentence and interpretation of Scriptures many age's before the points of faith & Doctrine 〈◊〉 for which they were urged) were ever brought in question or doubt, and therefore what they writ, was free from all partiality of judgement, they not knowing, what Innovations were to rise in these our days: Our Protestant Ministers (their temporal states being wholly interessed ●herein must now of necessity shape the construction of the Scriptures, to the maintenance of the Religion now introduced.  
The Fathers, though writing in several ages, several tongues, upon several occasions, do notwithstanding unanimously conspire together in their writings: for, non est Deus dissensionis, sed pacis; and if any one by chance did vary from the rest, he was reprehended by them: But the Protestants are so contrary in their writings, in maintaining mere contradictory and opposite doctrines, as is most wonderful to observe; of which point who seeeketh further to be satisfied, let him peruse such books, as are lately written upon that subject.  
The Fathers did cut of all lets and impediments, which might hinder either Devotion or study; Hence it is, that they embraced perpetual Chastity, contemned all riches & Honours, chastised their bodies with fasting, prayer and other spiritual disciplines. How far different our Protestant Doctors are from such courses, I leave to the world to judge.  
The Fathers (I mean divers of them) did work many true and stupendious 
Vide Cyprian. serm. de lapsis. Ambr. de obitu satire. c. 7. Optat, l. cont. Donat. Aug. de Civit. l. 22. Chrysost. count. Gentiles. Eusebius l. 7. c. 14.  Miracles, which gift of exhibiting Miracles, God bestoweth only upon them, who are gracious in his sight, and who truly serve him; (But not man can serve God truly, with a false faith): The Protestant Doctors never yet wrought any one Miracle in confirmation of their Faith; the evidency of which point appeareth from the liberal Confession of the Protestants themselves: For D. Fulke thus acknowledgeth; It is 
(y) Against the Rhemish Testam. in Apoc. c. 13.  known, that Caluin, and the rest, whom the Papists call Archheretiks, do work no miracles: to whose confession D. Sutcliffe subscribeth; saying: We do 
(z) In his Examen of D. kellison's Survey, printed 1606. p. 8.  not practise Miracles, nor do we teach, that the truth of Doctrine is to be confirmed with miracles.  
The Fathers (I speak of divers 
(a) As Ignatius, Polycarpus, Cyprian and others.  of them) for professing only their Christian faith and religion, have endured with invincible courage and immoveable resolution (which they could never have done, but only through the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost) most exquisite torments, yea Martyrdom itself; of whom it may be truly said: Paradisi clavis sanguis Martyris. Our Sectary Doctors (excepting some Mechanical and ignorant fellows, burnt for their obstinacy in Queen Mary's time) are so far from suffering any pressures for professing their faith, as that most of them have made their Religion, a ladder to climb up to worldly preferments; they by it only enjoying (as through want of its losing) riches, honours, & other such temporal advancements.  
The Fathers of the Primitive Church, did represent the body of the whole Church of Christ in those times; For of necessity it must be granted, that all the several members of the Church of God, did believe, and practise the same Religion, which Gregory, Theodores, Austin, Jerome, chrysostom, Epiphanius, the Gregory's, the Cyrils, Basill, Ambrose, Hilary, Optatus, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, and the like, did teach; since in them according to the several ages, wherein they lived, those words of the Apostle were fulfilled: 
(b) Ephes. 4.  Christ hath placed i● his Church Pastors, and Doctors etc. Now all this granted, it doth inevitably follow, that if the Fathers of those several ages did jointly err in their interpretation of Scripture, and doctrine of faith and belief resulting from thence; that then the whole visible Church of Christ did damnably err in faith, during all those ages: but this mainly crosseth both the command, as also the promises of Christ; the first in those words, Dic Ecclesiae 
(c) Math. 18. ; the second in that sentence, Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world; for neither wood Christ ever send men to a false Church; nor can he be said, to be ever with his Church, if he suffer it to profess for many ages a false and erroneous faith; nor upon such a supposal could the Church be truly styled, Columna 
(d) 1. Timoth. 3.9.  & firmamentum veritatis.  
Lastly, the more learned Protestants do ascribe all Excellency to the Primitive Church, for purity of faith (and consequently to the Fathers and Pastors of the Church of those times;) for thus we find them to write: Kempnitius thus saith: We 
(e) Exa. Concil. Trid. part. 1. pag. 74.  doubt not, but that the Primitive Church received from the Apostles, and Apostolical men, not only the Text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof. D. jewel: The primitive 
(f) In his defence of the Apology.  Church, which was under the Apostles and Martyrs, hath ever been accounted the purest of all others, without exception. Finally to contract this point, D. Bancroft heretofore the Archbishop of Canterbury, thus writeth touching Caluin and Beza: For M. Caluin 
(g) In his Survey of the pretended discipline.  and M. Beza, I do think of them, as their writings do deserve; but yet I think better of the ancient Fathers. And with this I end touching the libration, or balancing of the Fathers of the primative Church, with our Protestant Doctors.   

Animadversion XLII.  
THere is one sleight used by our Adversaries, which deserves Annotation. It is this: They are unwilling openly to break with the Fathers, so long as they can pretend any show of conjunction & agreement with them. Therefore when they find any of our Catholic points to be maintained by the Fathers, they gently term them, Naevos, Nenia, and at most, Errores, blemishes, and errors. Thus favourably they depress in the Fathers our Catholic Doctrines, because they would seem to continue members of the same Church, whereof the Fathers were: But now, they style the same Opinions and Doctrines, as they are believed by us, no less than heresies, blasphemies, Jdolatry etc. thereby to show, that the Members of the Church of Rome are not members of Christ's Church. This deceitful and different appellation is precisely kept and practised by the Centuryes, Jllyricus, Doctor Whytaker, and divers other Protestant Writers.   

Animadversion XLIII.  
Our Adversaries deportment towards the Fathers, is most full of imposture and deceit: And they use certain steps, or gradatious therein. For first they labour to evade the authority or testimony of a Father, by shaping some seeming answer to it; yet still admitting the authority produced. Next, if the testimony objected by us out of any Father, be for its perspicuity not capable of any evading answer; then they labour to weaken the authority of the said Father, by making him seem to contradict himself in some other place of the same point, or else to be contradicted therein by other Fathers. After this manner doth D. Whitaker, in question of Traditions say of 
(h) D. Whit. l. de Sacr. Script. pag. 670.  Basill: Basilius secum pugnat; as also chargeth S. Austin 
(i) D. Whit. ubi supra 28.  with the like contrariety in judgement, touching the same doctrine of Traditions. But when they are told, that it is most improbable, that the Fathers (being such learned men, as they were) should without any acknoledged retractation of their former writings cross themselves in their later write; our Adversaries then unmask themselves, plainly calling the Fathers, Superstitious, blind, and open maintainers of Papistry, which point sha● be made evident by these testimonies of the Protestants passed upon them.  
And to begin with Luther, he thus writeth of the Fathers in general: The 
(k) Luth. de seruo arbitrio. printed anno 15●1. pag. 4●4.  Fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; They have erred all their life time; and unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. Melancthon joineth hands with Luther herein, 
(l) Melancth. in 1. Cor. cap 31.  in these words: Presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning justification by faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. With both whom (to omit the like condemning speeches of others, passed upon the Fathers) conspires D. Whitaker, thus scurrilously writing: Ex patrum 
(m) Contra ●u●aeum p. 4●3.  erroribus ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est, The religion of the Papists is a patched Cloth of the Father's errors sowed together. Thus ●ar of the several peculiar deliveries of our Adversaries against the Fathers.   

Animadversion XLIV.  
TOuching the Controversy, whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original sin, such Catholics, as deny the same, hold the denial thereof only as a probable and pious Opinion, and not as matter of faith; we therefore are to conceive, that the Sin of the first Parent is communicated to his Sons and posterity, three manner of ways. First then, the Sons of Adam are said to have sinned in Adam himself, in that Adam did transgress the precept of God in Paradise: And because the Sons of Adam were not then in actu, but in potentia only, therefore that sin they contracted not in actu, but only in potentia, And in this sense it may be said, that the B. Virgin sinned in Adam. Secondly, all the Children of Adam are said to be conceived in Sin, as soon as the child begins to exist in the Mother's Womb, although it be then unformed and without life; because a Man then beginneth truly to exist, in respect of one of his parts; & that part hath its beginning from a corrupt Nature, and may be said to be truly vitiated by force of its generation: And in this sense also we acknowledge, that the Blessed Virgin had her beginning from a corrupt Nature, and that by force of such generation, it was due, that Sin should be contracted, as soon as her Rational soul was joined to her Body. The third, and last manner, whereby men are said to be conceived in Sin is, when their Souls are inspired into their bodies; since at that time they begin properly & really to become Men, and to have their W●● naked of Original Justice, and consequently averted from God, and in itself deformed. Now touching this third and last kind, we hold it most probable, that the Soul of the Blessed Virgin (even at the first instant of its creation, and infusion into the Body) was so without spot of Original Sin, as that person of hers actually existing had never any Sin; she herein differing from all others, in that she was freed from Original Sin, even in the very instant of her Animation. Now here it is to be noted, that the texts of Scripture, urged by the Protestants to prove, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin, have respect & reference only to one, or other of the first two kinds touching the propagation of Original Sin in Man; but they have not any true reference to this last kind.   

Animadversion XLV.  
IT is most wonderful to observe the great contempt, and little respect our Adversaries give to our Blessed Lady. divers of them speaking of Caluin & Beza (two Sodomites even by the Protestants 
(n) See Schlusselburge l ●. fol. 121. & l. 1 fol. 93.  Confessions) with great observancy style them 
(*) So D Ban●r●ss styleth Caluin and Beza, in his Survey of the pretended discipline.  M. Caluin, M. Beza. In like manner, speaking of Luther (that wicked Monk) they fear not to call him the Elias 
(o) Fox Act. Mon. pa. 416. , conductor, & Chariot of Jsrael. But when they come to name our Blessed Lady; who is an intemerate Virgin, the Queen of Heaven, an instrument of man's Redemption, the Mother of God, and Saviour of the world, most of them bluntly and rudely style her without any addition of Honour) only Mary. O contempt, most sacrilegious, and insufferable!   

Animadversion XLVI.  
IN the Hymn of our Lady's office, thus beginning, Aue Mari● stella etc. two passages much distaste our Adversaries: The first 〈◊〉 this: Solve vincula reis, proffer lumen caecis &c which acts (say they are peculiar to Christ. And again in the same Hymn, they object those words: Monstra te esse Matrem as implying a mother, and awful authority over Christ. In explication of the first, we demand, that our Lady would lose our Sins, and bring light to the blind, only by her impetration and praying to her blessed Son, & not otherwise, and therefore in most of our set p●ayers to her, we adjoin these words following; Per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum. Touching the second sentence: We do not wish her to impose any command or Motherly authority over her Some; But we only understand hereby: show thyself a Mother, by appeasing thy son in our behalf; & this by the remembrance of all thy Motherly tender care and love towards him in his Infancy, &, through the whole course of his life; that by thee he may receive our prayers; and therefore it immediately followeth in the same Hymn, sumat per te preces. But now if these words be such an eyesore to the Protestants, what will they say to those words of S. Paul: Omnibus 
(p) 1. Cor. 9  omnia factus sum, ut omnes facerem saluos: I am become to all men all things, that I may save all? Where the Apostle in words assumeth to himself the Salvation of others. In like manner, in that Antiphone in our Lady's office, beginning: Salue Regina etc. Our Apuersaries insist in those words: Et jesum benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exilium ostend; And show to us after this our exile, Jesus etc. To which I answer; That it is less to say: To show the Saviour unto men, then to say: To save men: And yet we read the Apostle thus to say: Et teipsum 
(q) 1. Tim. 4.  saluam facies, & eos quite au●iunt: Thou shalt ●●ue thyself and them, that do hear thee. Moreover it is objected out of that Antiphone, that the B. Virgin is styled, Spes nostra, Our Hope. To this I say, that these words are used, because next after our Lord jesus Christ (being God and Man) we chief place our confidence in the mediation of the Bl●s●●d Virgin; Since our Hope is not to be placed only in the Authors of our Good, but also in the Intercessors and ministers thereof. And according hereto when our Lo●d said to the jews: It 
(r) john 5.  is Moses, who accus●s you, in quo speratis, in whom you hop●; Our Saviour did not reprehend the jews, in that they hoped in Moses, but because they did not believe Moses. Finally our Adversaries cannot brook our Lady to be called, Mater misericordiae, because (say they) God is the Father of Mercy, therefore the B. Virgin cannot, nor aught to be called so. But this is no good consequence; for we read, that Christ is called, Lux 
(s) john 9  mundi, and yet Christ saith of his Apostles: Vos 
(t) Math. 5.  estis lux mundi. Thus such titles may be given to God, and men in a different relation, without any dishonour to God.   

Animadversion XLVII.  
THe puritans do most maliciously pervert several texts of Scripture in dishonour of our B. Lady For example, First they object (as seeming at least to rest doubtful of the continuance of our B. Lady's Virginity) that Text: Et non 
(u) Math 1.  cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium primogenitum; which words (say they) seem to afford a double Argument: The first is taken from the word, Donec, inferring from thence, that after the birth of her Son, she should carnally know Joseph. The second from the words following, Filium primogenitum; seeing Primogenitus properly signifieth that son, which is first borne, in reference to those Sons or children which are after borne. I answer, first touching the word, Donec, which word (as also the word, usque) doth not ever signify an affirmation after the time expressed, if a Negation did go before; neither always do they signify a Negation, when an affirmation did precede. For example, Sede a 
(x) Psal. 109.  dextris m●is, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pectum tuorum: Sat at my right hand, until I make thy Enemies, thy footstool. Now these words do not import, that after, he shall not fit at the right hand of his Father; The like sentences to these, are these following: Donec 
(y) Math 5.  transeat Caelum & Terra, iota unum, aut unus apex non praeteribit á lege. And again, Ego 
(z) Math. 28.  vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem mundi: In all which locutions & sentences of Scripture, that which is doubtful is expressed; but that which is certain, is not expressed, or spoken of. Now touching the word, Primogenitus; Epiphanius 
(a) Haeres. 78.  denieth, that Christ was called Primogenitus Mariae, the first borne of Mary: for the Evangelist saith not, Primogenitum suum, but he saith Fitium suum, primogenitum; signifying thereby, that he was the Son of the B Virgin, but withal, the first begotten Son of God:  accordingly we thus read: Ipse 
(b) Coloss 1.  namque est primogenitus omnis Creaturae; He (to wit Christ) was the first borne of all Creatures. S. Jerome saith, that Christ was called, 
(c) Adverse Heluid.  Primogenitus Mariae, not because she brought forth any other Son after him; but because before him, she brought forth no other Son. For it is the phrase of Scripture, that those who are Vnigeniti, are called Primogeniti; So S Paul calleth Christ, Primogenitus 
(d) Heb. 6.  Dei, for the only-begotten son of God. Lastly they urge that sentence: Jnter 
(e) Math. 11.  natos mulicrum non surrexit maior johanne Baptista, There hath not risen among the borne of women a greater than John the Baptist; intimating hereby, that the Blessed Virgin is inferior in dignity to S. john Baptist. This is easily answered; First if the words as they lie, be literally taken (as our Adversaries pretend) then should John Baptist be greater than Christ; Secondly, because S. john Baptist in those words spoken by Christ, is compared only with the Holy men of the old Testament; but Christ, and his Mother, as also the Apostles, belong to the new Testament.   

Animadversion XLVIII.  
divers Protestants (as above is showed) do hold such books to be Scripture, which other Protestants reject as Apocryphal; therefore it followeth, that the Scripture itself cannot show, at least to us (which is the point controverted) which is Scripture; which doubt is only to be referred to the Authority of the Church. And therefore M. Hooker truly saith: Of things 
(f) Eccles. Pol. l●● 1 Sect. 14. p. 8●.  necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what Books we are to esteem Holy; which point is confessed impossible, for the Scripture itself to teach. And again: It is 
(g) Ibidem. l. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102 & ●4● and D. Covell in defence of M. Hooker, art. 4. pag. 31.  not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us we do well to think it is his word. N●w if the Scriptures be confessedly unable to afford us certain proof of themselves; then in all true consequence of Reason, much less are they able to direct & exempt us in case of doubt and question infallibly from Error; & the rather (as D. Reynolds truly confesseth) in 
(h) Confer. c. 2. Divis. 2. pag. 68  that it is not the show, but the sense of the Scripture, that must decide Controversies. Now from this I infer, that if according to the learned 
(i) The Author of the Treatise of the Scripture and the Church, cap. 16. fol. 75. Whita. con Staplet. l. 2. c. 4. p. 203. Kempn. in Exam. part. 1. pag. 69. and divers others.  Protestants here cited, it is to be determined to us, which is Scripture, by the judgement of the Church, which confessedly hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in infallibly discerning to us, which Books of Scripture are sacred, and which not; then necessarily followeth the Churches no less needful assistance of the same Spirit, in her like discerning unto us, the sense of the said Scripture: for what availeth it us to be made certain of the Books, and least uncertain of the Sense? Or what reason can our Adversaries allege, whereby to acknowledge the Church's privilege in the one, and deny it (where it is no less needful) in the other? This inference being granted, utterly overthroweth the Private spirit, in its interpretation of Scripture.   

Animadversion XLIX.  
IT is a demonstration, in confutation of the Private spirit interpreting the Scrippture, to observe the different, or rather contrary constructions, which Luther, and Caluin, and others give of that short sentence: Hoc est Corpus meum etc. Hic est sanguit meus; And yet they all do vaunt of their enjoying the said Spirit. And therefore it is the less wonder, that S. Austin 
(k) Austin. count. Maximum Arian. l. 1.  affirmeth, that it hath ever been the custom of all Heretics to fly to Scripture alone, as it is interpreted by this Private Spirit. The absurdity of which opinion more evidently appears; since it is certain, that among divers mere contrary or contradictory point● of faith, the Scripture condemneth the on● And yet both the maintainers of the said contrary doctrines do fly to the Scripture as judge. Now what madness is it for 〈◊〉 man willingly to covet to appeal to that judge, by whom it is certain his cause shall be condemned? Neither can either of the Litigants put any confidence in the means of truly interpreting the Scripture, to wit. Prayer, Conference of places of Scripture knowledge in the Tongues etc. since all these meane● are most uncertain, even by the Confession of D. Whitaker, thus writing 
(l) Whitak. l. 2. de Eccles. count. Bellar. contr. 1. quaest. 4 : Med●● interpretandi ●oca scripturae sunt incerta etc. The means of interpreting the obscure places o● Scripture are uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous; Therefore it cannot be otherwise, but the interpretation itself must be uncertain; Si incerta, tum potest ess● falsa if the interpretation be uncertain, then may it be false. Thus far the said Doctor.   

Animadversion L.  
TOuching the depressing of General Counsels, Peter Martyr thus writeth: As long 
(m) L. de votis. pag. 476.  as we insist in General Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Papists Errors; with whom D. Whitaker conspires in these words General 
(n) Lib. de Concil. count. Bellar. q. 6.  Counsels may err. Now let us see the great and many disparities, whereby a General Council is infinitely advantaged (in respect of not erring) above the Private Spirit of any one man. First then a Council (I here only speak of General Counsels) is in S. Augustine's 
(o) So doth S. Austin term a General Council, Ep. 161.  judgement, The supreme Tribunal in the Church of God. The Private Spirit hath but his own brains, for the Seat of his judicature. A Councell receives its promise from 
(p) Where two or three are gathered together in my name etc. Math. 18.  Christ, that his assisting presence shall not be wanting thereto. The private Spirit, even by Gods 
(q) No prophecy is of any private interpretation. 2. Per. c. 1.  own sentence, wanteth the certainty of expounding the Word truly. A Council is much reverenced by the ancient 
(r) jerom. l. cont. Lucifer. Ambr. Ep. 32. Athan Epist. ad Epicterum.  Fathers, and acknowledged by divers of our learned 
(s) D. Covel in his modest Exam. p. 110. etc.  Adversaries to be the only certain means of determining Controversies. The Private Spirit it that, of which we are 
(t) Dear beloved, believe not every Spirit; etc.  commanded to doubt: and of whose seducing 
(u) These things I have written to you, concerning those, who deceive you. john 1. c. 2. , God himself in Scripture premonisheth us: And which is much condemned even by the more moderate 
(x) D. Covell in his defence of Hooker, p. 86. D. Saravia contra Respons. Bezae. pag 306. and others.  Protestant. A Council consisteth of many hundred venerable Doctors & Pastors, gathered from the most remote nations of Christendom (and therefore the less subject upon such their meeting, jointly, and with mutual consent, 〈◊〉 stamp any Novelismes in Doctrine) presenting that only to be believed in the●● Canons, which is decreed by the mutual consent of all, or the greatest number of them. The private Spirit is but its own only weening, oftentimes dissenting from others of his Brethren in divers points of faith. To conclude, A Council (as being composed of several hundreds of Bishops & Doctors) hath many members of it, most eminent for virtue, readiness of the Scriptures, skill in the Tongues; they all besieging the ears of God with their daily prayers, accompanied with many corporal austerities; and all to the end, that God would be pleased so to guide their tongues and pens, as that they may decree only such doctrines, as are agreeable to God's holy Word. The Private spirit, (as being but one man) doth want for the most part not only Virtue, but also those other gifts of the Understanding above specified, as Learning, knowledge in the Scriptures etc. And as for Prayer, and other means of pleasing God, it rejecteth all this, as superstitious and Papistical, relying (in lieu thereof) upon his own Enthusiasms & illuminations from the Lord. And thus much touching the balancing of a General Council, with the Protestanticall Private Spirit.   

Animadversion LI.  
IF you attempt to charge a Protestant-writer with Corruptions, or lies in their write (of which Impostures their books are most luxuriant) rather insist in a few (& those manifest, and unanswerable) then in a great number; seeing, if your Adversary can make show to salve but three or four of a greater number (the which he may the more easily do, by how much the number of his falsifications is greater) the supposed answering of those few (chosen and picked out by him) must serve, through the partiality of judgement in his followers, to disgrace all the rest of the Corruptions, or falsifications, urged by you.   

Animadversion LII.  
THe Protestants in falsely alleging the authorityes of Authors, do abuse their Readers chief four several ways. First, (which is the most usual) by concealing some part of the alleged authority; Secondly, by adding some words of his own, to make the produced Author or Father, to speak like a Protestant; Thirdly by transposing the words of an authority, thereby to make the sense different from the Author's true meaning; Fourthly, by a wilful mistaking, or confusion of times. I will exemplify these four sorts in the writing of D. White (a great Impostor in his Scripts) in his book called: The way to the true Church Well then the said Protestant in p. 119. o● his said Book, produceth a place out of the Rhemists, to prove that the Church of Rom● can make that Scripture which is not, an● unmake that to be Scripture which is Scripture. To prove this, he produceth the Rhemists 
(y) Gaelat, 1.  thus saying: The Scriptures are 〈◊〉 known to be true, neither are Christians bon●● to receive them, without the attestation of th● Church. Now here mark the true word● of the Rhemists, and therein observe his impurity of dealing, committed by concealing part of the Sentence, just crossing his intended drift of urging that authority. Their true words are these: The Scriptures, whic● are indeed of the Holy Ghosts inditing, being p●● into the Church's trial, are found, proved, an● testified unto the World to be such, and not ma●● true, altered, or amended by the same; Since the Holy Scriptures in themselves were always true before, but not so known to be, to all Christians. All these are the words of the Rhemists; where you see the wilful concealment of this Parcel, The Scriptures are n●● made true, altered, or amended by the Church, as also that other: the Holy Scriptures in themselves were always true, meaning without the attestation of the Church. Now all that can truly be gathered out of this authority, is that the Scriptures (though most sacred and true in themselves) cannot be so made known to us (in which words lieth the touch of the point) without the Church's attestation. But how fare off, is this from M. Whytes urging of this place?  
Touching his imposture, committed in adding of words, this one place shall serve: Thus than the said D. White produceth Bellarmine in contempt of the Church's authority, saying: Other means may deceive me; but nothing is more known, nothing more certain, than the Scriptures. That it were the greatest madness in the world not te believe them etc. Now in this sentence, these words; viz. Other means may deceive me, are not in Bellarmine, but most subtly added to the beginning of Bellarmine's words, and caused to be printed in the same kind of Character or letter, wherein the other words of Bellarmine are printed, thereby to make the Reader believe, that they are words of Bellarmine, whereas they are added (as I about insinuated) for the more depressing of the Church's Authority. Now the whole sentence of Bellarmine was directed against the Swinkseldians, who absolutely denied Scripture; and against whom Bellarmine in that place disputeth.  
Touching the fraud consisting in a cunning transposition of words, without adding any words to the authority alleged, or concealing any parcel thereof: this example of the foresaid M. white may serve. In pag. 344. of his way to the true Church, he produceth for the overthrow of the religious use of Images, the Council of Eliberis, thus saying: No 
(z) Can. 36.  Picture is to be made in the Church, lest that be adored, which is painted on the walls. But the true words of the Canon are these: Plac●●● picturas in Ecclesia non habere, ne quod coli●● & adoretur, in parietibus depingatur; It pleaseth the Council, that pictures should not be in the Church, lest that, which is worshipped, an● adored, be painted on the Walls: The nice difference in words resteth thus; Lest that which is worshipped, be painted; and as M● white translateth: Lest that, which is painted be worshipped. Where the words of the Council acknowledging the worship of Images, maketh the worship due to them, to be the cause, why they are not painted on the walls (to wit because they were subject to be defaced, either by invasion of Enemies, or rain etc.) Now M. Whites translation, only by a subtle transposition of the words, imports that Pictures are not to be worshipped at all.  
Lastly, concerning the Calumny resting in a wilful confusion of times, The said Protestant in pag. 61. for proof of Priests lawful marriage, produceth a Testimony from Sinesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, thus writing of himself to a friend: The sacred hand of Theophilus hath given me a wife, and hereupon justify to all men, that I will neither forsake her, nor privily as an adulterer, keep her Company, but I will pray to God, to send me by her, many and good children. This Epistle is at large set down in 
(a) Eccl. hist. l. 14. c. 55.  Nicephorus. Now here t●e fraud lieth, that at the time, when this Epistle was written, Sinesius was but a Layman, but eminent for learning, Now after he made himself priest, and was created Bishop of Ptolemais, he ever lived separated from the company of his wife, as fully appeareth out of Nicephorus, in the place above alleged. Here then the Ministers deceit lieth in applying that to him, as if he had been then Bishop, which was spoken by him, being a Layman; and so M. White most fraudulently confoundeth those two different times together, as if all had happened at one, and the same tyme.   

Animadversion LIII.  
IF your Adversary will vaunt, that he will prove all by Scripture only (as most of them give it out they will) then force him to draw both his Premises (I mean, both his Propositions, if so they should be reduced to a form of Argument) from the Scripture alone; of which Method within two Arguments at least, he is certain to fail; For if he take either of his Propositions from humane Authority, or from natural Reason, you may tell him he leaveth his undertaken of proving by Scripture alone; and consequently you may deny his force of Argument, though Logical in form. Here I further advertise, that if your Adversary undertake the part of an Opponent, tie him precisely ever to Oppose; which Scene perhaps he (being brought to a Nonplus) would flyely transfer upon you. In like sort, if he taketh upon him to answer, suffer him not to oppose, thought he labour so to do, to free himself from answering: Thus be sure, that each of you keep your chosen Station.   

Animadversion LIV.  
IF the Protestant should seek to expound by way of conference of places, those words of our Saviour: This is my body, this is my Blood, figuratively, by those other words of his: I am a vine, I am the Door etc. both which Texts, all grant, that they are to be taken figuratively; you may here first answer; that in these and such like Sentemces, ever Praedicatur disparatum de disparato, and therefore the words in their own nature do enforce a figurative construction; but in the words of the Institution, there is no such kind of unusual Predication, at least in the appearance of the words themselves. Secondly you may demand of your Minister, if he can allege any passage of Scripture, which affirmeth that these words, This is my body etc. ought to be interpreted by those words, I am the Vine, I am the Door: If he say he can allege any such passage, will him co show it; if the Scripture saith not so (as indeed it doth not) then force him to confess, that it is not the Scripture, but himself, that warranteth such Conference of places of Scripture.   

Animadversion LV.  
THe Protestant undertaking to prove every point by Scripture, is obliged to prove his Negative Articles by Scripture, admitting them for points of faith; as that there is no Purgatory; that we ought not to pray to the Saints etc. and this not from the silence only of the Scripture, not speaking of such points; but from it, as the Scripture particularly condemneth them. Add hereto that though the Scripture by not speaking of Purgatory, disp●oueth the being of it, yet doth not the Scripture therefore prove, as an Article of faith (which is a point here to be insisted upon) that there is no Purgatory: Even as the Scripture speaketh nothing in a prophetical Spirit, That Mahomet was a false Prophet, and yet though the Scripture by not speaking of him, should co●demne him for such; i● nevertheless followeth not, that we ought to believe from the Scripture, as an Article of faith, that Mahomet was a false Prophet; since it is one to say, that the Scripture by silence and not speaking of a point, proveth the thing not to be; another thing to affirm, that the Scripture proveth the not belief of the said point, to be an Article of faith.   

Animadversion LVI.  
DEmand of your Adversary, if he can allege any place of Scripture warranting his Infallibility of expounding the Scripture? And if he detort any text of Scripture to that end or purpose; tell him that if such a text seem to make for his not erring in expounding the Scripture, then much more maketh it for the not erring of the whole Church of Christ therein; Now if the whole Church of Christ hath erred in interpreting Gods written W●rd, (as many Protestants do teach) then ask the Minister, with what face can he, being but one member of the Church, (and perhaps 
(b) Whitak. de Eccles. count. Bellar. ontrou. 2. q 4. p. 223. Luther. Ep. ad Argen Parkins in his Exposition of the Creed. p. 40●.  unlearned) assume to himself a freedom of not erring, when he interpreteth the Scripture?   

Animadversion LVII.  
It is much worth the observation, to balance the Spirit of Luther (being Catholic) touching his carriage in manners, with that his Spirit, when he became a Protestant. During his being a Catholic in Religion, he thus writeth of himself; I living in the 
(c) Luther ad Galat. c. 1. ofter the English Translation  Monastery punished my body with fasting watching, and prayer. I honoured 
(d) Luther ubi supra.  the Pope of mere Conscience, kept chastity, poverty, and obedience; And whatsoever I did, I did it with a single hart, of good zeal, and for the glory of God; fearing grievously the last day & desirous to be saved from the bottom of my hart. Thus he, during his continuance in the papacy. But now upon his change of Religion, and his becoming a Protestant, he turneth his style, and thus writeth of himself: Quam 
(e) Luth. tom. 5. Wittenberg. serm. de matrimonio. fol. 119.  non est in meis viribus etc. As it is not in my power, that I should be no Man; so it is not in my power, that I should be without a Woman. It is not in our prwer, that it should be either stayed, or stopped; But it is as necessary, as I should be a Man, and more necessary, then to eat, drink, purge make clean the nose etc. And further Luther thus confesseth in an other place: 
(f) Luther in Colioq. Mensal. f●●. c. ●6.  I am almost mad through the rage of lust, and desire of Women. And y●t more: 
(g) Luther come. ●. Epist. latin. fol. ●, 4. ad Philip●um.  I am burned with the great flame of my untamed flesh I, who ought to be fervent in the Spirit, am fervent in the flesh, in lust, ●ath, etc. Eight days are now past, wherein I neither writ, prayed, nor studied, being vexed partly with the temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. This ●is change of manners was such from his former course, as that 
(h) Sl●y●an. Comm●nt. in English. lib. 3. anno. 21. fol. 29.  Sleydam the Protestant saith: Luther's Profession was not of life or manners but of Doctrine; further saying that 
(i) Sl●ydan ubi supra fol. 2●.  Luther wished, that he were removed from the office of preaching, because his manners, and life did not answer to his Profession. And hereupon (as the world knoweth) he persuaded Catharine Bore to leave her Monastery, whom he after married. Now I refer to any man of sincere and impartial judgement, whether the Profession of Chastity, prayer, Humility, & desire of saving one's soul (for such was Luther's Life in the Papacy) be the effects of a false religion; and contrariwise, insatiablenes of lust, & rage towards Women, with contempt of prayer etc. can be a Character of a true Religion: O no. Non 
(k) Luc. 6.  est arbor ●ona, quae facit fructus malos.   

Animadversion LVIII.  
THat Luther changed his Doctrine touching saying of Mass as being persuaded by the Devil, is evident out of his own ●ords; for Luther thu● writeth hereof: Upon a 
(c) Luther. to. 7. Wittenberg  time I was suddenly awaked about midnight; Then Sat●n began this disputation with me, saying: Hearken right learned Doctor Luther, thou hast celebrated Mass● by the space of fifteen years etc. And so Luther himself i● the book hear alleged in the margot setteth down the Arguments at large, which the Devil used to dissuade him from saying of Mass; to which Arguments Luther giving assent, did for bear after to say Mass. Now that Luther had not this Apparition from any good Angel, appeareth, First, in that Luther termeth him that appeared, Satan; Secondly, because Luther thus in another place confesseth, saying: I have 
(d) Luther in loc. Com. Class 4. p. 59  no apparition of Angels; I have made a covenant with the Lord, that he should not send me visions. Now that this cannot be only any Spiritual fight or conference in mind with the Devil, as M. Chark, and D. Fulke do answer, appeareth, in that Luther saith: The Devil spoke 
(e) Luth. tom. 7. Wittenberg.  to him in a base & great voice, so as he made Luther to sweat, & his hart to tremble; again the same appeareth in that Luther saith (as is set down above) that he was first awake; and that then after the Disputation begun; But howsoever admit it were but a spiritual fight or Disputation, yet in either case the persuasions & arguments, whereunto Luther here yieldeth, came confessedly from the Devil; & what difference then is there, whether the Devil made them to Luther by sensible conference, or by inward suggestion?   

Animadversion LIX.  
AS Luther was instructed by the Devil to impugn the Mass; so were Carolostadius and Swinglius (too great introducers of Protestancy in those former times) in like manner indoctrinated by the Devil against the Mass. Touching Carolostadius, (whom Luther calleth a Man 
(f) Luth. in loc. come. Class. 5. pag. 47.  given over unto a reprobate sense.) This man impugned the Mass under pretence of Visions and pretended conferences with God, of whom the Book entitled: Conspiracy for pretended reformation, thus writeth: Carolostadius 
(g) Luth, tom. 3. Penens. fol. 68  a preacher professing the Gospel, etc. attributed much to Cabinet teachers, and pretended conference with God; And yet his pretended visions were but mere Illusions of the Devil, of whom even Luther thus saith: Carolostadius 
(h) In Theol. Calu in Pr●●em.  had his expositions from the Devil. As concerning Swinglius (whom Conradus Schlusse●burg the Protestant) calleth a man of unfortunate memory) This man disputed publicly at Zurick for the abolishing of the Mass, and received confessedly his nightly Instruction by Dream from an Admonisher, 
(i) So writeth Swinglius of himself herein. tom. 1. l. de sub. fid. Eucharist. fol. 249.  whether Black or white (saith he) I remember not. Which Instruction is acknowledged by Protestants themselves to be a mere Imposture of Satan. For thus hath Conradus Schlusselburg left recorded: Sole 
(k) In Theol. Caluinist. in ●roaem.  meridiano clartus est, non Deum verum, sed Diabolum ipsissimum etc. It is more clear than the Sun, that not the true God, but the Devil himself did inspire the Sacramentary Heresy into Swinglius by Dream. Thus far of these three former main Impostors, (I mean Luther, Carolostadius, and Swinglius) all of them receiving their instruction from the Devil, for their abolishing and impugning of the Mass.   

Animadversion LX.  
divers A●liaphorists, or Neutrals in Religion, do maintain, that whosoever believeth the Apostles Creed, & living a good life may be saved. Now that the Creed cannot be the Boundary, or limit of Christian faith is thus proved: First, because though the Protestant and the Catholic do indifferently repeat the Creed, yet they understand every Article thereof in a different sense, th●one from the other. For example, I believe 1. in God. The Catholic believes, that his God no way cooperateth, or worketh sin in man. The Protestant believes, that God doth; and therefore Beza saith, that God 
(l) In his Display of Popish practices. p. 102.  exciteth the wicked will of one thief to kill another. And in jesus 2. Christ, his only Son. The Catholic believes in Christ, who is God of God, and equal to his Father, who suffered Death (quoad sufficientiam) for all mankind; A Saviour, who died only in Bo●y, and not in Soul; Finally a Saviour, who from his first Conception was endued with all knowledge wisdom, and providence; & exempt from all ignorance, passion, and perturbation: The Protestant believeth in Christ, as his Saviour, yet in all these circumstances touching Christ, differently from the Catholic. Descended 3. into Hell. The Catholic, by Hell, in this place understandeth Limbus Patrum, from whence our Saviour did deliver the souls of the lust, there detained till his coming: But the greatest part of Protestants do understand in this article, the grave, by the word, Hell. He 4. ascended into Heaven; both the Catholics and the Protestants do teach, that Christ truly in body ascended up into Heaven; whereas the Lutherans 
(m) Luther. bib. de sacra Caena Domini, tom. 2. fol 11●.  do teach, that Christ's Body is in all places, with the Divinity; And that therefore it did not after his passion really ascend up into Heaven, it being there both before and after his passion. To judge 5. the quick and the Dead; The Catholic believes, that Christ shall so judge man, as that his good works (receiving all their force from our Saviour's Passion) shallbe rewarded. The Protestant believeth that Christ shall reward only a ba●e, and special faith. The like disparity of the belief of the Articles of the Creed by the Catholic and the Protestant, might be exemplifyed in the other following Articles of the Creed here omitted for brevity. Only I conclude, that seeing it is the sense, and not the words only, which makes the Creed, which Christians ought necessarily to believe; and seeing the Catholic & the Protestant believe the words thereof in different, or rather contrary senses; therefore it followeth, that it is not sufficient for a Christian, in respect of faith, only nakedly to believe the words of the Creed; but he is obliged (if so he expecteth salvation) to believe the Articles thereof in that sense (and in no other) wherein the Apostles did dictate them.   

Animadversion LXI.  
ADmitting, that both Protestant and Catholic did believe the Creed in a true sense; yet followeth it not, that this belief (I mean in respect of belief only) were a sufficient belief or faith, for the salvation of Man. The reason hereof is this; because it is most certain, that there are divers points of Christian Religion, holden necessarily to be believed in the judgement both of the Protestant and Catholic, and yet the same points are not contained or expressed in the Creed. And to insist in these following: 1. That there are certain Divine writings of infallible authority, penned by the Holy Ghost; which w● commonly call the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. 2. That there are spiritual substances, which we call Angels, and that many thousands of them did fall after their Creation, and are become those malignant spirits, which we call Devils. 3. That there is any material place of Hell for the wicked, of which we find nothing in the judgement of the Protestants, seeing they understand the grave, by the word, Hell, in the Creed. 4. That the pains of the damned shallbe for all Eternity. 5. That Adam presently upon his Creation did fall from the Grace of God; and thereby transferred Original sin upon all mankind. 6. That the world was once drowned for sin, which inundation is commonly called, noah's flood. 7. That our Saviour, whilst he conversed here upon earth, did work any miracles. 8. That S. john Baptist was our Saviour's precursour, or forerunner. 9 That our Saviour did choose to him certain Men for his Apostles, who first did preach and plant the Christian faith throughout the whole world. 10. That Circumcision is now forbidden, as a thing . 11. That there are any Sacraments of the New Testament, instituted by Christ for the good of man's Soul. Lastly, (to omit some others) 12. That before the ending of the world, Antichrist shall come; who shallbe a designed Enemy of Christ, and shall labour to subvert and overthrew all Christian Religion. All these points both Protestant and Catholic do believe, and hold, that the belief of them is necessary to Salvation; And yet not any of these Articles are expressed or set down in the Creed: Whence I conclude, that the Apostles Creed cannot be a sufficient boundary, to contain and limit an available Faith.   

Animadversion LXII.  
THe bitter Inuectives of the Protestants (one against another) are of sufficient force to discover their dissensions in doctrine; as where Luther saith: We 
(n) Luther in Thes. Cont. Lovaniens. Thes. 21.  seriously iu●ge the Swinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretics, and Aliens from the Church of God. And to confront this, Swinglius thus retorteth upon Luther: Luther 
(o) Swingl. tom. 2. in resp. ad Luther. fol 458.  is guilty of high blasphemy, against the nature, and essence of God etc. To descend to the Puritans and Protestants in England, we find, that the book entitled, Constitutions, and Canons Ecclesiastical, printed anno ●604. doth ipso facto, excommunicate the Puritans for their maintaining of these positions following, as they are there set down in the Book: The worship of the Church of England, is corrupt, superstitions, unlawful, repugnant to the Scriptures; The Articles of the Bishop's Religion are Erroneous, their Rites Antichristian etc. Now, the Protestants do thus requited the Puritans, saying: The 
(p) M. powel in h●s considerations.  Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismatics cut of from the Church: And again: The 
(q) M. Pa●ks in his Ep. De●ic.  Puritans seek to undermine the foundation of faith. Now add hereto, that although infinite other passages might be brought to show the great discord in faith among the foreign Protestants; yet there is no one more short Argument to convince this point, then to recur to the four Catalogues of Protestant Books, set down in the later end of the Book called. The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church. In which 4. Catalogues, one may find about three hundred Books, written in great acerbity of stile, by one Protestant, against another. The names of all which books are taken out of Coccius his Thesaurus, or from Hospinian; both which Authors died many years since. Now if so m●●y Books of disagreements in faith, among the Protestants, were made within so sport a Time; how many hundred more might be alleged, if one did know all other Books written by the Protestant against the Protestant, since the death of those two former men?   

Animadversion LXIII.  
MAny vulgar and unlearned Protestants (and especially the Caluinists, & Puritans) do condemn the Catholic Roman Religion, because it defendeth and practiseth divers Ceremonies; they ignorantly terming such Ceremonies, Idolatrous and superstitious. And there is no one argument more prevailing with such men to avert them from our Catholic Religion, the● this: Now, to take a way this scandal o● stumbling block, I say, that if it were God good pleasure, to have his Faith and Religion of the old Testament (which for the time was the true Religion) to consist much in Ceremonies, as we see it did fa●● out in the several Sacrifices apppointed by God: In the Tabernacle, with the appurtenances, and of what matter, number, and qualities all things should be, as also with provision of Oil and Lamps; The Ark, The propitiatory, the Consecration of priests, the Institution of all vestures, vessels, and other holy things then belonging to the service of God; & all these to be made, performed, and done after a strange and different manner, as we read in Exodus: As also the Institution of Circumcision (consisting in paring away a piece of flesh, which served for freeing Man in that time) from Origin● Sin: the preparing and eating of the Paschall Lamb; sprinkling the doors with the blood thereof, and infinite other Ceremonies recorded in the foresaid book of Exodus; I say, if this was Gods unsearchable Will to ordain these things, during the time of the Old Law, wherein he would have the Honour, Service, and worship exhibited to ●im partly to consist: why then may not our Saviour institute the Religion & faith of Christians believing in him, to be attended on with divers Ceremonies; and yet this without any Superstition or Idolatry? Now our Adversaries common evasion to this our Argument, is to say; that God instituted Ceremonies in the Old Law, to serve as figures, or Types of things, which were after to fall out in the New Law; which Ceremonies were then to end, upon the promulgation of the faith of Christ. This answer is most impertinent. First, because not all the Ceremonies in the Old Law, (but only some) did serve, as figures or Adumbrations of things to happen in the New Testament. Secondly, because the Question here is not, why, or to what end the Ceremonies of the Old Law, were instituted; but only whether Ceremonies tending to the worship of God be pious, & lawful? Therefore I conclude, that seeing the Ceremonies in the Old Law were instituted by God's direction for the worship of him, as we read in Exodus c. 8 Ostendas populo Caeremonias, & ritus colendi, (let the other secondary end of them be what it will) that therefore, and by force of Gods proceeding in the Old Law, we Christians may not think strange, that our Saviour (being God and Man) would now in the New Law institute (and give to his Church the like power) some Ceremonies and public Rites, wherewith he will be worshipped, and wherein part of Christian religion shall consist Now therefore let our Adversaries (if they can) give any true reaso● why the Ceremonies of the Old Law (b●ing incomparably more in number) shall be accounted lawful, and yet the Ceremonies of the New Law, or Testament (as long as they are reputed, but Ceremonies) must be reputed superstitions a● Idolatrous.   

Animadversion LXIV.  
WE Catholics charge the Protesta●●● with ancient Heresies. For example, w● show, how the Manichees according to S Austin deprived Man 
(r) L. de Haeres. cap. 4●.  of Freewill; Ho● ●ouinian 
(s) jer. l 1. count. I●●in & Aug l. Haeres. cap.  taught that Fasting was not m●ritorious, and Virginity was no better, the● wedlock or marriage. How Aerius 
(t) Austin l. de Haeres. c. 33.  taug● it to be most unlawful to pray, or offer●● Sacrifice for the Dead How the Arians 
(u) L. 1. cont. Marin. cap. ●.  rejected all unwritten Traditions: who a●●● 
(x) Athanas. in Apolog. pro fuga.  perpetrated Sacrilege against the Sacraments, Altars, Priests, and Religious person. How the 
(y) Austin l. ● Vnitate. cap. 12.  Donatists taught the Church of Christ to be Jnuisible. How the Denial 〈◊〉 the Real Presence was condemned by certain ancient Heretics of 
(z) Theodoret Dial. 3.  Jgnatius h●● tyme. How Zenaias 
(a) Niceph. l. 16. ca 17●  Persa impugned all worship, due to the Images of Christ, and his Saints. Finally (to pass over many other Protestant Doctrines, first introduced by the old Heretics:) how the 
(b) jerom, in Explic. Symbol. ad Damas'. & Aus●. de Temp. serm 91.  Possibility of the Commandments was condemned in certain ancient Heretics. In the condemnation of all which points we are to observe, that the Heretics of those ancient times and our Protestants did, without any difference or disparity at all, believe the same Heresies, or Negative Conclusions, as being in no sort varied through any Circumstances, or other Collateral respects. Now by way of recrimination the Protestants seek to involve us Catholics within in the said fault of teaching ancient Heresies; But observe the difference between, what the Catholics do teach, and those old Heretics touching the objected and alleged points, and thou wilt wonder good Reader, at our Adversaries for their so charging of us. I will exemplify this for brevity in this one point, and so ex uno discite omnes. D. Fulke insulteth against the Catholics, thus saying: Of the 
(c) D. Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. p. 22.  Heretics Caiani, you have learned to call upon the Angels: he producing Epiphanius in proof hereof: Now Epiphanius his true words of this point are these: Non 
(d) Epiph. Haeres. 38.  posse aiunt aliquos saluari etc. The Heretics Catani taught, that not any could be saved, till they had gone throughout all sin; and committing thereupon wicked things and actions; they called upon the name of such, as were true Angels, and of such as were by them untruly termed Angels, referring to this Angel, or that Angel (proprian actionem) their peculiar action; saying, when they committed their wickedness: O tu Angelo, utor tuo opere: O Angel, I now use or perform: thy work etc. Now who can with any show of truth charge us Catholics with the Heresy of the Catani herein? since it is the unvariable Jdentity of an Heresy conspiring in all circumstances, which must insimulate several men within the belief thereof: But do we Catholics teach or believe touching praying to the Angels, such beastly points as these Caianis are here charged by Epiphanius to have done?   

Animadversion LXV.  
IT is a main point to observe, whether Protestancy, or our Catholic Religion do more incline, by force of their doctrine, their different professors to Vice & Turpitude of manners, or to Virtue and Piety in conversation. Since we read: 
(e) Luc. 6.  Vnaquaeque arbor de fructu suo cognoscitur: Let us then take into our consideration divers positions of both the Religions. First then touching the Protestants principles: Luther 
(f) Serm. de Moyse.  saith, that the Ten Commandments appertain not to Christians; with whom Fox conspireth in these words: The ten 
(g) Fox. Act. Mon. pa. ●335.  Commandments were given us, not to do them. This being supposed as true, why should a man be punished, for breaking any, or all of them? The Protestants doctrine of justification by faith only, much encourageth a Man to sin; since thereby neither Good works are necessary, nor sin can any way endanger our Salvation. For we find Luther thus to teach: It 
(h) Luth. upon the Galathians Englished. c. ●.  is impiety to affirm, that faith without Charity, justifieth not. And Conradus Schlusselburg 
(i) In Catal. Haeret. in Epist. Dedicat.  will not admit good works to be necessary to Salvation, only Necessitate praesentiae. Now that committing of sin is not prejudicial to Man's Salvation, is averred by D. Whitaker, thus writing: Si quis 
(k) Contra Bellar. controuers. 2. q 5. p. ●0.  actum fidei habet, ei peccata non nocent: Sins are not hurtful to him, who hath an Act of faith. Again D. Whitaker thus further teacheth: Christiani 
(*) Whitak contra Camp. rat. 8. p. 153.  execratione legis liberantur: if so, why may not a Christian without fear break the ten Commandments? And according hereto Fulke thus teacheth: David 
(l) In his Tower disput. with Edmund Camp. the second day's Conference.  even when he committed adultery, was, & remained the Child of God. To be short: Luther thus encourageth Man to sin, saying: A 
(*) Luth tom. 2. wittenb. de captivit. Ba●il. fol. 74. and Luth. in loc. Com. Class ● c. 27.  Christian baptised is so rich, that though he would, he cannot lose his Salvation, by any sin (how great soever) unless he will not believe; and again; as nothing iustifyeth but belief, so nothing sinneth, but misbelief. To proceed, the Protestants doctrine of Reprobation, which teacheth, that some Men are condemned to Hell, even from their Mother's Wombs, though they labour never so much in exercise of Virtue, tendeth to the same effect: according hereto Caluin (Instit. l. 3. c. 23. paragr. 6.) saith: God by his Counsel and Appointment, doth so ordain, that among men some be borne destined to certain Death, from their Mother's womb, who by their perdition may glorify his Name. In like manner the infallible Certainty of Salvation of others, worketh the same effect; since it teacheth that he, that is predestinated to be saved, is assured of his Salvation, notwithstanding the greatest facinorous Sins whatsoever, which he shall at any time perpetrate. Which Certainty of Salvation by our Adversary's Doctrine, is most infallible even during the committing of Sin; Since otherwise if upon the new committing of any Sin, the party should begin to be uncertain of his salvation, then followeth it, that his former certainty was no true certainty at all. But now to turn our eye upon some of our Catholic Theorems, and to observe, whether they intent either to the increase of Vice, or Virtue. We teach, that works (accompanied with a true faith) as they receive their price and virtue from the promisse of Christ, and from the dignity of his passion, do justify; which Doctrine therefore must needs greatly encourage the believers thereof, to the exercise of Good works. We further reach restitution for wrongs committed. We teach Confession of sins (an Act otherwise most ungrateful to Man's Nature) and this not to be efficacious, except it be attended on with Repentance; and with a full Resolution, not hereafter to commit the like Sins confessed. We maintain the doctrine of Purgatory, which much curbeth a Man from committing of Sin, since this Doctrine teacheth, that a sinner (if so he make not satisfaction in this world before his death) must suffer temporal torments, after his Death. We in like manner teach, and allow Fasting, and yet D. Willeth saith: Neither is 
(2) Willet in Synops. pa. 243 Wittenberg. in Ex●g. Po●●d cap. 7.  God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. We also approve the Doctrine of Single life and Chastity; to which doctrine Luther 
(3) Luth. tom 5 1. Cor. fol. 107.  is so adverse, as that he thus writeth: Marriage is as gold, and Spiritual or single life, as dung. We further teach and commend Voluntary Poverty; the contrary to which doctrine D. Willet teacheth in these words: He 
(4) Willet in Synops. pag. 245.  is an Enemy to the glory of God, who changeth his rich estate, wherein he may serve God, for a poor. So just reason had S. Edwin Sands (a most forward Protestant) thus to write even out of his own experience in Travel: Let the 
(m) In his relation of Religion's.  Protestants look with the eye of Charity upon those of the Papacy, and they shall find some excellent Orders of Government, some singular helps for increase of Godliness and Devotion, for the Conquering of sin, for the profiting in Virtue. Thus far for a taste, whether the Catholic Religion, or the Protestants do more incline a Man to Virtue or Vice?   

Animadversion LXVI.  
IT is granted by our Adversaries, that Austin, Jerome, Epiphanius etc. and the rest of the Fathers of those ages were maintainers of Papistry (as they call it.) And according hereto we find Luther to say: I 
(n) Luth tom. 2. contra Regem Angliae. fol. 344.  regard not, if a thousand Augustine's stood against me, of Jerome he thus writeth: In the 
(o) In Colloq. Mensal. de Patrib. & lib. de seruo arbitrio.  writings of Jerome there is not one word of true faith in Christ, and perfect Religion; Finally he thus concludeth: The 
(p) Luther ubi supra.  Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far exceed all the Doctors of the Church, yea even Austin himself. Well, I no● infer from all this, that all the Articles of our Catholic Religion were believed in the days of Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian; all which three Fathers lived presently after the Second Age. Thus I dispute: Austin, 
(q) Austin against Origen in Haeres. 43. against Tertull in Haeres. 86. against Cyprian, in tom. 3. lib. de Baptism. 2. cap. 7. See also Jerome in lib. contra jovinian. & Vigilanm. Epipha. l. de Haeres.  Jerome, Epiphanius, and others, did write against Origen for his teaching, that the Devils in the end should be saved; against Tertulli●n for denying 2. marriages; against Cyprian, for his maintaining Rebaptization. Now here I insist. If Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, had dissented from Austin, Jerome, Epiphanius, and other Fathers, in those Catholic Articles, wherewith they are truly charged by the Protestants, then without all doubt Austin, Jerome, and the rest would in their Catalogues of Heresies, and other their writings, have as well registered other their opinions for Heresies, in which Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian had dissented from them, as they did register the three foresaid Heresies. But no such condemnation is extant in their writings; from which consideration we inevitably conclude, that what Articles of our Roman Religion were taught by Austin, Jerome, and the rest of those ages, writing of the Heresies of those times, all the same Catholic points were also indifferently taught, and maintained by the foresaid most ancient Fathers, Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian.   

Animadversion LXVII.  
WHereas some of our Adversaries labour (what they can) to keep intercourse with the ancient Fathers; knowing that it is a foul blemish to their Religion, absolutely to break with them; and that thereupon they endeavour to detort divers of their authorityes against our Catholic faith; therefore for the better preventing in general of all such misaplyed testimonies, I have thought good to set down these ensuing Premonitions.  
The first, that seeing the Fathers could not foresee what Opinions of faith would rise in these times, that therefore they could not write of all things now questioned, so distintly and clearly, as now could be wished. And touching the Father's impossibility hereof; It is acknowledged by 
(r) Beza in Epist. Theolog. Epist. 82. p. 382. Kempnitius Exa part. 1. fol 80. D. white in his way to the true Church Preface to the Read. Sect. 7.  Beza Kempnitius, D. white, and other Protestants. Now therefore it cannot be expected with any show of Reason, that the Fathers should condemn most articulately, fully, punctually, or ex professo, every point maintained by the Protestants at this day.  
The second Observation; That we are to understand any obscure saying of a Father, agreably to his more many plain and more clear say; And m●ch more than that we ought not to insist upon any seeming doubtful saying, against many more, which are plain, and for such confessed. And therefore Snecanus (the Protestant) saith well herein in these words, touching the authorityes alleged out of Tertullian: It is 
(s) Snecanus, Method. descript. pag. 424.  fitting, that the fewer be understood by the more, and lest one speec● should overthrew many, that one is to be expounded according to all rather than against a● Which assertion is most true, & grounded even upon force of Reason.  
The third Observation; That we ought to understand the Father's doubtful Saying, according to the then common receaded Opinion of the other Fathers. This caution is observed precisely by S. Austin: For whereas julianus (the Heretic) to prove, that Children were without Original Sin, objected this sentence out of Saint chrysostom: We baptise Jnfants, though they have no sins: S. Austin teacheth how to understand this obscure sentence saying: Jntellige 
(t) Austin, come. 7. contra julian. Pelag. lib. ● c. 6.  propria, understand it of sins of their own (or actual) and there is no contention; But thou wilt say, why did not chrysostom add this word: Propria? The reason was, because chrysostom disputing in a Catholic Church, he thought he should not be otherwise understood; No body was then troubled with such a Question; you not as then wrangling, he spoke securely. Thus far S. Austin.  
The fourth observation; We ought (according to our Adversaries own rule) to distinguish, when a Father writeth Doctrinally and Dogmatically, or sententially, and ex professo; from that which the same Father writeth Antagonisti●è, and in heat of dispute: For that in this later kind, the Father's speaking ad personam, and being more attended and busied, how to convince and overcome their Adversaries, than always precisely observant or circumspect of their manner of speaking, (which they never doubted would be understood otherwise, then according to the Catholic received sense) their meaning may the more colourably be mistaken. According hereto some of the ancient Father's writing against Pelagius and his Sect, who ascribed overmuch to , did not perhaps so fully dispute in the defence of the Catholic Doctrine of , as they might have done. This course the Fathers did sometimes take (of which the 
(u) Kemp nit. Exa. part. 1. fol. 80. D. Humphrey in jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5.  Protestants make advantage) that thereby they might the more easily convince their Adversary's Heresy, resting so much on the contrary side.  
The fift observation (which in part conspireth with the former:) The Fathers sometimes in a Rhetorical and amplifying manner do use certain transcendent speeches (as also some more moderate Catholics have done) in praise of our Blessed Lady, or in honour of the Cross, or the like, then being taken literally, can well be justified: But they were more bold so to write, because they (as then having no Adversaries to their Catholic doctrine in those points) might rest assured, that their words would be taken in that pious sense, wherein they delivered them. Of which kind of their writing our Adversaries take hold, against the said Fathers.  
The last observation here shallbe, that when the Catholics do allege the Fathers, the Protestants seek to charge the said Fathers so alleged, with some one Error, or other, and therefore say they, his authority is to be rejected in any other point; which especially happeneth in Tertullian, Origen, & Cyprian, as is above intimated. But to this you may answer, that you produce the Father's only in such Catholic points, touching the which they were not written against by any other Father; and therefore their authority therein is of force; since it is presumed hereby, that all the other Fathers (and consequently all the Church of God) agreed with them therein.   

Animadversion LXVIII.  
IF your Adversaries pretend, that all the write and memory of Protestants in former ages were extinguished by the Popes of the said, and after succeeding ages, you may show how absurd this Assertion is; And the reason hereof is, in that the Popes of those times could not presage, that Protestancy should in these our times sway more, than any other Heresies condemned in their very times; which other Heresies remain yet registered to this very day, by the acknowledgement of the Protestants. Again, the personal 
(x) Benedictus the third, was written against by the Council of Constance. Gregory the s●auenth by Benno. Eugeniu● (the Pope) was written against by the Council of Basill.  vices and faults of some Popes are recorded in histories, yet to be read. Is it then probable, that the Popes were so solicitous to extinguish all remembrance of the Protestant faith, & yet content to suffer their own less justifiable lives of themselves and their predecessors to be registered, for all ages after to peruse? Lastly, in the Canons of each age, there is made mention of all particular Heresies of those times condemned by the said Counsels; Stands it then with any show of Reason, that the Pope, and the Counsels should be so void of judgement, as carefully to register all other impugned Heresies, and on the other side, as carefully to suppress all arising opinions of Protestancy?   

Animadversion LXIX.  
IF you intent to bring and object any foul and wicked say (especially out of Luther, against the Blessed Trinity, or about his acknowledged Lust, and sensuality) be careful to note the Edition of the Book, wherein such say are to be found; For in some later Editions of his works, many such sentences are for very shame left out, and vnprinted: And thereupon there are divers Protestants, who utterly deny, that ever any such wicked, or sensual words were written by him.   

Animadversion LXX.  
Our Adversaries labour by several ways to depress the force of Miracles, exhibited in proof of the Roman Religion: For first, some of them do deny the working of all Miracles; and to fortify this their denial, they think it sufficient, if they can produce but any one or two strange relations, supposed to be Miracles, and yet after discovered to be but forgeryes, to the disgracing of all true Miracles; but this evasion is weak, seeing by force thereof we should deny all the books of Scripture, because some false write were in the Primitive Church obtruded under the names of the Apostles, as 
(y) Count Adverse. log. & prophet. l. 1. c. 20.  Austin, and 
(z) Hist. l. 3. c 19  Eusebius do record. Again if they will deny all Miracles, they may also by the same reason, deny all History, either profane or Ecclesiastical. Therefore if we will ascribe so much confidence to the write of Eusebius, Zozomene, Austin, Jerome, and others, as we do to the lyues of Livy, or Commentaries of Cesar, or to Speeds Cronicle, we cannot reject all Miracles for forgeryes & untruths. Other of our Adversaries confess the doing of many Miracles urged by the Catholykes, but then they ascribe them to the power of the Devil, and do commonly style them: Antichristian 
(a) So do the Cent. call them Cent. 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5 1486. In like manner Osiand. also styleth them Cent. 10. 11. 12.  wounders, and lying signs. But against this subterfugion; I say, it cannot be applied to the Miracles wrought in the primitive Church, and eecorded by Zozomene, Austin, Jerome, and others long before the coming of Antichrist, since most of our Adversaries do place Antichrists first coming, in 
(b) So doth D. Willet teach in his Synop. p. 160. D. Fulke in his answer to a counterf. Cath. p. 36. D. Downenam in but his Treatise of Antichrist. lib. 2. pag. 4.  Boniface who was Pope in the year 1006. long after the days of the former Fathers: Secondly I say, that our Adversaries in ascribing the Miracles to the working of Antichrist & (consequently of the Devil) do over near interleage with the jews condemning the Miracles of Christ in these words: This man 
(c) Math. 1.  casteth not out Devils, but by Belsebub the Prince of Devils. Agai●● I say, that the Protestant Vrsinus trul● saith, that the 
(d) In Comment Catech. 21.  Power of the Miracles o● Antichrist are not true Miracles, but such, a● the Order of Nature observed, may be effected by the deceit of men, or Devils: But divers miracles are recorded, which transcend the power of the Devil; as to stay the flux and reflux of the sea, or to cure incurable diseases, without applying any secondary means, and such like etc. Of which there are many miracles recorded by the former Fathers. Thirdly, I aver that the Miracles of the Devil are ever done to some vain and pernicious end, and not for the good of the particular person, upon whom they are wrought. Fourthly, if the Devil could effect such stupendious works, how chanceth it, that he would never concur with condemned, and on all sides acknowledged miscreants, to strengthen and countenance thereby those men's misbelief, and Heresies, I mean with Simon Magus, Porphiry, julian the Apostata, Mahomet etc. and other Sects condemned, even by the Protestants for most erroneous? Lastly I conclude, that our Adversaries in condemning all Miracles, either but as forgeries, or as the Works of the Devil, do charge divers Princes, Commonwealths, Ecclesiastical persons, and infinite multitudes of people both of former and later times, with extreme simplicity (yea Lunacy) in suffering such forgeries and delusions to be obtruded upon them. I will adjoin hereto the miraculous preservation for many hundred years of certain Relics: I will pass over the uncorrupted bodies of many Saints even till this day, and will insist in the miraculous preservation of the Eucharist, stabbed with knyfes by the jews many scores of years since (if not some hundreds) and yet remaining to be yearly seen, even with spots of blood, at the chief Church in brussels in the low Countries. What can our Adversary's answer herero? If they grant the miracle, they withal grant the truth of the Doctrine of the Real Presence: To deny it, by saying, that when one host is corrupted through time, another is secretly thrust in the former place, is more than absurd: For would the Princes of those Countries, the Lords, Bishops, Prelates, other Religious persons, and the whole Communality suffer themselves to be thus abused from time to time with such impostures, but that they would be most desirous to find out and descry all such wicked stratagems and devices? Truly I do not see, what answer in full weight of Reason can be given hereto, to convince the judgement of any sufficient Man.   

Animadversion LXXI.  
THat Catholic Religion affordeth Salvation to the Professors thereof, is proved several ways even from our Adversaries own pens: And first: Because o●● Adversaries do reach, that the Church o● Rome (notwithstanding her presumed Errors) is the true Church of Christ; & consequently her Professors capable of Salvation. According hereto thus writeth D. Field 
(d) L. of the Church. c. 46. : We doubt not, but that Church, ●t which the Bishop of Rome with more than Lu●●ferlike pride exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God; and that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ. D. S●●● averreth the same verity in these words: 
(e) In his Defence against Penry. pag. 176.  you think, that all the Popish sort, whe●● died in the popish Church, are damned, y●● think absurdly, and do descent from the judgement of all learned Protestants. With the●● conspireth (to omit others) D. Covell th●● writing: We 
(f) In his Defence of M. Hoo●er. pag. 77.  affirm them of t●e Church● Rome to be a part of the true Church of Chri●● and that those, that live & die in that Church may be saved. Another Reason may be taken from the lawfulness (even in the judgement of the learned Protestants) of Children of Papists (as we are styled) whether they be Baptised by Catholic Priests, 〈◊〉 Protestant Ministers: And the cause of th● lawfulness thereof is delivered by the Protestants in these words: Because 
(g) So teach the Divines of Geneva, in their propositions and principles disputed at Gen. p. 178. the same is taught by D. Whitg●●fe in 〈◊〉 Defence, pa. ●23. by M. Hooker. Eccles po●. l. 3. p. 131. & by other  we affirm, that those Children are comprehend within the Covenant of eternal life, by means of the faith of their Parents. A third Reason of the Protestants true judgement herein concerneth the Fathers of the Primitive Church in general; who that they lived & died Papists is most evident, by what hath been confessed above by our Adversaries. Now, of them Cartwrigh● thus writeth: I 
(h) Cartwright, in his Reply, & in D. Whitguifts Defence. p. 82  doubt not, but that divers Fathers of the Greek Church, who were patroness of Freewill, are saved. The like charitable opinion of the Fathers (though Papists both living & dying) is delivered by 
(i) Contra Ra●. Camp. pag. 78.  D. Whitaker, notwithstanding the Father's Doctrine, touching Satisfaction and Merit of Works. Finally the Protestants judgement is also herein manifested in their commonly giving, in their writings and speeches, to Austin, Jerome, Ambrose, and the rest (whom they acknowledge to Profess and die in our Catholic faith and Religion (the name and title of Saint, as S. Austin, S. Jerome, etc.   

Animadversion LXXII.  
IF it be urged, that the Denial of Freewill (for example) was taught by Manicheus; and consequently that the Protestant faith therein is as ancient, as those Primitive times; It may be replied, that this particular Heretic, or that particular Heretic, did teach but one or other Protestant Article in those days, and were sustantly written against for such their Innovations; the said Innovatours being Catholic in all other points. And therefore you may tru●● infer, that the urging of such examples is merely impertinent, either for the proof of the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion, or for the Visibility of the Protestant Church in those days.   

Animadversion LXXIII.  
IF you dispute with any Protestant by writing, or interchange of letters, writ nothing, but Matter with as much compendiousne●, as the Subject will bear, without any Verbal Excursions, or digressions: For this proceeding will force your Adversary to reply (if he will reply) to the Ma●ter; For otherwise leaving the materials point, which is chief issuable, and to be handled, he will shape a reply to other less necessary stuff delivered by you; And than his Reply must pass abroad (by the help of many partial tongues) for a full answer to your whole Discourse.   

Animadversion LXXIV.  
WHereas you may allege divers acknowledged Heresies (both in the judgement of Protestants, & catholics) out of the Books concerning divers persons, who believed some few points of Protestancy, recorded in the said Books; here I speak of W●●ldo, Wiclife etc. Now if here your Adversary Disputant doth avouch (as many Protestants do) that these Heresies were falsely obtruded and fathered upon the said presumed Protestants by their Enemies: you may here reply, that to affirm this is against the force of all Reason; For seeing the same Books do make indifferent mention both of the Protestant opinions, and of the other Heresies, defended by the same Men; either the said Books are to be believed in both, or to be rejected concerning both: If the first, than it is certain, that those men did believe those acknowledged Heresies: If the later, than the said Books are not of sufficient authority to prove, that there were any Protestants in those ages.   

Animadversion LXXV.  
IN your proofs drawn from Scripture, labour to be much practised in the Protestant Translation of it; of which infinite places make for the Catholic Cause, even as the Scripture is translated by the Protestant; For this Course gauleth them far more, then if you insisted only in the Catholic Translation.   

Animadversion LXXVI.  
I Will here set down certain Observations, which will easily solve all difficulties or Argument whatsoever, rising from Scripture or Fathers, against Communion under one kind only.  
1. First, whereas sundry places of Scripture and Fathers do speak indifferently, o● only make mention of Communion under both kinds, or do affirm the use thereof to be lawful; yet from hence (which is the point issuable) cannot be inferred any precept of Christ as necessary to Salvation.  
2. Secondly, when such places are urged, which contain in them a Precept, the same places are either understood of Priests (who do sacrifice) whose bond is different from theirs of the Laity: Or else they concern only the time, and place, when 〈◊〉 where, that custom of both kinds was observed; for the custom of the Church, whether it be general in the whole Church, or particular in some notable place thereof, a● in one Country, Kingdom, Province etc. hath the binding force of a Law, or Precept: And yet the same custom once ceasing, the bond of all authority produced in defence of the said custom, doth also cease.  
3. Thirdly, In the allegation of any authority for Communion under both kinds, we are diligently to observe, whether the same maketh mention of Forms, or kinds (to wit, of bread and wine) or only of the things contained under the said kinds, to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the examples of the first we shall seldom or never find any one, which importeth a Precept, or Necessity: And though of the later innumerable authorities may be brought; yet they are all impertinent; seeing the Body and Blood of Christ are as truly received under either kind alone, as under both: And the Precept in that Case determineth only the thing, and not the Kind.  
4. Fourthly, divers authorities alleged for Laical Communion under both kinds, are understood only of Spiritual (not Sacramental) receiving.  
5. Fiftly, though the Fathers sometimes signify the Communion to be most complete and perfect, when it is administered and received under both kinds, in regard that the effects thereof are more lively expressed; yet this perfection is but only accidental; and therefore from hence cannot be inferred a Precept, or Necessity: For (for example) innumerable th●ngs there are, which accidentally would conduce to Grace and Salvation, which yet do not fall under any bond or Command.  
6. Sixtly, the Fathers sometimes reproving such as abstained from the Chalice, do only speak against the Manichees, and some other Heretics, who upon a certain superstition abhorred Wine, as foolishly thinking it to be the gall of the Devil, as S. Austin 
(k) Austin de ●aeres. cap. 46.  relateth; and withal denied Christ our Saviour to have had true blood; which nothing concerneth this our Catholic Doctrine.  
7. Seavently, (which is greatly to be noted) that whereas the only point i● Controversy is, whether Christ our Saviour gave absolute command, not only to Priests but also to the Laity, to receive under both kinds; As also whether the Primitive Church did (universally for time & place, and as matter of necessity) observe the same; yet no one testimony of Scripture or Doctor can be produced either expressly, or by necessary consequence, affirming the same.  
8. Eightly and lastly, admit any authority could be produced, from a Doctor mo●● ancient and learned, which expressly and i● direct terms should contradict our Catholic Doctrine; yet the same with any ma● of judgement and virtue, could bear 〈◊〉 force against the infallible Decrees of Ecumenical, and General Counsels of God● Church. Seeing not the Church unto th● Doctors, but the Doctors and their writings ought, and are to be submitted to th● Church. And this observation hath i● weight and force in many other points 〈◊〉 Controversies. Thus far touching the seu●rall observations concerning Communi● under both, or one kind only.   

Animadversion LXXVII.  
THat sentence of chrysostom is most tru● Prout 
(l) Homil. 33. in act. Apost  Haeresiarchae nomen, ita Secta v●catur. To whose judgement herein D. F●● subscribes in these words: Surely 
(m) Of the Church. l. 2. c. 9  it is 〈◊〉 ●o be denied, but that the naming after the name of Men, was in the time of the primitive Church, peculiar and proper to Heretics, and schismatics. Which sentences do deadly wound the Innovatours of these times, who take their Denomination from Luther, Swinglius, Caluin etc. And so for distinction sake, they are termed, Lutherans, Swinglians, Caluinists etc. as signifying thereby, that they take their doctrine and faith from those particular men. Neither can our Adversary's retort upon us this Argument, by saying that the Word, Papist, is imposed upon us. This proveth nothing; seeing as in those ancient Heretics, (I mean the Arians, Entichians, Manichees) so in our Sectaries (to wit the Lutherans, Swinglians, Caluinists &c.) these names are given only out of necessity, & to distinguish their doctrines from all other doctrines. But now the name, Papist, was soyned but lately by Luther, and this not out of necessity, but of reproach: our faith ●nd Doctrine being acknowledged to have ●eene in the world many hundred years, before Luther's tyme. Again the word, Papist, is not restrained to any one Pope, or to any peculiar Doctrine taught by the present Church of Rome; but it is indifferently extended to all Popes, and to all the Doctrines taught by the said Popes: And 〈◊〉 for the names of Franciscans, bernardin's etc. in the Catholic Church, it is clear, that these Names are not imposed for change of Faith; but only for Institution of several Degrees of a Virtuous, and Religious Life.   

Animadversion LXXVIII.  
IN any notable change of Religion, these things following are to be demonstrated or pointed out. First, the Author of such a change (as above is intimated.) Secondly, the New Opinion or Doctrine. Thirdly, the time, in which this new Doctrine was broached. Fourthly, the place, in which it was taught, Fiftly, and lastly the Persons, who did oppugn and resist this New Doctrine at its first appearance. None of all which circumstances can be showed concerning our Catholic Religion, since the times of Christ and his Apostles; But all these Circumstances can be made plain, and discovered in the Protestant Religion; therefore it demonstratively followeth, that the Catholic Religion is the sole ancient Religion, first unchangeably proceeding from the Institution of our Saviour, & that Protestancy is but Innovation and Novelty, as but lately receiving its being, from some other particular Innovatours.   

Animadversion LXXIX.  
NO Protestant hath more laboured to search into the change of our Catholic Religion, then D. Whitaker hath done, who insisteth in divers particular Catholic Doctrines; undertaking to show by whom (as Innovations) they were first brought in: Therefore I will touch all his Instances, showing them to be more ancient (even by the Confession of other learned Protestant's) then the persons, or times, to whom they be ascribed by the said D. Whitaker. Only for greater brevity I will content myself with one only acknowledgement (instead of many) of one learned Protestant in each example. To begin. D. Whitaker saith: 1. It is 
(n) D. Whitak. Cont. Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480.  manifest, that who first delivered Purgatory for a certain Doctrine, was Gregory the Great. But against this bare testimony, I oppose the acknowledgement of D. Fu●ke, thus writing; 
(o) In his Confutation of Purgatory. p. 36●. & pag. 303. & 303.  Tertullian, Austin, Cyprian, Jerome, (all more ancient than Gregory the Great) and a great many more, do witness, that Sacrifice for the Dead (and consequently the doctrine of Purgatory) is the Tradition of the Apostles. 
(p) Whitak contra Duraeum. p. 490.   
Secondly, D. Whitaker saith: Innocentius the third, was the first, that instituted auricular Confession for Necessary. This Jnnocentius lived in the year 1200. To free this Pope, the 
(q) Centurists. Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 127  Centurists speaking of the ancient Church's usage, do charge Cyprian, and Tertullian (who lived in the second and third age) For their teaching private Confession even of thoughts, and lesser sins.  
Thirdly, D. Whitaker 
(r) D. Whita. l. contra Du●aeum pa. 480.  affirmeth that Pope Siricius was the first, that annexed perpetual Chastity to the Clergy men, or Ministers of the word: This Instance is overthrown by the Confession of Kempnitius 
(s) Kemp nit. in Exam. Concil. Trid. p. 50. & 601.  who doth reprehend Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, Ambrose, (all far more ancient, than this Siricius) for their impugning the supposed lawfulness of Priest's Marriage.  
Fourthly, D. Whit●ker saith: Qui 
(t) D. Whit. ubi supra pa. 480.  Transubstantiationem primus excogitavit, it fuit Innocentius tertius in Concilio Lateranensi; who first invented Transubstantiation, was Innocentius the third in the Council of Lateran, which Council was holden in the year 1215. But I take this objection away by the authority of D. 
(u) jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5 pa. 628.  Humphrey (as else where I have showed) who writeth that Gregory the Great, and Austin (both which lived a thousand years since) at their first plantation of Christian Religion here in England, to use the Doctors own words, Jnuexerunt Transubstantiationem.  
Fiftly, the D. further proceedeth, saying; Who 
(x) Contra Duraeum. l. 7. c. 480.  first invented to say, that the body of Christ, frangitur, sensibiliter tractatur, & dentibus atteritur, was Nicolaus the Second. To this I answer, saying: it is but a verbal objection, and quarreleth at certain phrases & words; which words are to be understood in a sober and restrained construction; and therefore we find the like Phrases to be used by S. chrysostom (far more ancient than Nicolaus the second) saying: Christus non 
(y) Chrysost in joan. Homil. 45.  se tantum videri permittit defiderantibus, sed & tangi, & manduçari, & dentes ●arni suae infigi: Christ doth not only permit himself to be seen of those who desire to see him, but also to be touched, and eaten by them, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh. A point so true, that Jacobus Andraeas (a famous Protestant, but a Lutheran) answereth this very objection of Nicolaus, saying; 
(z) Andraeat in confutat. joannis G●inaei p. 274. 275.  Nicolaus nihil continet, quod in scriptis Orthodoxorum Patrum (Chrysostomi inprimis) non continetur.  
Sixtly, D. Whitaker 
(a) D. Whitak. ubi supra pa. 480.  instanceth in Pope Calixtus, for introducing the Fast of Lent, and of Quatuor Temporum. But Kempnitius thus writeth hereof: Ambrose, 
(b) Kempnit. in Exam. Concil. Trid. part. 2. pag. 8●.  Maximus, Taurinensis, Theophilus, Jerome, and others, do affirm the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition; and thus they make it more ancient (by the Confession of Kempnitius) than the times of Calixtus.  
Seaventhly, and lastly, D. Whitaker thus writeth: Boniface 
(c) D. Whita. ubi supra pag. 480.  the third, was the first, that entitled the Roman Church to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, The Head of all Churches. But this is refuted by D. Whitaker himself, who affirmeth, that 
(d) D. Whitak. ubi supra pag. 480.  Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus did challenge superiority over other Bishops, by forging a Canon of the Nicene Council: so inconstant is this Doctor in his Instances; which later assertion of his touching Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestine, (though it be most false, so far as concerns any forging of a Canon, and only invented by our Adversaries) yet it frees Boniface the third, from this supposed Innovation.  
Thus far now of D. Whitakers Instances: where we are to understand, that some of the former Popes did command a more strict observation in some points; as in not Marrying of Priests, touching Auricular Confession, touching the Fast of Lent, then afore was observed: Now D. Whitakers calumny here lieth, in a wilful confounding of the First Institution of a thing, with a Renovation, or practise of the same thing: which imposture is above noted.   

Animadversion LXXX.  
I Will here draw a Porisma, or Resultancy out of this last Animadversion. It is this: Whereas we see such Protestant Doctors (and those of the greatest Rank) who labour by all reading and means whatsoever, to show the beginning of our Catholic points; and after all their disquisition and search they cannot find any colour or pretext to insist in more, than Five or sixth points to be innovated; and yet such their Instances evidently discovered to be of no force, but most falsely alleged: Therefore the Reader may here justly presume, that no instances of Innovation can be but suggested, or imagined to be given of the Change of the Church of Rome, touching the doctrines here following: To wit, 1. Visibility of the Church, 2 Praying to Saints. 3. Freewill, 4. Merit of Works, 5. Works of Supererogation, 6. Indulgences, 7. Monachism, 8. Limbus Patrum, 9 Images, the 10. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, 11. Communion under one kind. 12. Universality of Grace, 13. The Necessity and virtue of the Sacrament, 14. Inherent justice, 15. the knowledge of Christ, as Man; 16. His being God of God, and divers others. Here I say, no colour (how little soever) can be given of Innovation, or change in any of these our Catholic Articles. For if any pretext or shadow could be afforded of any change of these, or of any other doctrines here not specified, D. Whitaker, or some other of our learned Adversaries would not have been altogether silent therein.   

Animadversion LXXXI.  
THe Catholic Doctrine touching Praïng to Saints, is chief delivered in these ensuing propositions. The first: It is not lawful to pray to Saints (as Authors, or principal dispensers of Divine Benefits) to obtain from them either Grace or Glory, or the means of obtaining eternal felicity; since so to pray to them, were to make them Gods. And therefore when it is said: Our Lady help me etc. we are not to insist in the naked words, but in the sense; which is; Our Lady help me by her intercession, and prayers to her Son; no otherwise then S. Paul saith of himself: To 
(e) 1. Cor. 9 ut omnes fac●rem saluos.  all men I am become all things, that I may save all; meaning, by his preaching, and prayers for them.  
The second. Saint's are not our immedia●● Mediators by way of Jntercession to God; b●● whatsoever they demand, or obtain for us, they demand and obtain it through Christ, and his Merits: and according hereto we find, tha● all prayers of the Church made to Saints, end with this clause: Per Christum Dominu● nostrum.  
The third. The Saints, which reign with God, do pray for us, not only in general, but it particular. This is proved from those words in jeremy: If Moses 
(f) jeremy c. 15.  and Samuel tha● stand before me, my soul is not towards th●● people. From whence it is inferred, that Moses and Samuel (then being dead) might & were accustomed to pray for the people of Israel. I will conclude this passage with refuting the chief Argument of our Adversaries touching praying to Saints, which is taken, in that the Saints in their judgement do not hear us. Now the weakness of this Reason is discovered, in that damned Spirits, and Devils, being far absent from their Witches and Conjurers, do nevertheless heart their Jnuocations and Conjurations, as is warranted by all experience. Shall any man think then, that the B. Saints of Heaven are deprived of hearing the Prayers made unto them? Since otherwise it would follow, that spiritual Substances by losing of Heaven (I mean the Devils by their fall) did obtain greater prerogatives and excellencyes, than the Souls of the Saints do by gaining and ascending up to Heaven. An absurdity incompatible with the Goodness, wisdom, and Charity of God.   

Animadversion LXXXII.  
WHen a Catholic signeth himself with the sign of the Cross, he but only implicitly desireth that, by this sign, which explicitly, and by mediation of words he desireth by prayer; For seeing the sign of the Cross doth figure out to the eye our Saviour's Passion: and seeing the secret desires of the hart are manifested & made known, as well by signs of the body (as dumb men, and such as cannot speak, are accustomed to make) as by Prayers, and words of the tongue: Therefore if it be lawful for me with the tongue to pray, that God will forgive my Sins through the merits of Christ his Death and Passion; it must needs then be consequently lawful form to pray to him to the same end, without words, by making the sign of the Cross: seeing the making of this sign with an intention of inward Prayer (the Cross being the badge and remembrance of our Saviour's death and Passion) is all one, as to pray in words, by virtue and force of the same death and Passion: Since the hand in this case by making the sign of the Cross, doth supply the place and office of the tongue.  
That many Miracles have been wrought by the sign of the Cross (forbearing the testimonies of the ancient 
(g) Vide Tertul. in init. Scorpiaci. Epiph. Haeres. 30. Nazianz. orat. in julian. Nyssen. in vita Gregorij Thauma turg. Athan. in vita Antoniuses. Jerome in vita Pauli primi Heremitae. Austin in l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei.  Fathers) I will here content myself with the acknowledgement of D. Covell, thus writing: No 
(*) D. Covell in his answer to M. Burg.  ma● can deny, but that God (after the Death of hi● Son) manifested his power to the amazement of the World, in this contemptible sign, as being the instrument of many miracles.   

Animadversion LXXXIII.  
ALl men know, that praying upon bea●●● is but the repetition of the same praye●● several times; the beads serving only b●● to number, or count the times. This c●stome is warranted by the Example of our Saviour; who being in the Garden, did repeat one and the same prayer (to wit, I● 〈◊〉 be 
(h) Math. c. 2●.  possible, let this Cup pass from me) three several times. Again if it be lawful to say the Lords prayer seven times a week, as I presume many Protestants will confess that they do; why not then is it lawful to repeat it seven times or more every day? Lastly, once granting the Prayer to be good, the goodness of it doth warrant the often repetition of it. The precise number of repeating one and the same prayer (among Catholics) hath a Mystical reference; either to the number of David's Psalms; or to the number of the years that our B. Lady lived here upon earth, or to the number of our Saviour's wounds; or to the number of the persons of the most Blessed Trinity; or to some other such Mystery.  
The antiquity of praying upon Beads is confessed by the Centurists 
(i) Cent. 4. col. ●329. , and Osiander 
(k) Epit. Cent. 4. p. 454. , to have been twelve hundred years since. In further antiquity of praying upon beads, Zozomene thus relateth of Paul the Monk: In dies 
(l) Hist. l. 6. c. 20.  singulos trecentas orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam reddidit, etc. Paul every day did say three hundred prayers to God, as a certain tribute; and lest through forgetfulness he might err in number, he kept three hundred little stones in his bosom, and at ending of every Prayer he cast away a stone; & when he had cast away all his stones, than it was evident to him, that he had performed his said number of three hundred Prayers.   

Animadversion LXXXIV.  
THe benediction of Creatures to spiritual ends (and particularly of Holy water) is most ancient: according here to we find that 
(m) L. 8. Apost. Constit. c. 35.  Clemens, 
(n) De Ec●●es. Hierarc. cap. de ●aptis.  Dionysius (both which lived in the Apostles days) as also cyril 
(o) Cate. ch. 3. , Cyprian 
(p) L. 1. Ep. 12. , Ambrose 
(q) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. , Austin 
(r) L. 6. in julianum.  etc. do make frequent mention of holy water.  
Cyprians words in the place cited are these. Oportet mundari & sanctificari priùs aquas à Sacerdote. The lawfulness of Blessing of Creatures is warranted by the Example of Christ, who intending to multiply the Bread, did look up towards Heaven, and 
(s) Luc. 9  Blessed the loaves. Now that the Church hath authority to bless Creatures to spiritual ends (and this for the furthering of devotion) is proved from her greater authority, practised in changing the Sabaoth day; and now being changed is inalterable: One chief end of blessing of Creatures, is to signify spiritual Effects. Thus sprinkling of Ashes signifieth Penance, Palms signify Victory etc.   

Animadversion LXXXV.  
THere is a great disparity between urging Protestants against themselves, and against the faith by them then maintained, (which in this small Treatise is in several places showed) and by urging such, as were reputed sometimes Catholics, speaking and writing against any point of the Catholic Religion; seeing it is evident, that all such testimonies of this second kind, are not the impartial convincing Confession of the learned Adversary against himself, but the unequal Assertions of the parties themselves, in behalf of their later conceived Innovations, for the time by them held, though (in divers of them) after retracted, by their final submitting of themselves, and their writings to the Catholic Church. This Animadversion I give with reference to the writings of these men following; Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, Cassander, Cornelius Agrippa, Polidore Virgil, Nilus, Aeneas Siluius, and some others, of which divers of them finally retracted their former received Novelismes, and reincorporated themselves (before their death) into the Catholic Church. This Animadversion (though above intimated) I thought good to set down, in that it is observed, that Doctor Morton in his Apologia Catholica, doth chief, and mainly rely upon urging the impertinent and defective testimonies of the foresaid men (and some others, such like, for brevity here omitted) for the impugning of our Catholic faith and Religion.   

Animadversion LXXXVI.  
Strive to be more conversant and ready (if opportunity will not suffer you to be ready in all) in such Controversies, which consist in practice; as about Praying to Saints, Jndulgences, worshipping of Images, Adoration of the most B. Sacrament, Communion under one kind etc. then in others, which test only in belief and Speculation; seeing the vulgar Protestant soon taketh exception against these former, and will expect greater satisfaction from you in them; Because these being subject to their sense (in regard of the daily practice of them) come needest within the compass of their narrow Capacity, & are by them often charged (through the calumny of their chief Masters, abusing their Credulity) with many supposed abuses; Whereas other points of Faith, which consist chief in Theory and speculation, are further removed from their apprehensions, and consequently they are least entangled with the doubts thereof.   

Animadversion LXXXVII.  
TOuching those Articles, or Controversies, which chief rest in speculation, be well travalled in the Question touchi●● the Jnfallibility of God's Church, as also 〈◊〉 that other Question, That the Scriptu●● (without the Church's attestation▪ cannot pro●● itself to be Scripture, and that all points of belief do not receive their proof from Scriptu●● alone: seeing these two Controversies potentially include most of all other Controversies within themselves. Also be most re●dy in the Question touching the continu● Visibility of the Protestant Church, seeing t●● Protestant's must seek to prove th●● Church ever to have been Visible, if th● will aver it to be the true Church of Chri●● Whereas indeed you shall find even by t●● Confession of his own Brethren (as is e●●● where in this Treatise made clear) that t● Protestant is not able to instance for ma● Centuries and Ages together, so much a the being but of one Protestant.   

Animadversion LXXXVIII.  
THere is scarcely any one Argument o● Credibility, which more strongly and irr●pliably proveth the Antiquity (and there●● the truth) of the Roman Religion, and the Novelty and lateness of Protestancy (and consequently the falsehood thereof) then this following. There cannot be alleged any one Protestant, (speaking of such Protestants, as are out of Controversy, and acknowledged for such, both by the Catholics and Protestants) who was not either in himself, or in his forefathers, first a Catholic, and who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions, afore never generally taught, did separate himself, & departed from the Catholic Church, afore then in Being; Of which sort of men those words in S. john are understood: Exierunt 
(t) 1. joan. 1.  ex nobis, the very stamp or signature of Innovatours in doctrine. This Assertion is most true. And to exemplify it in the chiefest Protestants, or maintainers but of some points of Protestancy. I mean, Luther, Swinglius, Ochinus, Jerome of prague, Waldo, Wicleffe, Albigenses, Berengarius; and to rise to the Heretics of higher times, as Acrius, jovinian, Manicheu●, and the rest; it is certain that all these w●re Originally Catholics, and by introducing of some Novelismes, did departed from the Catholic Church. That all these (and all such others, as might be alleged) were originally Catholics, is demonstratively proved from the implicit Confessions of the learned Protestants themselves, acknowledging the Inuisibility of their own Church for so many ages together. Thus for example writeth Sebastianus Francus, the Protestant (as above is s●ewed:) For 
(u) In Ep. de abrogandis in universum omnibus Statut. Eccles.  certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; and that for these fourteen hundred years, the Church (he meaning his own Protestant Church) hath not been external and visible; with whom agreeth D. Fu●ke, saying: The 
(x) Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Cathol. p. ●i.  Church dec●yed immediately after the Apostles days. Furthermore to enlarge myself in the Protestants Confession herein, M. Perkins (the Protestant) saith thus: Before 
(1) Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed. p. 400.  the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth and that our Church was not then visible to the world. M. Napper in like manner thus writeth: God 
(2) Napper upon Revel in c. 11. & 12. l. 2. c. 2. p. 25.  hath withdrawn his visible Church from open assemb ies to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of 〈◊〉 hundred, & sixty years; the true Church abiding ●●t●nt & invisible. But M. Brocard confesses further in these words: During 
(3) Broc. upon the Revel. p. 100L.  even the second and third age (meaning after Christ) the true Church of God, and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. I ●ill here conclude with D. Downam, thus averring: The 
(4) D. Down. lib. de Antichrist.  General defection of the Visible Church (foretold 2. Thessaly. 2.) begun to work in the Apostles times. So luxuriant are the Protestants in confessing the Inuisibility of their own Church for many ages together. So as we see, that by the Confession of these learned Protestants, it is clear, that all the former alleged Protestants, or any others, which could be (though falsely) suggested for such, were Original Catholics. Now I hence conclude, that if on the one side it be proved, that every Protestant did Originally come out, and depart (by venting of some Protestanticall Positions) from our Catholic Church, afore enjoying a Priority of Being; and that on the otherside, our Adversaries cannot show any visible Society of men, professing the true Christian faith, from which, as more ancient, the present Roman Religion departed (as it is impossible for them to do:) I say, I hence conclude; that our Catholic faith is most ancient (and therefore true) and Protestancy (in respect thereof) but late Innovations, and therefore false.   

Animadversion LXXXIX.  
I Will here rest in some Animadversions touching the Doctrine of the Real Presence: And touching the saluing of the Difficulties thereof, we are to recur to God's Power, which may in part be explicated in these ensuing Propositions.  
The first Proposition. God is able to do every thing, which Man's understanding is able to conceive. The Reason hereof being, in that Ens & Verum in general are the Objects of our mind; and therefore what may be conceived or understood, may really exist, and consequently be performed.  
The second proposition. All Christian Philosophers affirm, that not only things, which man is able to apprehend in his mind, but also many other things incomprehensible in man's understanding, God can effect: forseing (say they) that Totum Ens is Intelligible, and to be conceived, and that which is not Ens, cannot be conceived, and that the imbecility of Man's understanding is such, that it supposeth many things cannot exist or be (and consequently cannot be apprehended by the understanding) which may indeed exist, and so may be performed by God: Therefore say they, that things incomprehensible in Man's Understanding, God can effect.  
The 3. proposition. God hath in All things so much an Active power, by how much they have in themselves a passive power: And which is more, we Christians do believe, that the Active power of God can extend beyond the Passive power of things; and agreably hereto we believe, that God created the world of Nothing: Now to make a thing of Nothing, is not to depend or rely of the Passive power of the Subject; seeing in this kind of producing there was no preexistent Subject at all, much less any Passive power thereof.  
The fourth. Every thing is possible to God to be done, which implieth not a Contradiction. Now what implieth a Contradiction, is impossible to be done; Because what implieth a Contradiction, supposeth a Being, and a Nothing of a thing; and all this at one time, and in one manner of circumstance: And therefore if such a thing could be, then could a thing be, whose being (a thing most absurd) should consist in a Not being.  
The fift. It riseth partly from out the former propositions, that what faculty, or Operation God doth impart to any thing created, the same he also ominenter (as the Schoolmen speak) retaineth to himself, and is able to perform it, without the help of any Secondary cause, This must be assumed as true in force of Reason, since otherwise, the Creature should transcend in might the Creator; which Axiom being applied to divers difficulties in the Question of the Eucharist, demonstrateth that God can preserve an Accident without its Subject, and that he can keep a Body without any circumscription of Place, since otherwise it would follow, that in these Examples, A Subject and Place, should be able to perform more, than God could perform; which were great blasphemy to maintain.   

Animadversion LXXXX.  
THe Philosophers do assign three things to concur to Magnitude. The first of these is, that every Magnitude should have an extension in itself, and have Partem extra partem; That is, that one part should not be confounded in itself with another part; and consequently an intrinsical site, & disposition of parts. And this is of the very essence of Every Magnitude, and cannot be separated from it.  
The Second thing, agreeing to every Magnitude, is to have a commensuration & coextension with Place that is, an intrinsical disposition, and order of parts according to place. This second ariseth from the first; and consequently as being later in Nature then the first, may by God's power be separated from the same; yea it is actually separated from the first in the highest Sphere, the parts whereof are in no place.  
The third, and last property of Magnitude is, to extrude and drive away all other Magnituds from that place, which is made equal and commensurable to itself; that is, not to suffer another Magnitude to be in the same place with it. Now, as the second was later than the first, so this third resulteth out of the second, and is later than the same in Nature, and therefore may be separated from it. Now according to this doctrine, we Catholics hold, that Christ's Body in the Sacrament hath the true and whole Magnitude of his Body; But this Magnitude hath there only the first Condi●ion, which is essential to every Magnitude (to wit, to be extended in itself, and by reason of that intrinsical extension, to have partem extra partem (but it hath not the second Condition of Magnitude (much less the third,) for it is not coextended with any place, but existeth whole (in respect of all external place) in every part.   

Animadversion LXXXXI.  
THe two supreme Mysteries of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, do afford a strong Argument, that a Body may at once be in several places (and consequently Christ's Body). Thus I dispute: In the Trinity we find an Unity, or (as I may term it) an Individuality of Nature, and a Diversity of persons, sortable to the Unity of a Body, and multiplicity of places. Now here every one of these three Persons is identifyed really & formally with this Nature, whereas the Body is only externally conjoined with the Place. Now touching the Jncarnation, we are taught, that one Hypostasis, or Person is in two Natures; which two Natures are far more different in themselves, then several Places c●n be. Again the Union here between the Person and the Nature is far greater (as being intrinsical and substantial) then the Union of the Body and the Place can be, which is only accidentary and extrinsical: and which is more (a circumstance wanting in the Union of the Body, & Place,) here the Person or Hypostasis is identifyed, and made the same Really, and formally, with its Divine Nature. Here then to recapitulate, If in the Trinity one Nature be i● three several persons, without any confusion of the Persons, or distraction of the Nat●●● And if in the Incarnation one Hypostasis, or Person be in two different Natures; and yet neither the Natures confounded, nor the Hypostasis distracted or multiplied: muc● more easily than may Christ's Body by divine power be in several places at one and the same tyme.   

Animadversion LXXXXII.  
THe like Argument to the former we may draw from God's ubiquity. God being 〈◊〉 one, and an indivisible thing, is in all place● and things whatsoever, (for if he were not so, then would it follow, that God should be circumscriptible, and consequently not infinite.) It cannot be here answered, that h● replenisheth all places, as one; since we m●●● grant, that he is able to create another world, far remote from this, and so should be present in the same world, and consequently in several and far distant places. Neither is this doubt salved by saying, th●● God is only a spiritual Substance, and no● a Body; since this point advantageth nothing: for the main reason, why it shou●● seem, that a Body cannot be in divers places, is not taken so much, á mole corpori● quam ab unitate corporis; which Unity, as it i● more perfect in God, than it can be in a Body, so it should seem, it should be no less divided and distracted in itself in God, then in a Body, through his being in diversity of Places.   

Animadversion LXXXXIII.  
TO these two former Arguments (in proof that a Body may be in two places) I will adjoin this following taken from the Nature of Eternity, It is this: Eternity is defined to be, Instans durationis, non flucus, that is, an Jnstant of Duration, which is ever present, and never passeth away. Now the difficulty (and such, which in the like touch of the doubt is greater, than the former confessed difficulty of a Body being in several places at once) consisteth in this, To wit, That this Jnstant of Duration, being but one Jnstant, yet is, and coexisteth in several times, both Past and to Come: and yet neither is this Instant divided, or multiplied, nor these several Time's confounded. And here a circumstance, much agravating the difficulty i●, that divers Places, wherein we may suppose a body to be, do still remain at one time, though far remote one from another; whereas these Precedent, and future times (in both which one and the same Jnstant of Duration, or Eternity is) are ever in a flowing and departing Motion, and consequently cannot by any possibility remain together. For we see, that the time past doth ever give place to the time to come. Thus far of these former Animadversions in this place, to show, that it is possible, that Christ's Bo●● may be in several places, at one, and th● same tyme.   

Animadversion LXXXXIV.  
IN all Positive and Affirmative Points o● faith, the Protestants do agree with the Catholics; the Protestants borrowing th● said Affirmative points from the Church of Rome. According hereto we find Luth●● thus to write: We 
(y) Luther lib. Contra Ana. baptist.  confess, that there is under the Papacy most of the Christian Good, y●● rather all the Christian Good, and that from thence it came to us. We confess, that there is i● the Papacy true Scripture, true Baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keys to the remission of sins, the true office of preaching, true Catechism etc. I say further there is in th● Papacy true Christianity, or rather the tru● kernel of Christianity. Thus Luther.  
To the former position I adjoin this following: In such points of faith, wherein Protestancy dissenteth from the Roman Church; all the said points are merrely Negations to the contrary Affirmative Articles, believed by the Church of Rome. As for example, Denial of Real Presence, Denial of praying to Saints, Denial of Freewill, and so of the rest. Now from these two propositions do result these Inferences or Conclusions following: The first, that the Protestant, as he believeth any affirmative Articles with the Church of Rome, in that respect he is not a Protestant, but rather a Catholic, as ●king the belief of them from the Catholic Church, as is above said. The se●ond Inference: That Protestancy (as Pro●stancy) consisteth in Denial of such Affirmative points, which the Church of Rome affirms to be true; and not in believing ●ith the said Church, certain chief points ●f Christianity. The third Inference; Seeing ●he reduplicative formality of Protestancy re●teth in Negations, or privations of an Affirmative faith; and seeing Negations or privations have no Entity, subsistence, or real being; that therefore, Protestancy (as Protestancy) hath no reality of Being, but is in itself a mere Nonentity, or nothing; & consequently it followeth, that Protestancy cannot proceed from God, who is the Author of things, and of that which is, but not of that which is not, or is Nothing. The last Inference shallbe; That Protestants by their Denial of so many Affirmative Articles of Christianity, may seem to bear great Reference to Antichrist; who at his coming shall by his Denial of all points of Christian Religion, seek (what in him lieth) to annihilate, and overthrew all Christian Religion; And for such his proceeding some ancient Fathers do conjecture, that his name shallbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying, Nego; as Hippolytus Martyr writeth in Oratione de consummatione mundi. And this both by reason that this Greek Word maketh up the number, to wit, 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist in the Apocalypse cap. 13. as also in that Antichrist, & his Ministers at his coming both in their Denials and works, shall labour mightily to evert Christian Religion.   

Animadversion LXXXXV.  
THough Protestancy seem to maintain some Affirmative Positions, as Parity of Ministers, Marriage of Priests, and other Votaries, Reprobation, Christ's only Mediatorship by way of Jntercession, Christ suffering in Soul; yet it is evident that these poutions are only Affirmative in words, but merely Negative in sense; since they are Negatives to the Monarchy of the Church's Gouerment●, to vowed Chastity, to universality of Grace, to the Intercession of Saints, and to the all sufficiency of Christ's Corporal Death: All which our Catholic points are Affirmative. Such is the subtlety of Innovation in Doctrine as (for the greater honour) to invest their Negative Tenets, in Affirmative Titles.   

Animadversion LXXXXVI.  
THough in show of words, Falshood (as is above shown) may be delivered in Affirmatives; so I here say, that Truth sometimes is delivered in Negative Words, notwithstanding Truth is ever Affirmative, and Falsehood Negative; and therefore the Schoolmen truly teach: Intellectus 
(z) S. Thomas part. 1. q. 17.  decipitu● non circa quid est; sed circa, quid non est. To exemplify this Animadversion: To say, God is cruel, or Man is blind, though these say be delivered in Affirmative terms, and false; yet they are in sense and understanding merely Negative, since Cruelty is exclusive to Mercy, and blindness to sight: so on the contrary to say; God is not Cruel, and Man is not blind, though they be in terms Negative, & true; yet they are in sense Affirmative; only as denying the Negation of Mercy in God and of Blindness in Man.   

Animadversion LXXXXVII.  
Our Adversaries cannot agree among themselves, what Doctrines be Protestancy, and who ought to be truly termed Protestants: Can their Religion then be true, and descend from Heaven?  
Here than I will first show, within what narrow Limits our Adversaries do confine Protestancy, and the members of the Protestant Church: Next than I will discover, (such is the fluctuating and wavering judgement of them herein) how they are content at other times, to extend and enlarge those bounds, by affording Protestancy and the members thereof, a greater space or compass (as I may say) to expatiate and walk in.  
And to begin. D. Whitaker thus saith of the Papists: I will 
(a) L. 2. contra Duraum Sect. 1.  not allow the very name of a lawful Church unto the Roman Church, because it hath nothing, which a true Chu●●● ought to have. The Confession of Ausburg excludes the Anabaptists in these words; we 
(b) Cap. ●.  condemn the Anabaptists, who disallow the Baptism of Infants, and think them to be sa●●● without Baptism; to which sentence the Confession of Switzerland 
(c) Cap. 20.  subscribeth. The Arians are excluded from being Protestants by the foresaid Confession of Ausburg in these terms: We 
(d) Act. 1.  condemn all Heresies rising against this Article (meaning the Article of the Trinity,) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunomians &c. All Heretics are excluded out of the number of Protestants; for thus D. Su●cliffe teacheth: Heretics 
(e) In his first Book of the Church. c. 1.  are not of the Church; meaning of the true Church, (and consequently in his judgement, of the Protestant Church.) With whom agrees D. White saying: All 
(f) In his way to the Church. pag. 10.  Heretics teach the truth in some things, yet we deny them to be of the Church of God. That Schismatics are not of the Protestant Church, is taught, for thus writeth D. Fulke: 
(g) Of the succession of the Church.  What skilleth it, whether one, being drawn by Heresy or Schism from th● body of Christ be subject to eternal Damnation And D. Whitaker thus averreth: It 
(h) Controuers. 2. q. 5. cap. 9  is false, that Heretical and Schismatical Churches are true Churches. Thus far of our Adversaries excluding Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, Heretics, and schismatics from the Protestant Church, and not acknowledging them to be members thereof, nor their Doctrines, Protestancy. Now we will observe, what change and mutability of judgement herein our Adversaries show at other times, in willingly embracing all these former sort of men (and some others also) as good Protestants, and in state of Salvation. And first of the Papists, Luther saith: In 
(i) In Ep. contra Anabapt.  the Popery there is true Christianity yea the Kernel of Christianity, & many pious & great Saints. M. Hooker: 
(k) L. Eccles. Pol. 3. c. 1●8.  we gladly acknowledge them of Rome, to be of the family of jesus Christ: and M. Bunny: we 
(l) In his Treatise of pacification, sect. 18.  are no several Church from the Papists, nor they from us. The Anabaptists are admitted for good Protestants by Oecolampadius; saying: 
(m) L. 2. Ep. p. 63.  Baptism is an external thing, which by Law of Charity may be dispensed with. And D. 
(n) In his answer to the Protest. Apol. l. 4 cap. 3. sect. 10.  Morton: we Protestants judge the state of the Anabaptists, not to be utterly desperate. The Arians are acknowledged by M. Morton, to be of the same Church of which the Protestants are, and he giveth his reason in these words: Because 
(o) In his book of the kingdom of Is●ael, and the Church. pag. ●4.  the Arians hold the foundation of the Gospel. And M. Hooker seemeth to intimate the same in these words: The 
(p) Eccles. Pol. lib. 4 p. 181.  Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland etc. hereby insinuating, that those Protestant Churches of Poland did acknowledge the Arians, to be members of their Church.  
Of Idolaters, M. Hooker thus favourably writeth: Christians 
(q) Eccles. Pol. l. 3 pag. 1●0.  by external profession they are all, whose mark of recognizance hath in it those things, which we have mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters, wicked H●tikes etc. Infidels are also in our Aduersa●●● judgements, members of a saving Church● faith: for thus writeth Swinglius: Eth●●● 
(r) Swingl. Ep & Oecolam l. 1. p 39  si piam mentem domi foverit, Christianus 〈◊〉 etiamsi hristum ignoret. And hereupon S●●glius concludeth, that 
(s) Swing● tom 2. fol. 118. & 559.  Hercules, Socrates, ●ristides are now in Heaven, as is in another place showed. Finally the Protestants are 〈◊〉 courteous, as that they are content to ●●corporate Antichrist within their Church 〈◊〉 state of Salvation. This I thus prove; I● 〈◊〉 overmuch known and diuulged, that m●ny Protestants do teach with full mouth, that the Pope is Antichrist; Now then let 〈◊〉 see how at other times they writ of hi●, whom they hold to be Antichrist. and 〈◊〉 Religion Antichristianity. Here than we f●●● D. Whitaker thus to acknowledge: I will 
(t) D White. in his answer to the first Demonstration of D. Sanders.  not say, that from the time, that Papistry beg●● to be Antichristianity, the Pope's themse●●● have been all damned. And yet D. Whitaker 〈◊〉 where confidently averreth the Pope to be Antichrist. In like sort, M. powel hath the like sentence, saying: I will 
(u) In his answer to the last Demonstration of D. Sanders.  in no wise say, that all the Popes from the time, that papistry was first revealed to be Antichristianity, a●● damned. Thus much of this point; whereby we may discern the wonderful and unheard mutability of our Adversary's judgements, touching who are Protestants, and Professors of that Church, wherein a man may be saved. A demonstration unanswerable ●●le and irrepliable to prove, that the Pro●●●●ant Church and faith, such as these for●●r men do restrain, or enlarge it, is 〈◊〉 capable of Salvation. And how then can Christian know, if he will rely upon the augments of Protestants herein, to what 〈◊〉 of Protestants, or within what Church 〈◊〉 may range himself, for the Salvation of 〈◊〉 Soul?   

Animadversion LXXXXVIII.  
●N that there are many Catholic Articles, the which the jews before the com●ing of Christ did believe; therefore it followeth evidently, that the said Articles cannot be reputed to be Innovations, or lately invented Doctrines, but as ancient as the ●ymes before our Saviour's Incarnation: I ●ill exemplify in some. The Book Eccle●●asticus, admit for the time it be not Scripture, speaketh directly of our Saviour's ●●scending into Hell in those words, where it ●s said in his person: I 
(x Eccles. 24.  will pierce through ●●e sour parts of the Earth; I will look upon all such as be a sleep, and will lighten all them, that ●●ust in the Lord: A saying so pertinent for proof of Limbus Patrum, that D. Whitaker 
(y) Contra Duraeum. l. 8 pag. 5●7.  acknowledging the true sense thereof, avoideth it, by saying the Book is not Canonical; which at this present is impertinent, since here I seek only to prove the ●●uth of divers of our Catholic points, as being believed by the Ancient jews, before our Saviour's time, in their writings; whether Canonical, or not Canonical.  
Touching Prayer for the Dead, It is warranted by the example of judas 
(z) Machab. 2.  Machabaeus, the true servant of God; as also is taught by Rabbi Simeon (who lived before Christ) and divers other ancient Rabbyes; Rabbi Simeon thus writing of such, as are temporally punished after this life: After 
(a) In lib. Zoar. in cap 13. Genesis.  they are purged; from the filth of their sins, then doth God cause them to ascend out of that place.  
Touching Gods Induration, or hardening of pharao's hart, the jewish Rabins so conspire in affirming with us, the same to be by God's permission only, and not by his working, that Peter 
(b) Peter Martyr. in Epist. ad Roman. c. 9  Martyr, and Munster 
(c) Munster, in Annot. in Exod. c. 7.  do accordingly acknowledge this Exposition.  
Concerning Freewill, that place in Ecc●esiasticus, 
(d) Ecclesiast. 1●  to wit: Say not thou, he hath c●●sed me to err; If thou wilt, thou shalt observe the Commandments: He hath set water and fire before thee, stretch out thy hand to which thou wilt: Before man is life and death Good & Eu●●● what liketh him, shallbe given him. This testimony (I say) is so evident for Freewill, that D. Whitaker in answer thereto rejecteth the authority, saying: De loco 
(e) In resp ad ras. Camp. rat. 1 p. 25.  Ecclesiasticiparùm laboro etc. I make small account of Ecclesiasticus. Philo the learned jew, who lived in Christ his time, thus writeth: Man 
(f) Philo, in lib. quod Deus fit immutabelis.  hath Freewill, to which purpose is extant the Oracle in Deuteronomy: I have placed before thee Life and Death, Good and Evil; choose Life.  
Concerning Angels & Saints, the Book of Tobias, written before Christ, is so plain 
(g) Tob. 5.  with us, touching Patronage and intercession of Angels, that therefore D. Whitaker doth accordingly confess and say thereof: Jllum 
(h) Whitak. in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 1. p. 15.  verò Tobiae Raphaelem etc. Little do we regard the Example of Raphaell the Angel, mentioned in Toby etc. All this is different from the Canonical Scriptures etc.  
Concerning the force of Merit of Alms, and other good works, proceeding from true faith in the Messiah; The Doctrine of the Ancient Iewes is delivered in the Book of Toby● Alms 
(i) Tob. 1●.  doth deliver from Death, and doth purge all sin; and in the foresaid book of Ecclesiasticus: As water 
(k) Eccles. 3.  quenceth burning fire, So Alms expiateth sin.  
Touching unwritten Traditions, 
(l) Orig. hom. 5. in Numer. Hilar. in Psalm. 2.  Origen and Hilary do affirm, that Moses did leave many things unwritten, the knowledge whereof was continued by tradition: And Rabbi judas affirmeth the same of Moses: a thing so evident, that the doctrine of the Tradition of the jews is confessed by 
(m) writing upon the Book in Capitulis patrum.  Paulus Phagius the Protestant.  
That Monastical Life was not altogether wanting, but in some sort professed among the ancient jews, is witnessed by josephus, thus writing: The 
(n) joseph. antiquita●um judaicarum l. 18. c. ●.  righteousness of the Essenes' is marvellous etc. They enjoy their riches in Common etc. And in this course above four thousand men do live, having neither wife's nor servants etc. And in another place. Trial 
(o) joseph. l. de bello judaito. l. 2. cap. 7.  is had of a man's continency; and his other manners are for two years tried, and then he is taken into the Company.  
Lastly, to omit (for greater brevity) the Doctrine of Vows the doctrine of one Visible high Priest, head of the Church in those Jewish times; the Doctrine of the jews in remitting the ending of Controversyes, not to the Scripture, but to a certain visible and lively Judge; the doctrine of the jews concerning Confession of sin, all these being related by 
(p) Gala. in areanis Cathol. veritatis. l. 10 v. 3.  Galatinus; I will close this passage with Melchisedech his offering of bread and Wine in sacrifice, and the prefiguration thereby of our Sacrifice of the New Testament. Of this point Rabbi Phinees thus saith: In 
(q) Phinees in cap. 28. Numer.  the time of the Messiah, all Sacrifice shall cease, but the Sacrifice of bread and Wine shall not cease, etc. as it is said Psalm. 100 Thou art a Priest for ever, according to the Order of Melchisedech. Rabbi 
(r) Hasardan, in Bereschit Rabbi, ad cap. 14. Gen.  Hasardan, & Rabbi 
(s) Samuel in Bereschit Rabbi ad cap. 14. Genes.  Samuel say the like of Melchisedech his offering up of bread and wine, in figure of the Sacrifice now in the time of the New Testament; a point so evident, that 
(t) Bibliander. de SS. Trinitote l. 2. pag. 89.  Bibliander, the remarkable Protestant, doth not doubt to confess the same of the old Jewish Rabins. Thus far of the doctrines of the ancient jews before Christ his Incarnation: which doctrines we catholics at this day hold. All which doctrines are merely Dogmatic points, without any Type or reference to Christ his coming, that only of Melchisedech excepted; and therefore it cannot be answered, that the said doctrines should now cease upon our Saviour's coming in flesh into the world, as some ignorant men would suggest; but it must needs be that the said Doctrines, if they were true than they must be also true now. By which so many foresaid Examples of our Catholic faith, thus affirmed by the ancient jews, it is made most certain, that our Religion ●s not New, or lately invented, but most ancient and undoubtedly Apostolic.   

Animadversion LXXXXIX.  
IT is a most impudent assertion of D. Field, who thus writeth: We 
(*) D. F●●ld in his Book of the Church. l. 3. c 8. p. 76.  firmly believe, that all the Churches of the world, wherein our Fathers lived and died, to have been the true (Protestant) Churches of God etc. and that they, which taught, embraced, and believed those damnable Errors, which the Romanist do defend against us, were only a faction. But see now this most vast Lie is controlled. First then D. jewel thus acknowledgeth: The 
(u) jewel in his Apology of the Church. part. 4. c. 4.  Truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Hulderick Swinglius first came unto the knowledge, and preaching of the Gospel; And therefore 
(x) Bu●ter. in Ep. anno 36. ad Episc. Hereford.  Bucer styleth Luther: The first Apostle to us of the reformed Doctrine. And Schlusselburg, the great Protestant, thus contesteth the same: It 
(y) In Theolog. Calu. l. 2. fol. 130.  is impudence to affirm, that many leaned men in Germany before Luther, did hold t●● Doctrine of the Gospel. Yea Luther himself thus vaunteth of himself: Christum 
(z) Luther Ep. ad Argentinens.  à nobis, primo vulgatum, audemus gloriari. And truly the force of reason assureth us, that there were no Protestants at, or immediately before the breaking out of Luther. For if any were, why did they lie hid, and unknown at Luther's Rising? No other pretext can be alleged, but fear of persecution; But this cannot be alleged; For the Protestants (if any than were) might securely step out, and join themselves with Luther; considering that then divers Magistrates and Commonwealths had openly undertaken the Patronage of Luther's Doctrine, and Religion.   

Animadversion C.  
IN all points of faith the Authority of the Private Spirit is to be contemned, as begetting nothing but Noveltyes, and Innovation; And let each good Catholic anchor his judgement upon the authority of Christ's visible Church, and the chief Head thereof; assuring himself, that although Simon the fisher was not able to determine Matters of faith; yet that Simon Peter, and his Successors (assisted with competency of means) have ever an impeacheable Sovereignty granted to them, and a delegated authority from Christ himself, for the absolute discussing and deciding of all Controversyes in Religion: Tu 
(a) Math. 16.  es Petrus, & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae Jnferi non praevalabunt adversus eum. And truly if the visible Church of Christ, and the Supreme judge thereof could err in matter of faith; how could God be excused from Cruelty, by threatening to all Men eternal Perdition, if we be not obedient to the Church of God? Dic 
(b) Math 18.  Ecclesiae, & si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus. Furthermore as the Apostle saith: 
(*) Hebr. 8.  Our Testament is established in better Promises etc. meaning then the Testament of the Jews: But if it was said in the time of the Old Law, that he, who 
(c) Deuteron. 17.  presumptuously refuseth to obey the Commandment of the Pryest, that by Decree of the judge that man should die; what punishment them is he to undergo, who in Matters of faith and Religion, contemneth the authority of the High priest of Christ his Church, advancing his own private judgement above the said Authority?   

Animadversion CI.  
IT is most certain that Luther himself was not a perfect and entire Protestant (such I mean, as the present Church of England acknowledgeth for a true Protestant) my Reasons are these: First, because Luther after his rising, and ever unto his death, retained and believed divers of our Catholic Doctrines, disclaimed from by the Protestants of England. Secondly, because Luther taught and maintained several Heresies, I mean, Heresies even in the iudgme●● of our now Protestant's. To begin with the first branch: Luther ever maintained to h●s death the Real Presence, as the whole wor●● knoweth; and therefore his followers in th●● doctrine are called, for distinction lake Lutherans, by Swinglius and Caluin.  
Luther taught the Doctrine of 
(d) Luther. l. de Assertionibus Art. 30.  Evangelicall Counsels; to wit, that a man may do more, then that he is commanded.  
Luther taught the Doctrine of Purgatory, of which point see Tom. 1. Wittenberg 〈◊〉 Jndulgentijs: And answerably to this ground he is confessed by 
(e) Vrbanus Regius in 1 part. Operum formulae cautè loquendi, de sanct. cultu.  Vrbanus Regi●s, a Protestant, to defend Prayer for the Dead.  
Luther defended Prayer to Saints, of which point he thus writeth: De 
(f) Luther, in purgat. quorundam Articulorum, in Epist. ad Gregorium. Spalat.  intercissione Dinorum, cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio, & iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque indicandos.  
Luther taught and approved the use of Jmages, as is witnessed by Beza 
(g) Beza, in resp. ad Colloq Montisbelg par● altera, in praef .  
Touching the making the sign of the Cross upon our forehead, johannes Creucli●● a Lutheran thus writeth: Cùm 
(h) Crevelius in hi● refut. Caeremoni●rum missae, printed Magdeburg. 163. pag 118.  imus cu●●tum, fine surgimus è Lecto, cruse nos iuxta L●theri, & altorum piorum institutionc●●, signamus.  
Finally, to omit some other points, wherein Luther never dissented from the Church of Rome, Luther ever mantained, that the government of the Church is monarchial, & neither Aristocratical, nor Popular; as appeareth out of his own 
(i) Vide Luther. in loc. Com. Class. 1. c. 3. 7. pag. 107.  words.  
Now to come to relate Luther's Heresies (and such as are reputed for Heresies, and some of them for blasphemies, both by Catholics and Protestants, which he ever maintained without any after retraction) I first allege his impious Doctrine touching the most Blessed Trinity, concerning which he thus speaketh: 
(k) So relateth Swinglius of Luther so speaking. to. 2. ad respons. & Confut. Luther. fol. 474.  The Divinity is threefold, as the three Persons be etc. And according to this he expungeth out of the Litany this sentence: Holy 
(l) Luth. in Euchir precum anno 1543.  Trinity, one very God, have mercy upon us; and he further saith: Anima 
(m) Luth contra jacobum Laetomum, tom. 1. wittemberg. Latinê edit. anno 1551.  mea odit Homoousion, or Consubstantialis. Briefly Luther's Blasphemy was so odious & execrable against the B. Trinity, that Swinglius 
(n) Swinglius, tom 2. in respons. ad Confutat. Lutheri  did purposely write against Luther, touching this very point.  
Touching the Event of things, Luther holdeth (contrary to all Christian faith) that all things come to pass, through a certain Stoical and fatal Necessity, thus writing hereof: Nullius 
(o) Luther. in Assert. damnat. per Leonem Decimum, Art. 30.  est in manu etc. It is in no man's power to think Good or Evil; but all things (as Wicleffs Article condemned at Constance did rightly teach) proceed from absolute Necessity. Luther taught an Heresy, whereby the propagation of Christian Religion is much hindered; to wit, that it was not lawful to wage war against the Turk. His words are: Praeliari 
(p) Luth. in tom. 2. Wittenberg. & in Assert. Damnat per Leonem decimum. Assert. 34.  contra Turcas, est repugnare Deo, visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos.  
Luther denied all temporal Magistrates, thus teaching hereof: Among 
(q) Luther, de saeculari potestate, in ●●. 6, Germ.  Christians no man can or aught to be a Magistrate; but every one is to another equally subject.  
Touching faith and good works, Luther thus endoctrinateth his followers. Fides 
(r) Luther. to. 1 propos. 3.  nisi sit sine etc. Except faith be without good works, it doth not justify, nay it is not faith. And further: No 
(s) Luther in his Sermons Englished, pag ●76.  work is disallowed by God, except the Author thereof be disallowed before.  
Luther further taught, as D. Covell witnesseth, that 
(t) These be D. Covells' words in defence of M. Hooker, Art. 15. p. 101.  the Sacraments were effectual, though they were administered by Satan himself. Of which point Hospinian (the Protestant) thus also writeth: Lutherus 
(u) In hist. Sacr. part. altera. fol. 14.  co●sque progreditur etc. Luther proceedeth so far herein, that he maintaineth the Sacrament, to be a true Sacrament, etiamsi è Diabolo conficeretur, though it were to be consecrated by the Devil.  
To conclude, Luther so disualewed the sufficiency of Christ suffering in body for us, as that he most blasphemously teacheth, that Christ did not suffer only in body, but also his Divinity suffered for us: His words hereof are these: Cùm 
(x) Luther in Confess. Maiore in Caena Domini.  credo, quod sola humana Natura pro me passa est, Christus vilis, nec magni praetij Saluator est etc. If I believe, that only the humane Nature suffered for me, than is Christ a Saviour but of a base & small worth and himself needeth a Saviour. Thus far now in Demonstration, that Luther was not an entire Protestant, and such as is allowed by the present Church of England.   

Animadversion CII.  
TWo things, among others, concur (as is in this last Animadversion exemplifyed in Luther) to make a perfect Protestant; to wit, That he doth maintain all chief points of Protestancy: Thus he is not to hold only some few points of Prorestancy, and in the rest (being more in number, and of greater importance) to partake with the Catholics. The second thing necessary to a Protestant, that he doth not hold pertinaciously any main Heresy or Paradox, wholly impugned and contradicted both by Catholics and Protestants; For this man in this respect is rather to be styled an open Heretic, than a Protestant, even in the Censure of the Protestants themselves. Here now I aver, that this Animadversion clearly evicteth, that hus, Waldo Wicliffe, and the rest, so much urged for Protestants for the proof of the visibility of the Protestant Church in those ages; were no Protestants at all, and consequently, that the Protestant Church cannot be said to be truly in them.  
To begin with john hus, who lived anno 1400. The Articles, wherein hus and the Bohemians his followers, did believe, are related by M. Fox to be these following, saying: The 
(y) Act. Mon. p. 260.  only propositions were these four Articles; The first, Communion under both kinds; The second, that all Civil Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy; The third, that the preaching of the Word was free for all men and in all places; The Fourth, that open Crymes are in no wise to be suffered, for avoiding of greater Evil. Now, that hus himself was Catholic in all other points, appeareth from the Testimony of Luther, who thus speaketh of hus: The 
(z) In Colloq. Ge●man. cap. de Antichristo.  Papists burned hus, when he parted not a fingers breadth from the Papacy: for he taught the same, which the Papists do; Only he did find fault with their vices, and wicked Life; Against the Pope he did nothing. Thus ●uther of Hus●e. Now to the foresaid Heresies of hus, this is in like manner confessed and set down by M. Fox, 
(a) Fox Act. Mon. 230  to wit, that there are no Princes, Priests, or Bishops, while they are are in mortal Sinne. Of which his Heresy Osiander thus discourseth: Nullus 
(b) In Epitome. Cent. 15. pag. 465.  est Dominus Civilis, nullus est Praelatus, nullus est Episcopus, dum est in mortali peccato; Haec propositio non potest approbari etc.  
To come to Wicleffe, (who was first a Catholic Priest) Io. Stow thus relateth: Wicleffe 
(c) Stow in his Annals of England printed an. 1591. p. 425.  first inveighed against the Church of Rome, because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury from a certain Benefice. Touching the Catholic opinions ever holden by Wicleffe (among others) I allege these following: He maintained (besides Baptism and the Eucharist) the Sacraments of Order, and of Penance: in like sort the Sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction. For in Postilla in c. 15. Marci, Wicleffe mentioneth all the seven Sacraments. He also believed the Rites and 
(d) As appeareth in his book, de Apostasia c 18.  Ceremonies of the Mass. He was fervorous in praying to our B. Lady thus writing of this point: Hic 
(e) Wicl●ff ser. de As●●mpt. Mariae.  videtur mihi, quòd impossibile est praemta●i sine Mariae suffragio. H● acknowledged the ●orship of Relics and Images, saying hereof: Conceditur, quod Jmagines cum prudentia Mariae. sunt adorandae. 
(f) Wic of de Eucharistia c. 8.  Finally Wicl●ff so admitted the doctrine of Merit of Works, and Works of Supererogation, as that Stow thus writeth of him: Wicleff 
(g) Stow in his Annals, printed 1992. pa. 426.  & his Disciples went in Course rustet garments down to the heel; seemed to contemn all temporal goods for the love of eternal riches; adjoined himself to the begging friars, approving their poverty, and extolling their Perfection.  
The gross Heresies maintained by Wicleffe, were these following: He taught, that all things came to p●sse by an absolute and Stoical Necessity; he condemned lawful Oaths, savouring herein (as Osiander 
(h) Osiander Cent. 15. pag. 4●7. & 459.  saith) of Anabaptism: He further taught, that there is no Civil Magistrate, whiles he is in mortal Sin, as Melancthon 
(i) Melancthon in Ep. ad Pr●dericum Micon. in Epist. Swinglij & Oecolamp.  chargeth him; Of whom Melancthon in the place alleged further saith: I have found in Wicleff many Errors, whereby a man may judge of his Spirit. Finally to omit some other of his Heresies, M. Fox thus speaketh of him: Wicleffe 
(k) Act. Mon. pag. 95.  used soften for fear of persecution and danger, to dissemble his Religion.   

Animadversion CIII.  
IN this next Animadversion I will discourse upon the former grounds, of these Innovarours following: And to begin with Waldo, from whom are sprung the Waldenses: Waldo was a Layman of Lions in France; a rich man, and gave Money for the translating of the Scripture into his own tongue. Now that neither Waldo, nor the Waldenses were Protestants, is thus proved: First they still did hold many Catholic points, as the Real presence in the B. Sacrament, as Caluin 
(l) Caluin. Ep. 144.  confesseth. They also maintained Seven Sacraments the Doctrine of vows of single Life, and of Purgatory, as Benedictus 
(m) In Tract. de Eccles. pag. 1●4.  Morgenstrensis, a Lutheran, relateth. Finally they were so full in defending the Doctrine of Merit of Works, as that D. Humphrey 
(n) In jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 3. p. 270.  thus writeth of Waldo: Waldo did forsake all things, that being poor, he might follow Christ, and the Evangelicall Perfections.  
The heresies of the Waldenses were many: First they taught, that Married Persons sinned in doing the Act of Matrimony, without hope of Jssue, as witnesseth Illyricus 
(o) Illyri●us in Catadestium veritatis. p. 743. : They did hold all embracements, and all things 
(p) Illyr. ubi supr.  done above the Girdle, as kissing, touching, words, Compression of the Paps etc. to be done in Charity. They further taught that neither 
(q) Illyrius ibid. p. 760.  Pryests, nor Civil Magistrates being guilty of mortal Sin, were to be obeyed. That Laymen 
(r) Ibid. p 711 & p. 745.  and Women might Consecrate and preach. That Clergy 
(s) Ibidem pag. 7●9.  men ought to have no Possessions. They 
(t) Il●yr. ibidem, p. 734.  went to Catholic Churches dissemblingly & Confessed and Communicated dissemblingly. Finally 
(u) Illyr. ibidem, pag. 735. & 7●5.  they condemned all Princes and judges. The Albigenses are also prostituted by some of our Adversaries, for Protestants: But it appeareth by the testimonies of D. Abbots, that the Albigenses, were of the same S●ct of the Waldenses, or rather the same Men; for thus the said Doctor writeth: These 
(x) In his bo●ke against D H●●● his Reasons, pag. 57  Leonists or poor Men of Lions, and Waldenses, and A●bigenses, were the same Men, but diversely, and upon divers occasions termed by the Romish Synagogue.  
Now these A●bigenses (whether they were the same with the Waldenses or not) as they maintained some Points of Protestancy; so withal by the testimony of Osiander (the Protestant) they taught divers execrable heresies: Osian●er his words are thief 
(y) Ofiander in Cent. 1. l. 1. c 4. p. ●●9.  Albigensibus dogmata haec tribuntur: Duo esse Princip●a, Deum ●z. bonum, & Deum malum, hoc est Diabolum etc. These opinions are ascribed to the Albigenses; That there are two principles, to wit, a good God, and a bad God, which is the Devil, who created all Bodies as the good God did all Souls etc. They do reject Baptism, and they say, to go to Churches, and to pray ●● them, is not profitable etc. They condemn Marriage, and do allow, as holy, promiscuos concubitus, all promiscuous lying together, how wicked soever: They deny the Resurrection of the Body, and that Christ was true Man. Thus far Osiander of the Albigenses in the place cited in the margin. I will conclude with Berengarius, who lived anno 1051. who is challenged for a 
(z) Act. Mon. pa. 23.  Protestant for his denial of Transubstantiation, though he after recanted this his Heresy. Now Berengarius did hold divers heresies, so as the Protestant O●eolampadius 
(*) In Oecolam. & Swinglij Epistolis, l. 3. pag. 710.  thus writeth of him: Berengarius nonnulla affirmat adversus Baptismum parnulorum, & Coniugium. Again, Damnata est Berengarij opinio, Sacerdotio Christiano parum nimis tribuen●. Thus fare of all these former Heretics, to wit, Hus, Wicleff, Waldo, and the rest, whereby the indifferent Reader may rest assured, that they cannot with any just show of Reason and iudgement be alleged for Protestants, as our Adversaries are accustomed to allege them, for the proving of the visibility of the Protetestant Church in former Ages.   

Animadversion CIV.  
ADmitting for the time; that all these former Innovatours were entire Protestants in all Points, not comparting with the Catholics in any point of the Roman Religion: Admitting also, that not any of them did hold any one explorate Heresy, & by all sides condemned; yet are the examples of them most insufficient for the supporting of the Protestants Churches visibility. My Reasons are these. First: The Scriptures 
(a) Esay. 60. & 40.1. Timoth. Eph. 4. besides many other.  do prove, that the Church of Christ must not at one only time or other, but in all times, and in all ages, without the least interruption or discontinuance (much less without interruption of many hundred; years together) be most visible and conspicuous. This being granted, I then demand, what Protestants can be alleged living between Anno six hundred and seven, and anno 1220. Hear are about six hundred years between these two times during all which period, as also for every year thereof, our Adversaries stand obliged to allege Protestants, for the Continuance of the visibility of the Protestant Church. But this they are not able to effect; And therefore D. Fulke with just cause thus complaineth of the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church: 
(b) D. Fu●ke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholik●. pag. ●0.  The Church in the time of Boniface the third (which was anno 607.) was invisible, and fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season. Secondly: All the former men, I mean Husse, Wicleffe, Waldo etc. were originally Catholics; and after by forging of new Doctrine, they divided themselves from the Church then in Being; and so thereby they justified in themselves those words of S. john: 
(c) joan. 9  They went out of us. Now this departure or going out of the Church implieth (in lieu of the continuance and visibility of their Church) an interruption, discontinuance, & defection of their Church, (and consequently a want of the visibility of the said Church: Since it infallibly proveth, that the Doctrines taught by these Men after their departure, were not taught by the Church afore in being: For if they had been taught by it, these Men needed not to leave the then known Church, for their defending and teaching of the said Doctrines. Thirdly: The Protestants will say no doubt, that hus, Wicleffe etc. did preach the word of God, and administer the Sacraments. Hear than I demand, seeing no man taketh to himself the honour of priesthood, but he that is called 
(d) Heb●, 5.  of God, as Aaron was; Who then did call hus, Wicleff, Berengarius, the Waldenses etc. to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, or by whom were they sent? But here our Adversaries are at a stand, flying to an immediate, imaginary, and aery Calling: For thus doth Caluin seek to salve this difficulty: Quia 
(e) Lascit. (the Protestant) reciteth this saying of Caluin. lib. de Russor. Muscovit. etc. religione. c. 23.  Papae tyrannide etc. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, true succession of ordination was broken of; therefore we stand in need of a new Course herein; And this function or calling was altogether extraordinary. With whom agreeth M. Perkins saying: The 
(*) M. Perkins in his works, printed. 1605. fol. 916.  calling of Wicliffe, Husse, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr etc. was extraordinary. An exorbitant, and fantastical Conceit.   

Animadversion CV.  
THere are two Reasons (among others) which evidently prove, that our Adversaries are conscious, and guilty of their own Church's Inuisibility. One, in that, they discover a wonderful reluctation & backwardness, when they are pressed by the Catholics to name the Protestants living in such and such ages; sortably hereto we find D. Fulke thus to complain: Proffer 
(f) Fulke, de success. Eccles. p. 89.  me iubes toto Orbe latitantes, & vah quam iniquum postulas? Thou willest we to produce and name those men, who did lie hid throughout the World. How unjust a thing dost thou here demand? And D. Wotton complaining in the like manner, thus concludeth: Prove 
(g) In his answer to a Popish Pamphlet. p. 11.  you, that our Religion was not where helds This stands upon you to disprove, which when you do by particular Records, you shall have particular Answer. Then which what can be first more absurdly spoken, as expecting record of things which never were in being. He furthermore transferring the part of proving upon Catholics, to which himself and his fellows only stand obliged. The second Reason discovering their tergiversation herein, is in that, when they are pressed to instance in Protestants for several ages, they in lieu of Instancing fly to the Scripture; then disputing, the true Church of Christ must ever be Visible; but theirs is the true Church, as is proved out of the Scriptures; Therefore their Church was ever visible. A most strange, and despairing Circulation.   

Animadversion CVI  
THe like guiltiness of our Adversaries is showed touching the supposed change of the Faith of the Church of Rome. For though this (if any such change were) be to be proved (as being matter of fact) from History; yet our Adversaries disclaim from all History herein. For D. Whitaker thus writeth: It is not 
(h) Whitak. contra Duraeum p. 177.  needful to search out of Histories the beginning of this change. And again: It is 
(i) Whitak. contra Duraeum. p. 478  sufficient, by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture, to discover the disparity of faith between them and us; And as for Historiographers, we give them liberty to write what they will. Thus bringing the Question as they did above touching the visibility of the Protestant Church, to the Scriptures, and their own interpretation of the said Scriptures. Which disclaiming of theirs from History herein, is most unusual and unaccustomed; since it hath been ever the Office of Historiographers & general Counsels, to register and record any new arising Heresy, or change in Faith and Religion.   

Animadversion CVII.  
IT cannot be denied, but that a Catholic may commonly become sooner Superstitious, than a Protestant; And a Protestant sooner become an Atheist, than a Catholic. The Reason of both is evident: And first, whereas the Catholic Religion (besides the belief of many dogmatic points of faith) retaineth the practice of many Ceremonies; the true use of which Ceremonies, as being first instituted by the primitive Church, are most lawful; but now if the ignorant Catholic (through want of due instruction) do ascribe more to them, than is due, or do put greater confidence in them, than he ought, (as forgetting them to be but Ceremonies) then perhaps he may have a superstitious conceit of them; as it happened in the Brazen Serpent, though (otherwise serving, as the figure of Christ:) To which the jews (through abuse thereof, & in ascribing more worship to it, than they ought) at length bore a Superstitions respect. But now touching the Protestants greater propension to Atheism; the reason is, in that Protestancy ever refynes itself by Negatives. Thus for example; The Caluinist or Puritan denies more, than Lutheran, or the moderate Protestant; The Anabaptist, more than the Puritan; The Anti-trinitarians more than the Anabaptists; the jew or Turks, more than the Anti-trinitarians; and for the last sublimation through denial of all, judaisme and Turkism resolves into Atheism. And hereupon we find, that whereas many Protestants by their often refining of their Religion (and all by Negatives) do in the end become Atheists denying even the being of a Deity; that few, or no Catholics, immediately from Catholic Religion, ever fall into the open Blasphemy of Atheism.   

Animadversion CVIII.  
THe preaching of the Word and Sacraments (supposing them to be Notes of the Church, as our Adversaries do suggest) prove only the Place, where the Church is, but not which is the Church; For the Church consisteth of men, and we cannot tell, who they are, that receive the Word truly preached, or the Sacraments truly administered. Again, whereas (as Lubbertus 
(k) L. 4. de Eccles. cap. 1.  a Protestant truly teacheth) Notius est duplex; unum Naturae, alterum nobis. Now here the Question is only of such Notes, as are Notes in respect of us, for our better informing which is the true Church, and not as they are Notes in respect of Nature; For here we are instructed a posteriori, and according to the measure of that knowledge, which God vouchsafes to afford to us. Now in reference hereto we freely grant, that the true preaching of the word, and Administration of the Sacraments may be termed Notes of the Church, but not Notes to us, (which is only the point here stood upon): For though they be Notes (in Nature) of the truth of the Church, yet what doth this avail us, since they are not Notes to us for our direction, to find which is the true Church? Again, the true preaching of the word, and the Administration of the Sacraments cannot be Notes to us, which is the true Church; seeing the Scripture itself cannot be made known to us for Scripture, but only by the attestation of the Church, as M. Hooker testifieth in these words. Of 
(l) Hooker in Eccles. Pol. saec. 14. l. 1. pag. 86.  things necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what Books we are to esteem holy, which is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. And again: We 
(m) Vbi supra. l. 3. p. 146.  all know, the first outward Motive to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of the Church. Thus he. Now this being granted, it inevitably followeth, that first we must know, which is the true Church to give this approbation of the Scripture, before we can know, which is the Scripture; and much more than before we can be assured of the true preaching of the Word, and which is the true construction of the Scripture. To these former Arguments I adjoin this pertinent observation; It is this: When the Catholics demand to set down the true Notes of the Church, & our Adversaries answering, That is the true Church, which enjoyeth a true preaching of the Word, and an available administration of the Sacraments; Now I here affirm, that this description of Notes is but our own Question returned us back in other terms, and consequently but a Sophism, consisting in an idle circulation of the same point; invested with a new form of words: For when I demand, which is the true Church? I virtually, implicitly, and according to the immediate meaning of my words, demand which Church is that, which enjoyeth the true preaching of the word, and the true use of the Sacraments? since only the true Church is honoured with this kind of preaching, and distribution of the Sacraments. Thus far touching the Notes prostituted by our Adversaries, as the true Notes of Christ his Church.   

Animadversion CIX.  
Such Protestants, as do maintain, that there were Protestants in all ages before Luther, give the reason, that the fear of Persecution, was the cause, why the said Protestants did then lie latent, and became not visible to the world. But this is a mere aenry suggestion: For thus I argue: The Church of God under persecution, either communicateth openly with a false visible Church, in participation of Sacraments and external profession of faith, Or else she doth refrain from all such external Communion: if she do communicate with a false Idolatrous Church (as divers of our Adversaries repute the Church of Rome to be) then is she not the true Church; since the true Church cannot brook any such dissimulation: For we read; With the hart a 
(n) Rom. 10.  Man believeth unto justice, and with the mouth confesseth unto Salvation. If she doth not communicate with it, then by such her forbearing, she is made known, and consequently is become thereby visible: for who are persecuted, but Men, that are known? Or how can one lying secretly and hiddenly, be said to be persecuted? The truth of this point is further warrantable from the examples of the persecution in the primitive Church; which of all other pressures of the Church, was incomparably the greatest. And yet we find, that the particular Bishops, Confessors, and Martyrs are even to this day made known, who they were, & what false Opinions, and heresies they impugned. And the like may be said of the English Catholics, persecuted in Queen Elizabeth's reign; since the names and memories of those reverend Pryests, and others of the Laity (to speak nothing of many worthy Confessors and other suffering great losses and disgraces) who lost their lyues in her days only for Religion, are even to this day fresh and recorded. Therefore I hear demand, that if the Catholics in this our Country (being but a small part of Christendom) could not but for some few numbers of years in comparison, escape the search and hands of their persecutors, and become thereby most visible & known; How could then the Protestants (being supposed to be dispersed thtoughout many Nations) lie hid, and avoid for so many ages together (as is pretended) the force of that persecution, which is affirmed by our Adversaries, to have been more grievous, then ever this of England was.   

Animadversion CX.  
WHereas our Adversaries do further urge in behalf of the being of Protestants in former Ages, that it is often observed, that a little quantity of Copper is in a counterfeit Coin of Gold, & chaff is mingled with Corn; and yet neither is the Copper, Gold; nor the Chaff, Corn; so say they, the Protestant Church, was in former ages in the Papacy; The Papacy was in the Protestant Church, and yet the Protestant Church was not in the Papacy. According hereto M. Perkins saith: The 
(o) In his reformed Catholic. pag. 328. & 329.  Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God, & the Church of God in the Church of Rome; with whom agreeth Beza thus writing. Voluit 
(p) In Epist. Theol. Epist. 1. pag. 15.  Deus in Papatu seruare Ecclesiam, etsi Papatus non est Ecclesia. And D. Whitaker: 
(q) Whi●ak. l. de Eccles. pag. 165.  Ecclesia vera fuit in papatu, sed papatus non fuit Ecclesia. To this I reply, and say, it is but a froth of words artificially put together. Howsoever many of our Adversaries much please themselves with this conceited Answer. Therefore for the better examining thereof, we are here to conceive, that the sense and meaning of these words, is not, that the Protestant Church had in those times a latent and hidden being in Catholic Countries, without having intercourse & communion with the then known and visible Church in the Sacraments: for so the true Church could not be said to be in the papacy, no more then at this day in respect of its like abode in Turkish Countries, it can be said to be in Turkism. Therefore the particular manner of this strange mixture (as it appears in show of words) is thus truly expressed by Osiander the Protestant in this manner: 
(r) In Epitome. Cent. 16. part. altera p. 1070. & 1072.  Quod semper sub Papatu, aliqui pij homines fuerint etc. No man denyeth but that there were under the papacy some holy men, who disliked the Errors of the Popes, although they durst not openly profess so much; nisi ardere, aut ad minimum exulare velint, except they would burn for their Religion, or at least suffer banishment. Thus we see, the last sublimated sense of the former quaint sentence resolves to this point; To wit, that the Protestant Church in those former times, (being in, or under the Papacy) did through fear of burning or banishment, dissemble their Religion, and communicate in all external right with the Church of Rome.   

Animadversion CXI.  
THe Confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church (above set down) during so many former ages, doth potentially and virtually include the proof of the visibility of the Roman Church, during all the said ages:  the Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church for so long a time, is ascribed by the Protestants themselves to the work of Antichrist (they meaning thereby the Pope, and the Church of Rome) as appeareth by several testimonies of our Adversaries else where in this Treatise expressed; & particularly of M. Napper thus saying: Between 
(s) Napper in his Treatise upon the Revelat. pag. 68  the years of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian, & Papistical reign began, reigning universally without any debatable contradiction 1260. years. And accordingly the Centurists 
(t) See this in Cent. 4. and so successively in Every Century.  charge all the ages from Constantine till Luther, with Papistry. Thus an acknoledged defection of the Protestant Church for many Centuryes, doth (by our Adversaries own Confession) necessarily include and imply a Continual visibility of the Catholic Roman Church during all the said Centuryes.   

Animadversion CXII.  
TOuching the supposed change of the faith of Rome, I will divide in these three next Animadversions all the Ages from the Apostles even to Luther's days into three several Stations, or Periods of times: First then, we will see how long it is granted by the Protestants, that Rome did persevere without any alteration of her Primitive faith. Secondly, we will set down the acknowledged continuance of that time, during all which season the now present faith of Rome hath continued; that is, how long Papistry (as our Adversaries term it) hath been publicly professed throughout all Christendom. Thirdly, and lastly, we will then take a view of the times, between these two former several times: For these two times being once acknowledged on all sides (to wit, the time, during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first faith taught by the Apostles; and the time, during which the present Roman faith hath continued from this day upward) it inevitably followeth, that this supposed change in Religion, did either happen in the Jnterstitium, and mean time, between these two former Periods of times, or else that there happened no such change of Religion in the Church of Rome at all. Now, concerning the first of these times, it is granted by the Protestants, that Rome retained her purity of faith without any alteration from the Apostles times, till after the death of Optatus, Epiphanius, and Austin, which is during the space of four hundred and forty years after Christ: This I thus prove. Whereas our Catholic writers have much insisted for proof of their Religion in the succession of the Bishop of Rome even until Augustine's days, by the Example of Jrenaus, Cyprian, Optatus, Jerome, Vincentius Lyrinensis, and Austin, D. Fulke answereth in behalf of these Fathers in this sort; That 
(*) Fulke in his confutation of Purgatory. p. 372.  these Fathers especially named the Church of Rome, it was because the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apostles, so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles; which Doctor in another place thus further writeth: The 
(*) D. Fulke, in his Retentive. pag. 85.  Pop●●● Church etc. departed from the universal Church of Christ long after Augustine's departure out of this Life. Thus he, granting that till after Augustine's death the Church of Rome remained the true Church. In like manner, D. jewel accordeth with D. Fulke herein touching the Argument drawn by those foresaid Fathers, from succession of the Bishops of Rome saying: As 
(u) D. jewel in his reply to D. Harding pag. 246.  well Austin, as also other godly Fathers rightly yielded Reverence to the Sea of Rome, etc. For the purity of Religion, which was there preserved a long time without spot. To conclude, Caluin himself maketh good the foresaid Argument, taken from the Succession of the Bishops of Rome insisted upon by Jrenaeus, Pertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Austin, and Epiphanius, in these words: Cum 
(x) Instit. l. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 3.  extra controversiam erat, nihil á principio usque ad aetatem illam mutatum fuisse in Doctrina etc. Seeing it was a point out of Controversy, that nothing in Doctrine from the beginning to that very age was changed; these holy fathers did take, which they thought sufficient for the destroying of all new Errors; to wit, the Doctrine constantly and with an vanimous consent, retained even from the Apostles days till their times. Thus fare Caluin. And so far now concerning the durance of the times (even by the Protestants frequent Confessions) that no chauge of faith was made in the Church of Rome.   

Animadversion CXIII.  
IN this next Animadversion, we will take into our consideration the number of those ages, during the length of all which from this day upward, the present Roman faith hath (by the like Confessions of the learned Protestants) been generally taught; since how long the Protestants do grant, that the Church of Rome hath from this day continued in her present faith; so long it followeth by their own implicit (but necessary) censures, that the Church of Rome never altered her faith. Now, this point appeareth from the write of D. Humphrey (above alleged) who showing what Religion Austin the Monk, sent by Gregory the Great (who lived in the year 590) planted in England, thus confesseth: In Ecclesiam 
(y) D. Humphrey, in jesuitism. ●art. 2. Rat. 5. pag. ●27.  quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Onus Caeremon●arum etc. What did Gregory and Austin bring into the Church? Aburden of Ceremonies. They did bring in the archiepiscopal Pall, for the Solemnisation of the Mass; They did bring in Purgatory etc. or the Oblation of the healtfull Host, and prayer for the Dead etc. Relics, Transubstantiation etc. a new Consecration of Temples etc. from all which what other thing is effected, than the introducing of Indulgences, Monachisme, Papism, and the rest of the Chaos of Popish superstitions? All this did Austin, she greater Monk, being instructed herein by Gregory the Monk, bring unto English men. Thus D. Humphrey. Now from hence it appeareth, that at S. Gregory his sending of Austin into England (which was about a thousand years since) our present Roman Religion was then wholly, and publicly practised in Rome; and that if the Church of Rome had suffered any change in faith from that, first taught by the Apostles, that this change should have been made, not since, but before Gregoryes time, and before he had sent Austin to plant in England the faith of Christ. In further confirmation of D. Humfreys judgement herein, I may allege the Centurists, who in their Index, or Alphabetical Table of the sixth Century, at the word, Gregory, do set down with particular figures of references, where every such mentioned Opinion may be found, as followeth. Eiusdem error de bonis operi●ut. de Confession, de Coniugio, de Ecclesia, de sanctorum invocatione, de Inferno, de libero arbitrio, de justificatione, de purgatorio, de paenitentia, de satisfactione etc. Briefly, with all other particular points, maintained by the now present Church of Rome. The less wonder therefore, that Danaeus (resting upon his own false principles) thus writeth of our Conversion: Purgatio 
(z) Danaeus in respons. ad disputat. Bellarm. part. r. pag. 780.  illa quam Gregorius primus fecit etc. suit inebriatio Meretricis mundo facta, de qua est Apocalyp. c. 17. & 18. thus referring our Conversion to Christianity, to the work of Antichrist. Now from these former acknoledgments of the learned Protestants we may infallibly conclude, that from this day, till we arrive at least to the age of the foresaid S. Gregory (who lived about a thousand years since) the present Roman and Catholic Religion was taught (besides in our Country) in divers other Countries; and consequently seeing those Countries did receive their Instructions in faith from Rome, it inavoidably followeth, that during all this time not any innovation or change in faith was introduced into the Church of Rome.   

Animadversion CXIV.  
NOw in this third place, we are to take into our Consideration, the number of years, which passed between the first four hundred and forty years from Christ, and these last thousand years from us; which number, seeing it is sixteen hundred years and more from Christ to us, amounteth to about one hundred, and sixty years. Well then, if here we can prove, that no change of faith was made in the Church of Rome, within the compass of this 160. years, then followeth it inavoidably, that the Church of Rome never to this day, hath suffered any alteration in faith and Religion, since it first embraced the Christian faith. This point I then first prove from the doctrine, which was believed and generally taught, at such time as Constantine (who was our first Christian Emperor) was converted to Christianity, which was about the year, three hundred and twenty after Christ, and therefore before the foresaid one hundred & sixty years. Now that the faith in Constantins' time was the same, that the Church of Rome professeth at this present, appeareth from the frequent testimonies of the Centurists, who most elaborately and punctually do record all the particular Articles of the present Roman faith, to be believed most constantly by the said Constantine, and by the age, wherein he lived. Touching the faith of Constantine, and that age, the Centurists spend several Columns of the fourth Century; to wit from Column 452. to Column 497. and D. Whitaker affirmeth, that Leo (who was Pope anno 440.) was a great 
(a) D. Whitak. contra B●llar. pag. ●7.  Architect of the Antichristian Kingdom. Now from all this I necessarily evict, that no change of the faith of Rome was made in the compass of the said one hundred sixty years; which time was set down between the confessed period of the Church's purity, and the acknowledged general Doctrine of the Church of Rome.  
But now to recapitulate the Contents of these three last Animadversions (which bear a necessary dependency and reference one to another; I thus make my deduction. First, if the Church of Rome remained in her purity of faith without any change, for the first four hundred and forty years; Secondly, if it be confessed that for this last thousand years the Church of Rome ever professed the same faith, without any change, which at this day it professeth; Thirdly, if it be made clear, that during the Interstitium of time between the first 440. years, and this last thousand years, which is but 160. years, no change in faith was made, as appeareth from the faith of Constantine our first Christian Emperor, and the Fathers of that age: What demonstration more certain and infallible, then that the present Church of Rome never made any change of faith and Religion since the Apostles times, but that she ever preserved as pure and incorrupt, the very same faith and Religion, which S. Peter, S. Paul, and other the Apostles first planted in her? And this Demonstration (for I can term it no less) I present to the mature and diligent perusal of the judicious Reader; assuring him, that all the learned Protestants of Christendom cannot give any satisfactory answer thereto; which demonstration I willingly acknowledge that I decerped out of that Book heretofore mentioned, commonly called, The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church.   

Animadversion CXV.  
IF any man should yet rest unsatisfyed, & be persuaded that this imaginary change of faith in the Roman Church should happen within the Interstitium of the four hundred forty years, and the last thousand years, which mid-tyme only containeth one hundred and sixty years, as is in the three former Animadversions above showed; then for the greater satisfaction of such a Man I present to him (as an Appendix to the three last Animadversions) this observation and point following. It is this: If we consider either the plurality of our Catholic Articles; or the incompatibility which divers of them bear partly to our outward sense, & partly to man's natural propension; or the diversity of Countries and Nations in Christendom, most remote one from another; all which our said Catholic Religion is acknowledged wholly to possess at the later end of the sixth Age or Century: I say, if we consider all these different circumstances, the time of the said one hundred sixty years (within which most Protestants do teach this change did happen) is infinitely too little, and wholly disproportionable; so as that within the compass thereof, so great a change & alteration should be wrought; especially in such an admirable manner, that whereas in the beginning of the said 160. years, it is averred by the Protestants, that not any one point of our Catholic Religion was then taught (as is above maintained by them in acknowledging the purity of the faith of Rome to continue unto the beginning of the said 160. years) yet that at the end of the said 160. years it should so overflow all Christendom with such a violent stream, as that no spark of Protestancy (supposing it were afore professed) or any other religion did remain in any one Country or other, but that all was wholly extinct: Such an Imaginary change, and alteration in Religion (I say) as this, is more than stupendious and wonderful; and such as since the creation of the world never afore happened. I further add hereto, that since the Heresies of the Nestorians, Pelagians, Donatists, Monothelites, (all which did spring up within the compass of this foresaid 160. years) are particulatly recorded by S. Austin, 
(b) Austin. l. de Haeres. Haeres. 88 89.  yea also by the 
(c) Centurists, Cent. 16. Col. 312.  Centurists; how then can we dream, that any points of our Roman Religion were first introduced as Innovations, and yet no record of them to remain in any History whatsoever? Furthermore, for the close of all, I add, that in, or (which is more strange) next before the beginning of the said 160. divers Articles of Protestancy were condemned for Innovations; as the denial of prayer, and offering up sacrifice for the Dead, and of appointed fasts, as singular Noveltyes in Aerius, as Austin witnesseth Haeres. 53. In like sort the Denial of Praying to Saints, and worshipping of Saints Relics was condemned in Vigilantius, as Jerome recordeth l. contra Vigilant. c. 2. & 3. The denial of Priest's power in remitting of Sin, condemned for Novelty, as the Centurists confess, Cent. 4. col. 254. The like may be said of most other points of Protestancy, condemned as Noveltyes, either a little before, or within the compass of the foresaid 160. So evident it is, that no articles of our Catholic faith, were brought in as Innovations, during the said period of 160. years.   

Animadversion CXVI.  
WHereas the Protestants do affirm a beginning (though most ancient) of divers points of our Roman Catholic Religion; and that we Catholics take advantage of such their acknowledgements; yet cannot they with true reason thus reply against us: You admit the authorities of the Protestants, granting (for so many ages) the antiquity of the present Roman Religion, in such and such points of faith: Therefore you are by force of reason, to admit their like authorities in saying, that at such a time, (and not before) those your Popish Articles were first taught; for seeing both these points are delivered by the Protestants in one, and the same testimony, or sentence; why should the one part be urged by you for true, and the other rejected as false? To this I answer, that our Adversaries expect herein from us, more than in equity can be demanded. My reason is this; In the authorities of this Nature, produced from our Adversary's writings, we are to distinguish and sever that, which the Adversaries grant in behalf of us, from that, which they affirm to their own advantage, what they grant for us, & against themselves: so far we are to embrace their authority, seeing it may be presumed, as is in this Treatise elsewhere intimated, that ordinarily not learned man would confess any thing against himself, but what the evidency of truth enforceth him thereto. But what our Adversaries affirm in favour of their own cause, and against us, there we are not to stand to their authority; since no man is to be a witness in his own behalf; and it may be well and probably presumed, that such their Sentence proceedeth out of their own partiality of their cause, and judgement.   

Animadversion CXVII.  
THe Apostle foretelleth us, that Pastors 
(d) Eph. 4.  and Doctors are to be in the Church to the Consummation of Saints, till we all meet in unity of faith; that is, as D. Fulke 
(e) Fulke against the Rhemish Testam. in Ephes. 4.  truly interpreteth, for ever; which Pastors & Doctors prophesied by the Apostle, shall (as the said D. Fulke further averreth) always 
(f) Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. pag. 11.  resist all false Opinions with open reprehension. With whom conspires D. Whitaker herein saying: The 
(g) Whitak. contra Duraeum. l. 3. pag. 240.  preaching of the word (within which is necessarily included the impugning of all false Doctrines) doth constitute the Church; the want thereof doth sub●erit it. According hereto we also thus read in Esay: 
(h) Esay. ●●.  Upon thy Walls, O Jerusalem, I ha●● appointed watch men all the day, & all the night for ever; They shall not hold their peace. Now hear I thus urge: Can any reasonable man think, that whereas the Protestants teach that the Papists Religion came in by degrees, and at several times, that all the Pastors, Doctors, and Fathers of those several times were a sleep, when the said Doctrines were first broached; or that they observing their entrance, yet not any of them would vouchsafe to make resistance, or at least some mention of any such Innovation in Doctrine; especially if we consider the nature of our Catholic Doctrines, averred by the Protestants to be introduced, as Noveltyes? Since they are, as above is intimated, many in number, divers of them of the greatest consequence, that may be: As the virtue of the Sacraments; the manner of our Justification (to wit, whether by works, or by faith only:) Others of them most repugnant to Man's sense and common Reason; as the Real presence: Some adverse to Man's natural propension, as the Doctrines of Virginity, Poverty, & Obedience: most of them consisting not only in an internal belief, but even in an external action and operation; and therefore the first entrance of them are become thereby most discernible: Such are the Doctrines of praying to the Saints, of praying upon beads, Pilgrimage, single life in the Clergy, and (to omit divers others) all Monachisme; And lastly some (supposing their doctrine to be false) subject to external Idolatry, as the worshipping of Christ with supreme honour in the Eucharist. Here than I conclude, that if any man shall affirm, that these Doctrines could stealingly creep into God's Church, without all resistance of its Pastous, Doctors, and Fathers, and without any mention recorded of their first entrance; that Man not only gives the lie openly to the Holy Scripture in several place● witnessing the contrary; but that withal he ceaseth to be a man, by losing wholly the natural light of all humane discourse and Reason.   

Animadversion CXVIII.  
IT is most clear, that the Heresies rising in the beginning of the primitive Church, as the Heresies of the Valentinians, Tationists, Manichees, Arians, and divers others, as also the Heresies of the foresaid Heretics before S. Gregory's time, are recordeth both by the ancient Fathers, and even by the Centurists our Adversaries. In like sort the Heresies of Berengarius, Waldo, Wicleffe etc. are also registered. That this is most true, I prove from the Centurists, who in the fift Chapter of every several Century, from Osiander in his Centuries, from Pantaleon (the Protestant) in his Cronology, have recorded all the said ancient Heresies. And as for Berengarius, Lanfrancus, Guitmundus, and Algeru● make mention of his Heresy. Waldo is recorded by 
(i) In his Catalogue. testium veritatis.  Illiricus, as also by Osiander 
(k) In Epitome. histor. Eccles. , Wicleff by M. Fox, as also by Stow, and by Wicleffs own writings, as is above showed.  
This then being most true and indeniable, I thus infer: Seeing it is manifest, that the Heresies, rising within the first four hundred years; the Heresies budding up the next two hundred years; the Heresies hatched in every age during the last thousand years, are most largely recorded, partly in the write of the ancient Fathers in particular, and set Tracts against them; partly in the Canons of General Counsels condemning them; partly by the observing diligence of Ecclesiastical Historiographers (whose designed labour is to transmit, and commend over to after ages the true state of Christ's Church in former ages) and partly by the Protestants like endeavours, who have written several Volumes of this very subject;  (I say) all this is manifest, can it then enter into any brain, but to ween, that so many Articles of the present Roman Religion, being in number far more, than all the above rehearsed; in weight and consequence greatly exceeding them; for diversity of Countries and Nations, far further diuulged and spread then all, or any of the former Heresies ever were (most of these others being restrained only to one Country, or Nation) could ever so unespiedly infect the whole Church of Christ with their Contagion, and work a more notorious change therein, then ever yet was wrought by all the Heretics since Christ's time put together; And yet not one Father, Pastor, or Doctor of those times, either to take notice of any of those supposed Heresies; or knowing them, not to impugn the first assaults, by preaching or writing; neither any one Ecclesiastical History but to mention in their Histories any one of the said Articles, or Innovations in faith: Can this I say, be imagined? or can it be in the power of man thus to create a new Religion at his pleasure, without control or discovery? To maintain this, is to maintain an assertion against all probability, against all reason, against all possibility.   

Animadversion CXIX.  
THe Greek Church hath been for many ages emulous of the Church of Rome; and therefore if the present Church of Rome had anciently made any division, or Schism from the true Church of Christ, the Grecian (no doubt) would have been most apt to recommend the memory of such a change in our Church to all after ages in their Histories. But no such records we find in any of their writings. Yea the Grecians are so fare from that, as that (on the contrary side) the present Church of Rome is able to specify and note (out of most ancient and approved Authors) the very times, when the Grecians introduced those particular Opinions, wherein at this day they descent from our Roman and Catholic Church. For example (to insist in some few;) The Grecians denial of their Obedience to the Church of Rome, was first begun by john of Constantinople, and was written against by Gregory 
(l) Greg. l. 4. Ep. 34. & 36  the Great, and Pelagius 
(m) Pelag. in his Epistle universis Episcopis. . Their denial of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, took it beginning about the year 764. & was gainsaid and contradicted at its first rising, as 
(n) In System. Theol. p. 68  Kekermanus (a Protestant) witnesseth. Their Denial of Prayer for the Dead, was begun by Aerius, and impugned by Epiphanius 
(o) Epiph Haeres. 75  and Austin 
(p) Aug. Haeres. 53 .  
Finally their bringing in of Leavenes Bread by the Grecians, in the celebration of the Eucharist, was first begun about the year 1053. as appeareth out of the write of Leo 
(q) In Epist. ad Michael. Episcopum, Constan. cap. 5.  the Nynth, and the 
(r) Cent. 11. cap. 8.  Centurists, Now here I demand; Can it be imagined, that these Innovations of the Grecians, being few in number, could be so precisely contradicted, gainsaid, and left registered to all Posterity; and yet this supposed change of the Church of Rome, consisting in bringing in of fare more Articles in number, and as of great consequence, should never be noted, nor impugned by any one Doctor or Father, nor recorded, nor observed by any one Historiographer; the said Fathers and Historiographers living in the very same Ages, wherein this supposed alteration is said to have happened?   

Animadversion CXX.  
IT is certain, that what general propension Nature, or rather God himself by Nature, as by his Instrument, hath engrafted in all men, the same is in itself most true, certain; and warrantable; since otherwise it would follow, that God should insert in the Soul of Man, idly, vainly, and as directed to no end, certain natural impressions, and instinctions: which to affirm is most derogatory to his divine majesty and wisdom, and repugnant to that ancient received Axiom, God and Nature work nothing in vain. Now to apply this against our Neutralists in Religion, who think a Man may be saved in any Religion: We find according hereto, both by History & experience, that divers zealous and fervent professors of all Religions whatsoever, both true and false, have been most ready to expose their lives, in defence of any impugned part or branch of their Religion; From which undaunted resolution of theirs, we certainly collect, that this their constant determination of defending the least point of their Religion, proceedeth partly from a general instinct of God, impressed in man's soul, teaching each man, that death itself is rather to be suffered, than we are to deny any part of faith and Religion in general. And thus according hereto we find, that the Athenians, who were Heathens, (though they did err touching the particular Object therein, as worshipping false Gods) were most cautelous, that no one point should be infringed or violated touching the worshipping of their Gods. The like religious severity was practised by the jews, as josephus 
(s) joseph. contra Apion.  witnesseth. Now from these Premises we deduce, against our Adiaphorists, or Neutrals in Religion, either Catholic, or Protestant; that no points of true Religion are of that cold Indifferency, as that they are not to be much regarded either in belief, or in profession; but that they are of that Nature, worth, and dignity, as a man is obliged to undergo all torments, yea death itself, before he yield, or suffer the least relapse in denying any of the said verities, or in any external Profession contrary thereto.   

Animadversion CXXI.  
FOr the further impugning of the indifferency of several Religions, and to show that every religion among Christians is not capable of Salvation. I will draw one demonstration out of Scripture. The text is this: In the 
(t) 1. Timoth. cap. 4.  larer times, certain shall departed from the faith, attending to spirits of Error, and Doctrine of Devils; forbidding to Marry, & to abstain from Meats. Hear the Apostle prophesyeth according to the judgement of S. Chrysestome, 
(u) Hom. 12. in Timoth.  Ambrose, 
(x) In hunc locum.  Jerome, 
(y) L. contra jovinian, c. 7.  and 
(z) Haer. 25. & 40.  Austin, of the Heretics Encratites, Marcionists, Ebionites, and such like, who denied Matrimony, as a thing altogether unlawful, and prohibited absolutely at all times; and the eating of certain Meats, as Creatures impure. Now these Heretics believed in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and other Supreme points of Christian Religion; And yet euen for these two former heresies, touching Marriage, and eating of Meats (and not for their misbelief in the Trinity, Incarnation etc.) they are said by the Apostle to departed from the faith of Christ, and to attend to the Doctrine of Devils; But such as leave the faith of Christ, and attend to the doctrine of the Devils, are not in state of Salvation. Now these Errors here mentioned by the Apostle, are of as little, or lesser consequence, than the Controversyes between the Catholics, & the Protestants; therefore it standeth upon each Christian, (if so he expect to save his soul) to profess entirely, and wholly the true Religion.   

Animadversion CXXII.  
TOuching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, the ancient Fathers are most full therein, even by the acknoledgement of the Protestants themselves. First then Gregory the great is confessed by D. Humphrey 
(a) In jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5.  to have brought in Transubstantiation into England, at his first planting of Christianity in this Country, as is above showed. chrysostom is reprehended by the Centurists, to use their own words: 
(b) Cent. 5. col. 517.  Quia parum commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit. 
(c) Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  S. Ambrose is affirmed by the Centurists (in the book ascribed to Ambrose) to confirm the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; which Father for the said Doctrine is also taxed by 
(d) L Ep. Oecolampad. & Swinglij. l. 3.  Oecolampadius. S. Cyrill is reprehended by Peter 
(e) Ep. ad Bezam, annexed to his Common places.  Martyr in these words: I will not easily subscribe to cyril, who affirmed such a Communion, as thereby even the flesh and blood of Christ is joined to the Blessings; for so he calleth the holy bread etc. S. Cyprian is charged, in the book ascribed to Vrsinus (the Protestant) entitled: Co●monefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Caen●, who there thus writeth: 
(f) Pag. 111. & ●18.  In Cyprian are many things, which seem to affirm Transubstantiation. Lastly Ignatius is acknoledged by Ke●pnitius 
(g) Exa. part. 1. p. 94.  to have confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, in that eminent place of his: 
(h) Ep. ad Smirnenses.  Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quòd non confiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est etc.  
The truth of the Father's judgement touching the Real presence is so fully confessed by our Adversaries, as that Antony de Adamo (a markable Protestant) thus acknoledgeth hereof. 
(i) In his Anatomy of the Mass. p. 236.  I have not hitherto been able to know, when this Opinion of the Real & bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first begin. With whom conspireth Adamus Francisci another Pro estant) saying: Commentum 
(k) In Margarita Theol. pag. 156.  Papistarum etc. The Papists invention touching Transubstantiation, crept early into the Church. Thu● fare of the Protestants Confessions in this point; whereunto we may add, that these Fathers here above charged, with the rest of the Fathers of those Ages, were the chief Pastors & Doctors of the Primitive Church, which Church believed herein according as it was taught by the said Fathers: If then these Fathers should err in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, then should it follow, that the primitive Church, yea and the universal Church of Christ (contrary ●o Christ's 
(l) Math 1●.  promise) therein should err.   

Animadversion CXXIII.  
IF we do take into due consideration 〈◊〉 several chief heads and points, when unto the sentences, and authorities of 〈◊〉 ancient Fathers, touching the Eucharist 〈◊〉 be reduced; we cannot otherwise be pervaded, but that the Fathers taught unanimously the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation: seeing those Heads 〈◊〉 the Father's sentences are so agreeable a●●fortable to Christ's Real being in the Sacrament, and so incompetent and disproportionable to a bare Typical Presence, or being of him therein.  
To begin then. The First Head of the Father's authorityes may be the Appellat●● or Names, which the Fathers give to the Blessed Sacrament, far differently from the Sacramentaryes; which is an argument, that Sacramentaryes differ from the Father's i● belief therein. Thus the Fathers call the Sacrament, The body & blood of our Lord; Th● precious body; tremenda Mysteria, the fearful Mysteries, the pledge of our Salvation; Our pri●●▪ whereas the Sacramentaryes usual phrase is to call the Eucharist, the Symbol, or sign● of the body and blood of the Lord.  
The second Class or Head is taken from the Comparison of this Sacrament, with other things; for they compare it with the Manna, Paschall Lamb, with Panis Propositionis, and the like; saying, The Eucharist doth differ from all these things, as the Truth differs from ●●gures, the body from a shadow, a celestial Divine, and inconsumptible thing, from a terrene and consumptible. They, in like manner compare the Eucharist with the mysteries of the Incarnation; They compare Christ, as he is upon the Altar in the Eucharist, with Christ as he was in the Crib or Manger: They in like manner compare Christ in the Eucharist with Angels appearing in corporal forms. Finally, they compare those men, who unworthily do handle, or receive the Eucharist, with those men who killed Christ.  
The th●rd is taken from the change of bread; which mutation the Father's several ways prove to be Real. First they say, the bread doth not remain after Consecration. Secondly, that the Sense is deceived herein. Thirdly, they compare the change here made with the real mutations of Water into Wine, and of the wands of Moses, into Serpent's Fourthly, the Fathers affirm, that the Omnipotency of God is necessarily required, to perform this mutation.  
The fourth Head, is taken from the most high Mystery which the Fathers did acknowledge to be in the Eucharist; For first, they say it cannot be apprehended without faith. Secondly they did exhort Christians to an infallible constancy in belief of the truth of this mystery. Thirdly, they taught that the miracle therein exceeded man's capacity and apprehension. Fourthly the Fathers did forbear (in reverence thereof) to speak of the Eucharist before Heathens, or those which were only Catechumeni, except covertly in these words, Norunt fideles. Fiftly, they b●ing demanded, how the mystery of the Eucharist could be performed, their answer was to refer it to the Omnipotency of God.  
The fift Branch is taken from the Veneration and worship given to the Eucharist; For first they did adore the Eucharist. Secondly, they did Jnnoke it, or did say, that it was to be invoked. Thirdly, they were most cautelous, that no part thereof should fall upon the Earth. Fourthly, they would not suffer it to be seen of Heathens, or Catechumeni. Fiftly, they averred, that Angels did stand near unto the Altar, whilst this Sacrifice is performed; yea chrysostom plainly saith, that Angels did stand in the presence of the Eucharist, capite inclinato, with bowing down their Heads.  
The sixth Class is taken from the Effects, which the Fathers ascribe to the Eucharist. For first they teach, that by it we are corporally united with Christ. Secondly, they affirm, that our bodies are to suffer Resurrection, because they are united with the body of Christ. Thirdly chrysostom saith, that Christ doth give himself in the Eucharist, that we may have him truly within our selves: Even as men do covet (yet cannot) give themselves to those, whom they love. Fourthly, the Fathers say, that when we receive Christ in the Eucharist, Christ is joined with us, not only by Faith and Charity, but also reipsa, in very deed. Fiftly, they teach, that by the perception or receiving of this Sacrament, we are made Consortes divinae naturae: partakers of the Divine Nature. Now if the Reader do desire to see the Fathers in particular, who affirm such and such points set down in this Animadversion, I refer him to the 39 Chapter of the second book de Eucharistia, in Bellarmine; from which place I do acknowledge, I have taken this Animadversion. Now what can be replied against the Father's Sentences herein? It cannot be said, that they delivered these Encomia and lauds of the Blessed Sacrament, by way of Rhetorical amplification, exaggeration, or Hyperbolical speeches; First, because not any one Father (among so many) doth but intimate any such manner of writing in their works; Secondly, in that some of them, do write to the contrary, affirming that the sense of the words touching the B. Sacrament are literally to be taken as they are written; for thus doth Hilarius (by way of prevention, touching the Father's meaning) writ hereof: Non est 
(m) Hilarius cap. 8. de Trinitate.  humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum: neque per violentam & impudentem praedicationem caelestium dictorum sanitati alienae, atqus impiae intelligentiae extorquenda perversitas est. Quae scripta sunt legamus, & quae legi●●s intelligamus, & tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur: de naturali enim in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus; ipse enim ait, Caro mea verè est esca etc. And thus much, touching this Father censuring of his own writings, and of other Fathers also, concerning the Blessed Sacrament; and that the Sentences delivered of it, aught to be taken literally, and plainly, and not Hyperbolically, or figuratively, and as amplifications.   

Animadversion CXXIV.  
AS above is showed, that the ancient Fathers even by the Confession of the Protestants, taught the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist; so also in this Animadversion I hold it convenient, to discover the like judgement of the Fathers, that the Eucharist is a true and Real Sacrifice, offered up to God and this from the penns of our Adversaries.  
First them, Symmachus was Bishop of Rome, of whom the Centurists thus write 
(n) Cent. 6 cap. 10. col. 664. : Notas Antichristi etc. ●ymmachus had the Notes of Antichrist, for he brought the Mass into a form.  
Of Ambrose the Certurists thus confess: 
(o) Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  Ambrose locutionibus utitur, quibus ante cum ex patri●us nemo usus est; ut Missam facere, offer Sacrificium: Ambrose doth use certain speeches, the which no other Father before him did use; as to say Mass, to offer up Sacrifice etc.  
The Council of Carthage (whereat S. Austin was present) is in these words depressed by Pelargus, a Protestant: 
(p) In his Scho●la fidei, tract. de Concil. pag. 13.  Haec Synodus Carthaginensis Intercessionem & Missan pro defuuctis iniunxit: This Synod of Carthage ●id ordain intercession of prayers, and Mass for the Dead.  
Cyrill of Jerusalem is thus taxed by Hospi●ian the Protestant: 
(q) Hospinian hist. Sacrament. pag. 167.  Quoad Cyrilium Hicrosolymitanum attinet etc. Cyrill of jerusalem saith indeed (according to the use of his time,) that the Sacrifice of the Altar is a great help to souls.  
Gregory Nyssene is thus charged by Crasto●ius a Protes●ant: Nyssenus 
(r) L. de opificio missae. 164.  ille ait, Cùm ●ederit Christus discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum etc. tam latenter, & in●ffa●●●●ter, & invisibiliter Corpus immolatum erat etc. When Christ gave to his disciples his body to ●●te etc. that then his body was immolated and offered up latently, ineffably, and invisibly.  
Cyprian, who lived an. 240. the Centurists do thus reprehend: Sacerdotem 
(s) Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 33.  Cyprianus inquit, vice Christi fungi, & Deo patri Sacrificium offerri, and from hence they charge Cyprian with 
(t) Centurists in the Alphabetical Table of the third Century under the letter. S.  Superstition.  
Tertullian, who lived anno 220. Osiander thus accuseth: Tertullianus 
(u) Ofl. and. Cent. 33. c. 9  approbavit oblationem pro ●●junctis: Tertullian approved of Oblation for the D●ad; Osiander here meaning the oblation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. In further confirmation whereof we find D. Fulke thus to write: Tertullian, 
(x) D. ●ulk. in his confutation of Purgatory. pag. 361. vide pa. 103. & 3●3.  Cyprian, Austin, Jerome, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the Dead, it a Tradition of the Apostles.  
Jrenaeus in like manner, who lived anno 170. is charged by the Centurists, who thus write of him: De 
(y) Cent. 2. cap. 4. col. 63.  oblatione Irenaus (l. 4. c. 23.) satis videtur loqui incommodè, etc. Jrenaeus in l. 4. c. 23. seemeth to speak inconueniently enough of Oblation, or Sacrifice, when he saith: That Christ had taught a new oblation of the new Testament; the which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offered to God throughout the whole world; Thus far the Centurists of this father.  
Jgnatius (the Apostles scholar) who lived anno 90. is thus censured by the Centurists: 
(z) Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 63.  Quaedam ambigna, & incommodè dicta in quibusdam occurrunt, ut in Epistola Ignatij ad Smirnenses: Non licet (inquit Jgnatius) sine Episcopo neque offer, neque Sacrificium immolare. There are certain doubtful and inconvenient say, which do occur in divers place, as in Ignatius his Epistle ad Smirnenses: where Jgnatius saith: It is not lawful without a Bishop to immolate, or offer up Sacrifice; Which very words of Ignatius the Centurists in another place affirm to be, 
(a) Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 107.  periculosa, & quasi errorum Semina. Thus fare of the Father's Doctrine touching the Sacrifice of the Mass; a Point so evident, that Caluin infimulateth all the Fathers within this reprehension: saying, The fathers did 
(b) Calu. in omnes Pauli Ep. in Hebr. ●. 7. pag. ●●4.  adulterate the supper of our Lord, by adding Sacrifice unto it. With whom (to omit some others) Sebastianus Francus thus recordeth: 
(c) In Epist. de abrogandis in universum omnibus sta●utis Ecclesiasi.  Statim, post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt etc. Caena Domini in Sacrificium transformata est. To the Antiquity of the Doctrine of the Mass and Sacrifice, I will subnect the consideration of the Universality of the Doctrine thereof, practised both in former times, and at this present day, by all the Christians of the whole world (our Adversaries only excepted.) For the Christians in Asia, Africa, Europe, yea the Grecians, Armeniant, the far distant Ethiopians, and the remotest Oriental Jndians (of whom many never heard of the Roman Church) in their dally recourse of Pilgrimage to jerusalem, do ever conspire and agree together (as it hath been, and is observed by Travellers) in the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and daily practise of saying, and offering up the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, notwithstanding their known diversity of opinions in other matters.   

Animadversion CXXV.  
THe Greek text in Luk. 22. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Hic calix nowm testamentum in sanguine meo, qui (viz. Calix) pro vobis effunditur. This Text (I say) by force of the Greek, in regard, that the Relatine in the Greek, agreeth with Calix, and not with: Sanguine, showeth that Calix was shed for us. Now seeing that Calix (taken Materially) could not be shed for us; therefore that, which was contained in the Calix, was shed for us: But wine could not be shed for man's redemption; therefore it inavoidably followeth, that the blood of Christ was in the Calix. This testimony (by reason of the greek words so expressed) is so forcible and convincing to prove, that blood was in the Cup, that Beza 
(d) Beza in Luc. 22.  seeing it could be no ways otherwise answered, said: these greek words were surreptitious, creeping by negligence out of the Margin into the Text; though it hath ever been read (as now we read it) in all ancient Greek Manuscripts.   

Animadversion CXXVI.  
WHereas our Adversaries to prove, that the verb Est, in the words of Consegration, should be taken for significat, (so excluding thereby all real Presence) do urge many Texts of Scripture, in which they say, the said word Est, must of necessity be taken for significat: as Agnus est Pascha, Exod; 12. Septem bones sunt septem anni, Genes. 14. Ego sum Ostium, Joan. 20. and some others. To this I answer, First, that in Parables and similitudes, the verb Est is taken for significat, and yet without any Trope; The reason hereof being, because the whole essence of all such things is placed in signification. Secondly, I answer, that in the examples alleged by our Adversaries, there immediately followeth an explication of the Trope, and figure; but of the words of the Jnstitution there followeth no explication. Thirdly, in most of the examples alleged by our Adversaries, ever praedicatur disparatum de disparato, as Christus est Ostium, my meaning is, that, that which is of a most different Nature is said of another thing of the like different Nature; which kind of propositions, seeing they cannot be by any means properly & literally true, we are forced to expound the same by Tropes and figures: But in the words Hoc est Corpus meum, there is no such kind of strange & unusual predication, at least in the appearance of the words themselves.   

Animadversion CXXVII.  
I do much wonder, that any of our learned Adversaries (as often they do) insist in those words against the Real presence, Spiritus est, qui vinificat; Caro non prodest. Joan. 6. It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth not. For here the literal sense of these words only is, that a Carnal understanding of spiritual things, doth not profit, as 
(e) Serm. de Cau● Domini.  Cyprian, chrysostom 
(f) Upon this place. , and Origen 
(g) L. 3. in Epist. ad Rome. no●.  do expound. But admit that Christ did speak of his flesh; yet it proveth nothing against his being in the Eucharist; both because by the same Reason, we may conclude, that the bread is not in the Sacrament for if the body of Christ profiteth us nothing much less can a little piece of wheaten bread profit us. Again if our Lord had spoken of his flesh, he would not have understood it absolutely; but only that the flesh without the Spirit profiteth nothing; Since otherwise our Lord should have crossed himself, who said: Qui manducat carne● meam, habet vitam aeternam. Lastly, it is no less, than a great impiety to deny, tha● the flesh of Christ (being united with his Divinity) profiteth us nothing; Seeing S. Paul, Coloss. 1. attributes all our Saluatio● to the flesh of Christ; for he saith, that we are reconciled to God by the said flesh.   

Animadversion CXXVIII.  
WHereas our Adversaries in further impugning of the real Presence do object, first the Indignity proffered by us to Christ his body, in maintaining it to be really in the Eucharist, since by this reason, say they, it may become rotten and mouldy, and be eaten by mice, & should pass to the belly, and so to the common passage. To this I answer, that these supposed indignities do not touch the body of Christ, but only affect the species, and form of the Eucharist, which is joined with the body. Again, seeing our Christian faith teacheth us, that Christ was included for a long time within the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, being a Woman; that he was swaddled, and lapped in , that then he might fall upon the earth, and might also have been eaten with beasts, or burned (if so by miracle he were not preserved from such mischances) if rhen he was truly, and in his own person subject to all these difficultyes, without any dishonour; what dishonour is it to him, if he did undergo (in another form) the former supposed Indecencyes, urged by our Adversaries? Again, the former Indignities do no more truly, and properly touch the body of Christ, than the Divinity; which (being in all places) can be said to be burnt, it being in the fire, or being rotten, it being in bodies that are rotten etc.   

Animadversion CXXIX.  
Our Adversaries draw another argument, taken from the unprofitableness of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Thus they dispute; The real being of Christ's body in the Eucharist, is needles, in that seeing the end and fruit of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soul; and this nourishment consisting in faith and Charity, may as availably be performed by apprehending Christ by faith, as he is only in Heaven; it therefore followeth, that no profit ariseth from the Catholic doctrine herein, which is not by other means as well effected. To this I answer, first, that it is false to say, that the same fruit is reaped by Christ in Heaven, as by receiving him really into our bodies; since Experience doth witness, that by this receiving him in the Eucharist, our Faith, Charity, Devotion, and Reverence are more increased. Besides, our real conjunction with Christ affordeth many benefits to the soul, which Christ giveth not without this Conjunction; no otherwise, than he cured all such, who touched the Hemme of his garment, whom he would not have cured (though otherwise he could) if they had not touched it. Secondly, I affirm; It is a false ●●●ation to conclude, It was not convenient, that Christ should be really in the Eucharist, because the fruit reaped thereby, may be obtained by other means; For that is profitable, which doth confer any Good, though the same good may be obtained otherwise. For one drop of Christ's blood, or any other laborious work undertaken by him for our good, had been sufficient for our Redemption; yet it followeth not, that all his pains, labours, effusion of blood, yea death itself, were unprofitably and bootelesly performed. Yea God could have redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christ● shall we therefore say, that the Incarnation of Christ was needles, inconvenient, and unprofitable?   

Animadversion CXXX.  
WHereas above there have been alleged divers testimonies out of the jews and ancient Rabins, in proof of divers Articles of our Roman Catholic faith, & particularly of the Sacrifice, which the Rabins say, the Messiah shall make at his coming; our Adversaries seek to evade the force of all the jewish Rabins authorities, by saying, that those testimonies of the Rabins were first forged by Galatinus, and fathered upon the jews for their greater credit. And according hereto we find D. Whitaker thus to answer Dureus, who urged some Jewish sentences out of Galatinus, for proof of the Real Presence, and Sacrifice: Tuum 
(h) Whitak contra Duraeum. pag. 818.  in hac causa Petrum Galatinum minimè profectò desideramus, nec Haebreorum testimonijs illis indigemus. Now to free Galatinus from suspicion of forging all such sentences of the Rabins in favour of Christianity, and of Articles of our Roman Religion; I answer hereto, and say, that one Hieronymus de Sancta fide, being a Jew, and converted to Christianity in the time before Galatinus (whose Physician he was) did write a book entituling it: Hebraeo-mastrix, or vindex impietatis, & perfidiae judaicae, wherein he proveth divers points of Christianity from the there alleged testimonies and sentences of the said former jews, mentioned by Galatinus. This book of his was printed at Frankford anno 1602.   

Animadversion CXXXI.  
IT is much observed, how our Adversaries in answering to Catholic Books, often give slip to the argument, or authority produced; and in lieu thereof either by degrees fly to the state of the Question (as though afore it were not acknowledged) or to the Scripture (themselves only interpreting the same) where they may range up and down are large; or to some by circumstance, merely accessary to the Question and difficulty disputed of; or do use deceitful resemblance, and exchange of matter, subtly conveyed, and brought in by tedious entertainment of prolonged discourse; and all this to hold the Reader therewith, that so unespiedly they may divert the Readers eye and memory (being thus fixed upon their digressions) from the authority and reason alleged. Here also may allege their accustomed practice in printing the Catholics Books at large, & their answer conjoined thereto in the same bulk or volume; Their usual imposture than is, to cause the Catholic authors words to be set down in a most little, obscure, and dark letter or Character, thereby to withdraw the Readers eye from perusing and reading it at large; whereas their answer thereto, they procure to be printed in a fair and great Character or letter, that so they may more easily invite the Reader to the full perusing of it. And this sleight is particularly (besides in others) manifested in D. Whitakers Answer to B. Father Caspian his ten Reasons, in his Challenge to the two Universities; also in D. White his Book against his Adversaries entitled: The way to the true Church.   

Animadversion CXXXII.  
IF many miracles were wrought concerning Christ's body, before, and whiles he here conversed upon earth; may not then a man be more easily induced to believe the great Miracle of his body in the Institution of the Eucharist? A little before the Nativity thereof, we read: (Co●ceptus est de Spiritis Sancto; At the very instant of his birth: Natus est ex Maria Virgin: some small time after his death Tertia die resurrexit; upon his last departure from us: Ascendit ad Caelos; In all which passages Nature herself was (if not dissolved) at least suspended: yea whiles he here conversed upon earth, the sam● sacred body of Christ was sometimes nourished without 
(i) To wit, during Christ's fast of forty days.  eating, at other times did eat without 
(k) When he did eat with his Apostles after his Resurrection.  any nourishment thereby: furthermore, the same body remaining Visible, 
(l) According to Luc. 4. Ipse transient pe● medium illorum ibat.  became Jnuisible: To conclude, ●hrist blessed body did walk 
(m) Mat. 14.  most firmly upon the liquid Element, so as the unstable Water did then support him who supports the Heavens: If then Nature did so often sub●ect and humble herself to this sacred body, how can we Christians doubt of the infallible certainty of those words of Christ concerning his body, Hoc est corpus meum, proceeding from our true and powerful Lord; since Truth acknowledgeth not Falsehood, nor Omnipotency Deficiency?   

Animadversion CXXXIII.  
TOuching the doctrine of Freewill, I have thought good to set down these f●● Animadversions following, especially for the use of such as are scholars. Here than we are to know, that liberum arbitrium, or Freew●●, is not only a passive power, neither partly passive; nor partly active, but is simply and on●● an Active power. Secondly, by Freewill n●● things Evil, but only things Good, are desired. For the proper object of the Will is that which is good, or at least that, which is apprehended under the show of God 〈◊〉 No● that which is evil doth not belong to the object of the will, but only secondarily, an● per accidens, so far forth, as we will 〈◊〉 that, which is Evil; and therefore we w●● not, because Evil, is contrary to the go●● which properly we will. Thirdly, Freew●● hath reference as well to things Present, a to things to come. The truth of which Thesis is thus proved: If Freewill could no● consist touching things that are present then would it follow, that God should 〈◊〉 be in his Actions truly free; the reason is because to God nothing is past, nor nothing to come, but all things are present. Fo●●thly, the object of Freewill, is not the 〈◊〉 but only the means to the End. Hear 〈◊〉 speak of the chief Act of the Will, whi●● is Election, where the Freedom of the Will doth respect only the Media, but not the Finis. And it may be said to respect the End, only, as the End may inducre rationem medij, undergo the show or form of the means. Fiftly, the Subject of Freewill cannot be any thing, but an Intelligent Nature, that is, nothing is endued with Freewill, which hath not intelligency & vnderstanding. And hence it is, that Beasts cannot be said to have freewill, because they have their judgement determined by Nature, against the which they cannot reluctari, or strive; and they cannot confer one thing with another, which is the foundation of freewill: And thereupon it riseth, that all Beasts of the same kind do ever work after one and the same manner. Sixtly, it is to be observed, that there is a double freedom of Nature, for there is a freedom, which is opposed to a simple coaction, and constraint; and those things are said to be freely done, from this simple constraint, the which though necessarily they be done, and cannot be but done, yet they are freely and voluntarily done; according hereto we all will, & wish ●o be happy, and cannot in any sort will to ●e unhappy. There is also a freedom or liberty of the will, to the which not only coaction, but also necessity is repugnant: And ●hose actions are said to be free from necessity, the which we can will, or not will: as when we do walk, or speak, we might notwithstanding have not walked, or have been silent. Now the freedom of will, which the Catholic doctrine requireth, it a freedom from necessity, and not only a freedom from coaction, or constraint.   

Animadversion CXXXIV.  
Our Adversaries h●uld it impossible, that Liberum Arbitrium can stand with the Divine Operation; affirming, that the Cooperation of God doth take away, and destroy the Freedom of will. But the Catholic School Devynes 
(n) Gregorius Ariminensis. Scotus, Gabriel, and others, in secund. Sencent. distinct. 37.  do maintain, that they both may stand together, and they explicate it in this sort: They teach, that the Cooperation of God in any work performed by Man with Freedom of will, beareth itself with reference to the Effect, not with reference to the Cause; that is, that the concourse of God doth not determinate our Will, neither doth work, or imprint any thing upon it, but that it immediately flows into the Effect, and doth produce the same in the very same moment, in the which it is produced by the Will. And hence say they, it followeth, that God doth neither determinate, or necessitate the Will, nor the Will God, since both give freely their concourse, and if the one will not concur, the Action will not be done: Even as (say they) when two men do bear a great stone, the which the one of them is not able to bear, nether of these men do add force to the other, or impel the one the other, and it is in the liberty of either of them to leave the burden: Although God (except he would extraordinarily work some miracle) doth ever concur, when our Will doth concur, because he hath in a certain manner bound himself thereto, when he did create man's Freewill. From which it followeth, that though God, and Man's will, even in the same moment of time do begin to work; yet God worketh, because the Will worketh, not contrariwise.   

Animadversion CXXXV.  
Our Adversaries for the impugning of Freewill say, that it destroyeth God's prescience, or foreknowledge, seeing both these, I mean man's Freewill, and God's foreknowledge cannot stand together: for God doth foreknow all future things necessarily, and it cannot possibly b●, that God should be deceived; therefore all things have their event out of a certain Necessity. I answer hereto, that the Prescience of God is most certain, yet doth it not impose any necessity to things future. This is thus proved, according to the judgement of S. Austin 
(o) Austin. l. 3. de libero Arbitrio.  and others: If the foreknowledge of God doth impose a Necessity to future things, the reason hereof should be taken from Prescience or foreknowledge, as it is considered in itself; or else from Prescience, as it is the Prescience of God; But neither of these are true. For first if Prescience of God (because it is Prescience) should impose a necessity to future things, than it would follow, that not only the Prescience of God, but also the Prescience of Man, should in like manner impose a necessity to future things. But this is false: for the foreknowledge of man is not the cause of things, neither doth it work any things that are future. For example, if by divine revelation I should know, that it will rain to morrow; nevertheless I should not be the cause of the rain, and yet without doubt it would rain, but no less contingently, then if I had known nothing thereof. Now, why those things which certainly are foreknown, do ever have their Event, when as notwithstanding they come to pass contingently, and in respect hereof may not come to pass; the cause hereof is; Because who forseeth a thing to come, doth in his understanding anticipate, and prevent the effecting & doing of the same thing, and so beholdeth the thing already done, before it be done, but that which is done, cannot be undone, though it be done freely, and contingently. Therefore it may be concluded, that the Prescience of God imposeth not a necessity to things, as foresight, or foreknowledge is considered in itself; neither as it is considered to be the Prescience of God. This is proved, for as God doth foresee what men will do, so he also forseeth, what himself will do; but the Prescience of God doth not force God, that he will work, or do any thing; therefore by the same reason his Prescience doth not force men. In like manner the Protestants object, that Gratia efficax (which we Catholics do grant, that it is given to divers men) doth destroy Freewill. To this I answer with S. Austin, that this Gratia efficax hath indeed an infallible certitude, but yet hath no necessitude, but only ex hypothesi; and in this respect, it doth not hinder the Freedom of man's Will: for though certain it is, that this Gratia efficax will not be rejected; yet it is as certain, that it may be rejected. And therefore this efficacious grace, where it is given, doth no more induce a necessity, or hinder the Freedom of the will, than the Prescience, or foreknowledge of God doth.   

Animadversion CXXXVI.  
SOme of our Adversaries (and particularly Luther, as is above said) do thus write: The ten 
(p) Luther. ser. de Moyse.  Commandments appertain not to Christians: And again: The ten 
(q) Fox. Act. Mon. p. 1335.  Commandments were given us, not to do them, but to know our Damnation, and to call for Mercy. And yet more plainly D. Willet writeth: The Law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us, through the weakness of our flesh; Neither 
(r) Willet in Synops. Papism. pa. 564.  doth God give us ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfilled it for us. Thus these men seek to free us from keeping the Commandements, because (say they) Christ hath kept them for us. And may not any man conclude from the same ground, that we Christians are not bound to pray at any time, or to practise Virtue and Piety, because Christ hath prayed for us all, and lived a most holy life, for us all? Such incentives to all vice, and turpitude in conversation doth this doctrine beget in the believers thereof; and therefore the less wonder, that we find Luther thus to write: A 
(s) Luth. tom. 1. wittenberg, de captivit. Babylon. fol. 74.  Christian man is so rich, that although ●e would, he cannot lose his Salvation, by any s●nne, how great soever, unless he will not believe.   

Animadversion CXXXVII.  
IN setting down the necessity of the ever Visibility of Christ's Church, I will not so much insist in the Scriptures, or in the authority of the Father's confirming the same, as in the true and ingenious acknowledgement of the learned Protestants thereof, which being here once expressed, than I will draw a most dangerous and irrepliable inference, to the main overthrow of the Protestants Church. Well then to begins We find Caluin thus to write: Nan: 
(t) Inst. l. 4. c. 1. Sect. 4.  is visibili Ecclesia etc. Extra cuius gremium non est speranda peccator●m remissio: Out of whose bosom we cannot expect any remission of sinne●. H●nnius giveth his sentence in these words: God 
(u) In his Treatise of E●●●will. pa. ●1.  in all times hath placed his Church is a high place, and hath exalted it in the sight of a●l people and Nations. jacobus Andraeas, that famous Protestant: We 
(x) In his book against Hosius, pag. 210.  are not ignorant that the Church must be a visible Company of teachers, and hearers. Melancthou is most luxuriant in his Sentences of this point, who thus writeth: Necesse 
(y) Melanct. in Concil. Theologi ●art. 2.  est fateri esse visibilem Eccles●am etc. It is necessary to confess the Church to be visible. Whither tendeth then, haec portentosa Oratio, this monstrous Opinion, which denieth the Church to be visible? And in another place this Protestant thus further discourseth: Whensoever 
(z) In loc. come. ●dit. 15●● c d● Eccl●s.  we think of the Church, let us behold the Company of such men, as are gathered together, which is the visible Church: neither let us dream, that the Elect of God are to be found in any other place, then in this visible Society etc. Neither let us imagine of any other invisible Church. Briefly the said Melancthon, urging several texts of Scripture in proof of the Church's visibility, saith: 
(a) Melanct. ubi supra.  Hi & sim●●s loci etc. these and such like places of Scripture Non de idea Platonica, sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur.  
D. Field thus writeth: The 
(b) Lib. 1. of the Church. c. ●0. pag. 19  Persons, of whom the Church consisteth, are visible, their profession known even unto the profane etc. I will conclude with D. Humphrey, thus teaching: Cur 
(c) D. Humphrey in his jesuitis. part. 2. cap. 3.  anxiè & curiosè probant, quod est à nobis numquam negatum? Why do the Papists so painfully seek to prove that, which we never denied? And then after he saith: Non enim cluncul●rij sec●stus, & connoçationes s●nt Christianae: The Society of Christians are not secret meetings. And then there speaking of the Church militant he further thus saith: Oportet Ecclesiam ess● conspicuam, Conclusio est clarissima: It is a manifest Conclusion, that the Church is to be conspicuous, and visible. Thus far of the learned Protestants confessing the truth, touching the ever necessary and vninterrupted visibility of the Church of Christ. Now the Deduction, which I draw from the premises is this: That seeing the Church of Christ must ever be conspicuous and visible; And further, seeing that the Protestant Church hath been wholly latent and invisible (according to the judgement of some Protestants) for the space of this last thousand years; but by the acknowledgement of other learned Protestants during these last thirteen or fourteen hundred years, as above I have set down in our Adversary's literal authorities and sentences, acknowledging so much; what other thing than can result out of our Adversaries own positions, but that the Protestant Church, through want of a necessary, and vninterrupted visibility, is not the true Church of Christ?   

Animadversion CXXXVIII.  
THat Luther was an Enemy to the Divinity of Christ, and the Blessed Trinity, is above showed. In this Animadversion, Caluin shallbe charged with the like impiety. This I prove, in that Caluin labours to avoid & detort all such chief places of sacred writ, as the Ancient Fathers were accustomed to allege in proof of Christ's Divinity. Now first, I will set down his own words against the B. Trinity, whereof he thus saith: Haec 
(d) In Ep. 2. ad Polonos in tract. Theolog. p 796.  precatio, Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, miserere nostri, mihi non placet, & barbariem ●mnino sapit, This prayer, Holy Trinity, one God, ●aue mercy upon us, doth not please me, for it tasteth of Barbarism. Now to come to the text empoisoned by his Constructions: and first that markable passage, I, and 
(e) joan. 10.  the Father are unum, uz. one thing ever mainly insisted upon by the Ancient 
(f) Chrysost. in hunc locum. Austin in hunc locum, & many others.  Fathers, against the Arians, for proof of the Divinity of Christ, is thus avoided by Caluin: 
(g) Caluin in joan. ca 10.  Abusi sunt hoc ●xo Veteres, ut probarent Christum esse Patri Homoousion; neque enim Christus de unitate sùbstantiae disputat, sed de consensu: The ancient Fathers have abused this place, to prove, that Christ is Consubstantial to his Father; For Christ here disputeth not of the unity of Essence, but of the unity of Consent and will. Again, that passage: There 
(h) 1. joan 5.  be three, that give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three be one: Which text the ancient Fathers ever expounded of the Trinity, Caluin thus answereth: Quod 
(i) Caluin in hunc locum.  dicitur tres esse unum, ad essen●iam non refertur, sed ad consensum potiùs: That is; where it is said, these three are One, these words are not to be referred to One, in respect of Essence, but rather of Consent. In like manner that place: Thou 
(k) Psal. 2.  art my Son (body) this day I have begotten thee, Cal●i● 
(l) In Psalm. 2.  interpreteth with the Arians against the Divinity of Christ. This point, I mean of Caluins' interpreting the chief passages of Scripture (ever urged by the Ancient Fathers for proof of Christ's Divinity) with the Arians to impugn Christ's Divinity, is so c●eere and confessed, as that Aegidius Hunnius (a most markable and learned Protestant) writeth a book against Caluin of this subject, thus entituling it: Caluinus Indaizans; hoc est, judaicae glossae & corruptelae, quibus Joannes Caluinus illustrissima scriptura sacra loca, & testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate etc. detestandum in mo●um corrumpere non exhorrait. With this blasphemy against the Blessed Trinity, Caluin is further charged by Conradus 
(m) In Theolog. Caluinist. l 2. fol. 38. 39 & sequent.  Sclusselburg, by 
(n) In his Admonit. de Arianis.  Pelargus, by Stancarus, 
(o) Sc●nkarus contra ministros Genevens. & Tyguri●o●.  and lastly by joannes Mathaeus all eminent Protestants; which Mathaeus did write a book against Caluin, for teaching Arianisme styling it: de Cavendo Caluinistarum fermento etc.   

Animadversion CXXXIX.  
FRom the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, during so many ages above granted, it is proved, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ by this Medium following: The Prophecies do fore show, that the Church of Christ in the time of the New testament, shall convert to its faith, the Gentiles, their Nations, and kingdoms; thus accordingly we read Esay to foretell of the Church: 
(p) Esay c. 60. vide etiam cap. 54.  The Isles shall wait for thee (meaning the Church:) Their kings shall minister unto thee; and thy Gates shallbe continually open; neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles; with whom accordeth the Royal Prophet speaking in the person of the Church: 
(q) Psal. 2.  I will give thee the Heathens for thy inheritance and the ends of the earth for thy possession. That these places of Scripture (besides divers others) are understood of the enlargement of Christ's Church, and the conversion of kingdoms and nations unto it, is warranted by the acknowledgement of 
(r) O●colamp. upon jeremy.  Occolampadius 
(s) In his def●nce p. 400. , D. Whitguist, D. Whitaker 
(t) In his answer to M. William Reyno●●●  and others, as also by the Annotations of the Protestants own English 
(u) Printed in the year 1576.  Bibles. Now for proof that the Protestant Church, never yet converted any Gentiles, or Heathen Kingdoms and Nations to its faith, we will begin first from Luther's time, and so ascend by degrees up to the Apostles. And first from Luther's days to Gregory the Great, or Boniface the third, (which containeth a thousand years) it is evident, that during all this time the Protestant Church remained wholly Jnuisible (as is above demonstrated, from the acknowledgements of Protestants) and therefore could not convert any Countries or Kingdoms to its religion. Again touching all these Countries here expressed, to wit, The Danes, 
(x) Cant. 8.9, 10.11.12.13.14.15.  Moravians, Polonians, Slavonians, Bulgars, Huns, Normans, Bohemians, Norwegians, Saxons, Germans, and divers others here omitted; the Conversions of all these happened within this last thousand years, and therefore were converted by the Church of Rome, and to the present Roman faith, even by free acknowledgement of the Magdeburgians, or Centurists, according as the Bishops of Rome lived within those several ages. Neither can our Adversary's name any one Heathen Country in Christendom, converted to Christianity by the Protestant Church. And hence it riseth, that D. Whitaker doth style the Conversion of all the former Countries, (as granting them to be converted to our present Roman faith) impure, 
(y) Whitak. l de Eccles. contra Bellarm. § 336.  and corrupt Conversions. Now to ascend from these last thousand years upwards to the other next three hundred years; I mean to the days or the first Christian Emperor; during the space of which three hundred years, no Countries or Kingdoms were converted at all to Christian Religion, either by Catholics, or any others; for it is evident that in those days there were no Kings professing the Christian Religion, the Emperors of the East only excepted; among whom some were false 
(z) As Valens, Constantius, constans.  Christians, as being defiled with Arianisme, others 
(a) julian.  Apostates. Now concerning the time itself of Constantine, it is so certain, that neither himself, nor any Country by his means was converted to the Protestant Religion, as that the Magdeburgenses (all Protestants) recording the state of the Church in constantines time, do charge Constantine with all our Catholic points, at this day professed by the Church of Rome, styling them: The 
(b) Cent. 4.  Errors of Constantine; and of his Age.  
Now to rise higher in times, to wit, from the times of Constantine to that of Christ our Saviour, it is witnessed by all Historiographers, that the Church of God was in such violent Persecutions, as that it had no means to enlarge itself by converting to it Kings, or Kingdoms; and if it had at that time converted any, yet the Question would then follow, whether such a Conversion had been made to the Protestant, or to the Roman Church: But the evidency of this point appeareth both from the writings of the Protestant Divines of Wittenb●rg, 
(c) In the book, Disputationes etc.  as also from the testimony of D. Barlow, who thus discourseth hereof: 
(d) Barlow in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion. pag. 24.  the Primitive Nonage of the Church, this promise of King's allegiance thereunto, was not so fully accomplished; because in those days, that prophecy of our Saviour was rather verified: You shallbe brought before Kings for my name sake by them to be persecuted even unto death.  
Now to reflect upon this argument deduced from the prophecies, that the true Church of Christ shall convert to it, the Gentills, their Kings, and Kingdoms; he●● above we see even from the pens of our Adversaries, that many Countries, Kings, and Kingdoms have been converted to Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church, but not any one Heathen king or Country by the Protestant Church: whether then o● these two Churches, is the true Church 〈◊〉 Christ? Here to reply, and say, that these prophecies are to be fulfilled, not before, b●● after the preaching of Luther's Gospel, 〈◊〉 controlled by the judgement of all learne● men, and by Experience itself, and therefore D. Whitaker had just reason thus to confess of this point: Whatsoever 
(e) Whitak. l. 7. contra Duraeum pa. 472.  the ancient Prophets have foretold of the enlargement, amplitude, and glory of the Church; The same to have been already performed is most evident out of Histories. Thus far of this Demonstration, to prove, that the Protestant Church is not that Church, to which the former prophecies of converting Gentills, Kings, and Nations do truly appertain.   

Animadversion CXL.  
GOod Reader, in this one Animadversion 〈◊〉 entreat thy peculiar lattention: This than I say; Luther thus chargeth Moses: De 
(1) Luth. tom. 3. Wittin. in Psal. 46. fol. 423.  you collect together all the Wisdom of Moses, and of Heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God, either Idolatry, or Hypocritical wisdom etc. Away therefore with Moses. Of S. Paul the Magdeburgians thus speak: Paul 
(2) Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. ca 10.  doth turn to James the Apo●●●●, and a Synod of Presbyters being called to●●her, he is persuaded by james and the rest, ●t for the offended jews he should purify him●fe in the Temple; whereunto Paul yields, ●●ich certainly was no small sliding of so great a Doctor, as not having sufficient reason thereof, Moses' Law being abrogated. In the like condemnation of some other Apostles we ●d Brentius (the great Protestant) thus to ●each: 
*) Brentius in Apolog. Confess. c. de Concilijs. pag. 900.  S. Peter chief of the Apostles, & also Barnabas, after the Holy Ghost received, together with the Church of Jerusalem, er●●d. That the whole Church of Christ may ●tre, D. Fulke thus literally averreth: The 
(*) D. Furio ke, in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. pag. 86.  ●hole Church militant, as every part thereof, ●●y altogether err. Touching general Coun●l●, Peter Martyr thus speaketh: As 
(3) Lib. de vocis.  long 〈◊〉 we insist in General Counsels, so long we shall ●sist in the Papists errors. Of particular Fa●●ers D. Whitaker thus censureth: Papistarum 
(4) Contra Duraeum. l. 6 p. 421.  religio est Cento etc. The popish Religion is ●patched Coverlet of the Father's Errors sowed together. Finally Christ himself (both God & Man, and Redeemer of the world) is charged with ignorance by the Protestants; ●r thus Caluin writeth: Insanus 
(s) Caluin in ca 14. Math.  foret, qui ●grauatim ignorantiae subijceret, quam ne ipse ●idem Dei filius nostra causa subire abnuit etc. ●hat man were mad, who with discontent should ●knowledg himself to be subject to ignorance; ●nce the Son of God himself for our sake, ●ould not refuse to be ignorant. And further, Caluin speaking of Christ his prayer in t●● Garden, thus chargeth our Saviour: Chri● 
(6) Calu. in 26. Math.  oratio in horto fuit abruptum votum, & s●bitò elapsum, quod castigavit & revocavit; 〈◊〉 prayer of Christ in the Garden was abrupt, & not premeditated, which vow at unawares ●●●ping from our Saviour, he after revoked anand called. Thus now I wind up my Premises; Y● particular Fathers, If General Counsels, Y● the whole Church militant of Christ, ●f the Blessed Apostles (and this after the descending down of the Holy Ghost,) If Moy● finally if Christ himself may err (as a● this is above (though falsely) taught by o● Adversaries;) what indiscretion then, wh●● weakness of judgement, what motley foolishness; or rather Lunacy is it, to ascribe a● infallibility of judgement to Luther an incestuous Monk, to Swinglius an Apostate Priest, to Caluin and Beza two Sodomites even by the acknowledgement of their own 
(7) Caluin and Beza are charged with Sodomy by Conradus Schlusselb. (a great Protestant) in Theolog. Caluin. printed. 1504 l. 2. fol. 72. & l. 1. ol. 91.  Brethren, to any other Sectary whosoever, or finally to the private revealing Spir●● of each illiterate man, who holds himself (through his own pride and ignorance) to be afflatus, or possessed with the Holy Ghost? or what Reason had D. Whitaker th●● ambitiously to paint out this Private Spirit● these words, An 
(8) Whitak. in Controu. q. 5. ca 3. & 1●.  inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost, wrought in the closet of the belieue●● hart?   

Animadversion CXLI.  
WHen we Charge the Protestants with divers Innovations of the ancient Heretics, they in Recrimination thereof la●our to insimulate us with the Doctrines of ●he Gentiles, or Heathens, as appeareth from 
(*) Reinolds lib. de Rom. Idolatria p. 168. 248. & 381. The same is objected by Kempnitius, Examen. part. 3. pag. 83.  D. Reynolds pen: And here they chie●●y insist in two points, to wit in the Do●ryne of Sacrifice, and of vows; both which Doctrynes were ever believed & practised (and are even at this present) by the Gen●●● and Heathens. Hear I thus wipe away ●●is aspersion, & yet withal I freely grant, ●hat we maintain both Sacrifice, and vows; 〈◊〉 do withal acknowledge, that the Heathens ●d the like; but now to the point. To have sacrifice, and to have Vows, is derived to ●en from the light of Nature; since even 〈◊〉 the Law of Nature, Men (as Men endued ●ith reason, not as Heathens) ever believed the doctrine hereof, and practised the ●me. In like manner the Heathens, only by ●e light of Nature believed, that there was God (as the Apostle showeth;) shall we Ca●olykes therefore descent from the Hea●ens in the belief thereof? Now that the heathens erred in the Object of their Sa●ifices and Vows, to wit, in sacrificing of men, and making improfitable and foolish ●owes, this proceeded from the Nature of man, corrupted by Original Sin, and not repaired in them by Christ; Even as they erred in the immediate Object of God; as no● believing in one only true God, but reputing the Sun and Moon, as Gods. No● here I say, it is lawful to agree with the Heathens in the generalityes of the two former doctrines (since the Instinct of Nature impressed by God in Man teacheth so much but not in the particularityes of them; seeing they are most erroneous in the immediate Object.   

Animadversion CXLII.  
WHen the Catholics do allege certai●● Notes of the Church, as Antiquity, Universality, Succession, Conversion of Heath●● etc. our Adversaries seek to avoid th● force of some of these Notes, and particularly of Succession, and Conversion of Gentiles▪ since, they say, these two Notes are clayman by confessedly false Churches; seeing th● Greek Church holdeth Succession, and th● Arians have converted the Goths an● Vandals. To answer hereto, I first say, these two Instances are false; for the Greek Church hath its Succession, as interrupted, and begun from those Intruders, who bega● their own separation from the Roma● Church, about the Holy Ghosts proceeding And as concerning the supposed Conversions of the Goths and Vandals by the Arians it is only pretended;  the Goths we●● not at the first converted by the Arians, bu● being converted before, were after by them perverted, as appeareth out of Zozomen, l. 6. c. 37. and Theodoret, l. 4. cap. vlt. Secondly, I reply to the former Evasion, That the Catholics (rather to prevent the impostures of our Adversaries objecting hereto, then out of any absolute necessity of the said Notes) do propound the foresaid Marks or notes, not as proper alone to the true Church but only as marks inseparable (though not convertible) from it; so they undertaking thereby not to set down in the affirmative, that where any such of these in separably marks be, there the true Church certainly is: but rather in the Negative, that where these be wanting, there the true Church is not: But certain it is, that these Notes are wanting in the Protestant Church.   

Animadversion CXLIII.  
I grant, that the Catholic Religion is involved with fare more difficultyes (as may be exemplifyed in the doctrine of the Real presence) than the Protestant Religion; the reason thereof being, in that our Religion consisteth of Affirmative Articles, the Protestants faith (so far forth as it differeth from the Catholic) of Negatives. Yet to recompense this, we find that the Protestant faith is attended on (contrary to the Catholic faith herein) with divers gross absurdityes, necessarily, and immediately flowing from the Protestants Tenets, or Assertions. I here pass over, how 
(9) Luth. l. de captain. Babil. c. de Baptism.  Luther holdeth, that Infants at the time of their Baptising have an articulate and actual faith of all the chief Misteryes of Christianity; That our Adversaries (howsoever they disclaim from it in words) teach, 
(10) Luther in Assert. damuat. per Leonem, Art. 36. Beza in his display of Popish practices, pag. 202. Sumglius to. 1. de Prodentia fol. 366.  that God is the Author of sin: These and many other such like absurd Doctrines I here pass over; only I will a little insist, how 
(*) Luther in Assert. art. 32. saith, That all good works (God judging them) are mortal sin.  Luther and the rest do maintain, that all the good works of just Men are Sins. Now the absurdity of this doctrine how transparent is it? Since from it would follow, that the work of faith, by which we are justified, should be Sin; as also that prayer, wherein we pray Dimitte nobis debita nostra, should be a sin. But is it not most absurd, that man should be justified by Sin, and that he should seek by Sin, to obtain the remission of sin? Again from this fountain we might thus truly Syllogise and reason: All good works are to be done; but some mortal sins are good Works; Therefore some mortal sins are to be done. Again: No mortal sin is to be committed; but all good works are mortal sins; Therefore no good Work is to be done. These (Lo) are the inferences of the former absurdity, to wit, that all good works are mortal Sins; that some mortal Sins are to be committed, and that no good work is to be done. Now whereas by way of retortion our Adversaries, and particularly Kempnitius in his Examen Concilij trident. upbraid us, that we teach a more blasphemous doctrine in maintaining, that we are justified by our own works, and not by Christ his Passion. To this I reply, that in objecting of this appears either extreme malice in our Adversaries, or at least most wilful ignorance; Therefore to remove this stumbling block we say, that we are justified by an inherent justice, or Renovation of life in us, as by the formal Cause; but we are also justified by the merits of Christ his Passion, as by the meritoriour Cause; both which different causes may stand together, without any derogation of the one to the other▪ contrary to the intended fraud of our Adversaries herein, in seeking to confound these two different Causes.   

Animadversion CXLIV.  
IF it be demanded, how Luther first, being instructed of the Devil concerning his doctrine, as also being of a vicious life (as ●n this Treatise is in part elsewhere showed) ●hould for his doctrine be so much applau●ed, & repaired unto by the broken members of the Catholic Church? To this may ●e answered, that Luther his select & choice preparing of his doctrine, to entertain and ●t the then several affected humours of ●ch peculiar declining estate and degree (& ●his being accompanied with the Visitation ●f Gods heavy judgements, hanging over ●he prevailing Sins of those degenerate ●●mes) was the chief Allective, for the more easy embracing of Luther's Doctrine. No● the choycnes of Luther's doctrine consisted (to insist in some particulars) in maintaining liberty of pretended Marriage in Clergy men; in his exposing of Monasteries, and other rich spoils of the Church, to the greedy appetite of the temporal Magistrate; and finally in deluding of the simple, & sinful Laity with his other licentious doctrines of Salvation by only faith, and disclaiming from the necessity of Good Work●, as holding them needles (as above out of his own particular say we have proved:) In the several embracing of all whic● (as S. Jerome 
(1) Jerome contra Vigilantium.  in like manner said of Vigilantius his followers) Luther's followers favoured not so much him, as their own V●●● These are the fatal steps of Luther's suddarth rising greatness: And this is the less to 〈◊〉 wondered at, seeing we see, that the like (c● rather far greater) progress was made 〈◊〉 this kind by Mahomet, through his absurd and licentious Doctrines, wherewith so many Nations are even at this day infected.   

Animadversion CXLV.  
IF in retaliation of what is said in th●● last above Animadversion, our Adversaries shall labour to distract their Disciple● with unequal objecting (instead of answer) the supposed wicked lives of certain Popes; I reply hereto, that admitting for the time, the said wicked lives of the Popes to be true, and not forged, yet the disparity here resteth, in that those Popes were not the first Restorers of our Religion to light; since they lived many ages after our Catholic Religion was universally professed, as appeareth above from the confessed antiquity of the Catholic Roman Faith. Again I say, the Question here is not, whether the high Priests of the Old Law, or the High Priests now, have after the establishment of Religion been sometimes wicked Men or not; but the touch of the Question here issuable is, whether the truth of Religion, having been extinct (as is supposed) or to the World latent, and invisible for so many hundred years (as is in this Treatise confessed by our Adversaries, to have been extinct and invisible) may with any probability be thought to be revealed or restored to the world, by men of flagitious and wicked Lives; I mean by Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, 
(2) Caluin charged with Sodomy by the public records of the City of Noyon in France, yet extant, and by Conradus Schlusselburg, (a Protestant) in Theolog. Caluinist. printed, 1594. l. Law, 1. fol. 72.  and Beza 
(3) Beza charged with Sodomy by the fore said Schlusseiburg ubi suprà, and l. 1. fol. 9●. Hessbusius (a Protestant) in his book entitled, Verae & san● Confessionis etc.  both which last two are condemned of the execrable Sin of Sodomy, even by other Protestants their brethren? And here the doubt or Question resteth.   

Animadversion CXLVI.  
THe Prophet speaking with difference of the Synagogue of the jews, in the Old Law, and of the Church of Christ in the Ne●, thus writeth: The glory 
(4) Aggeus. ●.  of this last hou●● (meaning the Church of Christ) shallbe greater than the first; with whom conspireth the Apostle, saying: (with reference to the jewish Law, and the Law of Christ; 
(5) Hebr. 8.  Christ is a mediator of a better Testament, which is established upon better promises. Now from these passages of Scripture I demonstratively deduce, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ; since touching its visibility, it is much inferior to the Synagogue of the jews; I mean (which is a Circumstance here chief to be observed) even since the coming of the Messiah, which was the appointed time of the Synagogues Decay, and the Christian Churches increase. For it is fully confessed heretofore, that for the thousand year's last before Luther (or rather some several ages more, before the said thousand years) the Protestant Church hath continued unknown, latent, and invisible. Whereas on the other part, it appeareth by sufficient authority of Histories in all times, that the Jews during all those ages, and ever since Christ's time, have had their Synagogue (though under some kind of restraint) yet dispersed, known, and Visible in the most notable Provinces of the world, as Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England etc. And thus we see, that the scandal, or scruple hence arising, hath been an argument for some Protestants, to apostatate from Christian Religion, and to become Iewes; as Bernardine Ochine, Neuserus chief Pastor of Heidelburg, and others, (as I have showed elsewhere) since these men (altogether rejecting the Catholic Church, as false and Idolatrous) did well observe, that the former Prophecy of the Visibility of the Church of God, was not fulfiled in their Protestant Church.   

Animadversion CXLVII.  
IF we might rest upon the several judgements of the Protestants, it would follow, that most of the chiefest Controversies, between us and them, should be but points of Jndifferency; and the contrary holding them off either side, should not be prejudicial to Man's Salvation; which course is indeed to introduce a Neutrality of Religion, or rather a contempt of all Religion. I will exemplify in divers particulars: And (1) first, concerning satisfaction, and merit of works, D. Whitaker thus writeth: The 
(6) Whitak. contra Rat. Camp. p. 78. and in his answer to M. William Reynolds cap. 6. pag. 135.  ancient Father's thought by their external discipline of life to pay the pains due for sin etc. Which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good Men, and holy Fathers; Therefore I conclude their belief and practice of the said points, were no hindrance to their Salvation. 2. Touching the Pope's primacy, thus favourably Melancthon writeth thereof: The 
(7) In his Ep extant in the Book entitled, Centuria Epistol. Theolog. Epist. 74  Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end, that consent 〈◊〉 be retained; Wherefore an agreement might easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon. Touching our Lady, being preserved fro● Original Sin, and worshipping of Jmage● M. Bunny thus writeth: In these 
(8) Bunny in his pacification. sect. 17. pag. 104.  or su●● like whosoever will condemn all those to be no● of the Church, that are not fully persuaded therein, as we are etc. committeth an vncharitab●● part towards his brethren. 4. Concerning receiving under one or both kinds, Luther thus teacheth: Si 
(9) Luth. de utraque specie Sacramenti.  veneris ad locum, ubi tantu● una species ministratur, cum alijs una tantu● specie utere etc. 5. Concerning the Doctrine of the Real Presence, D. Reynolds saith: The 
(10) Reynolds in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference. pag. 722.  Doctrine of the Real Presence is but (as it were) the grudging of a little ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith, 6. Of Invocation of Saints, D. Goad, 
(11) In their Disputation had in the Tower wi●h F. Campian, the 1. day's Conference Arg. 8. Rat. 11. & 111.  & D. Fulke affirm, that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church etc. 7. of Honouring Saints Relics, and Prayer for the dead, M. Spark thus discourseth: We are 
(12) Spark in his answer to M. john d' Albines. pag 382.  not so hasty to pronounce condemnation of any such Errors; for you know well enough, that we make not these matters such, as that either we think, that all must be saved, that hold the one way, or all condemned, that hold the other. 8. Of Freewill, and prayer for the Dead, and some other points, M. Cartwright thus censureth: The Indifferency 
(13) Cartwright in his Reply, p. 14. Sect. 1. ●.  of the Doctrines of Free●●●l, prayer for the Dead, & a number of others, necessary Doctrines, is such, wherein men being ●●sted, have notwithstanding been saved. 9 Lastly concerning Mass, Luther thus writeth: Private Mass 
(14) Luther, in Colloq. Germanicis, ca de Missa.  hath deceived many Saints, and earryed them away into Error, fr●m the time of Gregory, for 800. years. Thus far for a taste touching many points even of greatest consequence between the Church of Rome, and the Protestants, holden by the Protestants to be of that Adiaphorous & indifferent Nature, as that the believing of them, or denial of them is no hindrance to the Salvation of the Soul: So ready we find even the most learned Protestants (against the Nature of true faith, and of the practice of the primitive Church) to dog●etize a Neutrality of Christian Religion.   

Animadversion CXLVIII.  
THe Antimoni, who denied the Law of Moses, and the Libertines who teach all sensualicy (all most impure, & wicked Heretics) may in a true judgement, be rightly said, to be descended from the loins of Luther. Of the Antimoni (so called, by reason of their impugning the Law of the Old Testament) the Protestant Divines of Mansfield thus report them to teach: Lex divina ●igna non est, quae verbum Dei appelletur etc. Omnes, 
(15) In Confession Mansfeld. Ministrorum. tit. de Antinomis. fol. 89. & ●0.  qui circa Moysem, hoc est decem pr●cepta, versantur, ad Diabolum pertinent; Ad patibulum cum Moyse. Thus these Divines relate the Doctrine of the Antinomis. And do not the Antinomis suck this their blasphemous doctrine from Luther, who thus writeth of Moses: Moses 
(16) Luth. tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psal. 45.  hath his lips unpleasant, stopped, angry etc. Do you collect all the wisdom of Moses etc. and you shall find it to be either Jdolatry or hypocritical wisdom, or (if it be politic) the wisdom of wrath etc. away therefore with Moses. Now that the Libertines do in like manner spring originally from Luther, is no less evident. Th●ir doctrine Caluin delivereth in th●se words: Persuadent 
(17) Caluin. in Tract. Theol. pag. 542.  nihil mali esse in stupris & adulterijs, cum à Deo omnia fieri cognoscimus. The Libertines persuade themselves, that there is no evil in fornication and adulteries;  (say they) we all know, that all things proceed from God. And from this their Doctrine are so many writings published by the Libertines, wherein is defended all Epicurism, and 
(18) Of these see Caluin ubi supra. pag. 527. & 543.  impurity of life. Now that Luther layeth the ground of the Libertines Doctrine, observe what followeth: God 
(19) Luth. in assert. ar●. damnat. per L●cnem, art. 36.  worketh the wicked work in the wicked etc. And again: It is not in man's power to think Good or Evil, but a●l things proceed from absolute necessity. And as for extenuating of vice, as not hurtful to Man, and depressing of virtue (in both which points the Libertines agree with Luther) I refer the Reader to what is above set down out of Luther's own words: Only I will here repeat one or two of his speeches. Touching good works (equally disclaimed both by Luther, and the Libertines) Luther thus writeth: No work is disallowed 
(20) Luth. in his sermons Englished p 147.  of God, unless the author thereof ●e disallowed before. And concerning Sin, Luther thus teacheth: 
(21) Luth. to. 2. wittemb. de capt. Babil. fol. 74.  A Christian baptised is so rich, that though he would, he cannot ●oose his Salvation by any sin how great soe●er, unless he will not believe. Which two Doctrines of Luther are the very source, from ●hence spring the Libertines Heresies.   

Animadversion CXLIX.  
TO forbear the testimonies of Divine Scripture, of general Counsels, 
(22) Concil. 3. Carthag. Lateran. sub Innocent. 3. c. 60. florent. sess. vlt.  and of the ancient Fathers 
(23) Gregor. Nazianz. in Orat. in Cesarium Cyril. Catech. 5. mystag. Epiph. in 〈◊〉 Operis contra Haer haer 75. Chrys hom. 41. in 1. ad Cor. Ter●ll l. de corona milit. Cyprian l 1. Epist. 9 Ambr. l. 2. Epist. 8. 〈◊〉 Faustinum, Hieron Epist. ad Pamma●h. August. de cura pro ●●rtuis, c. 1. & in Enchirid. cap. 110.  in proof of Purgatory; I will here content myself with arguments two or three, drawn from Rea●on, which are in my judgement of sufficient ●orce, for the belief of this dogmatic ●oint. The first Argument than may be this: There are ceraaine Venial Sins (as is pro●ed out of S. james c. 1. and 1. Cor. 3. which ●●e worthy only of temporal punishment; But it may so fortune, that a Man may departed out of this life with such Sins not expiated: But it is not intelligible, how an idle ●ord (for example) should out of its own Nature deserve the perpetual hate of God, and sempiternal flames. The second Reason; When Sinners are reconciled to God, the whole temporal punishment is not ever remitted with the Sin; Thus though God remitted to David his Sin (in 2. Reg. 12.) yet for temporal castigation he punished him with the death of his Son. But it may so fall out, that a man hath not fully satisfied at the hour of his death for his temporal punishment; therefore it necessarily followeth, that there is a place of Purgatory, wherein all temporal punishment is to be suffered. The third reason. We see that of those, who depart this life, some are very good and virtuous; others very evil and wicked; others again are reasonably good, and reasonably evil. Now, from hence, even by the force of Reason, we may conclude, that there is after this Life eternal punishments for those which be extremely wicked, and eternal rewards for the very good and pious; and then by proportion and analogy temporal punishments (& by them a passage to Eternal rewards) for those, who are but reasonably good, and reasonably evil. Neither standeth it with God's justice, and goodness, that a most virtuous man through his whole life, dying, & also another man dying, who hath committed many venial Sins unsatisfyed, or hath only the guilt and eternal punishment of many great mortal Sins forgiven, without any temporal satisfaction at all for them made, should both indifferently enjoy immediately after their departure out of this life, the same reward of Glory and Eternity. The last reason may be this: That opinion which taketh away Purgatory, is most pernicious, and therefore it cannot be true: For it maketh men slothful in avoiding Sin, and doing of good works (as elsewhere is intimated.) For who is persuaded, that there is no Purgatory, but that all sins are presently abolished by death in those who die with true faith, may thus reason with himself; To what end do I labour in fasting, Prayer, Continency, Almesdeeds? Why do I deprive myself of pleasures, seeing at my ●eath all my Sins, whether they be many or few, shall at once be canceled? But who believeth that besides Hell, there is a most horrible fire of Purgatory; and that what in this ●●fe is not washed away by due works of Penance, shall in that fire be purged; will be far more diligent, and cautelous in leading of his life.   

Animadversion CL.  
TOuching the Induration, or Hardening of pharao's Hart, so much urged by our Adversaries, to prove that God is the Author of Sin, we are to note; that whereas our very Adversaries, and particularly Melancthon 
(24) Melancthon confesseth the same, in loc. Come cap. de causa peccati & contingentia.  confess, that the Hebrew word here used, signifieth only Permission, the Jewish Rabins are accordingly so plain in affirming with us the same to be only by God's permission, and not by his working, tha● Peter 
(15) In Epist. Rom. cap. 9  Martyr, and Munster 
(26) Annotat. in Exod. cap. 7.  do accordingly acknowledge this the jews foresaid exposition. Melancthons' words (confessing that the Hebrew word signifieth i● this place, only Permission) are these: Nec ●●gurae illae verborum offendunt. Jndurabo Co● Pharaonis, & similes; Certum ect enim Hebra●●phrazi significare Permissionem, non voluntatem efficacem: That is, these forms of words 〈◊〉 not offend us, for it is certain, that in the Hebrew phrase they signify only permission, and n●● any efficacious will. Add hereto, how repugnant our Adversary's exposition of this, 〈◊〉 divers other such Texts, is to the words of God, delivered by Ezechiell cap. 33. which words may serve, as a Syntax, or Comment to paraphraze all the threatening passages, set down in Scripture against Sinners, and against the doctrine of Reprobation; showing that all such comminations are only Conditional. Thus than Ezechiel in the Person of God: Si dixero impio etc. If I shall say to the wicked, Thou shalt die the death; and he do penance for his Sin, and do Judgement and I●stice, living he shall live, and shall not die.   

Animadversion CLI.  
THe example of Elias is much prostituted by our Adversaries, for the warranting of their own Church's Inuisibility for so many ages; but how impertinently it is urged, observe what followeth: First I say, this example maketh wholly against the Protestants, seeing the words of Elias, Relictus sum 
(27) Reg. 1.  solus, were not spoken generally of all the jewish people, but only in regard of the Country of Israel; and accordingly God answered the complaint of Elias, with restraint to that only Country, the Scripture saying immediately after: I have left to me in Jsraell seven thousand, which have not bowed unto Baal. Add hereto that in those very times the Church did greatly flourish in the adjoining Countries of juda, as was to Elias then known, and visible, under the reign of Asa and josaphat. And thus is this objection (so much prized by divers of our Adversaries) answered by 
(28) In corpore Doctrinae, pag. 530.  Melancthon, & Enoch 
(29) In his Sovereign remedy. pag. 17.  Clappam. Again, admitting these seven thousand were unknown to Elias, yet followeth it not, that they were unknown to all others at that time: Much less then, is this example of force to prove, that the Church of God may be latent and invisible for many hundred years together, not to one Elias only, but to the whole World. But for a further discovering of the weakness of this Example, let us grant for the time, that the jewish Synagogue was in the days of Elias wholly invisible, yet is this example most defectively alleged, as applied to the Church of Christ: Since the predictions and promises made to the Church of Christ, whose 
(30) Hebr. cap. 8.  testament is established in better promises, are far greater, and more worthy, than those of the jewish Synagogue. Again the foresaid Example doth not extend to the whole Ch●rch of God before Christ; but only to the jewish Synagogue, as being a part or member thereof; for besides the jews, there were divers others faithful, as Melchisedech, Cornelius, the Eunuch of the Queen of Candace, etc. Thus far in solution of this objection.   

Animadversion CLII  
Our Adversaries do first teach, that concerning Matter of faith, they are to believe nothing for certain, but only the holy Scripture. Secondly they teach, that 
(31) So writeth D. Reynolds in his Conference with M. Hart. pa. 68  it is not the show, but the sense of the wor●● of Scripture, that must decide Controversies. And that herein the Scripture doth not instruct them of itself, but by certain means, as M. Hooker 
(32) In Eccles. Policy, l. 2 pa. 116.  affirmeth. Thirdly, these Means are affirmed to be, the reading 
(33) These means are set down by D. Reynolds in his Conference, p. 83. 84. & sequentib. and by D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura p. 521 522. 523.  thereof, the Conference of places, the weighing of the circumstances of the Text, skill i● tongues, diligence, and prayer. Fourthly they affirm, that these being Actions on their behalf, are but humane Endeavours, and such, wherein every man without extraordinary privilege from God, is subject to Error. Fiftly, they teach, that these means, according to the Nature of themselves afford a necessary doubtfulness and uncertainty of opinion; and therefore D. Whitaker thus writeth hereof: Qualia 
(34) D. Whitak. de Eccles. contra Bellarm. Controu. 2. q. 4. p. 227.  illa media sunt, talem ipsam interpretationem esse necesse est: at media interpretandi loca obscura sunt incerta, dubia, & ambigua: Ergo fieri non potest, quin ipsa etiam interpretatio incerta sit; Si incerta, tunc esse potest falsa; Thus D. Whitaker discourseth of the foresaid means of interpreting the Scripture. Now these being the confessed grounds and principles of our Adversary's Doctrine, they do appear to be no other, but as it were linked chains, or naked connexion's of unavoidable uncertainty; which point appeareth more fully from the example of Luther, Swinglius, & Caluin; all who vaunted, that they did use the foresaid means in interpreting these few words, Hoc est corpus meum; and yet the end was, that they delivered mere contrary constructions of the said words; so as supposing one of their constructions to be true, it followeth necessarily, that the other Construction is false.   

Animadversion CLIII.  
THe Absurdities necessarily accompanying the doctrine of the Pope being Antichrist, are many and great. For the more clear understanding whereof, we are here to repeat, what was above delivered upon other occasions. First then Luther thus writeth: We 
(35) Luth. lib. contra Anabaptist.  Confess, that there is under the Papacy most of the Christian good, yea rather all the Christian Good, and that from thence it came to us. Verily we confess, that in the Papacy th●●● is true Scripture, true baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true K●yes of Remission of sins etc. Yea further that there is in the Papacy true Christianity, or rather the true Kern●● of Christianity. Thu● f●r Luther: with whom (to omit divers other Protestants) D. Do●● conspireth, saying: 
(36) D Dove in his persuasion to English Recusants. pag. 23.  We hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, and the same Bible, which 〈◊〉 received from them. Now mark the inevitable absurdity, rising from the premises: If the Pope (being the head of the Papacy) 〈◊〉 Antichrist (as our Adversaries do dream) doth it not then inavoidably follow, that with Antichrist there is all the Christian Good; that from Antichrist the Protestants receive the true Scripture, true Baptism, & the true use of other Sacraments (to wit, of the Altar, and Absolution of our sins?) Finally, that from Antichrist they receive the Apostles Creed, and the other Creeds above specified? What impossibilityes are these? and is not this potentially and implicitly to turn Christ into Antichrist?  
Again, the Scripture prophesyeth, that the Church of Christ (as I have showed above) shall convert Kings, and Kingdoms of the Gentills unto it, according to those words of Esay speaking of the Church of Christ; Thou 
(37) Esay. c. ●0.  shalt suck the milk of the Gentills, and the breasts of Kings; And again it is prophesied of the Church by the Kingly Prophet: I 
(38) Psal. ●.  will give thee the Heathens 〈◊〉 thy inheritance, and the End of the Earth for s●● thy possession. Now two things are clear: the first, that many Heathen Kingdoms h●●e been converted to Christianity by the Pope, and his ministers; This is proved from the confession of D. Whitaker, who acknowledging the conversion of many Countries made by the Church of Rome, thus debaseth them: The 
(39) Whitak. l. de Eccles. pag. 336.  Conversion of so many Nations after the time of Gregory have not been pure, but corrupt. Now that the Protestant Church never converted any Gentle, King, or Nation to the faith of Christ, appeareth from its confessed Inuisibility for so many ages till Luther's time, above set down. Thus than I here argue: The predictions of converting Kings, and Kingdoms to the faith of Christ, were performed by the Pope only, and his Substitutes, and not by the Protestants: Therefore the predictions for the enlarging of Christ his Church by converting Gentills unto it, were performed by Antichrist, Christ's designed Enemy. How do these stand together? and yet do these incompatibilityes necessarily result out of the former Assertions.   

Animadversion CLIU  
THe example of Paphnutius his standing in the Nicene Council, in defence of Priest's marriage (so much insisted upon by so many eminent Protestants) is misapplied, and withal, in all likely hood, most false; It is misapplyed, because where it is urged in proof of Priest's Marriage, it proveth the contrary; For though perhaps Paphnutius might be persuaded, that Priesthood did not dissolve Marriage afore contracted; yet he saith plainly: Those, 
(40) So relateth Socrates, l. 1. ca 8.  who are made Priests before they are married, cannot after marry: And this Paphnutius calleth, Veterem Ecclesiae traditionem: The ancient tradition of the Church. So far was Paphnutius from ascribing the doctrine of Priests not marrying after the Order of Priesthood taken, to the Council of Nice. Now, that this example of Paphnutius, is untrue, many probabilities may be urged; First, because there is not so much as any Mention of this matter concerning Paphnutius made by any, who did write of the Nicene Council, before Socrates' time (who first relateth the words of Paphnutius.) For neither did Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, nor yet Ruffinus himself, (who writ many things of Paphnutius, and of the Nicene Council) all being more ancient than Socrates, make any mention of this matter. Now I here demand, could all these be silent in so great a business, and so earnestly debated in the Nicene Council? Secondly, this example of Paphnutius seemeth to be against the third Canon of the said Nycene Council, which altogether forbiddeth Priests to have dwelling with them any Woman, other than their Mother, Sister, their Father's sister, their Mother's sister etc. Now if, as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius, the Council had left liberty for married Laymen afterwards made Priests, to have kept still their former Wynes, why then was not the wise first placed here in the exception, but altogether omitted? This example of Paphnutius is so much suspected to be false, that Frigevilleus 
(41) In his palm● Christiana, p. 103.  Ganuius (a Protestant) doth plainly ascribe it to the forgery of Socrates.   

Animadversion CLV.  
IT will not be amiss to observe the Protestants Method, in disputing with the Catholics, touching the Real Presence, as it is taught by the Church of Rome. For the Question of the Real Presence being but propounded, they quickly tell us, that Christ never intended, or willed it; which answer is made (to omit all other Protestants) by 
(42) In his Decades in English; serm. 8. p. 971.  Bullinger. And when to declare Christ's Will therein, we allege his words; they make then a new question of his power, as denying such to be his will, or sense of words, under pretence, that it is 
(43) So answereth whitak. in his answ. to M. William Reynolds. pa 179.  contradictory to the truth and Nature of his humane body, now in Heaven; and so is thereby impossible. And when in reply thereto we prove to them directly, that it is not impossible, then returning per circuitum to their firster Evasion, they answer, that the Question 
(44) So answereth D. Whitak. in his answer to M. Reynolds refutation pag. 192.  is not of his power, but only of his Will; and so dancing in a round, they trifle and delude us, by a subtle escape of an endless Circulation.   

Animadversion CLVI.  
IT is most certain, that the doctrine of many of our Adversaries touching the Real Presence, is involved with greater show of Impossibility, than our Catholic doctrine thereof is: for whereas they teach, that Christ's real body, is really 
(45) So teach (besides many others) M. Perkins in his reformed Catholic. pag. 187. and D. Fulke against the Rh●mish Testam. in 1. Cor. 15.  and truly present, and yet not bodily and corporally, but only Spiritually present; By which word (Spiritually) they do not exclude the true and real presence of his body. Now, how this should be free from repugnancy, and mere contradiction (and therefore impossible) I cannot discern; For to affirm, that Christ's very body, (and not only a figure, or efficacy thereof) should be truly and really present, and yet not bodily, but spiritually present, is in itself inexplicable, and as Swinglius 
(46) Swimglius co. 2. de vera & falsa religion's. fol. ●06.  in confutation thereof truly observeth, is upon the matter no other thing, then to turn his body into a Spirit. For as the true substance of Christ's Spirit cannot be said to be present to us only corporally or bodily, and not spiritually, because it is a spirit, and no Body; so neither may the substance itself of Christ's very body, be said to be present to us, not bodily, but only Spiritually (nor at all spiritually, unless we do, which is impertinent to the matter in hand) understand the word Spiritual, as the Apostle doth 1. Cor. 15. because it is a true and real body, & no Spirit.   

Animadversion CLVII.  
Universality of our Catholic Doctrine in all chiefest points, dispersed througout all Nations, even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries (as appeareth from their confessed Inuisibility of their own Church and Religion for so many ages) is a most strong Argument of the truth of our Catholic Religion. My reason hereof is, in that the doctrine of the Roman Church could not by any pretended corruption be derived from that Church to so many Nations, so far remote and distant each from other; Sundry of which Nations were unknown to the Latin Church, and many of them at variance therewith, in some small points. Therefore from hence I conclude, that our Catholic faith was the Primitive faith, first taught by the Apostles, in all those far different Nations, wherein no less then in some other principal points of faith, embraced both by the Catholic and the Protestant, (such as is the Trinity, the Baptism of Infants, and such like) the foresaid Nations did, and yet do agree, notwithstanding their disagreement in lesser Matters.   

Animadversion CLVIII.  
divers of the jewish Ceremonies may be still maintained, though (as contrary in judgement hereto) D. Reynolds 
(47) D. Reynolds in his Conference with M. Hart, pa. 570. and 571.  is not abashed to object against us many Ceremonies of the Jews, as if we did offend & sin in our Ceremonies; bearing some resemblance to the said jewish Ceremonies. But against this error of his and other Protestants, I allege first, that (as D. Gardiner, 
(48) D. Gardiner in his Dialogue between Irenaeus and Antimachus, of the rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, printed at London. 1605. fol. b. 3.  though our Adversary truly teacheth) the jewish Ceremonies, which have ceased, and may not now be retained, are most properly those, which were ordained to signify some thing, as being Future, and to be accomplished in Christ, as for example, the Paschall Lamb, which signified his Passion to come; But as concerning Ceremonies of other kind, that in the ancient Father's judgement they might be lawfully retained, or used, and so accordingly were by them used in the celebration of the public Liturgy; is confessed by 
(49) Caluin de Caena Domini, in tract. Theol. printed. 2597. pag. 7.  Caluin. Secondly, we give instance of sundry Ceremonies, used in the Old Testament, and yet now retained; as paying of Tithes, Our Churches with reference to their Temples, Pentecost, Holidays, Elevation of hands, and genuflection in time of prayer, Jmposition of hands, & divers others. Thirdly, that the Church of Christ might, and did in the Apostles times borrow Rites from the Old Testament, is confessed by 
(50) Caluin, l. 4. In●tit. c. 3. sect, 16.  Caluin, and others; yea Peter Martyr thus plainly writeth hereof: Many 
(51) Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English. p. 118.  things the Church hath borrowed from the Decrees of Moses, yea and that from the first times. Now these Ceremonies (as also others) are used chief to stir up in us devotion; and that how forcible they are thereto, I will content myself with the Authority of S. Austin herein, who thus writeth: There 
(52) Austin. Epist. 5. ad Marcellum post initium.  are certain signs (he meaning Ceremonies) by the celebration, and use thereof (not to God, but to us) profitable offices of Piety are exercised. Again: 
(53) Austin to. 4 de cura ●ro Mortuis c. 5.  When we kneel down when we stretch out our hands, when we lie prostrate upon the ground etc. a man by these doth better stir up himself to pray. Thus Austin.   

Animadversion CLIX  
THough the doctrine of the Mass hath been briefly discoursed of before in some Animadversions; yet I hold it convenient here to relate the Antiquity of the word Mass, still retained by us. First then, Peter Martyr thus writeth: Austin 
(54) Peter Martyr, in his Common places Englished. par. 4 p. 515.  maketh mention of the word Mass in his 237. sermon de Tempore, as also in his 91. serm. de Tempore. In like manner the Century writers 
(55) Cent. 4. col 295  reprove S. Ambrose, for mentioning the word Mass. D. Fulke 
(56) Fulk in his Retentive. p. 60.  acknowledgeth, that Victor (who lived within the first five hundred years) doth in his History use the term of Mass, by which (saith D. Fulke) was meant the celebration of the Communion, & memory of the Sacrifice of Christ. Now if ou● Adversaries will reply to all this, saying the Word Mass, is not found in the Scripture, therefore it availeth not, that the Fathers did use it; let them (as is above touched) in full answer of this condemned Sophism, remember, that although both we and they do profess to believe the Trinity, or Person●, yet themselves cannot find the word Tr●nity, mentioned in the Scriptures, neither the word, Person, according to the foresa● sense.   

Animadversion CLX.  
IT is evident by all observation & examples of former times, that the life's 〈◊〉 those men were evermore austere and sa●ctifyed, whom God did choose to be the fi●●● publishers or Restorers of Religion, or reformers of his Church. This is verified 〈◊〉 the Example of Moses in the Old Law, and of the Apostles in the first preaching of the Evangelicall Law, (all of them being me● most pious, most religious, and most seue● to themselves in their manners and Co●uersation.) This then being as a presume● ground & principle; we are to call to mind what above is granted by our Adversaries to wit, that Luther, and his scholars aft●● following, were the first restorers of th● Protestant's faith; their Church for so manages afore being latent and invisible. He 〈◊〉 further we are to call to mind, that next 〈◊〉 ●r Luther, the chiefest Protestants for en●●ging of Protestancy, and spreading of ●heir supposed Gospel, were these follow●g, Swinglius, Melancthon, Carolostadius, Ia●●bus Andr●●as Bucer Ochinus, Caluin and 〈◊〉 Now in this next place we are to weigh 〈◊〉 nether these men were licentious, disso●●te and wicked in their Conversation; or virtuous and religious in their Courses: but it is more than evident, that Luther, and all the rest of these were of most flagitious & dissolute manners. The truth of which point (through the largeness of the subject) here in express words to set down, this ●lace is not capable of; Since in these my Animadversions I affect all brevity: Therefore, I most earnestly entreat the studious Reader to peruse the book entitled, Luther's Life, written by the Author of the Protestants Apology. The Subject of that ●ooke is to lay open the enormous, & bad ●es particularly of Luther, Swinglius, ●el●n●con, Carolostadius, Jacobus Andraeas, Bucer, ●chinus, Caluin, and Beza. And what is there ●●liuered, is not delivered from the pens & ●●sertions of the Catholics (for that Course would be held suspected, and parshall) but from the pens and Relations of t●e Protestants themselves. I assure the Rea●●r, that in that book he shall find some 〈◊〉 those former men to be charged with Fornication, Adultery; others with Sodomy; o●hers again charged with Epicurism, broaching of blasphemous doctrines; and others again apostating from Christianity, & making themselves by Circumcision, open Turk●●, Jew's; and all this (as above said) there produced from the Protestants own accusations of them: they thus profanely living after their beginning to preach their Gospel. Now here I refer to any Man careful of his Salvation, whether he can be persuaded, that God would ever out of his goodness and providence choose such facinorous, impious, and detestable men to be the Revealers, or restorers of the truth of Religion, supposing it were till that time abolished and extinct; and the rather, Since men do 
(37) Mat. 7.  not gather grappes of thorns, nor figs of thisles. Once more I exhort the Reader to the perusing of the foresaid Book.   

Animadversion CLXI.  
Grammatical and literal construction of the words of Scripture is ever holden the best and securest, even in the judgement of our learned Adversaries; for thus D. Whitaker writes of this point: Qui 
(58) Whitak. de sacra scriptura contra Bellarm. controu. 1. q. 4 pa. 381.  potest Grammaticum sensum Scripturae ubique assequi, is optimè proculdubio Scripturas explanabit, atque interpretabitur. And Melancthon accordeth thereunto saying: 
(59) Melancth. l. 1. Epist. justo jonae, pag. 455.  Multas magnat res antea involutas Syntaxis profert & expovit. The syntax doth explain many things, afore involved with difficulties. Lastly to omit others, 
(60) Zanchius. de sacra scriptura p. 388.  Zanchius (the great Protestant) much relieth upon the Grammatical and Literal sense of the Scripture. Now, this principle and ground being granted (as in reason it ought to be) how great is our Advantage herein against our Adversaries; who rejecting the Grammatical and literal Sense of the passages of Scripture by us insisted upon, do ever seek to interpret them figuratively or allegorically? For Example; we rest in the Grammatical sense and construction of that passage, This is 
(61) Mat. 16.  my body etc. This is my blood etc. In like sort for the Primacy of Peter, we urge the literal sense of that passage: Thou 
(62) Mat. 16.  art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Also for remission of Sins by man: Whose sins 
(63) joan. 20.  you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. And more touching works: Do you not see, that 
(64) Luc. 3.  man is justified by Works, and not by faith only. Finally (to omit infinite other testimonies) that perspicuous place for remitting of Original sin by Baptism: Except a man 
(65) joan. 3.  be borne again of Water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In all which places we do urge the Grammatical, plain, and literal sense; whereas our Adversaries seek to expound all the said divine Authorities by figures and Tropes. Add hereto, that the Protestants in their urging of Scripture against us, do for the most part allege it, not in its literal or immediate Grammatical sense, but in some secondary sense, seconded by Inferences and deductions, at most but probable, though often absurd and false.   

Animadversion CLXII.  
THe praises given to S. Austin by the Protestants are most great; For first Luther thus speaketh of him: Since 
(66) Luther in tom. 7. wittenb. fol. 405.  the Apostles times the Church never had a better Doctor, then S. Austin. And again: After the 
(67) Luth. loc. come. class. p. 45.  sacred Scriptures, there is no Doctor in the Church, who is to be compared to Austin. D. field thus extolleth him: Austin the 
(68) Of the Church. l. 3 fol. 170.  greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine, the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times. D. Covell: Austin 
(69) D. Covell in his answer to john Burges. p. 3.  was a man far beyond all that ever went before him, or shall in likelihood follow after him, both for Divine and humane learning. M. Forester (a Protestant) styleth Austin: That 
(70) forester in Monas Tessagraphica &c 〈◊〉 proaemio. par. 3.  Monarch of the Fathers, S. Austin. Gomarus (another Protestant) thus celebrateth S. Austin: 
(71) Gomarus in his spec. verae Ecclesia. p. 96.  Austin of all the Fathers is holden most pure in th● opinion of all. Finally Caluin thus writeth Austin 
(72) Calu. Inst●●, l. 3 cap. 3. sect. 10.  only is sufficient, to show the judgement of the ancient Church.  
Now in this next place let us take a view of what Religion S. Austin was, I mean● whether a Papist (as we are termed) or a Protestant; and this even from the writings and Confessions of the Protestants themselves.  
And first, in proof that God's foreknowledge doth not necessitate or restrain the 〈◊〉 in her actions (contrary to the judgement of most Protestant's) Saint Austin is so ●●ll therein, that Polanus 
(73) Pol. in his Symphonia. c. 2. p. 114.  (the Prote●●ant) allegeth several authorities out of Austin in defence thereof.  
2. Touching the induration of Pharaoh's hart ●y God; S. Austin teacheth, that this was ●nly through Permission, and not through ●y Positive actual working of God; and ●●erefore this Father is reprehended by Cal●●s, saying, 
(74) Caluin. Inst. l. 2. c. 4. sect. 3.  Austin was not free from that ●●erstition, where he saith, that Induration & ●i●●ration pertain not to the working of God, ●●to his foreknowledge.  
●. S. Austin is so express and evident, that God's Commandments are not impossible, that ●elancthon forbeareth not to confess and apprehend (to use his own words.) Imagi●●tionem 
(75) Melancthon. l. 1. Ep. p. 290.  Augustini de impletione legis.  
4. S. Austin taught, that Christ from his nativity was free from Ignorance; This is confessed by Danaeus (the great Protestant) 〈◊〉 these words: 
(76) Danaeus respons. ad Bellarm. ad 2. Controu. c. 1. p. 145.  Austin. l. 2. c. 29. de pec. 〈◊〉. denyeth Christ to have taken children's infinities and ignorance, which to be false (with ●●ue of so great a man) I have showed before.  
5. That Christ after his Death descended in● Hell, Doctor 
(77) Bilson in his Survey of Christ's suffering. pag. 616. & 598. 599.  Bilson produceth te●●monies out of S. Austin in proof thereof,  
6. That Christ penetrated the Doors, when 〈◊〉 came to his disciples; so as his body at ●ut time was without all circumscription, 
(78) Rungius in disput. 11 ex Epist. ad Cor. 1. fol. 83.  Rungius (the Protestant) affirmeth it to be the doctrine of S. Austin.  
7. That the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumpted up into Heaven, according to the judgement of Austin, is confessed by the Centurists, who professing to set down a Catalogue of Books written by S. Austin, do number, and place among his other Books, 
(79) Centur. 5. c. 10. col. 1122.  one book thus entitled: De Assumptione Virgins Mariae l. 1.  
8. In like sort, the Centurists do allege & confess out of S. Austin, touching the Blessed Virgin being free from Original sin, in this manner: As 
(80) Centur. 5. c. 4. col. 499.  touching Original sin, forasmuch as concerneth Mary, Austin writeth: Excepting the holy Virgin Mary of whom in honour of our Lord, when we treat of sins, I will have no question at all etc. This therefore Virgin Mary excepted etc. Thus much do the Centurists allege out of S. Austin.  
9 That Austin taught, that the Blessed Virgin vowed Chastity, is confessed by D. Fulke, who most scornfully chargeth S. Austin therein, with a Non 
(81) Fulk against the Rhemish Testament. in Luc c 1.  sequitur; saying, although S. Austin gathered, she vowed Virginity, yet it followeth not &c.  
10. That the Scriptures are to be discerned (so far as concerns our taking notice of them) by the authority of the Church, Austin most fully teacheth; and is therefore condemned by Swinglius in these words: Here 
(82) Swingl. tom. 1. fol. 135.  I entreat your indifferent judgements, that you freely speak, whether this saying of Austin (meaning about the discerning of Scripture by the authority of the Church) be thought more audacious, then fitting; or to have been uttered imprudently.  
11. Touching the Books of Toby, judith, Hester, Maccabees, S. Austin doth admit them all for true divine and Canonical Scripture, and for such his doing, is reprehended by Hospinian, 
(83) Hospinian. hist. Sacr. part. 1. p. 160. Zanchius de sacra scriptura, pag 32. & 33. D. field of the Church. l. 4. c. 23. p. 246. D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his Conference. conclus. 2 p. 699. & 700.  Zanchius, D. field, and Doctor Reynolds.  
12. S. Austin is so full for the Doctrine of Traditions, that they are to be received, as that M. Cartwright speaking of one Tradition, which Austin defended, thus bursteth out: To allow 
(84) Cartwrights in M. Whitguiftt Defence. p. ●6●.  S. Augustine's saying, is to bring in Popery again; and further he thus speaking of S. Austin herein: If 
(85) In Cartwright his second Reply, part. 1. pag. 84. 85. 86.  S. Augustine's judgement be a good judgement, than there be some things Commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures; and thereupon no sufficient Doctrine contained in the Scripture.  
13. Touching the Sacraments conferring Grace to the worthy Receiver, S. Austin for teaching our Catholic Doctrine therein, is reprehended by 
(86) Luth. l. contra Coelaeum. and Caluin lib. Instit. 4. c. 14 sect. vlt.  Luther and Caluin.  
14. That Children could not be saved without being baptised, Cartwright thus speaketh of S, Austin herein: Austin 
(87) Cartwright in whitguifts defence, pag. 5●1.  was of mind, that Children could not be saved without baptism: And hereupon then Cartwright chargeth S. Austin with Absurdity 
(88) Vbi supra, p 516. . Now in regard of this absolute Necessity of Baptism to Children, B z● 
(89) Beza in respons. ad Act. Colloq. Montisbelg. par. 2. p. 143.  confesseth, that Austin taught, that in case of necessity, it is lawful for the Laity to baptise.  
15. Touching the Real Presence, taught by S. Austin, Hospinian 
(90) Hist. Sacramen. par. 1. l. 4. pa. 292. & 293.  the Protestant, chargeth and reprehendeth S. Austin therefore; and particularly for these words of S. Austin: When 
(91) Austin. tom. 8. in Psal. 33.  Christ said, This is my body, then that his body was carried in his hands.  
16. That Austin taught, that the wicked (contrary to the Doctrine of the Protestants) did receive the body of Christ, is confessed, and reprehended by Bucer, in these words: How 
(92) Script. Anglic. pag. 619.  often doth Austin write, tha● even Judas received the very body, and blood of our Lord? Now further, that Austin taught, that the Sacrament ought to be taken f●sting, is confessed by Hospinian in Hist. Sacram part. 1. pag. 48 In like manner, that Austin taught, that Holy bread was to be given to the Catechumeni, D. Fulke confesseth thus answering thereto, terming i●: A superstitio●● bread, given in S. Augustine's time to those tes● were Catechumeni, instead of the Sacrament. Fulke against Heskins etc. l. 3 c. 23. pag. 377. To pass further; that the body of Christ, in respect of his being in the Sacrament, is to be adored in the Sacrament, D. Bilson reprehendeth S. Austin for such his Doctrine. Bils●● in his true difference. par. 4. pag. 536. To conclude, touching the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, whereas S. Austin teacheth in tom. 3. in Enchirid. cap. 110. saying; The Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood is propitious, or available for the souls in Purgatory; this sentence being confessed by Hutterus (the Protestant) and in lieu of full answer thereto, he saith: In aeternum defendi non potest: This saying of Austin can never be defended. Hutterus l. de sacrificio Missatico l 2. c. 7. p. 525.  
17. S. Austin was so earnest in defence of Freewill, and Universal Grace, that he is therefore acknowledged, and dislyked by the Century 
(93) Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 900. & 501.  writers. The Centurists 
(94) Centur. 5. ca 10. col. 113●. and whitak. ad Rat. Camp. rat. 1. pa. 12.  & D. Whitaker do acknowledge, that justification by works, is in like manner taught by S. Austin.  
18. Touching the doctrine of merit of works, thus writeth Osiander of S. Austin: Austin sometimes in the Article of justification, seemeth to attribute overmuch to the merit of works etc. Cent. 4. l. 4. cap. 23.  
19 Touching Prayer for the Dead, thus D. Fulke avoucheth: Austin 
(95) D. Fulk, in confut. of Purg. pa. 349.  defended prayer for the dead. And that S. Austin did hold Purgatory, is in like manner confessed by 
(96) Fulk ib. pa. 78.  D. Fulke.  
20. Touching Invocation of Saints, S. Austin is so fully Catholic, that himself doubteth not to pray to S. Cyprian, being long before martyred: which action Kempnitius thus reprehendeth: 
(97) Exa. par. 3. pa. 211.  Austin did this without Scripture, yielding to the time and custom.  
21. In proof, that Images may be worshipped, Hospinian 
(98) Sacram. part. ●. l. 5. c. 8.  though a Protestant, yet agreeing with S. Austin herein, allegeth him in proof hereof.  
22. Touching the fast of Lent, and other fasts, S. Austin is reprehended by the Centurist, Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 686. 687.  
23. Touching vowing of Monastical life, the Centurists 
(99) Cent. 5. col. 710  charge S. Austin with the Doctrine thereof, and Hospinian thus writeth of Austin herein: Austin 
(100) Hosp. de origine Monach. fol. 33.  was a great lover of Monastical profession, according to the custom of that age.  
To conclude this long Animadversion, Austin taught, that Antichrist should be but one only man (and that therefore the Pope's being many, cannot be truly accounted Antichrist) this is confessed and dislyked by the 
(101) Cent. 1. l. ●. col. 435  Centurists. Thus fare now of this passage; from whence we may conclude, that that Father, to whom so many learned Protestants did above give so high commendation and praise, was in all points of our Catholic Roman Religion (even by the acknowledgement of the Protestants) an entire Roman Catholic, or Papist: and hereupon I refer to the judgement of any man, careful of his salvation; whether it be not more secure, for one to range himself in faith & Religion, with so worthy a member of Christ's Church, as Austin was (even in the confession of our Adversaries, who notwithstanding their Diversity of Religion from him, even in relating of his Catholic Doctrynes, for the most part do give him the title of Saint) then to descent from him in faith, and to join himself in Religion with the Innovatours of these times.   

Animadversion CLXIII.  
I Grant, that certain Fathers forbearing sometimes upon just reasons, though at other times they are most clear therein, do not speak so plainly of the Real Presence; but that some of their say might stand subject to mistaking, to such as conceive not the true reason of their affected obscurity in writing: Yet cannot the Protestants with any show of integrity, insist in such dark Say. My reason is this: For upon the same ground I boldly affirm, that we may with better reason insist in the say of the Protestants delivered in show, in defence of the Real Presence; seeing many more, and more plain seeming sayings may be alleged out of Caluin, Beza, and their followers in pretended proof of our Catholic Docteine of the Real Presence, than our Adversaries can allege against it, out of all the Fathers. For Example; Caluin thus saith: 
(1) Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10.  Etsi autem incredibile videtur etc. Although it may seem incredible, that in so great a distance of places (as of Heaven, and earth) the flesh of Christ should penetrate unto us, that it may be meat for us; we must yet remember, how much above all our senses, the secret power of the holy Ghost can show itself. Beza saith: 
(2) So saith Beza with other Divines of Geneva, in their Apologia modesta, ad Acta Conuentus, 15. printed Genevae. 1575.  Our manner of the presence of Christ's body is a more admirable and evident testimony of the Divine Omnipotency, than that real, and oral manducation of the Papists. Finally to omit many other such say of our Adversaries, D. Fulke thus hath left written: The Creatures, or Elements are blessed or consecrated, that by the working of God's spirit, they should be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, after a divine and spiritual manner to the worthy receiver. Now here I demand, will our Adversaries insist in some dark say of the Fathers, for the impugning of Christ's real and true body and blood in the Eucharist? Then I aver, we may (with more show of colour) urge the Protestants Testimonies, even in defence and proof of the Real Presence. I add to this former Animadversion (a thing most worthy of observation) that all such Sectaries, as denied the Real presence before Luther's days, did maintain divers Heresies (for such confessed both by Catholics, and Protestants:) Now the men impugning the Real Presence were these following, Berengarius, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henry Bruts, Peter Abaylardus, Almericus, and lastly Wicleff, all maintainers of divers Heretical positions and opinions, in the censure both of our Adversaries, and ourselves.   

Animadversion CLXIV.  
BOth the 
(3) Caluinists, as D. Covell, in his defence of M. Hooker, art. 24. p 96. D. Bilson in his true difference etc. par. 4. pa. 539. & 592. & 368. D. Whitak, contra Ca●●. rat. 9 besides other Caluinists.  Caluinists and Lutherans 
(4) Lutherans, as Kempnitins in his exam. part. 2. p. 17. & p. 53 Lobecchius in his disputat. Theol. p. ●31. 3●2. and divers others.  teach, that the Godhead, Christ Passion, & the Sacraments concur in their degrees in working of Grace; The Godhead, as being the Principal Agent, and without dishonour to Christ Passion; Christ Passion, as being the Instrument conjoined to the Godhead, and working without dishonour thereto. Lastly, the Sacraments, as being the separated Jnstruments, conferring Grace truly, & in their kind, by power & virtue from the Godhead and Christ Passion, and this without dishonour to either. Now than I here urge, that if our Adversaries do truly, and according to the Scriptures acknowledge thus much due to the Sacraments, and without injury to Christ's Passion; why then should not the doctrine of the Mass, and Sacrifice, (being grounded upon evident Scriptures) be holden freed from all imputation of being dishonourable unto Christ, or his Passion? and yet this is one main objection urged by our Adversaries, against the B. Sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore I conclude, that as the Sacrifices 
(5) Exod. 29.36. Levit. 7. Num. 28. etc.  for sin, and other Sacrifices of the Old Testament received their force from Christ's death, and Sacrifice of the Cross then to come, and without all dishonour thereto; So likewise in the New Testament, (which is 
(6) Hebr. 8.  established in better promises) our now Sacrifice of the Mas●e doth (without any dishonour to Christ) confer more abundant efficacy and virtue, from his said death and Passion, now past.   

Animadversion CLXV.  
WHen the Fathers jointly teach, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, our Adversary's labour to avoid their authorities several ways, but all in vain. First they say, it may be termed a Sacrifice, in that the prayers, and the exercise of Faith, Hope, and Charity, being used in the celebration of this Sacrament, are spiritual Sacrifices to God. But this answer availeth nothing; in that the ancient Fathers plainly teach, that the body and blood of Christ is the Sacrifice, which is offered up in the Church. As for example, Ambrose saith: Etsi 
(7) Ambro. in Psalm. 38  Christus nunc non videtur offer, tamen ipse offertus in terris cum corpus eius offertur. Again, the Fathers teach, 
(8) See hereof the Council of Nice, Jerome Epist. ad Euagrium, Tertull. l. de velandis virg.  that only Priests (and no others) can offer up this Sacrifice; but it is manifest, that Prayers, laud's, Exercise or faith, hope, and charity may (as spiritual Sacrifices) be offered up by any Man, or Woman. Our Adversary's further reply, & say, that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice, because it includeth in itself a certain commemoration, or representation of a true Sacrifice, to wit, of the death of Christ: We hereto say, that it is true, that the Action of the Eucharist is a similitude or memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; yet hence it followeth not, that the Fathers thought not, that a true & proper sacrifice was offered up in the celebration of the Eucharist; First because Baptism is a sacrament, representing the death of Christ (as the Apostle Rom. 6. teacheth) & yet no one Father doth term Baptism, a Sacrifice. Secondly, The Fathers do often adjoin certain Epithets, peculiar only to a true Sacrifice: as Chrisostome calleth it, Sacrificium verum, & plenum horroris. But these Adjuncts are fond given to a mere representive Sacrifice. Thirdly, the Fathers do often use the words, Victima 
(9) So Cyprian. lib. 1. Ep. 1. & l. 2. Epist. 3. etc.  & Sacrificium, in the p urall number; But this phrase of speech is most improper, if it should be understood of the Eucharist, as it is only a commemoration of the death of Christ; For since only one thing is here represented, therefore the name thereof is to be delivered only in the singular number.   

Animadversion CXLVI.  
IN like manner where we read, that the Fathers do ascribe great reverence to the Eucharist; to wit, either of Adoration, or Jnuocation, or in any other sort: To this Peter 
(10) Peter Martyr. lib. contra Gardin. part. 1. object. 150.  Martyr and others do answer: that if any such reverence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist, this reverence was not terminated in the Eucharist itself, but directed to Christ, signified therein, and so by the mediation of those earthly elements transferred unto him: No otherwise t●● when the Papists (for thus do they particularly instance) praying before Jmages, 〈◊〉 not their prayers to the Images, but to Christ, 〈◊〉 the Saint represented therein. But against t● Evasion I first ask, what secret intellig● have our Adversaries with the Father's ●tention herein, since the Father's words g● not the least intimation thereof? Secon● I say, that 
(11) L de Hierarch Eccles. c. 3. part. 3. saying. O Divinissimum & Sacrosanctum Sacram. etc.  Dionysius doth invoke 〈◊〉 Sacrament itself, and not Christ only afore the Sacrament. Thirdly, this their ●sweare (admitting it for true) doth wa● even, in their judgements, the Catholic praying before Images, and the reuere●● given to them; which Doctrine the Pro●stants do so much inveigh against.   

Animadversion CLXVII.  
THe Scripture is most difficult for three aspects; First, in regard of its multiplie● of the Senses of one and the same passage Scripture. Secondly, in respect of the phrens wherein the Scripture is delivered. Third● by reason of the height of the subject, whe● the Scripture intreateth. To touch all t●● briefly: First concerning the Sense; T●● are in divers passages of Scripture, three ●uerall senses besides the literal, all i●●ded by the Holy Ghost. The senses are ●led, Allegoricus, Tropologicus, and Anagog● Now how shall an ignorant man know, 〈◊〉 texts of Scripture be capable of all these, 〈◊〉 of them? The Style of the Scripture is ●●de difficult, as being stored with figures, 〈◊〉 Allegories, and full of Hebrew phrases 〈◊〉 Dialects, as appeareth in perusing the ●●lms, and the Apocalypse. The subject of the ●●●ipture is most high, as discoursing of the ●●eation of the world of Nothing, of the ●ysteryes of the Trinity, and the Incarnati●● besides many other Dogmatical points; 〈◊〉 transcending the light of man's natural ●●prehension: And therefore S. Ambrose had ●●od cause thus to pronounce of the holy ●●●ipture: Mare 
(12) Ambros. Ep. 44. ad Constantium.  est scriptura Divina, ha●●s in se sensus profundos. Ad hereto that the ●●●ipture hath to an ignorant eye divers seeing contrarietyes, though in themselues they are most true, and reconcileable. For example, these two texts 
(13) Ezec. 18. : Filius non portabit i●quitatem patris; anima, quae peccaverit, ipsa ●●rietur: And this other: Visitans 
(14) Exod. 10.  ini●●tatem patrum in filios, in tertiam & quartā●●nerationem; how can an ignorant man, or ●o man reconcile these passages? And what ●●ity then may one discern in a Mechanical fellow, or silly woman (who can only ●t reed) carrying the bible under their ●●me to the Church, and vaunting of the ●ines of the Scripture; and averring, that themselves are able to unfold & expound ●e most abstrusest passages there? O pride, ●●d ignorance! Ad finally, that in the Scrip●●e the plural number is sometimes used for ●●e singular number; as Marc. 15. we read, they that were crucified with him, railed at hi●, and yet we know, it was but only one of the thiefs that did so, the good thief honouring our Saviour. See the like hereto touching this kind of phrase of the Scripture (besides other places) in Hebr. 7. Again the Scripture in divers texts doth understand by the word, Omnis, only quidam. For example in Math. 27. we read: dicunt omn● ut crucifigatur, and yet the B. Virgin, S. Ma● magdelen, the Apostles, and divers others d● not so cry out against our Saviour. The li● phrase is in those words: Omnes, quae s● sunt, querunt, Philip. 2. & yet the Apostles and many other good Christians were exempted out of this sentence. But now he●● I demand, how can an unlearned man reconcile these, and the like sentences w●● the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in t● Scripture?   

Animadversion CLXVIII.  
THe Catholic Church delivereth c●taine Rules, for the more perfect knowledge of true Traditions. The first. When 〈◊〉 universal Church doth embrace any doctri● as a point of faith, the which is not found in 〈◊〉 holy Scriptures, it is necessary to say, that these point proceedeth from the Tradition of the Apostles. The reason hereof is, in that the universal Church, as being the 
(1) 1. Timoth. 3.  pillar and foundation of truth cannot err: And theref● what the Church believeth to be of fay● ●e same doubtlessly is of faith: But no ●int or Article is of faith, but what God ●th revealed either by the Apostles, or Pro●ts; since at this present the Church is not governed with new Revelations.  
The second. When the universal Church ●h observe any thing, which not any, but only ●d had power to institute, and yet which is not ●nd written in the Scripture; the same we are presume to be delivered from Christ and his ●ostles; the reason hereof is like to the rea●n of the former Rule; to wit, in that the ●iuersall Church cannot err either in belie●g, or in working; especially if the wor●g doth concern any rite of divine wor●●. And such is the Baptism of Infants.  
The third. That, which is observed through● the universal Church, and cannot find any 〈◊〉 institution thereof in the most ancient times, same we are to believe, that it was first ordoyne by the Apostles; though it be of that nature, that the Church had power firct to ordain it: ●is is the rule of 
(2) Lib. 4 contra Donat. cap. 24.  S. Austin. The fast of ●t may be an example hereof: For this fast ●ght have been instituted by the Church, Christ, or his Apostles had not afore insti●ed it; Yet we maintain, that it was insti●ed by Christ, or his Apostles; because as●ding up to higher times, and seeking af● the first Origen thereof, we find no be●ning thereof, but only in the time of Apostles.  
The fourth. When all the Doctors of the Church (being gathered together, either in a general Council, or in their several writings and books) do teach with a common consent, that such, or such a point, descendeth from Apostolical Tradition, we are to believe, that it is an Apostolical Tradition. The reason of this rule is, because if all the Doctors of the Church should err, then followeth it, that the whole Church should err, since she is obliged to follow her Pastors and Doctors. Now where we speak of the Fathers, touching any point in their several writings; here we are to understand, that we hold it not necessary, that all the Fathers should write thereof, but it is sufficient, if some Fathers of the chiefest note and eminency do expressly affirm the point in writing; and that other Fathers do not contradict them therein, taking notize of such their writings: Here we say, it is most probable, that such is the common judgement of all the Fathers therein; since it hath been ever observed, that when any one of the ancient Fathers hath erred, in a matter of weight and importance, that the same Father was ever contradicted by divers others.  
The fifth. That doubtlessly is to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition, which hath been holden for such in those Churches, in which Churches there hath been an entire and continual succession from the Apostles: This rule is delivered by 
(4) Irenaeus. l. 3. cap. 3.  Jrenaeus, and 
(5) Tertull. lib. de prescript.  Tertullian. The reason of this rule is, because the Apostles did deliver to their Successors (with the Episcopal government) the true doctrine also of Religion. Thus far touching the Rules for the better discerning of Apostolical Traditions.   

Animadversion CLXIX.  
TOuching Prayer in a strange tongue, Caluin and other Sectaries wholly dislike it, because that Prayer being not understood by the Ignorant people, no profit (say they) comes thereby to the people. But this is false; seeing the Prayer of the Church is not made to the people, but to God for the people; Therefore it is not necessarily conducing to the Spiritual profit of the people, that they understand the prayer, but it is sufficient, if God understand it: Even as if one should petition to the king in the Latin tongue, in behalf of some rustic and ignorant man; doubtlessly this ignorant man might receive profit thereby, although he did not understand the petition, or Prayer of his Advocate.  
Furthermore, the Church prayeth not in rain for the faithful being absent, & for other Sinners; How much more than doth not the Church pray in vain for the faithful being present, and desiring, that they may be prayed for in their Necessities?  
But to proceed: The ignorant people may not only receive profit from the Prayer of another, though they do not understand it; but also even from that Prayer, wh● themselves do pour out to God, tho● they do not understand it. This poin● thus proved: The Jews (according to 〈◊〉 opinion of 
(6) L 3. Doctrine Christian ca 9  S. Austin) did not in vay● worship God in Figures, and divers Ceremonies; although divers of the jews did 〈◊〉 understand the signification and mean● of the said Figures, and ceremonies, than 〈◊〉 ignorant people do vnderstand Latin Pray●● Again, it it be necessary for all those, w● pray to G●d, or praise and honour him 〈◊〉 Hymns, to understand what they say, th● very few, or none at all would be fou● who should without sin recite or sing●● Psalms of David, and the Prophets, or sho● read the Apostles in divine prayer; Since th● man cannot be named, who vnderstande● the true intended sense of the Psalms Prophets, and the Apostles: Neither are the two places of Scripture (so much urged 〈◊〉 our Adversaries) repugnant to what is he● said: Populus 
(7) Mat. 15.  hic labijs me honorat &c And again: Yff pray 
(8) 1. Cor. 14.  with the tongue, 〈◊〉 spirit prayeth, but my understanding is with●● fruit. Since the first of these texts is not understood of Prayer, or of reading divine Service, but it is meant of those, who profecie piety with their tongue, and in words; saying they love God, but yet do the contrary in their Actions, as 
(9) Jerome in c. 29. Isa.  Jerome and 
(10) Austin in lib. 22. contra Faustum cap. 25.  A●stin do expound. But admitting the wor●● of this text to be understood of Men praying them may we answer that those are here ●rehended, who praying in a known and ●gar tongue, bear (during the time of ●r praying) no intention to what they 〈◊〉, but suffer at that present great distrain, and evagation of thoughts. Concer●g this later passage of Scripture, I ans●re, that that Prayer is not reprehended, ●ich is not understood; but only that ●ayer is preferred before it, which is undergod. For the Apostle saith not, that the ●ayer is without fruit; but that the mind 〈◊〉 understanding is without fruit, in that 〈◊〉 is not instructed thereby. Now that this ●nd of Praying is not reprehended by the apostle, as Evil, or altogether fruitless and ●nprofitable, appeareth from those words a atle after following: For thou indeed givest ●hanks well etc.   

Animadversion CLXX.  
IF Christ and his Apostles had determined to restrain the word of God, only to ●he Scripture; than it followeth, that Christ would openly have commanded a thing of so great moment, and the Apostles would in some one place, or other of Scripture have testified, that they did write by the commandment of our Lord, as they taught throughout the world (as is recorded in Scripture) by the commandment of our Lord; But this commandment of writing, to be imposed by Christ upon his Apostles, we read not in any place of Sc●●pture. Furthermore the Apostles did not ●●pect, or stay for any proffered occasion 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel viva voce; but they 〈◊〉 undertake the charge of preaching the wa● freely and of their own accord and disposition; 2Whereas to write the Scripture th● were moved thereto through a certain kind of Necessity, and urging occurrence Thus S. Matthew (as Eusebius 
(11) Lib. 3 hist. c. 24.  reco●deth) did write upon occasion; because when he had preached to the jews, and determined to go to the Gentills he deemed 〈◊〉 to be convenient and profitable, to lea● behind him to those, some memorial 〈◊〉 his doctrine and preaching, from whom 〈◊〉 body and corporal presence he had departed. S. Mark (as the same Eusebius 
(12) L. 2. histor. cap. 15.  reciteth) did write his Gospel, neither of 〈◊〉 own accord, nor by the commandeme● of S. Peter (whose disciple he was) but on● through the forcible persuasion of the Romans. S. Luke (as also 
(13) Euseb. l. 3. hist. c. 14.  Eusebius showeth was only moved to write his Gospel, b●cause he saw many other men rashly presuming to write the life and actions of Chri●● which themselves did not perfectly kno● And therefore S. Luke did write, thereby 〈◊〉 withdraw us from the uncertain relation of others.  
S. john (as Eusebius 
(14) Euseb. ubi suprà.  affirmeth) d● preach the Gospel without committing 〈◊〉 to writing, even to his old & decrepit ag● 
(15) Jerome, l. de Script. Eccles.  S. Jerome saith, that at length he was spelled (as it were) by the Bishops of ●a to write his Gospel, by reason of Heresy of the Ebionites then beginning. herefore except the Heresy of the Ebionits' 〈◊〉 not then begun to spring up, perhaps 〈◊〉 should not at all have had the Gospel of ●ohn; neither perhaps the other three gospels, but in regard of the foresaid oc●ions in those times occurring. Now from this it is is evident, that the main inition of the Apostles was not to write 〈◊〉 Gospel, but to preach it. Furthermore ●x professo they had determined to commit ●eir doctrine to writing, they would have ●●de some Catechism thereof, or some such ●e book; But they did write either a ●●tory (as the Evangelists did) or Epistles ●on some special occasion, as Peter, Paul, ●●es, judas, john; and in the same did dis●te, or discourse of dogmatic points of ●yth, only obiter, and as circumstances indeed them.   

Animadversion CLXXI  
●He first Proposition touching Indulgences. The foundation and groundwork of ●he Doctrine of Indulgences is, that there re●ayneth in the Church of Christ, a certain spiritual Treasury of the satisfactions of ●hrist and his Saints, which may be applied ●o those, who stand subject to temporal punishment, after the guilt of eternal punishment is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance; for the better explicating of which doctrine, these following propositions are to be delivered.  
The first proposition. In one and the sam● good action or work of a just man, a double price or value is assigned to it: the one of Merit, the other of Satisfaction. For example; the one and same act of giving of Alms, is Satisfactory, in that it is a laborious, or penal● work. It is also Meritorious; because it is a good work, proceeding from Charity. Now the giving of Alms proceeding from charity, is not less good, because it is laborious and penal; upon the same reason the● it followeth, that the same prayer may be both impetratory, and meritorious.  
The second Proposition. A good work, in that respect, as it is meritorious, cannot be applied to another; but it may be applied, as it i● Satisfactory. The first part of this proposition is proved, because it cannot come to pass, that in respect that one doth work well, another should be said to work well in the said Action. The second part is proved, because satisfaction is a compensation of the punishment, or paying of what i● due; but it is evident, that one man may make compensation of punishment for another man, or pay the debt of another man.  
The third Proposition. There remaineth in the Church an infinite Treasury of Christ's satisfactions, which can never be exhausted or dried up. This is evident, since the passion of Christ 〈◊〉 of an infinite worth, price, and dignity; ●or it was the Passion of an infinite Person 〈◊〉 wit, of the Word Incarnated; for he was 〈◊〉, who shed his blood for the Church, ●ut did sheed it in Man's flesh Hypostatical assumpted. Now the dignity of satisfa●ion receives its measure from the dignity 〈◊〉 the person satisfying; even as the greatness of the offence taketh its proportion ●om the dignity of the person offended. ●herefore from hence it is inferred, that ●●ere is yet remaining a great part of the ●orth and price of the Passion of Christ, ●●ich may always be applied to Man.  
The fourth proposition. To this supera●●dant Treasury of the satisfactions of Christ, ●●ng the passions or sufferings of the B. Virgin, ●as a such other Saints who have suffered more 〈◊〉 this world than their sins have deserved. For 〈◊〉 is evident (not to speak of other Saints) ●●t the Blessed Virgin never committed any ●●tuall Sin; & yet it is said, that the sword 〈◊〉 grief pierced her soul, Luc. 2. In like sort, 〈◊〉 john Baptist (being sanctified in his mo●ers womb) did lead a most innocent life, ●●d stood obnoxious to most few, and most ●ght or small Sins; and yet in defence of ●●e truth he was beheaded. Therefore it ●●nnot be doubted, but that a great heap ●f passions and sufferings of the B. Virgin, & 〈◊〉 S. john Baptist were upon their deaths re●ayning, of which themselves did not stand in need, for the satisfying for any temporal punishment. All which superabundan●● of satisfactions were laid up in the Treason house of the Church. Thus fare of th● point; only I add, that so the person m●● be capable of Jndulgences two things are required. The first, that he be in state of Grace the second, that he perform all that, whic● is enjoined to him, for the obtaining of the Jndulgence.   

Animadversion CLXXII.  
WHen it is said: Indulgences do profit the souls of the departed, only per modu● suffragij, the meaning hereof is, because Jndulgences do not profit the departed by way of juridical absolution, but by way of solution or payment; that is, by way of Satisfaction. Thus when a Man giveth Alms, or fasteth, or goeth on pilgrimage to holy places, for the relief of a soul departed, he doth not absolve that soul from the guilt of punishment; but he only offereth up that satisfaction, that God accepting thereof, would free and deliver it from the due punishment, which otherwise it were to suffer: Even so the Pope doth not absolve the departed soul, but out of the Treasury of satisfactions remaining in the Church, offereth up so much to God, as is needful to free and deliver the soul. For the close of these Animadversions, touching the Doctrine of Indulgences, the Reader is to take particular notice (and the rather through the wlilfull & malicious mistaking of our Adversaries, ●ho do mightily calumniate us in this question of Jndulgences,) that we teach, the guilt of eternal damnation being remitted only by the Sacrament of Confession, or by most perfect contrition in lieu thereof, when there is not opportunity of the other, the subject of an Indulgence is only a temporal punishment, due to be suffered (after the guilt of damnation is remitted) which temporal punishment by means of Indulgences, we hold may be either lessened, or wholly taken away in a Man, who is in state of Grace, but not if he be in state of Mortal Sinne.   

Animadversion CLXXIII.  
IT is certain, that the English Translations of the New Testament made by the Protestants are most corrupt, and in divers places most different from the Greek. in which tongue either all, or most of the New Testament was first written. I will exemplify in two passages: The New Testament makes mention of good or pious Traditions, & of wicked and jewish Traditions, expressing them both by one & the same Greek word, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth Traditio. Now the imposture here resteth: For our English Protestant Translations in such Texts, wherein are understood Good and profitable Traditions, as in 1. Cor. 2. and 2. Thess. 2. do translate instead of the word Traditions, the word Ordinances. But where the Texts speak of wicked and frivolous Traditions, there our Adversaries put down most punctually (as it Math. 15.) in their Translation, the right word, Traditions. Now this calumny is used in dislike of Apostolical Traditions, that so the ignorant Reader should never find the word, Tradition, in Scripture, in a good sense, but always in a bad and disallowed; though now in their last Translation (but not in any former) for the better saluing of their credit, they put only in the Margin of such Texts, speaking of godly Traditions, the word Traditions. The like course they hold in translating the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying, dignus, in English, Worthy: and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be made worthy. For in those Texts, which concern Merit of works (as in Luc. 20. and 21. & 2. Thess. 1.) wherein those said words are used, they translate them, To seem to be worthy, or to seem only to be made worthy; thereby to weaken such texts for the proving of Merit of works. But in other Texts, not touching the Doctrine of Merit, they can be content to translate those words truly; that is, to be worthy, and to be worthy indeed, as in this Text: O how 
(*) Heb. 20.  much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of, who treadeth underfoot the Son of God. Thus much for a Taste.   

Animadversion CLXXIV.  
THe English Protestant Translation of the Bible is not only by the Catholics acknowledged to be corrupt and impure, but ●so by many Protestant themselves. M. ●urges thus censureth of that Translation, ●ying: How 
(17) M. Burges in his Apology sect. 6.  shall I approve under my hand 〈◊〉 Translation, which hath many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense; being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary? To whose judgement herein subscribe divers Ministers in their joint consent thereof in these words: A 
(18) The ministers in their abridgement of a Book delivered to king james. pag. 11. & 12.  Translation, that taketh away from the Text, that addeth to the Text, and this sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And again: A Translation, which is absurd and senseless, perverting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost. All whose Censures herein agree with the like censure of D. Reynolds, delivered in King james his presence in Hampton Court; who refused to subscribe to the Communion book; because (said he) it warranted a false & corrupt translation of the Bible. Now from hence I thus deduce: The Protestants by their own Confessions have had as yet never any true English Translation of the Scriptures: Therefore as yet the English Protestants never enjoyed (according to their own Principles) a sufficient and competent judge of Controversies; Since admitting the Scripture were the sole judge of Controversyes in faith; yet this of necessity must be understood of the Scripture, as it is pure, and incorrupt, & not 〈◊〉 it is impure, and abastarded with false Translations.  
From the Scripture, I will descend to the English Communion book, or Book of Common Prayer. This Communion book (as it is even at this present) we find to be thus condemned by Protestant's. Twenty two preachers in London in 
(19) The Book is entitled, The Petition of twenty two Ministers in London.  one Petition, did thus charge the Common Prayer Book, saying: Many things in the Communion Book are repugnant to the word of God. And again: In the Communion Book there be things, of which there is no reasonable sense; There is contradiction in it, even in necessary and essential points of Religion; The holy Scripture is at graced by it. A point so evident, that D. Covell rebuketh and censureth other Protestants herein, saying: The 
(20) D. Covell in his Examen. pag. 179.  Communion Book is boldly despised (meaning by the Puritans;) Gross errors and manifest impietyes (meaning in their opinion) are in the Communion Book. So he redargueth his own brethren. Now, here in like manner (as above) I do thus argue: If the English Protestants have had no form of Common Prayer published to them, but such as is repugnant to the Scripture, and in which there is contradiction, even in the necessary points of Religion; them followeth, that even to this day the ignorant English Protestant never prayed to God availably; For it is Prayer, sorting to the word of God, and not what is accompanied with errors, which is piercing in God's ea●es. See here what dangerous Resu●tancies proceed to the English Protestants from their own brethren's Confessions (though most true) that as yet they enjoy not the Scripture as truly translated, nor a p●ou● set form of Prayer, or Communion Book.   

Animadversion CLXXV.  
SEeing we, who profess the Roman religion, are commonly (yea often even by our Adversaries) called Catholics, therefore I will here briefly show, by laying open the Antiquity of that Title, how much we are honoured by being so styled; whereas other false Doctrines commonly take th●ir Denomination from the first Author thereof, or from the Doctrine itself. Well then, 
(21) Cyril. Cate●his. 18.  cyril thus writeth hereof: Si iveris in aliquam urbem etc. If thou shalt go into any City thou demandest not, wher● is the Church or house of God, for even the Heretics say, they have the house of God, & the Church; sed petas, ubi sit Catholica Ecclesia etc. quasi dicas, si hoc petas, nullus Haereticorum suam Ecclesiam ostendet: But thou demandest, where the Catholic Church is, for that name is peculiar to this holy Church the mother of us all; as if thou shouldest say, if thou demandest this, no Heretic will ●hew to thee his Church.  
Pacianus. Christianus 
(22) In Epist. ad Sympronianum, quae est de Nomine Catholico.  mihi nomen est, Catholicus vero cognomen, illud me nuncupat, istud me ostendit; A Christian is my Name, a Catholic my surname; by the former I am named, by this other I am known, or discerned. And again: Catholicum istud nec Marcionem, nec Apellem etc. This Name (Catholic) neither doth it sound or mean Martion, or Apelles, or Montanus; nec haereticos sumit authores; neither doth it admit any Heretical Authors. Now on the other side, how Heresies and their Professors take their appellation, this one testimony of chrysostom (for greater brevity) shall serve: Illi habent 
(23) Chrysost. hom. 33. in acta. Apost ol.  quosdam, à quibus appellantur; prout enim Haerefiarchae nomen, ita & secta vocatur etc. Those men (meaning Heretics) have some men, from whom they take their Name; for as the Name of the Archheretic is, so is the sect called. Which saying we find verified even at this day, by the words, Lutheran, Swinglian, Caluinist etc. Now whereas our Adversaries by way of retortion call us, Papists; To this I answer (as is above in this Treatise touched) that this word Papist, is not derived from any known Author or Archheretic, as the words Lutheran, Swinglian, Caluinist etc. but from the Pope, and such was S. Peter, yea Christ himself. Add hereto that 
(24) Homil. 33. in Act 4.  chrysostom (as if it were by way of foreseeing we should be called Papists) saith; It is not hurtful, if Catholics be called by the name of those, who govern the Church in the name of Christ, so that they receive not their name from any particular man, as Heretics are named: Thus S. chrysostom. To conclude, it is to be observed, that we are called Papists, only by the Lutherans in Germany, and Heretics in some near Countries; but we are not so called (to omit Italy, and Spain, in Greece, Asia, Africa, or in the Jndyes.   

Animadversion CLXXVI.  
THough the many Controversyes (agitated between the Catholics & the Protestants) afford a most convincing Argument, that both the parties during their continuance of such their contrary beliefs, cannot expect salvation; yet this point is made more demonstrable, if we insist only in such controversyes between our Adversaries and us, the subject of which are taught by the one side to be (under Christ) the immediate means of our grace & salvation; and denied by the other party to be of such force and efficacy for the souls everlasting Good; and consequently in regard of their subject, are one way necessarily to be believed. So as if it be showed, that the Catholics, and the Protestants do mainly descent in the means of obtaining Grace, & purchasing of Heaven; it must of necessity be inferred, that both the Catholics, and Protestants, continuing in such their different states, cannot obtain Grace and salvation; Since Philosophy, and natural Reason teacheth us, that he shall never attain the End he aimeth at, who useth not the same means, which are only and necessarily instituted to the gaying of the said End.  
Now, to come to the Articles of this kind. First Concerning the Sacraments in General; the Catholics believe, that all of them (where no just impediment is) do confer Grace unto the Soul of man; by the help & continuance of which Grace, the soul in the end obtaineth its salvation. The Protestant doth not ascribe any such supernatural effect unto them.  
To come more particularly to the Sacraments. Touching Baptism, the Catholics believe, that Children being borne in Original Sin, cannot be saved, except they be baptised with Water: The 
(25) Caluin and Beza most frequently teach so.  Protestants believe, that Infants dying unbaptized may be saved.  
Touching the Sacrament of Penance, or Confession; the Catholics believe, that after a Christian hath committed any Mortal Sin, that Sin cannot be forgiven him, but (at least in Voto) by confessing the said Sin to a Priest, answerably to that in S. John 20. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them etc. The Protestants believe, that neither the Confession of sins to man, nor the absolution of them given by man, is necessary for the remitting of them; but that it is sufficient to confess them only to God. And thus according to the diversity of Doctrine, either the Protestant for want of this Sacrament (after he hath mortally sinned) cannot be saved; or the Catholics for wrongfully imposing this yoke upon Christians, do lose their Salvation.  
Touching the most B. Sacrament of the Eucharist; The Catholics believe, that the very body and blood of Christ do lie latently under the forms of bread and wine, Math. 26. and that unless we eat his body, and drink his blood in the Eucharist, we shall not have life everlasting, john. 6. Finally, that we are to adore Christ his body in the Eucharist, being accompanied there with his Divinity. The Protestants believe, that Christ's true body (as never leaving Heaven) cannot possibly be under the forms of bread and wine; and consequently they believe, that the real eating of his body and drinking of his blood in the Sacrament, is not necessary to Salvation: finally they hold our adoration of the Sacrament to be open Idolatry.  
Fiftly, touching the means of our justification; the Catholics believe, that not only faith, but works also do justify. The Protestants do ascribe their justification only to Faith, and not to works.  
Touching Grace (without which a man cannot be saved) the Catholics believe, that God out of the depth of his infinite mercy, offereth to every Christian sufficient Grace, whereby he may be saved. The Protestants teach, that God giveth not sufficient Grace to every one, but to certain men only; and according hereto, Beza most blasphemously thus writeth of this point; 
(26) Beza in his Display of Popery. pag. 17. 31. 76. 116. etc.  God decreeth some men to destruction, createth to perdition, and predestinateth to his hatred & destruction.  
Touching the ten Commandments, the Catholics believe, that except a Christian do keep them, he cannot be saved, according to our Saviour: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. Math. 19 The Protestants do teach an absolute impossibility of keeping them: and thereupon Luther thus writeth: The ten 
(27) Luther ser. de Moyse.  Commandments do not belong unto us.  
Finally touching the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, the Catholics do believe, that he is under Christ, the supreme Pastor upon earth; that who do not communicate in Sacraments and Doctrine with him, yielding him all true obedience, in subiecting their judgements in Matter of faith to his sententionall Definitions, cannot be saved. The Protestants do teach, that the Pope is that Antichrist, which is deciphered by the 
(28) 2. Thess. 2. etc.  Apostle; and that who so embraceth his Doctrine, or yieldeth their assents to his Cathedral Decrees, cannot be saved.  
Thus far of these points (omitting some others of like nature.) Now here I urge, as above; If these former Doctrines (as they are believed by the Catholics) do immediately concern Salvation, and become necessary means thereof; then cannot the Protestant's (as rejecting all such doctrines, and all such necessary means both in belief and practice) be saved; But if by supposal, the said Doctrines be not of that Nature, but false in themselves, and the contrary Doctrines true; then cannot the Catholics (as believing false Doctrines, immediately touching man's Salvation, and accordingly practising them) be saved: From whence it inevitably followeth, that the different Professors of these contrary Doctrines (the one part believing, the other part not believing the said Doctrines) cannot both be saved.   

Animadversion CLXXVII.  
SOme Protestants will maintain, that Protestancy (for its greater antiquity) was at its full, and perfect state here in England in King Edward's days. But this is most unadvisedly spoken; The falsehood of which bold Assertion, I prove from the Communion Book, set out in K. Edward's time, with approbation & allowance of Peter Martyr. Which Book was further warranted in King Edward's time, by Act of Parliament. Now this Book, or public Liturgy of the faith of England in those days, being printed in folio by Edward Whitchurch anno 1549. prescribeth, that the Eucharist shallbe consecrated with the 
(29) Fol. 265.  sign of the Cross. It commandeth consecration 
(30) Fol. 2●2.  of the Water of Baptism, with the sign of the Cross. In that Book mention is made of Prayer 
(31) Fol. 116.  for the Dead; offering up of our prayers by 
(32) Fol. 117.  Angels. It defendeth Baptism being given by Lay 
(33) Fol. 119.  Persons in time of Necessity; and the Grace 
(34) Ibidem.  of that Sacrament. It alloweth Priest's absolution of the sick penitent in these words: By the authority committed 
(35) Fol. 142.  unto me, I absolve thee of all thy Sins. It mentioneth a special and particular 
(36) Fol. 143.  Confession of the Sick Penitent. Briefly (to omit some other points.) It commandeth the 
(37) Fol. 143.  anointing of the Sick person; which we Catholics call the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. But to proceed further in this point; touching the Book of Common Prayer in those days, I will allege the words of M. Done (an eminent Protestant) who thus writeth hereof: Concerning 
(38) M. Dove in hit persuasion to English Recusants. pag. 31.  the Book of Common prayer, when the Mass was first put down, K. Henry had his English Liturgy, and that was judged absolute, and without exception. But when King Edward came to the Crown, that was condemned, and another in the place was made, which Peter Martyr, and Bucer did approve, as very consonant to God's word. When Queen Elizabeth began to reign, the former was judged to be full of imperfections, and a new devised, and allowed by consent of the Clergy. But about the middle of her reign we grew weary of that Book and great means hath been made to abandon that, and establish another. Which though it was not obtained, yet do we at the least at every change of Prince, change our Book of Common prayer: We be so wanton, that we know not, what we would have. Thus this Protestant. Now from hence I conclude: First, that Protestancy here in England is not so ancient, as from king Edward's days; Secondly, that it was not at perfection in the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign; For if it had then been perfect and complete, there had been no need of a new Common Prayer-book; For at every change of the Common book of prayer, there was a change of points of faith, according to which points the former Communion Book was to be reform & corrected. And therefore according to the judgement of men of those times it is thus said by M. Parker. The daystar 
(39) M. Parker against Symbolising. part. 2. cap. 5. pag. 4.  was not risen so high in their days, when yet Queen Elizabeth reform the defects of King Edward's Communion Book etc. Yet so altered 
(40) Ibidem. pag. 37.  as that when it was proposed to be confirmed by the Parliament, it was refused.   

Animadversion CLXXVIII.  
THe Doctrine of Recusancy is taught both by Protestants and Catholics; Since both of them hold it a most wicked thing, and not to be done, but under pain of damnation without final repentance; that a man should communicate only in going to the Church, and to hear but a sermon, contrary to that Religion, which himself believeth to be true. For though this Act may seem to be covered under pretence of observing the Prince's commandment, & for fear of losing our temporal estates; yet in very deed this Act of going to the Church virtually and potentially includeth a conformity in all points to the religion of that Church to the which a Man goeth; and so ●t comes to be a dissimulation, or rather an absolute Abnegation of that Religion, which a man holds in his soul to be the only true Religion.  
Now, that the Protestants do teach the Doctrine of Recusancy (I mean, not to be present at the sermons, or Prayers of a different Religion) I prove from 
(41) Caluin de vitandis superstitionibus. extat in tract. Theolog. pag. 584.  Caluin, from the Divines 
(42) The Divines of Germany, alleged in this point by Sleydan in Comment. Englished l. 7 fol. 87.  of Germany, from Melancthon 
(43) Melancth. in Conc●. Theolog. pa. 618. , from Peter 
(44) Peter Martyr in his discourse hereof recited in Melancth. Treatise de Concil. Theolog. p. 394.  Martyr, and (to omit others) from D. 
(45) W●●e● in Synops. printed 1600. pag. 612. 613. etc.  Willet.  
That the Catholics do with the like, or greater fervour, preach and practise th● same Doctrine of Recusancy; is clear by the Example in our own Country; where sin Protestancy was first planted, some scores (besides of the Laity) of Venerable & learned priests, have chosen rather to suff●● death in Queen Elizabeth her Reign, than once to go to the Protestant Church; their lives being commonly proffered them, if they would conform themselves, and leave their Recusancy. But they loathed such Conditions.  
For the more full proof of this Verity, I add the Testimonies of three most eminent & most remarkable Men; whose judgements some years past being demanded, whether the Catholics of England might for saving their goods & livings, go to the Protestant Church to hear a Sermon, did jointly condemn the same, as most unlawful and impious. The men were these, Cardinal Bellarmine, Cardinal Baronius, and Muti●●Vitellescus, now general of the Order of the Society of jesus. I will here set down their own words.  

The Judgement of Cardinal Bellarmine.  
COnsideratis rationibus pro vtraqueparte allatis, existimo non licere viris Catholicis in Anglia Haereticorum adire Ecclesias; multó minùs concionibus ipsorum interesse; minimè autem omnium cum ipsis in precibus, vel Psalmodia, alijsque ipsorum Ecclesiasticis ritibus convenire. Ideo propria manu subscripsi,  
Robertus Bellarminus Sanctae R. Ecclesiae Presbyter, Cardinalis tituli Sanctae Mariae in via.   

The judgement of Cardinal Baronius.  
VIsis & consideratis, quae superiùs diligenti peruestigatione in utramque partem disputata, reiectis omnino & exufflatis, quae pro par●e affirmativa fuere proposita, quòd scilicet liceret Catholicis adire Ecclesias Haereticorum, ut superiùs sunt proposita, inhaeremus saniori sententie posteriori, ab Ecclesia Catholica antiquitùs recepta, & usu probata; quod scilicet ita facere p●● non liceat: quam rogo nostros Catholicos Angl●● amplecti ex animo.  
Caesar Cardinalis Baronius titul. SS. Nerei & Achillei Presb.   

The iudgment of Mutius Vitellescus, then Provincial, now General of the Order of the Jesuits.  
VJdi rationes, quae in hoc Scripto pro utraque parte afferuntur, & existimo non licere v● Catholicis in Anglia, Ecclesias Haereticor●s adire etc. Et puto hoc debere esse extra Contr●●ersiam.  
Mutius Vitellescus Provincialis Roma● Provin. Societatis jesus.   
Thus much in general touching the Doctrine of Recusancy, maintained by diue● learned Protestants; and practised with los● of life by many Reverend Priests here 〈◊〉 England; and fortified with the iudgme●● of these three former most learned, pious, and godly Men.   

Animadversion CLXXIX.  
●He most common abuse in England, of taking a second wife, during the life of ●e first, committing fornication, induceth ●e to expound those words of our Saviour, ●om whence the offenders herein seem to ●arrant their sensual proceed: for thus ●●r Saviour in Matthew 19 speaketh: Whosoe●er shall put away his wife, except it be for for●●tation, and shall marry another, doth commit adultery; from which words our Aduersa●es seem to infer, that who doth put away ●s wife for fornication, and marrieth another, doth not commit Adultery. But this is ●hus answered; To wit, that this exception 〈◊〉 Fornication is only to show, that for this ●use a man may put away his wife for e●er, but not that he may marry another, as 〈◊〉 most plain in 5. Mark c. 10. and 5. Luke ●. 16. both who leave out this exposition, saying thus absolutely: Whosoever putteth a●ay his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. And this exposition is given by S. Thomas Sent. in 4. distinct. 35. quaest. unica art. 5. So as in these former words of Math. 1●. a Parenthesis is to be understood, after this manner: Whosoever putteth away his wife, (which is not lawful, except it be for fornication) & marrieth another committeth adultery. Now that the exposition of our Adversaries of the said text was condemned throughout all ages of the primitive Church, is most clear, since the Fathers of each such age, eu●● taught, that a man putting away his wife ●pon any occasion, yea for Fornication, cou●● not marry any other Woman. For examen thus in the first Age Clemens teacheth, 〈◊〉 Canon. Apostol. can. 48. In the seco● Age justinus Martyr, in Apolog. pro Christ. nis. In the third, Tertullian l. 4. in Marc●nem. In the fourth Age, the Council of E●●●ris can. 9 In the fifth, Concil. Mileuitan●● can. 17. and S. Austin lib. de adulterinis con●gijs. In the sixth age, Primasius in Comment 〈◊〉 cap. 7. prioris ad Corinth. Now here I vr● that if the former exposition of the Catholics be false, then did the Primitive Chu●●● wholly err therein, which is most absurd maintain. In like manner, the Primit●● Church of Christ did then wrong ma● christian's in not suffering them to use ●pon occasion of the wifes Fornication, t●● privilege, which Christ may seem to gra● to them. I may add hereto, that divers learned Protestants, by maintaining, that 〈◊〉 case of Divorce upon adultery the innoce● party cannot marry again, do reject c● Adversary's exposition of the former 〈◊〉 of Matthew 19 According hereto (to ●mit many other moderate Protestants t●●ching the same with us Catholics) D. H●●son in his tertia Thesi printed 1602. maintaineth the same, publicly in Oxford. In l●● sort some thirty years since (more or le●● the same Doctrine was preached at Pa● Crrsse by D. Doue●. Now, to all this above ●aid, I may adjoin the exposition of S. Au●●in in l. 1. de adulterinis coniugijs, cap. 9 of the foresaid text, who there saith, That the ●ords in Math. 19 uz. (nisi ob fornicationem) ●ught to be taken negatiuè, non exceptiuè, by ●ay of negation, not of exception; So as the sense of them may be this: Whosoever shall put away his wife, nisi ob fornicationem, that is, extra causam fornicationis, without the cause of fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. From which exposition the Adultery of him is affirmed, who putting away his wife, without the cause of fornication, shall marry another: But nothing is ●ere said of him, who putting away his wife ●y reason of fornication, shall marry another. Thus far of this Text.   

Animadversion CLXXX.  
AS the Inuisibility and Latency of the Protestants Church hath been fully above demonstrated; so here I hold it not imper●●nent, if I prove the Continual and uninterrupted visibility of our Catholic Church; ●nd consequently that it is that Church of God, to which so many Prophecies have ●eene made of its uneclipsed splendour and radiancy: Thy 
(46) Esa. 60.  Gates shallbe continually open; neither day nor night shall they be ●●nt etc.  
Now this verity is proved several ways. ●nd first from the confessed Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church during all former ages, till Luther's insurrection. And this the rather, seeing the learned Protestants confess, that all the former Inuisibility of the Protestant Church was wrought by the labour, power, and diligence of the Catholic Roman Church. Now how could the Roman Church effect so much, for so long a time, except itself during all that time were most visible? According to this assertion, we find M. Napper to confess the same reason of his Church's Jnuisibility, in these words: During 
(47) Napper upon the Revelations, caps 11. & 12.  even the second & th●s age (meaning since Christ) the true Chur●● of God, and the light of the Gospel, was obscure● by the Roman Antichrist himself.  
Secondly, the ever Visibility of the Catholic Church is proved from the acknowledged succession of Pastors in o●● Catholic Church ever since the Apostles since those visible Pastors were the visible and most eminent members of our said Church, preaching and instructing others, who in this respect must become also vi●it● and known. Now this our visible succession of Pastors in our Roman Church is confessed even by our Adversaries; for thus D. Fulke exprobrateth the Catholics in these words: You 
(48) D. Fulke in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic. p. 27.  can name (chief) Personages in all ages (mark these words, in all ages) and their government, and ministry, and especially the succession of the Popes you have upon your fingers. Thus D. Fulke:  
Thirdly, and lastly the same is thus proved: If the most ancient and reverend Fathers of the primitive Church; I mean, Ignatius, Dionysius Areopagita, justinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hilarius, the Cyrils, the Gregory's, Ambrose, Basill, Opratus, Gandentius, chrysostom, Jerome, Austin, and divers others, be accounted by our Adversary's most earnest Professors of our Catholic Roman faith; than it followeth most consequently, that our Catholic Church was most conspicuous in those times; since those Fathers were the visible Pastors of the Church then in Being. Now that the Fathers of those primitive t●mes were Papists, professing the present Roman faith, appeareth (besides from what is already most fully confessed by our Adversaries in that behalf) even from that acknowledgement of Peter Martyr, saying: As long 
(49) Peter Martyr l. de votis p. 476.  as we insist in the fathers so long we shallbe conversant in the Papists errors.  
Now that our Catholic Church hath been further also most visible, since the times of those primitive Fathers (I mean for these last thousand years) is so fully confessed by our Adversaries in this Treatise, as that I hold it over wearisome and fastidious, so often to repeat such their Confessions.   

Animadversion CLXXXI.  
THe main Argument drawn from Reason, which our Adversaries urge against unwritten Traditions, is this; It seemeth (say they) impossible that unwritten Traditions can be kept and conserved: since there are divers hindrances thereof; as Forgetfulness, Ignorance, negligence perverseness of men's Natures, and the like. And hence it is, that we see, that such Sentences, which Lycurgus, Pythagoras, and others, delivered only in words, and not in writing, are at this day lost, and perished.  
To this I answer, that I hold it impossible, that Apostolical Traditions should not be preserved; since this care is not properly incumbent upon Man but upon God, who governeth the Church. Now besides the providence of God, which is the chief cause of preserving the Traditions of the Church, there are four other inferior, or subordinate Causes, for their preservation.  
The first, is the committing of Traditions to writing; For although they be not set down in Holy writ (I mean, in the divine Scriptures) yet they are recorded and written in the Monuments of the ancient Authors, and in Ecclesiastical books.  
The second reason may be the continual use of them; For divers Traditions are in continual observation & practice, as the Rites and Ceremonies of administering the Sacraments, Holidays, appointed times of fasting, the Celebration of the Mass, and of Divine office, or prayers, and such like.  
The third cause, are certain external Monuments, which continue for a most long time; as most ancient Temples or Churches, in which are Altars, the Holy Fonts for Baptism, the Memorials, or Toumbs of Saints, Crosses, Images, Ecclesiastical books etc.  
The fourth Reason, is Heresy itself; For God doth wonderfully use the Enemies of the Church, to the preservation of the Church. For because, as in every age there have risen up some Heretyks, who have impugned divers dogmatic Traditions of the Church; So hath God in each age raised certain learned & Orthodoxal Men, who, that they might better resist the Heretics, have with most great diligence and labour searched out the Doctrine of the Church, and ancient Traditions, and have transmitted them in writing to all posterity. I will add this following observation, in fuller warrant of unwritten Traditions against such, who restrain the proof of all points to the Scripture itself; To wit, that it is one thing for an Article of faith to be expressed in Scripture; Another thing, for an Article of faith to be grounded upon scripture. All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture; yet every Christian doctrine is so grounded on Scripture, that it may in som● sort, or other, be proved from Scripture; And in this sense all Traditions received by the universal Church of Christ, may be said to be grounded on Scripture, since they are grounded upon the authority of the Church, admitting them; To which Church, Christ himself hath promised an infallibility of Truth, and of not erring; according to that, Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque Consummationem saeculi. Math. 18. And again: Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam. Math. 16. to wit, against the Church of Christ.   

Animadversion CLXXXII.  
PRotestancy is proved to be an intentional thing in itself, and void of all Real faith This is proved from the Definition of Faith, given by the Apostle, thus defining faith: fides est sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium; That is, faith is the 
(50) Heb. 11.  substance of things, to be hoped for; the argument of things, not appearing. This definition showeth, that faith is a supernatural Virtue, and the Object thereof is that, which through its own abstrusenes & sublimity cannot be apprehended or conceived by force of Man's own wit, it transcending all Natural Reason. This we see exemplyfyed in the two supreme Articles of the Trinity, and the Incarnation; the mysteries and difficulties of which transcend all humane reason, or light of Nature. And hence it is, that the Conclusion of the School Divines is this: Quae 
(51) S. Thomas. part. 1. 2. quaest. 1.  fidei sunt, non possunt esse scita. Now to apply this: If Protestancy be a supernatural faith (or else it is no true saving faith) than the Object of this Protestanticall faith is of that difficult Nature, as that Man through the force of Natural reason only, cannot give any assent thereto, without the special concurrency of God's Grace.  
But here I demand, that seeing the Object of Protestancy (as Protestancy) is mere Negatives, and denials (as denial of Real Presence, denial of Purgatory, denial of Freewill, denial of praying to Saints, briefly denial of most of the affirmative points taught by our Catholic Church:) here I say, I demand, what supernaturality, or force of God's special concurrency is required, that man should give an assent to these Negations, or denials: Nay I here say, that man's natural reason even of itself (without any external help) is propense and inclining to believe these, and other such like Negations, except the Affirmatives to those Negations, can be convinced as for true, either by Divine or Humane proof, and Authority. Thus it followeth, that Protestancy even from the Definition of Faith, given by the Apostle, is no supernatural Faith, but in respect of such a Faith, is a mere Irreality, and waste of faith.   

Animadversion CLXXXIII.  
THe reasons, which S. Thomas Aquinas 
(52) S. Thom in 3. part. quaest. 27. Artic. 4.  doth insist upon (being most probable inducements) for freeing the Blessed Virgin Mary from Original Sin, are these following.  
The first: Seeing God did decree to advance the Blessed Virgin to so supreme dignity, that she should excel even the Angels themselves; therefore it was most suitable & agreeable, that no privilege should be conferred upon any pure Creature, which was not conferred upon the B. Virgin, (except such a privilege were repugnant to the condition, state, Nature, or Sex:) But to be sanctified in the first instant of Creation, was given to our First Parents, As also to be sanctified in the first instant of Creation, and never to be polluted with any Sin, was given to the holy Angels: But this privilege is in no sort repugnant to the condition, state, Nature, or Sex of the B. Virgin: Therefore it is a pious thing to believe, that the Mother of God did not want this privilege.  
Secondly, because that testimony of the Heavenly Spouse ought in all probability to be accomplished and fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin: Tota 
(53) Can. 4.  pulchra es amica mea, & macula non est in te.  
Thirdly, because the Mother of Christ hath a singular Affinity, and Conjunction with Christ himself.  
Fourthly, in that the Son of God (who is the wisdom of the Father) did (as it were) inhabitate in the womb of the Mother, after a most peculiar and wonderful manner: But it is said in holy Scripture: In malevolam 
(54) Wisdoms. c. 1.  animam etc. Wisdom cannot enter into a wicked hart, nor dwell in the body, which is subject to sin.  
Lastly, because as well the honour as the ignominy of the Mother redoundeth to the Son. Now touching the proof of the Assumption of our B. Lady both in Body & Soul (pretermitting the Authority of the 
(55) S. Jerome writeth a sermon, styling it, de Eesto assumptionis Mariae. The Centurists allege that S. Austin, did write a Book-entituling it, de Assumptione Virgins Mariae.  Ancient Fathers herein) I will at this present, content myself with the Argument of S. Bernard in proof thereof, who thus disputeth: Seeing God hath discovered and revealed the Bodies of many Saints (which lay hid in divers places) that they might be honoured of faithful Christians; It then inevitably followeth, that if the sacred Body of the Blessed Virgin had been still on earth, he would in like manner have made known (not doubt) in what place or Country it did lie. But it not being certainly known, where that Body, or any part thereof is in any place of the world; it may irr●pliably be concluded, that her Body is not to be found in Earth, but only in Heaven; & this is S. Bernard's demonstration in this point.   

Animadversion CLXXXIV.  
BEza (as above is showed) thus writeth of the Doctrine of reprobation: God 
(a) Beza in his Display etc. pag. 17. 31 76. etc.  decreeth to destruction, createth to perdition, and predestinateth to his hatred, and Destruction, with whom accordeth Caluin (as elsewhere is showed) in these words: 
(b) Calu Instit. l. 3. cap. 23. paragr. 6.  God by his Council and appointment, doth so ordain, that amongst men some be borne destined to certain death from their Mother's Womb, who by their perdition may glorify his Name. Now here I wish the diligent Reader to observe the dangerous resul●ancyes, and Absurdity 〈◊〉 necessary following from this their doctrine of Reprobation. First: it is a main hindrance to Virtue, and encouragement to Vice, (as above I have declared:) Since i● teacheth, that that man, who is reprobated cannot prevent his reprobation by any pious life, how virtuous soever; why then should that man abstain from exercise of wickedness, seeing his wickedness doth not in any sort further his damnation; it being (by the Protestants Doctrine) decreed from a Eternity, without respect of any work good, or bad?  
Secondly, this Doctrine maketh God, a Liar, and dissembler. For to omit infini●● other texts of Scripture, we find his Prophets thus to speak of God: God 
(c) Ezech. 33.  willing the death of the wicked. And again: He 
(d) 2. Peter 3.  w● not have any to perish. And yet more: God 
(e) 1. Timoth. 2.  would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. Now I say, if God createth some men absolutely from their Mother's womb, without respect of his Sins, to eternal damnation; are not these his fair speeches to be interpreted but Dissimulation, and untruths? and followeth it not then consequently, that this their blasphemous doctrine labours to transform God into the Devil, by making him to utter lies and speak false; for of the Devil we thus read: It is 
(f) 1. joan. 3.  he, who speaks Lies of himself, & is a liar, the Father of Lies.   

Animadversion CLXXXV.  
IF we take into our consideration that other Doctrine of our Adversaries, which teacheth, that God is the Author of sin; (which Doctrine we have above showed, to be maintained by the Protestants) the inferences avoidable proceeding from that Doctrine are no less blasphemous, than the former. For first, it maketh God to be the only sinner, and that the Devil and Man are innocent, and no sinners at all. For if the thief (for example) be compelled by God to steal, who compels the Devil to set on the thief (as Swinglius 
(g) Swingl. Serm. de provident.  affirms) then is not God in this case the only Sinner? This is proved, since the goodness & badness of the work in every Action, is chief to be attributed to the Principal Author, willer, and worker of it, and not to the Instrument: And this the rather, since Austin saith: Sin is so voluntary, that except it be voluntary, it is no sin. But sin is only voluntary in God (according to the doctrine of our Adversaries) and not in Man, in whom it is necessary. Therefore hence I conclude, that according to this their blasphemy, Sin is only in God, and not in Man. Secondly, this Doctrine, of God being the Author of Sin, ascribeth the proprieties of the Devil to God. For it is the office of the Devil to tempt man, and therefore in the Holy 
(h) Mat. 4.  writ, the Devil is called a Tempter. But this is more peculiar to God (according to the foresaid Doctrine) then to the Devil; Since God (in the judgement of the Protestants) so forcibly tempteth man to sin, as that it is not in his power to resist, or withstand the temptation; which is more, than the Devil can perform.  
Thirdly, it is the property of the Devil to sow Tares, or ill weeds of sin, in the field of our Hearts; according to those words: The Enemy 
(i) Mat. 13.  comes, and sows tares. But God doth this according to the former Doctrine, more than the Devil: For God (as Caluin affirms) doth excecate 
(k) Caluin. 1. Instit. 18. & 24. & 4. Instit. 14.  and obdurate the minds of men, doth strike them with a spirit of error, giddiness, and madness, and this not by permission, but by operation. Thus Caluin.   

Animadversion CLXXXVI.  
THe Protestants Doctrine of the infallibility of only faith justifying a Man, and of some other of their positions, takes away the force of all Prayer, making it either needles, or fruitless: Needles, as of things certain, which need not to be asked; Fruitless, as of things impossible, which cannot be obtained. The first point is thus proved: That Prayer is needles, which prays for that which cannot fail us, as either already past, or assuredly possessed, or to come: Therefore according to the Protestants grounds, they ought not to pray for Remission of Sins, for the favour of God, for perseverance in faith, or for the glory of Heaven, since every Protestant by his special faith believeth (in his judgement) most certainly, that his Sins are forgiven him, and that he shall persever in faith, and come to Heaven. The second point (to wit, of the Fruitlesnes of Prayer) is in like wise thus evicted: To pray for the keeping of the Ten Commandments, is fruitless, since our Adversaries teach (as I have above showed) that the keeping of them is impossible. In like manner, it is Fruitless, to pray for the Preventing of any Evil, whether it be Malum culpae, as sin, or Malum paenae, as punishment; or whether it be any temporal affliction whatsoever. And the reason is, because (as our Adversaries do teach,) All Evil as well as Good, shall infallibly fall out, as Go● hath, according to his own irrespective immutable, and inevitable will & pleasure decreed and appointed it. For sorting here to (to omit the like authorities of many others in this point) Luther thus writeth 〈◊〉 a Fatal Necessity of things: Nullius 
(l) Luther in Assert. damnat. per Leonem Art. 36.  est 〈◊〉 manu etc. It is in no man's power to think God or Evil, but all things proceed from absolu● Necessity. Thus we see, that it inevitably 〈◊〉 most consequently may be gathered fro● the Protestants Theorems and principles, tha● all Prayer is either Needles, or Fruitless, & inavayleable.   

Animadversion CLXXXVII.  
MAny of the learned Protestants, weighing the emptiness of their own Religion, as consisting only of Tenets, whic● are but an Annihilation of all positive and true faith, have therefore upon mature deliberation in divers weighty points who●y rejected the Negative Religion of our Adversaries; and in place thereof have fully embraced the contrary Affirmative, & Catholic Articles of faith, ever, and at this day maintained by the Church of Rome; So tr●● is that saying of S. Austin: Truth 
(m) Contra Donat. post. coll. c. 24.  is m●n forcible to wring out Confession, than any rac●● torment. For the proof of this verity I refer the studious Reader to the Book of the Protestants Apology; where beginning at the Page 684. & s●quentib. at the letter M. in the margin, he shall find thirty at least of our Affirmative, and Catholic Doctrines defended, and maintained by the most learned Protestants, that ever did write. I will here only reckon the tiles of divers of the said Articles, so believed and taught by the Protestants. viz. 1. Real presence. 2. That Sacraments do confer grace. 3. The sufficiency of Chricts corporal Death. 4. That Christ descended in soul, into Limbus Patrum. 5. The continual Visibility of the Church. 6. The Necessity of Good works to Salvation. 7. Evangelicall Counsels. 8. The Doctrine of universality of Grace. 9 That God doth only permit sin, but decreeth it not. 10. That men are not certain of their Election. 11. That to Children of the faithful, dying unbaptized, salvation is not promised. 12. . 13. That in regard of Christ's Passion and promise, our Good works are meritorious. 14. Temporal punishment reserved by God in justice, after the sin is remitted. 15. Peter's Primacy. 16. Intercession of Angels 17. Intercession of Saints. 18. Jnuocation of Saints. 19 Vowed Chastity. 20. Voluntary ●ouerty, Chastity and Obedience. 21. Prayer for the Dead. 22. Purgatory. 23. Limbus Patrum. 24. Images in Churches. 25. Worshipping of Images. 26. Reverence, and bowing at the name of Jesus. 27. That the good Works of one may help another. 28. Power of a priest to remit sins. 29. Confession of sins. 30. Distinction of mortal, and venial sin. 31. The indifferency of Communion under one kind. 32. Sacrifice of the New Testament, according to the Order of Melchisedech 33. The possibility of the Commandments. 34. Transubstantiation. 35. That Christ is God of God. 36. Tha● Christ (as Man) was from his Nativity free from Ignorance, and was full of knowledge. 37 Baptism of Women and Lay persons in time o● Necessity. 38. Seven Sacraments. 39 Implicity faith, called Fides implicita. 40. That Antichrist is yet to come. 41. Patronage and protection of certain Angels, over certain Countries and Kingd mes. 42. That the Observation of Sunday for our sabaoth, is not alterable. 43 That the alteration of the saboth from Saturd●● to Sunday not proved by Scripture. 44. Set times of fasting. 45. The true visible Church cannot err. 46. Externall judgement (and not on●y Scripture) appointed for determining of Controversies. 47. That the government of the Church is Monarchical. 48. Which is true Scripture, determined to us only by the Church. 49. That the Church of Rome is a part of the house of God. 50. Unwritten Traditions; besides some other Catholic points taught by the learned Protestants. Here now I demand, that if the Protestants Proselyts, and followers do believe their Grand-maisters in divers points of their own Religion, why then should not they believe the learned Protestants, maintaining our Catholic doctrines; ●nt● (abstracting from the authority of the Church) both the said several sorts of Protestants do maintain their contrary Tenets, even with equal and indifferent privilege of their own Private Spirit?   

Animadversion CLXXXVIII.  
AS above I compared Luther, being Catholic (touching manners and Conversation of Life) with Luther being Protestant; So here I will make another comparative between the Lives of Catholics and of Protestants. And here it is to be observed; that I will not compare the most pious men in former times, with the best of the Protestants; nor the worst men for life of the one Religion, with the worst of the other; but (for the greater confronting of our Adversaries, and advantage to our Catholic Cause) I will compare the declining state of Catholic times, with the best times of Protestancy, which is presumed to be at the first entrance and beginning of Protestancy, when the first Protestants enjoyed the ●rimitiae, and first fruits of their Religion. This point will be made evident even from the confessions of the Protestants themselves. First then, we find Luther himself thus to write: From 
(n) Luth. in postil. super Euangel. Domini●ae primae Aduentus  the time, in which the pure Doctrine of the Gospel was first revealed to light, the world hath grown daily worse: Men are more revengeful, covetous, licentious, than they were ever before in the Papacy. With whom Musculus agreeth, thus complaining hereof;  verum 
(o) Musculus in loc. come. in cap, de Decalog. pag. 62.  ess● fateor etc. To confess the truth, men are become so v●●ike themselves, that whereas in the Papacy, they were religious in their Errors and Superstition, now in the light of the known truth, they are more propha●● than the very Sons of the world. I wi●● conclude with the testimony of Erasmus, thus discoursing of this point: Quos 
(p) Erasmus Ep. ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae.  a●tea noveram etc. Such men as I knew, to be before upright, candid, modest, and sincere in the● Conversation, after, they had embraced th●● new Sect (meaning of the Gospel) they instantly begun to talk of young Women, to play● dice, to leave of prayer, to be most impatient, & revengeful of Injuries, and to conclude to aba●don all humanity: expertus loquor. Thus far ●rvsmus. And thus much of the balancing o● men of these two several Religions. No● I here refer to an indifferent Iudgmen● whether it be not a great blemish to Protestancy, that it is confessed by the Protestant's, that the Professors thereof even 〈◊〉 their best times, were far worse, and mo● wicked in manners, than the Catholics their worst, and most declining times.   

Animadversion CLXXXIX.  
THe Protestants much solace themsel●● in alleging certain Texts of Script●● in proof of justification by faith only, wh●● passages being truly weighed, are found 〈◊〉 be most weakly, or rather impertinent alleged, as in Math. 9 Thy faith hath s●● thee. john 3 Who believeth in the Son, h● eternal Life. Finally (to omit some o●● such seeming Texts) Rom. 5. We being deified by faith, let us have peace towards God. T● these and such like I answer, and deny that it followeth, That Faith only iustifyeth, though only Faith be named. For sometimes also other Virtues are only named, or the Sacraments. For example, Luc. 7. we read: Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. job. 12. Alms deeds freeth from death. Rom. 8. By hope we are saved. Finally, Titus 3. He hath saved us by the Laws of regeneration, besides many other such passages: And yet no man will gather from the●e authorities that Charity, or Almesdeeds, or Hope, or Baptism do iusti●y without Faith. Therefore when many different causes concur to produce one Effect, the Scripture ascribeth the same Effect sometimes to one Cause, sometimes to another, and yet the Scripture doth not intent thereby to signify, that one cause is sufficient, without the other causes. Now the reason, why the Apostle more frequently attributes justification to faith, then to other works, is delivered by the council 
(q) Sess. 6 c. 8.  of Trent: To wit, because, Fides est initium gratuitae Justificationis; faith is the beginning of a gratuity, and free Ju●ification.   

Animadversion CLXXXX.  
●Hat so much prostituted passage of Scripture by our Adversaries in proof of ●n absolute Reprobation of some men, even ●●om their Mother's womb, without any ●●ference, or prevision of their works, in a clear iudgment proveth nothing, for which it us urged. The place is this: Jacob 
(r) Rom. ●.  dile●● Esau autem odio habui. Now, to this place I thus answer. First, this sentence is not to be understood of those particular persons jacob, and Esau, but of the two people, to wit the Jsraelits, & the Idumeans. And what here is spoken o● Love and Hate, is not to be understood of Eternal Election, or Reprobation, but of the good and bad times of this Life. This is thus proved. For when in Malachy 1. God said these words: I loved jacob, and hated Esau, he explaineth himself, how he doth love, and hate, saying: I have 
(s) Malach. 1.  made his Mountains (to wit Esau) wast an● his heritage a wilderness for Dragons. Therefore God loved Jacob, because he gave to him▪ Country flowing with milk and honey; and he hated Esau, because God gave to him a sterile and desert Country. The same poi●● is further also thus proved: When 
(t) Genes. 25.  Rebe●ca did demand of God, why the two Children (to wit Jacob and Esau) which she bar● in her womb, did strive together; she wa● thus answered: two Nations are in thy womb, and two sorts of people shall be divided out o● thy bowels, and the one people shall be might●● then the other, and the Elder shall serve the younger. Secondly admit, that those words Esau autem odio habui, were to be understood particularly of Esau; yet they cannot be understood of the person of Esau, without all prevision of his works; For Esau, as being a man, was (as all other things are) the handiwork of God: and we read the Wiseman to say of God, 
(*) Sapient. 11.  Nihil odisti corum, quae fecisti; thou natest nothing of those things which thou hast made Therefore what God hated in Esau, was only the Sin of Esau, and not his Person. Thirdly, and lastly I answer, that admit the former words were to be understood of the person of Esau, yet it followeth not, that any Positive hatred should be meant thereby, but only a less Love to ●sau, then to jacob. Even as we read: Si quis 
(u) Luc. 14.  venit ad me, & non o●it patrem suum etc. If any man come to me, and hateth n●t his Father, and Mother, and Wife, and Children etc. yea and his own life besides, he cannot be my Disciple; In which words there is not commanded any Positive hatred of Father, Mother, Wife etc. but is commanded only a less degree of love towards these things then towards God. Thus far in explication of this former so often alleged, Text.   

Animadversion CLXXXXI.  
IT is the custom of many of our Adversary's even Scholars, when they see themselves defective, either in answering our Catholic Arguments, urged against Protestancy, or impugning of our Catholic faith, do make their la●t Refuge to the Cloth of State (as I ma● say) shadowing themselves and their Cause under it: my meaning is this, That they seek to charge our Religion with teaching disobedience & disloyalty against our natural Princes.  
Now, to vindicate ourselves from thi● false imputation, I will insist in the doctrine taught of this point (by our Adversaries) far more dangerous, than any Doctrine of this point, maintained by any learned Catholics. For example. For first against all sovereignty of Princes we find Luther thus to write: Among 
(1) Luther de saecular. potest. Tom. 9  Christians, no man can or aught to be a Magistrate; but each one is to other equally subject. Swinglius thus teacheth: Qua●●o 
(2) Swingl tom 1 in exp●anat. art. 42.  perfidè etc. Wh●n Princes do en● and contrary to the rule of Christ, they may be deposed. To be short, in pretermitting the like Censures of Beza and divers other eminent Protestants, Caluin in these words subscribeth to the former Protestants: Abdicant 
(3) Caluin. in Daniel. cap. 6.  s● potestate terreni principes etc. Earthly Princes do deprive themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God; yea they are unworthy to be accounted in the number of men; And we had rather to spit upon their faces, then to obey them. Thus Caluin. Now ho● far are the Catholics from comparting & joining with the former Protestants in this their doctrine of Rebellion? since we willingly remember that it is written: We 
(4) 1. Pet. 3.  ought to be subject to the King, as exceeding; And that: who 
(5) Rom. 13.  resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God. But to descend more particularly, and to parallel in part the doctrine & the Actions, or proceed of the Catholics, and Protestants herein. The former Protestants (with many others of their Religion) do extend this power of deposing Princes to every poor Parochial Superintendent, who is Pope (at least would be so) within his own Circuit or Parish; and in want of such, to every turbulent fellow, and to the promiscuous multitude. The Catholic Divines (those I mean, who most defend such transcendency of proceed) do ascribe the doing of it to the Pope, who is a Stranger, and therefore further of from any such sudden attempt. To come to the Attempts on both sides: The Protestants have actually deposed several Kings, Q●eenes, & Sovereigns: Thus is the King of Spain deposed of a great part of the Low Countries: The Kings of France heretofore of certain Cities in France: The Lord of Geneva of his Territory belonging to that City: The Emperor of many Cities in Germany; Finally his Majesty's Grandmother and Great Grandmother of the kingdom of Scotland: And all this by Protestants. The Pope and the Catholics have never yet to this day, actually deposed any one absolute Protestant Prince, or King from their States & Territories, throughout Christendom. The greatest matters of this Nature, which can be alleged, is the Excommunication of king Henry the Eight of England, Queen Elizabeth his Daughter, & King Henry of France the Fourth. The Protestants have come into the field against their Catholic Princes in many huge Armies, & hundred thousands of Men, as appeareth by the wars made by them in the Low Countries, France, and Germany; The Catholics never yet levied any such Arm●es against their Protestant Prince. Lastly the Protestants have not only deposed their Catholic Princes of several States and Countries; but (which is far more) they have absolutely impatronized themselves of the said States, and kept them in their own possession, as is over manifestly evident by the example heretofore of Rochel in Fance, and at this present of Geneva, Hol. and Zealand, and several parts of Germany, Sweveland, Transiluanta etc. The Catholics to this very day have not made themselves Lords of any one Town, or City (much less of any State or kingdoms) which have belonged to their Protestant Princes. And thus far though briefly (for the more full stopping of the mouths of our Adversaries) touching the libration & weighing in an even hand, the doctrine taught, and the Attempts practised, by the Protestants & Catholics in point of Disloyalty, against their lawful dread Sovereigns of a different Religion. And here before lend, the more fully to discover the loyalty of the Lay Catholics of England, and of us Priests to his Majesty, our dread Sovereign, I (the Author of this Treatise) in the person and name of us all, do make bold to offer this our ensuing joint prayer (as a spiritual Sacrifice) to the Almighty, in behalf of our most Worthy K●ng Charles, & his most illustrious Spouse Queen Mary: God, who is the Protector of Kings, and the first Author of all true Sovereignty, and supreme domination (per me 
(1) Proverb. 8.  reges regnant) preserve them both, and their noble issue, under the wings of his Divine care & providence: Defend them from their Enemies, either domestical, or foreign; Grant unto them a long and most happy reign over us: And after the dissolution of their bodies, bring their souls into that most blessed state, where they once leaving this terrene Kingdom, may hear those joyful words of our Saviour (as spoken to them) touching their fruition of the Celestial Kingdom: Venite, 
(2) Mat. 25.  possi●ete paratum vobis regnum. And this our Common Prayer (most Heavenly sovereign) we humbly beseech thee to hear, even by the force of that title, which is peculiar to thyself, and incommunicable to any other king, Rex 
(3) Apocal. 19  regum, & Dominus dominantium.   

Animadversion CLXXXXII.  
THe Calumny, & subtlety of our first Adversaries, in their definition of Christ's Church, was very great, and observable: They 
(1) Calu. Instit. l. 4. cap. 1. num 2, & 3.  defined the Church to consist only of such, as are Just and predestinated (but who such are, it is not known to any man) and therefore to remain in a continual Latency. But what was the reason of this their proceeding? Observe. Both the Old, and New Testament give great praises and Elogia of the Church of Christ; For we read that it is called 
(2) Apocal. 2 , A holy City: A 
(3) Psal 7.  fructiferous vine: A mighty 
(4) Esay 2.  high mountain, & 
(5) Esay. 32.  straight way: The only 
(6) Cantic. 6.  Dove; The 
(7) Cant. 4.  spouse, & Body 
(8) Ep 5  of Christ: The pillar of Truth 
(9) 1. Timoth. 3.  Finally ●to omit much more) that Society, against which who is contumacious, and refractory, is to be accounted no better than a Heathen 
(10) Math. 18. , or Publican. Now in regard of these panegyricke praises, given by the written word of God to the Church, our first Adversaries dared not in express words openly to impugn the Church; Therefore most ●ubttlly the name of the Church they retained, but the thing itself by defining it, they did overthrow. For as is above said, they define it to consist only of the Elect, and Predestinated; and consequently (since we cannot tell, who are of the number of the Elect, and predestinate) ever to be in a hidden Latency. And to this they were forced because (as in many of the former Animadversions it is expressed) it is granted by most of our learned Adversaries, t●at the Protestant Church hath for the space of twelve or thirteen hundred years, laid wholly latent & invisible: And yet such a Church (if any such were) may be said in show of words to be capable of the former definition of the Church. See here the serpentine subtlety of our Adversaries.   

Animadversion CLXXXXIII.  
IT is to be much feared, that there are many in England who mask themselves under the name of Protestants, & yet in their hearts, are no better than Atheists, as not acknowledging a Deity. If it chance therefore, that this Treatise shall come to any such men's hands, I have purposely thought good to close it up with certain Animadversions, for the proof of so supreme a Truth, wishing such Readers to peruse the Book entitled, Raleigh's Ghost, (first written in Latin by the learned jesuite, Lessius) for his greater confirmation; out of which book I grant, I have selected most of these ensuing Animadversions; all which of this Nature (though contrary to my Method holden hitherto in this Discourse) I have ranged together, and reduced to one head.  
Now whereas such men, that are tainted with so foul a blasphemy, and execrable Madness, to whom those words of Cyprian are truly applied: Quae haec 
(*) Cyprian, lib. de Idolorum vanitate.  summa delictî nolle illum agnoscere, quem ignorare non possis? do (especially if they he Scholars) hold that the world was not created of God, but was from all Eternity; therefore I will first remove this stumbling Block, and will purposely insist only in two Arguments (or rather two unanswerable Demonstrations) in disproof thereof, which lie subject to each man's apprehension. First then from our own experience, we reason thus: It is a truth confirmed by trial of all times, that the quantities of men's bodies have a perceivable impairing, as also the length and continuance of their lives: So that, if in that infinite space of foregoing time (I mean from Eternity) Men had a being (as without question the world was never void of men, the principal and most noble member thereof) then through continual and incessant Decay, their bodies had been brought before this day to as little a quantity, as they are capable of, if not clean consumed: But we see, their quantity is not yet come to the lowest; Therefore I conclude, that they had not a being from Everlasting.  
My second Demonstration is this: Had this world been from Everlasting, & from all Eternity, then Infinite also had been the propagation of Man; And so we should bring into the world an actual Infiniteness, as absurd in Nature, as Paralogismes be in Logic. For in this infinite space and generation, there had been an infinite number of men's Souls, which being by Nature incapable of Mortality, we cannot say, that as one Soul was created, another was destroyed; And therefore it would follow, supposing the world to be ab aeterno, that there should be an Infiniteness in regard of Number, actually subsisting in Nature. Thus fare for impugning, that the world cannot possibly exist from all Eternity; Omitting many o●her more abstruse demonstrations, (drawn from Philosophy) not subject to the capacity of the Ignorant.   

Animadversion CLXXXXIV.  
ALl those Men, who deny the Jmmortality of Man's Soul, do withal deny a Deity, or being of God. Therefore the Immortality of the Soul is first thus proved from Natural Philosophy; the soul of Man hath in itself, no principles or ground of Corruption; seeing then the soul of Man (as being a simple Spirit) hath nothing in itself, from which it should receive any distraction or extinguishment (contrary to the sensitive soul of other living Creatures, which have within itself the grounds of its own Mortality,) therefore it followeth, that the soul of Man is immortal, and liveth, after it is divorced from the body.  
Another argument in proof hereof, is taken from the worth and dignity of Man's Soul, which dignity is chiefly discerned to us by its own several Operations.  
For first, the knowledge of the soul is altogether illimitable; For it apprehendeth all kinds of things; As also it conceiveth the universal reasons of things, as they are abstracted from particulars, from sensible matter, from place, and time etc. It searcheth into the reasons, causes, effects, and proprieties of all things; All which Action and operations bear no Reference to th● benefit of the Body; but are ornaments only of the Mind, and belong only to the Mind.  
Secondly, The desire of Man's soul is in like sort infinite, and boundless. For the Soul doth not only desire such things, as belong to the Body (to wit to satisfy the sense of tasting, and feeling, as Beasts do) but it stretcheth itself forth to every Truth, desiring the knowledge and contemplation of every Verity. Neither is the desire of the Soul (I ever mean, the soul of man) enlarged only to each Truth, but also to every thing, that is Good. Here then appeareth, how much the power of desiring in man, is elevated and advanced, above the Matter, and condition of his Body.  
Thirdly, the same is further confirmed from the Delights and Pleasures, wherewith the Soul solaceth herself. For she is delighted chief with the contemplation of Truth. She is delighted with the Pulchritude and beauty of all things, and in admiring the Art and skill which appeareth in every thing. She is delighted with Proportions, and Mathematical disciplines: She is delighted with the works of Piety, justice, and exercise of all other Virtues: Finally she is delighted with Fame, Honour, glory, rule & domination, Now, seeing none of these belongeth to the benefit of the Body, but all are touching spiritual objects, or at least concerning such things, which are estranged from the benefit of the Body: and seeing the soul esteemeth these things far more, than any corporal Good; It therefore is most evident, that the Soul is of a far higher, and more worthy disposition, than the body; and of such a divine Nature, as that it dependeth not at all of the commerce and intercourse, which she hath with the flesh.  
Fourthly, This verity is warranted from the Dominion, which the soul hath over the Body, and from the Souls enjoying of Freewill. For the Soul doth so direct, govern, & overrule the body, in her affections, and passions; as that neither the expectation of rewards, or fear of torments, can force the body to say, or do any thing, than what the Soul wills. Now the reason hereof is, because the Soul dependeth not of the Body, but is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sui iuris: whereupon it riseth, that the Soul so smally valeweth those things which appertain to the Body as if they did not belong unto her.  
Fiftly, If the Soul should have her dependence of the Body, and could not consist (the body being once extinct) then should she have against nothing a greater horror and aversion, then against death: For death of the body, depriving the Soul (supposing it to be mortal) of all good, should become her greatest infelicity, and evil; and present life her greatest good and happiness. But now daily experience teacheth the contrary: for many do make so small account and estimation of life, as that they willingly spend it for praise, fame, liberty, avoiding of reproach and dishonour; yea some there are, who for avoiding of disgrace or affliction of mind, stick not to become their own Homicides: so much do those things which appertain to the Mind, over balance all that, which appertaineth to the Body.  
Sixtly, If the Soul of man be extinguished together with its body, than nothing is attended on with greater Calamities, than man's Nature; for in this life man's nature stands subject to many afflictions, from which Beasts are most free. For it is incessantly solicited with cares, vexed with fears, burning with desires, sorrowing and complaining, never content with its own state, nor enjoying any tranquillity of mind. Besides it often endureth poverty, banishment, imprisonment, disgrace, the yoke of Matrimony, loss of goods, repentance of things past, a care of things to come etc. from all which Beasts are free. If therefore the Soul be extinguished with the body, than almost all kinds of Beasts would be more happy then Man. Therefore it remaineth, that the soul must expect its felicity after its departure from its body; & consequently, that it dyeth not with the body, but is immortal. For how absurd is it, that, that which is of the highest Nature in ●his world, should in its state and being become more miserable, than things of a far meaner Nature?  
Seavently, That sentence, which is the source and wellspring of all justice, Piety, & Virtue, cannot possibly be false; But this Article, which teacheth the Souls immortality, and that after this life it is to be rewarded, or punished, is the groundwork of all justice and probity; therefoee the article of the soul's immortality is most true: as on the contrary part, that Opinion, which teacheth the soul to be mortal, and corruptible, doth subvert and overthrew the foundation of all probity and virtue; therefore that Opinion must of necessity be false, since it promiseth a man, that (let him live never so wickedly) he shall not suffer any pains after this life.  
Eightly (to remit the Reader for his fuller satisfaction herein, to the foresaid book of Raleigh's Ghost) I say, that Nature which is intelligent, is the worthiest nature of all others which are in the world. Hence it is gathered, that it is absurd to maintain, this nature utterly to perish and to be mortal; For if the earth, sea, and stars, all which were created for the use of this intelligent nature (I mean for man) do never decay, but continue eternal; then how can it be averred, that this intelligent nature should become mortal and passable? Certainly it is altogether unlawful to affirm, that nature (to wit Man's soul) to be mortal, to which things, that are immortal, become serviceable, and for whose only use and benefit, the said immortal things were first created.   

Animadversion CLXXXXV.  
THe Consideration of the fabric of Man's body most irresistably conduceth us to the knowledge of a Deity; And therefore not undeservedly is the body of man styled by the Philosophers, Microcosmus, the lesser world: Meaning lesser in Quantity, than all this great world, containing in it the universality of all sublunary things; but fare greater with reference to the many mysteries discovered in the framing thereof. First then Man's body (but briefly to run over some chief observations) is made not of one bone, but of several bones, the better thereby to bend himself; Some of which bones are greater, some less; of all which every one hath that particular magnitude, shape, firmness, and connexion, which the strength of the body the facility of moving and the use of the members require. These bones (especially the greatest of them) do further serve in Man's body, to support the same, with the like use as the great columns and beams, do vphould an Edifice, or building: And every bone is covered with a piece of flesh, which is called Musculus, which Muscle endeth in a sinewy-matter, called Tendo: By the Tendo the Muscle, and consequently the Bone belonging thereto, is moved.  
We will in this next place consider the three principal parts of man's body: to wit, the Hart, the Liver, and the Brain. It is a principle in Anatomy, that all Veins proceed from the Liver and give nourishment; All Arteries from the Hart, and give Life; All Sinews from the Brain, and give Motion and sense. The meaning hereof is, that the gross blood in the veins doth give nourishment; The spiritual Blood in the Arteries, Life; And the Animal Spirits in the Nerves or Sinews, do give sense and Motion. Now the Arteries, Veins, and Sinews, are of a reasonable greatness, as their first proceeding from their sources or heads; but then they divide themselves almost into infinite branches, and in the end they become so small, as that therefore they are called Capillares, with reference to the smallness of the hair of a Man's head. They are so generally dispersed throughout all the parts of a Man's body, as that therefore there is no part of the Body, but that it hath nourishment, life, and sense or Motion. Add hereto that motion of the Hart, which is called Systole, and Diastole, is most admirable. By Diastole, or Dilatation of itself, the Hart draws in new Air to temper the Heat, & refresh the Spirits; by Systole, or compression of itself, it expels all fuliginous vapours. And thus are the Arteries throughout the whole body ever moved with an incessant and continual vicissitude, in dilating and contracting themselves, even for the said End. And this systole, and Diastole of the Arteries through the body, is that, which vulgarly is called, the beating, or Motion of the Pulse.   

Animadversion CLXXXXVI.  
IN this next Animadversion, I will descend more particularly to the Structure of two principal Organs, or members of man's body, To wit, the Eye, and the Hand in the framing of either of which there appeareth an undoubted certainty of a Divine providence, or deity, by whom they were so miraculously made and compacted.  
I will begin with the Eye; the knowledge of which Instrument is of such worth, as that it hath purchased a peculiar Name, or appellation to itself; It being called, Ar● Optics, The Art concerning the eye & sight.  
Now touching the Eye, First we may observe the bearing out of the forehead & the nose, serving to beat back all sudden entrance of things hurtful to the Eye. Next the Hairs of the Eyelids, placed in precise manner, serving to the foresaid End Then the Eye-lidds themselves, which do shut and open, either for the preventing of the entrance of things domageable, or for the receiving in of pleasing Objects. Next are to be considered the many Tunicae, or Skins, which do encompass and fortify the Eye. The Tunicae are these: First (and the outward most) Adnata, otherwise called Alba. Next Jnnonimata. Then Cornea. Next Vuea, by which the eyes of several men appear to be of several colours. Then Retina; and lastly Aranea, it being a most thin skin, and nearest to the Eye.  
In this next place, are to be considered the thr●e Humour, of the Eye; to wit Aqu●us, which is the uttermost part of the Eye: Christallinus, which is placed in the Middle of the Eye; and this humour is almost the chiefest Instrument of seeing, and therefore it is called Simulacrum visionis. The third Humour is Vitreus, which is placed in the inmost part of the Eye. Thus the Chrystaline Humour is between the Aqueus, and the Vitreus. By the help of these Humours, the Eye receiveth nourishment, as also by them it purgeth away all hurtful ordure & filth. Next are presented to our consideration the two Optic Synews; which serve to convey the Species of Objects from the Eye to the Common sense: They are called Nerui visibiles.  
Now touching the figure of the Eye, it is partly Round, that so the Eye may see not only stra●ght forward, but also somewhat on both sides, as we observe it doth. Lastly concerning the manner how we see; The opinions of the learned are two; to wit, either Extramittendo (as they speak) that is, the eye: sendeth forth certain visibiles Spiritus to the Object which it seethe, and then they return back again to the Eye, with the true form of the said Object. Or else it seethe intromittendo (which is the more common opinion) that is, the Species, or forms of the Object are spherically multiplied in the Air, or water and are received into the Eye per modum Conoidis, uz. in a pyramidal manner. Thus much touching the Eye. To come to discourse of the Hand and of the admirable Artifice discovered therein: Three things are chief to be considered in the hand, to wit The number of the fingers; The number of the joints of every fingar; and the different length of each fingar.  
Touching the Number of the fingers. They are six with the Thumb. Here than we may observe the fitting number of them: For if there were more fingers than five; then what is more than six would be superfluous; for we cannot conceive to what use, that fingar exceeding the number of six, could be put unto. If fewer than six, than the number would be defective; and so the hand could not perfectly perform i●s operation, as we see, it falleth out in such men, who by misfortune have lost one or more of their fingers.  
To proceed to the Number of the joints of each fingar. All the four fingers have three joints, whereby they exercise so many inflexions: The Thumb hath only two. If any fingar had less than three joints, than could not the hand so aptly perform its faculty; as we may observe in those persons, who have any of their fingers grown stiff through any disease. If the Thumb ha● three joints, that third joint would be merely superfluous, and of no use.  
To descend to the different length of the fingers, & the Thumb. We are here to call to mind, that the whole hand performeth its faculty by drawing and closing (as it were in a circular form) either all, or some of the six fingers together; for by that manner it best graspeth, or holdeth any thing within it. Now here I say, that if either the long fingar were shorter than it is, with reference to the other fingers, or the little fingar, and the Thumb longer than they are, than this supposed shortness in the longest fingar, and length in the little fingar, and Thumb, would cause the hand to be far less apt & fit, for compressing itself together, or holding of any thing within it. Now here who doth contemplate all these things touching the hand, in the curious frame whereof nothing is superfluous and redundant, nothing wanting or defective; how can he rest otherwise persuaded, but that all this is framed by a Divine Providence, which is God; who worketh all things with most admirable exactness in Mensura, Numero, & Pondere, as the wiseman saith, Sap. cap. 11.  
To come to another most observable point, which is this following. As it appeareth in the Fabric of the Eye and of the Hand, so also in all bodies (whether they be the Heavens, the four Elements, the Plants, Beasts, and man's body) every thing is made with reference to some extrinsecall End, to the which end the whole structure of the thing, as also all it parts, and faculties of it parts, are (after a wonderful manner) disposed and framed. Therefore of Necessity there must be some one most wise Mind, o● Spirit, which aforehand conceived in itself all those Ends, and ordained proportionable, and fitting Means to the said Ends. For Nature, which is not capable of Reason, not endued therewith, as it cannot conceive or comprehend the End of things so neither can it dispose, or set down suitable means to the said Ends, since this is a chief work of Art and wisdom. I will exemplify this (for brevity) only in the Sun. The Sun is not made for itself (for it cannot apprehended or reflect upon its own Beauty, and Fairness) but for the good and benefit of other things; to wit, that it may enlighten the world, & cherish all things with its heat. This then being thus, the Sun ought to have a certain proportion or measure of light, and quantity; as also a determinate Place in the world; lest that the light being over radiant, shining, and great, or itself in Place over near, it should burn the Earth: or on the contrary side, the light being too remiss and small, or too fare off from the Earth, should not sufficiently lighten it, or heat it. Now this disposition of fitting Quantity, light, and place, cannot be assigned by Any, but only by such a Mind or Spirit, as is able to consider the End, and the Means; & of judgement to set down a sorting and convenient proportion between them: And this Spirit or Mind we call God. The same might be exemplifyed in all other things (herefore for brevity omitted.) For there is nothing idle in this world, but all things tend, and direct their operations to some End; And they incline, and bend to their End so ordinately, and with such convenient ways, and passages, as that it cannot be bettered by any Art whatsoever. Wherefore seeing the things themselves (as void of Reason) can neither perceive the Ends, whereunto they are directed, neither the Means, nor the proportion of the Means, by the which they are directed; it is therefore most certain, that all things are directed by some Superior power, who seethe and considereth both the Means and the Ends; and this Superior power is God, to whom be all Glory and Honour for all Eternity.   

Animadversion CLXXXXVII.  
THe diversity of Faces, and Voices of Me● is a strong Argument to prove the car● of a Divine Providence. And touching th● first. The diversity of Faces is so multiplicious, and almost so infinite in Man (so ordained to be by God) as that it affordeth an unanswerable argument of a Deity: For without this variety of Faces, neither could justice be observed, neither could any form of a Commonwealth subsist: For suppose men to be in Countenance a like (as sheep, Oxen, kine, Crows, sparrows, and many other Creatures of the same nature or kind are) then most inevitable perturbations and tumults would ensue. For neither could married Men discern their own wyues from other women, nor their wyues their husbands from other men; neither the parents their Children, neither the Creditors their debtors, the friends their Enemies, nor the Magistrate the delinquents, nor the subjects the Prince. And therefore each Commonwealth would be infested with adulteries, incests, frauds, proditions, murders, and all wickedness whatsoever; since every one through a resemblance of Fa●e, might give himself forth, for whom 〈◊〉 would. It cannot be replied, that this difference of Faces, cometh not from any Providence, so disposing the same; but only by chance, and casualty: This is absurd to say, since upon this answer, it would follow, that all justice, and true Policy, which is found among men, should be grounded only upon Chance.  
Furthermore, what proceedeth from Chance, is not perpetual, but rarely happeneth, as the Philosophers do teach: But we find, that difference of Countenances and Faces, is not a thing strange and rare, but most ordinary and common. Therefore this difference of Faces, is not ascribed to chance, but to some high Providence, which hath ordained the same, the better to preserve justice, and Civil Life among Men.  
Neither among Men, is there only this variety of faces (for their better discerning of one from another) but also of Voices; so as there is no less difference among Men in sound of Voice, then in Countenance. For seeing a precise and distinct knowledge necessarily conduceth to the preserving of justice; Therefore the Divine Providence (God I mean) hath so disposed, that there should be a disparity and unlikeness not only in Faces, but also in Voices; that so by a double sense (to wit, by sight, & hearing) as by a double witness, one man should be made known from another. For if but one of these disparities were, than perhaps some mistaking might be; but where both of them do jointly concur and meet, it is almost impossible, that men herein should be in both deceived. Thus far of the Divine Providence, most clearly manifested, in ordaining the diversity of Faces, and voices i● Men, for the preservation of justice, an● maintaining of a good Commonwealth.   

Animadversion CLXXXXVIII  
THe undoubted Truth of a Deity is als● demonstrated from this ensuing Reason: It is evident even by infinite Examples, and long experience, that there are certain Invisible Substances, endued with a● Understanding, and penetrating all things through their subtlety of Nature, & whic● do transcend, & exceed all humane power, & wisdom. This is manifest by the Orac●● and Answers, which were given in forme● times, by the Idols in all Countries. For those Statues and Jmages (as wanting altogether life, and sense) could not return an● Answer; but it was the Spirits, or devils entering into those Statues, which so answered. Such were the Oracles of Apollo at Delpho●, and of Jupiter, of Mammon, and divers others in former ages: and by this means the Devils did propagate Idolatry. An● even at this day, the devils are in this manner honoured in India, China, japon, Tartary Brasill, Peru etc. The same point of being of devils, is further made evident from the doctrine and practice of Necromantic, Magis or Wizards, and Witches, which swarm in all Countries. For these through certain Ceremonies and Verses, are able to call up the devils, and do cause, that they do not ●ly show strange effects (which necessarily ●ply their pre●ence) but also make them to ●peare in a visible form. Yea here in En●and in Lancashire, about some six or sea●n and twenty years since, there were ap●ehended about twenty witches, all confes●●g their witchcraft by help of the devil, & 〈◊〉 hanged at Lancaster. In like manner some ●●ree years since, or there abouts, there ●ere certain witches apprehended in the ●me shire, and condemned to death by the judges of that Circuit. Thirdly, the same ●erity of Spirits, or Devils, is evicted from ●hose, who are called Energumeni, or possessed persons: for two things appear in them which are above humane power: One, that such, as are possessed, do speak strange Tongues, which themselves do not understand; The other, that they do discover things secret; or do relate things done in great distance of place, as if they saw them openly: But these two things afford an evident demonstration of a certain Superior Invisible Nature, by the power whereof they are performed. To conclude, this point of being of Spirits, is further evicted from the many apparitions of Spirits, which are affirmed to have been, from the testimony of many most probable Histories.  
Now then, if there be Jncorporeall Substances, or Spirits, (and these many in number, as certain they are many in number) than it inevitably may be concluded, th● there is one supreme Spirit, to the which a● the rest are subject, and at whose command they all are governed; since euer● multitude of things (except there be a dependency, and subordination to one mo●● High) begetteth disorder and Confusion▪ This point is further proved from the mos● dangerous inconveniences, accompanying the contrary doctrine. For if among Spirit● there were no Order, & that the rest should not be subject unto one, at the command whereof the power of them were not to be restrained; then might every one of them afflict and trouble the World at his own pleasure, might take away men's goods, yea even their Lyues, burn, and destroy all things, finally might overthrew all mankind; neither could any redress be found to the contrary. Now this supreme Spirit, to which they are all subject, we call God, who at his pleasure, is able to restrain and bridle the forces, and power of all the rest.  
Well then, seeing there are many Spirits, I here demand, from whence this Multitude had its beginning? or who brought them into the Word? They proceed not from Bodies, in that they are of a more excellent Nature than bodies are; as also in that bodies do bring forth only bodies. Neither is one of them engendered of another; seeing this kind of generation is peculiar to things, which are subject to corruption; to wit, that by these means the Species and ●ynds of things may be perpetuated, whi●● the Nature, being extinct in the Parent, ●conserued in the Issue. Neither lastly can 〈◊〉 be said, that every one of these Spirits ●d their being from themselves, so as they ●epend of no other Cause; Since granting, ●at any thing receiveth its existence & be●●g from itself, it is fare more probable, ●at this so taking its existence, should be ●ut One, not Many. Therefore I conclude, ●hat this, which taketh its being & existence ●rom itself, is but one, to wit God alone, ●ho is the supreme spirit of all, & who gave 〈◊〉 creation, existence, and being to all other Spirits; be they either good, or wicked Spirits.   

Animadversion CLXXXXIX.  
Cardinal Bellarmyne in his book, De ascensione Mentis ad Deum, per scalas rerum creatarum, taketh his second scala or Degree, from the consideration of the fabric of this whole world, and the things created and contained therein.  
Now in this great world, which comprehendeth all things within it, these things following are most wonderful; to wit, the Magnitude of the world; Multitude of things Created; Variety of things; Efficacy or virtue of things; astly, Beauty of things. The which several Heads being with earnest attention pondered, have great ●orce, so to elevate the soul of man, as that it shallbe ●uen absorbed in the admiration of a certain immense Magnitude, Multitude, Variety, Efficacy, and Pulchritude; all which is God himself.  
To begin. 1. The Magnitude of the Earth only, is so great, as that in so many thousand of years since the Creation of the world, yet the whole superficies of the Earth remains undiscovered from Man. Now what i● the whole bigness of the Earth; if it be compared to the compass and Magnitude of the Highest Heaven? It is accounted by the Astronomers to be but as it were) a Point, and this with just Reason: For we observe, that the beams of the Sun by the interposition of the Earth do so reach & pierce the Stars, opposite to the Sun, as if the Earth were Nothing. Furthermore if every Star in the firmament (according to the judgement of the Learned) be greater than the whole Orb of the Earth, & yet through the almost infinite distance of the Stars, they seem in our Eyes most little; who then can in thought arrive to the greatness of the Heavens, wherein so many thousands of Stars do shine? Therefore if we read in Ecclesiasticus 
(1) Ecclesiasticus. ca 1. : Latitudinem terrae, & profundum Abismi, quis dimensus est; what then shall we conceive of the exterior superfices of the Heaven, & of the depth or profundity of the whole world, from the highest Heaven, to the Centre of the Earth? Certainly the corporal greatness of the whole ●orld is of that immensity, as that no thought or cogitation of man, can comprehand it.  
2. The Multitude of things created by ●ne God, who can number? For how many Metals of gold, silver, brass, lead, precious stones are within the Earth and the Sea? And how many Species, kinds, and Individua of herbs, flowers, and plants are upon the Earth, and how many parts are in them? In like sort how many kinds, Species, and Individua of perfect, and imperfect Creatures, as of fourfooted Beasts, of creeping Worms; of flying Creatures? And what may we say of the Multitude of Men since the first Creation? To conclude, how many stars are there in Heaven and how many Angels above the Heavens? And of the stars thus we read: 
(2) Genes. 15.  Numera stellas si potes. Now here we are to observe, that God would have himself known of Man in some sort, and because not any one Creature could aptly represent the infinite perfection of the Creator; therefore God did multiply Creatures, and gave a certain goodness and perfection to every Creature, that thereby judgement might be made of the goodness and perfection of ●he Creator, who containeth infinite perf●ctions under the perfection of one mos● simple Essence: Even as one piece of gold containeth the value and worth of many pieces of silver.  
3. Touching the Variety of Creatures; we are to conceive, that though the Multitude of things created doth argue a multiplicious perfection of one God; notwithstanding the Variety of things which appeareth in this multiplication, is far more admirable, and sooner leadeth man to the knowledge of God,  to vary forms almost after an infinite manner, (which God hath done in the Creation of things) is a most divine work, and most worthy of admiration. I do omit the kinds and species of things, which are most various and divers. How great a disparity is there in the Jndividua of herbs, plants, flowers, & fruits? Are not the forms, colours, smells, sapours or tastes of them diversified almost after an infinite manner? And is not the like to be observed in living Creatures? To speak only of Men; In a huge Multitude of Men, there cannot be two found altogether like. The which point is in like manner observable in Stars, and Angels: for we read, 
(3) 1. Cor. 15.  Stella à stella differt in claritate. And S. Thomas 
(4) 1. Part. quaest. 50. act. 4.  affirmeth, that the Angels, (though they exceed all corporal things in number) do differ among themselves, not only, Indiviava Numero, but also forma specifica.  
Here next followeth, to speak of the virtue and efficacy, which God hath implanted in all things created; that thereby we may better ascend to understand the infinite virtue of the Creator; seeing there is nothing created, which hath not an admirable virtue, or power, or efficacy. A piece of earth or stone falling down from a great height, with what a force doth it descend? The water, which gently and mildly slideth upon the superficies of the earth, when it swelleth in floods, or torrents, overthroweth all things in its way, as houses, walls of Cities, and the like. The Wynds, which at other times most sweetly breathe, do cast great ships upon the Rocks, and pull up by the roots Old huge Oaks. In like sort, the fire doth instantly increase into so great a flame, as that it even devoureth houses, and woods in a moment of tyme. To descend to Herbs; How various are their virtues? Touching stones, and particularly the Loadstone, what admirable virtue is discovered therein. To conclude, touching living Creatures, we see some of them to be most strong, as Lions, Bears, Bulls etc. Others (though most little) yet most witty, as Aunts, spiders, Bees, Apes, and the like. I here omit the power of the Angels, the virtue of the Sun and Stars; and rest in the wit of Men, by the which so many Arts are invented, as that we have some Reason to doubt, whether Nature doth surmount Art, or Art Nature?  
It remaineth, that in this place we take into our consideration, the pulchritude & beauty of things created, according to those words of the psalmist: 
(5) Psal. ●1.  Delectasti me Domine in factura. And truly, as all things are good, which God made, so also are they all fair. For example, the beauty of a springing Garden, of an Orchard well cultivated, is great; great also is the beauty of the calm Sea, of Rivers, of a clear Element, or Air, of the Heavens shining with innumerable stars, as adorned with so many precious gems. Great also is the beauty of the forms of several kinds of beasts, the flying of Birds, and sporting of fishes. What shall a Man say of the pulchritude of the Stars, and Moon, but especially of the most clear, and most great light of the Sun, which exhilerateth & cherisheth the whole world with its Rising?  
To conclude, how great is the beauty & form of Men, and Women. Many Men (otherwise grave and wise) have been even bewitched with the fair faces of women, according to those words; Propter 
(6) Ecclesiast. cap. 9  speciem multerum multi perierunt. In like sort many modest women have descended unto that madness, as that for the beauty & good personage of men, they have endangered their states, dignities, reputation, children, parents, life itself, yea their own souls, for the love and enjoying of such men, as they did hold to be fair, & of comeliness of grace.  
Thus fare of these five points; to wit, of the Magnitude, Multiplicity, variety, virtue, & Beauty of things created; the intense and serious consideration whereof, may much further Man, as above is said, to the contemplation of God, from whom only all these do stream and flow.   

Animadversion CC.  
THe Regal psalmist admonisheth us in these words: Quaerite 
(1) Psal. 68  Deum, & vivet anima vestra. True it is, that during our peregrination here, we are not able to find out, and perfectly discern what God is; since we read that God, 
(2) 1. Timoth. 6. ; Lucem habitat inacces●ibilem. Nevertheless the nearest means for us to discern what God, in his own Essence, is, may be taken from the contemplation of Man's Soul. In regard then hereof I will in this Animadversion brieffly contract, what the learned Cardinal Belarmine hath delivered of this point; making the consideration of the Soul of man his 
(3) Iu●●● book ●e ascensione ad Deum, per s●ala● rerum Creatarum.  Eight Degree or scale, to arrive (in part) to the knowledge of God; in regard of the great similitude in many points, which the soul of Man beareth to God. And to begin with these Resemblances.  
First then, the Soul of Man is a spirit, that is, an incorporeal Substance, so God is a spirit, for we read, 
(4) joan. 4.  Spiritus est Deus: Yet here is the difference, that God is a spirit increated, & the Creator; The soul of man, a spirit also, but Created.  
Secondly, The soul of Man, because it is a simple Spirit, is therefore immortal; since it hath nothing in itself, from whence it may receive its corruption (contrary to the souls of beasts, or irrational Creatures) yet the disparity herein also is, that the Soul of Man sometimes was not; and only through the will & pleasure of God arriveth to its essence and being, and by the will of the same God, may be reduced to nothing, though in itself it hath not (as above is said) any cause or principle of its Corruption; But God himself is not only Jmmortall, but also sempiternal; and therefore with reference to sempiternal Immortality (as I may term it) it was truly said of the Apostle, speaking of God, Qui solus (5) habet immortalitatem.  
Thirdly; The soul of man is endued with the light of Understanding and Reason. For it knoweth not only colours, sapours, smells, sounds, Heat, Cold, and the rest, which lie open to the senses of the body; But it doth also judge of the substance of things; and of things, not only singular, but universal; and doth not know things only present, but also coniectureth of things to come; and by discourse ascendeth to the Heavens, observing and demonstrating the particular phaynomena, or Apparences of their Motions. In like sort, she searcheth the effects out of the Causes, and from the effects recurs to the Causes: Thus we here see, that the soul of man, is like to God, and unlike to Beasts. Now here the soul of man differeth from God: for the soul of man is (as is said) endued with the light of Intelligence or understanding; but God is the Intelligence or light itself. The soul runneth by discourse from the Causes to the effects, and from the effects to the Causes; and thus not without great labour getteth some knowledge: God with one simple view or aspect beholdeth all things perfectly. The soul of man understandeth those things, which do exist, and already have a Being; and therefore his knowledge dependeth upon the being of things: God by understanding, maketh, that things be; and herein the existence of things dependeth upon the knowledge of God. The Soul doth with an uncertainty, only conjecture of things future; God doth no less evidently discern things future, than things past, and present. The soul needeth many things to exercise the faculty of understanding, as the Object, the Species, the Phanthasma, and the like: God needeth nothing, for even his Essence itself, is all things to him; and which is more, his Essence is to him his understanding. To conclude, the Soul, whiles it is in the Body, doth not only see, not God; neither doth she see the Angels, nor herself; neither doth she properly and truly see any Substance, though corporal; and in many things she is ignorant, and hath a true knowledge but of few things: God is ignorant of nothing; neither is he in any thing deceived, or erreth, according to those words: Omnia nuda sunt, & aperta oculis eius. Hebr. c. 4  
Fourthly, there appeareth in Man's Soul another kind of knowledge, which consists not in Speculation, but in Action. And from hence proceed so many Books of Philosophers, touching vices and virtues; so many Laws of Princes & Magistrates, to teach a man to live well; in all which there is discovered an admirable light of Reason in man, by the which he most far differeth from Beasts: But all these are nothing to the Eternal Law, which flourisheth in the mind of the Creator; from whom, as from a most streaming fountain, do flow all Laws and decrees, according to those words, Vnus 
(6) jacob. 1.  est legislator, & Judex, Deus.  
Fiftly, the Soul of Man doth possess a third kind of knowledge, resting in ingeniously fabricating and working of things. For whereas Beasts do make their Nests, Denns &c by a certain instinct, ever after the same manner; The soul of man (as being endued with reason, and judgement) hath invented innumerable Arts, by the which she so over-ruleth and commandeth over all other living Creatures; as that neither Wings can be safety enough to Birds, nor the depth of the water to fishes, neither strength to Lions or Bears, but that they all are subject, to be taken by the wit of Man's Soul. In like manner the light of the wit of Man's Soul wonderfully shineth in inventing the Art of Navigation, where it hath taught ships loaden with most heavy burdens, not only by the help of Oars to run (as it were) but also by means of the sails, as with wings, to fly. Finally (to omit divers other points) what dexterity of man's wit appeareth in the Art of picturing or drawing, by the which things are so lively expressed to the Eye, as if themselves did truly enjoy life? But here we may turn our Eye back to God, in whom there is the true source of Wisdom, the Causer of things; & what wit appeareth to be in Man, all the same is derived from the said fountain: for if we wonder at man's wit, in that it can master and rule over beasts; much more we are to admire God, to whom all things are obedient. And if it seem strange, that man should invent so many Arts of sailing, building of Edifices etc. much more strange should it seem, that God by his wisdom & power did create Heaven and Earth, and all things therein. Finally, if we rest astonished at the Art of painting, or drawing men's faces and favours; much more cause have we to rest astonished at the Art of the Creator; who of Earth framed a true & living Man, and from the Rib of the man, made the first Woman. And this we are to admire with more reason, in that, what things Man doth make, he cannot make without God cooperating with man; whereas what things God maketh, the same are made only by him, without the cooperation, or assistance of any other.  
Sixtly, The Soul of Man is endued with Freedom of Will, which is common to him with God, and the Angels, and by which man differeth from all other things created. This Freedom of Will, is an admirable dignity in Man's ●oule; yet the worth thereof is far more noble in God; For first the freedom of Manswill is weak; it also is easily inclined to choose things that are Evil; whereas the Freedom of the Divine Will, is most strong, and cannot possibly incline itself to any Evil. Furthermore, our Freedom of will, is indeed so free, as that it is able to will, or not to will; but it is not of power ever to effect that, which it willeth, or to prevent that, which itself willeth not, according to those words of the Apostle, Rom. 7. Non quod volo bonum, hoc facio; sed quod nolo malum, hoc ago. But the Freedom of the Will of God, is so conjoined with a full and absolute power, as that of him it is said Psalm. 113. Omnia quaecunque voluit fecit.  
Sequently, and lastly; The soul of man, is after a wonderful manner in man's body; For since the Soul of man, is an indivisible Spirit, it is therefore whole in the whole body, and whole in every part thereof (contrary to the being of the souls of Beasts,) which are Material, and extended to the extension of their bodies. Thus the Soul of Man replenisheth the whole body, yet it possesseth no place in the body; and when the body doth increase, the Soul doth not increase, but beginneth to be there, where afore it was not. And if a member of the body be cut of, or become withered & dry, the Soul is not lessened, nor dried, but ceaseth to be in that member, wherein afore it was, without any detriment or maymednes thereof. This is the true glass of the existence of God in things created; for God is an indivisible Spirit; and yet replenisheth the whole world, and all the parts thereof; yet possesseth he no place, but is whole in the whole world, and whole in every part thereof. And when a new creature is produced; God beginneth to be in it; neither yet is God moved; ●nd when any creature is destroyed, or dyeth, God is not thereby destroyed, or dyeth, but ceaseth to be there, & this without any Motion of place. Thus in these former point God, and the Soul of Man do agree; But in many other points, God (as there is just Reason) hath the prerogative, and pre-eminence. For that the Soul of Man to be in the body, it is necessary, that it becometh the Form of the body, and that so it be joined with the body, as that one man be made of the body and the Soul. But it is not needful, that God should become the Soul of the world; neither that of him and the world one compounded substance should be made; For God out of his immensity is in every place; out of his indivisible unity, is whole wheresoever he is; and out of his Omnipotency, doth govern, support, and move all things.  
Furthermore the Soul of Man, though it may be said to be in the whole body, yet properly it is not, but in such parts of the body, as have life; and therefore it is not in the Humours, in the Hairs of the head, in the nails. But God is absolutely in all things, and not only in corporal, but even in spiritual things: for it is impossible, that any thing should be, in which God is not. Lastly, the Soul is not, but in the body, and that being but small and of a narrow compass, so as the parts thereof (during the staying of the Soul therein) must be continued and joined together; for if any part of the body be separated or divided from the rest, in that part, or member so divided, the Soul cannot be. But God is whole even in the University, or frame of all things created; though that frame be great, and the parts thereof become separated, and divided asunder. Yea if a second, or third World (or more) should be created, God would be in them all, and in every part of them; for where God should not be, there nothing should be. So true are those words of Holy writ 2. Par. 6. Caelum & Caell Caelorum non te capiunt. Thus far touching the similitude & resemblance, which the Soul of Man hath with his Creator; the similitude being so great (as is above touched) as that there is no other way, by the which a man may more easily ascend to know in part, what God is, then from the consideration, or contemplation, what the Soul of Man is; with so just reason we read it said by God himself, when he first created Man: Let us make man in our Image, according to our likeness. Genes. 1. And with this I impose an end to these my Animadversions.   

A Pareneticall Conclusion to the younger Sort of Priests, and Students of the English Seminaries; exhorting them to the study of Controversies, in Faith, and Religion.  
THus fare (Reverend Friends, and Brethren) you see, I have proceeded in this Miscellane, and indigested Tract. These Animadversions may serve, as certain prelibations or foretastes of Controversyes in faith. If so you shall reap profit thereby, O how abundantly shall I hold my small labour therein taken, to be recompensed? but if they should not find that full success with you, which I desire; yet let your charitable acceptance (in part) imitate the Abysmall, and bottomless charity of God; who placeth a good intention only (where further Ability, or other Circumstances are wanting) and a good work actually performed, in one, and the sa●● balance. But now before my pen giue● you its last farewell, let me take leave (wit● your good allowance) to expatiate a li●● in discourse, thereby to persuade you t● more forcibly to the particular study o● English Controversyes in faith and Religion: 〈◊〉 Province, or charge most peculiarly (in my judgement) incumbent upon you, in regard of your main projects & determinations espoused (as I may say) to the Salvation 〈◊〉 souls.  
You are hereafter, in England, to encounter with Protestants (your professed Adversaries in faith:) Imitate then a skilful General in the wars, who laboureth no● only to hinder his Enemy's attempts an● approaches, but withal seeketh to assault his Enemies. So here you have undertaken both a Defensive, as also an Offensive War: prepare yourselves then, not only to maintain by way of disputation and proofs, your own Catholic Religion; but be also pressed, (which is partly coincident with the former) by all forces, both Divine & humane, to make violent incursions upon Heresy, or Innovation in Religion.  
For your greater encouragement hereto, observe this following? That Prince would hold it for a great Advantage, to wage such a war, wherein he were assured, that many of his Enemies soldiers would fight in his behalf.  
And yet your Case is here the same; ●●nce in this your spiritual Combat, or ●ookwar with Heresy, you have the voluntary and uncoacted confessions of your Adversary's, even fight on your side; As ●ou may evidenly discern by the many acknowledgements of the Protestants, delivered in several former Animadversions against themselves, and in strengthening of our Roman Religion. Thus you draw a Sword from the Enemies side, and after sheathe it in his own bowels.  
The most illustrious and worthy Cardinal Bellarmine (that chief Heresy-Mastix of this age) in his Preface to the Books of his 
(1) Prefixed before his Tome de verbo D●i.  Controversies, undertaketh to show the Necessity of study of Controversies in this our age: I presume his words will be most prevailing with you all, and therefore I have thought fit to set them down in this place, by translating them into English for the better satisfaction even of the more vulgar Reader: Thus than he writeth: Vtilitas quidem propositarum nobis Disputationum, ex eo intelligi facile potest etc. The profit of the Disputations undertaken by us, may easily from hence be apprehended. Agendum est enim, non de stillicidijs, & fundis, non de rebus levibus etc. For here we are to discourse, not of the droppings of the caves of a House, not of farms, or Country Houses, not of small and light matters (little availing, whether they be after one manner or other:) Neither are we to dispute of Metaphysical subtiltyes; of which without an● detriment to the soul, a man may be ignorant, & the which may sometimes be impugned, wi●● Commendation and praise of the Opponent: B●● here we are to dispute of God, of Christ, of the Church, of the Sacraments, of Justification, of the aid of Grace, of the freedom of Man's W●● and of many other most grave, most difficult, an● most abstruse points, which belong even to the foundation and essence of faith; Of all which several Articles, if a man laboureth by disputation to weaken but any One, than (as S. Austin 
(2) Austi● lib. 1. contra julian. cap. 2.  prudently admonisheth) that man seeketh to overthrew the whole frame of that, which we believe in Christ. Furthermore, to recall Heretical men to the light of saith, or at least to repress & break their force and fury, to drive awa● those fierce Beasts, from our Lords sheepfold; to protect and defend the Church of Christ; to rescue or snatch away the sheep (already taken) from the jaws of those Wolves, and to bring them hack unto our Lord's custody; How great (here I demand) is this Benefit, how true a cause of inward Comfort, and how copious is here the harvest of eternal glory? But not any of these things can be accomplished, but only by these men, who have been long, and much conversant in these Questions; which men by such their labours and diligence, have both fortified their Cause with the munition or furniture of the Church, as also have learned to repel, and avoid the weapons of their Enemies, and to turn the edge of them upon the Enemies themselves. Thus far the learned and zealous Cardinal.  
But to precede further. It is engrafted in Man's Nature to use the more diligence and vigilancy, in oppugning and resisting his Enemies, by how much the Enemy is more dangerous and cruel, where he overcometh From hence then, may appear the most exitiable, and calamitous effects, which the Enemy here by me meant (to wit Heresy) produceth, where she hath any Domination, & rule over the souls of men. Now this point I will in like manner deliver in the words of the foresaid Cardinal, who declaring the most dangerous Nature of Heresy, (thereby to persuade his Auditors and Readers, being capable thereof, to the study of Controversyes of Religion, for the better and more easy resisting or extinguishing of Heresy) thus writeth: Duo 
(3) ●ellar. ubi supra.  sunt, quae pestem prae caeteris morbis, meritò horrendam terribilemque efficiunt: Vnum etc. There are two things, which cause the plague to become more fearful and terrible, than any other Disease, or sickness. One is, that the plague doth diffuse and send forth its venom with great haste and speed, even unto the Hart; and so in a moment of time destroyeth a man, being but a little afore most sound. The other effect of the Plague is, that in killing of one, it killeth many hundreds; and this is performed, in that the plague so quickly creeps and spreads itself abroad in divers places; so as if this day it hath infected but one house, within a short time after, it doth invade the whole City replenishing it with dead Bodies. I dipsum omnino est in animis Haeresis, quod in corporibus pestis etc. Now look, what the plague in the Body, the same is Heresy in the Mind, or soul: Primum Gratiae munus etc. The first gift of Grace, which we receive from our Heavenly Father in our Conversion, and Justification; The first pulse or Motion of a reviving or renewed Hart; briefly the first sense, or feeling of a spiritual Life, is doubtlessly Faith. Now from Faith the Myn● is after by little and little stirred up to Hope; the Will to love; the tongue bursteth forth into open Confession of true Christian faith; and the hands are ready to the performance of works worthy a Christian. ●ow then seeing Haeresy presently aimeth at the Hart of the soul, and proceedeth so far in depriving hereof her gifts and privileges of Grace, as that it laboureth to forestall or extinguish the very beginning itself of all divine and Celestial Life; I then here demand, what pestilence can be thought more domageable or pernicious, than Heresy?  
To come to the second point: I would to God, that the Heretic did hurt but only himself, and that he had not dispersed his poison, far and abroad. But we find it most truly written by the 
(4) 2. Tim. 2.  Apostle; I mean, that the words and speeches of Heretics, as a Canker, do creep far, and wide. Witness of the truth hereof is this our age; For who is ignorant, that the Lutheran pest, or plague (first being begun in Saxony) within a short time did possess almost all Germany? and than it made its passage to the North, and to the East. For it hath already invaded Denmark, Norway, Suctia, Gothia, Pannonia, Hungaria. Again, with the like celerity it turning itself towards the West and the South hath in a short time depopulated or destroyed a great part of France all England and Scotland (heretofore most flourishing kingdoms for Religion) yea it hath scaled the Alps, and penetrated as far as to Italy. Thus far, with great sense and feeling doth the learned Cardinal discourse of the Nature of Heresy. But to proceed to divine Authority; from hence then we now may more clearly see, that the Apostle speaking of Heretics, had just reason to say: Haereticum 
(5) Tit. 3.  hominem etc. A man, that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement. And again the same Apostle: Certain 
(6) 1. Timoth. 1.  men made shipwreck touching faith; And S. Austin (touching Heresy) resting himself upon the Authority of the Apostle, thus pronounceth: Nihil 
(7) Austin troth. 17. in Ioan●●m.  sic formidare debet etc. A Christian ought to fear nothing so much, as to be separated from the body of Christ, which is his church; and which is One, and Catholic for if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ, If no mem●er of ●hrist, than he is not strengntned with his Spirit; But who hath not the spirit of God, the same Man is not of God. Thus S. Austin.  
Now then (Reverend Brethren) against these men, which are maintainers of Heresy, I so much desire you to employ your time and studies. O think how comfortable a Cogitation it will be to any of you, lying upon your death beds and how able it will be through God's merciful acceptance thereof, to expiate many a sin) when any of you may truly say: So many souls, which afore were infected with Error in faith and belief, and therein stood obnoxious for the time to eternal perdition were by me reduced to the true Catholic and saving faith, through the means (under God) of that small talon in Controversyes, which his Divine Majesty vouchsafed to bestow upon me: so as you may say of them in the words of the Apostle, In Christ's 
(8) 1. Cor. 4.  Jesus per ●uangelium vos genui.  
If many years since, that war was styled & accounted most worthy and sacred, which was undertaken by Catholic Princes and their Subjects, for the recovery of the Holy Land, wherein Christ suffered death, & wherein were then remaining and extant many memorials of his Life and Passion; And if those Princes and Soldiers were deservedly endued for such their truly Heroical and spiritual Resolution and adventure, with many immunities and privileges by the then Church of God; If that War being undertaken for temporal matters (I say) was in those days reputed so honourable, as to deserve such great respect and estimation: what shall we then conceive of this war of yours, whereby you seek to rescue the souls of your Brethren infected with Heresy; from out the jaws of the Devil, & to implant in them that faith, in which they only can be saved? Therefore hold such slothful Clergy men among you (if so otherwise God hath given them sufficient capacity and apprehension) but as Paralytic members in the Church, who by study and labour will not endeavour to be able to perform the operations, and faculties belonging to their profession.  
And as touching such of you, as shall arrive to that perfection as to write Books in defence of your own Religion; what consolation may it be to your Souls, and increase of accidental glory, when your Bodies being corrupted and turned into ashes, you neverlesse shall daily speak (by means or your write) to posterity, instructing them in the way of Salvation? The living acknowledge themselves much behoulden to those (though long since departed this world) who have recorded in writing the temporal and humane Laws of their own Country, and have cleared them with the true meaning of the fi●st Lawgivers; what obligation then is due by the living to such dead men, who have faithfully by their pens delivered and explicated the Law (not of man but of Go●, I mean the Gospel, and undoubted faith of Christ; by the fruition of which Law and faith, the soul arriveth to its eternal felicity, as through the want of it, precipitately falleth into everlasting damnation? And can any kind of study, more than this, be prized?  
But some of you, who are of less spiritual courage, may perhaps say: The Laws of the Realm prohibit under great penalty all persuading to a Religion, contrary to the present state and profession of the Realm: It is so indeed; But withal the same Laws do prohibit your entering into the Realm, after your taking of the Holy Order of Priesthood; will you be so ready then to expose your Bodies to death for the one, and yet will forbear for fear of death the other?  
Again, that Statute was made by a Woman Prince, and the Laity, the incompetent judges in matters merely spiritual; But there is an other Statute (so to term it) enacted by a Potentate infinitely supreme, I mean by God himself, who thus commandeth us by his Apostle: Obedire 
(9) Act. 5.  oportet Deo magis, quam hominibus; a Statute indeed, which ought far to preponderate all human Statutes, or decrees. And admit you should endure death for such your spiritual Labours (of which there is small fear, or rather small hope, in regard of his Majesties' most clement and merciful disposition) were it not a happiness for you, to redeem your Sins by so glorious a death? Furthermore, how can that be accounted death, which is suffered for him, who is Life? Since by so doing, by ceasing to breath, you instantly begin to breathe the joys of Heaven; and thus by sheeding of blood, you make your own Blood to become a Key, for the opening of the Gates of Heaven: Sanguis 
(10) Cyprian.  Martyrum, Clavis Paradisi. Therefore, dear Brethren, take courage and by your studies and pains, labour to furnish yourself with all Scholarlike preparation for the overthrowing of heresies in the soul of men, and in place thereof for the planting of true faith; and remember that it is said: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A false faith is even worse, than Infidelity. Let those words of the Apostle often come into your minds, and heat your own ●epedity therewith: Praedica 
(11) 2. Timoth. 4.  verbum; ●usta oportunè, importunè; argue, obsecra, in●repa etc.  
I speak not this, as if you should proceed either by Pen, or Dispute, in any tumultuous or undutiful manner. O Noah! Let things in their own nature Religious, ●e carried withal religious manner, & bear ●ll reverence to the State, and Loyalty to ●is Majesty, praying daily to the Almighty ●o preserve our King Charles (who is full of commiseration & pity, and fraught with ●ll good moral endowments) and his most virtuous Queen (an honour to her Sex) that ●hey both may Enjoy two jerusalems'; I mean, true temporal felicity here upon Earth, and eternal in Heaven; and do you often call to mind those words of S. Paul: We (12) 
(●3) Ro. 1●.  are to be sub●ect to higher powers, seeing there is no power but of God. But to return back. Take to your Consideration, the great use you shall have of your skill and knowledge in English Controversies. For first, there are ma●y moral Protestants (both Gentlemen of worth, & others) who scorn all base carriage towards you, with whom by the interueniency of friends you may have (as daily experience showeth) opportunity to discourse touching matters of Religion; Many of which (as before little hearing and less believing, what the Catholics can speak in defence of their Religion, & against theirs) will afford a greedy and listening Ear to your speech. How large a field then have you here, wherein to plant and disseminate your own faith?  
divers Ministers do spit their Venom out of their pulpits, in their weekly Sermons, and Inuectives against the Church o● Rome, as also many Books, written by Protestants, do yearly come out, empoisoning their Readers with their imposture and fraud against the Catholic Religion's And is it not then a thing worthy of all labour, to be able to detect, and lay open th● said calumnies with your pens? Further more, Admit any of you should be apprehended and sent to prison, what goo● (if your knowledge in Controversies be sufficient) may you do in that place, to those of a different Religion, who either out of curiosity will repair to you, to see what can be said by you in defence of your Religion; or out of a Puritanical & vaunting Malice of Ministers, shall seek by dispute (hoping you are little experienced in those studies) to disgrace and dishonour your Religion? In proof of which point, I can affirm out of my own knowledge, that a certain 
(*) M. W. B.  Priest (a Virtuous man, and much practised in Controversies) once taken and sent to the Common prison, was in the beginning much assaulted by divers Ministers openly in the presence of the judges of the Affises, as also after in the Priests private Chamber; but he so bare himself in his answers and disputes with them, & did so gaul them (like a strong bear casting of at his pleasure, the weak and cowardly dogs, which seek to take hold of him) as that the judges rested much abashed thereat, commanding, that no further open Disputation should after be had with him. He also was assaulted by some Puritans in prison; but he gave them such entertainment, as that they grew quickly weary of him; so as staying a good while after in durance, he could not have a sight of any of them. This Accident gave in that Shire, where it happened, great credit to the Catholic Cause, and wrought much spiritual Good.  
Now, think you not, that this Priest's labour was most happily and fruitfully spent in the study of Controversyes? And why may not then any of you upon return into your own Country, and imprisonment, have the like opportunity presented unto you? At what time if your talon in dispute be great and prevailing, you get ground upon Heresy; if but small and elementary, you become a disgrace to your Priesthood, and to your Religion, and are made a foil to your Adversary. Therefore (worthy men) make great disquisition and search by your own private Labours into those Controversyes, which are at this day most agitated between the Catholics and the Protestants, and through desire of vanquishing your Adversaries, become even breathless therein. And though you shall have use of other Studies, as Cases of Conscience, and of school Divinity (which serve chief to apply Universal Truths of Schools, to particular points of Controversyes) yet let the Study of Controversyes be your favourite Study; & make it become (at it were) Ars Architectonica to all the rest. You are to become spiritual Pastors to men's souls, feeding them with the celestial food of the Sacraments of God's Church; yet ever remember, that that Shepherd performeth his duty with the greatest perfection, who not only preserveth and keepeth safe those sheep, which are already enclosed in his folds; but laboureth also to reduce, and bring back to the fold, such straying sheep, as yet lie open to the danger of the Wolves. Thus much out of my thirsty desire of persuading you (what in me lieth) to the earnest prosecution and embracing of the foresaid Study.  
But now, before I end this my Parenefis, and exhortation to you, I will make bold (with your good likings) briefly to s●● down, what Course, or Method I could wish you to take in the Studies of Controversyes, ever subiecting my judgement herein, to the judgements of the more learned and better experienced Controversists.  
1. First then I could wish you (because our Adversaries seem to rely chief upon Scripture) to be much conversant in such Texts of Scripture, as are either objected by them, for the impugning of our doctrine, or which are insisted upon by us, for the confirmation of the same; But touching such passages of Scripture, which we urge, it were good to make choice of those, whose true interpretation is indifferently acknowledged, by us and our Adversaries; for these are most pressing. Such are the Texts touching the continual visibility of the Church of God; and of its privilege of converting Heathen Kings, and Kingdoms unto it, as is above shown in some of the former Animadversions.  
2. Be most expert in the Protestant English Translation of Scripture (as is above premonished) for this gauleth the Adversaries the more, in that they cannot take exception against the Translation; and certainly the Scripture, even as translated by them, most evidently foileth their Cause.  
3. Concerning those passages of Scripture, which are chief urged by our Adversaries, it were necessary to observe the true interpretation of them, either in Bellarmine his Controversies, or in the Rhemist Testament; if so they be drawn out of the Ne● Testament.  
4. Touching the authorities of Fathers and Counsels, considering it requireth a mighty labour to read them at large, & that either your want of having them, or want of opportunity, and time in perusing of them, may easily prevent the same; Therefore I could wish you first to peruse them in the Tomes of Bellarmine, and then to content yourselves with the Confessions of the learned Protestants; who openly disclaim from them, as Patrons of Papistry; which Confessions of our Adversaries throughout all points of faith, you may easily find in the foresaid book of the Protestants Apology.  
5. I could wish you in proof of any Catholic point, to be much conversant in Arguments drawn from Reason; because those arguments stealingly penetrate the judgements of the unlearned, and also they are more easily committed to memory. Again, arguments drawn from Reason may be used at all times and upon any occasion without the help of Books, which are not ever at hand. And furthermore the force of Reason is such, as that it is not in Man's power (after his true apprehension thereof) to withstand in judgement, or struggle against it, since man himself is a reasonable Creature. The Controversies of Bellarmine will afford you all abundance of this kind of proof.  
6. It is very necessary (as is delivered in one of the Animadversions) that you be most prepared, and well furnished in the Controversies, which consist upon Matter of fact; Such are the foresaid mentioned points of Conversion of Kingdoms, of the supposed continual Visibility of the Protestant Church, of Ordination, Vocation, and Mission of Ministers in the Church of God: All which must receive their proof from Histories. And hence it is, that our Adversaries foreseeing, they cannot warrant from History these points to be performed in their Church; therefore in their extremest need herein, many of them are forced for their last refuge to say, That the true Church is endued with all these privileges; But their Church is the true Church, as they prove (say they) from Scripture; Therefore in their Church all the former points have been at all times performed: A most shameful begging of that, as granted, which still is in Question, and a subtle transition from History to the Scripture, and this, as it is expounded only by themselves. Others again of them for the better vindicating of their Church from the imminent danger ensuing from the premises, are glad to shroud their Church, under our Catholic Church, teaching that both of them are but one and the same Church (a Paradox implicitly refuted in some of the former Animadversions:) but Durum telum necessitas; unto such poor shifts doth penury & want bring Men.  
You ought to be observant, what collateral points touching the Articles of faith, we Catholics hold to be but Matters of Jndifferency, and may without breach of faith (as not being defined by the Church) be holden either way. These you are to distinguish, from those other Conclusions of faith, which are inviolably maintained & believed by all Catholics. And therefore if your Adversary should insist in this kind of Indifferency (to prove thereby a disunion in judgement among Catholics) you may tell him, he doth but diverberate the air, and impertinently and ignorantly urgeth such points which in no sort impugn the Unity of our Catholic Church. Now to know what points be mere Indifferencyes, I refer you to the most painifull, & learned book called, The Triple Cord: where you shall find certain Paragraphes, reserved only for the expressing of them, in each main Controversy.  
To conclude (referring the diligent Reader to divers of the former Animadversions, tending to the Method of studying of Controversies; I could desire you to be most expert in impugning the Question of the Private Spirit, and skilful in the judge of Controversies; since these two main points potentially include all other Controversies within them, as a greater Circle comprehendeth in itself a lesser Circle. And thus (Virtuous Men) wishing you a most plentiful harvest in this your Spiritual tillage of souls (so to term it) I cease; Once more most humbly beseeching you, even by that force of Christian charity, which I presume yourselves do enjoy; and by that true hope of Mercy, which at the last day you expect as our Saviour's hands, that you would bear to me (both living and dead) a charitable & pitiful Remembrance, at the time of your chiefest devotions; I mean, at the time of celebrating that most Dreadful Sacrifice, wherein our Saviour (by the ministry of yourselves) daily offereth up his own sacred body and blood to his Heavenly Father, for the expiating of sin in Man. And with this, I give you all my last farewell, & shall ever remain,   
Yours in all Christian, and religious observancy. N. N. P.   

A Table of the chief Controversies handled in this Book.  

A.  
A Diaphorists in Religion, who? Animad. 60.  
Adoration of Saints, and Angels. Anim. 34.  
Adoration of the holy Eucharist. Anim. 166.  
Albigenses, & Waldenses, what they were. Animad. 103. 104.  
Angels, how they may be painted. Animad. 32.  
Antichrist, his first coming assigned by Protestants. Animad. 35.  
The Pope cannot be Antichrist Animad. 153.  
The Antinomis, Heretics, descend from Luther. Animad. 148.  
Articles of Cath. Religion maintained by Protestants. Animad. 187.  
Articles negative ought to be proved by Scripture by Protestants. Animad. 55.  
Atheism in many Protestants of England. Animad. 193.  
S. Augustine highly extolled by Protestants. Animad. 162.  
The Author's vow and Prayer for the King & Queen. Animad. 191.  
Cath. Authors ordinarily rejected by Protestants. Animad. 3. 4. & 42.   

B.  
Beads, their use and antiquity. Anim. 83.  
Blessed Virgin Mary her Virginity. An. 47  
Her freeing from Original sin. Anim. 183.  
Her Assumption into Heaven. Animad. 183.  
A Body may be in two places at once. Animad. 91.   

C.  
CAluin, an Enemy to the Divinity of Christ, & the B. Trinity. Anim. 138.  
Caluins' exposition of, Hoc est Corpus meum. Animad. 49.  
Carolostadius impugned the Mass by persuasion of the Devil. Animad. 59  
Catholic Religion never changed. Animad. 79. 80.  
Title of Catholics, and antiquity thereof. Animad. 175.  
Catholics, or Protestants, whether incline more to virtue. Animad. 65.  
Catholics and Protestants cannot be both saved. Animad. 176.  
Ceremonies derided by Protestants and Puritans. Animad. 63.  
About the Ceremonies of the Mass. Anim. 16.  
The Church's definition of Protestants. Animad. 192.  
Church of Protestants invisible. Animad. 1922  
Christian Religion plant●● in England, when. Animad. 36.  
Communion under one kind. Animad. 28.76.  
Comparison between the lives of Catholics and Protestants. Animad. 188.  
Conference of places of Scripture. Anim. 54.  
Counsels General depressed by Heretics. Animad. 50.  
The Creed, whether it containeth all Articles necessary of Religion. Animad. 61.   

D.  
ABout the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. Animad. 30  
Decrees of Popes, fraudulently urged by Protestants. Animad. 38. 39  
Deity of Christ denied. Also the Immortality of the soul. Animad. 194.  
Difference between Scriptures and Fathers. Animad. 40.  
Difference between Protestants themselves about Scripture. Animad. 48.  
Difference between Preachers of Cathol. and Protestant Doctrine. Animad. 160.  
Disputation with Protestants, how to order. Animad. 20. & 41.  
Disputing with Protestants by intercourse of letters. Animad. 73.  
Doctors, and Pastors always to be in the Church. Animad. 117.   

E.  
ELias his Example much urged by Protestants. Animad. 151.  
About the Holy Eucharist. Animad. 26. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 165. 166.  
The Eye of a Man wonderful. Animad. 196.   

F.  
Fabric of the world. Animad. 199.  
The Face of a Man admirable. Anim. 197.  
Ancient Fathers their Authorities rejected ordinarily by Protestants. Animad. 3. 4. yet loath to break with them. Anim. 42. 43.  
Their advantages for interpreting of Scripture. Animad. 41.  
Their maintaining of Papistry. Anim. 66.  
The doctrine of Freewill. Animad. 133. 134. 135. 136.   

G.  
General Counsels depressed by Heretics. Animad. 50.  
God the Father, how he may be painted. Animad. 31. 32. 33.  
God, the Author of sin affirmed by Protestants. Animad. 185.  
Grace, what concurres in working thereof. Animad. 164.  
Grecians ever emulous of the Church of Rome. Animad. 119.   

H.  
THe Hand of a Man wonderful. Anim 196.  
All Heresies arising have been recorded by the Church of Rome. Animad 118.  
Heretics first denial of divers points of Cath Religion. Animad. 11.  
Heretics called after the Name of their first Author. Animad. 77. 78.  
Heretics condemn Prophets, Apostles, Fathers etc. Animad. 140.  
Their charge of Catholics with the errors of the Heathens. Animad. 141.  
Holywater, and its Antiquity. Animad. 84.  
About the Hymn of Aue Maris stella. Animad. 46.   

I.  
THe jews delivered many Articles of Catholic Religion before Christ's coming. Animad. 98.  
jewish Ceremonies many still retained. Animad. 158.  
Images, how they may be painted. Anim. 31. discussed by Philosophy. Animad. 33.  
Jmmortality of the Soul denied, and defended. Animad. 194.  
About the doctrine of Jndulgences. Animad. 171. 172.  
Induration of Pharaoh his hart. Animad. 150.  
Invention of a false opinion, may be perhaps of no Heretic. Animad. 15.  
Jnuisibility of the Protestants Church. Animad. 104. 139. 180.  
justification and Merit of Works. Anim. 29.  
justification by only Faith. Animad. 189.   

K.  
OF Kings and Queens excommunicated, and deposed. Animad. 191.  
Knowledge of a Deity, what? Animad. 194.  
Knowledge of the Soul, what? Animad. 194.   

L.  
LIbertines descended from Luther. Animad. 148.  
Evil Lives of Popes objected by Protestants. Animad. 145. 146.  
Luther's Exposition of Hoc est Corpus meum. Animad. 49.  
Luther's Spirit being a Catholic, and being an Heretic. Animad. 57  
Luther's Change of the Mass by persuasion of the Devil. Animad. 58. 59  
Luther no perfect, and entire Protestant. Animad. 101.  
Luther's doctrine why applauded. Anim. 144.   

M.  
B. V Mary her Conception immaculate. Animad. 44.  
The little respect Protestants give unto unto her. Animad. 45.  
Less given to her by Puritans. Anim. 47.  
About her Hymn of Aue Maris Stella. Animad. 46.  
Marks of the Protestants Church. Anim. 13.  
Marriage of Priests urged by Protestants. Animad. 154.  
Mass, and the Antiquity thereof. Anim. 159.  
Merit of Works. Animad. 29.  
Miracles depressed by Protestants. Animad. 70.   

N.  
NEcessity of the visibility of the Roman Church. Animad. 137.  
Neutrals in Religion, what they hold? Animad. 60.  
Notes of the Church. Animad. 108. 142.   

P.  
PErsecution of Catholics under Q. Elizabeth. Anima. 9  
Practise in Controversies much commended. Animad. 86.  
Prayer to Saints. Animad. 81.  
Prayer in a strange tongue. Animad. 169.  
Prayer needless, and fruitless with Protestants. Animad. 186.  
Protestants, their sleight in answering Cath. Books. Animad. 131.  
Protestants, whether there were any before Luther. Animad. 109. 110.  
Protestants sooner become Atheists, then do Catholics. Animad. 109.  
What required to a perfect Protestant. Animad. 102.  
Protestants would seem to agree with the Ancient Fathers. Animad. 67.  
Protestants void of all real Faith. Anim. 182.  
Protestants and jews jump in many things. Animad. 5.  
Protestants agree which ancient condemned Heretics. Animad. 6.  
Their false alleging of Scriptures. Animad. 52.  
Protestants opposite one to another, in their writings. Animad. 17. 18. 19  
Protestants charged with a vicious Circle in their disputes. Animad. 21.  
Their flying to the Private Spirit. Animad. 22. & 100  
Their little respect to the B. V Mary. Animad. 45. 46.  
Protestants maintain divers Articles of the Cath. Faith. Animad. 187.  
Protestants charge Cath. Religion with teaching disobedience to Princes. Anim. 191.  
Protestant's Rebellion in France, Holland, Germany etc. Animad. 191.  
Protestant's definition of their Church. Animad. 192.  
Protestants, many of them Atheists. Animad. 193.  
Protestants Inuectives one against another. Animad. 62.  
protestants charged with Ancient Heresies by Catholics. Animad. 64.  
protestants pretend their Writings and Memory to have been extinguished by the Popes. Animad. 68  
protestants borrow from the Church of Rome. Animad. 94.  
All Protestants, or their Forefathers sometime Catholics. Animad. 88  
They cannot agree about their own doctrines. Animad. 97.  
Protestancy, when it was in its full height. Animad. 177.  
Puritan their dishonour of the B. V Mary. Animad. 47.  
Purgatory defended. Animad. 149.   

R.  
THe Reall-Presence discussed. Animad. 89. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 155. 156. 163.  
Reall-Presence maintained by Protestants against Puritan. Animad. 7.  
Their Arguments also against the Reall-Presence. Animad. 8.  
Doctrine of Recusancy taught both by Catholics and Protestants. Animad. 178.  
About the Doctrine of Reprobation. Anim. 184. 190.  
Roman Religion never changed. Animad. 10.  
Roman Religion only capable of Salvation. Animad. 121.   

S.  
SAints to be prayed unto, lawful. Animad. 27.  
Salvation certain in the Cath. Roman Religion. Animad. 71.  
Scripture how to be interpreted. Animad. 25. 37. 152.  
Difficult to be understood. Animad. 167.  
Why written by the Apostles. Anim. 170.  
About the Sign of the Cross. Animad. 82.  
Soul of Man immortal. Animad. 194.  
The similitude it beareth to God. Anim. 200  
Spirits, be an invisible substance. Anim. 198.   

T.  
TRaditions unwritten impugned by Protestants. Animad. 181.  
Traditions known by certain Rules. Animad. 168.  
Translations of the Scriptures by Protestants corrupted. Animad. 173. 174.  
The doctrine of Transubstantiation. Anim. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.  
Truth, how it may be delivered in negative words. Anim. 96.   

V  
THe ubiquity of God. Animad. 93.  
The Virginity of our B. Lady. Anim. 47.  
Her freedom from Original sin. Anim. 183.  
Visibility of the Roman Church proved by the Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church. Animad. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 180.  
Visibility of the Protestants Church maintained by them. Animad. 12.  
Universality a strong Argument for Cath. Religion. Animad. 157.  
The Voice of a Man admirable. Anim. 197.   

W.  
WAldenses & Albigenses, what they were 〈◊〉 Animad. 103. 104.  
The taking of a second Wife often an abus● in Protestants. Animad 179.  
Word of God written. Animad. 1. 2. 3.  
Words of Christ in the last Supper how to b● taken. Animad. 23. 24.  
The World's existence from Eternity impugned. Animad. 195.  
The fabric of the World. Animad. 199.   

Z.  
ZWinglius his impugning the Mass by persuasion of the Devil. Animad. 5●.   
FINIS.